All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
March 16, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings once again, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plan America's real anchor man 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 s uh slithered past Mr. Snurgley 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.
But 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's 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, um I I would dispute with you that the uh 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 uh in our Novak column where you told him you feel liberated not being bound by uh being member uh a membership uh uh in the uh uh elected leadership of the Republican Party.
What what do you mean by that?
Well, obviously, when you're in a leadership position, you have to be careful of what you say.
Uh you have to uh people are watching you.
You're you're uh upfront and personal, and uh um I always felt constrained by that.
I ha was not confr uh felt constrained about uh uh advancing the conservative cause.
Uh but now that I'm out, I feel very comfortable, very much at peace, and uh can say whatever I want to say.
You mean you felt constrained, not about uh uh your thoughts on the opposition, but about your own team.
Uh well not necessarily.
I I uh the first team that we had with New Gingrich uh as speaker was not as cohesive as the team that was led by Dennis Hastert.
Um uh but uh even with that we were able to accomplish a lot, as you know.
The contract with America, balancing the budget, uh welfare reform.
So we were able to to do a lot of good stuff.
So the 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 uh, you know, w well, uh when you were there and up until last November, you had the president, uh, who is the top dog Republican, and it's tough for uh like congressional leadership, Senate Republican leadership to go against the president.
That's just uh a political political no-no.
But for much of your time you had Clinton in the White House.
Uh and during that during that time, I gather you you uh 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.
Yet a lot of people 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 bounce uh balancing act for you.
Well, it is, and uh it does uh create some pressure and some tension that you have to deal with.
Uh there, you know, there was somebody in leadership, and I don't know who it was, kept leaking uh to the press, uh what we were discussing in leadership.
So you you know you had to weigh your your words very carefully in what you say, and and frankly, uh what uh 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 without a uh uh I know you don't 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 uh uh in in the house, the Republican leadership is unified on an agenda.
Why would somebody in a leadership be leaking uh and on what kinds of things were they leaking?
Well, uh they would leak because they had a paranoia for about themselves.
Or or they had someone on their staff that they may or may not know uh uh was leaking for their own uh that and that staff are doing it uh to buddy up to the press or uh for what for their own uh future ambitions.
Um our first uh leadership table uh was uh I I mean we worked together and and certainly the the most important part of that leadership table was President Bill Clinton in bringing us together.
Um but um uh there was that uh tension that was going on and it was things like um you know if you say something about uh Bill Clinton off the cuff and probably you don't wouldn't like to see it in the paper, it would end up in the paper the next day.
Or uh you you had a particular idea that the leadership may not have accepted uh that idea with your name on it would be in in the in the press the next day.
All right so the what this is obviously a result of is tension among the leadership traditional human jealousies and insecurities and an effort to within the leadership itself destroy somebody for whatever reason they're a threat they're not liked uh the usual things that that happen in every organization.
That's it that's correct.
And and a lot of it there is a leadership politics that no one knows about and very few people write about.
And that's the politics of people that you know 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 it clouds their judgment sometimes.
Would I 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 uh the coup.
Now if you read my book, unlike what was in the Novak column, uh I compliment Dick a lot about uh the things he was wa 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.
minutes uh and they were getting upset with the fact that he was playing footsies with uh 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 nineteen ninety seven right the coup?
Yeah.
Now how many of the uh ninety-four freshmen uh were involved in the coup I ha I've talked to some of them and of course they they arrived uh bright eyed and bushy tailed and they really believed that they were there to implement the agenda they had all campaigned on and it was a it was a a revolutionary thing here they had taken over the 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, thirty-five to forty of them and it took it took a couple of years to uh particularly the second term uh of of Newt Gingrich where the members uh had just uh had enough at the end of uh nineteen ninety seven uh they wanted to see a change and they didn't see new bringing about that change so they were going to take him down.
So Dick Army, myself, Bill Paxon uh from New York and John Boehner the n now minority leader came together frankly to to handle the situation and try to keep that up.
