Competing "Blowout" Narratives

Last Friday, Politico ran a story suggesting that McCain might win in a blowout (50+ electoral vote margin) in November. The piece, based largely on interviews with political consultants and the like, started with the near-certain argument that any Republican but McCain would have been a dead man walking. They then assume that McCain will carry nearly every state that Bush carried in 2004, save for perhaps Iowa and Colorado, which he'll compensate for by winning New Hampshire and Michigan and/or Pennsylvania.

It took Democrats nearly a week to counter this narrative, but yesterday Bob Beckel penned a column for RCP arguing that while it'll be a blowout, it will be an Obama blowout. A side note to whoever asked Beckel to write this piece: pick someone with a little more credibility than Walter Mondale's campaign manager; I'll grant that the man knows something about blowouts, but only from the receiving end. Beckel's argument is that McCain will lose far more states Bush won than just Iowa and Colorado, and won't find the votes to make up for those losses.

I'm not sure who's right. Obviously, I'm hoping that the consultants quoted in the Politico's story are. But I have a sense that one of these two is correct - this won't be a squeaker like '04 was but will rather be a pretty clearcut affair. Call it a 60% chance of a 50+ vote margin either way/40% less than 50 votes. If I get time soon, I'll try and analyze where I think those votes are going.

Kossacks Drinking Koolaid

The title isn't anything new, of course, just that when Dear Leader Kos himself speaks, they don't even bother to follow a link and check it out. Case du jour: Ohio polling. Kos busily hypes up a new SurveyUSA Ohio poll showing Obama with a 9 pt advantage over McCain and pointing to the trend lines from a previous poll (McCain +2 at 47-45) as evidence that Obama is uniting the party; he also points out that this is a poll of likely voters.

Now that struck me as odd - I haven't been poll-watching too closely of late, but I didn't think SUSA (an automated phone polling company) surveyed LVs, only registered voters. A quick visit to RealClearPolitics' Ohio polling page showed me to be correct. It also showed that Kos omitted any mention of a few other polls: a Quinnipiac poll of over 1200 RVs conducted during roughly the same period showing McCain up 4, and a Rasmussen poll of LVs (single-day, too so mostly unaffected by the news) showing McCain up 1. What's especially galling about this is that all one needed to do is follow a link provided by Kos to SUSA's site to see that indeed, it was a poll of registered voters. Currently the story's got 163 comments, not one of which seeks to correct Dear Leader's misstep. Listen, I'm not expecting these folks to get a whiff of reality anytime soon - but please, can they at least get the small stuff right?

Also, for what it's worth, I have to think that those Rasmussen numbers are closer to the truth than the SUSA numbers. Why? Well for one thing SUSA's crosstabs indicate that 17% of black voters in the sample support McCain. Case closed. Bunk poll. Interestingly, Rasmussen's poll also indicates that Obama has higher unfavorables, and lower favorables, than McCain in the Buckeye state.

This isn't to say that McCain is going to win Ohio, which he basically must do to win the White House, just that he's probably in a better position to do so than Obama. After all, Ohio Democrats are the sort that Obama has such trouble with - the kind who might confuse white wine and vinegar (and for whom screw-top bottles of vino are no longer just edging into acceptability) - which is to say blue collar types. Sure the state of the economy as portrayed by the media helps Obama, but it may not be enough if he comes across as a guy you wouldn't want to have a beer with (a metric I personally dislike, but appreciate when Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Obama-types).

More Veep Speculation

In his weekend column, Bob Novak suggests that former Congressman, US Trade Representative, and OMB Director Rob Portman is somewhere near the top of the McCain campaign's VP list. As Novak says,

"Portman's background is legislative (House Republican leadership), executive (George W. Bush's Cabinet), diplomatic (U.S. trade representative) and economic (Office of Management and Budget director). He comes from a swing state (Ohio), is young enough (52) to contrast McCain and conservative enough (89 percent lifetime American Conservative Union rating)."

I see the argument, and again I think that McCain's not forced to pick a governor because of the absence of governing experience on the Democratic side. Also, we have to assume he's vetted and thus free of any skeletons in the closet.

More on Mac's Missteps

The tempest in a teacup continues over McCain's true-in-the-real-world/fake-in-liberal-la-la-land statement that Iran is supporting al Qaeda. The Weekly Standard's got more evidence supporting the Senator here, here; HotAir adds their two cents as well.

