With phony outrage pundits continually denouncing John McCain as the “media’s choice” in the election, it seems all McCain needed was a hit-job story to get his campaign rolling again. Especially for the base that left him in the dust and already began working on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential run.

As we are all well aware, on Wednesday night, the New York Times put up a story on their website insinuating John McCain had an improper relationship with a Washington lobbyist.

In Ann Coulter’s column this morning, likely written before the story broke, she describes the presidential race as the choice between, “hemlock, self-immolation or the traditional gun in the mouth.” She goes on to say, “How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate for president?”

Now, normally I wouldn’t go and quote Ann Coulter in anything I write, as I believe she is an entertainer, but people take her seriously in several political circles, and her next column will speak volumes about the right’s self-pity.

What’s the worse of two evils for phony outrage pundits: A moderate Republican or a liberal newspaper?

Hannity and Limbaugh have already okayed McCain as the Republican candidate after Limbaugh said the senator would “destroy the Republican party.” The reasons are mostly unknown, but it may have to do with the fact that McCain is now flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts and his own immigration reform plan.

(That’s what I want in a president – someone who denies his own legislation to get liars and racists on his side.)

The Times piece will undoubtedly get the base fired up for McCain, even if he’s now the “revenge candidate.”

This morning I was listening to Laura Ingraham on my way to work and she called the Times story, to paraphrase, what the conservative base needs to get back on track. It’s just a news story, but for conservatives who pretend to get angry for ratings, it’s personal.

For it’s the New York Times that publishes the editorials of Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, and the detestable Frank Rich. It was the New York Times that published Ambassador Wilson’s pre-war investigative editorial, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” It’s the New York Times that is their greatest example of the “liberal media elite.” It’s where they get all their “the media hates us” self-pity. It’s how they can sound as smart as a fifth grader, saying, “Fox News is liberal, just not as liberal.”

The Times has supposedly been sitting on this piece since late last year, when McCain met with Times editor Bill Keller. That in itself could be the ring that cracked the Liberty Bell. In conservatives' minds, the Times doesn't do anything for news purposes. They only act out of their own political bias.

If allegations turn out to be true, and McCain had an affair eight years ago, it won’t matter. (Why is anyone ever shocked about political infidelity? These people are, by definition, rich, famous, and powerful. Isn’t that what girls like?) The right doesn’t care about infidelity or amorality unless it supports them politically.

Larry Craig is still in the senate. Rush Limbaugh still has 10 million listeners. Bill O'Reilly is trusted to talk about values. Newt Gingrich, had an affair during the Lewinsky scandal. Pat Robertson endorsed the presidential pursuit of Rudy Giuliani, a thrice-married abortionist whose own kids hate him.

But, of course everyone knows Pat Robertson is out there talking to God for the money it brings in. This is a guy who had more ties to al Qaeda, through a business partner harboring terrorists in Liberia and owning stake in a gold mine, than Saddam Hussein did.

Though, I’m sure he’s going to come out for McCain now. And McCain will embrace him. They have a common enemy – not terrorists, corporatists and lobbyists – The Times and the Democrats.

Wait for the right’s response over the next couple days. The hypocritics and pundopartisans are going to be speaking every which way, throwing out ideas left and right, you might come to believe Valerie Plame was the CIA's secretary.