Why I will support McCain in November

Conservatives have their knickers in a knot over the possibility that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president in November -- and not without reason.

In a response to this post, Coyote spelled out many of the reasons why McCain leaves us cold:

McCain has said (though he is arguing that he didn't the evidence and historical record seem to counter his claims) that justice Alito is too conservative.

That is a huge deal killer with me.

It's already clear that I don't agree with McCain voting against the Bush tax cuts.

It's already clear that I don't agree with McCain that we should tie our hands behind our backs with regard to aggressive interrogation techniques.

It's already clear that I don't (really really) agree with McCain and his approach (or non-approach) to ANWR and global warming.

It's already clear that I don't agree with him on the first amendment...or the second.

It's already clear that he is diametrically opposed to my position on illegal immigration.

But the one area I might hold my nose and vote for a bad Republican is if I think he will appoint solid judges.

Take that point away and add in there his propensity to "stick it" to conservatives whenever he can (on all the above issues) then I have to believe that he probably would, on purpose, appoint a liberal judge.

I understand completely. But I'm just saying: if it comes down to McCain or Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama), are you really prepared to pass on McCain and unleash a Democrat in the White House?

Instead of McCain's willingness to support Justice Roberts, his concerns (if true) about Alito, and the possibility of a squish like David Souter or Anthony Kennedy, you'll get more blatant in-your-face judicial legislation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens. Knowing that someone will appoint a Supreme Court justice in the next four years, would you rather have a young Ginsburg on the court for the next 30 years, or a young Kennedy?

Instead of McCain's opposition to tax cuts based on the lack of concurrent spending cuts (or, in some stories, based on their benefit to the rich), you'll get the elimination of all Bush tax cuts, and tax increases on everyone -- especially the business community and the wealthy people who have come out of and/or created that business community (and who already carry the overwhelming majority of the tax burden). That doesn't even go into all the government programs that Democrats would expand/create under a liberal president.

Instead of McCain's opposition to waterboarding (which, I think, good people can disagree about) and a toughness on the war in general, you'll get the release of all prisoners of war from Guantanamo and elsewhere, a general willingness to follow the United Nations' corrupt and ineffective foreign policy prescriptions, not to mention a squishyness on the WOT by thinking we can sweet-talk our way into the hearts and minds of al-Qaeda followers.

Instead of McCain's opposition to ANWR and support for solutions against global warming, you'll get crippling taxes on traditional energy firms, devastating regulations on American business, and a belief that America is solely to blame for any climate issues without considering the myriad global players.

Instead of McCain's squishy record on the first and second amendments, you'll get the return of the Fairness Doctrine in the hopes of destroying conservative media, the implementation of thought police measures similar to those in Canada, and far more extreme gun control measures than McCain's relatively innocuous remedies such as gun locks and gun show background checks.

And, instead of McCain's position on illegal immigration (which, as noted here, is not what the base may like, but is very consistent with 25 years of GOP presidents) and his willingness to secure the border, you'll get not just defacto amnesty, but outright amnesty -- families who are brought here because one family member is already here, legal or not; a clear path to citizenship regardless of legal status; and, the availability of every government program under the sun, regardless of a person's legal status or need.

(Self-admitted caveat: I have difficulty arguing the immigration issue because I think I am closer to McCain's position than, say, Huckabee's. I also note that the Democrats have more immigration specifics on their websites than McCain by a longshot, so it's unclear exactly what a President McCain would do.)

Oh, and this doesn't even cover the protection that would be offered to innocent pre-born children under McCain vs. either of the Democrats.

To conclude, I'm not arguing that conservatives shouldn't be wary of McCain as the nominee or the president -- indeed, we should stay on top of him in the same way that we pushed back on President Bush over issues such as Harriet Miers. But there are so many differences between McCain and a Democrat that I think it's suicidal for conservatives to sit out the election because McCain is flawed.

To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you go for the White House with the candidate you have, not with the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.