Meanwhile, as noted by HotAir, the McCain campaign is standing by their candidate's statements;; for their part, Obama & Co. just keep digging. Elsewhere on the Left, Think Progress is so addled by their fantastic version of events that, as Michael Goldfarb points out, they actually agree with McCain. The Boston Globe does their part, and Threats Watch calls them out for this egregious statement:

Iran and the United States have a common interest in a stable Iraq. Tehran does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas. Before cooperating to stabilize Iraq, however, Iran wants assurances that the United States will not use it as a base for covert action and military attacks against the Islamic Republic and will gradually phase out its combat forces.

Really? Really? Start by playing the peaceful Iran card, move on to accusing the US of being aggressive bullies seeking to start a war with Iran. Also, let's play fill-in-the-blank: "______ does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas." I'm not entirely convinced that they didn't confuse Turkey and Iran...

Finally, I know Brendan Nyhan; I like Brendan Nyhan. But with regard to this particular story, his partisan blinders are on snugly. Nyhan conflates a truly egregious story from 2006, when the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Democrat Silvestro Reyes, couldn't say whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, with McCain's comments. To Nyhan, the so-called gaffe suggests that McCain "apparently doesn't understand the most basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shiites (i.e. Iran is Shiite, Al Qaeda is Sunni)." It's getting to be a tired old meme that Sunnis and Shiites won't put aside their sectarianism in the face of a common enemy, and it shows a disturbing close-mindedness on the part of its adherents.

McCain's Alleged Misstep

The Left has their collective (unisex/un-gendered) panties in a bunch over John McCain's comments while on tour in the Middle East that Iran was supporting Al Qaeda. It's not clear whether his comments were made thrice over two days - as some allege - or simply twice in a single day. The "he said it thrice" argument centers on a statement from the campaign, which is interesting and, if you believe the Lefty spin on things, potentially damning because he and his campaign must be chugging the neocon kool aid.

Their spin, sold as indisputable truth, is simply that Iran can't be funding, or in any way supporting, Al Qaeda. Why? Because Iran's Shiite and Al Qaeda's Sunni, duh. It's a simple redux of the old Saddam can't support Al Qaeda argument because he was a secularist (though a man of faith when it fit his needs) and they were zealots. Same story, new characters. Stephen Hayes took that one to town, pretty conclusively I'd say, back in 2006.

But what about this new one - is there any reason to believe Iran is backing Al Qaeda? As Ed Morrissey demonstrates with a variety of sources, yes, yes indeed there is. Morrissey draws primarily on "untrustworthy" conservative sources - the Standard and New York Sun to name two, but if you like your media more mainstream, try this one from the Post ('04 instead of '06/'07, so based on the 9/11 Commission instead of sources in Iraq).

So why'd McCain say it? Was it sleep deprivation and jet-lag? That was my original thought, based in part on the fact that that Times piece claims he only came back onto the PC reservation when "he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman." They go on to quote a McCain spokesman who says the Senator misspoke; at the time the Senator himself made a clarification of sorts, saying that “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.” Of course, Al Qaeda would be extremists of a sort, so it's an interesting walk-back.

The DNC immediately fired a salvo at McCain; I'll quote at length from the Times:

“After eight years of the Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

The bold highlights are my own; it goes without saying that that statement contradicts evidence presented by the US military, facts on the ground so to speak.

Obama, in a campaign stop here in North Carolina, also pounced on McCain, saying that "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Again, Obama's statement stands in contradiction to a considerable body of evidence on both the alleged AQ/Iraq and AQI/Iran ties.

The Democratic/media (Democratic media?) narrative is that McCain's misstep was a serious gaffe, contradicting his experience and foreign policy credentials. Perhaps, and if so, it'll take some damage control - though it'll also get somewhat buried given the preponderance of the news coverage being devoted to Obama's speech yesterday.

But instead, indulge me in the product of a heavily caffeinated mind. Perhaps, just perhaps, McCain's "misstep" was intentional. I imagine that for him, the reports of Iran's ties to Al Qaeda are credible. Indeed, who's to say that there aren't more reports to that extent coming out in the near future? He might be privy to them, either from his recent trip in Iraq or his stop in Israel. If so, he just drew both the DNC and Obama way out, essentially invited themselves to put their own necks on the block. If there is more compelling evidence about those ties, if the other shoe's about to drop, their gooses may be up in smoke. Obama proves himself to be inexperienced. A devastating ambush, convincingly set by the wily old Senator, right down to the "correction" by Lieberman and the nuanced "extremists" walk-back with its avenues of wiggle room. Perhaps. Am I crazy? Perhaps not.

