As John McCain moves toward the Republican nomination for president the media highlights conservative voices around the country who bemoan his coming nomination.  Some are like Ann Coulter who once was a traveling political sideshow (labeling John Edwards a "faggot" last year) and who now has taken up permanent residence in kookville (Clinton over McCain).  But many other more mainstream conservatives seem deeply troubled over the McCain ascendency.

I have to admit I am a bit perplexed about this.  With a 82% conservative rating over the years it is hard for me to fathom the reasons for the conservative hesitency about supporting McCain's run for the presidency.  Yes, he did oppose the tax cuts at first; but only because he wanted spending cuts as well.  After the explosion in spending and the size of government under Bush I would say we could use a conservative like McCain in the White House (domestic spending under both Bushes exploded betraying the Reagan legacy of reining in the size of government; even Clinton increased the size of government less than the Bushes though that was due to the Gingrich congress reining him in).  Yes, he did favor McCain-Feingold but so did Fred Thompson and I never heard him taking any grief from conservatives for this while he was in the race.  Yes, his policy on immigration does not match many conservatives and nearly sank his candicacy last year but that one position pales in comparison to the issues that he and conservatives agree on.  McCain's own words explain best the stakes in November and the price we will all pay if conservatives fail to turn out in November to vote for a man who by and large represents their political philosophy.  This excerpt from McCain's speech to CPAC says better than I could the difference between John McCain's conservative principles and the beliefs of Obama/Clinton:

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

The National Council of La Raza is pressuring the cable news networks, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC to change the way they are presenting the immigration debate.  "Hate groups and extremists have taken over the immigration debate", says Janet Murguia; the president of the council.  If the networks don't meet their demands to restrict the individuals that the networks have been having present the anti illegal immigrant view they will then move to an economic boycott of the networks. 

Examples that the council use include the use of the word "illegal" to describe  the immigrants saying that, in effect, such usage demonizes the immigrants.  Another one is their criticism of having Pat Buchanon on presenting his viewpoint of immigration as an invasion. 

Well, there are estimated to be 12 million immigrants who are in this country without permission.  Since it is against the law it is, by definition, illegal.  As far as Buchanon's usage of the word invasion I seem to recall stories written about the United States "invading" Iraq.  That was only 150,000 soldiers not 12 million.  When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 80's there were far fewer than 12 million but that was called an invasion.  Buchanons usage of invasion in that sense is legitimate as free speech.  12 million is a lot more than 150,000!  This is simply an attempt by the National Council to intimidate the networks into changing their presentation of the immigration debate by limiting one side as to what it can say. 

I say this as someone who is actually in favor of higher legal immigration limits and who believes that immigration, both now and in the past, legal or illegal, has been a net benefit for the United States; bringing people who want to work to better their lives and who are family oriented.  I don't want to stop immigration, I want to stop intimidation by groups like the National Council of La Raza.

     An article in the January 30th edition of the Wall Street Journal delves into the race between Mitt Romney and John McClain for the Republican nomination.  Part of the article points out an interesting fact about Romney's judicial appointments when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Over half of his appointments were Democrats and Independents; most of who had contributed to Democratic candidates.  This is yet another indication (one of many) on his record that contradicts the his portrayal of himself as a conservative candidate.

     Romney's record as governor as well as his statements when he ran for the senate in Massachusetts were much more liberal than the positions he now advocates.  This would imply that he is being dishonest now  so that he can get the Republican nomination.  I tend to think otherwise, though.  I believe he probably is mostly a conservative.  My opinion is that he was dishonest all those years with the Massachusetts people.  He followed the polls and wanted to be elected so he changed his beliefs so that he could be elected as senator or governor.  Now he is paying the price for his multiple positions on the same issues; being portrayed as a flip-flopper.  He sacrificed his beliefs to get elected.  Did he have to do this?  Perhaps another governor can serve as an example.  This governor was fired from his job of speaking across the nation for General Electric because he wouldn't tame down the political beliefs he was espousing.  After supporting a presidential candidate who went down to one of the worst defeats in presidential election history  he refused to adjust his political beliefs even though most others were deserting those beliefs.   He ran for governor in the Republican primary advocating those conservative principles against a popular, moderate mayor and won.  He then ran for governor against a 2 term Democrat and won.  Instead of changing his beliefs to get elected he was a leader and persuaded the voters that he had the best ideas to lead the state.  Mr. Romney would be much better off if he had followed that governor's example.  That governor's name was Ronald Reagan.