There has been a lot of fire aimed at the three biggest contenders for the GOP nomination for President in 2008. Let's face it, none of them are the conservatives leaders that people like Rush Limbaugh want.
The latets fuss alleging Romney raises taxes in Massachusetts is one example. It's a dispute mostly over fee increases. OK, some might argue it's taxation, but I tend to lean towards more of a "user pays" system for those things. Voluntary taxes, like those on cigarettes and alcohol, are also ones I have no objections to, either (of course, I do not drink or smoke).
That said, there is a disturbing trend to tear down the various candidates. I don't like it for two reasons. One, when people are spending energy to tear others down, it tells me they're kinda short on alternatives.
Two, none of the 2008 candidates are perfect, or in total harmony with anyone's idea. The closest to perfection is Jeb Bush, and he ain't running in 2008. We're not going to help ourselves by giving Howard Dean's DNC any opposition research quotes.
Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all would be good Presidents, each strong in some areas, and with weaknesses in other areas. Each are folks I have disagreements with. But looking at the likely alternatives - the people likely to win the Democratic nomination, all of the big three look pretty good.
That said, the hard right seems bound and determined to make a lot of demands. Demands that, quite frankly, they have little room to make. They pushed the Congressional GOP into a harder line over 2005 and 2006, alienating moderates/small-l libertarians, women, and Hispanics, among others. To get away with it, they had to keep the GOP in the majority, and failed to do so.
Wisely, the GOP primary voters seem to have decided to ignore them.