What amazes me are people who consider McCain not conservative, but consider G.W. Bush conservative.

When you ask an anti-McCain conservative why McCain’s not conservative, they usually mention McCain-Feingold. Bush signed that. They mention McCain-Kennedy, but Bush favors something like that.

I was very opposed to the expansion of Medicare, and considered any expansion of entitlements expensive and un-conservative. McCain, from what I’ve been told, voted no with the conservatives, and Bush favored it like the big-government GOP types.

McCain seems to have some commitment to opposing earmarks and blatant pork. Ultimately McCain fails to significantly stop these things, but that could be because McCain is in the minority. Bush shows very little commitment to restraining spending. In fact, I’d say that the growth of the deficit is the single biggest setback to conservative ideology, as represented by the GOP, in the last eight years. McCain is probably no more guilty of encouraging that than Bush.

Neither Bush nor McCain is a clear conservative, but I think McCain has been a tad closer, at least after the 2000 election was over. I agree with Tom Coburn, that McCain’s vote against expanding medicare, and spending restraint show more conservatism than a lot of the big-government GOPs who’ve filled the GOP congress seats in recent years.

Comment by potter — February 19, 2008 @ 9:29 pm




A lot of the Romney supporters, I speculate, overlooked his record partly because it happened in Massachusetts. They write that stuff off as what one must do in order to have any involvement in Massachusetts. Ann Coulter offers this explanation in a column, when she says that if one must read aloud pages from Marx to defeat Ted Kennedy, then one must try it.

The Romniacs assume that the stuff he’s been saying since he started running for President must be his ‘real’, non-Massachusetts, approach. I think that has some plausibility, but it’s quite a leap of faith. I don’t think they’d give the same leap of faith to a guy who wasn’t such a great fundraiser and sharp debater.

Edwards, Clinton and Obama have only 6, 8, and 12 years of elected experience, respectively. Romney has 4. Nominating Romney would have squandered an advantage the GOP could have, the experience thing.

Romney would have faced anti-Mormon discrimination as well. I used to be more sympathetic to Romney, but I now think the GOP dodged a bullet, and that McCain is their best shot this time.

Comment by potter — February 19, 2008 @ 9:40 pm




The question is why is McCain still having a problem convincing other conservatives? I guess we all know the answer or some answers? Other than the religion bigotry and ignorance, McCain passed some hurdles by default and dirty tactics. Leave Mitt alone but concentrate on McCain. He may still win the nomination but many still are not convince. Be very scare!

Comment by Savea — February 20, 2008 @ 12:14 am




Evangelical Christian field slaves? Good lord Gregg, get a grip. You’re not in bonded servitude and the GOP isn’t Pharaoh. You’re free to leave at any point and start your own party beholden to no one. Wait–what’s that? You don’t stand a snowball’s chance of holding any political power if you do? I guess that makes you more akin to the whore of Babylon, not a slave….

Comment by William E. Canning — February 20, 2008 @ 9:30 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI