All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
November 9, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, yes, yes.
Greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across the fruited plane.
Time for more broadcast excellence.
Fastest week in media.
Here it is already Thursday, the fastest three hours in media as well.
Hosted by me, the real anchorman of this country, El Rushball at 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, I want to, let's do a little project here, folks.
Let's start a countdown today to see how long it is until we see the first stories from the drive-by media about what the Republicans are going to have to do to win back 19 seats in the House that they lost.
Because if you'll recall going back to 96 and 98 and 2000, even 94, 2002, 2004, on this very day, two days after the election, the drive-by media was already focused on what do the Democrats have to do to win back their X number of seats.
What do they have to do?
What do they have to do to get back their power?
I have not seen those stories.
I've seen post-mortems.
I've seen people on our side writing what they think went wrong and what it's going to take to fix it.
But in terms of the drive-by media, I have not seen, and I don't think I will for a while, if ever, what do the Republicans have to do as though that's the order of the day?
What do the Republicans have to do to get their power back?
In fact, the stories are focused on what are Democrats going to do to A, screw Bush?
What are Democrats going to do to B, cement their power forever?
C, what kind of problems will the Democrats have getting along with each other?
The focus remains, what are the Democrats going to do?
So let's just sturdily start a countdown in there on this date.
You know, just a little calendar and mark an X on it every day.
It doesn't happen.
Well, I know we're going to be waiting forever.
That is the point.
You know, I'll ask you periodically each and every day, those of you out there, if you have seen such, and this is, I'm talking about the national drive-by media.
I don't mean, you know, you might have some local columnist who writes about this, but I'm talking about the national drive-by media in an agenda fashion as they have done for every year that I've been alive paying attention to this stuff for the Democrats.
Have you ever wondered, ladies and gentlemen, if conservatives and liberals are born that way?
Have you ever wondered if there's something genetic about it?
I always have.
I've wondered about that.
Who knows, you know, the mysteries of DNA.
Here's a story from the Associated Press.
Politics may not be in the blood, but it could be in the genes.
That's the theory a team of political scientists and geneticists is trying to prove with extensive studies of twins, genes, and brain scans.
Wonder how many embryonic stem cells we're going to need to continue this research, ladies and gentlemen.
I perfectly understand that some people are skeptical, said John R. Hibbing, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, who is involved in the research.
The idea goes back more than 2,000 years, said John Alford, associate professor of political science at Rice University, who's working with John R. Hibbing.
In 350 B.C., Aristotle wrote, man is by nature a political animal.
Now, Alfred said scientists are trying to improve on that.
Genetic researchers are trying to prove that social attitudes can be inherited and have discovered strong correlations between the two.
Some scientists, however, are not ready to embrace this theory.
We need more embryonic stem cell research on it, doubtless.
The very idea that something like a political ideology could be heritable is incoherent, said Evan Charney, assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke.
It doesn't make any sense, and it's historically inaccurate.
Really, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not so sure.
I've thought about this for a while.
This could explain why liberals attempt to abort themselves, kill babies, and then take over the raising of kids from birth to conform to them, trying to overcome the gene pool.
I mean, we all know that liberals are in the process of boarding themselves out of majority status, aborting themselves maybe out of existence if this trend continues through generations and years ahead.
And if they are aborting themselves, and if liberalism and conservatism are in fact inherited, they're genetic, then the liberals have figured this out.
That's why they take over the school system and the daycare centers so as to inoculate whatever kids go there to overcome the shortcomings resulting from the gene pool.
This could also explain why there are rush babies.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've thought about this on several notes, and now I note that they are doing research on this, scientific and political research on this, and we'll follow this.
Would you like to hear some of the oh, by the way, folks, I'm going to try to develop this a little further as the program unfolds today.
I again sit here in wonderment.
I sit here in literal amazement.
I make a comment yesterday about feeling liberated after the election.
And I go into great detail in explaining it.
It is amazing.
I have, I'm slowly evolving a theory of my own.
I think that it is impossible for someone who utters the number of words I utter in any given 10-minute period of time to ever be taken in context.
To ever be, especially by people who make no effort to listen.
This comment about I feel liberated, it has been twisted in some of the most pretzeled, humorous ways that I could never have imagined.
One of the ways it's been twisted is Limbaugh admits lying to audience for 12 years.
Limbaugh admits to getting White House talking points after denying it for 12 years.
