And greetings once again, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plan, America's real anchorman to the rescue, Rush Limbaugh.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all concern, pretty much all everything.
Maha Rushi, it's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And you know the rules.
When we go to the phones, you own the program.
Except we do draw the line at acknowledged and admitted kookery.
Somebody artfully slithered past Mr. Snerdley in the previous hour, but he assures me it won't happen again.
Here's the phone number, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We'll get to your phone calls in due course in this hour.
But as we've been telling you since yesterday, we are happy to welcome back to the program Tom DeLay and his new book, No Retreat, No Surrender, One American's Fight.
Tom, great to have you back.
I just want you to know that we have you on the phone line here we call the hot line because this book is hot.
Well, I hope it's hot.
It tells a great story.
And the best part of the book, in my opinion, is the forward that you wrote.
And I publicly want to thank you for doing that.
Once again, Rush Limbaugh gets it, and he knows how to articulate it.
Well, I would dispute with you that the hottest part of the book is the forward, but that's very nice and gracious of you to say.
I read somewhere, I think it was in our Novak column, where you told him you feel liberated not being bound by being a membership in the elected leadership of the Republican Party.
What do you mean by that?
Well, obviously, when you're in a leadership position, you have to be careful of what you say.
People are watching you.
You're upfront and personal.
And I always felt constrained by that.
I was not felt constrained about advancing the conservative cause.
But now that I'm out, I feel very comfortable, very much at peace, and can say whatever I want to say.
You mean you felt constrained not about your thoughts on the opposition, but about your own team?
Well, not necessarily.
The first team that we had with Newt Gingrich as speaker was not as cohesive as the team that was led by Dennis Hastard.
But even with that, we were able to accomplish a lot, as you know.
The contract with America, balancing the budget, welfare reform.
So we were able to do a lot of good stuff.
So the point is, you know, leadership is something that I discuss on this program a lot because there doesn't seem to be any elected conservative leadership in Washington right now on the Republican side.
And I understand that one of the reasons for this is that, you know, well, when you were there and up until last November, you had the president who was the top dog Republican.
And it's tough for congressional leadership, Senate Republican leadership to go against the president.
That's just a political no-no.
But for much of your time, you had Clinton in the White House.
And during that time, I gather, you had misgivings about your own leadership, but you thought it was best to deal with that behind the scenes rather than to be public with it.
And yet a lot of people, it comes to leadership, hey, look, if there's a problem, we have to know about it and get it fixed rather than trying to paper it over.
So it's got to be a delicate balancing act for you.
Well, it is, and it does create some pressure and some tension that you have to deal with.
You know, there was somebody in leadership, and I don't know who it was, kept leaking to the press what we were discussing in leadership.
So you had to weigh your words very carefully in what you say.
And frankly, you had to understand that whatever you said was going to be on the front page of the newspaper the next day.
Give me an example.
I don't even want to mention a name, but this is the kind of thing that surprises average people who vote for people like you.
They think that the leadership of the in the House, the Republican leadership, is unified on an agenda.
Why would somebody in the leadership be leaking?
And on what kinds of things were they leaking?
Well, they would leak because they had a paranoia about themselves, or they had someone on their staff that they may or may not know was leaking for their own, and that staff are doing it to buddy up to the press or for their own future ambitions.
Our first leadership table was, I mean, we worked together, and certainly the most important part of that leadership table was President Bill Clinton and bringing us together.
But there was that tension that was going on.
And it was things like, you know, if you say something about Bill Clinton off the cuff, and probably you wouldn't like to see it in the paper, it would end up in the paper the next day.
Or you had a particular idea that the leadership may not have accepted, that idea with your name on it would be in the press the next day.
All right.
So what this is obviously a result of is tension among the leadership, traditional human jealousies and insecurities.
And there's a.
And an effort to, within the leadership itself, destroy somebody for whatever reason.
They're a threat.
They're not liked.
The usual things that happen in every organization.
That's correct.
And there is a leadership politics that no one knows about and very few people write about.
And that's the politics of people that may one day want to be Speaker.
And so if that's the way they operate and they make every decision based upon them becoming Speaker in the future, it clouds their judgment sometimes.
Would I be correct in assuming that you could be referring to Dick Army there based on some things in your book?
Yes, most definitely so, especially during the coup.
Now, if you read my book, unlike what was in the Novak column, I compliment Dick a lot about the things he was able to accomplish.
