I’ve long thought that Marco Rubio would make a strong G.O.P. candidate for president. While he was brought into office by surfing on the Tea Party wave, he has proven himself not to be wedded to the frequent lunacy of those folks. Moreover, love him or hate him, there’s no doubt that he has just as much affection for governing as he does for politicking—a mix sorely missing in much of the G.O.P. bench these days.

Now, if only he would learn to be quiet when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

On the heels of reports that the Justice Department had subpoenaed e-mails from a James Rosen, a reporter with Fox News, Rubio came out with a statement accusing the Obama administration of harassing journalists “they deem unfriendly” to the White House. Now, never mind that Rubio seems to be saying that Fox reports are unfriendly to Obama (that’s a no-no that contradicts the “Fair and Balanced” meme). The worst thing is pretending that this was a targeted attack on a reporter who had undertaken a mission against the White House. Rosen did his job and did it well; sweeping him up into partisan hackery is a disservice to his role as a journalist.

The real story is contained in the F.B.I.’s affidavit in support of the search warrant, filed in May 2010 at Federal Court for the District of Columbia. Reading the document makes clear that this was no targeting of a reporter who was after the administration but a legitimate national-security investigation.

I’ll get into the details in a minute. First, a side trip.

Yes, I think it’s wrong for the government to subpoena records from journalists involved in national-security reporting (particularly since I do it myself). I do believe it has a chilling effect on the ability to gather news about potential abuses masked by inappropriate classification. And most reporters don’t disclose things that should remain secret—like the names of undercover C.I.A. agents (see Bush administration: Valerie Plame), war plans, or locations of troops. And I know for a fact that if government officials ask that a story not run on national-security grounds, good news organizations always hear them out and sometimes agree.

And I was delighted to see that, finally, Republicans are starting to agree with me. Take Rubio’s own statement on the Fox controversy, where he states:

National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government—not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy.

Thank you, Marco! And welcome to the side of the journalists! I promise, now that there is a high-level government official proclaiming that, yes, media organizations should not be the focus of such investigations because of Constitutional protections, Rubio’s statement is going to be used from now until forever in every case involving investigations of journalists that print leaked information.