Limbaugh on McCain: It's Better to Be Right All the Time (Limbaugh Wants McCain Defeated) [2/5/08]

Washington Post ^ | February 5 2008 | Howard Kurtz

[jveritas]

Limbaugh on McCain: It's Better to Be Right All the Time (Limbaugh Wants McCain Defeated)

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, February 5, 2008; Page C01

It may be the best sideshow in presidential politics: the nation's top radio talker trying to take down the Republican front-runner in today's Super Tuesday showdown.

Rush Limbaugh has been relentless in his criticism of John McCain, prompting suggestions that he may have to soften his stance if the Arizona senator wins the nomination and faces off against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But if that happens, Limbaugh said in an interview over the weekend, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.

"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402798.html

[Little Ray]

No. Operation Chaos is “Make the Democrat candidates spend LOTS of money, and possibly split the DNC.”

[McGruff]

Rush is putting his radio show above America. God may forgive him. But I never could.

Are you even listening to Rush? He was against McCain until he won the nomination (like me and most others). Now he's started operation CHAOS. If you listen to him you'll know what I'm talking about.

[aruanan]

Rush is putting his radio show above America.

God may forgive him. But I never could.

This has got to be put right up there with Wright's ravings as one of the nuttiest.

[Polybius]

Regarding Post 121, catfish1957 responded:

I guess you are assuming that RINO MCain will have a backbone and commit to what you listed...or the more likely scenario and caving to his liberal friends across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship. My bets would be on the latter.

Can you read a calender? The links I posted referred to statements and positions dating back to November of 2006.

At the time, Ronald Rumsfeld was and had always been against the Surge, Generals such as Shinseki that had recommended such a strategy had been fired and George W. Bush meekly went along with Rumsfeld.

At the time, the Democrats and the liberal news media were vehemently against the Surge and only 18% of Americans in public opinion polls backed McCain's position. As a result, as seen in the November, 2006 link, even conservative commentators were saying that McCain's position had probably cost him any future chance at the Presidency.

In this day and age when most politicians look to opinion polls for leadership, McCain's position when faced with only 18% support in the polls was:

"I'd rather lose an election than lose a war."

It seems, however, that you would rather lose a war for certain in order to gain some perceived advantage for a so-called "conservative" candidate to win in 2012.

It is the same as urging friends on the Police force to look the other way and allow a city to be plagued with crime for 4 years so that you can then win election as Police Chief with a "Law & Order" platform after enough voters have been mugged or raped.

I find such a position despicable.

McCain "reached across the aisle" to make common cause with people such as Joe Lieberman who actually lost a Democrat Party election rather than advocating losing a war. Lieberman then made common cause with the voters to win re-election as a "Win the War" Independent.

You are "reaching across the aisle" to make common cause with people such as Code Pink, Michael Moore and far-left-wing Democrats who would rather have America lose the war in order to gain political advantage. You see future voters going your way if the war is lost and they see future voters going their way if the war is lost but you both wink at each other and cheer for America to lose the war.

Real conservatives do not hope that America loses a war so that they can win a future election. That is what traitorous Copperheads do.

[GregH]

Spot on, the best man clearly won the Republican primary and that man is Mccain. Unlike the RAT primaries, Republicans do well in selecting their candidates.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

John McKeating is no conservative.

The first thing he'd do is grant amnesty to illegals.

Let Hillary do it.

[doug from upland]

I agree that she is the strongest. There are millions of energized young women with cell phones not being polled. She will do anything to win -— including massive voter fraud. And, do not put it past her for McCain to have some kind of “accident.” Don’t doubt that she is capable of doing anything to win.

[Dante3]

McCain is unable to fight WOT. The biggest threat to this country come from the open borders and the illegal aliens and immigrants from enemy countries who are roaming across the country. Yet McCain voted against the Cornyn amendment - that is insane. The planes on 9/11 took off not from Iraq but from American soil. As for supporting our troops - his disgusting stand on POW/MIA issues speaks for itself.

[ConfidentConservative]

“Rush doesn’t like McCain, but his objective in “Operation Chaos” is to keep the Democrats fighting and damaging each other as long as possible so that McCain can beat either of them. He knows that, especially in the areas of picking judges and fighting the war on terror, McCain is better than any Democrat could ever be.”