He did a fabulous job on the contract with America, on the Homeland Security Department, keeping it from being a union-run group.
He did some great work, but we had the problem as outlined in the book about the coup.
The coup.
Well, if you'll remember, it's kind of interesting.
And in the book, I lay it all out.
A group of conservative Republicans not in leadership were very upset about Newt Gingrich and the fact that he would change the agenda about every 15 minutes.
And they were getting upset with the fact that he was playing footsies with Bill Clinton too much.
And they were going to take him out and take him down.
At the same time, the leadership was having the same problem, and we were having discussions with Newt about his managerial style and how difficult it was to make things happen when he would change the agenda overnight.
This was 1997, right?
The coup?
Yeah.
Now, how many of the 94 freshmen were involved in the coup?
I've talked to some of them, and of course they arrived bright-eyed and bushytailed, and they really believed that they were there to implement the agenda they had all campaigned on, and it was a revolutionary thing here.
They had taken over to Congress.
And there were a number of freshmen here that gave the Republicans this huge majority.
How many of them were dispirited by what they learned and saw, and how long did it take for that to happen?
At least half of them, 35 to 40 of them.
And it took a couple of years, particularly the second term of Newt Gingrich, where the members had just had enough.
At the end of 1997, they wanted to see a change, and they didn't see Newt bringing about that change, so they were going to take him down.
So Dick Armey, myself, Bill Paxson from New York, and John Boehner, the now minority leader, came together, frankly, to handle the situation and try to keep that up.
Whether you were supporting Newt Gingrich or not wasn't the point.
The point was our conference did not need this kind of divisive action right in the middle of our Congress.
It would have destroyed everything that we were working for.
Interesting point because, you know, so many, and I'm sure you know this, so many grassroots conservatives today are upset, and they have been.
And I think a lot of it could be traced back to the 95 budget deal when the Democrats were out saying that Republicans wanted to starve kids, and there was no defense.
It was allowed to stand, just like so many accusations against the current administration are allowed to stand without any defense.
And conservatives who have voted for Republicans in the House get frustrated because they don't fight back.
They don't seem to have any energy in refuting some of what they think are baseless charges.
They're very upset with what they perceive as the unwillingness of Republicans in the administration and in Congress to stand up for their own people in the face of obvious political attacks by Democrats.
And you get to look at this phony scandal of the firing of U.S. attorneys.
And then the Attorney General goes out and says, yes, mistakes were made, and hands the Democrats his head practically on a silver platter.
Then the president says mistakes were made.
Well, I don't know if any mistakes were made.
It doesn't appear to me that any mistakes were made.
Presidents have fired U.S. attorneys.
They work for the president.
He has a constitutional right to fire them.
I got John Sununu who's just come out and said the Attorney General should resign.
And what people ask is, where are the instincts, the normal instincts to want to defend themselves and go on offense against liberals who are trying to destroy them?
Hey, Rush, have you been talking to my wife?
Your wife's a great American, and if she's echoing me on this, or if I'm echoing her, then she's in touch with the conservative voters of this country.
Well, I think that had a lot to do with the losses in 2006, exactly.
I think there were two things that were going on.
One, and it's not because I was taken down as the majority leader, but the very fact that I had to step aside as majority leader sent a wave of confusion through the Republican caucus at a very sensitive time when they should have been working and strategizing on the upcoming election.
It took the new leadership that was elected after I left permanently in January of 2006 another two months just to hire staff.
So by the time they were ready to go, it was too late.
Secondly, as you say, they did not have the capability to articulate not only what they did, particularly in 2005, which is pretty impressive, but what they stand for and where they want to lead the country.
I think they would have had a better fighting chance in 2006 if they had.
And you're absolutely right.
This U.S. attorney thing, it just boggles my mind.
And the Bush administration still hasn't learned, number one, the Democrats are going to come after them.
After all this, let's get together and can't we just get along?
That started this session.
That can't be that they don't know that.
There has to be some.
I've sat here and asked myself: do they not understand that they are targeted for destruction?
But after six and a half years here, they have to know this.
It's their curious way of dealing with it.
But that's the whole point I was going to make.
Starts with Don Rumsfeld.
I mean, Don Runsfeld, in my opinion, gets let go because the Democrats are demanding it, and it looked good politically.
Well, that sent a great message to the Democrats.
