Again, this is another point where I agree with McCain. McCain supports importation of drugs from Canada, something that the Bush administration has opposed in the past (and I believe still does). Drugs are 16% to 60% cheaper there. I never understood the Bush administration's resistance to this. Well, I understand the cynical reason (catering to the pharmecutical companies), but this seems at odds with the party's ideology. If you believe in the invisible hand of capitalism, are against government regulation, and believe that fair competition will result in better, less expensive products for the greatest number (and apply this theory to everything from school choice to social security), why not apply it to the rising costs of drugs? That does not make sense. If you are against paternalism in economic policy (paternalism is where the government acts like a parent, telling you what is best for you instead of allowing the freedom of choice that comes with a free market), why use paternalist arguments in this case (i.e. we can't ensure that these Canadian drugs are good enough)?
For a breif comparison betweem the two canidates, see http://seniorliving.about.com/od/presidentialcampaign2008/a/obama_mccain_pd.htm
This illustrates why it is important to ensure that our arguments are consistent, and this issues shows that most political hacks simply use whatever arguments work at the time with no regard for overall consistency.