Analysis: Presidential Candidate John McCain

What happens when the party leadership advances ideas and/or policies that are not beneficial to the party or more importantly the nation? A true leader and maverick will advance alternate ideas, despite the chagrin of the establishment. Just because one is able to regurgitate party lines and catch phrases doesn't make that person a true Republican or Democrat.

Ironically, the very issues that Conservative talk show hosts and the GOP leadership hammer John McCain on are the very issues that can define and reinforce his conservative platform. Let's examine the top five.

1. Not supporting the Bush tax cuts. McCain wants permanent tax cuts, spending cuts, elimination of earmarks, and the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT adversely affects the middle class. McCain's position is arguably more fiscally conservative than the Bush plan.

Hindsight regarding the Bush tax cuts: it worked and McCain doesn't have to be contrite for not jumping on board. Contrition would be a mistake on his part. He can boldly claim that if his plan were instituted, we wouldn't be facing the (negative) economic issues we are now. He can argue the Bush plan was a temporary one, like strong medicine or a booster shot if you will. In fact, we need another one.

Americans love catch phrases. The boring mantra that resurfaced is "It's the economy stupid." This is the time for McCain to go on the offensive economically. The media designated the economy as Romney's strong suit, and the masses bought it.

I'll take the 24-year proven track record over a successful Olympic budget.

2. Immigration: The plan, which was weak, albeit realistic represented a solution when there was none.

It shouldn't sit well with any of us that an illegal alien by virtue of breaking-in will be allowed to jump the line, or at least stay in place. Unfortunately, this infraction is not taken that seriously. The reality is America is not going to simply deport over 12-20 million illegal aliens, with out exploring some form of amnesty. The candidate that hints otherwise is pandering to us. And they ALL are, to a certain extent.

To McCain's credit, he now focuses on border security first prior to his "path to citizenship." His plan included learning English (good), fines, back of the line designation, touch-backs, and some deportations (good, but not punitive enough) was not amnesty (technically) So, he's right when he says he never supported amnesty.

Critics rely on a statement he made in 2003, which pre-dates his official immigration plan. His 2003 remarks included a call for a consideration of amnesty in any viable plan.

Again, the official plan didn't include amnesty but was weak punitively. Remember, Reagan's plan embraced amnesty (mistake) but didn't hurt his legacy. McCain consistently repeats his intention to analyze sensitive immigration cases. This does scare me, due to living with the results of one administration after another (even the great ones) failing us with inept immigration enforcement.

The Bush administration is arguably the worst one in this regard. It was under his administration that we had de facto amnesty to the point that his appointee, Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton maliciously prosecuted Border Agents for enforcing our immigration laws.

McCain claims that he is not "interested in calling up a soldier fighting for our freedom, and telling him that we deported his mother or grandmother" I like this. I know it's an emotional appeal, that's why I prefaced these remarks with a frightened sentiment. Too often, bureaucracies fail us regarding common sense logic and justice becomes derailed. The demagogues repeat what we want to hear to gain power. We may end up living with the result of incompetent rules. The bad guys may continue skirting our laws while the 80-year-old grandmothers that actually contributed something to our society get the boot.

I am confident that in this great nation we can manage this immigration crisis with a heavy hand and maintain our common sense. We can do this without abandoning the rule of law. It will require a leader that emerges as a "maverick."

Mitt Romney, in an interview with the Boston Globe, claimed that McCain's plan was reasonable and quite different than amnesty. He held that stance until it was no longer politically expedient to do so.

3. McCain/ Feingold: Curtailing soft money & deep pocket lobbyists while making campaigns accountable will never sit well with the Washington establishment.
Critics such as the ACLU and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed it's an affront on free speech. Let's pause here for a moment.

The establishment in this case can be represented by McConnell and the ultra liberal can be (as they usually are) represented by the ACLU. This alone should raise your suspicions. The ACLU is a group that champions the rights of NAMBLA. McConnell, facing re-election, found it advantageous to distance himself from his previous support for the war. He has gone so far that, while addressing a group of out going troops to Iraq and in the presence of potential voters, he stated, "The majority of the public has decided the Iraq effort is not worth it." "That puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act because public opinion in a democracy is not irrelevant." That was a nice moral boost for our troops. There's a lot more, but I'll spare you.

Soft money has enabled corporations, labor unions, and wealthy fat cats to manipulate the political process. Super-wealthy, ultra liberal George Soros donates millions of dollars to outfits like MoveOn.org to manipulate the political process. Yes, the same Soros that also donates millions to the ACLU. An affront to free speech, huh?

I think I'll side with McCain on this one. You can have the ACLU...and Mitch.

4. Gang of 14: Seven Republicans and seven Democrats in a bipartisan endeavor, reducing negative fall out from the demagogues. It helped secure the conservative appointment of Alito. McCain ticked off party leader Bill Frist, despite the overall win to the party. The Democrats threatened a filibuster, Frist wanted to employ the Republican's "nuclear option." It would have tied up a process in a never ending urinating contest, possibly burying an Alito appointment.

The Washington Post noted, Samuel A. Alito Jr. was sworn in as the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice marking a major victory for conservatives in their decades-old drive to move the court rightward and alarming liberals who fear that long-standing rights might be in jeopardy.

McCain should be applauded, but you can't go against the political machine in Washington without a bloody nose.

5. Marriage Amendment: McCain stated, "The constitutional amendment strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

He further argued on the Senate floor that there are "far less draconian" remedies, including the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act-which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as a union between a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states and state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

He said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act or "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then amending the federal Constitution might be appropriate.

This should resonate very well with the Conservative base.

Calculated rhetoric does not establish party roots, action does.