Funny, just the other day, I was thinking that Mitt Romney = John Kerry. Old money, well-groomed, and susceptible to accusations of flip-flopping.

I find it amazing how Romney is the one who hops into your head as the flip-flopper when McCain has made an art form of doing exactly that. Nothing against you, that's just an expression of how effective the media has been at worshiping that man and covering up how he's against the tax cuts before he's for them, for campaign finance regulations until he's running, and so on.

Balta,

Frankly, I haven't paid much attention to McCain, but Romney just strikes me as a man who has no core convictions other than his ambition.

Regarding the Bush tax cuts, though, I have heard McCain say that although he didn't support them in the first place, he doesn't think they should be allowed to expire, because that would be a de facto tax hike. Seems to be a reasonable position to me.

I'm having trouble seeing what's reasonable about it. Either the tax levels before the cut were the appropriate levels, or they weren't. If they were at the appropriate levels, then the current levels are inappropriately low (as, indeed, they are), in which case it's good policy to get them back up where they should be. If they were not at appropriate levels, then it doesn't make sense to have opposed the

Now, maybe his reasoning is different than you've stated. For example, one might think that we need more of a fiscal stimulus now than we did when the cuts were initially proposed. If that's his reasoning (or something like it), then it's just a case of someone changing their policy as the facts themselves change, which is a highly desirable trait in a president.

But I fear that that is an unlikely interpretation, and that either Eric is right, and his reasoning is exhausted the snippet of silliness ("TAX HIKES BAD! TAX HIKES BAD! TAX HIKES BAD!") that Eric attributed to him; or that Balta is right, and it's a straighforward political flip-flop from a fiscal-responsibility move to a get-right-with-Norquist move.

phil,

I do think that the current economic conditions play a part in McCain's opposition to repealing the Bush tax cuts at this time. Also, it's possible that he'd rather cut spending now than raise taxes to balance the budget.

Don't see much of a comparison. Dole wasn't much of a fighter when he was running for President; McCain is a scrappy dude. Dole didn't really get out a message; McCain has at least a few clear messages - no torture, no surrender in the war, appeasement of illegal alien tresspass. The GOP base yawned at Dole and rails at McCain. McCain can appeal to liberal Democrats a lot better than Dole can (which explains the base's attitude).

Balta has the better of this discussion.

I'd like to quote from Col Pat Lang's short assessment on McCain's candidacy, from his website, Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008. I think it's right on the money:

"John McCain is a great man and a great citizen of our country.

It pains me to say that I think he is also too old, too frail, too busy still fighting his war (and mine), too committed to alliance with the Jacobins in foreign policy and too unstable in the way that old combat men are often unstable.

All of that will become more visible in the long grind before the election.

We should honor him, but not make him president."