Issue 1 is George W. Bush's big win in the South Carolina primary.

It's a black weekend for John McCain. Every pundit show trots out the decisive numbers from Saturday's primary: Not only did Bush beat McCain by over 10 points, but he won nearly 2-1 among Christian conservatives, Republicans, and pro-lifers. He also won among women and youth, and even won half the veterans' vote. A few talking heads, such as George Stephanopoulos (ABC's This Week), point out that McCain won a majority of GOP voters excluding the Christian right. But Stephanopoulos' colleague, George F. Will, notes that for a Republican to win the presidency he must win the South, and winning the South requires winning the evangelical vote, which McCain clearly cannot do.

Many pundits--such as Brit Hume ( Fox News Sunday) and George F. Will--berate McCain for his bitter, defiant concession speech Saturday night. (Will calls it a "tantrum.") As if to burnish this abrasive image, John McCain tells Tim Russert (NBC's Meet the Press) that Bush has been lying like--that's right--Bill Clinton. But several pundits--such as Steve Roberts (CNN's Late Edition), Mark Shields (CNN's Capital Gang), Bill Kristol (CBS's Face the Nation), and Tucker Carlson (LE)--rise to McCain's defense, calling Bush's South Carolina campaign dirty and "cutthroat conservative" rather than "compassionate conservative" (Kristol). At any rate, notes Eleanor Clift ( The McLaughlin Group), the conventional wisdom about primaries has been reversed: Just last week pundits were pronouncing the death of negative ads, state political machines, and the Christian right. Now they are the three pillars of Bush's political resuscitation.

The day before the primary, Paul Gigot and Mark Shields (both of PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer) argued that South Carolina was a must-win for Bush but not for McCain. But now that Bush has revived his campaign and McCain has lost, nearly everyone agrees that McCain is toast if he doesn't win Michigan on Tuesday. ("We're in sudden-death overtime, and I think that McCain has no illusions about it," says Carlson.) What are the senator's chances? Karen Tumulty (FNS) calls Michigan a "mirror image" of South Carolina, with few evangelicals and lots of Catholics (who may be offended by Bush's visit to the anti-Catholic Bob Jones University). But Al Hunt (CG) points out that Gov. John Engler is Catholic, pro-life, very popular--and a Bush ally.

In the long term, several pundits see peril for Bush. Susan Page and Tucker Carlson (both LE) note that the governor will have trouble veering back to the center for the general election. Brit Hume, Juan Williams, and Karen Tumulty (each of FNS) argue that his large tax-cut proposal won't play well in the general election.


A Tale of Two Questions

The media may be guilty of swooning for John McCain, but Tim Russert is not among the idolators. Exhibit A is Russert's hour-long grilling of McCain on Sunday--an interrogation that was just as hard-hitting as his hourlong interrogation of Bush last week. Russert asked several identical questions of each candidate. Comparing the candidate's answers to two of these is instructive. One of these identical questions concerns gays in the military. How, Russert asks, will the U.S. and our European allies perform joint military exercises now that all of our allies allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly? Wouldn't any joint operations undermine the "unit cohesion" of American forces? Here is Bush's brush-off:

Interesting angle. I haven't thought of that. That's a very interesting way to look at it. I'm not changing my position, though. I support what Colin Powell put in place. What's best for America is what I'm thinking about. What's best for morale and our troops. We can figure out how to deal with joint exercises if we ever have any. But what's best for the American military is that policy which was developed by generals like Colin Powell, of "Don't ask, don't tell." I adhere to the policy. It's an important policy and it needs to stay in place.

This is classic Dubya. His idea of an effective response is to zero in on the questioner's tactics (hey, you're trying to get me to change my position!) and then to profess his own moral virtue (because I have our troops' best interests at heart, my position cannot possibly be wrong). Conversely, this question plays to McCain's strengths--in this case, an intricate knowledge of the military command structure and a willingness to listen to advice from people he trusts:

[No, b]ecause [the allied countries] don't totally integrate their armed forces. And I don't want the United States military to be anything like any of those [nation's militaries]--even the Israeli military. We have the best military in the world, that's why they call on us at every turn. And when people like Gen. Colin Powell and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and many other military people I respect--including the NCOs--tell me that they can [change the policy and also] maintain unit cohesion, I would be glad to review the policy.

But Russert asked another identical question both weeks: What's your take on the new Russian president, Vladimir Putin? This elicited a thoughtful, conciliatory response from Bush: