3 votes

Did Rush Limbaugh endorse Ron Paul back in February just after CPAC? (Transcript)

Transcript ...


He didn't care about that. He went to CPAC and said, "We gotta take over the Republican Party. We need to reform it. We need make it a Conservative Party." He wanted it to be one of the vanguards in advancing the conservative cause. He reached out to all traditionally conservative people, including people of faith. He reached out to all of them. He didn't ask 'em to put aside their principles, he didn't ask 'em to shut up. He asked everyone if they were conservative to embrace him. He said they had a candidate in him who would promote them. He wanted to win. He wanted to win by running as a conservative, not some hyphenated conservative, and not a special interest conservative. He understood that if the culture crumbles, the society crumbles. And that includes fiscal and national security issues. So he set out a strong, simple agenda of across-the-board tax cuts and spending cuts, rejected the limitations the ruling class and the GOP establishment tried to place on him.

You don't need to agree with all the things that he says, but you knew he was faithful to the Constitution's principles. He could be trusted to do what was right or at least try to. Now, when you have candidates or would-be candidates telling conservatives to park their principles at the door, to check their principles at the door when they come in, who are not fully understood on a host of issues, they're not gonna be trusted by voters at large. To the extent that people who voted in November paid attention to CPAC and told that this is conservative political action conferencing, I wonder how much conservatism they actually saw as measured against what they were expecting, if they watched it. You had a candidate promoted by the Republican establishment who didn't write off conservative voices on the radio but says we're gonna move beyond that.

Now, nobody would disagree that for a movement to grow you need people from all over the place to join the movement. It's in fact smart but in the process of doing so, you don't diss the people who are already audiences of those shows, you don't say that they're irrelevant or unnecessary, who won elections for your party year after year after year, and all this, of course, done to impress the mainstream media.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rush must've been confused; he's a Palinist.

Rush must've been confused; like Hannity and Poison (the Israeli agent, Levin), Crummy, Simone, et al., he's a fanatical Palinist.

About the only good thing to come out of these talking trashheaps as of late is a collective sigh of despair over the MSM's crowning of Willard as the next defeated Republican candidate for President.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

He could just as well have:

Reagan articulated the virtues of liberty for all to understand, Ron Paul practices them for all to see!

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I don't see why people don't see the ...

irony and opportunity surrounding this monologue.

Rush just described Paul to a "T" while trying to describe Reagan.


I do wonder why Rush and the others have such a problem with Ron Paul. Also, I think it was the ACLU who was defending Rush when he had the "problem" with Oxycotin.

The audio of this monologue ...

was amazing. I cut in a little late and I could have sworn he was talking about Paul.

This would make a great youtube video if someone has the audio somewhere.