All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:02
November 13, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hiya, folks, and welcome back.
Great to have you with us.
On the excellence in broadcasting network, Rush Limbaugh here and the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am a highly trained broadcast specialist.
We're all professionals here.
And when necessary, we will rise above our principles, ladies and gentlemen.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
You know, last um last week, I jokingly, cleverly, uh, posed a question.
How long will it be before the media starts writing stories about what the Democrats need to do or what the Republicans need to do to win back the House?
Because that's been um well, it's been basically a a 12-year story uh for the uh for the uh Democrats and the media, what do they have to do to win back their power ever since 1994?
After every election, what are the Democrats have to do to win back their power?
So I figure, well, I mean, now we'll get stories on uh on what are the Republicans have to do to win back their power.
Well, don't hold your breath on this fact, they're not gonna write those stories.
The stories now are what do Democrats have to do to keep their power.
Uh first Jim Coonin from the Associated Press.
It's the question Democrats would rather not ask in their moment of revelry.
Are there new majorities in the House and Senate sustainable?
There's not one story about what the Republicans have to do to win back their power.
What if the war in Iraq is over by 2008?
What if?
My gosh, we're pretty much signaling we're getting out of there now.
Look, I got a I got a headline here in uh it's an AP story.
Bush's advisors adopt new tone on Iraq.
We know how the new tone went in 2001 and 2002.
Now we're going to adopt a new tone on Iraq.
Carl Levin says four to six months, so we're going to start the procedure to get out of there.
The Baker study group, the Iraq study group with Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, somebody there leaking all over the place that, oh yeah, we got to figure out how to get out of there.
Not figure out how to win.
We got to figure out how to get out of there.
We're going to ask for uh help from Iran and Syria.
Uh 2008, if we're still in Iraq in 2008, I will be show.
I mean, in significant numbers conducting battlefield operations, I will be stunned.
Now, all of a sudden the press is worried that we're going to get out too soon because that won't help Democrats sustain their power.
What if the war in Iraq is over by 2008?
Or what if it is still being waged despite Democrat pledges to change the course?
What if voter antipathy towards President Bush is irrelevant in two years?
After all, he's not going to be on the ballot.
He's on his way out.
They're going to keep running against Bush.
He wasn't on the ballot this time, other than the war.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Senate Democrat campaign committee, acknowledged the Democrats' 5149 majority in the Senate was the result of the narrowest of victories in six races.
Had 10,000 votes flipped, we would have uh won only four seats, not six.
But Democrats do see opportunities ahead.
Schumer proposed a three-step plan for the Democrats to maintain their power.
This isn't even a worthwhile story.
This this is so easy to predict.
I predicted this last week that their sole focus is on holding on a power, and never ever, ever losing it again.
They are not going to go through this.
Now, people ask me all the time, what do you think is going to happen in these next two years?
I say, well, I think it's hard to predict.
I I this is the predicting this kind of stuff is very difficult because there's a wild card in it, and it's called a Republicans.
And you don't know what they will do next to screw up, whatever Democrats do to screw up themselves.
But the odds are the Democrats are not going to be able to contain themselves, and there'll be full-fledged liberalism on display.
They'll try some discipline at the outset, like they did in the election.
But once they get there, next January, once they're sworn in what they're gonna, Pelosi's giving us an indication.
I mean, she's she's stacking this leadership with as many far lefties as she can find, folks.
And I took Thomas Sowell had a brilliant analysis of this in a column prior to the election.
He said it's a great example of voter fraud.
The Democrats posed candidates For house races that are conservative.
In conservative places to go out and out conservative the Republicans who became scared little dogs to even say they were conservative or to espouse conservative principles, they were so convinced that that's why they would lose, even though it's the only reason the Republicans have ever won anything of significance.
So in come these Democrat candidates to fill the conservative void and they win.
But they're not going to be anywhere near leadership positions.
All they are is providing the majority if the Democrats in the House so Pelosi can stack the leadership deck with as many far lefties as possible.
When you got Conyers on there at the whatever committee judiciary, you've got Wrangell who uh insults uh Mississippi and gets away with it.
Uh more on that, by the way, as the program unfolds.
Jack Mertha, who's who he is, AB scam controversy.
By the way, we have that audio sound, but uh Ed grabbed that.
We had a caller last hour, said I'm the guy that dug this tape up and found it and released it to people, and that's how it got out.
We have a little bite here.
Uh and and this this uh took place uh January 7th, 1980.