Well, if we raise enough hell, maybe we can get another head and another scalp.
And here they come after Alberto Gonzalez, and you got Republicans right now handing the scalp over.
Rather than walking out there and saying, look, these attorneys serve at the will of the president.
This is a personnel matter, and that's that.
And we're not going to give in to you.
We're not going to send people to testify before your politically driven committees.
We're not going to play your game.
Well, you're conveniently, I think, with humility, leaving your own scalp out, but that's crucial until we'll talk about that and some other things as we move forward.
Have to take a brief time out.
We'll be back and continue with Tom DeLay right after this.
Welcome back, folks.
We are with Tom DeLay.
New book out.
No retreat, no surrender.
One Americans fight.
You're talking about the Republicans giving Democrats scalps.
Rumsfeld is an example, and there are countless others, and it's indeed frustrating.
Let's look at your own case.
Now, you've talked about this on the program once before, so I don't want to go through the details.
I'll just summarize them very quickly.
Republicans, in order to placate in the House, in order to placate Democrats, established a rule that if any of their leadership were ever indicted, they'd have to quit the leadership.
Democrats have no such rule.
Ergo, after they got, I don't know how that happened.
I don't know why the Republicans fall for it.
Here comes Ronnie Earle, and we all know the bogus indictments against you and all of this stuff.
But the end result is you're gone.
You were gotten rid of too.
And my question to you is: I got the impression after this happened, there were some Republicans in the House leadership that weren't that disappointed when this happened.
Well, I don't know who that'd be, Rush.
Well, my point is that you had your own people problems who thought that you were too aggressive, that you were making the Republicans too big a target with your aggressive defense of conservatism and your pursuit of the opposition.
I mean, let's face it, the Republican Party has a lot of moderates out there that don't like conservatives.
But they weren't in leadership.
I think if you talk to Dennis Hastert or Roy Blunt, the whip now, Eric Cantor, the chief deputy whip, we had a very cohesive leadership table for eight years, and we worked very well together.
Danny Haster and I were partners.
Sometimes I'd get aggressive and he would tamp me down, and sometimes he wasn't aggressive enough, and I'd pump him up.
So it wasn't in the leadership.
Yes, we had members of Congress that didn't want to go where we wanted to lead them and fought us every step of the way, but we were able to hold them together and accomplish some pretty amazing things over the last eight years of Dennis Haster's speakership.
And you have to deal with that, obviously, when you're dealing with, at the time, 225, 230 individuals, particularly Republicans, by the nature of being a Republican, they're individuals.
But we were able to deal with it and hold them together and move forward.
I mean, things like balancing the budget.
You know, most people don't know that the House, the Republican House, for 12 straight years passed tax cuts every year.
And as important as that is, it was 12 years before the federal government raised one penny in taxes.
That alone is pretty good concern.
Well, it is.
It is.
But look, it's taking your book after the fact they got that news out.
The Republicans have another problem that irritates people, and that is the quote-unquote PR machine that doesn't seem to exist.
All these good things remain secret because the drive-by media, of course, doesn't cover them, and they do promote the Democrat spin on things.
And I've talked to Republicans who say, well, we can't get our message out.
But clearly, there are ways to do it.
I got to share an email with you because this relates to something you said just now about Speaker Hastert.
Woman writes in and says, Newt got in the way of the Republican agenda.
It was more cohesive under Hastert.
What?
What has the Hastert leadership accomplished except lose the House?
I don't understand.
All I know as a conservative is that Newt got it done.
If I can, let me give you the agenda in 2005, just one year before the election.
In 2005, we passed three tort reform bills signed by the president.
The House took on the judiciary to hold them accountable.
We passed five bills limiting the jurisdiction of the courts.
We even passed a bill twice breaking up that leftist Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco and told them that they could meet in Guam if they wanted to.
We actually cut spending for the first time, discretionary spending for the first time since Ronald Reagan.
We started the process that was very important to me, and that is I think entitlements should be looked at every year and reformed every year.
And we did it in 2005, saved $40 billion.
We passed a strong border security bill in answer to the president and the senate who wants this comprehensive immigration and sending the signal that the House is not going to move from border security first before you start discussing amnesty.
And I could go on and on.
I mean, a comprehensive, long-term, long vision energy bill that took us almost 10 years to accomplish.
All right.
Now, let me stop you there only because I've got 25 seconds here before we have to go to the next break.
