In a little reported development a few weeks back, senior McCain adviser Charlie Black relabeled his man, "slightly right of center." After having already adopted virtually the entire Bush agenda and just weeks after running an ad titled "True Conservative" during the Republican primaries, John McCain had started his mad dash back to the political center for the general election.

But when it comes to running away from his moribund party, its discredited brand and its wildly unpopular president, no Republican can match the extreme makeover of Oregon Senator Gordon Smith. No doubt, he is running as the UnRepublican.

A quick glance at the Smith web site tells the tale, or at least part of it. Nowhere does the word "Republican" appear on Gordon Smith's home page. In contrast, "Democrats for Smith" is a prominent link available from every page in the site. A Google search shows that the word "Bush" appears exactly three times on the Smith campaign web site; twice in reprinted news articles about Smith's supposed bipartisanship and once to let us know that "Smith broke with Party leaders and President Bush" on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Smith's latest spot, "Middle Ground," is the culmination of his centrist facelift project. Touting Smith as "moderate, independent and bipartisan," the ad highlight issues such as stem cell research, energy and the environment where he bucked his party and GOP. The spot cites rankings from National Journal to place Smith in the Senate's political center. All told, it's a far cry from his 2002 TV spot featuring President Bush, back when Gordon Smith was only too happy to let Oregonians know that he carried Bush's water.

Of course, given the current poisonous atmosphere for Republicans, Gordon Smith isn't about to tout the fact that he voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time. His support for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, conservative Supreme Court justices almost certain to support overturning of Roe v. Wade and the undermining of economic, environmental and workplace safety regulations, is unsurprisingly absent as well.

And don't expect the Smith campaign to intersperse footage of his December 2006 protestations about the "absurd" and "criminal" American presence in Iraq with his endorsement of John McCain for President. (The Smith web site's issues section offers exactly two sentences on bringing home the troops.) And to be sure, Gordon Smith's resurrection of Trent Lott (R-MS) will be forgotten as well.

Smith's campaign may be a Potemkin facade, but like other Republicans, he has little choice. With approval ratings for President Bush and the direction of the country reaching record lows, even Republican analyses show Democrats enjoying the support of the American people across virtually every issue. It's no wonder that in the wake of John Boehner's hilarious effort to produce a new slogan for the GOP, outgoing Virginia Congressman Tom Davis concluded, "the Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."

In August 2002, President George W. Bush came to Oregon and spoke in glowing terms about Gordon Smith at a Portland reception. This week in Phoenix, John McCain allowed himself to be publicly seen in Bush's company for exactly 47 seconds. Facing a close Senate race so far, that is 47 seconds more than we should expect Bush to spend here with UnRepublican Gordon Smith in 2008.

(This piece originally appeared at BlueOregon.)

First, the PEJ analysis showed that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have enjoyed more positive press coverage than John McCain over the course of the campaign. Evaluating media coverage from January 1st through the March primaries in Ohio and Texas, researchers found that 69% of stories about Barack Obama featured "positive narratives." Seemingly contrary to assertions of bias by her own campaign, Senator Clinton similarly earned 67% positive mentions. (It is worth noting that both candidates saw a drop-off over time, including an Obama decline beginning prior to the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio.) In contrast, McCain rated only 43% positive stories during the same time period.

But the dark cloud of John McCain's press coverage during the Republican primaries contains a big silver lining for his general election race to the center. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the myth of the maverick McCain bucking his party and his President seems to be emerging unscathed:

Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.

For McCain, one master narrative stands out above all in the coverage - that he is not a true or reliable conservative. More than five in 10 of all the assertions studied about McCain conveyed that idea, about six times as many as the number of assertions rebutting it. While this narrative - not conservative enough - might have been a problem for him in the primary race, it is harder to evaluate its implications for the general election. If McCain is seen as a maverick, someone not tied to President Bush, it will likely enhance his standing among independents and moderate swing Democrats.

It's no accident that McCain, a candidate who ran ads during the GOP primaries touting himself as a "True Conservative," is now described by his senior strategist Charlie Black as "slightly right of center."

A second survey from the Pew Research Center also bodes well for John McCain and the kind of campaign the Republican Party will run against Barack Obama. Despite double-digit advantages across Americans' top priority issues, Barack Obama enjoyed only a three point lead (47% to 44%) over John McCain in the Pew survey. While both Obama (51% approval, 42% disapproval) and McCain (48% approval, 45% disapproval) have seen their approval ratings drop among all registered voters, McCain holds a narrow edge among independent voters.

More important for the Republican message machine, McCain's negatives hinge on his political views whereas Obama's are "more personal":

Unlike Obama, however, an overwhelming majority of those who express unfavorable views of McCain cite his political beliefs as the reason they do not like him, rather the kind of person he is. Fully 73% of those with a negative opinion of McCain cite his political beliefs while just 18% cite personal factors.

In contrast, 32% of those asked "what don't you like about him" cited personal factors in rejecting Barack Obama. And those likeability numbers are something the GOP can - and will - work with, just as it did in 2000 and 2004.

As the joint study from the Project for Excellent in Journalism and Harvard's Shorenstein Center concluded, the 2008 election could well turn on personalities and not policies:

In many ways, the coverage of the campaign has been dominated by a series of small storylines or boomlets of coverage that so far have raised unresolved questions but not yet framed an overall storyline - Obama's friendships and core ideology, the meaning of his promise of change, McCain's core ideology, his relationship with lobbyists, and a looming battle, largely quiet during the primaries, over the direction of the conduct of the war in Iraq.

So the race to define John McCain is on. The seeming imperviousness of his maverick myth and polls showing Americans view him as more trustworthy suggest McCain has an early edge in the character war. But we have not yet seen the end of McCain's "Lobbotomy," the K street taint looming over and threatening to unravel his campaign. And to be sure, the Democratic Party has yet to fully take up Lindsey Graham's challenge: "Good luck making him George Bush."