Limbaugh this, Limbaugh that.
Now it's even been twisted to say that I'm through carrying their water because Bush let Rumsfeld go.
So I'm going to, despite my instincts are that no matter how I try to explain these things, there are people out there who do not want to get right what I say.
It's like during the Michael J. Fox imbroglio, all of the, I mean, show after show after show after show was inviting me on.
And I've no interest in going on.
Why would I want to go on a network that's making it its objective to distort, misrepresent what I'm saying?
They say, well, you got to come on and set the record straight.
I said, set the record straight.
I am the record.
What I said is what I said.
That's the record.
You are the ones distorting it, misrepresenting it, twisting it and turning it into all sorts of things that I never said, never did.
Why should, isn't it your job to get the record right?
Isn't it your job as journalists to get this stuff right?
It's not as though anybody needs a password to listen to the program.
We're not out there on secret frequencies that only select people have.
I mean, over 600 radio stations here.
So I, for what it's worth, and of course, this results in, I'm getting email from people.
You just admitted that you're lying.
I didn't have a chance to listen to your show today, but you said you've been lying to us for the past 12 years.
Well, I knew it.
Screw you.
Cancel my subscription.
What have you?
Not many of them, but some.
I read these things and I'm just, I open my mouth agape in wonderment at all this.
I guess it's difficult to quote somebody accurately when they use the number of words I do in any given monologue.
When you open your mouth and you start talking for 10 minutes, it's probably possible for anybody who wants to to take a sentence or two out of it by itself and then represent it as they want it to be represented.
So anyway, we're going to look at international reaction to the election, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a hoot.
Mort Kondracki out there writing on real clear politics.
I know Mort's a big moderate out there.
Mort's one of these guys that'll carry the banner to Backbone of America.
Mort says that moderates are fed up with polarization.
Let's see, Mort, if that's true.
Let's see if you fed up.
Give these Democrats six months or so, maybe not even that long, and we'll see if you get fed up with polarization.
At any rate, I got to take a brief time out.
We'll come back.
Your phone calls, of course, on the program today, as well as numerous audio soundbites.
800-282-2882.
Sit tight.
Back before you know it.
And we're back.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
All right, let's take a look at some of the international reporting here on the elections.
It's interesting.
This is from Reuters, the reporter Crispian Balmer.
The only thing you need to hear from this story: quote, there is less White House in America now and a little less America in the world, said Dominique Moisey, special counselor at the French Institute of International Relations.
Good.
There's less White House in America and now a little less America in the world.
There isn't less America in the world yet, but the part of me that says, okay, France, you get all the answers.
You solve the problems.
We'll deal with what we have to deal with here and you solve them.
Here is an AP writer in Baghdad.
And we have a quote here from one of the aides to Muktana al-Sadr, known effectually as Muki here.
The vote shows that the Iraqi and American people are of one mind about withdrawing U.S. troops, said Falah Hassan Shanshala Ala Akha, who leads the parliamentary bloc of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muki al-Sadr.
We hope the Democrats don't forget their campaign promises.
If they don't, we'll deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out of Iraq.
Mookie al-Sadr is the number one target in Iraq, ladies and gentlemen.
If we'd have wiped a guy out at Fallujah in the first six months of this war, it would have made a lot more sense.
Again, here is what the guy says: We hope the Democrats don't forget their campaign promises from a terrorist.
If they don't, we will deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out of Iraq.
From Reuters, Arabs relish U.S. Republican election losses.
Oh, that says a lot, doesn't it?
There will be a feeling that justice has been done partly, although not completely.
He said, Mustava Al-Sayyid Aq, a political scientist at Cairo University.
People are realistic.
A victory in Congress doesn't mean the administration will be forced to change its foreign policy.
Moreover, President Bush is known to be quite rigid.
His approach is ideological.
It is difficult to expect that he will change.
Something every Egyptian should see as excellent, though.
We hope there will be no more attacks on Muslim countries, said Samer Kamel, a watch salesman in Cairo.
Some Arabs also see the U.S. as being too forceful over demands for international troops for Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region, where Bush has said genocide was taking place.
That's a charge that Khartoum denies.
This is an AP headline from Madrid.
Democrats win in U.S. embraced overseas from Paris to Pakistan.
Politicians, analysts, and ordinary citizens said they hoped the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives would force President Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to global crises and teach a president many see as a cowboy a lesson in humility.
