Many Republican voters and pundits have expressed dissatisfaction with John McCain as the presumptive nominee for president—in fact, conservatives expressed dissatisfaction with all the party's presidential candidates at one point or another.

While few Republicans are likely to follow Ann Coulter's demagoguery and vote for Hillary Clinton, several people I've talked to are considering voting for a third party candidate as a "protest vote" because they are unhappy with McCain. While most conservative voters are still likely to punch the ballot for McCain come November, the greater danger for the Republican nominees comes before Election Day. McCain's electoral prospects wane if conservatives and the Republican base remain lukewarm about the election. The campaign contributions, volunteers, and grassroots activity, or lack thereof, of conservative activists is as critical to the election outcome as their vote.

Rush Limbaugh recently commented that "there's an 80% chance the Democrats are going to have 60 seats in the Senate following the November elections … If the Democrats get 60 seats then it really doesn't matter who the president is." But if the Democrats have a filibuster-proof Senate, it matters more who the next president is. McCain may not be able to push through his agenda, but Obama or Hillary receive the red carpet. President McCain, with his veto, would be the last line of defense against the Democrats' agenda. Despite the antipathy of many conservatives and Republican voters towards McCain, there are huge differences between the presumptive Republican nominee and Democrats.

Taxes: The next president can raise taxes by doing nothing. Because the Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire, taxes will increase unless our next president signs a law extending or making permanent the tax rates. Given Hillary and Obama's pledges to end the "tax cuts on the rich" and plans to increase additional taxes, do you really think either would sign a bill extending the Bush tax cuts? While McCain voted against the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, he has not only has he pledged to extend them, but has voted on multiple occasions to do so.

Health Care: We face a divergent path in health care reform – we can move toward socialized medicine or to free markets, choice, and competition. Hillary and Obama basically disagree over how quickly we move towards socialism. Meanwhile, McCain has introduced a fantastic health care plan – but hasn't talked about it enough - that includes tax credits for individual to use towards health care, allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and Florida-style Medicaid reform to make Medicaid complement private insurance. McCain's plan is undoubtedly the best – even among Republican candidates since dispatched – moving us to market-based, consumer-driven reforms.

Abortion: On the abortion issue, the difference is pretty obvious. Voters have a choice between a staunch defender of the right to life who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. and the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country. Either Clinton or Obama would fit that label, with Clinton opposing the ban on partial term abortion, and Obama running to her left, fighting the "born alive" legislation that would protect babies that survived attempted abortions from being put to death. Furthermore, with several very old Supreme Court justices due to retire soon, the next president will determine the future of the court for decades—choices that can't be reversed in 2012.

Economic Policy: Surprisingly, many have said McCain's weakness is on economic policy, but that is a strength. One area where most conservative laud McCain's efforts is his opposition to earmarks and pork projects. Obama and Clinton believe their earmarks and pork projects will revitalize the economy (or at least win them a few votes). McCain has been a champion of Social Security and Medicare reform and personal accounts. Obama and Clinton refuse to acknowledge a problem in our growing liabilities, or plan to raise taxes to pay for it, and want to expand entitlement spending. And McCain has long been supportive of free trade, while Hillary and Obama claim that trade barriers are needed to revitalize the US economy (this was also Herbert Hoover's plan in 1930; it turned a struggling economy into the Great Depression).

Many conservatives are angry they didn't have much say in the nomination process and hope that by voting against McCain will force the party to listen to them (Alan Keyes has taken this route, and James Dobson has threatened to). My question to anyone considering this route—is more abortions, higher taxes, socialized medicine, and the like worth the chance you might have more personal influence in four years?

Conservatives upset that McCain is the nominee should realize that none of the candidates who ran was all that great. Instead of sulking, conservatives need to get back to work at building the movement. Let's make sure that we get better choices next time around and by continue to fight for our principles.

Previous post on this topic:

McCain: More Conservative than Bush
McCain it is...
How Barack Obama became a frontrunner for President
McCain, Romney, or None of the Above
More on McCain v. Romney

A lot of talk lately has been about whether the "Reagan Coalition" is breaking up, or is already dead (see Jonah Goldberg in the Washington Post for an overview of this). Ed Rollins, who is working for Mike Huckabee, seems to be the author of the idea that the divide between economic conservatives, national security conservatives, and social conservatives is too great for any candidate to bridge. But the idea is dead wrong - the Reagan Coalition isn't dead, because there is no "Reagan Coalition" - there never was.

