That, in essence, sums up how some Republicans feel about John McCain's pitch for why they should support him.

He's made his argument that he sees eye-to-eye with them on the war and on cutting spending and on pro-life policies. But that has gone only so far, particularly when stacked up against his efforts over the last decade on campaign finance reform, global warming, immigration and his opposition to President Bush's tax cuts.

So his speech yesterday at the Conservative Political Action Conference boiled down to an appeal based on fear and loathing — of what the Democratic nominee, be it Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, might do as president.

Here are some soundbites:

"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government."

"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes."

"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue."

"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment."

Is that fear enough to push those with reservations to McCain? Maybe not, judging by initial reactions.

But McCain has a few aces left to play, and one of them is Sen. Tom Coburn, whose conservative credentials are as impeccable as McCain's are questioned. He introduced McCain to CPAC yesterday, listing his reasons for backing his colleague:

"On judges, I wouldn't have endorsed John McCain if I wasn't confident he will nominate judges like the ones he has voted to confirm in the Senate: Bork, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. I also know that he shares my desire to see the Senate approve conservative judges now.

On immigration, John McCain was trying to solve a problem which, incidentally, hasn't improved much. He listened and learned and decided the facts were on our side. He doesn't have a secret plan to enact blanket amnesty as president. And, if he did, he knows I'd kill it.

McCain-Feingold misdiagnosed the real problem as too much money to politicians rather than politicians whose votes are for sale. Even though I disagreed with McCain-Feingold, John McCain's desire to tackle corruption in the congressional neighborhood was correct. The source of Washington's corruption isn't K Street; it's Congress' lack of restraint, and John McCain has taken bold steps to tackle that problem at its source.

Still, I have to say that the concerns I hear about John McCain pale in comparison to the two greatest challenges facing our country — terrorism and a Congress that refuses to correct our unsustainable fiscal course. If we get all of those other issues right but those two issues wrong we won't survive as a nation. John McCain's record on the issues that are paramount to our future is a record conservatives can support.

John McCain also has a conservative record on what is arguably the transcendent social issue of our time: the sanctity of life. He has been pro-life for 24 years and has record that matches his principles.

And on national security, John McCain is by far the most qualified candidate on either side. He will meet not only the security challenges we know about but, more importantly, those we don't know about. Tyrants and terrorists will think twice about challenging the United States with John McCain in the White House."

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times