Hugo Chavez, of course the citizens of the U.S. are humans with a conscience.
It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption within the Bush administration.
All this fills us with optimism.
In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world and gloated that they left the Bush administration seriously weakened.
One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpetrat, 53, said that it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.
Americans are realizing you can't found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes.
You can't fool everybody all the time.
And I think that's what Bush and his administration are learning today.
Who is this?
Suleiman Hadad, lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S. Most governments across our region had no official comment, but some opponents of the U.S. reacted harshly.
President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide, said Suleiman Haddad, lawmaker in Syria.
Let's see.
Oh, and there's this from Mexico.
Mexico, ladies and gentlemen, gains by Democrats in the U.S. congressional elections may help promote more liberal immigration policies sought by Mexico, said President Vicente Fox, spokesman yesterday.
Mexico's been deeply disappointed by President Bush's failure to convince his own Republicans to accept a guest worker program.
Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore because the, I mean, that's going to be the first order of business.
And the president said he's looking forward to moving this amnesty program forward, now with a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives.
Well, that angered Mexico, this refusal to open up the borders and let anybody from that country in.
Mexico says here has more faith in the Democrats in the United States on immigration.
In midterm elections on Tuesday, Democrats won control of the House, were near taking control.
That happened last night.
AP made it happen.
AP out of blue just called a race last night.
And they leaked some comment from a George Allen campaign official saying, yeah, I don't think we're going to challenge this.
I don't think we're going to look at it.
Of course, I have to make the observation today that I made yesterday.
I don't see any Republicans running around shouting fraud, demanding lawyers open this up and that up, going to court, challenging everything left and right.
You go and look at what the Democrats were putting out there in the news on Election Day, the day before Jesse Jackson had his column.
He was saying, oh, I know what the American people want.
The question is, will their votes count?
Where is he today?
Where is the Reverend Zach moveon.org had offered a $250,000 reward, a website, albeit I think George Soros funded, but $250,000 reward for anybody that could prove evidence of vote fraud.
And there probably was some.
You know how close some of these races were?
These house, some of them were decided by 1,000 votes, 5,000, some of them were really.
The Allen Senate race is very close as well.
I'm not, I'm not, folks, as I said yesterday, you know, moveon.org.
I just, I think it's silly to go back and look at these things and try to try to go out and say, well, we would have won if, because we didn't win.
The if is for children.
But I can't help but notice how there is no fact.
I thought it was funny as heck yesterday.
Dingy Harry and Chuck Schumer said, well, Bush is making good strides here.
First couple of steps here, okay.
But what if he really wants to show us that he wants to throw down this barrier that exists, but he'll call George Allen, tell him to concede.
You know, we can't move forward until all these races are decided.
And they said, we did that.
I mean, we told Kerry to concede in 2000.
Well, you talk about 60,000 votes in Ohio and a 4 million vote deficit that Kerry faced in the popular vote.
I just want to tell you, all this talk, there aren't going to be subpoenas flying around and there aren't going to be investigations.
You know how that's, by the way, you know how that's being portrayed?
We need to get back to congressional oversight of the administration.
Yeah, the Republicans never did any of that.
They never ever challenged this administration.
Congressional oversight, why that's constitutionally managed required.
It's up to.
And nobody ever says, who's going to keep an eye on the members of the legislature?
You know, who gets oversight over Congress?
We do in the election.
But I'm going to tell you what's going to oversight is just an umbrella for all the investigations they are going to do.
Make no mistake about it.
They're salivating.
They're going to call it oversight.
Of course, the press, the drive-by media will go right along with this.
Oh, it's just oversight.
We've got to look into what went wrong in the Iraq War for the American people, for the children.
And we have to look into why the minimum wage hasn't gone to what's been going on at the state, what's been going on at the Pentagon.
They're going to really look at that.
And it all will come under the umbrella of congressional oversight, constitutional requirement.
There will not be in the drive-by media one political motive attached to it.
No, it'll be for cleansing purposes.
It will be to clear out all of the junk that's gotten in the way of all of us getting along with one another.
And all it'll be is typical liberal Stalinist type procedures establishing ourselves.
I'm telling you, the one thing in their mind now is how do they never lose the power they won on Tuesday ever again?
And that's what will motivate them forward.
And we are back.
Happy to have you along.
Doctor of Democracy, an America's truth detector with talent on lawn from God.
