Did you catch last night's interview of Mitt Romney by Sean Hannity on the Fox News channel?

Amiable, forgiving, congenial, gracious and wise as ever, Mitt looked tanned and rested. Anyone who might think he holds a grudge or any animosity towards John McCain or his other rivals would be dead wrong. Romney gave McCain several plugs last night, even when the questions weren't specifically aimed for such an answer.

Personally, the only guy I could see who you would want more in your corner than a guy who will brush off the rough and tumble of politics like Romney, is someone like him, who has more money. Frankly, I don't know who that is.

Hannity asked him about his own aspirations to run again, and Romney did not say, oh sure, I'll do it again. It sort of sounded like, though he didn't say it, that eight years from now would be too late for him. Interesting, too, since most of us isn't giving the next president, even McCain, more than four years. Romney isn't power hungry. He wasn't in it because he's the best thing to happen since slice bread. He's smart, he's competent, he's pragmatic, and he knows it. Such people are willing to recognize they might not be the answer eight years from now. For them, their time is now.

Then, too, the thought of gearing up for another grueling campaign might not be so appealing. Remember, since 1999, when he took over the 2002 Winter Olympics, he's been basically in the spotlight. That's nearly nine years of public life. Most of what he did before that was working behind the scenes.

That's why the possibility of him being asked to balance the ticket with McCain as the vice-presidential nominee is quite appealing. Michael Medved likes the idea, and so does Fred Barnes. I've known Romney would have no problem accepting the invitation. He doesn't hold grudges, and he's worked in team settings before where he wasn't always the head guy. He'll take the lead in his department or jurisdiction, even if he can't make all of the decisions. And a go-getter like Romney would be good for McCain, who wants to be a maverick and a conviction guy, rather than a number crunching guy. It would also give him an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and bring on the consummate manager.

While some presidents have turned their vice presidents loose to do real work, most are too egotistical to do so. Many times, VPs are there to balance and add appeal to the ticket, more than they are the personal choice of the presidential nominee. So, while we could only dream that Romney would be turned loose to oversee a department by department review of the federal government, resulting in major consolidations or eliminations of said departments, there's just as good a chance it wouldn't happen because McCain wouldn't be that passionate about it.

But, it would make a Romney presidential run in 2012 or 2016 more of reality than it would be otherwise. Vice Presidents have much more clout, much more of the political machine behind them, particularly if they're viewed as competent. Without having to fight another bruising primary against others, Romney could focus on a national campaign much earlier and be rested and prepared to take on whoever the liberals next rising star might be.

However, I don't hold out the same hope as others, who just make the case for Romney even if they don't believe it will happen, simply because I think McCain is more about giving the spoils to those who are loyal to him, the ones who have been there from the start, than he is like Romney, who, beholden to none, would bring in no-names or lesser knowns, not because he owed them, but because they could do the job.

So, we can all dream about McCain-Romney. I can hope against hope that I'm wrong. But if it doesn't go to someone McCain likes, someone who McCain trusts implicitly, I'll be very, very surprised.

So, the Republicans have a nominee that conservatives don't trust and Democrats are still fighting over the two they love the most.

Wasn't it just a little over two months ago that we were wondering if, and kind of hoping, that the Republicans would have a brokered convention? What a civics lesson it would be! Fast forward to present day, it's the first week of March, and the Republicans have their nominee--probably the fastest nomination ever thanks to an accelerated schedule.

And the Democrats. The lovefest continues. And it's likely to continue for a long time, considering how weeks now seem like months and months seem like years. The next primary in Pennsylvania doesn't happen until April or something, and then you have some that don't vote until May.

Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have enough delegates to reach the magic number any sooner than May, probably.

So, in the meantime, the media attention continues on Clinton and Obama--and given the kind of coverage they've been getting, by the media or form each other, all kinds of things could come out between now and there being a definitive nominee.

And, there's always a chance it will go to the convention. And even if it doesn't, it's bound to be interesting there because both of them are going to have a bunch of delegates that won't just be handed over lightly.

Plus there's the superdelegates, the possible seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates, which may or may not mean a second ballot in those two states and who's going to pay for a revote?

It takes a lot of energy just to go out and vote once. What's it going to take to get people out to another one?

