Rush Limbaugh: Older, Tougher Conservatives Of Longer Standing Haven't Caved On Cain, But These Younger, Liberal-Approval-Craving Newcomers Have

Right.

Let me tell you what this means, because I happen to know what this is. Older conservatives mean the ones who have not caved. Older conservatives, and he mentions Coulter, me, the older conservatives. This is not an age thing. We are the conservatives who haven't buckled. We're the conservatives who don't give a rat's rear end what the leftist media thinks of us....

So younger conservative means the conservatives who are concerned with being accepted by the liberal media, the younger guys, that's the code. The older conservatives, people like me are not cowed by it. Not to pick on Lowry, but we talk about this a lot. There are members of the conservative media in Washington who live there, and we know what happens when you live there. It's a town run by the left socially, politically, you name it. The elected Republicans, they're hell-bent on making sure they get their message out through the mainstream media. They're hell-bent on making sure the Washington Post, the Times and all that, like them. We older dinosaurs -- he-he-he -- yeah, we cannot be bent and shaped and flaked and formed and moved and watered down. We can't be diluted. That's what he means by that.

Check back with me in a week, Rush.

But I'm sure then you'll have a reason why you were Right in being Wrong.

So sick of this crap.

There is truth, and there is falsity. There is no special bonus points for speaking falsehoods.

Someone is right, and someone is wrong.

We used to mock liberals for claiming to be morally virtuous in being wrong about human nature and the efficacy of government. When they responded "But our motives were good!," we laughed at them.

What an absurd, guazy, soft standard! What happened to old-time hard record keeping of right and wrong, true and false?

No, they always insisted on the soft standard of having their motivations count.

So some are now setting up a standard whereby they'll be right, even though they were factually wrong.

"They'll tell us who they fear." How absurd.

Here's what I believe: Any idiot who kneejerkedly takes a position directly contrary to what they think the media is saying is just as much a prisoner of the media's mind-wash as the most goosestepping liberal.

If you always take a position contrary to what Mr. Media says -- if Mr. Media says x, so you decide "anti-x" -- then Mr. Media still controls your brain. Because by saying x they dictate you will, without a moment's thought, brainlessly parrot back "anti-x!"

Whether Herman Cain is innocent or guilty of what he is alleged to have done is wholly independent of whether the media "wants" him to be guilty.

Yes, of course they want him to be guilty.

But what the fuck does "want" have to do with anything?

Are we all children?

I wanted the Giants to beat the Patriots last night. Do you imagine my wanting that actually helped materialize the victory? Or do you think my "wanting" or "rooting" was entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the game?

I know many people want Herman Cain to be innocent. That is perfectly understandable.

But when did people start getting this bizarre idea that what they want to be true has any bearing on the truth?

So, kudos to Rush Limbaugh. He is now an out and proud wishcaster.

And when everything he's saying now is, uh, rendered inoperative by accumulation of facts, he will nevertheless tell the audience he's speaking falsehoods to that he was still right because his heart was pure in saying things that turned out to not be true.

posted by Ace at 04:06 PM

| Access Comments