(This piece originally appeared at Crooks and Liars.)

If nothing else, John McCain is an irony producing machine. On the very day Scott McClellan described the Bush administration "propaganda" used to sell an "unnecessary war" in Iraq, talking points McCain himself regurgitated, the Arizona Senator challenged Barack Obama to join him on a Baghdad visit. More ironic still, John McCain hasn't merely been wrong at every turn about the war in Iraq; the closer he gets to the war zone itself, the more disastrously off-base he becomes.

That's the clear assessment from long-time CNN Baghdad correspondent, Michael Ware:

"I mean Senator McCain has been here, what, more than half a dozen times. And we've seen him get assessments of Iraq terribly wrong. So I wouldn't be hanging my hat on the fact that your opponent has only been here once."

But you don't need to take Ware's word for it. John McCain's will do quite nicely.

Just yesterday, for example, Mr. Straight Talk discussed the calm and serenity in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Sadly, McCain made his boast on the very day that Mosul was rocked by two suicide bombings:

"I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks."

But McCain's fallacy of proximity is truly on display when he reports from the ground in Iraq. That is, the closer McCain gets to the action, the further he travels from the truth.

One of the more comic moments in McCain's history of misguided Iraq cheerleading came on April 1, 2007. (Literally April Fool's Day - you can't make this stuff up.) Wearing a bulletproof vest and guarded by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead," McCain briefly toured a Baghdad market to demonstrate that the American people were "not getting the full picture." As ThinkProgress detailed:

McCain recently claimed that there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed "walk freely" in some areas of Baghdad.

Then in early March, Senator McCain returned to a tried and untrue Republican talking point: Iraq is no more dangerous than most major American cities. McCain announced, "There's problems in America with safe neighborhoods as we well know." In this case, at least, even McCain realized his statement was non-sensical on its face and sounded the retreat. "I'm not making that comparison, because it's much more deadly in Iraq obviously," he said, adding, "But it's kind of the same theory."

Alas, just one week later, the reality on the ground interrupted McCain again. As the AP reported, McCain had a blast - almost - during his trip to Baghdad to commemorate the five year anniversary of the U.S. invasion:

"Explosions rocked Iraq's capital on Monday as Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain visited ahead of the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion."

Of course, John McCain has been consistently - and egregiously - wrong in his statements about Iraq, whether issued here or there. From his predictions of a short war and claims U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators to his announcements of mission accomplished and his ongoing confusion over friend and foe in Iraq, McCain's is a record of unbroken error.

Still, John McCain on Monday threw down the gauntlet to Barack Obama, while offering to be his tour guide in Iraq:

"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time. If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."

Obama spokesman David Axelrod had just the right response. "What does all his experience get us?” adding, "The fact that he goes to Iraq and gets a tour apparently does little to provoke the kinds of questions that should be asked, and what Sen. Obama has been asking since the beginning."

Which is exactly right. You shouldn't be this wrong, this often and still get to play tour guide in Iraq, let alone President of the United States.

(For more background, see: "Is McCain 'Sick at Heart' Over His Own Iraq Mistakes?")

As FireDogLake, Huffington Post and others detail, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan revealed that it was President Bush himself who authorized the selective leaking of the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate. As he disclosed both in his book and during interviews today, McClellan says Bush admitted declassifying portions of the NIE to allow Scooter Libby to attack Joe Wilson and other administration critics in July 2003. Getting less attention, though, is McClellan's own critical role in defending President Bush's misuses of classified information for political payback.

During his April 7, 2006 press briefing, McClellan was inundated by questions over when, how and by whom the NIE was declassified in the administration's attempts to undercut Joe Wilson's revelations about Niger. McClellan quickly turned to the two dodges that came to defy White House - and Republican - points on the entire PlameGate affair. Then, McClellan could not comment on an "ongoing investigation." And regardless, leaking is OK when the President does it.

McClellan first deployed the "ongoing investigation" evasion to avoid confirming the inescapable truth that the Bush administration in July 2003 leaked classified elements of the NIE to the press 10 days before publicly declassifying the document:

Q: Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.

If McClellan was "taken aback" in April 2006 after President Bush's admission ("Yeah, I did") that he authorized the release of selected, classified portions of the NIE, he didn't show it. Instead, McClellan insisted:

"The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified -- portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not -- that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate."

McClellan then famously echoed Richard Nixon, claiming that regardless, it's just fine to leak classified information if the President does it:

Q: He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.

As it turns out, Scott McClellan (knowingly or not) lied to, deceived or simply evaded the American people about almost every major issue of the day. The President did release classified information; Rove and Libby were involved in PlameGate; the media did not rewrite the history of the administration's calamitous response to Hurricane Katrina, and charges that George W. Bush used cocaine were not "baseless allegations and ridiculous rumors." It's no wonder just weeks after the NIE imbroglio President Bush praised the departing Scott McClellan in Brownie-like terms, "I can say to Scott, job well done."

Of course, it wasn't always this way.

Once upon time, Scott McClellan was the perfect mouthpiece for the Bush administration and its right-wing allies. An idiot non-savant seemingly ill-informed and out-of-the-loop, McClellan provided the ideal front man to pitch what he himself now deems to have been Bush's "propaganda" about an "unnecessary war" in Iraq.