Whether you were supporting New Gingrich or not wasn't the c the the point.
The point was our conference did not need this kind of of divisive uh action uh right in the middle of our of our Congress.
It would have destroyed everything that we were working for.
Interesting point, because you know it's so many, and I'm sure you know this, so many grassroots conservatives today are upset, and they have been, and I think it a lot of it can be traced back to the ninety-five budget deal when the Democrats were out saying that uh uh Republicans wanted to starve kids, and there was no defense.
Uh uh 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.
Um they're they're just they're very upset uh with with the 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.
You can look at this uh this phony scandal of the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Um and then the attorney general goes out and says, yes, mistakes were made, and hands the Democrats his head practically on a on a silver platter.
Then the president says mistakes were made.
Uh well, I don't know if any mistakes were made.
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 Johnson who's just come out and said the attorney general uh should resign.
And what's what people ask is where are the instincts, the normal instincts to want to defend themselves and then go on offense against liberals who are trying to destroy them.
Hey, Rice, 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 re the conservative voters of this country.
Well, I think that had a lot to do with the losses in two thousand six, exactly.
I think there was two things that were going on.
One, uh, and it's not because I was taken down as as uh majority leader, but the very fact that I had to step aside as majority leader sent a wave of confusion uh through the Republican caucus.
Uh at a a very sensitive time when they should have been working and strategizing on uh the upcoming election.
It took uh the new leadership that was elected after I left permanent permanently in January of 06, another two months just to hire staff.
Uh so by the time they were ready to go, it was too late.
Secondly, as you say, they they they did not have the capability or articulate not only what they did, particularly in two thousand five, which is pretty impressive, uh, but uh what they stand for and where they want to leave the country.
I think they would have had a better fighting chance in two thousand six if they had.
And you're absolutely right.
This U.S. attorney thing, it just boggles my mind.
Uh and and uh the the Bush administration still hasn't learned number one, you the Democrats are going to come after them.
Act all this let's get together and can't we just get along that.
That can't be that can't be that they don't know that.
There has to be some the the 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 it's it's their curious way of dealing with it that's perplexing.
That's the whole point I was going to make.
Uh starts with Don Rumspel.
I mean, they Don Runsfeld, in my opinion, gets uh uh let go uh 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, uh maybe we can get another head and another scalp.
And here they come after Albert uh Alberto Gonzalez, and you got Republicans right now handing the scout over uh the scalp over.
It's uh rather than walking out there and say, Look, uh the the these attorneys uh serve at the will of the president.
This is a personnel matter, uh, and that's that.
And and we're not going to give in to you, we're not gonna send people to to uh uh testify before your politically driven committees, we're not gonna play your game.
Well, you uh you're conveniently, I think uh uh with humility leaving your own scalp out, but that's crucial until we'll talk about that and some other things uh 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 American's fight.
You're talking about the Republicans giving Democrats scalps, uh Rumsfeld is an example, and there are countless others, and it's indeed uh frustrating.
Let's look at your own case.
Now you've talked about this on the program once before, so I don't 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.
Burgo, after they got I don't know how that happened, I don't know why the Republicans fall for it.
Here comes Ronnie Earl, and we we all know the the the bogus indictments against you and all of this stuff.
But the the end result is you're gone.
You were gotten rid of too, and uh my 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.
Uh uh Well, my point is that you were you you had your own uh uh uh 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.
Right.
The Republican Party has a lot of moderates out there that don't like conservatives.
But they weren't they weren't leadership.
I I think if you if you talk to Dennis Hastert or Roy Blunt uh the whip now, uh Eric Cantor, the chief deputy whip, that we had a very cohesive uh leadership table for eight years.
And uh we worked very well together.
Uh Danny Hastert and I were partners.
Uh sometimes I'd get uh aggressive and he would tamp me down and sometimes he wasn't aggressive enough and I'd pump him up.
So uh uh it wasn't in the leadership.