Another international story from London on the election results.
America's rejection of President George W. Bush's Iraq policy is a slap in the face for his allies, but it may give President or British Premier Tony Blair a chance to improve his standing at home by discussing exit options from Iraq.
Man, the world is happy about this.
Our enemies are happy about this election.
I told you that the early voting was first initiated by the terrorists.
And Mookie Al Sader, in that previous story, his spokesman, admits that terrorists decided, as undecided voters, finally decided to vote Democrat.
They're very happy with the outcome.
Here is, who says this?
This is Labor parliamentarian Ian Gibson, who campaigned against the war, said, it's almost as if we've just been waiting for this result rather than pushing to change things in our own time at our own speed.
Anybody who's got a brain in his head will see what needs to happen.
It'll be promoted by the Americans.
We'll get a phone call once they've decided what to do.
And the question is, from whom will the call come?
President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha.
I wouldn't put it past these guys to start calling our allies without telling Bush.
I mean, did it before?
I mean, John Kerry was out there doing this kind of thing.
Kerry, a good candidate.
You know, he's haughty, as all these other guys are.
And he can call up and say, we're working on this.
It won't be long now.
And I want you to know you can trust me to take care of this.
And so forth.
How many of you guys out there think that you are dull?
What?
What are you laughing at?
Oh, how do you say dear Comandanta in Farsa?
Well, you mean, just dear Mookie.
You don't have to say dear Comandanta.
Just dear Mookie.
Thanks for your support.
We're happy you're as happy as we are, and we're working on solving this problem.
In fact, here, let's go to Audio Bus, soundbite number seven.
Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, on the Fox News channel last night with Britt Hume.
And he asked her, is it more important to win or leave Iraq?
The point is, this isn't a war to win.
It's a situation to be solved.
And you define winning any way you want, but you must solve the problem.
See how easy this is?
You don't even tell yourself it's a war.
You deny that it's a war.
It's a situation to be solved.
And you define winning any way you want, like peace with honor or Vietnamization, in the case of the Vietnam War or Iraqiization.
And you get out of there.
You claim you won and problem solved.
And you move on to the, it's not a war.
We've known this throughout the campaign, that this is the attitude of the Democrats.
Let's see.
She was on Katie Couric.
Well, even though this was on Katie Couric's news, I'm going to go ahead and play it, having read the transcript here.
Katie Couric says, highest ranking woman in the U.S. government.
What does that mean to you?
It's pretty exciting, I have to say.
I'm just so excited that a Democrat will be Speaker of the House.
So you're a Democrat first, a woman second?
Well, in terms of the politics, in terms of the change it will make for the American people, yes.
See, I told you this too.
Liberals are liberals first.
Democrats are Democrats first.
She's a liberal before she's a woman.
But again, I know that according to our research that we're delving into on genetics here, which came first?
Nancy Pelosi the woman or Nancy Pelosi the gene, the DNA that liberal that became a woman.
This is extensive research that there are people looking into it.
Andy in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
I'm glad you called.
You're up first today.
Welcome to the program.
Good afternoon, Mr. Limboss.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I have this fear, Rush, that if President Bush starts signing legislation that is presented by the Democrats, that it runs contrary to conservative ideas and values, that it's going to doom the party in 2008.
But if he spends the next two years pushing conservative values and conservative ideas that are going to set the party up well in 2008 and beyond.
Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree because it's not up to President Bush anymore to press conservative values.
He's not going to be on the ballot again.
It's up to people that are going to be on ballots again to start pressing and defining conservatism.
And we know President Bush is not going to do that.
Here's my semi-cynical answer to you.
What do you mean, advance a conservative agenda?
Didn't you see who won the elections?
The Democrats won the election.
They're going to get what they want.
That was a theme from the press conference yesterday.
Now, I know some people are saying, and I appreciate this.
I understand many of you in this audience.
You're the most informed audience in broadcast media, according to Pew Research Center.
And I know you're active mentally.
You all are constantly thinking.
Sometimes the training you have received here can cause you to think too much.
One of the theories that I'm hearing from people about the president's press conference is that he's setting Democrats up.
Okay, you want this?
Fine.
You want minimum wage.
You want that.
You want that?
You can have it.
To let the American people see just how bad things will get when Democrats run the show.
Folks, they're not that clever up there.
And that kind of thinking is nothing more than the same kind of thinking that went into this argument.