Two exhibits in my defense, if you please. First off, McCain's trusted adviser (and coauthor) Mark Salter has already fired back at Obama: "Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of." Your move, Barack - dig in deeper, or go look at that evidence? Second, and perhaps more telling, Hillary's been mum on this. Maybe she wants McCain and Obama to throw a few punches at one another - if they hurt each other, she wins. But maybe, just maybe, she's aware of the evidence that Salter cites, the evidence that Obama (and the American public) seems oblivious to. If so, she's quite content to say nothing and let Obama hoist himself by his own petard.

An additional exhibit, though of a less proximate nature: McCain's hammering Obama a few weeks ago for saying that he would reenter Iraq "if al Qaeda was forming a base" there. McCain slapped him around for suggesting that Iraq wasn't already there, and rightly so.

Another intriguing thing: who is McCain's audience on this present trip; who, outside of devoted Democrats, is most likely to note his apparent "misstep?" Israelis and American Jews, two groups who have plenty of reason to worry about Iran, and who fear the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not saying all Israelis or American Jews, mind you, but substantial portions of each population. I suspect that many American Jews were already starting to feel a bit alienated from Obama, given the raging anti-Semitism present in some of the Reverend Wright's sermons (for example, the revelation that in one of his bulletins, Wright republished an infamous LA Times editorial penned by a Hamas member). On the heels of that mess, McCain sends a strong signal of his support for Israel. Call me crazy?

So to recap, and I may be crazy: McCain "missteps." McCain's correction doesn't actually withdraw the allegedly incorrect statement, only one part of it. Democrats call him crazy, media claims he's tarnished his foreign policy credentials. Salter fires back at Obama, Hillary says nothing. Obama's just been drawn out and shown up again on foreign policy, twice in a month. Was it an accident, or is the old man that good?

The #2 Spot

FDR's first VP, Cactus Jack Nance, once famously described his job as not being worth a bucket of warm piss. That, of course, was before the days when vice presidents could do fun things like invent the Internet and take off for lengthy vacations in secure, undisclosed locations.

But given that McCain's locked up the GOP nomination, much speculation turns to the question of who he will pick as his running mate. The Journal has been running a series of pieces that act as interesting conversation starters, so I figured why not toss my two cents in. I'll start by toying with the assertion put forward in one piece, that "the old rules that chose vice presidents for sectional balance or the ability to win big states are out of date." Perhaps that's true, at least with regard to the states, but isn't picking a candidate to assuage the conservative base a form of "sectional balance?" If not, what is it? Anyways, the fact that most big states don't have a Republican governor at present makes that point somewhat irrelevant. I'll also say that the pick shouldn't be a Senator. For one thing, most of the more intriguing names have already begged off - Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, for example. More importantly, McCain needs someone with real governing experience on the ticket; he's too Washington by himself, and another Beltway insider will just reinforce that perception. Thus no Senators.

The first piece, in late February and written by a Minnesota conservative, assails the conservative credentials of Tim Pawlenty, that state's governor. Certainly, some of the author's grievances resonate with me; for example:

In April, Mr. Pawlenty delivered the remarks that probably best reveal his views on the environment. "It looks like we should have listened to President Carter," he told the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. "He called us to action, and we should have listened. . . . Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don't think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices

Listen to President Carter? Really? Yikes.

But some of his points go over less-well with this particular pundit:

Mr. Pawlenty supported a 75 cents per-pack cigarette tax. He called it a "health impact" fee. No one was fooled. User fees are generally charged to ensure that those who use a government service pay for the cost of providing that service. In this case, however, it was obvious that smokers were just being tapped to fund health-care entitlement programs. Following the tax hike, the governor pushed through a state-wide smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Aggressive, Nanny-state government seems to be big with Republican governors these days -- although policies such as smoking bans do little to stem the costly tide of state-run health care.

To me, smoking bans are a good thing - at least in places where one's action can negatively affect others both in terms of health and pure comfort. A tax on cigarettes, whatever the purpose of the revenue, is also something I'm not going to get riled up over.

