McCain's blaming Rush Limbaugh and Conservatism

azmastablasta

New member

Blaming Rush Limbaugh and Conservatism for Republican Woes
by A.W.R. Hawkins
01/21/2009
Just when you thought Senator John McCain and his crew had finally left the scene after getting pounded last November, at least one prominent McCain operative has crawled out of his bunker long enough to blame McCain’s loss on Rush Limbaugh and conservatism.

That’s right. On January 15, 2009, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis appeared on BBC’s “Hardtalk” and credited McCain’s loss to “the Rush Limbaughs of the world who…literally almost feed the nativist attitude toward immigration reform” and the exclusivity of conservative principles.

So the McCainiacs are still trying to blame the 2008 disaster on everyone except themselves and their candidate. If you’ll remember, in the initial days and weeks after the election they were spinning the idea that it was Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s fault that McCain lost. Members of the McCain campaign dumped on her and McCain was nowhere to be seen. “Big Mac” proved to be but a “small fry” as he failed to come to her defense even once.

Of course the then-seemingly senseless attacks on Palin are more understandable in light of Davis’ BBC interview: If conservatism posed a problem for McCain, then Palin, Human Events Conservative of the Year in 2008, had to be trouble for the “Maverick.” They probably found the job of reining in her convictions akin to that of pulling a pork chop out of pit bull’s mouth.

Now Davis says it was Limbaugh and the “Limbaughs of the world” who caused McCain to lose. By doing this he shows himself to be a moderate who believes a Bob Dole/Jack Kemp-type centrist Republican Party could rule the day if they could only excommunicate the conservatives who still cling to the principles that defined the Republican Party and made it great during 1980s.

Davis’ attacks obviously grew out of bitterness over Limbaugh’s relentless opposition to McCain’s amnesty plan for illegal immigrants in 2006 and – four years earlier - McCain’s attack on the First Amendment in his Campaign Finance Reform Act. Conservatives across the board opposed both of these things when McCain championed them, and conservatives remembered them in 2008. McCain’s defects and lack of conservative principle were too great to overlook, even as the 2008 campaign progressed.

Although Limbaugh should be praised for standing when others caved in to the “Big Mac”-turned-small fry, the McCainiacs now attack him for not toeing the Republican Party line. I presume this is actually refreshing for Limbaugh, who is usually accused of being a “Bush apologist” or a Republican sycophant.

The truth is that Limbaugh is conservative first and Republican second; something intolerable to Davis-like moderates who demand more tolerance from Limbaugh.

Davis was so eager to see that no blame for McCain’s loss actually fell on the campaign itself that he told “Hardtalk” host Stephen Sackur that blaming the candidate and his managers is to “miss the mood of the country” and the political cycle we were in: “[The loss] wasn’t ideological.”

Really? If it wasn’t ideological then why is your post-election defense of McCain ideological Mr. Davis? Why did you take time to give BBC an interview in which you pointed out the so-called problems with conservatives and the “nativist attitude” of Limbaugh if this wasn’t ideological to begin with?

The answer is that it was ideological and will continue to be so as long as conservatives continue to put principle over party. And, thanks to Rush Limbaugh and others, we will continue to do just that as long as we draw breath.

Limbaugh admitted that his opposition to the McCain candidacy was ideological before McCain even won the nomination. He knew that McCain despised conservatives and predicted that McCain would purposefully destroy the Republican Party if he won the election. As it turns out, after ensuring the Party’s destruction, McCain’s minions (like Davis) want to prevent it from reviving. Only if the RINOs such as Davis remain in control.

Davis was explicit in his desires to see the Republican Party move beyond conservatism. He told the BBC audience he agreed with Charlie Crist’s post-election analysis that “It is as obvious as the nose in front of your face, Republicans have to change and have to find ways of becoming inclusive.” For years academicians, homosexual activists, and the abortion lobby have mocked Republicans for being “too closed minded,” and we just threw an election by giving them a presidential campaign run a faux-conservative who agrees with them.