Here, then, is a look back at Scott McClellan's Greatest Hits:

• "I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove." McClellan on PlameGate, September 23, 2003.
• "The President knows he [Rove] wasn't involved." McClellan on PlameGate, September 23, 2003.
• "There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did." McClellan on the roles of Libby, Rove and Abrams in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, October 7, 2003
• "As I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it." McClellan on new PlameGate revelations, July 11, 2005.
• "That's accurate." Later changed in White House transcript to "That's not accurate" regarding a statement that Rove and Libby were involved in outing Valerie Plame, October 31, 2005.
• "The last thing anyone should do is politicize this issue by rewriting history." McClellan on revelations regarding bogus uranium in Niger claims, July 17, 2003.
• "[I]t is sad and irresponsible that The New York Times is rewriting history to fit an inaccurate storyline and conveniently ignoring key facts." McClellan on criticism of Bush's preparation for Hurricane Katrina, February 10, 2006.
• "This is getting into trying to finger-point and play the blame game." McClellan on bungled Bush response to Katrina, September 6, 2005.
• "This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made." McClellan describing Newsweek's Koran desecration story, not the role of Curveball in Iraq pre-war intelligence, May 16, 2005.
• "Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction." McClellan justifying President Bush's authorization to leak classified information from the October 2002 NIE to attack Joe Wilson and other White House critics, April 7, 2006.
• "The Democrats have a credibility problem when they try to suggest that we were manipulating intelligence, or that this is about something other than what I just said. That's crass politics." McClellan on criticism of President Bush's leaking classified material, April 7, 2006.
• "I think it appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people." McClellan, asked if former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill's book contained falsehoods, January 12, 2004
• "Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had." McClellan, on the book by former counter-terrorism tsar Richard Clarke, March 22, 2004.

Yes, those were the good old days. And as the President admitted on the day of McClellan's resignation in 2006, George W. Bush will look back on them fondly:

"First of all, I thank Scott for his service to our country. I don't know whether or not the press corps realizes this, but his is a challenging assignment dealing with you all on a regular basis. And I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity. He really represents the best of his family, our state and our country. It's going to be hard to replace Scott. But, nevertheless, he's made the decision and I accept it.

One of these days he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as the Press Secretary. And I can assure you I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, job well done."

Among the more fascinating if less significant revelations in Scott McClellan's new book is his discussion of George W. Bush's past use of cocaine. Bush, McClellan now claims, told him he couldn't remember whether or not he used coke. That, of course, is a far cry from the response of Governor Bush offered Americans during the 2000 campaign. And as it turns out, McClellan, too, was telling the public white lies.

This morning, ABC News offered McClellan's recollection of his 1999 talk with Bush, hoping to get their line (so to speak) straight:

Writes McClellan: "'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be? How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

And yet, McClellan concludes, "I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious - political convenience..."

Needless to say, Bush's Gonzales defense against charges of coke (a combination of "I don't recall" and "the dog ate my blow") never became part of the campaign talking points. Instead, Bush and McClellan insisted on refusing to answer the question.

Those refusals during 1999 and 2000 often produced comic results. Challenged about the cocaine rumors during his 1994 Texas gubernatorial race, Bush responded, "''What I did as a kid? I don't think it's relevant." As his campaign against Al Gore heated up, Bush frequently joked, "I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." In August 1999, Bush denied using illegal drugs during the previous 25 years, even resorting to counting on his fingers when asked if he could pass an FBI background check:

"As I understand it, the current (FBI) form asks the question, 'Did somebody use drugs within the last seven years?' and I will be glad to answer that question, and the answer is 'No,'" Bush said in the interview.

At that 1999 same press conference, Bush fumed at what he viewed as a planted question. As the New York Times detailed:

''You know what happens, somebody floats a rumor and it causes you to ask a question,'' Mr. Bush said, interrupting the questioner in a rising voice, a tape recording of the news conference and a transcript provided by Mr. Bush's office showed. ''And that's the game in American politics, and I refuse to play it. That is a game, and you just fell for the trap, and I refuse to play.''

Eventually, the Bush campaign settled on a consistent approach and a new rationale. They would not comment on Bush's alleged past use drug use, explaining that the silence was for the kids. Call it strategic ambiguity.

First debuted in 1998, by 2000 Bush's version of plausible deniability was a standard on the stump:

In October 1998, Mr. Bush told Newsweek magazine that he had declined to itemize his ''irresponsibility'' because he wanted to set a proper example for teen-agers. ''The question is: Have you learned from your behavior?'' Mr. Bush said in the interview. ''The answer is yes. If I were you, I wouldn't tell your kids that you smoked pot unless you want them to smoke pot. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it.'''

Throughout the 2000 campaign, Governor Bush's non-denial assumed the predictable form:

"I've told the people of this country that, over 20 years ago, I made some mistakes when I was younger. I've learned from those mistakes."

Despite his doubts about Bush truthfulness on display in his new book, Scott McClellan then as always faithfully regurgitated the party line. In August 1999, McClellan like Bush was giving in to "political convenience":

Scott McClellan, a Bush campaign spokesman, today characterized the issue as ''baseless allegations and ridiculous rumors.'' But Mr. McClellan added: ''What he may or may not have done in the past is not the question we should be asking. It is, 'Has he learned from his mistakes?' and the answer is yes.''

Ultimately, Scott McClellan told much bigger lies to the American people on subjects more profound than what a young George W. Bush put up his nose. But in answering charges of Bush's cocaine use then, McClellan defended his boss by resorting to the over-arching falsehood, the sham that came to define the American tragedy that has been the Bush presidency:

''What Americans want to know is will he uphold the dignity and honor of the office. He will.''

In what was billed as a major address today on nuclear non-proliferation, John McCain offered the latest installment in the ongoing saga of strategic incoherence that passes for his foreign policy. Just months after calling for a "League of Democracies" and the expulsion of Russia from the G8, McCain today portrayed Russia as an essential partner in the global struggle to contain the spread of nuclear weapons.

Over the past year in multiple speeches and in his November 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, McCain outlined a vision of the world's 100 democracies as like"-minded nations working together in the cause of peace." The organization, which would not include Russia, could act "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval." As the LA Times noted, McCain's League "could use military force as well as economic and diplomatic pressure" in Iran, Darfur and other global hot spots.