Let's lose.
We deserve to lose anyway.
Let's lose on purpose.
Let's let the Democrats run the show and tell everybody how bad it is so that it'll be voted out.
I'm going to tell you the Democrats have one objective, and they got many.
The top objective is to cement their hold on power in the House.
They're not going to lose it again.
They're not going to have another 1994.
They aren't going to.
That's going to be their objective.
And if they have to take out as many potential threats and enemies via the investigatory process or the oversight process or the fairness doctrine or whatever, this is what they're going to try to do.
Andy, I think the president could cause some deflated feelings or hurt feelings.
But at the same time, if I know conservatives, it's only going to cause many of them to focus and have to overcome it.
I really don't think it's up to President Bush anymore to define conservatism these next two years.
Do you understand that?
Do you agree or disagree?
I do, but I don't see any leaders.
Who's the standard bearer for?
Well, I mean, so right now you'd have to say McCain.
But he's no conservative.
Well, he cozies up to the press all the time to position himself for a run in 2008.
Yeah, I agree with you.
We have a problem.
In fact, Hugh Hewitt, who has his own radio show out in Los Angeles and is a blogger, has written a really, really good piece on how we lost the election, forfeiting a majority.
Now, McCain is trying to sound like a conservative, but folks, you know, all kinds of blame going around about who lost the Senate, the drive-by media gleefully pointing at me.
And I don't want to dispel them because if they say I lost it, I'm also a kingmaker.
I will gladly accept all of this power that they assigned me.
And it indicates they have fear.
But I'm going to tell you something.
Hugh Hewitt makes the case here that McCain lost the Senate.
And when I go through this with you, I think you'll understand why.
Gang of 14 deal, bye-bye DeWine, and bye-bye Lincoln Chafee.
Immigration guest worker, guess whose idea this is that we're going to get amnesty?
McCain's.
Campaign finance reform.
But it's even worse than that.
We've seen to it that we never got to press the constitutional option to once and for all get rid of the concept of filibustering judicial nominees.
People have forgotten that, but because McCain assembled a gang of 14, we never had that fight.
And so that's still up in the air.
But we lost.
Now, you might say, well, who cares?
We lost DeWine and we lost Lincoln Chafee.
You lost committee chairmanships.
Now, you've got to make up your mind.
You want to be the majority or not.
If you want to be all-conservative majority, then fine, you accept this loss and you hold out for that.
Whatever you want.
If you wanted a Republican majority, then you start affixing blame, and you cannot leave Senator McCain out of the loop.
And the interesting thing about this, of course, the drive-by media is already, and he, with their help, is positioning himself as the savior of what went wrong, the guy who can bring us out of the primordial goop.
When, in fact, if we're back in the primordial goop, you can't leave Senator McCain out of the mix.
Andy, is Andy still there?
Did he split the scene?
No, I'm still here, sir.
Andy, give me some other names that you think that might be on the potential board of conservative leaders.
Well, I thought one of the few that generally held to his conservatism and to his idea was Rick Santorum.
And he lost to a guy that didn't even really tell us what he believed in, Austin, Pennsylvania.
But he was one of the few that always stuck to his guns for the most part.
But he's not going to go away.
I mean, he may not be elected, but he's not going to stand.
What about Newt?
When I mention the name Newt Gingrich to you, what's your reaction?
He's one of the most well-spoken conservatives out there now.
The problem is, is he going to carry baggage with him when he was the Speaker of the House?
Let me tell you something.
Andy, I want you to hear me on this, and I want all of you to hear me.
There is not a conservative in the American political system that shows any promise that will not have baggage.
The media will give them baggage if they don't have it.
And I think they will create the baggage.
You people are just going to have to understand the drive-by media is what it is.
It is there.
It is going to affect as best it can the outcome of every election for liberal Democrats.
And if they have to make things up about conservative leaders to distort and misrepresent, to impugn, they will do it.
So there isn't a conservative leader out there that isn't going to have baggage one way or the other.
What about Mitt Romney?
I think him, I don't know.
I think coming from he also has a, I don't think he's got national recognition or anything.
Well, put him down as a dark horse on your board.
I would say Mr. Gingrich is, he's one of the most well-spoken ones and clearly states his ideas.
If he could get the ball rolling, he'd be a good standard bearer, and I think he could do a lot.
Rick Santorum is another one.