There was a "New Deal Coalition" when Franklin Roosevelt used the expansion of the federal government to build support among interest groups - Social Security for seniors, the Wagner Act for Unions, the PWA and WPA to attempt to buy votes, etc. (pick up Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man for an analysis of how many New Deal programs were designed to win in 1936).

But Reagan and conservatives had no such "coalition," simply a set of principles. Rush Limbaugh beat me to the punch on this issue today:

Conservatism is a philosophy. It's not a scheme. It's not a plan to figure out what the American people need and want, and then give it to them. That's populism! Conservatism is a philosophy based on God-given natural rights.

Reagan didn't build a coalition by appeal to group interests, he championed ideas and a vision for the future that appealed to Americans. Reagan talked and wrote - even before campaigning for president - about getting government out of our daily lives, about reducing the size of government, about cutting taxes, about promoting economic growth and free markets, about looking to private solutions, about restoring values, about the right to life, about a strong military to oppose communism and the cold war.

I feel like I've given short shrift to Reagan's vision, but the only way to articulate it would be to extensively quote Reagan - because the strength of Reagan was his ability to communicate his vision and his principles of government. It was this vision - not a "coalition" - that led to his victory. Voters - including "Reagan Democrats", fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and on and on - responded to that message, and agreed with those principles.

The problem with the Republican party is not a rise of "Big Government Conservatives" (even those who call themselves Crunchy or Heroic) - at least not principled "Big Government Conservatives". The problem is the abandonment of conservative principles as a part of election strategy.

Karl Rove's plan to build a "permanent majority" through "compassionate" conservatism is a key example of ignoring (or not understanding) conservative principles and enacting a populist agenda to try to win votes. It didn't work for long. Unfortunately, Republican candidates for president are trying this same method of coalition building. Running a campaign that you can appeal to all three legs of the Reagan Coalition (hint to Mitt and Fred) is a lower.

The candidate that wins will be the first to say with conviction: "Here are my principles, here is my philosophy of government, this is what I believe" and to do so - like Reagan - in a manner that persuades and appeals to fiscal, social, and defense conservatives, libertarians, moderates, independents, Reagan Democrats, and anyone who would rather vote for a principled conservative than a pandering politician.

Before I go into why am supporting Rudy Giuliani for president like me make a couple of statements. One – none of the candidates would qualify as my ideal choice. I don't like McCain on taxes or free speech, don't like Romney on socialized health care and being a big phony, am not sure if Thompson is still alive or is being carted around like in Weekend at Bernie's, and Ron Paul is a bit nutty. Huckabee is the worst of the bunch – I wouldn't vote for him in a general election, and I would vote "anybody but Huck" if Giuliani isn't the guy.

Second, I predicted some time ago (late 2006) that Giuliani would be president, and I would like to be right about a prediction like that (I also predicted Obama would beat Hillary).

But I also have policy reasons for liking Giuliani. Let me first talk, though, about where I disagree with Rudy – namely on abortion – which seems to be where I have most of my arguments in defending Rudy.

Abortion

There is good Townhall.com article by Andrew Tallman that I would refer to, as he articulates this point as well or better than I. Tallman contends that "Whereas Clinton is truly pro-abortion, Giuliani is truly pro-choice." In other words, while Giuliani is not an ideal candidate for the pro-Life movement, there is a sharp contract to a Giuliani presidency and that of a Clinton presidency in terms of protecting the life of the unborn.

Let me explain further—Giuliani is not committed to retaining Roe v. Wade (though he is not committed to overturning it either) and though would not ban abortion if Roe v. Wade overturned, he would leave that ability states. In contrast Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama insist that abortion is fundamental right of women and that protection "abortion rights" is critical to their campaign. Rudy seems to be somewhat ambivalent (or indifferent) on abortion, whereas abortion on demand is critical to campaigns of Hillary and Obama.

Giuliani supports a ban on partial birth abortion, and supports parental notification. Hillary Clinton opposes any restriction on abortion, and decried the Supreme Court ruling which upheld the partial birth abortion law (i.e. look for a repeal push in a Clinton presidency).

Furthermore, as a Republican, Giuliani will always need support among social conservatives (in Congress, for re-election, and for grassroots support), while any Democratic president will owe their election to NARAL, NOW, etc.

