On the Meet the Press roundtable today, it is surprising how well David Broder captures the Washington beltway conventional wisdom on the NSA wiretapping “scandal.”

Roger Simon makes the obvious point that seems to have escaped many on the left when they rushed to immediately turn the NSA program into some kind of Nixonian illegality.

MR. SIMON:  Unlike past administrations, notably the Nixon administration, there’s no evidence that the Bush administration has used this warrantless surveillance for political purposes. When the president says, ‘I’m doing this to protect the United States of America, there’s no evidence that he is in any way prevaricating. And that is why, I think, so many people are saying, as Kelly pointed out, ‘Well, I don’t talk to al-Qaeda every night, so let them tap my phones all they want to.’ And as long as this remains a genuine attempt to prevent another terrorist attack on the United States, I think the president is going to skate on this.

This is so obviously the common-sense political analysis you wonder why so many get it wrong. But Broder appears stuck in the 70’s:

MR. BRODER: But I want to go back for just one second to this issue that Kelly raised about the support for the president on the wire-tapping. I think that’s true up until the time that you get one court decision that says he’s broken the law. Because what we have seen in the past is that the American people will support a president as long as they think he is operating lawfully. If they can make this one claim stand up, that this is a lawful use of their authority as pr—his authority as president, I will be very surprised.

So Broder thinks as soon as a court rules it illegal, which he seems to indicate is only a matter of time, then he “will be very surprised” if the American people don’t turn on the President.

Well, David Broder should prepare himself for a surprise. For, as Senator Frist pointed out earlier in the program, and Byron York succinctly spelled out right front of him on the roundtable, there are multiple legal arguments for the President's actions.

MR. RUSSERT: What statute authorizes the president to do this?

SEN. FRIST:  The answer is the Constitution of the United States of America in a time of a war our commander in chief, he is given through resolution, through statute passed by the United States Congress to use force, to use force that he, in the same way he can use force to kill, to wipe out terrorists, he can listen in on al-Qaeda conversations, wherever they are, anywhere in the world. Under the Constitution as commander in chief, at a time of war, and the statute is the Resolution of Force that we passed in the bipartisan way on the floor of the United States Senate.

And from Byron York:

MR. YORK:  There was a case in 2002 by the FISA court of review, and rates the old case. It referred to an earlier case called Trong, and it said, “That court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the president does have that authority.” So they have a legal basis for what they’re doing.

And if it is determined to be illegal, Roger Simon is exactly right on the politics, for as long as this program is being carefully scrutinized and is surveilling al-Qaeda suspects, the President has minimal political vulnerability. That doesn't mean the American people are "condoning breaking the law," because if the program is determined to be illegal the public will understand that this was not a clear violation of law, but rather a gray/disputed area and when it comes to gray/disputed areas and al-Qaeda -- the public's position is clear.

Broder’s analysis today was typical, widespread and wrong a month ago when this story first broke, but now many of his colleagues are grudgingly starting to realize this issue is not going to hurt the President politically.

It looks like David Broder still needs a little more time.