LOS ANGELES -- In the end - and the end may be near - it is apparently not enough that John McCain be a proabortion, anti-Christian, media-courting, liberal-attracting, high-taxes preservationist, at least to George W. Bush's inventively opportunistic campaign. It is also important that he be pro-breast cancer and a polluter.
Governor Bush's assault has been textbook evisceration built on a paper-thin veneer of injured innocence (he compared me to Clinton, made me out as an anti-Catholic bigot).
The latest misportrayal of McCain deserves more notice than it's getting, especially as a window on the man with the smirk whose weird, college boy mind-set led him to chuckle through a question and follow-up on the death penalty during the recent debate here.
The attack has a twofold purpose: giving Bush at least an even chance of taking New York and Connecticut's primaries this week and adding an overall popular vote victory in California to his expected sweep of the Republican delegates at stake.
Each element of the attack is fraudulent. Talk about jarring ''news'': McCain opposes money for vital breast cancer programs, and his fight against renewable energy is responsible for the coal-burning plants that foul East and West Coast air and water.
Jarring, indeed, and also false - hallmarks of Bush campaigns going back to Willie Horton and Boston Harbor days. In the case of the environmental accusation, there is a continuity back to Bush's father's adoption of the furloughed Horton in 1988 - the use of so-called ''independent'' expenditures to take care of the rough stuff.
The breast cancer canard, however, is a direct Bush operation. In a commercial that was followed by a personal appearance at a cancer center on Long Island, Bush uses a cancer survivor to charge McCain with fighting funds for breast cancer programs. With horror, she intones, ''That's shocking; America deserves better.'' The survivor, Geri Barish, doesn't disclose that she is a major crony of New York's top Bush-backer, Governor George Pataki.
And the truth is that McCain is a solid supporter of research and treatment programs for breast cancer, and always has been, especially when what's before him in Congress are the bills that actually produce the money as opposed to publicity stunts for the folks back home.
What he opposes is pork-barrel. In this case, Bush has seized on votes against amendments to extraneous legislation purporting to increase funding, usually with juicy allocation formulas that make the sponsoring senator look generous. These kinds of proposals are made only in the confident expectation that they will not become law.
If what is involved is an actual appropriations bills for health programs, McCain is a reliable yes vote when the bills conform to congressional budget rules. The facts, however, are irrelevant when Bush Rules are operating.
So also is the more relevant fact that Texas is one of the most dangerous places for a woman to live. It ranks 50th in its percentage of women with health insurance; the figure of 21.9 percent without any coverage compares with 13.8 percent nationally. And one study found that nearly half the Texas women over 50 had not had a mammogram and breast exam in the last two years. Attacking someone on an issue where you are the bad guy has got to be a new low.
That goes double for the environment. Again, the pretext for the Republican attack on McCain is an irrelevant vote. Last year Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont sought to amend the spending bill for energy programs to add money for solar and other renewable projects. Some was legit, some pork to attract votes from other senators with home-state goodies. As a tough foe of this kind of politics, McCain voted against Jeffords on a procedural issue. But on the actual merits, it turns out McCain is one Reagan conservative with a pretty solid environmental record. He was on board for the important fights, including the Clean Air Act toughening 10 years ago and the national energy policy statute in 1992, both of which had several renewable energy components. And his record on spending bills shows four no votes in 11 years, each on pork, not policy grounds.
In this case, the dishonest advertising in New York and out here is also sinister. It is nominally independent, put on by a group (Republicans for Clean Air) that didn't exist until these ads, and lives in a post office box. Its treasurer is a Washington sharpie who specializes in this junk. And the media buy was made by the firm run by Pataki's consultant, who also placed earlier ads conveniently condemning Steve Forbes when his wallet was deemed a threat to Bush. Worse, the ads exploit a new campaign finance loophole allowing unlimited spending by ''organizations'' whose backers can be hidden from view.
The truth will catch up too slowly here. McCain is in mortal peril for lots of reasons. But the tactics used against him should be remembered as the year goes on; they were dirty and dishonest.
Thomas Oliphant is a Globe columnist.