This is Jack Mirtha, Democrat Pennsylvania, an FBI agent.
Mertha appears to reject the offered bribe, but actually told the FBI agent at this point, saying that look, I'm not interested right now, call me later.
I got I went out, I got the 50,000.
Okay.
Well, what you're telling me, okay?
You're telling me that that's not what you you know, that's not what I'm not interested.
Okay.
I'm not interested at this point.
Meaning get back to me.
Uh the ab scam bribery scandal.
Uh, at any rate, so she's putting all these far lefties, they're not going to be able to contain themselves.
They just aren't.
Uh, they can't now.
Saw Carl Levin on television yesterday, saw Carl Levin on TV this morning as though he's president.
Uh, here's what we're gonna do uh when it comes to getting out of Iraq.
Of course we're gonna talk, Senator McCain, the uh soon-to-be ranking member uh on our on our committee, armed forces.
Uh, we'll talk Senator McCain.
We're gonna get some ideas out there.
That's that sounds good.
That sounds wonderful, moderates and the uh independents will lap that up, but that's just BS.
They're gonna run this.
Levin's out there already acting like he's president.
That's why I say I woke up today and I said that two years go by over the weekend and I didn't know it.
Because I could swear the Democrats are running the whole show based on what they're saying and how they're saying it.
So anyway, to cut to the chase.
They will be who they are.
They will be full-fledged libs, they're gonna go for socialized medicine as quickly as they can and are gonna do it under the guise of having the government negotiate drug prices for Medicare.
Now, the Bush administration said uh yesterday that it would oppose that priority.
Uh Michael Levitt, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, said he saw no prospect of compromise on the issue, which is legislation authorizing the government to negotiate with drug companies to secure lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
Now, Levitt said in politics, most specific issues like this are a disguise for a larger difference.
Government negotiation of drug prices does not work unless you have a program completely run by the government.
Democrats say they want the government to negotiate prices.
What they really want is government-run health care.
They're gonna they're gonna make a full speed-ahead push on this.
This is this is this is socialized medicine.
This is the way to get government-run health care by having government negotiate drug prices, that's that's one leg of a three-legged stool.
So they're gonna do all these things, so it's gonna be patently obvious to people who they are.
They're not gonna be able to camouflage it and mask it.
They're gonna try.
They won't get away with it.
Now, having said, will it matter?
Will the Republicans be able to take advantage of this come 2008?
Who's on the presidential ticket will be a factor in all of this?
And while we might take solace, some of us, some of you, I don't.
I don't like losing to these people.
Some of you might take solace in the fact that they're gonna blow it and that they're gonna show us who they are, and it's gonna be a fun two years.
Maybe so, but they're gonna do a lot of damage in those two years.
Uh they are they are going to try, and the biggest bit of damage they're gonna do, and it looks like they're gonna get help doing it, is in foreign policy and Iraq.
This is gonna be if if what we're hearing comes to pass, it's gonna be an utter, utter disaster.
Down the road, many, many years down the road, it's going to be an utter disaster.
Nobody seems to care about that, though.
Just want us out of there.
And can you blame them for six years?
There has been a negative onslaught about conservatives, Republicans, and the president nightly on the drive-by media.
For the past two and a half years, all they've had to do is make sure that every night in the news you got enough pictures of Baghdad in smoke, burning cars, stories about mistreatment of civilians by American troops, and it's enough to drive people who pay no attention to this other than the ten minutes of news they watch every night to be made to feel very uncomfortable and demand a change.
Who really have no more thought about it than that.
They just don't like being made uncomfortable by what they're seeing on TV, so end that situation.
No concept of what's at stake, they're not paying all that much attention.
So they're going to do some damage.
Now I know people are saying, well, Russ, they really don't have large enough majorities to do a lot of damage.
Maybe not, but some of it's going to depend on a veto pen.
Don't know if we're going to see that.
We'll just have to uh wait and see.
But I'm I'm through predicting this stuff, folks, because I I don't know what um you know what liberals have shown who they are for years.
Liberals have have done uh everything they can to show who they are, and they were able to stay in power for forty years in the process.
So it's it's I I don't want to have to depend as the Democrats did this election on uh victory by other sides screwing up and having people vote for you only because they're voting against the Democrats.
That's that doesn't give you a mandate.
And Democrats don't have a mandate now other than Iraq, but yet they think they do, and they're gonna act like it.
And they're gonna be promoted and pushed by the drive-by media, so there they do think they run the whole show now.
