On The Weekly Standard's embarrassing coverage of the Santorum-Casey race, I'd posit that their mindless repetition of flack talking points actually has a purpose to it. A lot of folks, looking at Casey's massive lead, lack of personal magnetism, and apparent weakness as a campaigner, think his strength is overstated. Many think Santorum's comeback will be the upset of the 2006 election. The Weekly Standard, clearly being of that view, wanted to get their prescient, pro-Santorum article on the record. Problem was, they couldn't actually identify any trends, factors, constituencies, events, or forces that were distorting the race, so they had a hunch but no hook. Unwilling to give up on the article, though, they just populated it with hired guns whose job it was to downgrade Casey. It's an embarrassing piece of journalism, but it shouldn't be -- it's not really a piece of journalism. Think of it more as a longshot bet the mag is hoping will pay out a reputation for prescience at 50:1 odds.