Meanwhile, John McCain can lie low and avoid a lot of bad press. The argument can be made that he probably should have some press, any press, so that people don't forget him, but then, both Clinton and Obama have to invoke his name in order to make them look like they're fighting him, rather than each other, so he's not going to totally disappear from the public eye.

Besides, since he is the nominee, he could be doing some behind the scenes work now, to come up with a running mate and maybe a more concrete economic policy and maybe find someway to placate us rascally conservatives.

So, buckle up and enjoy the ride.

I own two small weekly newspapers in neighboring rural towns. For the last 10 years, stories of all kinds have been written and published in them, ranging from the mundane to the controversial. Granted, in small towns, we're typically not talking about huge stories like the improprieties of a presidential candidate, but for the residents who live there, stories like this are no small thing.

Since I don't consider us to be a part of the liberal media, being as accurate, fair and sourced as possible is something we attempt to do. I think, by and large, we succeed, but there are times where we don't.

However, if a story on the level of the one printed in the New York Times about Republican presidential presumptive nominee John McCain came into our office, and we couldn't get anyone to talk on the record, and if we couldn't provide evidence either way, we wouldn't run the story. I can't say we've had any story to date regarding a public official having an affair in our towns, but we've had any number of complaints about what bodies of government, like the City Council, or City employees are doing or not doing, which could rival such a story, relatively speaking.

None of those stories have ever been written, let alone published, in our papers.

Alleged this and that works if there is a police report and enough evidence to file it. It doesn't work if an anonymous source says they think there may have possibly been an issue.

Libel laws do protect print media, and from my perspective, of course, it is warranted. We have, now and then, called into question the character of citizens through stories we've ran. In a couple of cases, we were taken to task and found it appropriate to write retractions, or at the very least, we offered an open forum for the person involved to rebut or offer more information over what we ran before it.

It is not an exact science, to be sure, but always we've attributed quotes or opinions to those who say it. We've battled to keep our own viewpoints out of stories, leaving them for editorials, letters to the editor or columns. Again, I don't know if we've been perfect at it, but we've kept to the rules of journalism as we know them, and if we've erred, we've done so out of ignorance rather than malicious intent.

There's been plenty of analysis about why the New York Times would run such a story. Much of it has to do with creating an image of McCain, false as it may be, in the public eye ahead of the general election. It also could be the New Republic story that would cast the NYT newsroom in a bad light. Personally, I find it all unfathomable.

Any newspaper, let alone a prestigious one, regardless of the political bent of their owners, publishers, editors or reporters, has a solemn obligation to report the news as it is, as it happens, untarnished and unspun. The mainstream media has been progressively getting away from such reporting. They like to tell us what to think, and support it with information they want us to hear, instead of letting those involved hang or vindicate themselves with their own words.

While there is plenty to point fingers at the MSM about, there is a general laziness amidst the citizenry, too, which allows this kind of thing to happen. There is a tabloid kind of mentality existing in our society, which is why sensationalism sells. So, as much as I would like to completely blame it on the MSM, the public has some blame to bear in this.

As we know from the recent hearings into the Roger Clemens controversy, Congress doesn't need much to get involved. They tend to go after things where they feel they have backing. While conservatives may jest that Congress has nothing better to do but waste their time with drugs in baseball, there are people who idolize these players and are completely let down when they fall from their pedestals. And then, of course, there are those who live to see our heroes, any hero, fall.

How that ever became news, is beyond me. If Clemens were making life and death decisions involving millions, then whether or not he was taking illicit drugs to enhance the carrying out of those duties would be big news and worthy of an investigation at the highest level. Short of that, it can only be considered salacious and a waste of taxpayer money. Let pro baseball take care of it. If fans are outraged, they can quit going to games or watching it on TV until players, managers, owners and baseball commissioners get the hint.

I've seen a couple of articles where it is surmised that McCain might actually benefit from this story. That it might actually make him bulletproof. I concur. If this is the worst skeleton that left-leaning reporters can dig up on him, then his integrity is safe. He's had enough of a fight with conservatives within his own party just to get out of the primary. They've done a great job of vetting him. While the election to date has been more about style than substance, the general will shift, and McCain, fortunately, has plenty he can go on the attack with, be it Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton.

If there is any more to the story, then we will undoubtedly hear it. If not, it will fade as the crush of stories from the election continue to unfold, and the only one hurt will be the New York Times.