As former Bush UN Ambassador John Bolton noted last month, McCain takes a particularly dim view of the prospects for partnership with Russia. McCain, he said approvingly:

"Takes an even harder line than I do. He wants to toss them out of the G-8. He is not about to be pushed around by an assertive Putin."

Which is precisely what so concerned foreign policy realists here at home and America's friends abroad. Despite McCain's claims to the contrary, the Los Angeles Times reports that "European officials were cautious." In April, one senior EU official said McCain's league, with its confrontational stance towards Russia, "can appear as something divisive." Ford and Bush 41 national security adviser Brent Scowcroft wrote "that it was a 'bad idea' to create a new bloc in global affairs that would divide the world 'between the good and the evil.'" As ThinkProgress reported earlier this month, McCain's plan to eject Russia from the G8 wasn't merely dangerous, it was impossible:

The Group of Eight, or G-8, as it's popularly known, makes decisions by consensus, so no single nation can kick out another. Most experts say the six other countries - Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Canada - would never agree to toss Russia, given their close economic ties to their neighbor. A senior U.S. official who deals with Russia policy said that even Moscow would have to approve of its own ouster, given how the G-8 works.

"It's not even a theoretical discussion. It's an impossible discussion," said the senior official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. "It's just a dumb thing."

Alas, that was then, this is now. Fast forward to Tuesday's speech and McCain's plan to boot Medvedev's Russia is nowhere to be found. No doubt eager to both continue his move to the center and try to offset Barack Obama's leadership on the proliferation issue, McCain today decided to go to Russia with love.

McCain's threat to blackball the Russians wasn't merely absent from his speech. The Republican nominee promised close American consultation with Moscow in reducing the nuclear stockpiles of both nations, as well as limiting tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe:

"As our two countries possess the overwhelming majority of the world's nuclear weapons, we have a special responsibility to reduce their number. I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek. Further, we should be able to agree with Russia on binding verification measures based on those currently in effect under the START Agreement, to enhance confidence and transparency. In close consultation with our allies, I would also like to explore ways we and Russia can reduce - and hopefully eliminate - deployments of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. I also believe we should work with Russia to build confidence in our missile defense program, including through such initiatives as the sharing of early warning data and prior notification of missile launches."

And when it comes to Iran and its nuclear program, McCain acknowledged the special role Russia may still have to play in reaching a solution short of American military action:

"Nations that seek nuclear fuel for legitimate civilian purposes will be able to acquire what they need under international supervision. This is one suggestion Russia and others have made to Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranian government has so far rejected this idea. Perhaps with enough outside pressure and encouragement, they can be persuaded to change their minds before it is too late."

This is McCain's second substantial deviation from his previously stated foreign policy vision in the last two months. In April, McCain reversed course on the role of his League of Democracies as a military organization, claiming the group would not use military force and concluding "it does not envision military action." No doubt, John McCain's new-found embrace of Russia will cool the ardor of neo-conservatives such as Charles Krauthammer, who had praised McCain's "hidden agenda" behind his League as having the goal to "essentially kill the U.N."

And so it goes for the supposed maverick John McCain. His tough talk towards Russia of only month ago is replaced by a new commitment to multilateralism that global nuclear non-proliferation - and American politics - require.

Senator John McCain used this Memorial Day to ask Americans to remember others' roles in the calamity that unfolded in Iraq. First proclaiming himself "sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders" in the run up and conduct of the war, McCain then declared of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, "I cannot be complicit in it." But as his words and deeds over five years show, John McCain is not merely complicit in propelling the American invasion and occupation of Iraq; he has been wrong at every turn.

Of course, that McCain record was not on display during his Memorial Day address in Albuquerque on Monday. After first rationalizing his opposition to Jim Webb's (D-VA) new GI Bill, McCain showed selective amnesia in making his case for an ongoing U.S. presence in Iraq:

"As we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to those mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will - and I am sure of this - seriously endanger the security of the country I have served all my adult life...

...Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us. I cannot be complicit in it."

As for his own complicity, Mr. Straight Talk was unsurprisingly silent. From his predictions of a short war and claims U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators to his announcements of mission accomplished and his ongoing confusion over friend and foe in Iraq, McCain's is a record of unbroken error.

Just in case Americans have forgotten, here is a Memorial Day look back at John McCain's sad history on Iraq:

Just days after rejecting the endorsements of his "ministers of war" John Hagee and Rod Parsley, John McCain may be about to confront another faith-based conundrum. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is facing withering criticism from prominent conservatives and evangelical leaders over his Senate probe into the finances of Kenneth Copeland and other so-called "prosperity gospel" televangelists. Republican nominee McCain may have to choose between his party's increasingly disgruntled religious right base and a fellow Republican Senator he once called a "f**king jerk."

As the Washington Post details, the Senate Finance Committee's inquiry to determine whether Copeland and five other televangelists "are improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles" is raising hackles among Christian conservatives. In January, former Arkansas Governor, Baptist minister and now McCain VP hopeful Mike Huckabee stood by Copeland, a supporter who raised - perhaps illegally - over $100,000 for his presidential campaign. Now Copeland and Georgia minister Creflo Dollar are refusing to cooperate further with Grassley's probe.

Alleging bias by the Baptist Grassley against the Pentecostal preachers, Copeland and many familiar faces among the religious right are fighting back. Copeland has launched a web site called Believers Stand United, which claims the Iowa Republican is "publicly questioning the religious beliefs of the targeted churches, their ministers, and their members while ignoring televangelists of other denominations." Copeland went on to liken Grassley, the man John McCain labeled a "f**king jerk," to the devil himself:

"Satan has an agenda. He is looking for a way to drive a wedge and get strife between one another."

