Over at TNR's blog, The Plank, Sarah Blustain tries to catch McCain in a flip-flop on choosing a pro-choice running mate. Actually, by Blustain's count, McCain has had about three or four flip-flops on the issue. The only problem is McCain hasn't flipped or flopped.

As the whole VP-watching world knows by now, McCain said he wouldn't rule out a pro-choice candidate for his running mate. His exact words were:

You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out. ... think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a--albeit strong--but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.

Ah-ha, says Blustain, finding the flip-flop. Her evidence is that on Hardball in April, McCain was asked if a candidate's pro-choice views would keep him off the ticket. McCain answered: "I don't know if it would stop him but it would be difficult."

How does McCain's statement this week represent a flip-flop from what he said in April? When did the word "difficult" translate into "I won't"?

Which really isn't the point for Blustain in any case: "Evidence says McCain is intent on overturning Roe--whether or not Ridge is at his side." So trying to prove that McCain flipped was just a roundabout way for Blustain to attack McCain's pro-life views.