Re: "Sweep the Leg"

Nice rant Cal, but as you might guess I strongly disagree. I find it a bit confusing that your approach to the GOP establishment is to "move it the hell outta the way" by electing a senior Senator who has been in Washington since 1982! I'd love to see us throw out the "ineffectual horde of do-nothing 'insiders'" but how do you make the leap from that desire to the co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bills? I too love John McCain's F-You mindset towards the Islamic threat, but the man has almost no proclivity nor stated interest in economic issues (you know, like taxes, putting food on people's tables, and "properly empowered private enterprise") and his actions on judges leaves more than a little to be desired. You want affordable health care? Good luck with that when amnesty for illegals under President McCain execerbates the already swollen unpaid medical care crisis in the border states.

My support for Romney has never been about rooting for a perfect candidate. I do believe that Mitt is the most conservative option among the candidates who can win in November without selling out conservatives. I don't see how he gets lumped in with "the Bible-beating, born-again douche bags who hijacked our party for the last 8 years" but hey, we don't have to agree on everything. In fact we don't even have to agree that stem cell destruction, abortion, sex education, anti-creationism and such are important enough for a presidential campaign (I happen to think that as cornerstones of our culture, they very much matter, but again, we don't have to agree on this).

As far as the war and taxes thing, I don't get fired up about the guy who voted against the Bush tax cuts, and I worry less about how Hillary will follow through in Iraq once it's her responsibility than I do about how McCain's history of crossing the aisle on major domestic issues and stabbing his party in the back. Again, maybe I'm just one of these "goobers" who think how we approach the lives we live is important, but please tell me where we have a dire international military position if Mitt gets elected. Really, how much of a difference do you see in how we follow though in the GWOT in McCain v. Romney? Other than the likelihood of pre-emptive attack being certainly higher with McCain, I don't see a huge difference and I can even argue that McCain's temper creates a risk to peaceful outcomes.

As much as I cringe at the mere thought of another Clinton in the White House, I am torn about supporting McCain as a nominee. I just do not believe that he is a conservative beyond defense issues, and I think we are on the verge of crushing the conservative movement and re-inforcing the ever larger nanny-state government if he wins.

Romney at least has an executive track record, both private and public, and has found solutions to problems without selling out. He got a health care plan in place in the most liberal state in the union and did in a federalist manner with the support of the Heritage Foundation. He drew the line on stem cell research, repaired the budget without raising personal income taxes, and promoted and increased the number of Charter Schools in the Massachusetts. Mitt's not perfect, but for conservatives I think it's a fairly easy choice.