The Weekly Standard Walk-back

When Weekly Standard blogger Michael Goldfarb was mocked last December for making a far-fetched claim about the White House threatening to close an Air Force base in order to secure Ben Nelson's support for health care reform, Goldfarb quickly began walking back his claim, then abruptly stopped talking about it altogether.

So when I saw Weekly Standard writer John McCormack's baseless suggestion that the White House nominated Rep. Jim Matheson's brother for a judgeship in order to win Matheson's support for health care reform, it looked like history was repeating itself.

And sure enough, McCormack promptly began walking back his claim, telling Fox News viewers the next day there “probably” wasn't an “explicit” quid pro quo. The day after that, McCormack wrote that the “most likely” scenario was that “White House officials simply hoped that if they scratched Matheson's back with the nomination, he would scratch theirs with a vote for the health care bill.” Then McCormack went silent on the matter.

So, here's how this played out:

March 3: McCormack writes “Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?” and “Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?”

March 4: McCormack admits there was “probably not” an “explicit quid pro quo.”

March 5: McCormack writes that the most likely explanation is that the White House simply “hoped” Matheson would vote for health care reform.

March 6 - Present: Silence.

Now, ideally, the Weekly Standard wouldn't run around peddling baseless conspiracy theories in the first place. But since they do, it's good to know they've perfected The Weekly Standard Walk-back.

And I'm willing to meet them halfway, by acknowledging that they probably don't subsidize their magazine publishing by selling intravenous drugs to six-year-olds.