Besides having the support of RINOs such as Crist, Davis’ case was bolstered just days before he appeared on BBC when former McCain economic advisor Carly Fiorina said, “The [Republican] Party has to be broader than Sarah Palin’s set of convictions.” In his interview, Davis added: “[The Republican] Party does have some serious questions that they’ve got to answer…before they can become a very competitive party again in the future.”

Now think about this folks: In spite of being despised and belittled by people like Davis, Crist, and Fiorina, there were still quite a few conservatives in the mix of 55 million Americans who voted for McCain. But as Limbaugh pointed out, even many of these were voting against Obama more than they were voting for McCain.

And who could argue with Limbaugh on this? Our choice in the last election was not between a liberal and a conservative but between Obama and Obama Light.
We will hold to our destiny and faith by holding to our principles Mr. Davis, but we shall never attain that destiny if we moderate as you and yours have called on us to do.

Like Limbaugh we must be conservatives first, Republicans second.

HUMAN EVENTS columnist AWR Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30339
 
bush and his dismal performance over the last 8 yrs lost the election for the republicans. If his performance wasn't in the gutter then the Media wouldn't have room to talk.
 
Quote:
bush and his dismal performance over the last 8 yrs lost the election for the republicans. If his performance wasn't in the gutter then the Media wouldn't have room to talk.



Believe it or not, I agree with your conclusion, DR. I am not sure we agree on how to arrive at it, though.

In short, I believe Bush did not lead as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. he spent too much and allowed government to grow too much and thus created a lackluster presidency.

People have short attentions spans, and his GREAT job of keeping us safe from attack post 9-11 was largely forgotten.

Unlike you, I believe Bush will be vindicated by history.
 
You nailed it, Java4 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
I voted for Palin.....not so much for McPain, but against Socialism (Obamajomama) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angry-smiley-055.gif
I am afraid for Our Nation and the Constitutional Republic that it was founded to be!! The idea of "meeting in the middle" requires one to concede to ANY part of the absolute tyranny of Socialism/Communism.....and I ain't playin' /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Bob
 
Quote:
McCain lost on his own ablities.



He's a joke ( not as bad as Obama ) and he did a good job of loosing on his own too !!

Never liked the guy and had to hold my nose when i voted for him . Can't believe the choice we had . /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
Quote:
Quote:
bush and his dismal performance over the last 8 yrs lost the election for the republicans. If his performance wasn't in the gutter then the Media wouldn't have room to talk.



Believe it or not, I agree with your conclusion, DR. I am not sure we agree on how to arrive at it, though.

In short, I believe Bush did not lead as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. he spent too much and allowed government to grow too much and thus created a lackluster presidency.

People have short attentions spans, and his GREAT job of keeping us safe from attack post 9-11 was largely forgotten.

Unlike you, I believe Bush will be vindicated by history.



I agree !!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
The Rep Party didn't give us a candidate to vote for that we felt good about.

If it wasn't for Palin I may not have voted for McCain. As it was I plugged my nose and did because of her.

Even after the treatment the Dem's gave him prior to the election he is still "reaching out" to the Dem's today.

I've never seen a man reach to the other side with no hands-those Dem's and media cut them off election day. Some people never learn.
 
Don't you guys know why you didn't have a viable candidate? Reason being is it was a lost cause. The republicans knew from the get go that they had lost the White House as did most people. Remember, there is only very subtle differences between the two parties nowadays so things might not be as bad as the hate mongers have made them out to be. Lets give it a chance and see what happens.
 
Yep, we definitely have conflicting opinions where this is concerned /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif I personally feel that bush will go down as the worst president that this nation has ever endured and will continue to be remembered as such. It will show him as inexperienced and totally unqualified; elected by a "base" more interested in ideological rhetoric than any knowledge or concern of the world, history, politics, or government. His gross ignorance played into the hands of his hand-picked "advisors" who influenced him, (as if they had to twist his arm) in making diastrous poltical and military decisions to promote a narrow minded, idelogical and poltical agenda rather than than one that would position the United States to advantage in an increasingly volatile world that looked to the USA to lead by principle and example, not by narrow and ignorant "do as I say, not as I do" rhetoric. It may not be too presumptuous to say the election/selection of george bush anticipated and reflected the gradual decline of the United States from a relevant world leader for democratic ideals to one of a dangerously hypocritical and out-of-touch afterthought with Imperial ambitions. Quote:


Unlike you, I believe Bush will be vindicated by history.

