McCain is not a conservative

I'm going to start by addressing the few specific cases my opponent talked about near the end of his last round, and then I'll move on to examining the three big areas that we seem to agree are most important. Immigration - My opponent says, "Of course there is a liberal-conservative line", but he never said where that line is, as I expressly asked him to do. He just put out the fact that Ted Kennedy sided with him, as though that automatically means it's the most liberal stance anyone's ever taken. I would contend that amnesty, rather than being a liberal plan or a conservative plan, is simply the *sensible* plan. The only other option is deporting millions of people; that would be a logistical nightmare, and just plain impractically isolationist. My opponent specifically mentions McCain's opposition to the Real ID card, which anyone who has looked into it knows is patently unconstitutional, and, if accepted by the states, would open the door for all kinds of egregious misuses of government power. He also notes that Arizona is a sanctuary state; but McCain is a senator in the federal government, and has nothing to do with Arizona's policies, so this is about as relevant as saying that it rained in Chicago yesterday while talking about Barack Obama. McCain-Feingold - While I haven't personally looked into the details of this particular bill, from what I've heard of it, it does seem to do what my opponent says. I wouldn't go so far as to say it "disallow[s] campaigners and constituents to voice and support their views", considering there are totally free ways (e.g. this lovely medium, the Internet) of voicing and supporting views, and considering it doesn't restrict the primary means (i.e. voting) by which the people express their will on the political process. Considering what it does do, however, I would count this as a strike against McCain -- but not necessarily a strike against his conservative credentials (which is what we're talking about), because I don't see how it's liberal at all. It seems to me like the sort of thing BOTH sides would oppose, but that came up because of its obvious benefit to incumbents. I ask my opponent to tell me how this is specifically a problem with McCain's conservative credentials. Big Government - Limited government has not been a cornerstone of the Republican party for decades. Justly or not, this part of the old Republican and conservative platform has taken a backseat to a number of other issues. Since my opponent brought up Ron Paul, I will use him too: He is the only true advocate for radically smaller government in the race, and he has been soundly defeated in every contest so far, only coming anywhere near the top-tier in a couple small caucus states. Clearly, conservatives are not into the small government approach as much as they used to be. Even if you're a staunch advocate of small government, though, there's reason to be happy with the idea of a McCain presidency; but this belongs in the "fiscal conservatism" section, so I'll wait until then to examine this more. Social conservatism - The importance of social conservatism to the modern definition of conservatism in general cannot possibly be understated. These days, social conservatism forms the backbone, the base, of the Republican party, and the conservative sect of society. Consider the fact that the vast majority of McCain's detractors are fighting on under Huckabee's banner, he being a former preacher whose central appeal to conservatives is his social stances. In other words, even those who aren't convinced of McCain's fiscal conservative credentials make sure they follow someone who is, first and foremost, a social conservative, even though his fiscal credentials are far more questionable than McCain's. This means that social conservatism is the most vital element of today's conservatism, and my opponent has agreed that John McCain has it. Fiscal conservatism - Apparently, I didn't clear up the confusion over John McCain and Bush's tax cuts well enough in my first round, so I'll try again, this time with a direct quote from his website, http://www.johnmccain.com..., under "Issues": "John McCain will make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent, keeping income tax rates at their current level and fighting the Democrats' plans for a crippling tax increase in 2011." Anyone who thinks McCain's record on taxes is not a conservative one should read this article from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com... Here are some high points: "While serving in the House, Mr. McCain's pro-tax cut votes helped him earn ACU [American Conservative Union] rankings as high as conservative stalwarts such as Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde and Vin Weber." In the Senate, "Mr. McCain and other supply-siders such as Connie Mack, Trent Lott and Phil Gramm broke ranks with George H.W. Bush and the GOP leadership to vote "no" [on a 1990 tax deal with Democrats that led to] what was then the largest tax increase in history". He repeatedly opposed Clinton's tax hike policies throughout the '90s. He did vote against Bush's tax cuts in 2001, but that was over objections that the plan did not include spending cuts, a concept that has always been championed by the most staunch conservative supply-siders. Furthermore, "two weeks [before voting against Bush's tax cuts], Mr. McCain voted to approve the final version of the Budget Resolution...which included $1.35 trillion in tax cuts (the Bush proposal) coupled with a $661 billion cap on discretionary spending. When the promised spending cap never materialized, Mr. McCain denounced the wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending that he felt jeopardized the budget, and lodged the now famous protest vote against the tax cuts." In 2004, by the way, "he voted against rescinding portions of the Bush tax cut." My opponent's claims about McCain's fiscal record are, in short, unsupported by the facts. Foreign policy conservatism - All my opponent said in attack of John McCain here is, "Many believe McCain doesn't have the wherewithall or strategic foresight to manage the complex foreign policy facing our country." Before I address this, my opponent needs to back up this claim. I see no reason to refute a claim that isn't supported by even the weakest of lines of reasoning. So the specific challenges I leave my opponent with, on top of refuting the points I've made, are: -Tell me what a conservative plan regarding illegal immigration would be. -Tell me what makes McCain-Feingold specifically a problem for McCain's conservative credentials. -Back up the claims made in his second round regarding McCain and foreign policy with at least some reasoning, so I can respond to them. Thank you!