A Conservative for McCain

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe makes a conservative's case for John McCain. Though well written and striking in parts, I'm still far from convinced. Jacoby writes,

Conservatives bristle at the thought of a Republican president who might raise income and payroll taxes. Or enlarge the federal government instead of shrinking it. Or appoint Supreme Court justices who are anything but strict constructionists. Or grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Now, I don't believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them. Reagan also provided arms to the Khomeini theocracy in Iran, presided over skyrocketing budget deficits, and ordered US troops to cut and run in the face of Islamist terror in the Middle East. McCain would be unlikely to commit any of those sins, either.

Does this mean that Reagan was not, in fact, a great conservative? Of course not. Nor does it mean that McCain has not given his critics on the right legitimate reasons to be disconcerted.

Can it be said that these are different times, calling for a different type of conservative leader? Reagan took on the Soviets with a quiet, though forceful strength. That's all it took back then. Then he continues,

My point is simply that the immaculate conservative leader for whom so many on the right yearn to vote is a fantasy. Conservatives who say that McCain is no Ronald Reagan are right, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan either. Neither is Mike Huckabee. And neither was the real - as opposed to the mythic - Ronald Reagan.

Perhaps our perfect candidate is a fantasy. Frankly I think he's still serving in the White House, but looking ahead, we do need change.
While I am quite tired of McCain's own "foot-soldier" language and his claiming to be Reagan's heir in the latest ads, can I agree with Jacoby's appeal to McCain on the war on terror?

On the surpassing national-security issues of the day - confronting the threat from radical Islam and winning the war in Iraq - no one is more stalwart. Even McCain's fiercest critics, such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, will say so. "The world's bad guys," Hewitt writes, "would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the US through terror."

I've said before on this blog I am a national-security, War on Terror voter. It's my issue. I sleep at night because the President keeps us safe from future attacks. So if that's my issue, can I pull the lever for John McCain?

Further,

"He is a spending hawk and an enemy of pork and earmarks. He has never voted to increase taxes, and wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent for the best of reasons: "They worked." He is a staunch free-trader and a champion of school choice. He is unabashedly prolife and pro-Second Amendment. He opposes same-sex marriage. He wants entitlements reined in and personal retirement accounts expanded."

If all this is true, how can we still not acknowledge McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, truly liberal legislation that has the power- and already has in some cases- crippled our party?

Perhaps I am stuck on this:

"I wish McCain evinced a greater understanding that limited government is indispensable to individual liberty."

I want my fantasy candidate, I deserve no less. At the end of the day though, will this be the campaign of anybody but Hillary or Obama? I don't know if I can rally.