Other high profile conservatives are lining up with Copeland. Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich, former Ohio secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell and Anthony Verdugo of the Christian Family Coalition joined other figures in the religious right in sending a letter to the Senate Finance Committee. Their missive claims that ministries were under investigation because they shared "the same branch of evangelicalism" and that Grassley's inquiry infringes the churches' First Amendment rights. Signatory Matthew Staver, dean of the law school at the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, personally attacked Senator Grassley while warning that the probe:

"Sets a terrible precedent that...should be a concern to all houses of worships across the board -- Christian and non-Christian." It may be that Senator Grassley has some kind of personal opinion with regards to the doctrines of these churches."

Doug Wead, an informal adviser to President Bush who also served as a liaison to the evangelical community during his father's presidency, revealed the stakes for John McCain and the GOP:

"You've got a Baptist senator attacking six Pentecostals. The timing is not good for the Republican Party."

The timing is especially dangerous for John McCain. In the wake of McCain's rejection of the Hagee and Parsley endorsements he previously sought, evangelical leaders are increasingly questioning his new-found commitment to people he once deemed "agents of intolerance." Evangelical leader Bishop Harry Jackson complained, "Now folks don't know what he means," adding, "Is he for us or against us?" Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said simply of McCain's faith-based flip-flop on Hagee and Parsley, "this doesn't help."

McCain's running mate search is also sure to shine a spotlight on the controversy. Back in April, Weyrich joined two dozen other conservative activists in signing a letter titled "No Mitt" calling on McCain to reject Mitt Romney as his vice presidential choice. Governor Huckabee, who like Romney has made no secret of his desire for the #2 slot on the ticket, has made it clear he's with Copeland and not Grassley's committee in the controversy ("Why should I stand with them and not with you? They've only got an 11 percent approval rating.").

As Chuck Grassley's probe of Copeland and the other prosperity gospel ministers unfolds, John McCain may well find he's damned if he does and damned if doesn't. If he backs the Senate investigation, McCain may only further raise the ire of his party's hard right as the November election nears. If he sides with Copeland, Weyrich et al, he will be seen as pandering to social conservatives at precisely the time his campaign is running hard to the center.

But in reversing his 2000 position and embracing the religious right he once criticized, the Episcopalian-turned-Baptist McCain brought his upon himself. Asked by the Daily Show's Jon Stewart in 2006 if he was "going to crazy base world," John McCain replied, "I'm afraid so."

You put your right hand in. You put your right hand out...

Like an overexcited kid at a birthday party, John McCain has been doing the political equivalent of the hokey pokey for the past two years. That is, after first running hard to the right to woo conservative primary voters, McCain then veered sharply left since wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination. And as the imbroglios this week over his shifting stands on immigration and embracing the religious right show, John McCain is finally paying a price for it among right-wing Republicans whose party he crashed.

A little history shows why McCain's 360 on immigration reform is producing a firestorm of criticism among the conservative chattering classes. Back in 2003, the Arizona Senator declared, "I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible." Throughout 2005 and 2006, John McCain along with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) led the Senate fight for comprehensive immigration reform combining a guest worker program, new paths to naturalization for current illegal aliens and improved border security. That effort, of course, was ultimately torpedoed by his own party.

It wasn't that defeat, however, but the overwhelming xenophobia of the GOP primary electorate that led McCain to abandon his leadership role - and principles - on immigration. As the Washington Times and Meet the Press detailed, McCain underwent a conversion on the road to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. As the ultra-right Times noted on January 14, 2008:

The Arizona Republican now says that, in the wake of last summer's defeat of "comprehensive immigration reform," he has "gotten the message" that the border must be secured before the status of illegals already in the United States can be dealt with.

The chilly reception McCain's immigration record received among Republican primary voters might just have something to do with his perpetual pledge during the GOP primaries to "secure the borders first."

But that was then, and the general election is now. Desperate to improve his chances among swing state Hispanic voters moving in droves to the Democrats, the supposed maverick John McCain this week reversed course on immigration - again.

At a round table with business leaders in California's Silicon Valley on Thursday, McCain completed his circular journey on the issue. As the New York Times noted:

In yet another sign of his pivoting toward the general election, Senator John McCain said at a roundtable with business leaders here today that comprehensive immigration reform should be a top priority for the next president...

...He added: "I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it's a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don't do it before, and we probably won't, a little straight talk, as of January 2009."

The reaction among the mouthpieces of the right was immediate and vitriolic. The puerile Michelle Malkin fumed, "Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never 'got the message.'" Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins penned a diatribe simply titled, "Why I will no longer support John McCain for President." Over at HotAir, Allahpundit fumed, "You guys think I'm kidding about writing in Hillary." It's no wonder the McCain campaign quickly scrambled to reassure foaming at the mouth right-wing writers that there's "been no change in his stance on immigration."

As with immigration, McCain tacked hard to the right when it came to his just-in-time primary pandering to Christian conservatives. Two years before he shared a San Antonio stage with Texas pastor John Hagee, John McCain in the spring of 2006 sought to jump-start his GOP presidential bid by repairing his frayed relationship with the religious right. On April 2, 2006, McCain appeared on Meet the Press and retracted his famous 2000 claim that the late Reverend Jerry Falwell was an "agent of intolerance." On May 13, 2006, McCain delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. There, the two men walked on stage together, where Falwell then praised his former foe, "the ilk of John McCain is very scarce, very small." That trip to what Jon Stewart deemed "crazy base world" led directly to the backing by ministers John Hagee and Rod Parsley, two endorsements McCain aggressively sought.

But there, too, the demands of the general election led to McCain's strategic retreat towards the center. The GOP nomination in hand, McCain this week dumped his Ministers of War when their shocking statements and End Times visions threatened to turn off independent voters.

As Sarah Posner writes in the American Prospect, key figures on the religious right aren't happy about it. Evangelical leader Bishop Harry Jackson complained:

"He reached out to Hagee and Parsley precisely to bolster his acceptance among evangelicals. Now folks don't know what he means. Is he for us or against us? I think other pastors and religious leaders would be hesitant to endorse McCain. How does he fill this credibility gap that goes back to 2000?...He sought them out in a pandering sort of way, and then he publicly ridiculed them."

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said simply of McCain's faith-based flip-flop on Hagee and Parsley, "this doesn't help."

But that's a strategic risk John McCain seems willing to take. After all, John McCain in his eternal quest for the Republican presidential nomination adopted virtually the entire Bush agenda so beloved by the right. But with his nomination secured, McCain is rapidly running away from his party and his president. (McCain's high-profile outreach on global warming and the environment is another case in point.) The man who in January campaigned as a "true conservative" is now, in the words of his senior adviser Charlie Black, "slightly right of center."

After all, John McCain will do whatever it takes to pin the tail on the donkey in November, even if that means continuing his political hokey pokey dance. As for disgruntled conservative Republicans, they have little choice but, as the saying goes, to dance with who brung you.

Now for a pop quiz. What will the main media story about John McCain be on Tuesday after the long Memorial Day break?

If you guessed John McCain's limited health disclosure, Cindy McCain's limited tax disclosure, or the meaning of the supposed maverick's failed pandering to madmen ministers Hagee and Parsley, you're probably wrong.

By taking a page from the Bush playbook, McCain's Friday document - and pastor - dump virtually guaranteed that Tuesday's tale will the be the gathering of potential VP hopefuls at the Arizona Senator's Sedona estate. Dispensing with all of his bad news and baggage just before the media's Memorial weekend nap, John McCain wants inquiring minds focused on something else next week.

That something is McCain's barbeque and shin dig featuring potential Republican running mates Florida Governor Charlie Crist, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and former Massachusetts Governor and GOP rival Mitt Romney. While senior McCain strategist Charlie Black declared "It's a purely social weekend and has nothing to do with the vice presidential selection process," that is of course exactly what is about.

Which means the press coverage on Tuesday will be a combination of the finals of American Idol and The Bachelor. Is America ready for vice president Jindal, a Hindu turned Catholic young enough to be John McCain's grandson? Will the right-wing whisper campaign about which side of the plate Charlie Crist swings from become a shouting match? Will John McCain bond with Mitt Romney, a man desperate to be his #2 despite having previously attacked McCain over his out-of-control temper? Was former Arkansas Mike Huckabee excluded from the barbeque because his extremist social views would damage John McCain's rapid move the center, or due to his predilection for fried squirrel?

No doubt, McCain needed to change the topic after his week that was. After five lobbyists resigned from the McCain campaign, Mr. Straight Talk's commitment to transparency was called into question. His restricted access to his medical records combined with Mrs. McCain's belated release of her two-page IRS tax summary only served to make matters worse. And after McCain rejected the endorsements of ministers Hagee and Parsley he previously sought, Americans learned that his upcoming Phoenix fundraiser with President Bush had to be moved to a smaller venue due to lagging ticket sales.

But by Tuesday, those stories will likely fade into campaign history. By then, we'll be focused on more pressing headlines, like "Romney or Crist: Who Has Best Veep Hair?"

Just two weeks after insisting she would "never" release her returns, Cindy McCain today reversed course and published a summary of her '06 return. (She has yet to file her 2007 return, having received an IRS extension.) As the Washington Post noted, the beer heiress estimated to be worth over $100 million generated $6 million more in income in 2006:

The returns show that she received a salary of $299,418 in 2006 and interest of about $40,000. She also reported taxable gains of $743,476. But most of her income -- $4,551,901 -- came from a category that includes rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, corporations or trusts. The campaign did not release documents that detail what that money is from.

The two pages of documents are the summary sheets from the 1040 tax form she filled out. It shows that she paid $1,746,445 in federal taxes in 2006.

But while the coverage today did not detail Cindy McCain's contributions to charity, the McCain campaign web site did provide some information:

"In 2006, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $129,390 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation was $64,695. This is 19% of his adjusted gross income."

Which means Cindy McCain gave only about 1% ($64,695 of $6,066,431 in adjusted gross income) to charity in 2006. That figure is less than half the 2.2% of their incomes Americans on average give to charity.

More damning is where the money goes. As Harper's reported in February:

Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to the foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.

Documents released by the campaign show where the John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation distributed its money in 2006. Of the $187,639 in contributions made by the Foundation that year, $50,500 went to the Brophy College Preparatory School, previously attended by their sons Jim and Jack. Another $42,639 went to Christ Lutheran School, where Bridget and Jim once went.

In contrast to the 2% combined charitable giving of the McCains, Barack and Michelle Obama donated 5.7% of their 2007 income to charity. As the New York Times noted, the Clintons have not always met the 5% goal Bill Clinton set for himself.

Two weeks ago, Cindy McCain claimed she would never release her tax returns, even as First Lady. As she told ABC News, "This is a privacy issue." Today, we have better idea as to why.

Update: Several readers have noted that it is not possible to gauge the full scope of Mrs. McCain's charitable contributions based solely on the limited disclosure Friday. Her itemized deductions totaled almost $570,000, of which her giving to charity would be part. Bu without access to her Schedule A form (which she did not release) detailing those contributions, it is not possible to know what she claimed. So, Cindy McCain may well have given more than 1% of her $6 million income to charity in 2006 from separate assets. But without either the release of her full return - or a statement from the McCain campaign - we'll never know.

After repeatedly delaying the release of his medical records, John McCain has a received clean bill of health, at least according to the AP. Given that the McCain campaign provided a tightly restricted pool of reporters only three hours to pore over almost 1200 pages of material covering the past 8 years, reviewers focused almost exclusively on the skin cancer history of the man who routinely proclaims himself "older than dirt."

