I've written about how David Brooks gets it.  Well, his colleague at the WAPO doesn't.

In an OP ED posted today at the WAPO,  Michael Gerson argues that McCain is the true "moderate" because he's bucked his party on substantive issues in the past.  On its face, this seems like a fair point, but I would argue that the measure of one's "moderation"--depending on what you mean by that word-- is not limited to this manufactured metric.  I applaud McCain when he advocates "moderate" views.  For instance, he once challenged Bush on torture.  This was evidence, according to the likes of Gerson, that McCain is a "moderate" since he was kicking the goads, so to speak.  Now, not so much, since McCain has moved closer to Bush on the issue.

I applaud McCain when he advocates for a sympathetic "moderate" view on immigration.   This obviously angered the base of his party.  Now, not so much, since McCain would, as President, veto his own immigration bill.

I applaud McCain on his previous campaign finance positions.  These were fairly moderate in tone and he achieved bi-partisan consensus.  Now, not so much as we see how he cleverly exploits loopholes in his own campaign finance legislation, like using his wife's plane for campaign events at discounted rates.  Or his gaming of the public financing system.

What, pray tell, does Obama have to "support", in Gerson's mind, to break this party orthodoxy metric to establish his "moderate" bona fides?  Gerson alludes to Obama's support of "partial birth" abortion as a possiblity.  However, Obama has taken a pragmatic approach and made clear that he would support banning the procedure if it had sufficient safeguards for the health of the mother.  The legislation in question didn't.  I don't think Obama bucking his party to support legislation that didn't adequately protect the health of the mother as an appropriate jumping off point to be considered a "moderate", although Gerson disagrees.

Gerson points to Obama's opposition to John Roberts as missed opportunity to flex his "moderate" muscles, but that is hardly a policy issue, per se, rather then a concern about the temperment of a Chief Justice who will sit on the court for a lifetime.

All in all, Gerson's article is weakly argued and based on  false assumptions.  What he does demonstrate is how out of touch many republican party positions are that require a "moderate" John McCain to push back on.  This doesn't indicate "moderation" on the part of McCain, but common sense.  However, as time has shown, McCain has sacrificed his common sense for the GOP nomination. 

Barack Obama is the true moderate in this race.  He's advocating a sound energy policy.  His economic policies are fair, pragmatic, and timely.  His health care plan is comprehensive.  His approach to terrorism and the war in Iraq will make us safer. 

Michael Gerson simply doesn't get it.