On healthcare, he appears to be a Romney-esque "new Republican," favoring healthcare for all children as well as a mandate for all residents. I'll never advocate universal, single-payer healthcare; my own internal jury is out on a mandate. But healthcare for all children? To begin with, it's the right thing to do. It's also a no-win situation if you try and block it. Some handful of real conservatives (in a place like Minnesota) may love you for it, but the media's going to crucify you.

Finally, Pawlenty's favored bigger mandates on renewable energy use in the state. Go to Minnesota; look around. There's nothing there. Wind and solar are great uses, and strongly encouraging the state to use them is a good thing. 30% by 2020 is steep, but why not just like the state's western border, with the absolutely uninhabited Dakotas, with wind turb"ines?

Verdict: Some interesting policy ideas, but if this is an honest representation of Pawlenty's policies, he's probably a no-go for conservatives at large. However, if McCain can assuage the conservative base come the convention, he may be useful. The Midwest, in part because of economic concerns, has been turning purple (or even blue) in recent years; a local, however obnoxious the accent, may bring them back into the fold. But he shouldn't be the top of the short list.

The second piece isn't about any potential VP candidate, but is by one of the most talked-about names: South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, discussing why in light of the looming entitlement crisis, McCain's the only acceptable candidate. While I agree with him, his excessive use of bad analogies and metaphors:

"To use a football analogy, we're at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game. I sat out the first half...But I'm now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It's important that conservatives do the same...Hope alone won't carry us through the valley of the shadow of debt....A number of us tried to apply the brakes to the Washington spending train...The contrast between the two opposing teams is stark. It is time for the entire conservative squad to step onto the field. Who will join me in helping our team get the ball and move it down the field?"

Besides the fact that he's desperately in need of a new speech-writer, one free of such badly cliched language, he makes some good points. McCain's got the record here; his opponents have not only failed to acknowledge the need to rein in spending, they're actually talking about increasing spending.

But this begs another question, one with regard to Governor Sanford himself. The most prominent reason to include him on the ticket are his fiscal credentials. If McCain's got those, why do we need to double up on them? Of course, he's also got great social con bonafides, but he's such a fiscal hawk that members of his own party despise him down in South Carolina.

Verdict: Another interesting choice, and one who might rise in prominence if McCain hasn't gotten the party's conservative base in line by late summer. Sanford will largely lock up the South, and will significantly assuage conservative concerns about McCain's health; if, God forbid, he expires in office, they won't be anxious about his replacement.

The third and final of the WSJ's articles concerns in the author's words, "the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal." His argument, based largely on the fact that Jindal's resume is enormously impressive, has merit: The guy graduated high school at 16, a graduate of Brown, Rhodes Scholar, stint at McKinsey, made secretary of the Louisiana department of health and hospitals in 1996, executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in 1998, named president of the University of Louisiana System in 1999, assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from 2001-2003, served in the House from 2004-2007, governor 2007-present. He's also a yet-tender 36.

Verdict: That Jindal can clearly out-wonk just about anyone the Democrats could field against him, no one will dispute. But despite his experience, I think his youth is a bit much to be considered for national office. Certainly, he'd rally the base to McCain, but I wonder if putting him on the ticket without a really compelling reason is rushing things. Should McCain lose, Jindal may be tainted by it. Why not let him keep his powder dry down in the bayou; in 2016 (or if necessary 2012), he'll have a nice set of gubernatorial accomplishments to campaign on. But the author's last point may be the most valid: "If Mr. McCain is to win, he needs not just numbers but enthusiasm. The Democratic primaries consistently have brought out twice as many voters as the Republican primaries. Mr. Jindal has already demonstrated that he can get voters enthused." Jindal should be treated as the GOP's ace in the hole. One last point for consideration, and I don't know the answer to this, but what does Jindal bring to the table (besides intellect) that Sanford doesn't?

Of course the Journal's not the only one running pieces on potential veep picks. The Chicago Trib had a brief article late last week floating the notion of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. There's a lot to like about Palin. She's conservative enough to placate the base, she's youthful, and she may make inroads among women, a traditionally Democratic constituency. She's also hugely popular, with approval ratings somewhere in the 80s and even 90s.

But she's been a bit lefty on global warming and climate change, a stance that may alienate some Republican voters. And while she herself has been ardently anti-corruption (endemic in Alaska), the fact that the rest of the state Republican Party is in hot water for it may cause her to be tarred with the same brush. Because since when does the media make distinctions?