I agree, Rush was like many of us Conservatives, wanting someone better than McCain. How many of us spoke unfavorably of McCain BEFORE he won?
Now, Let’s all remember the DEMS gave us McCain by crossing over voting.
Now that he has NO OTHER CHOICE, Just like we don’t, he HAS to deal with the real world of Hillary, Obama or McCain.

The next few months will determine where Rush really stands on the issue. At this time it is really TOO soon to condemn Rush. HE has been on our side and will continue to do so.
Anger has a way of clouding the real picture.

[ConfidentConservative]

” It is the same as urging friends on the Police force to look the other way and allow a city to be plagued with crime for 4 years so that you can then win election as Police Chief with a “Law & Order” platform after enough voters have been mugged or raped.

I find such a position despicable.”

I agree with all your post!
Thanks you are spot on!

[Cold Heat]

He didn’t vote for the Bush tax cuts because the government waste cuts were not part of the bill.

That's his newer excuse. I saw much of the floor and committee debates on this when it happened.

McCain talked and sounded exactly like like my old Jr. High buddy from N. Dakota, Senator Kent Conrad. He stated the costs of the tax cut's were far too high!

Try explaining that logic to a conservative.

The facts are, that he's lyin about that and other things. He fought Bush all the way through on most everything. If you are curious, I'll tell you what Kent Conrad's nickname was in Jr. High.........LOL

[Cuttnhorse]

One-year-old article???...you have convinced me...you are an idiot.

[Matchett-PI]

"Anyone who claims that “Hillary can’t win”, or “Obama can’t win” is a fool."

At your service. :)

Neither Hillary nor Obama can win. The 'RAT party is divided and they will not unite either before or after this brawl is over.

You are witnessing the beginning of the end of the "RAT Party as it has been known since the 60's.

2008 = The Year of the Toilet (for 'RATS)

The highlight of the year will be the cat fight between Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. It will be of historic proportions, and will come about as a direct result of "Operation Chaos" making sure Clinton stays in the race all the way to the convention in spite of the fact that Obama has more delegates and has the popular ('RAT) vote.

Hee hee hee. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

[Southack]

Hillary and Obama don’t have to win. They just have to let Al Gore come to the Dems’ rescue at their DNC convention in Denver.

[ClarenceThomasfan]

So you admit that you and some others on this board are actively supporting Hillary and WANT her to become president in 2009 instead of the Republican?

I thought this board supported Republicans and not Democrats.

[Fresh Wind]

Well, I hope you’re right, but I wouldn’t underestimate the tendency of Rats to follow the cheese, whoever’s offering it.

[jveritas]

I made a mistake by writting March 23 2007 instead of March 23 2008. The article is dated February 5 2008.

[Fresh Wind]

I don’t think Gore is interested in running. He’s making too much money working his carbon credit scam.

[ClarenceThomasfan]

“But what Rush is saying is that at least with Mrs. Bill Clinton you know where she stands where as McLame enjoys being contrary. McLame enjoys sticking it to the conservatives.
Screw him.”

That is my point. Rush is supporting Hillary because he WANTS her to win the presidency like you do. Some people think that he is trying to get the weaken the competition but I know he is actively supporting Hillary because he wants her to WIN the white house. He is playing some of us like fools so we can do his bidding. Well I am not one of those fools.

I want a Republican to win for the sake of our soldiers.

[Matchett-PI]

"Hillary and Obama don’t have to win. They just have to let Al Gore come to the Dems’ rescue at their DNC convention in Denver."

I think it's far too late for that now. Unless Obama gets the nomination, most blacks, independents, and young people who are supporting him, will either sit out the election, vote Nader-the-Green or vote for the Republican candidate - not caring WHO it is. They will NOT vote for any DemocRAT because they will believe (rightly) that the 'RAT Party betrayed them.

It is vital for our side that McCaniac makes the right choice for a running mate. (I'm hoping it's Jindal or Romney, myself)

Who among Obama's supporters would accept Algore as a substitute "savior"? I'll bet very few.