Yes, we had members of Congress that didn't want to go where we wanted to lead them uh and fought us every step of the way, but we were able to hold them together and and and uh accomplished some pretty amazing things uh oh over the last eight years of Dennis Haster's speakership.
So um and you have to deal with that, obviously, when you're dealing with at the time 225, 230 uh individuals, uh particularly Republicans, uh by the nature of being a Republican, they're individuals.
But we were able to deal with it and hold them together and and move forward.
I mean, things like balancing the budget, you know, most people don't know that uh the House, the Republican House for tr 12 straight years passed tax cuts every year.
And as important as that is, uh it was twelve years before the federal government raised one penny in taxes.
Uh that that alone is pretty good uh it is it is, but look, it's taking your book uh uh after the fact to get that news out.
The Republicans have uh another problem that uh irritates people, and that is the quote unquote PR machine that doesn't seem to exist.
All these good things uh uh remain secret uh because the drive-by media course doesn't cover them and they they do promote the Democrat spin uh on things, and I've talked to Republicans who say, Well, we can't get our message out, but clearly uh there there are ways to do it.
I gotta share an email with you because this relates to something you said about just now about Speaker Hastert.
Uh 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.
Let me uh if I if I can, let me give you the two hundred uh the the agenda in two thousand and five, just one year before uh uh uh the election.
In two thousand and five, we passed three tort reform bills signed by the president.
Uh the House took on uh the judiciary to hold them accountable.
We passed five bills limiting the jurisdiction of the court.
Uh we even passed a bill twice breaking up that leftist Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco and tell told them that that they could meet in Guam if they wanted to.
Uh we we actually cut spending for the first time uh discretionary spending for the first time since Ronald Reagan.
Uh we started the process that I was very uh uh that was very important to me, and that is I I think entitlements should be looked at every year and reformed every year, and we did it in two thousand and five, say forty billion dollars.
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 uh border security first before you start uh discussing amnesty.
And I could go on and on.
I mean, uh a comprehensive long-term long uh uh vision uh energy bill that uh took us almost ten years to to accomplish.
All right.
Now I let me stop you there, only because I've got twenty-five seconds here before we have to go to the next break.
Uh but I think the the uh the reason 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.
Hastritt was the invisible man, and so what you just described is uh 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, won America's fight.
Now back to this email from one of my listeners was stunned that you uh said that Newt got in the way of the Republican agenda and uh crediting Hastert with so much of uh of the successful agenda you just detailed for us.
And as I said, I think the reason for this is is uh is uh PR.
Newt was out there every day.
He may have been making a speech in a think tank, and he might have been announcing a new policy initiative every ten minutes.
But still he was visible and he was doing it, and it was whatever he was saying was conservative.
Nobody's ever seen uh Denny Hastert uh in in that in that role.
And so the things that you say were accomplished doubtless were.
Uh but the missing component to all this was a a uh almost a braggadocio about it, a confident presentation to everybody that this had happened.
And so people uh largely don't know it, and I think that's why this woman and probably others were surprised to hear you say that Newt uh was more of an obstacle to the agenda than Hastert was.
Well, I but uh 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 was things going on with in the leadership.
Uh we were still able to accomplish some pretty amazing things.
I mean, under as Newt was a speaker, we balanced the budget.
Uh the welfare reform, there's just a lot of things that we did uh and and were accomplished, and thank goodness that we did.
Uh but uh your your your emailer is absolutely right, and I have to take some responsibility for this.
We sucked at communication.
Uh it was it it was our biggest weakness.
Uh we just could not get it together.
Uh thank God that we had you uh and and others that uh at least understood what was going on and was talking about it.
But yes, we needed we needed a national communication strategy, we needed to put our brightest and more our 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.
Um I hope to do that in the future.
In fact, that's part of what I'm doing in the future, is to do uh to uh develop a national communication strategy to uh stand up to to the drive-by media.
Now that you're liberated.
Now that I'm liberated.
Now uh this isn't this this may be I'm and I'm not trying to hit with tough questions, but you you're you're inspiring them.