Palin and Jindal have something in common: They both have an irrefutable air of trying to match the Dems. You have a woman on the ticket? We can put a woman in the #2 spot! You have a non-white guy on the ticket? We can put a non-white guy in the #2 spot! Like Jindal, Palin is recently elected without much of a portfolio to run on. Further, while I think the era of picking a candidate because of geography is over, I also think going to the other extreme is pretty crazy. Alaska's got a whopping three electoral votes - tied for least in the nation. I'm also worried about the notion of corruption by association; that concern becomes more valid if (when?) Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young are indicted.

Verdict: A dark horse, no doubt. Alaska's out of the media spotlight, so I'm not really if there are any concerns to be had. Her anti-corruption priorities match those of McCain; he's also shown himself to be a liberal thinker on climate change. But as with all of these candidates, I think she's selected as the party determines is necessary. However, she certainly deserves a hard look - even if she does bring a measly three votes to the table.

Florida's Charlie Crist is another name often tossed about. Like Palin, he's enormously popular. His endorsement probably won the primary for McCain, a big, fat IOU. Similarly, his being on the ticket could lock up the state in the general. Thus the frequency with which he is mentioned as a candidate (especially since the state of the economy probably puts Ohio solidly in the Democratic column).

But there may be an enormous skeleton in the closet: him...so to speak. There are widespread, but largely unsubstantiated, rumors that until his star began to rise, Crist was way out of the closet. Is there truth in the matter? Well he is divorced; he certainly wouldn't be the first gay Florida Republican...Mark Foley, anyone? I'm not sure what he brings to the table - could he deliver Florida just campaigning for McCain instead of running with him? - and even if he's not gay, if Clinton's the nominee her smear machine won't hesitate to spread word that he is.

And if he ends up on the ticket? Either the RNC did an awful vetting job, or he's actually not gay. That's all.

PS: Chris Cillizza tossed out a few names for both Democrats and Republicans a few weeks back; I covered three of the five Republicans, and will dismiss his other two out of hand. Chris, c'mon - Republican voters won't back a qualified presidential candidate in Mitt Romney, in large part because he's Mormon, but they'll accept a Mormon veep? Utah's Jon Huntsman brings a lot to the table, including scads of cash and strong credentials, but I think the Mormon factor would be a big negative - and if it isn't, why not look at Mitt again? His business credentials are stellar and given the jittery state of the economy (those might be needed in months to come), he too is filthy rich (okay, hundreds of millions instead of billions, but at that point who's really counting?), and instead of Utah, which McCain can't lose, Romney puts Michigan and potentially Massachusetts in play. The fifth name on his list, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, is DQ'd by my original rules at the top of the post. Anyways, three electoral votes again.

The most interesting name on the list, far and away, is on the Democratic side, that of former Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni. Maybe a topic for another day.

CC also did video interviews with Pawlenty, Sanford and Palin, as well as Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas back during the National Governors Association meeting. I haven't watched them just yet, but I suspect they're worthwhile.

That's all, folks.

Obama and Clinton Bicker...

...while John McCain not-so-subtly demonstrates that he's got experience and leadership ability.

Meanwhile, Hillary, in a classic Clintonian balancing act, goes after both McCain and Obama on the war. I especially like this bit of verbal jujitsu: "Withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years." So on the Hillary Clinton SAT, withdrawal : victory :: staying there : defeat? Please, someone enlighten me on this one...

UPDATE: McCain, of course, isn't buying her BS for a minute. He fired back (via Ambinder) in an interview with CNN's John King. He gets it, she doesn't. End of story.

The Internet and Politics

Say what you will about Obama, he's inarguably running the most tech-savvy campaign this cycle. Both he and McCain have slick, visually appealing websites, which is the least you'd expect from a pair of presidential contenders.

But McCain is still a few years behind the cutting-edge applications of the Internet in the political realm (surprising for a guy who made the most of the Internet in his insurgent campaign back in 2000). He's got everything you would want, including omnipresent donation links, if you're older than thirty or so. But his ability to get news to you is limited, and he boasts only a video archive that is on the same menu as print-news stories. His campaign blog isn't bad, but his RSS feeds are sorely under-subscribed. The site also lacks links to his presence on Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, and other social networking sites, as well as widgets for blogs or websites (something I emailed the campaign about). There's a noticeable absence of action links on every page - nothing about calling other voters or volunteering; it's focused more on winning your vote than getting you to sway others. It's a website for an older generation, and cedes the e-edge and the initiative among youth voters to Obama.

