Therein, the irony to Ramesh’s reference to the Miers episode, as it illustrates the proximate cause of the disaffection with Senator McCain and the possible attractiveness of Senator Obama to Reagan Democrats, Catholics, and I daresay even run-of-the-mill conservatives: the patience to give a Bush sequel yet more “benefit of the doubt” is exhausted. Frankly, many of us who answered Reagan’s call and came to Washington are tired of having only a theoretical commitment to budgetary restraint, limited government, the importance of ensuring the economic well-being of average families, and the lack of measurable progress on respect for life. ~Douglas Kmiec
Okay, I suppose I see Kmiec’s point, which is that Bushism has ignored or betrayed all of the things mentioned above and McCain represents a continuation of the Bush administration. That is all correct. Does it make any sense, then, to talk up the virtues of someone who has no theoretical commitment to budgetary restraint, limited government or respect for life, and who makes dubious proposals for “ensuring the economic well-being of average families”? More to the point, did it make any sense for him to work for the Romney campaign, when his entire candidacy was based on “only a theoretical commitment” to all of the things Kmiec finds important? If many Catholics find McCain to be on the wrong side of the war, how could they have found Romney to be any different? If many Catholics find McCain to be on the wrong side of the war, how can they indulge themselves in sympathy or support for Obama when he openly supported the bombardment of Lebanon? Kmiec’s arguments against McCain all make a certain amount of sense, but they work just as well against the candidate he supported and the one whom he now seems to be boosting.