Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

There will be more than enough post-mortem of Rudy Giuliani's campaign that I don't need to spend a lot of time on it.

As I write this at 8:30 PM mountain time on Tuesday, Fox News is announcing that Rudy will endorse John McCain, yet another octane boost (as if one were needed) for a candidate who was thought by everyone (including me) to be dead in the water just a month ago.

Not only was McCain's thought to be over, but most people who consider themselves true conservatives or conservative-leaning libertarians (like me) were quite pleased about it. After all, McCain is responsible for the greatest assault on the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Although he's always been strong on spending cuts, he's been weak on tax cuts and his rhetoric around the Bush tax cuts could easily have come from a Democrat. McCain's greatest strength is on national security, especially the degree to which he is the candidate most closely tied to "the surge" in Iraq which is now widely viewed to be working.

I supported Rudy because I believed he was as strong as McCain in understanding the nature of our enemy, but far better in economic issues.

However, it started becoming clear a few weeks ago that Rudy's strategy was much more dangerous than he originally believed. Also, even to people like me who strongly supported Rudy, the thought that his children weren't supporting him seemed like a possibly fatal (politically) problem, particularly in the party of "family values".

So, that leaves me thinking about Romney and McCain. (I don't take Huckabee seriously, and I think that if he were the nominee, the GOP would suffer their biggest loss in at least two generations.)

I have written in these pages that I would vote libertarian if McCain were the GOP nominee. I am wondering to myself, and interested in your thoughts, as to whether I should give him the opportunity to change my view.

My gut instinct is that McCain-Feingold makes him unfit to be president, even if that view means we get Hillary.

But during these days when we are facing Islamic terrorism, would it be irresponsible to support a Democrat (at least any other than Joe Lieberman) even if the Republican candidate is mostly repellent to my views?

After the last election, I noted that in two states the Republican candidate lost by fewer votes than the Libertarian received. If you assume that the Libertarian votes would have broken substantially Republican had there been no Libertarian candidate (something I believe was true in '06 but may not be in '08), the GOP would still have control of the Senate if not for Libertarians. And I argued that was a good thing because the GOP is basically worthless if it's going to act like Democrats, and it was that big-spending, corrupt behavior which used to be the province of Democrats which caused the Libertarian and fiscal conservative Republican backlash.

So, why shouldn't I believe the exact same thing in the upcoming Presidential race if McCain is the nominee? Isn't it better just to elect a Democrat than a Democrat-lite, and let the Dems wear the damage that their policies cause? Or is the "war on terror" risk too high to try to prove that point in good conscience?

The Wall Street Journal, maybe also dealing with the potential reality of a McCain nomination, is arguing that McCain has the most (or second-most) talented team of economic advisers, including Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, and Art Laffer. And that is important, particularly given that McCain knows that he's not an expert on economics. Maybe he has come to truly understand how wrong he was to oppose the Bush tax cuts.

But still, there's McCain-Feingold....

Maybe, in the reverse of George Bush running as a conservative but governing as a big-government radical, McCain will surprise us and actually govern us as an economic conservative. Is that hope likely enough to effect my thinking?

And still, there's McCain-Feingold....

If the Democrat presidential candidates are as dangerous as I believe they are, especially with my assumption that they will increase their majorities in Congress, how much should I care about electability? In other words, I prefer Mitt Romney to John McCain on almost every level, but I have a feeling that McCain is far more likely to win in November than Romney is. It seems clear that if I wouldn't support McCain in November, I shouldn't care about electability.

At the end of the day, I'm really torn about what to do, whom to support. I'm very disappointed in the implosion of Giuliani's campaign. One thing McCain could do which might encourage me to be able to hold my nose and support him would be at least hint that he'd have Giuliani involved in his administration, possibly as Attorney General.

Next week comes Super Tuesday, during which time we are likely to see Romney and Huckabee split the conservative vote, giving McCain an even larger victory than he otherwise might have, especially with no other "moderate" in the race. (I don't like calling Rudy a "moderate" since he was only "moderate" on social issues, but exceptionally "conservative" on economics and foreign policy...the areas where the federal government actually has constitutional authority to act.)

Comments from any of you who can help me untangle my muddled thoughts would be much appreciated.