Doubletake.

Kate O'Beirne tries to convince conservatives to take a "second look" at John McCain (November 5). But conservatives have already had quite a few looks at McCain: first when he was a Reaganite conservative, then when he abandoned those fiscal principles in the Keating Five scandal, then when he championed the Constitution-busting campaign-finance reform that still has the GOP on the financial ropes and chafes the pro-life movement, then when he fought every one of Bush's tax cuts and the abolition of the death tax, then when he fought the Senate leadership's effort to force through strict-constructionist judges.

The new McCain is sadly very much the old McCain--a populist, but no conservative.

But even the primary motivation she cites for opening up to McCain--his ability to win in the general election--doesn't fly. It is telling that the new look encouraged by Mrs. O'Beirne does not include another look at the McCain tax record--actually, not even one mention. Conservatives are once again rallying around the supply-side, low-tax, greater-liberty message that has always been central to its electoral success. Nominating someone who was on Hillary's side in the fight for the Bush tax cuts (and is still there on abolishing the death tax) would spell disaster for Republicans next November, regardless of what year-out polling says.

Christopher Butler

Americans for Tax Reform

Washington, D.C.

KATE O'BEIRNE RESPONDS: A second look can't take the place of the total transfusion that would be needed to eliminate the bad blood between Mr. Butler's single-issue organization and John McCain. The senator is partly responsible by voting against the Bush tax cuts that he now vows to keep on the books. This pledge is in accord with his career-long record of never supporting a general tax increase. Mr. Butler argues that McCain's record of supporting some tax cuts and opposing others, while never raising income taxes, will alienate voters in a general election--even if he is running against a Democrat whose record and agenda should alarm taxpayers. He cites no evidence for this assertion because there is none.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]