No Indulgence For McCain: Unreasonably Promoting Openness To Hostiles & Suppressing Our Freedom Of Political Speech Completely Disqualifies Him

Two interviews with Rick Santorum summarize the insupportable qualities of McCain for the right, and these are further discussed on VFR, at this entry:The truth about the phony “conservative” whom NR is just itching to endorse.
One is from National Review, by Mark R. Levin, entitled “The Real McCain Record”, quoted below:
"McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

From Hugh Hewitt's interview with Rick Santorum " HH:Do you believe he’s sincerely changed on the immigration bill to where he understands the message that was delivered last summer?
RS: No.
HH: Why not?
RS: Well, I mean, because John McCain was the leader on the other side of the aisle. John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history, and that you know, this is important for his…because having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasn’t going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing. Look, John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board..."
JB comments:
It is not reasonable to promote legislation of such great consequence by smearing opponents as motivated entirely by racism, and making fake diagnoses of xenophobia, where rational arguments were to be expected. Pretending to have a special line to what will turn out to be the right side of pre-ordained History is unreasonable; it is not known to be true. This is how moves to the left are accomplished; there's confirmation here of the pattern of smearing, use of false dilemma, plus invocations of Manifest (progressive or racial) Destiny, betrayal by leaders flying under false colors, and not much more than these. It should be highly resistible, if the people are not buffaloed by media puff-jobbery.