But I think the reason that so many people hold the view, and I know that there are many who hold the same view that the woman expressed in her email, is the perception that Newt was out there.
He was making speeches.
He was on television every day, and he was articulating conservatism.
Hastert wasn't.
Hastert was the invisible man, and so what you just described is unknown.
You comment on it when we come back after this.
And we're back.
We're talking with Tom DeLay, whose new book, No Retreat, No Surrender, One America's Fight.
Now, back to this email from one of my listeners was stunned that you said that Newt got in the way of the Republican agenda and are crediting Hastert with so much of the successful agenda you just detailed for us.
And as I said, I think the reason for this is PR.
Newt was out there every day.
He might have been making a speech at a think tank, and he might have been announcing a new policy initiative every 10 minutes.
But still, he was visible and he was doing it.
And it was, whatever he was saying, was conservative.
Nobody's ever seen Denny Hastert in that role.
And so the things that you say were accomplished doubtless were.
But the missing component to all this was almost a braggadocio about it, a confident presentation to everybody that this had happened.
And so people largely don't know it.
And I think that's why this woman and probably others were surprised to hear you say that Newt was more of an obstacle to the agenda than Hastert was.
Well, Rush, I wouldn't put it that way.
And if I said it that way, I shouldn't have.
Newt was not an obstacle.
There were things going on in the leadership.
We were still able to accomplish some pretty amazing things.
I mean, as Newt was a speaker, we balanced the budget, the welfare reform.
There's just a lot of things that we did and were accomplished.
And thank goodness that we did.
But your emailer is absolutely right.
And I have to take some responsibility for this.
We sucked at communication.
It was our biggest weakness.
We just could not get it together.
Thank God that we had you and others that at least understood what was going on and was talking about it.
But yes, we needed a national communication strategy.
We needed to put our brightest and most articulate people out front.
And we needed to tell our story over and over again and stand up to the national media and as you call them, the drive-by media.
I hope to do that in the future.
In fact, that's part of what I'm doing in the future, is to develop a national communication strategy to stand up to the drive-by media.
Now that you're liberated.
Now that I'm liberated.
Now, this may be, and I'm not trying to hit with tough questions, but you're inspiring them.
And I have a theory.
I'm one of the average Americans who, leading up to the campaign of 2006, the election of 2006, I frankly, and I said this after the election, I'm through carrying their water.
I'm not going to defend them if they won't defend themselves.
I'm not going to make their case anymore if they won't.
Just to prop them on, my theory is, and I'm going to ask you this point blank, and it may sound egotistical, but it concerns me.
Is there a recalcitrance, a reluctance on the part of elected Republicans in the House and even in the Senate to rely on the new conservative media to speak for them, to defend them, to attack their enemies, so that they shut up?
No, I think where they are right now, and I think where the conservative movement is right now, they're licking their wounds, number one, and we need to put that behind them.
And I'm talking about before the election, though.
Oh, before the election?
Before the election, I understand where they are now.
They're powerless in the House.
Would you explain?
I'm jumping ahead here.
I don't want to forget this answer, but I'll save that question for after this.
But I'm talking about before the election.
Before the election, to be honest with you, as I said earlier, they were in confusion for the entire year of 2006.
The Democrats knew what they were doing.
Disrupt the leadership, and it'll take them months to bring it back together and get up to speed again.
That's number one.
Number two, we've never been good at communications.
And if you're in confusion and not good at communications, communication is going to be terrible.
And number three, you cannot discount, Rush, the massive, unseen before in my lifetime, coalition that the Democrats have been able to build over the last six years.
So even if they were at their best game, even if they were articulating what they had accomplished and where they want to take the country, they still had to face one of the most politically awesome machines built mostly by the Clintonistas that I've ever witnessed and is in place.
And I've got to tell you, if the conservatives don't get it together, Hillary Clinton's going to be the next president of the United States.
Are you talking about the alliance of the blogs and the new Podesta think tank that coordinated with Rahm Emanuel and George Soros?
Is that what you're talking about?
And Harold Ickes and Sidney Blumenthal and the Halperins and Bagala and Carville, they didn't stop working when they left the White House.
They are out there right now.
When they needed an organization, Harold Ickes created America Coming Together, which is a group that has 1,400 full-time employees that canvas.
They needed somebody to do media for the 527s.
They created the media fund.