They think they run the whole show anyway, even when they lose.
It's just their their attitude.
So we'll track it.
I mean, we we'll do what we always do here, but it's it's um it's gonna have its share of damage inflicted, uh, which is going to be a very costly education to some people, I fear.
Back in just a second, stay with us.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network and back to the phones.
Dave in Chicago.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
All right, thank you.
I appreciate uh the uh ability to speak with you.
My father informed me of you about six months ago when he was helping me rebuild my front porch, and I've been laughing ever since.
Well, happy to have you on the troupe.
Well, it's it's good to be here.
Um I lived in Colorado back in the eighties when President Reagan uh gave amnesty to all the uh immigrants, and the people that I worked with, and a majority of them were Hispanic or had recently become American citizens, said that when it came time to vote next time, they would not vote Republican because Reagan did that.
So it doesn't surprise me at all that the Democrats don't want to touch this issue because they like you said, when it comes time for the next election, they still want to be in power.
Oh, there's no question about it.
I I I um by the way, that Reagan, that Reagan signed it with Simpson Mazzoli back in uh in 1986, and I think the number of uh illegals then that that were granted amnesty was three point something million.
Uh and it was supposed to fix the problem.
And now we're up to whatever the number is guessed to be, uh twelve million, fifteen million.
I've seen guesstimates as high as thirty uh million.
Uh so I don't know that how much credibility the thirty million figure has.
Uh but the Democrats clearly gave the impression, see this is another one of these interesting things.
The Republicans, the party of ideas, take on this immigration battle, and all the ideas are basically on the Republican side, except for Ted Kennedy, who's got this amnesty bill.
And with Kennedy there, and the Democrats throughout the the year with all these marches that took place, Democrats are out recruiting voters.
The Democrats clearly created the impression among the pro amnesty types that they were on their side.
And uh the White House has signaled their their eagerness to work now with the Democrat majority in the House to come up with a piece of legislation that can be conferenced with the Senate bill that McCain and Kennedy did that grants amnesty, um, shuns border security aside for something uh else, gets to it much later in the process, if at all.
Uh and and uh if you look at the McCain bill, which we have done exhaustively and which we have reported on exhaustively, there are no enforcement provisions.
There are all these threats.
You gotta stand in line, you gotta admit this, you gotta pay a fine, but there's no enforcement.
I mean, my gosh, the bureaucracy is not set up to handle this kind of a program.
Look at we we can't even handle the ports.
We can't even handle the uh the FEMA.
Uh and yet everybody continues to trust in this massive giant bureaucracy that something like this can be done smoothly as silk.
You know, I've I've never known an institution that botches so much that people still have infinite faith to get it right.
Government can do better in health care to some people.
Government can do better building anything.
Government can do better running businesses than uh than individuals can.
Government can do it better than Walmart when it's just the exact opposite.
At any rate, uh the Democrats not desiring to get in on this is a true indication of where the real thinking in this country is among a majority of people happens to be.
And it's not for amnesty.
It's just not, and that's why it's it's fascinating to listen to our punditry, the the conservatives' punditry in Washington.
Uh chalk chalk the um the Republican position, the House Republican position on illegal immigration up is one of the reasons that Republicans lost.
Man, if that's the case, Democrats would be beaten down the doors to get this legislation signed as soon as January comes in uh and they and they come into power.
Patty in Shelbyville, Indiana.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Top ten percent taxpayer dittoes.
Top two percent.
Oh, top ten percent.
Sorry, well, I think that's a very proud to know you.
It's a delight.
Uh I think that the unions were actually payrolling some of those amnesty marches.
Uh I heard that about a week ago.
Oh, yeah.
All right, there's no question about it.
Um I just wanted to um echo what your sentiment about the GOP um kind of thrilling in the towel and relenting all of the progress that we've made.
But, you know, maybe with the House I can understand it, but with the Senate, I mean, they only won by like one percent on both of the, you know, the last races that were, you know, being contested or potentially contested in Montana and even in Virginia.
So I don't see how and why President Bush, which God love him and I love him too, why he's just kind of like, well, you know, giving him back.
It's I I totally don't understand that as a conservative.
Uh well, I I must profess I I don't either.
Uh they have to have a reason for it.
Uh and we're left to take the president at his word.
The Democrats won the election.
Uh the American people want us to work together.
Uh uh and and uh it is what it is.
I have a suggestion.
I think the Republicans can win if they can pass this piece of legislation before they get out of power.
Put a van on the welfare recipient voting.
That'll transform it.
Patty.
Do you think any serious legislation is gonna happen between now and the end of the year in a lame duck Congress?
Um, I'm not I'm not poo-pooing your idea.
Yeah.
And I'm not trying to sound cynical.
I'm trying to be a realist here.
That's it's a it's a lame duck session.
I know the president's gonna push for two things.
He's he he really wants uh Bolton confirmed.
Democrats have signaled along with Link Chafee that ain't gonna happen.
And he wants his legislation on uh on the National Security Agency's foreign surveillance program.
Well, I think I guarantee that the Democrats, oh yeah, we're gonna, in the spirit of bipartisanship, why we're gonna work with this.
They're gonna give him anything he wants.
He's that he's it and there aren't there aren't the votes here uh to to get uh anything done in a veto proof uh majority.
Uh ban welfare recipients from voting.
Is that what you said?
I I I was just kidding about that.
I Know that something like that'll never happen, but after it's all said and done, they're gonna find out that the reason Republicans lost is because they had a mandate several years ago.
And then I would say probably about two years ago, they started getting a little um a little weaker at being passionate about passing the things that they were put in office to pass.
Yeah, yeah, but that that's just one there are so many theories going around as to why the Republicans lost, and there's truth in part uh in all of them.
Uh the big one, though, happens to be Iraq uh motivating these spineless moderates uh to vote against Republicans.
Hi, folks, nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
We're here securely bunkered at the Southern Command among glorious uh surroundings and weather.
Telephone number 800 282-2882.
It was but twenty minutes ago that I said on this program in the opening monologue of this hour that one of the big pushes the Democrats are gonna make, and I mentioned this in a discussion of are they gonna screw things up for themselves by being too liberal in these next two years?
Yeah, they're gonna do all this thing, they're gonna be able to contain themselves, whether it'll end up hurting them, that's another matter.
But they're gonna do it.
They are they're just gonna be big government liberals and they're gonna investigate Bush.
They're gonna investigate the war, they're gonna do everything.
They're gonna be who they are.
Twenty minutes ago I said that, ladies and gentlemen.
I said it on the health care uh uh story based on their desire for the uh government to negotiate uh with drug companies on drug prices for Medicare.
That's government run health care right there.
Lo and behold, this just cleared the AP wire.
Democrat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday outlined an ambitious agenda of legislative priorities while continuing to deflect questions about her presidential ambitions.
Uh I'll look at the possibilities, but I really haven't had time to talk to people about it.
Uh it's been a busy election season, it worked out well, so I uh I'll think about it.
I am open uh to thoughts.
One thing that uh she did say Democrats would focus on improving quality and affordability of health care.
She said health care is coming back.
She warned her health care is coming back.
It may be a bad dream for some.
Health care is coming back.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
I have received some emails today from people who are saying I do not sound myself.
Have you guys thought that in there?
You have?
You've thought something is a little odd today.
Uh one of the questions specifically was, you just don't sound fired up.
Are you a little down in the dumps and depressed?
Uh you people know me too well.
I would hope that my professionalism would triumph over the ebb and flow of human emotions day to day, because after all, you deserve the best.
And for three hours I should be able to put aside my tiny small little problems to give you the best in content and entertainment that I can, because that's what you deserve, and that's what you expect.
But I've been troubled by something.
Um ever since the election.
I have seriously begun to began to wonder if I have lost touch with the electorate.
I mean, when you see fifty-four, fifty-five percent of so-called moderates voting Democrat.
I have to ask myself, did I create angry moderates?
Because I, of course, characterize them on this program as spineless linguistics mind.
I say that you'll never go to the library and find great moderates, great independence in American history.
These are the people that moisten their fingers, stick it up in the wind, figure out which way the wind's blowing, and always want to be in the majority so they can think they are powerful.
And I'm asking myself, did I create or did I contribute to the anger that the moderates have for people on my side.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, did I become a liability?
And uh and in the process uh have people essentially voting against me when I wasn't on the ballot anywhere.
Now, I am in the business here to amass the largest audience I can, hold it for as long as I can, so that I can charge confiscatory advertising rates.
That has always been my philosophy.
But I have never been one to moisten my finger myself and try to give people what they want to hear, because I am I am I am constitutionally incapable of that.
I am incapable of not telling you what I think about something.