But those strict time constraints and prohibitions on copying McCain's voluminous records mean that a broad investigation of the 71 year old candidate's health was not possible this morning. Here, then, are five things still to look for in John McCain's medical records:

1. Degeneration of the spine. Since 2000, there have been troubling indications that the supposed maverick now has no backbone. In 2006, McCain acknowledged traveling to "crazy base world" to court Jerry Falwell and other men he once denounced as "agents of intolerance." But having long sought the endorsement of bigoted men like Rod Parsley and John Hagee who advocate Armageddon as foreign policy, McCain yesterday tried to turn tail and run. Other signs include McCain's March 2008 embrace of George W. Bush, a man he told in 2000, "don't give me that sh*t. And take your hands off me."

2. Partial "lobbotomy." McCain's records don't reflect the removal of five lobbyists from the campaign over just the past two weeks. His brain-trust still contains GOP uber-lobbyists Rick Davis and Charlie Black, among a legion of others doing work for foreign bodies. McCain's continued association with these dangerously invasive pathogens can lead to erratic social behavior and a threat to the body politic.

3. Heart problems. Like Vice President Cheney, McCain has displayed worrisome signs of what doctors commonly call "Tin Man Syndrome." Symptoms include McCain's opposition to the expansion of the wildly popular - and successful - State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), denying health coverage to millions more American kids. And yesterday, McCain skipped the vote on a new GI Bill, siding with President Bush against many in his own party to withhold education and other benefits from America's fighting men and women.

4. Inner ear damage. Given his increasingly frequent and severe bouts of flip-flopping, many physicians fret that John McCain has suffered inner ear damage impacting his balance. Since 2000, Mr. Straight Talk has dramatically changed positions on the religious right, the Bush tax cuts, overturning Roe v. Wade, his ideal Supreme Court justices, immigration reform and the foreclosure crisis, just to name a few of the most disturbing episodes. As it turns out, McCain's symptoms grew more pronounced in proximity to Republican primaries.

5. Failing eyesight. Last week, John McCain vowed to "set a new standard for transparency." But after refusing access to his heiress wife Cindy's tax returns and limiting reporters' time with his mountain of medical records, doctors now worry McCain has developed cataracts, cornea damage or other injury to his eyes. What he sees as transparent, all others view as darkness.

Back in 2000, John McCain claimed that by 2008 he would be too old to be President of the United States. "I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers' home," he said, "and await the cavalry charge there." In his defense, McCain's symptoms have little to with his age; they are the same ailments he shares with his political party.

Today, McCain played dumb, claiming ignorance regarding the man whose endorsement he sought and whose Armageddon-accelerating organization (Christians United for Israel) he addressed in 2007:

"Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well. I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today."

Given Pastor Hagee's high profile that includes prominent books and nationally broadcast TV shows, McCain's Sgt. Schultz defense ("I know nothing. Nothing!") and his campaign's claim that the Hagee endorsement was "poorly vetted" are nonsense. The courtship of Hagee was just another element in McCain's strategic reversal towards the religious right, a journey of opportunism to what Jon Stewart in 2006 deemed "crazy base world." Ever since he stood at a podium with John Hagee on February 27th, McCain has been answering questions and offering feeble "unpologies" for Hagee's slanders towards the Catholic Church and the residents of New Orleans.

By severing ties with Hagee today, McCain no doubt hopes to avoid perhaps the most important question raised by his association with the minister: does John McCain agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

Given McCain's shockingly bad judgment in seeking Hagee's support and the obvious dangers of the pastor's view of Iran and Armageddon as foreign policy, today's renunciation should not be the end of the story. Of course, in all likelihood, the American media will declare that it will be.

Which still leaves the man John McCain described as his "spiritual guide," the Reverend Rod Parsley...

When it comes to Pastor John Hagee, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have a lot in common. Both men addressed the 2007 convention of Hagee's organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI). McCain and Lieberman each voiced support for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. But while John McCain aggressively sought Hagee's endorsement, only Joe Lieberman compared the Texas pastor to Moses.

"He is a Ish Elokim, a man of God and those words really fit him...like Moses he's become a leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land."

Unfortunately for Joe Lieberman, it now turns out that John Hagee had in mind another modern-day Moses: Adolf Hitler. Hitler, Hagee tells us, was sent by God to deliver the Jews to Israel.

"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

For Hagee, of course, the return of the Jews to Israel is a biblical necessity, a requirement for the Second Coming of Christ and the final battle of Armageddon with, you guessed it, Iran:

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West...a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."

Then and then only then, can the Jews be converted - or massacred - in what Keith Olbermann described as "biblical collateral damage."

As part of his cynical effort to court the religious right, John McCain aggressively sought Pastor Hagee's endorsement. And to date, Mr. Straight Talk has yet to answer the question: does John McCain agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy? (The questions about McCain "spiritual guide" Rod Parsley also remained unanswered.)

But Joe Lieberman's embrace of Hagee seems more heartfelt and less opportunistic than McCain's. Only last week, Lieberman said Hagee "represents a lot of people in this country, particularly Christians who care about the state of Israel."

Of course, two weeks ago Lieberman also vouched for McCain's fitness, mental and otherwise:

"I just want to report that this morning I personally checked John McCain's bearings. He has not lost any of them. They are all in really great shape."

That may or not be the case, but increasingly it appears that it is Joe Lieberman who has lost his bearings. No doubt, generations of political science, history - and psychology - graduate students yet unborn will author dissertations asking of Al Gore's 2000 running mate, "what happened to Joe Lieberman?" As Lieberman said last week in response to that same question posed about Al Gore, "damned if I know."

In the meantime, Joe Lieberman himself can answer the simple yes/no question: do you still believe John Hagee is Moses?

Two surveys in the past week show the Republicans' dilemma. First, a new Rasmussen poll revealed that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on each and every one of the 10 issues measured. Democrats enjoy double-digit advantages on the economy (50%-36%), government ethics (45%-26%), health care (54%-33%), Social Security (49%-36%), education (50%-35%), Iraq (50%-39%) and immigration (45%-35%). The GOP lags by smaller margins on national security, taxes and abortion.