They needed to organize the Hollywood and musicians, and they created America Votes to hold concerts around the country and feed that money back into their coffers.
You already mentioned the Center for America Progress, Hillary Clinton's think tank run by John.
John Podesta, right.
They needed opposition research.
They've investigated probably every sitting Republican that we know of right now through a group called CRU and Democracy 21 and Common Cause.
And I could go on, they need a consulting group to pull this coalition together.
They've got Thunder Road Group.
To fund it, you've got George Soros, the foundations, hundreds of foundations, like the Ford Foundation and the Gates Foundation, the Sorrels Foundation, pumping money in.
The unions, the service employees union are bragging about putting $73 million in the last election just from one union, funding all of this stuff.
I'm just touching the tip of it.
If you want to see what it's all about, go to discoverthenetwork.org and you can actually see it and read about it.
What is your thinking on why the Republicans, even after the electoral victories in 94 and the presidential victories in 2000, 2004, haven't put together something similar?
I think we got a little arrogant.
I think we got a little lazy.
I think we relied on doing things like we've always done.
The only real two new ideas that I know of that we came up with was the 72-hour program, which was a good get-out-the-vote program, and what I called Stomp, which is a share-your-volunteer program.
And robocalling and micro-targeting, those are the only new ideas we had in how we run our campaigns.
While we're doing that little, the Democrats understood, number one, that McCain neutered the party through his McCain-feingold, and they had to create this whole new party.
And that's what they did.
It took them five to six years to do it, but they did it and they did it well.
So basically, they took advantage of the loophole in the McCain-Feingold bill to create the 527s, and Republicans don't have a lot in that area.
And one of my theories, I'll run by you, is that it's going to be tough to overcome institutionally.
Liberals, by definition, go to college to become bureaucrats and to become people who work to grow government.
Conservatives look at government as something to be restrained.
We don't make it our career to orient our lives around government.
The liberals do.
This is something that is their lifeblood.
Oh, you're so right, Rush.
And I'd just add to that.
Liberals, by the virtue of their philosophy, are collectivists.
So it's easy to pull everybody together and work together.
You've got abortionists working on labor policy.
You've got labor unions working on environmental policy.
Conservatives, by their philosophy, are individualists.
And They create an organization to protect against gun control, but you can't get the gun owners to work against abortions.
Shoot, during the energy bill in 2005, I couldn't get the mining association to work with the chemical association.
Well, I've got a couple big questions on this, but it's time for another EIB obscene profit break.
And we will take it and be back and continue our talk with Tom DeLay.
Just a second.
And welcome back.
Tom DeLay is our guest here.
And this is probably the final broadcast segment we have with Mr. DeLay.
Title of the book, No Retreat, No Surrender, When Americans Fight.
You were just talking about, we were just talking about the fact that liberals, from the time they're junior high school, are oriented toward getting jobs that interact with government or are in government for the purposes of controlling it.
Conservatives, that's anathema.
To the extent they want to be in government, it's to restrain it.
Now, one of the things the liberals are succeeding in doing is insulating institutions in this country, academia, the media, a number of places like that, from the judiciary, from election results.
And my question to you about this is: you and your fellow Republicans in taking over the House went to the people.
The Republican majority resulted in 1994 from connecting with voters, educating and informing them, and you produced majorities up until last November.
Same thing here with me.
I mean, I've tried to acquire the largest audience possible, not by becoming a think tank, but actually appealing to the people.
And the point was to create as many informed people as possible to go vote on Election Day.
That gives our side a triumph.
But with so much insulation from election results going on, the Liberals have purposely planned this.
It's a very wise strategic move.
And you know, does it worry you that so many of our institutions are becoming immune to election results?
And is there anything you would suggest that could be done about it?
Well, Rush, I tell you, the reason for the title of the book, No Retreat, No Surrender, I talk about it in the book of what I perceive as the voids of leadership that are vitally important to fill in the next, in the very near future.
First and foremost, the Republicans have to establish, go back to their first principles and stand on those principles, develop an agenda that I outline in the book to fight for.
But as important as all that is, we have to find a way to pull everybody together.
And that's why I'm creating a grassroots organization called Coalition for Conservative Majority.
People can go to the website, ccmajority.org, and sign up.
That's going back to the people.
You're absolutely right.
We have to change the culture of the media, which means we have to develop a national communication strategy working with people like you and others about getting information to the people.