And I have a theory.
I'm 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 I'm I'm I'm not gonna defend them if they won't defend themselves.
I'm not gonna make their case anymore if they won't.
Just to prop them an I my my theory is, and I'm gonna ask you this point blank, and it may sound egotistical, but it 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 with licking their wounds, number one, and we need to put that behind them.
But 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 now that I'm jumping ahead here.
I don't want to forget this answer, but I'll I'll save that question for after this.
But I'm talking about before the election.
Before the election, to be honest with you, they as I said earlier, they were in confusion for the entire year of 2006.
The Democrats knew what they were doing.
Disrupt the disrupt the leadership, and it'll take a month to keep bring it back together and get up to to speed again.
That's number one.
Number two, we've never been good at 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 uh 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, uh even if they they uh 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 uh and and is in place uh uh and I gotta tell you if the conservatives don't get it together, Hillary Clinton's gonna be the next president of the United States.
Are you talking about the the uh uh the alliance of the blogs and the new pedestal think tank?
Right.
Uh coordinated with Rama Manuel and George Soros, is that what you're talking about?
And Harold Ickies and said Sidney Blumenthal and the Halperins and uh Bagala and Carvel, they didn't stop working when they like left the the White House.
They are out there right now.
When they needed an organization, Harold Ickey's created America Coming Together, uh which is a group that has fourteen hundred full-time employees that canvas.
Uh they needed somebody to do media for the 527s, they created the media fund.
Uh they needed uh uh uh to uh organize the the Hollywood and musicians and they created America Votes to uh to uh hold concerts around the country and feed that money back into their coffers.
Uh you already mentioned uh uh the Center for America Progress, the think uh Hillary Clinton's think tank uh uh run by John Pedro.
John Podesta, right.
Um you've got uh they needed opposition research.
They've investigated probably every uh uh sitting Republican that we know of right now through a group called Crew uh and Democracy 21 and common cause.
And through and I could go on.
They need a consulting group to pull this coalition together, they've got Thunder Road Group.
Uh and to fund it, you got George Soros, uh foundations, hundreds of foundations that fun like the Ford Foundation and the Gates Foundation, the Sorrells Foundation pumping money in, the unions, uh the service employees uh union are bragging about putting seventy-three million dollars in the last election just in one year from one union, uh funding all of this stuff.
It is it and I'm I'm just touching the tip of it.
If you want to see what it's all about, go to discover the network dot org and you can actually see it and read about it.
What is your uh thinking on why the Republicans, even after the electoral victories in ninety-four and the presidential victories in two thousand, two thousand and four, haven't put together something similar.
I I think we got uh 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 seventy-two hour program, which was a good get out the vote program, uh and and what I called Stomp, which is a uh share your uh volunteer program.
Those uh in my mind and and robocalling uh and micro-targeting, those are the only new ideas we had in how we run our campaigns.
While while we're doing that, little the Democrats understood, number one, that McCain uh neutered the party through his McCain Feingold, and they had to create this whole new party.
Uh and 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 uh took advantage of the loophole in uh in uh the McCain Feingold bill to create the five twenty-sevens, and Republicans don't have a lot uh in that area.
And I one of my theories I'll run by you is that and it's it's gonna 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 I I just add to that.
Liberals, by their vo 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 got labor unions working on environmental policy.
Conservatives by their philosophy are individualists.
And they they create an organization uh to protect uh against gun control, but you can't get the gun owners to work uh uh for uh against abortions.
Uh I shoot, during the energy bill in two thousand five, I couldn't get the mining association to work with the chemical association.
Well, uh 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's our guest here, and uh this is a probably the final broadcast segment we have with uh uh Mr. DeLay.
Title of the book, No Retreat, No Surrender, One Americans Fight.
Uh you were just talking about we were just talking about the uh the fact that liberals from the time they're you know junior high school are oriented toward getting jobs that interact with government or are in government for the purposes of controlling it.
Conservatives uh that's anathema.
