“Why?” Limbaugh demanded. “They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year and a half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.”

Why would AP consider this “rejectionist”? Sounds like simple fact to me. Sure, Obama may administer a reasonably pragmatic foreign policy but the radical focus of his politics has always been towards domestic economic and social justice issues. As Rush said, taking him at his word he must be opposed from day one by a Party that vigorously promotes free enterprise and the empowerment of individuals over government.

Of course, there is no Party to put up that fight. Romney is showing his two faces as are most of the Republicans. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the pace at which they are transfering all individual rights and responsibilities to the government. You cannot be “conservative” or, IMHO, American as our founders understood the term and be going in that direction at any rate.

McCain I have observed over the last 10 or 11 years doesn’t exactly scream out “Barry’s heir” to me. And McCain reminds me more of Ford than Reagan, but I’m sure that’s debatable.

First off, no one under the age of 40 remembers Barry Goldwater.
The new conservative movement was built on Reagan and a more proactive involvement in asserting American values and policies worldwide.

And Ford was NOT a bad President, just a man left with a bad situation (post-Nixon and a recession). Ford was a good conservative and understood the values. What he DIDN’T like was the Religious Right hijacking the Republican Party. Reagan knew how to keep them at bay… Bush, on the other hand, let the religious right take over and try to dictate policy that most Americans abhor. They made the conservative movement a joke and tried to use the Bush Administration to create a theocracy. Bush is not a really religious man- hell, the Devil is more religious than Bush (or Obama for that matter).

Mitt Romney is NOT the one. He failed miserably and the religious right will not vote for a Mormon. Ever. Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party. You men are going to have to put your women-hating ways to the side if you want to control something in government for the next 50 years.

McCain is right down the line a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. If either Goldwater or Reagan were around to have run in 2008, guys like you would be calling them traitors. Sen. McCain is a great American. You may not agree with him on every issue, but he’s a certified war hero and has served this country with honor and integrity for over 50 years. What the hell have you ever done for this country that gives you the right to slander this man? Stick it up your ass you vacuous buffoon.

dakine on January 19, 2009 at 10:33 PM

I totally agree with you dakine. I’m not a Republican nor a conservative and I voted for McCain because I felt he was the better choice for the country at this time. McCain was truly an example of a Reagan conservative, not pulled by the religious right and looked at the better of the WHOLE country, not just specific groups like Bush. In 2000, McCain did appeal to conservative democratics and moderate Republicans. It was the Bush machine that threw the Reagan movement in the garbage and now conservatives are left trying to jump on the Obama Bandwagon without seeming to reject their party.

The Republicans shot themselves in the nose to spite their faces. Instead of supporting Sarah Palin, the BEST choice for the job of VP, they let their little petty crap and bitterness, like Romney (who’s wealth couldn’t buy him the White House) to undermined the Republican ticket.

George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party. He left it in a shambles after years of building it up and the conservatives thinking they had a leader who would bring a full conservative mindset to the American people. Instead, he’s scurrying back to Texas and in his own words, hope to become obscure very quickly.

What kind of man is this??? Bush never wanted to be President, he just wanted to best his father. I’m glad that there are people like you dakine who saw the bigger picture and knew that McCain was the right choice to get the Republican Party back on the right track that Reagan set forth.

If the economy stays in the tank, Romney WILL be elected POTUS in 2012.

People simply won’t be willing to go with another uncertain quantity. And as much as I support her and think she’s the most genuine politician on the national scene, Sarah Palin is an unknown quantity.

jimmy the notable on January 19, 2009 at 7:10 PM

That’s my feeling as well.

Or he could have simply held a wicked grudge against GW Bush for having beaten him like a rented mule in 2000, and been willing to sacrifice his conservative principles for nothing more than the chance to pettily and churlishly undermine Bush’s policy goals.

Harpazo on January 19, 2009 at 11:02 PM

John McVain indeed held a grudge, just like Ross Perot did. If John McVain truly wanted to WIN the Presidency he would have stuck to his “maverick” persona and voted against the bailout of WS. This assumes that John McVain has core conservative principles, which I doubt as he went along to get along in an effort to be in the crowd. He is not a standout or stand up guy for conservative principles, he is just another politician that wants to do everything he can to remain in power. He talks a good game, but his actions demonstrates he is in it for John McCain and only John McCain.

I am amazed at the lib left reminding us that Reagan is dead so ‘Move On’. However, they fail to provide us the real history of their favorite politicians (FDR, Clinton, and others)particularly that a Republican philosophy had to move in to save the nation.

We, as a nation, must stand up and remember what the roles of government are at all levels. The true roles and principals that have served us through thick and thin are not difficult to understand or to implement. Once, the principals are properly identified they need to be implemented, not by law but by simple contract, one that is effected by a handshake or simple trust in ones word.