We also need a group that develops resources to connect with the Republicans and conservatives on the inside of the Congress to work together like we used to even when we were in the minority to drive that conservative agenda and defeat the leftist agenda.
Those are voids that, and if you fill those voids, then you're going to pull the conservative cause and the conservative movement together to work together and drive that agenda.
Give me a few names and give your impression of them if you want.
Your impression of them as conservative leaders, potential presidential material.
Rudy Giuliani.
Well, Rudy Giuliani has exhibited leadership, and I think the reason he's doing so well in the polls right now is that's what conservatives are begging for, is leadership, and they're willing to forgive him of his social liberalism.
But all of these candidates are going to have to prove themselves over the next few months.
And we don't know what's going to happen.
But if you look at the polls even today, which are meaningless, over 60% of conservatives are waiting for these candidates to prove themselves.
John McCain.
I wouldn't call him a conservative.
McCain voted against tax cuts.
McCain is the author of McCain Fine Gold.
McCain is partnered up with Ted Kennedy on immigration, going in the wrong direction.
He's going to have to prove himself, too.
Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is trying to carry the conservative banner, but again, he talks a good talk, but I think the conservatives are going to see if he walks the walk.
Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson is a good, solid conservative.
I think I disagree with him on immigration, but was distinguished in the Senate, certainly has a persona about him that people like, and he could communicate a message.
Okay, it doesn't sound like you've made a choice among the names that I mentioned to you.
Not even close.
Does that mean none of them fire you up?
There isn't a candidate out there that fires me up.
I'm a close friend of Sam Brownback.
He is a committed, died-in-the-wool conservative.
Can he put together a campaign?
It's too early to tell.
Duncan Hunter.
You know him well.
I love Duncan Hunter.
The only thing I disagree with Duncan on is trade policy.
He's a protectionist.
But as far as having a commander-in-chief, he couldn't be any better.
I mean, he's the best.
Tan Credo.
Tan Credo, his time will come.
He's a one-issue candidate, and we all know that.
Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas, I've known for 25 years, and just is a fabulous human being.
But he's going to have to prove himself, too, because he raised taxes in Arkansas.
How is this going to be?
You know, all these front-loaded primaries, you're going to have Super Duper Tuesday.
It's almost like a national primary.
Both parties early on.
The conventions are going to be more of an afterthought than ever before.
Well, I think the candidates know what they have to do.
And what they have to do is appeal to the base.
Because if 60% of the base of Republicans, which frankly is the base, is sitting back and watching, they know they have a job to do.
And that's why you have primaries.
Tom, thanks for your time.
This has been most enlightening.
People are going to enjoy the book.
The early publicity on the book has been Bush is more compassionate than conservatives, some of the leadership fights between Army and Gingrich.
But there's a lot more in this book, as typified by the second half of our discussion.
Wish you the best with the book.
Thank you for all your time here.
Just one final thing here.
I forgot to ask you this.
If you can comment on it, and I know there are probably some limitations from your lawyers.
Where are you on this Ronnie Earle business now?
Well, the Democrats are still at it.
Rush, I just got to tell you, it's not enough to defeat a man publicly.
It's not even enough to vilify him publicly.
You have to carpet bomb his life.
You have to make sure that he leaves office disgraced, bankrupt, and heading for jail.
And they're not going to give up on me because they know I'm going to be out there continue to fight for what I believe in, and I'm not giving up.
No retreat, no surrender.
Well, that's Clinton Inc. right out of Saul Alinsky.
And it is.
You don't just defeat your enemies, you destroy them.
That's the Democrats.
They don't have any ideas.
They don't have a vision.
They don't have an agenda.
How do you think they won in 2000?
Well, they don't have an agenda they'll admit to.
That's true.
They have an agenda, and it's dangerous for all of us.
Amen.
Tom DeLay, again, the title of the book is No Retreat, No Surrender, One Americans Fight.
We'll take a brief timeout and come back and preview our next busy broadcast hour right after this.
And we have an exciting, busy broadcast hour remaining on Open Line Friday.
We're going to squeeze a lot of your phone calls in in the next hour since you didn't have a chance in this one.
We got some audio sound bites.
We'll talk about the continuing non-scandal of the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys, a controversy over horse meat in the United States, as well as a lot of other exciting things in the stack, too.
So at Al Sharpton, Al Sharpton is back, or he never left, his bullhorn outside the campaign headquarters or home of Barack Obama.