So as I'm watching events transpire before our very eyes, and I'm watching the electorate shift, and by the way, I know that they've every time Republicans lose an election, the media says, ew, that's it, the Republican ascendancy is over.
They did it in 86 when Reagan lost the House and Senate in his uh six-year midterm election.
Uh they ever every time a Republican loses the media is filled with that's the end of conservatism.
It's had it, it's over, and they're saying that now.
And of course that's not true.
Uh conservatism won in this election, as you know.
If it weren't for conservative Democrats, they wouldn't have won the House.
So I don't buy any of that.
However, I am seeing a lot of people talk about the need for bipartisanship and working together.
And I'm wondering if I need to make a move in that direction, too.
I'm wondering, and I was thinking seriously about this over the weekend.
Maybe I should call Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed and ask for a meeting to quell some of the tensions that exist in our country that I am contributing to.
Get together with them, see if we can come to some understanding so that we can all work together for the betterment of the American people.
This seems to be an a policy that's implemented here at the highest levels of uh of our government.
And you know, maybe talk to uh Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi about about what can be done uh about conservatism and how conservatism can be melded with the rest of the country so that we all work together for the same common good.
Uh what would be the outcome of that?
What what what I was asking myself, what would the audience uh the American people think of me if I if I made this move to establish my own new tone uh with the victors in last week's election and get together,
not publicly and uh off the record, this this would not be something designed to embarrass them or humiliate them, but an actual working discussion in order to uh come up with some objectives that will benefit all people in America, not just a select few.
And then I asked myself, would they accept the meeting?
Would they think I was being serious?
Or would they be suspicious and doubtful?
You think they would be suspicious and doubtful?
You think uh they they would just throw up.
Pelosi and Reed would would just throw up.
Probably so.
But it is um something I've been pondering, uh, ladies and gentlemen, for the country, for us to uh work together in common aims and common objectives and end the bitterness and end the strife, and the constant friction, the hatred and the rage, the anger that so permeates our country.
I just wonder if that's not the way to go.
And this is what I've been pondering, and you have you have those of you who have written today have have very shrewdly detected uh a bit of unease in uh in my voice.
Some have said it's a lack of focus.
It's not a lack of focus, ladies and gentlemen.
It's just uh minor distraction, as I uh am unable to totally focus on you today as I normally do and allow and pref professionalism normally uh permits to uh happen.
At any rate, uh a brief time out uh must go to our obscene profit break where we have charged confiscatory advertising rates while we still can back in just a second.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh from the heart on the EIB network.
After all, ladies and gentlemen, as America's anchorman, there is some responsibility that accrue is to me to set and help establish the new national tone, which has clearly been shown by a majority of voters to have a change.
Uh they they want a new tone, and America's anchorman fighting the people of the country.
Uh doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Here's uh Sheryl and Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
Nice to have you on the program, Cheryl.
Well, thank you, sir.
My good man, you're absolutely wrong.
When I listen to your show and I tell people about why I listen to your show, what you do primarily is you repeat their words.
If those words are angry, that's not your fault.
You analyze these people, you give us brat background that we get nowhere else.
So, like I said, if it's anger coming through, those are their words.
Uh what am I missing?
What w uh w w who to whom are you referring?
Who's anger?
Who are you talking about?
Well, you're saying that everybody's angry and there's a new tone, and you need to meet with the Democrats to speak with them so that there can be a reconciliation.
If you're telling us what they're saying, and you do, because I wouldn't hear it anywhere else, the anger is from their w from them.
Not from you.
You mean the anger's from the Democrats.
Correct.
The anger's in the Democrats.
Correct.
Well, I know, but look at what just you know, this is this is why I'm beginning to wonder if I've lost touch with the electorate.
And I don't mean economically, people say I've lost touch because I don't worry about the phone bill.
That's that's not what I mean.
I'm talking about I'm talking about losing touch in terms of understanding the electorate.
I for two years, everybody who talked to me asked me, you think the Republicans are gonna hold on the House.
I said, absolutely.
There is nobody in this country that is gonna vote for hatred and rage the way the Democrats have articulated it.
That's not inspiring.
That doesn't build movements, and I could not have been more wrong.
Hatred and rage, as espoused by the Democrats and hatred and rage at the Republicans led to a Democrat victory in the House and the Senate last Tuesday, almost a week ago.
Well, I don't know if there's hatred as much as disappointment.
They disappointed us.
I informed it I'm I'm I'm not well, I'm talking about the and again, I'm reacting here to the analysts who are saying that moderates and independents were the largest voting bloc.
