Yes, that's the one major switch. All other allegations of flip-flopping are either not true, or very minor. Let me go through your list.
That somebody who once found McCain reasonable on immigration,
He never described McCain as reasonable. He described an early proposal, which was vague about Amnesty, as sounding reasonable. He also said he had to study it further and get more details before taking a firm position. That was not the bill McCain brought before the Senate. As soon as the bill was written down and brought before the Senate, he denounced it.
That somebody who once promised to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy would end up portraying himself as a social conservative crusader?
Romney always supported equal rights of citizenship for gays. He never changed on that. He also always opposed gay marriage. There's no flip-flop here.
That somebody who signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts would say he's a big defender of the Second Amendment, who would veto any such legislation as president?
He always supported the assault weapons ban, just like president Bush. He never said otherwise. While I wish he would flip-flop on this issue, since I think his current position is wrong, but he hasn't.
FYI, the assault weapons bill he signed as governor was endorsed by the NRA. To call it a "ban" is highly misleading. The bill actually reduced the number of weapons banned in the state, while keeping other weapons banned
Do your homework; you're less likely to look like an ass if you do it.
Are conservatives bigots if they don't support government mandated health care?
Punishing irresponsible people who refuse to buy health insurance and then stick taxpayers with their health bills is a conservative policy.
Or $20 billion bailouts for the auto industry?
He never proposed a bailout of the industry. He proposed increased government funding for research and development. There's nothing wrong with that, nor anything inconsistent with conservatism.
Supporting research is very much a legitimate role for government in the conservative worldview. That's because research qualifies as what free market economists call a "public good." The benefits of research benefit accrue to society at large, and not just the person who funds it. Therefore research will tend to get underfunded unless it is supported by government.
That's why we give Federal grants for research at universities, research institutions, and the like. That's why we have a federally supported National Academy of Sciences and similar institutions. Conservatives have traditionally been staunch defenders of these institutions.
Are they anti-Mormon if they decide that in a time of war, somebody with national security credentials is preferable to a one term governor?
Serving in a war 40 years ago, as a lowly junior officer, hardly gives a man national security credentials. So much has changed in the ways wars are fought, that McCain's outdated low-level tactical experience is pretty much useless to a Commander in Chief who must deal in high-level grand strategy in a world very different from that of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
And his record in the Senate hardly gives comfront. The man wanted to send ground troops into Kosovo! Can you imagine a more foolhardy idea? The man's judgement on national security matters is highly questionable, at best.
He never proposed a bailout of the industry. He proposed increased government funding for research and development. There’s nothing wrong with that, nor anything inconsistent with conservatism.
-
yes it is wrong. There’s a difference between basic research vs research that specifically helps corporations. That’s corporate welfare. They should pay for their own research.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html
“Serving in a war 40 years ago, as a lowly junior officer, hardly gives a man national security credentials. So much has changed in the ways wars are fought, that McCain’s outdated low-level tactical experience is pretty much useless to a Commander in Chief who must deal in high-level grand strategy in a world very different from that of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.”
You are only describing his POW years (which would help focus the mind on national security),from a family of admirals he retired in 1981, becoming a two term congressman from 1982 to 1986 when he became a senator, from where he has spent much time as a senatorial leader in national security concerns. All in all pretty much an entire life spent accumulating national security credentials.
‘While he recovered physically, he also continued his reading binge, spending a year studying at the National War College.’
’ He read military histories and the Pentagon Papers and struggled to understand the forces that had led to the conflict and his own confinement.
But if his studies showed him the bungles in military planning and the powerful influence of negative public opinion on war policy,’
‘When his time at the war college was up, McCain was assigned to the Replacement Air Group 174 in Jacksonville. The squadron trained pilots to fly A-7 fighter planes and was the largest Navy squadron in the country, with about 1,000 sailors and 75 planes. It was also among the Navy’s more dysfunctional units. Defense budget cuts had left the squad without resources to buy replacement parts for damaged planes, and nearly 20 had been grounded for more than 60 days - some for years - when McCain arrived.’
’ His first months were spent as the squadron’s executive officer, where he learned to fly the A-7 and mastered the workings of the unit. In 1976, he was made commander of the entire squadron’
‘The day before McCain’s assignment was up, Smith flew the last of the squadron’s grounded planes. As McCain describes it in his memoir Worth the Fighting For, the plane was barely ready for the test and flew with its landing gear down, but it flew. That year, the squadron received its first ever Meritorious Unit Citation.’