The Columbus Dispatch has an interview with John McCain yesterday, in the course of which he doubled down on his bet that the only thing he has to say is smear itself:

I will repeat my statement again, that [Obama] would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign.

Credit where credit is due: The reporters pressed the point. (Next week, will anyone remember that McCain has in an instant turned half of America into surrender monkeys?) Still, too many reporters remain entranced by what they take to be the incontrovertible success of the surge, viz. Katy Couric, premising a line of questions to Obama on a claim of success that she did not question. ("You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, 'Why?') Even the Dispatch reporters, stuck in the lastest news and too hasty for memory to catch up, failed to put it to McCain that he crowed about the great promise of "rogue-state rollback" and American troops are still fighting more than five years on. That's "history."

In the meantime, McCain uttered uncontested drivel:

I know how to win wars. I know how to win them.

How does he know? Which war did he win? Vietnam? Personal courage didn't win it. Nothing did.

Finally, one of the Dispatchers said:

Q: I wanted to know how we pay for it.

A: We pay for it by a great sacrifice on the part of Americans.

Next unasked question awaiting another interviewer in another town: Senator, Given the size of her fortune and the tax-cut benefits that have accrued to the tiny percentage of Americans in her tax bracket, how much of a sacrifice has your wife made?