Harp, don’t have time to get into the Reagan/McCain thing right now, and you wholly missed my point on McCain’s record of service. I wasn’t suggesting that he be immune from criticism or none of his political actions are to be questioned. I was simply pointing out to a couple of dishonorable idiots that it is inappropriate to label McCain a traitor.

dakine on January 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Regarding the part I highlighted above, fair enough and I agree. However I’ve long ago lost count of the times that the same argument/appeal to McCain’s service has been used in exactly the manner I described.

Work on your reading comprehension.

dakine on January 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM

My reading comprehension is fine. Yours, however, could use a bit of work.

I specifically challenged a specific assertion that you made: you asserted McCain’s orthodoxy to the conservativism of Reagan and Goldwater, I asked for support for your assertion because the McCain I have observed over the last 10 or 11 years doesn’t exactly scream out “Barry’s heir” to me. And McCain reminds me more of Ford than Reagan, but I’m sure that’s debatable.

I’m not trying to be pedantic, I just think assertions are fair game for challenge, even when used rhetorically.

How come spineless republicans always say stuff like this yet for the democrats fdr lives on?

peacenprosperity on January 19, 2009 at 11:41 PM

No doubt! FDR has been dead for over 60 years and Obama is preparing to repeat his presidency and no one on the left brings up how he prolonged the Great Depression for 7 more years. They just blame Herbert Hoover and treat FDR as some sort of deity when he made it so much worse than it should have been.

But, Reagan is dead — and we must move on.

How come spineless republicans always say stuff like this yet for the democrats fdr lives on?

Cipherprime on January 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Reagan was a conservative before he was a Republican. Conservatism is something that will never die. It’s not a party! It’s a set of moral standards. HUGE difference! Half this country or more still hold strong conservative values. We just don’t have a lead voice. It does NOT mean it is a dead movement by any stretch!

Cipherprime on January 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Reagan was a conservative before he was a Republican. Conservatism is something that will never die. It’s not a party! It’s a set of moral standards. HUGE difference! Half this country or more still hold strong conservative values. We just don’t have a lead voice. It does NOT mean it is a dead movement by any stretch!

Or are we taking the Admiral Ackbar position that his momentary moderation is, indeed, a trap?

All craft pull up!

I for one say this: the modern ‘Republican’ idea has failed. And it saddens me. But, Reagan is dead — and we must move on.

Cipherprime on January 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM

This depends on your definition of the ‘modern Republican idea’. If by that you mean Reagan Republicanism, then I will have to disagree, as we have not really seen Reagan Republicanism since Geo. HW Bush took office; W’s excessive-spending, nation-building ‘compassionate conservatism’ is a far cry from Reagan’s brand of Republicanism.

If, however, you mean by ‘modern Republican idea’ the concept that the Republican party’s greatest hope for the future success was to compromise its foundational principles (less government bureaucracy, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, free market economics, etc.) in the name of electoral pragmatism and in the spectral hope of stealing away a few percent of traditionally-Democrat voters, then yes, I agree with you that it is (or should be) stone dead.

So, Mitt flopping around and Pawlenty flopping around, trying to catch some reflected glow off of the greasy Obama should be no surprise, and to their great discredit.

As for the larger picture, I don’t know who Admiral Ackbar is, but let there be zero doubt about this: Obama’s “centrist” appointments on national security are in fact largely conservative, not centrist. They are great. His other appointments have largely been as bad as one would expect from a radical leftist, which he is.

Every James Jones is overwhelmed by a Sunstein, Emanuel, Clinton, Browner and Holder. He is a doctrinaire leftist, and these nitwit Republicans who think they can play with the fire but not get their eyebrows burned off are going to look very odd, very soon.

My policy is to review movies after I’ve watched them, not before. Based on the previews, we’re in for a sweeping horror epic. But here we are, we’ve yet to even see the opening credits, and people on our side are already praising the director. I don’t get it.

flyfisher on January 19, 2009 at 7:14 PM

Hey, you have to set the pins up before you roll the strike.

While I have no particular knowledge that refutes the claim that, in the ’80s, McCain shared wholly Reagan’s conservative principles and vision, what I have observed of McCain’s actions and words over the course of the last decade has led me to the consideration that McCain’s Reagan-era record could easily have been a reflection of him electing to back the strong horse of the day for political gain.

Or he could have simply held a wicked grudge against GW Bush for having beaten him like a rented mule in 2000, and been willing to sacrifice his conservative principles for nothing more than the chance to pettily and churlishly undermine Bush’s policy goals.

He stimulates debate.

I love this site, and am sick-and-tired of those who denigrate him (AP) for failing to live up to *their* Republican ideals. Especially since he, Michelle and Ed are critical in bringing so many conservatives together into a conversation.

I for one say this: the modern ‘Republican’ idea has failed. And it saddens me. But, Reagan is dead — and we must move on.

Conservatives — and I see two types of them ((a) structural, constitutional, and (b) religious right) need to decide whether they can live with one another or not. They need to stop bashing their allies for ideological impurity when it is increasingly clear that their is *no* purity to be found in any Republican ideals. We need a new ‘Contract with America’ under which we can pull together, or we shall surely pull apart…