I have also contended that the next president will not be able to do much to restrict abortion, other than in terms of appointing judges. Thus, I would contend that the differences between the Republican candidates on abortion are really not that important.

Do I think that Giuliani is being genuine in his pledge to "appoint strict constructionist judges"? Yes, and I certainly feel better on the abortion issue know that Ted Olson is his primary legal advisor (and would likely be his first Supreme Court nominee or would lead that process).

Other Social Issues

For some social conservatives, Rudy's position on gay marriage is key – not for me. As best I understand it, Giuliani supports civil unions, but not same sex marriage (the same position as President Bush). Giuliani does not support a federal amendment to the constitution to define marriage, and neither do I (which part of the Constitution would you "amend"? If the problem is "activist judges" making law, deal with the problem, which is activist judges, not gays getting married). Even so, the issue of gay marriage isn't what drives the vote.

Some of those I argue with contend that nominating Giuliani will "tear the Republican party apart". I think not. First, I hope that many conservatives agree with me and would support Giuliani for the reasons stated above. But furthermore, I still believe the soul of the GOP is a party of fiscal restraint, of limited government, and of free market principles.

I say it is time we do away with "big government conservatism."

I don't think I can stress this enough. Republicans lost in 2006 because they abandoned fiscal conservatism. Some wonder what will happen in 2008 if economic conservatives stay home. And this is why I have stated that Mike Huckabee is the worst possible choice for president. Here is George Will on that subject:

"Huckabee's campaign actually is what Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is misdescribed as being -- a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs. Giuliani departs from recent Republican stances regarding two issues -- abortion and the recognition by law of same-sex couples. Huckabee's radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity. And consider New Hampshire's chapter of the National Education Association, the teachers union that is a crucial component of the Democratic Party's base."

And here is some more on that issue, and a Wall Street Journal column on Mike Huckabee's New Deal, and another on how Huck is the biggest "big government conservative" out there.

Fiscal Policy

I am on the Giuliani bandwagon because I like him on taxes, spending, school choice, health care, and most of the fiscal issues. I like most of his Twelve Commitments (though not his rhetoric on "energy independence") all of which demonstrate fiscal and economic conservatism and a reliance on free markets rather than government programs.

• Taxes. Rudy is the most consistent tax cutter of the candidates. He supports reducing income taxes and eliminating the estate tax. He is also cutting corporate tax rates from 35% to 25% (see his website here). Here is a roundup of his tax plan. Human Events has a comparison of Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney on taxes here.
  
• Spending. Rudy has a pretty strong platform on cutting spending, including eliminating earmarks, adding a line item veto, and reducing spending by attrition. He has a very strong record of reducing (or slowing the growth of) spending, as evidence by his record in New York See the Club for Growth white paper for more on Giuliani on spending and taxes (all the Club for Growth presidential white papers are good reads, available here).
  
• Health Care. I am a strong supporter of Giuliani's health care proposals. His plans to free the market and offer consumer-driven solutions are exactly what we policy wonks are calling for. We even defended him against the pundits advocating for socialized medicine. Here is Michael Cannon of Cato Institute on Rudy' health care plan (and on RomneyCare) and John Goodman's candidates grades on health care proposals. Also, this Time piece on how Republicans are more radical on health care is a good read.
  
• Education. Rudy is an adamant supporter of school choice, which is key for me. And I really like his group of advisors on education, which include Terry Moe, Clint Bolick, and Rod Paige.
  

I will add only briefly mention that I like Giuliani on national security issues, though I won't pretend that is my area of expertise or attempt to weigh in on it much at all. I have responded to my friends who argue that Giuliani is only running on 9/11, or that he is only a contender because of being in the right place at the right/wrong time.

I disagree - his campaign (at least the reasons I like him, as described above) is largely about cutting spending, cutting taxes, free market-health care reform, and school choice.

Giuliani's response to 9/11 should be contrasted to the response to Hurricane Katrina. There is a reason why Ray Nagin isn't a presidential candidate.

Also, Rudy was a celebrity mayor before 9/11 because of crime reduction, cutting taxes, the economic gains of NY, his Saturday Night Live appearance, the Yankees' World Series wins, and the Seinfeld episode about the fat-free yogurt.

I will close my case by citing this City Journal article – Yes, Rudy Giuliani is a Conservative.