Well, let's just sit back here, watch all this stuff play out, try to understand why various things are happening, and understand this.
It's going to be a fun two years.
That in every circumstance like this, there are golden opportunities.
Now, they can be blown, but they are out there to be had and have something substantive and positive made of them.
Andy, thanks so much for the call.
I appreciate it.
We've got a brief time out here.
My good buddies will be back in mere moments.
Yeah, just make sure it's not explosives out there.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I'm probably going to make a mistake trying this because this is not a whole lot of time in this segment.
Sometimes even I am amazed.
Yesterday I said on this program, in response to a question, how are you feeling?
This was not something I worked on the night before.
Big monologue.
Okay, folks, I have a major announcement.
I got a bunch of questions from people in the email were telling me how they felt.
They were depressed and so forth.
You feel rush?
First thought that came to my mind, I feel liberated.
What do you mean by that?
I said i'm tired of carrying the water for people who don't deserve having their water carried and from that, hell has broken loose.
I was lying.
I'm abandoning the GOP.
I'm somehow admitted that i'm.
I'm no longer going to read the White House talking points when I never ever, get the White House talking points.
Some twerp on television last night said, aha, see, the White House had this big meeting, conservative talk show host, and they got in there and they got their marching orders and they went, I wasn't invited to that.
I wasn't invited because they knew I wouldn't go.
I don't do group things, number one, number two, they know they can't influence me that way.
And now this.
This is from HamptonRoads.com.
Our radio station in Norfolk in the Hampton Roads area is WNIS 790.
And they're running a contest, their little survey today on what did Rush really mean?
Is he leaving the GOP?
Is he angry with President Bush?
What do you think he meant?
What effect have any could his comments have on the Republican Party?
So I did, I got a, I got an email from a friend last night who totally understood it.
Rush loved your water-carrying comment.
It's so true.
I was thinking about just how awful presidential debates have been for, well, forever.
Not one minute of those debates would make for good talk radio.
The fact is the best candidates the parties offer up can't present their cases very well or don't.
They're desperate for help and making their arguments.
Neither side looks very good right now without the media.
I was scared every time Bush had a debate.
The Democrats were scared every time Kerry had a debate.
I was scared when Ford had a debate.
I was scared once when Reagan had a debate.
And this is exactly right.
What do they have after debates?
They got zillions of people in what?
The spin room.
And what does the spin room do?
The spin room tells you what the candidates were trying to say, but didn't or couldn't or botched.
In the case of Kerry, in my case, this is probably as good a way as any to define this for you.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
But as you know, I'm a conservative.
Conservatism's home is the Republican Party.
I believe that conservatism triumphing over liberalism is the best thing for the country.
Okay, so we may have some Republicans who are not conservatives, they're not very good at articulating it, and they get slammed and they get criticized all over the place.
And guess who writes the rescue?
Those of us on talk radio, we defend them.
We say what they really think when they can't say it or don't want to say it or don't have the guts to say it.
And we bail them out.
Then when it comes election time, and they still won't say what they are, they still won't be conservative because they're afraid of it.
And so I'm simply, if they're not going to go out and articulate their conservatism, I'm not going to let them depend on me to get them over the hump.
They're the ones running for office.
I'm not.
I'm a radio guy.
If they can't make the case, if they can't carry the banner, then it's their problem.
You would let your party, and I am not abandoning the Republican Party, and I'm not joining the Democratic Party.
I'm not doing anything of the sort.
Sighs of frustration.
Carry the water.
How much, how complicated can something like that be made?
Far more complicated than I perform.
I actually believe, folks, that when you utter as many words as I do, I don't have guests.
I take some phone calls.
It may be impossible to be taken accurately and in context because so few people want to make the effort.
You realize how many words I utter in a 10-minute monologue?
Probably three chapters of a book or one to whatever.
It's huge.
Five hours of discussion on the Michael J. Fox issue and one sentence and one four-second bit of video looped to make it look like it was 12 seconds or 15 becomes the story.
Screw them.
All I'm telling you is, if a conservative wants to be conservative and is a conservative and says he's conservative, he's going to have to be on his own from now.
I am not going to make sure it is understood that these people are what they are.
If they can't learn to express it, if they can't overcome the fear and be who they are, then it's their problem, not mine anyway.
It's all I'm saying.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, where you have to listen to all the words to understand the depth of this program.
▲
Export Selection