McCain, Romney, or None of the Above

My first choice for president having dropped out, and my second choice (Thompson) gone before him, I am now faced with voting for my third choice. I'm just now sure if that is McCain, Romney, or none of the above. Patrick Ruffini faced this choice as well, and I will soon tell you why he is way off in chosing Romney.

I've already said once or twice why Huckabee will not get my vote.

Romney

While Mitt pretends to be the true conservative in the race, he isn't even close, as I said in the last post.

While Romney repeats rhetoric about the evils of HillaryCare, his Massachussetts plan is exactly the same as HillaryCare. Even though his national proposal is different (relying on more federalism than national RomneyCare), he still takes credit for the Mass. plan, and wants more people on Medicaid.

In Iowa, Romney supported subsides for agriculture and for ethanol. In Michigan he proposed $16 billion in new funding to help the auto industry. In Florida, he called the "economic stimulus" package a good start, even though it goes against what his campaign released - primarily long-term tax reduction. His proposal, gearing up for Florida, also proposed no social security taxes for anyone age 65 and over. Way to pander to the senior vote and cut that payroll tax for Warren Buffett.

Here is the last straw - Romney attacking McCain for voting against Medicare Part D - i.e. one of the largest entitlement expansions in US history. Who's the real "Reagan Republican" here?

One aspect I disagree with Ruffini, Michael Tanner, Andrew Sullivan and others on the reason for the decline of the Republican Party and the Conservative movement. That is to say, on the reason behind the reason - the fact that the GOP is viewed as the party of "big government," and deservedly so given their performance under Bush (and really since 1998) and with the Rove strategy. But the reason behind the reason is not Neoconservatism, the religious right, "compassionate," "crunchy," "heroic," or any other form of principled Big Government Conservativism, but abandonment of principle. The failure is with unpricipled pandering to try to win votes - which is the definition of Mitt Romney.

I was going to go into Mitt Romney's flip-flops since switching from moderate-liberal governor to conservative presidential candidate, but I've already said enough - Romney can't even pretend to be conservative long enough to fool anybody. Romney is out.

McCain

That leaves McCain. Michael Tanner has an excellent post on the plus and minuses of Mccain, which is where I am as well. He can be very good and very bad, depending on the issue.

His health care plan is arguably the best of any candidate. Even while using the "energy independent" rhetoric, he is the only candidate to opposes energy subsidies (including denouncing ethanol subsidies in Iowa).

McCain has taken a hard line on spending - both opposing earmarks, supporting overall spending cuts, and pushing for entitlement reform, including personal account for social security. And he is supportive of free trade.

His tax proposals are very good - but will he stick to them, given his rhetoric about opposing tax cuts for the rich? (Note that McCain isn't the straight-talker he pretends to be).

But in addition to his anti "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric, his global warming alarmism and support for draconian regulations is awful, and of course, the McCain-Feingold abridgement of free speech just makes me outraged. (See Club for Growth Profile).

Additionally, I have no idea how he would be on judges.

I was leaning McCain after reading this, seeing my Votematch compatability (though my Electoral Compass was not so close), but then I read some of his comments in the latest debate (and this longer post by Michelle Malkin) and I am right back to where I started:

Support McCain, or go Brewster's Millions and campaign for "None of the Above"?