 
Quote:
Yep, we definitely have conflicting opinions where this is concerned /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif I personally feel that bush will go down as the worst president that this nation has ever endured and will continue to be remembered as such. It will show him as inexperienced and totally unqualified; elected by a "base" more interested in ideological rhetoric than any knowledge or concern of the world, history, politics, or government. His gross ignorance played into the hands of his hand-picked "advisors" who influenced him, (as if they had to twist his arm) in making disastrous political and military decisions to promote a narrow minded, ideological and political agenda rather than than one that would position the United States to advantage in an increasingly volatile world that looked to the USA to lead by principle and example, not by narrow and ignorant "do as I say, not as I do" rhetoric. It may not be too presumptuous to say the election/selection of george bush anticipated and reflected the gradual decline of the United States from a relevant world leader for democratic ideals to one of a dangerously hypocritical and out-of-touch afterthought with Imperial ambitions. Quote:


Unlike you, I believe Bush will be vindicated by history.





DR, being judged a failure by one with your values would be a honor. Having that fed to me for the past 8 years by the media would just confirm to me that he has been right for the most part and a successful President. Being rejected by you is just simply icing on the cake.
 
Well, I don't vote for the "lesser of two evils", so I sat the election out. Not that it would have made any difference in this rat-nest of liberal tree-huggers, but McCain or any other RINO won't ever get my vote. The Republican party should get used to losing if that's the type of candidate they are going to run.
I'm juts sayin.
 
Bush played into the hands of his hand picked advisors --- worst president ever...

DR - I noticed today tha obammer was signing two 'executive orders' in public. The thing that caught my attention was the persistent deferral to his lawyer on key questions regarding 'orders'. Who IS running the show now anyway? The lawyer or HO? I thought 'executive orders' came directly from the president. Feel free to correct me if you see any flaws in this..............................
 
DR sounds like my brother in law. Ohhh how (insert sigh here with back of hand on forehead) terrible the last 8 years has been while he builds custom homes that sold easy due to the over inflated housing market and easy money. The guy made a &%!@(*$ killing the last 8 years.....I mean 500 to 800K homes sold before he could finish them.

6 months from now he might see just how damnm good he had it............naw on second thought, hes to much of a liberal to understand.
 
There are several key reasons McCain lost, but Rush Limbaugh isn't one of them.
One of the key reasons McCain lost was his inept campaign. McCain is about as dynamic as Jimmy Carter.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
Quote:
Well, I don't vote for the "lesser of two evils", so I sat the election out. Not that it would have made any difference in this rat-nest of liberal tree-huggers, but McCain or any other RINO won't ever get my vote. The Republican party should get used to losing if that's the type of candidate they are going to run.
I'm juts sayin.



I've never understood the concept of not voting for the lessor of two evils .... at least then, if the party that you voted for wins, your gov't more closely reflects your principles then would otherwise be the case. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I wonder how many people sat out and whether their vote would/could have made a difference? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Quote:
I've never understood the concept of not voting for the lessor of two evils ....



I can believe that. I'm sure if they ran Hitler vs. Stalin you would pick the one with the (D) next to it.
Let's just say McCain isn't "my friend" and leave it at that.
 
Had Palin been the candidate instead of Mccain the repubs would have lost by a larger margin. She appeals to twenty percent of America the rest of the Nation are turned off by her. If you guys run her again in 12 you'll lose. If Mitt or someone like him runs depending on how Obama does you might have a chance.
 
Quote:
If you guys run her again in 12 you'll lose.



Us guys? I'm an Independent, I'll vote for whoever looks best for leading the United States in accordance with the Constitution.
 
Back
Top