I share many of the objections conservatives have with John McCain. I just question their authority to cry "unclean" after serving as George W. Bush's bootlickers for so long.

"Conservative leaders, particularly those in talk radio, cannot and will not be silent," Brent Bozell wrote this weekend about John McCain in the Washington Post. "They will not betray their principles and their audiences." Hey, Brent: did you miss the last seven years? Prescription drug giveaways, nationalization of airport security, nation buidling, a new federal department, amicus briefs for affirmative action and gun control--where was the conservative outrage? Many conservatives, in fact, did "betray their principles and their audiences." I am not speaking of Bush, who outlined his drug entitlement program and enhanced role for the federal bureaucracy in education during his 2000 run for the presidency, but of movement intellectuals, leaders, and activists who, unlike Bush, aren't politicians and therefore have less of an excuse.

Certainly many fine conservatives--Bruce Bartlett, Richard Viguerie, and Don Devine come to mind--courageously put conscience above career to speak against the leftward direction Bush took America (particularly on fiscal policy). But most prominent conservatives supported Bush wholeheartedly. It would have been bad had they merely stayed silent. But their transgressions were far worse than that. They loudly cheered the man who introduced America to a $3 trillion government.

Bozell writes of McCain, "He claims to be a champion of freedom but gave us McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform--which, by limiting free speech during elections, is perhaps the greatest infringement ever on the First Amendment. He claims to be a champion of U.S. sovereignty but offered us the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill that would give millions of illegal immigrants the chance to become citizens; that's amnesty, no matter how much he denies it. He claims to be a champion of the unborn but has waffled in the past, supporting federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. This year, he won the endorsement of Republicans for Choice. He claims to be a fiscal conservative who will make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but he also voted against them." What of this litany, aside from the "tax cuts" vote, couldn't also be applied to George W. Bush?

How is McCain different than Bush? He opposes harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects, engenders admiration from detested media types, namedrops Jesus far less, and refuses to pretend that the conservative movement is a kingmaker--an assessment that his coronation in St. Paul will validate. From Iraq to campaign laws infringing on speech to amnesty for illegal aliens, McCain and Bush are Republicans cut out of the same cloth. For party conservatives, pointing out the policy similarities of the two men is somehow seen as a compliment to McCain. It's not. Certainly a case could be made that McCain is more conservative than Bush, but, and this is the significant point, a case can't be made that either of these men is a conservative.

Rather than the watch dog over the Republican Party that Bozell portrays it as, the conservative movement, particularly in this decade, has served as the GOP's lap dog. This is sad. The conservative movement once primaried Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Bush I, challenged the party's power structure over the Panama Canal giveaway, and revolted over a 3 percent tax increase. They even criticized President Reagan every so often. But that was long ago. Power has replaced principles as the movement's raison d'etre, and if John McCain appears as though he will attain the power that comes with the presidency, look for the conservative movement's jeers to quickly become cheers.

All true. And, as usual, nicely communicated.

But I think you're wrong about the conservative movement's change of heart and the thinning of principles with the eventual acceptance of McCain if he wins the Presidency.

As now, a lot of conservatives accepted Bush as the only choice there was at the time. And, as now, better the Devil you know. But Bush was lauded after 9/11, forgiven by many for his lack of true conservative principles because he took the lead and made some tough decisions, and was even given a pass by many for his decision to enter us into a bad war.

After eight really, really long years of Presidente Jorge Bush, I think many have learned their lessons and Juan McAmnesty has been measured and scrutinized more thoroughly. People are more painfully aware of what they’re getting. I think. So he will not be lauded but will be treated like the b@st@rd Republican step child he is by movement conservatives and by fringe conservative Republicans as well.

Well said, Dan.

BTW, McCain recently flip-flopped on the torture questions re: water-boarding, going in the exact wrong direction. Though it is the direction the "conservative" leadership has long-held. But I guess that only proves your point all the more. Even where they take principled stances, they are espousing principles antithetical to traditional conservatism.

Excellent Post.