We spent all day yesterday waiting for The New Republic’s article on the Times’s article on John McCain.

And today we spent all day waiting for the New York Times to defend itself on the article.

If it weren’t for John McCain and the New York Times, we would just be thinking of the meaningless of life. If God exists, surely he’s behind this entertaining mini-scandal.

The Times answers are exactly what you’d expect. In short, they’re happy with the piece.

• Bill Keller goes first. The basic question was “What the fuck were you thinking publishing the story?” Keller’s response: Hey, it’s a legitimate story! It’s part of our Long Series! Jack Shafer agreed! Case closed.

• Then it’s Jill Abramson, the managing editor of steel, defending their use of anonymous sources. She gets into the old debate about anonymous sourcing, and ultimately concludes that since the “disillusioned” McCain sources had the same story, it was okay to use them.

• Finally, it’s the political editor Richard W. Stevenson answering questions about the Times’s endorsement of McCain. In short, the Times editorial department doesn’t ask the newsroom for opinions about whom they should support for president.

In other news, the Newsweek story (which could be to blame for the Times story ) is out. They skip the sexual innuendo, but agree that John McCain is a liar.

McCain will likely continue to blame the liberal media. What a maverick.