Here is a conservative case for McCain, sent to me by a strong supporter:

McCain is an ardent free trader. I’ve seen him make inroads with some voters who think China/India/Mexico are destroying the country. A mill worker in New Hampshire whose place of employment had closed shop, told McCain that free trade meant his son would never have the security he once had. McCain’s response: “You should have higher aspirations for your son than the same job you had. Trade helps make those aspirations possible.” Tough message. Tough crowd. He was applauded. He thought the steel tariffs were Bush’s first huge mistake.
He’s committed to Social Security reform that includes personal accounts. Were he the President, we’d be under no illusion that Democratic opposition would melt away, but he might have a little more luck making his case to the public and persuading a few Ds to go along.
His tax cut proposal in 2000, while about half as generous as Bush’s, was a half a trillion dollars. He wanted to use the rest of the surplus for substantial defense increases, and help pay much of the transition costs for SocSec personal accounts. I understand that’s not the supply side position. But it’s also not tax-and-spend liberalism.
He’s fearless about wasteful spending and not just garden-variety earmarks. He’s fearless about opposing the farm bill, energy bill, and other more grandiose corporate welfare. I understand that’s an easier position for a senator than a president who needs congressional support for his priorities. But I’ve no doubt that, were he president, he would take the case to the country that we can’t reduce national wealth to improve the fortunes of a few.
He’s appalled by the cost and universality of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Yes, he supported allowing feds to negotiate lower bulk prices with drug companies. Some call that price controls [or monopsonistic pricing, Ed]. But I suspect that in a few years time if, as expected, the ten-year cost approaches a trillion dollars, and if whoever is President, D or R, lacks the will or the desire to reduce the benefit–providing help to folks below at or slightly above the poverty line–he will resort to negotiated costs. It is simply unsustainable at this cost.
He’s a strong believer in robust nuclear energy industry – even beyond the 20% of the grid it now provides (but soon won’t).
He’s solid on tort reform. School vouchers. Pro-life. Against race based remedies. Other than gun-show loophole (not exactly a major move toward gun control), he’s solid on the 2nd amendment and voted against assault weapon ban.
He’ll increase the size of the Army and Marines. That may not be a universal conservative position, but it is for a lot of hawks and believers in a Reaganesque foreign policy. McCain supports the Bush Doctrine, as I imagine most of the other candidates will with the exception of Hagel. But I doubt any will embrace it more effectively or more sincerely.
Finally, in the GWOT, I don’t think any of the other potential candidates would be a better leader.