Obama's website, by contrast, is absolutely masterful. His blog is more picture- and video-intensive than McCain's. Whereas Mac's is largely devoted recently to refuting the Times story, and hasn't been updated since 2/25, Obama's has been updated five times today and addresses several different topics. He's got the volunteer and phone links on every page, as well as the donate links. He has a separate tab for states, so you can find what's going on in your hometown and get involved. And the coolest? Under the media tab, he's got a whole package of mobile options. The ability to download Barack ring tones just creeps me out, but the ability to get policy updates texted to your cell phone is the new frontier of tech-savvy campaigning. It's actually fast becoming redundant as the proliferation of Internet-ready cellphones means that email is always accessible, but it's still fascinating. It's not just updates, however, which some other candidates (such as Steve Sauerberg) boast, it's the fact that you can receive updates on specific policies. It's self-selected micro-targeting via an always-connected medium. Oh and of course there are links to Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn and every other social network you can think of (and some I've never heard of), as well as widgets.

I'd never vote for Barack, but Republicans looking to be competitive in the new realm of political competition need to look at Obama's site. It recognizes the power of the Internet and breaks further away from the traditional media to media that focus on the individual consumer and on how they want to get their information. In a word, it's effective.

The NYT's McCain Hit Job

The story of the morning in the political world is, without a doubt, the New York Times' hit job on John McCain. It's the most absurd coalition of rumor and innuendo, shameful journalism even by the standards of the Times.

McCain's denied the allegations, with his campaign saying he's going to war with the paper over the allegations. The Times has their own version of the back-and-forth, including a statement from their editor which makes reference to "facts;" he fails to note that they are few and far between in this particular piece.

Meanwhile, John Weaver, one of the figures at the center of the Times' concocted drama, has issued a statement explaining his role - and it contradicts what NYT says. He's McCain to the end, it would appear. TNR has a must-read metacommentary on the story - the story behind the story, the debates within the Times as to whether or not to publish, etc. It's a hit piece, but apparently not everyone was comfortable with that. Others were apparently dismayed by the timing; the story had originally begun circulating (according to Drudge at least) back in December, but was pulled; some wonder if the Times was holding its fire to help its favorite Republican.

And last but not least, the law of unintended consequences kicks in: the Right is rallying behind McCain. This whole story - especially if it starts to backfire on the Times - also helps McCain in drawing attention away from Obama/Clinton, which had been largely dominating headlines and news coverage. Unifying the party, giving McCain the spotlight with its BS - I never thought I'd say it, but thank you Grey Lady!

CQ has a worthwhile post that's part summary, part analysis, but is definitely worth the time (as is everything that Ed writes).

Thompson's Pain, McCain's Gain?

According to Politico's Jonathan Martin, if Fred Thompson doesn't place a "strong third" in Iowa, he may drop out and endorse John McCain.

A Thompson endorsement would give McCain some cover on his right flank, especially on issues like immigration; in a perfect storm of events, it might give McCain a critical boost in New Hampshire...

My Shifting Allegiances

I've been nobody's stalwart this political season, indeed I've followed a rather peripatetic route to my present position. I supported Giuliani early on, thinking that he had the best hope of becoming president. I switched my support to Thompson in the long run-up to his announcement, in hopes that he might be able to rally the conservative troops and peel enough independents away from Hillary or Obama to win. When, after finally announcing, Thompson proved a poor campaigner (one might almost say DOA), I returned to Giuliani. It's not that I don't like Fred, I think he's spot-on on many of the issues. My return to Giuliani was motivated by the belief that he might still be the best bet, which he was at the time. Finally, I think I've settled on John McCain. I supported McCain in 2000 (though I was all of 14 at the time), and am proud to support him again.

Why John McCain? First and foremost, his experience. He is the only candidate in either party with any substantive military service; he not only served, he suffered and sacrificed for this country. He's ornery and independent-minded, principled may be a better way to put it, on a whole range of issues. I don't agree with him on campaign finance, I wish he was a bit more conservative on immigration (though he's a border-stater with all that means), his comparing water-boarding (which does no permanent damage) to what the Vietnamese did to him (which has left him unable to raise his arms above his shoulders) irks me. But he understands the threat we're facing, he has a lifetime of public service, and he's a fundamentally good man. Here's to hoping he gets the nomination.