The Art of the Scorecard

"Bucking a ritual for Republican presidential candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Senator John McCain announced Wednesday that they would skip participation in what has been a significant early test of candidate strength, the straw poll in Ames, Iowa, this summer," reports the NYT (along with many others).

"Their decision was the clearest indication of how much the changing primary calendar is upending presidential politics this year, as candidates grapple with the prospect of huge primaries in crucial states like Florida on Jan. 29 and California, New York and Texas a week later."

Praise the heavens! The Iowa straw poll is one of the most heavily hyped, media-created non-events on the planet, and now we can all ignore it. Rudy bailed first, and McCain was happy to follow him nanoseconds later.

The odds against Newt running are now 4 to 1. According to Newt, who I figure is a well-placed source.

To pardon or not to pardon?

"The fate of convicted former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby has thrown a twist into the race for the Republican presidential nomination, forcing candidates to make an awkward choice between loyalty to a party stalwart and the GOP's long-held reverence for the rule of law," says the L.A. Times.

During Tuesday's debate, "Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, unleashing a fiery soliloquy, called Libby's sentence an "excessive punishment" and said U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's order 'argues more in favor of a pardon.'

"Pressure also is coming from likely candidate Fred D. Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who said in a TV appearance that if he were president, he would 'absolutely' pardon Libby because the former aide was the victim of a 'gross injustice.' Thompson sits on the advisory board of Libby's defense fund.

"Revealing a rift in the GOP field, former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore has flatly opposed pardoning Libby, arguing that doing so would undermine public confidence in the justice system."

At CBS's Public Eye, Matthew Felling suggests the host of "Countdown" may be getting too conspiratorial:

"Keith Olbermann has developed a reputation -- he's earned media capital, if you will -- by raising serious questions about the political climate in America. But Tuesday night, he squandered a bit of that account in a 16-minute segment in which he attempted to make the case that the JFK terror plot was little more than a cleverly-timed political ploy by the Bush administration. The segment went through chapter and verse of how curious the timing has been of many Bush terror alert announcements and arrests -- how they frequently seem to follow, and swallow, news that isn't friendly to the White House.

"There has been rampant discussion of the consistencies of these coincidences in the media over the years. It's a concern. But Olbermann stretched that concern to a very thin and tenuous extent last night. His point? That Saturday's press conference announcing the JFK terror plot occurred the day before the Democratic debate to take away from its impact. Also, that the arrests were announced by a Bush-appointed US Attorney amid the current scandal surrounding the apparently politically-motivated firings of US Attorneys. And -- hold on to your seats -- also present was the New York City Chief of Police . . . the father of a Fox News Correspondent! . . .

"Hammering away at things that aren't there -- or barely there -- is a surefire way to dilute your message."

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough defends himself for asking whether Fred Thompson's wife "worked the pole" -- he insists he's talking about some exercise regime, not stripping -- but Palmetto Scoop says he's making things worse.

The New Republic praises the aggressive David Gregory as a real-life Stephen Colbert.

In declaring that a Murdoch takeover would be fine by them -- they already have a Fox News show -- the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal takes a swipe at another media mogul:

"Everyone knows that the influence of Times Publisher and CEO Arthur Sulzberger Jr. extends to selecting not merely the editorial page editor but columnists, political endorsements and, as far as we can tell, even news coverage priorities. We don't see how this differs from most of what Mr. Murdoch is accused of doing with his newspapers. The same lack of independence also applies to most non-family media companies such as Gannett, a newspaper owner whose make-no-waves corporate ethic turns nearly all of its editorial pages into mush."

Here's the difference: Sulzberger, like all publishers, is supposed to be involved with the editorial page, columnists and endorsements. But I've never heard of him interfering with the news coverage, unlike the many documented examples involving Rupert. If the Journal editorialists have evidence that Arthur did meddle in the newsroom, they should present it.

One Journal columnist, Holman Jenkins Jr., wouldn't mind being bought by The Washington Post. Uh, not gonna happen.