Continuing with what I’d earlier written, from Reason magazine, a libertarian outlet, come two voices agreeing that McCain would essentially continue Bush’s monarchical view and use of executive power.

Hat Tip: Sullivan

From Matt Welch:

John McCain’s flip-flops on executive power to surveil U.S. citizens no matter what the law says is a timely reminder of a common misconception: That the Republican nominee would roll back the executive branch expansions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. With the exception of his vow to not adorn legislation with the kind of presidential signing statements made famous by his hero Teddy Roosevelt, McCain has a consistent, career-long approach to executive power − namely, that the president needs more of it.

The candidate’s books and speeches, especially those that cover the first 60 years of his life, are almost totally bereft of any interest in political philosophy or principle (an oddity, given his close friendship with Ronald Reagan and close proximity to Barry Goldwater). There is, in my judgment, one exception to this: The principle of presidential authority to wage war, conduct foreign policy, blunt congressional overreach, and act by any achievable means necessary to defend American interests.

…

if you think that any John Sidney McCain will let something like the letter of the law, or the constitutional separation of powers, prevent him from acting swiftly to defend America’s interests (however he defines it), then you probably haven’t been paying close attention.

Also Ron Bailey:

John McCain seemed to have a less expansive view of presidential authority than George W. Bush. Now the distance between them seems to be shrinking. In a recent letter to National Review Online, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin reported that the Arizona senator believes President Bush acted within his constitutional authority when he violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by approving warrantless monitoring of international communications involving people in the United States. According to Holtz-Eakin, who was responding to an NRO post by Andrew McCarthy that questioned whether McCain was sufficiently supportive of Bush’s position on this issue, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate believes “neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were  Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.”

…

this issue is not of interest only to “the ACLU and trial lawyers”; pace McCain, it is not an excuse for pointless recriminations about long-ago actions that are irrelevant to “addressing the challenge we face today.” As we ”move forward,” there are few questions more important than whether the president is bound to obey the law even when it conflicts with his own ideas about how best to fight terrorism. If McCain cannot give a straight answer to that question and stick to it, he does not deserve the vote of anyone who believes in the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Earlier, I mentioned why many libertarians are abstaining from McCain.  Economic conservatives, one branch of the triumvirate conservative family, also strongly dislike and distrust McCain.

Andrew Sullivan, noted blooger and author of The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How We Get It Back, has this to say about the morality of debt and the conservative problem with McCain:

That’s why I’ve come to see the Republican party as a deeply corrosive force with respect to public morality. It perpetuates the idea that debt – and constantly increasing debt – is a virtue. Over the last seven years, as I often repeat, the Bush Republicans have added $32 trillion to the unfunded liabilities that future generations have to pay. After instituting torture, this is easily the most grotesquely immoral act of the current administration and Congress. It is thieving from the next generation. Reagan bears a burden of responsibility in this, but Bush II has combined the ideology of supply-side fantasy with trust-fund rich kid insouciance. I want government small and I want it solvent. And, to my mind, that is the core conservative position – which is why the current Republicans are not just un-conservative; they are the enemy of conservatism.

All this is a preamble to a pettier matter. Contrast the two candidates on their personal fiscal morality. Obama, who grew up on food stamps and foreswore a lucrative corporate law career, “reported no liabilities in his annual financial disclosures.” McCain, who married an heiress worth millions, has more than $100,000 in credit card debt:

The presidential candidate and his wife Cindy reported piling up debt on a charge card between $10,000 and $15,000. His wife’s solo charge card has between $100,000 and $250,000 in debt to American Express. Another charge card with American Express, this one for a “dependent child,” is carrying debt in the range of $15,000 and $50,000.

More saliently, McCain’s tax and spending proposals add far more to the federal deficit than Obama’s. After the massive debt racked up in the last eight years, both McCain and Obama unforgivably want to add more. But McCain is the worst. Sometimes, personal morality is a sign of public morality, isn’t it?

In a Globe and Mail article, the former Secretary of State hints that he may be an Obamacon.

Colin Powell, the former Republican secretary of state, says he is not ruling out a vote for Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee for president.