It was bound to happen.

About.com Guest Commentator Jack Kerwick finally wrote a column I disagree with ... kind of.

For those of you who subscribe to this site or have kept up with these blogs, you know I'm a big supporter of John Mccain. I'm well aware, however, that not all conservatives feel that way. In this week's "Friday's Guest" column, Professor Kerwick takes a close look at the conservative credentials of President George W. Bush and John McCain, then asks himself, "What's the difference?"

While I heartily disagree with much of what Dr. Kerwick says about McCain, it is difficult to disagree with many of the things he has to say about President Bush. Of course, I have my own perspective, and you can bet I'll be sure to follow it up next week.

For now, we are left to digest Kerwick's point-of-view.

From the article:

Neither the Republican base nor most of the neo-conservative/Republican punditry class are at all enthused by the prospects of a McCain presidency. The gist of their chagrin is that McCain is not a “true conservative,” but a “liberal.” To substantiate this charge, the commentariat point to the many instances in which the Arizona senator “threw his party under the bus” by aligning himself with the Democratic opposition on issues of major import: campaign finance reform, taxes, immigration, and others.

That McCain’s discontents have a compelling case against him is a proposition that borders on being self-evidently true, as far as I am concerned. The evidence just listed is alone sufficiently damning.

More ...