I don't object to a candidate trying to put distance between himself and President Bush -- it is a legitimate strategy. But I do object to a candidate going to the national media and saying that is what he is doing -- but not being willing to say it on the record.

The candidate, immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, sat down to lunch yesterday with reporters at a Capitol Hill steakhouse and shared his views about this year's political currents.

On the Iraq war: "It didn't work. . . . We didn't prepare for the peace."

On the response to Hurricane Katrina: "A monumental failure of government."

On the national mood: "There's a palpable frustration right now in the country."

It's all fairly standard Democratic boilerplate -- except the candidate is a Republican . And he's getting all kinds of cooperation from the White House, the Republican National Committee and GOP congressional leaders.

Not that he necessarily wants it. "Well, you know, I don't know," the candidate said when asked if he wanted President Bush to campaign for him. Noting Bush's low standing in his home state, he finally added: "To be honest with you, probably not."

The candidate gave the luncheon briefing to nine reporters from newspapers, magazines and networks under the condition that he be identified only as a GOP Senate candidate. When he was pressed to go on the record, his campaign toyed with the idea but got cold feet. He was anxious enough to air his gripes but cautious enough to avoid a public brawl with the White House.

Still, his willingness to speak so critically, if anonymously, about the party he will represent on Election Day points to a growing sense among Republicans that if they are to retain their majorities in Congress, they may have to throw the president under the train in all but the safest, reddest states.

personally, I'm betting it is Lincoln Chafee -- but I could be wrong. It could be any number of incumbents or challengers this year.

And that is where the problem lies. Voters have a right to know where the candidate stands -- and if a candidate is unwilling to come out and make such statements publicly, how can voters be sure that they are voting for the sort of candidate they want? How can donors know that their money is going to support candidates who stand where they do?

UPDATE: I wondered if this was who made the statements above. And given that he has made such statements publicly in the past, I'm not as troubled.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's Senate campaign acknowledged yesterday that he was the anonymous candidate quoted by a Washington Post political reporter as saying that being a Republican was like wearing a "scarlet letter" and that he did not want President Bush to campaign for him this fall.

The campaign made the disclosure after a day of speculation in the blogosphere and among political reporters about which Republican Senate candidate had made the disparaging remarks reported by Dana Milbank in the Washington Sketch column in yesterday's Post.

But interestingly enough, it seems that Milbank took a few isolated comments that were negative about the president and ignored those positive statements that were made by Steele.

Steele spokesman Doug Heye did not dispute the accuracy of Steele's quotes in the paper but said Steele spent little time at the luncheon talking about the subject and said the article did not include some comments Steele made praising Bush.

"When he agrees with the Republican administration, he absolutely does so," Heye said. "When he disagrees, he speaks his mind."

We know that with Michael Steele we will get a moderate-conservative -- not a liberal like certain New England senators, but not a hard-right ideologue. That is fine with me, because it is the best we can get out of Maryland. He isn't Alan Keys -- but then again, who would vote for Alan Keyes?