I think it was conservatives 34 percent of the voting block.
Uh liberals were 21 percent, and the rest were independents and moderates.
You had some socialists thrown in there and some green party people, some libertarians, but uh the majority of voters identified themselves as moderates or or independents.
And uh uh they were clearly moved by the rage and hatred articulated by the Democrats.
Uh they th somehow that did sell.
Well, you'd have to be dishonest, then, and if you know you want to be dishonest, which I don't think you want to do.
What me?
I just I've just given you a dose of I have bared my soul to you here or not.
What do you mean, dishonest?
No, honey.
But I mean if you pretend like th there is an anger and rage coming from them.
You know what I mean?
If like your new tone is gonna be you're not gonna say what they say and analyze what they say, then who said anything like that?
All I said was I am thinking of requesting a meeting with either or both Senator Reed and Speaker to B. Pelosi.
Okay, will it be on your show?
No.
No, they w they would never do that.
No, no, this this this would this would be serious.
Uh, as America's anchor man, I'm responsible for the new tone.
Oh, I love you, Rush.
All right.
That's all I wanted to say.
Is it You know, if it's if there's anger c anger coming through, it's their words, because you repeat their words and this and analyze it.
Yeah, I I'm not that that's what I'm saying.
I'm saying that anger translated into votes for them.
That I mean I have never seen such rage and hatred directed at individuals, lies and all this in all of my this I've never seen what went on the past two years.
Well, you know, I want to know one thing.
How come the day before the election?
Nancy Pelosi was fighting us tooth and nail the day after the election.
We're going to cooperate now.
Where was the cooperation before that?
That's exactly my point.
That's exactly my point.
The rage and the hatred is what got Nancy Pelosi elected Speaker of the House, or will get her elected as uh as as speaker now.
But see that here's the here's the th here's the thing, Cheryl.
At some point, don't we have to move beyond the hate and the anger and the rage and communicate with these people?
Uh I mean, uh th uh get to know them uh so that they they uh understand more about who we are and and what we're all about.
Um there's a there's a there's a gulf out there, a divide that needs to be bridged.
Well, they're gonna be a big and not and not with an earmark and not with pork, but with genuine compassion.
Well, they're gonna create more hatred if they take this good man who is our president and and just destroy him in the middle of this war.
I'll tell you what, I'll never forgive them.
Never.
I have a son who served in Iraq, and I worry about him because he is still in the service.
And I don't like these people being in power.
They hate our troops, they hate defending this country.
That's right, and they made that plain during the campaign and they won.
Yes, they did.
And I I it it I cannot tell you how enraged and depressed and disappointed that made me.
I am I'm with you a hundred percent on that.
All right, thank you for taking my call.
Thank you for calling me honey.
I haven't heard that.
Probably in twenty years.
I'm a good old-fashioned married, happily married woman.
That's the name of my game.
All right, thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Uh thank you, Cheryl, so much.
Uh Amy in Bakersfield, California.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Well, thank you, honey.
It's an honor to talk to you.
The reason I'm calling is about education.
And I'm talking about the voter.
You have always talked about when a Democrat lose an election, they come up with a list of excuses that the ballot was confusing or there was cheating, or they couldn't get their message out.
Then there's several variations on the theme of the stupidity of the voter.
They were too stupid to vote for them.
And I just wanted to know, in all this talk about new tones, do you reject that argument, the stupidity of the voter across the board, or just when the Democrats use it?
Because the more I think about this election, the more I keep coming back to it's the stupidity of the voter.
I don't I don't think it's stupidity, uh, although clearly there is some.
I mean, in a in a population as large as ours, you're gonna have some blithering idiots out there.
Uh and and and we do, but I think in large part it's uninformed.
Well, uh I I think it's people that pay scant attention for a very few short weeks before an election.
Uh scant attention every night, but they he all it all they need is a two-minute soundbite or a twenty-second sound bite every night with bombs and smoke and burning cars in Iraq.
Uh and and that's as deep as they go with it.
Now, if you want to call if you want to call that stupidity, um, I don't know.
See, I've always thought the American people respond to leadership.
In fact, I know they do.
They always respond to leaders.
They responded to Ronald Reagan, they responded to George W. Bush in the early days of his administration, the war on terror.
There just hasn't been any uh uh lately, and that's why there's this uh uh feeling of uh wandering aimless in the desert out there.
Back in just a second.
▲
Export Selection