Meanwhile, an ABC News/Washington Post poll similarly reflects the devastating impact for the GOP of Americans' record-setting disapproval for President Bush and the direction of the country. With 82% of respondents now believing the U.S. has gone off the rails, Democrats built a massive 21 point cushion (53%-32%) as the party Americans trust to "do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years."

Those lopsided results are consistent with an April poll from Rasmussen which found that "election 2008 is creating record numbers of Democrats." The results showed a 10-point Democratic advantage in party identification (41.4% to 31.4%), almost double the margin one year earlier. That delta is unprecedented:

"In fact, the Democrats now have the largest partisan advantage over the Republicans since Rasmussen Reports began tracking this data on a monthly basis nearly six years ago."

The calculus is simple. If Americans vote the issues, Republicans lose. Which is why character matters more than policy to the Republican faithful.

In early May, yet another Rasmussen survey showed that by a 52% to 36% margin, Americans contend that a candidate's policies on the issues matter more than his or her character. Unsurprisingly, given Americans' clear support for Democratic positions and priorities, Republicans instead responded that character counts most.

The Rasmussen findings show a sharp partisan cleavage over the importance of candidate's policies versus character. By a two-to-one margin, Democrats said policy positions matter most. But Republican respondents argued the reverse, with character trumping issues by 49% to 43%. Among independents, policy proposals rank as more important, by 49% to 32%. As a result, the Rasmussen poll like the later ABC/WaPo survey showed a dramatic advantage for the Democratic Party in a generic presidential match-up:

"The survey found that 48% of the nation's adults are inclined to vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate while 34% prefer a Republican."

Which is precisely why the Republican Party cannot let the 2008 election be about the issues.

As Rasmussen suggests, thus far the GOP has been very successful in converting the White House race into a personality contest in which the supposed maverick John McCain is amazingly competitive at a time of almost universal disdain for his party and its policies:

"In fact, one of the most significant stories so far in Election 2008 is the way that John McCain significantly outperforms the Republican brand. On a series of key issues, the Democrats are trusted more than the GOP but McCain is trusted more than either Democrat."

As I noted recently, John McCain has been the beneficiary of both the bitter (and endless) Democratic race and the seeming imperviousness of the media's McCain maverick myth. For example, on the economy, Americans prefer Democrats over Republicans by 48% to 40%. Yet in head-to-head matchups, voters say they trust John McCain over both Hillary Clinton (47% to 42%) and Barack Obama (46% to 39%). Despite John McCain's repeated admissions that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," right now Americans trust him more than his Democratic rivals on the issue they consider most important in 2008. On Iraq, national security and taxes as well, McCain is also seen as more trustworthy. Even with the albatross of a disrespected Republican president and a discredited GOP brand, John McCain may be winning the character war.

Sadly, we've been here before. The 2000 and 2004 exit polls clearly show the Republican Party succeeded both in portraying the presidential contest as being about character and in defining the accepted media narrative for candidates Bush, Gore and Kerry. Eight years ago, 24% of voters claimed being "honest/trustworthy" was the quality that mattered most; among them, George W. Bush trounced Al Gore by 80% to 15%. In 2004, Bush walloped the supposed flip-flopper John Kerry by 70% to 29% among those claiming honesty was the most important presidential attribute. Among those wanting a "strong leader," Bush swamped Kerry by a staggering 75 points.

In his 2007 book The Big Con, Jonathan Chait described how Republicans consistently win elections despite almost universal disdain for their policies among the American people. In a nutshell, Chait argues that Republicans must convert elections into contests of character because they simply can't win on issues. While their man, be it George W. Bush or John McCain, is the "authentic" guy you'd "like to have a beer with," the GOP drives the media conventional wisdom that paints the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry and now Barack Obama as effete, out-of-touch elitists whose positions change with the wind:

"Media outlets functionally affiliated with the Republican Party have been able to create news that makes its way into the nonpartisan media. It is a kind of machine that manufactures images of character.

The Republicans' seminal insight was that the random process by which small events come to wield great symbolic insight into the character of presidential candidates didn't have to be random. It was possible to prime the pump, in a way." (p.169)

The data is clear. If the election is about the economy, health care and Iraq, John McCain cannot become the 44th president. Only if the GOP succeeds once again in transforming the race into a media medley about lapel pins, angry ministers and Muslim-sounding middle names can the Republicans hope to maintain their hold on the White House.

The right-wing media machine is already hard at work on producing the 2008 version of the character gap. The supposed elitism of Barack Obama (and not the perpetually out-of-touch John McCain) has already emerged as an indispensable, if demonstrably false, conservative story line. In Monday's New York Times, Bill Kristol extolled McCain's "exceptionalism." Meanwhile, uber lobbyist and McCain senior adviser Charlie Black now labels his man "slightly right of center" after just weeks ago airing a McCain television spot titled, "True Conservative." No doubt, McCain's move to the center and away from his president and his party is well underway.

All the more reason why the Democratic Party needs to move beyond its interminable nominating process and begin the demolition of John McCain's maverick myth. To win the war for the White House, Democrats need to win the battles for Americans' hearts - and minds.

(This piece originally appeared on Crooks and Liars.)

On Monday, the Republicans' campaign of appeasement smears against Barack Obama went from the sublime to the ridiculous. In an amazing if predictable display of chutzpah, Fox News commentator and Iran-Contra mastermind Oliver North rushed to John McCain's defense over the GOP nominee's spurious charges regarding talks with Iran. Of course, he was only repaying McCain the favor.

Back in 1986 and 1987, as the New York Times noted, John McCain "defended Ronald Reagan during the Iran-contra inquiry." As a