The reasons: “McCain raises the ire of the contemporary Republican establishment because he rejects their meaner instincts” and because “McCain represents for Republicans what Obama represents for Democrats: a meaningful step away from the last 15-plus years.”

I think that most moderate Democrats could certainly live with a President John S. McCain. Pete’s right to point out that nomination McCain would mean that the Republicans break with their beliefs and strategies of the last 15 years or so, although I find it remarkable that he doesn’t include the Reagan era: nominating McCain also means breaking with Reagan’s legacy, whether conservative Republicans like it or not. This means that nominating McCain is “a meaningful step away from the last” 28 years.

On the other hand, I think that there are also plenty of Democrats who wouldn’t be all too happy with a McCain presidency. One of the commenters at TMV writes: “The problem w McCain is that he is a warmonger. Yes, he’s less nasty than the average R, and not as phony as Mitt & Rudy, nor as Christ-crazy as Huck, not cap L Libertarian Crazy as Paul, but he’s utterly detached from reality re: Iraq.”

Now, that comment is of course hilarious in so far that the situation in Iraq is rapidly changing for the better and that the only ones who seem to be “detached from reality re: Iraq” are the far left, but the point is clear: anti-war Democrats – and there are quite a few of them – consider McCain to be far too hawkish with regards to foreign policy. Don’t forget that he isn’t just hawkish with regards to Iraq but also with regards to Iran.

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran anyone?

Having said all that, he’s a hawk but what Republican isn’t? Ronnie Boy (name suggested by commenter Lynx, because if we write his name in full certain people will hijack this thread) is the only one who isn’t, and he has his own problems, to say the least. McCain is acceptable to most moderate Democrats with regards to global warming, economy, tone, style, etc. He isn’t an ideological conservative, which means that he will be able to work with Republicans and Democrats.

But that’s also a problem for Democrats of course: Pete hopes that Democrats will do what’s best for the country, not best for the party. I’m less hopeful than he is in that regard: I think that many Democrats will do whatever necessary to make sure that “their” candidate wins. Besides, to many of them McCain isn’t a “good candidate,” but merely “least bad.”

Lastly: there’s another reason why moderate Democrats should think twice before supporting McCain. The US economy will enter into a recession soon. McCain admits that he doesn’t know much about the economy. What the US needs right now – whether one is Republican or Democrat is irrelevant in that regard – is someone who understands how the economy works / knows a lot about economic issues. I’d take both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over McCain in that regard. Helping McCain win the Republican nomination doesn’t make any sense for moderate Democrats then: they would be wise to work hard for whomever the Democratic nominee will be to make sure that this person will win the national elections.

Shorter: on the one hand Pete is right, on the other hand he isn’t. How’s that for a lawyerly commentary?

As an aside, Pete’s post is a perfect illustration of why American conservatives should try to push McCain out of the race ASAP. He’s not a conservative. Simple. As a Dutch conservative, I’m actually in agreement with McCain on a great many issues, and if I were American I could passionately support him if he became the nominee, but American conservatives are more conservative, meaning that I don’t quite see how they can passionately support him.