I took a lot a crap from conservatives back in 2000 when I supported John McCain over George W. Bush. I still do, in fact, when I say that I like and admire McCain. I thought then, and still do, that he would have made a better president than W. Do I agree with everything the man stands for? Nope. I detest the campaign finance reform stuff, which I think is more about personal penance for the Keating Five affair than anything else. But Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law, so I can't see how we made out any better there. Also, I think McCain worries a little too much about what the Washington press corps thinks about him (the campign finance stuff is related to this too), and that doesn't impress me, but beyond that, I like the guy, and here's another reason why
. (Hat tip:
Andrew Sullivan.) The man just does not let important things go, and the Pat Tillman situation is a very, very important thing. I hope, frankly, that if the Bush Administration did Tillman and his family even remotely wrong, that McCain does to the administration what the Bush folks did to him in South Carolina five years ago.
Now, I have a question for Republican/conservative types out there who still turn their nose up at McCain's name: given what we know now, after five years of the Bush Administration--with, for just two instances, record spending and a poorly handled post-invasion Iraq--how would a McCain administration have been worse for conservatism in America than the Bush II Administration? I'm just asking, because I truly can't think of a good answer. Do you have one?