This is a comment on a post by Kevin Drum
Suderman strategically chose to make a very weak case (motivated reasoning or hypocrisy). He supports the Ryan plan so he argues that only partisanship, cynicism etc could cause someone to oppose it. If he cared about plausibility, he could easily prove that at least one Democrat is cynical and intellectually dishonest. That would be Obama who argued in 2008 at hypnotic length that the individual mandate was bad policy then endorsed it pretty much before being inaugurated. I don't think many people doubt that Obama lied about his beliefs about reform without the mandate-- he was praised for playing 11 dimensional chess by people who put the public interest above Carter/McGovern/Goldwater frankness.
Suderman will not mention this clear and not just analogous but actually identical example (except a flip not a flop) because then he would have to argue that the mandate is obviously necessary. He won't do that. I think because he too is cynical, hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. He would rather help the right than be right.
Now as to Obama's cynicism, I am all for it. I will not vote for a totally honest person in a primary. I didn't enjoy 1972. But at least I know and admit that I am a frank honest supporter of cynical hypocrisy.