First of all, I gave you the links to his full transcripts along with the quotes, so your claim that you didn't have access to the context is ridiculous! And secondly, I had to have been listening in order to know such a quote exists before it can be searched for!!!!!!! Thirdly, all my comments are backed up by his actual words whereas all your comments are contradicted by his actual words.
As far as him admitting he was a Party hack, if you read the transcript I linked to about carrying the GOP water, you will see that he said the GOP loss in 2006 FREED him from carrying water for those who don't deserve it, which means that if he is NOW free from supporting the undeserving, he wasn't free to refuse to carry water for the undeserving BEFORE!!!
Of course, well after his alleged "freedom" he certainly carried Rockefeller Republican McCain's water after McCain got the GOP nomination and everyone who listens to him knows Rockefeller Republicans are undeserving to him. So you have to deal with the fact that LimpBoy is a pathological liar, therefore it is questionable at the very least whether he won't carry GOP water for the undeserving simply on his say so.
Drive-Bys Doubt Operation Chaos
April 22, 2008
RUSH: I might take the time here to remind everybody what the ultimate objective of Operation Chaos is. Do you remember what it is, Dawn? What is the ultimate...? (interruption) No, no. Yes, but
the ultimate objective is for our side to win, and our side is represented by John McCain.
Ed, I did read the full transcripts and commented on them which you ignored. And I do not interpret them or characterize them as you are interpreting and characterizing them. I have agreed to disagree on that, and I doubt at this point despite how many times you repeat your argument that you will persuade me differently on that. If you come up with a credible different or better argument, I can be persuaded.
I do not see 'carrying the water' as synonymous with 'party hack'. You do. I will agree to disagree with you on that. My definition of 'party hack' is somebody who will defend the indefensible and ignore or deny evidence that puts their party in a bad light. In my opinion, Rush doesn't do that even though Rush does somethings misinterpret things and gets it wrong sometimes.
Rush absolutely did not support John McCain as the GOP nominee in 2008, but once McCain won the nomination, the fact that Rush supported McCain over Obama does not, in my opinion, make Rush a party hack. I didn't support McCain to be the GOP nominee either, but it is my opinion that anybody with half a brain would know that McCain would be doing less damage to this country than Obama is doing. As I believed that would be the case from the beginning, I also supported McCain in the general election. I will agree to disagree with you about that too.
Do you see everything in such black and white terms? Is everything so absolute for you? Can you not see that some things are better than others if not perfect? Can you see that there can be a better choice between two not great choices? Is there no room in your world to support something despite the flaws that you know are there? If there be any error or weakness, there can be no virtue at all in your world view?
So, let's spare our fellow members any more of this circular argument that has to be totally boring by now, wish each other a Merry Christmas, and refocus on whether a third party would be a good thing or a bad thing in 2010 and 2012.
