<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[If Republicans Were Capable Of&nbsp;Nuance]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Millman <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/the-obama-legacy-iran-vs-healthcare-gov/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=the-obama-legacy-iran-vs-healthcare-gov">imagines</a> an ideal Republican response to the Iran agreement and Healthcare.gov:</p>
<blockquote><p>To me, there’s an obvious way for the GOP to respond to both developments: run against healthcare.gov as proof that Democrats can’t even build a website, and argue that the Iran deal vindicates a tough negotiating posture with adversaries, and now requires continued vigilance in implementation. But I suspect they will do neither, instead running against healthcare.gov as proof that <em>government </em>can’t even build a website (implicitly conceding that Republicans wouldn’t do any better), and arguing that the fact that we got a deal with Iran proves that we weren’t tough enough (implicitly conceding that <a href="http://www.lobelog.com/rapid-reaction-to-the-iran-nuclear-deal/">their goal is continued conflict</a>, possibly war, and not a solution to the nuclear standoff). In other words, I expect a depressingly ideological rather than pragmatic response to both the Administration’s failures and its successes.</p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>