They w uh to the extent they want to be in government is to restrain it.
Now, one of the things the liberals are succeeding in doing uh is insulating institutions in this country, academia, the media, uh number of places like that from the judiciary, from election results.
And the the my my question to you about this is you know uh you uh and and your fellow Republicans in taking over the House went to the people.
Uh the Republican majority resulted in 1994 from connecting with voters, educating and forming them, and you produced majorities uh up until last November.
Uh same thing here with me.
I mean, I've I've tried to acquire the largest audience possible, not by becoming a think tank, but but actually appealing to the people.
And the point was 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 the liberals have purposely planned this.
It's very wise strategic move.
Does and you know I does it worry you that so many of our institutions are are becoming immune to election results, and is there anything you would suggest that could be done about it?
Well, I uh uh Rush, I tell you the reason for the title of the book, no retreat, no surrender.
I talk about it in the book that of what I perceive as the voids of leadership that are vitally important to fill uh in the next uh uh in the very near future.
First and foremost, the Republicans have to establish uh uh go back to their first principles and and stand on those principles, develop an agenda that I outline in the book uh 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, CC Majority.org and uh and and sign up, and that's going back to the people.
You're absolutely right.
We have to do to to change the culture of the media, which means we have to develop a national communication strategy working with people like you and others uh about uh getting information to the people.
We also need uh need a group that that uh develops resources to connect with the Republicans and conservatives on the inside of the Congress to to work together like we used to even when we were in the minority, uh to drive that conservative agenda and and defeat the the leftist agenda.
Those are voids that and and that if you fill those voids, then you're gonna pull the conservative cause and the conservative movement together to work together for for and drive that agenda.
Uh give me a few names uh uh and give your impression of them if you want.
Uh your impression of them as conservative leaders, potential presidential material, Rudy Giuliani.
Well, uh Rudy Giuliani has exhibited leadership, and I think the reason he's doing so well in the polls uh right now is that's what conservatives are begging for is leadership, and they're willing to forgive him of his social liberalism.
Uh but all of these uh candidates are going to have to prove themselves over the next uh few months.
Um and uh we don't know what's gonna happen uh but if you look at the polls even today, which are meaningless, over sixty percent of conservatives are waiting for these candidates to prove themselves.
John McCain.
Uh I wouldn't call him a conservative.
Uh uh McCain voted against tax cuts.
McCain is is the author of McCain Feingold.
McCain is is partnered up with Ted Kennedy on immigration, going in the wrong direction.
Um he's he's gonna have to prove himself too.
Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is trying to carry the conservative banner, but again, um he he talks a good talk, uh, but I think the conservatives are gonna see if he walks the walk.
Mitt uh Romney Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson is a good solid conservative.
Uh I think I disagree with him on immigration, but uh uh was distinguished in the Senate, certainly has a persona about him that uh people like and uh he could uh uh 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?
Nah, there isn't a candidate out there that fires me up.
I I'm a close friend of Sam Brown back.
He is a committed, died in the wool, good conservative.
Um 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.
Um but uh but as far as having a a pres a commander in chief, he couldn't be any better than I mean, he's the best.
Tan credo.
Uh Tank Credo, uh his time will come.
Uh he's a one-issue candidate, and we all know that.
Uh Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas, I've known for twenty-five years and just as a fabulous human being.
But he's gonna have to prove himself too, because he raised taxes in Arkansas.
How is he's this gonna be?
You know, all these front-loaded primaries, you're gonna have super duper Tuesday.
Uh it's almost like a national primary, both parties early on.
The conventions are gonna be more of an afterthought than ever before.
Well, I I think the candidates know what they have to do, and what they have to do is appeal to the base.
Because uh, if sixty percent of the base uh of of Republicans, which frankly is the base, uh is is sitting back and watching, uh they know they have a job to do.
And that's why you have primaries.
Tom, thanks for your time.
This has been uh this has been most enlightening.
People are gonna enjoy the book.
There's you know, the the early publicity on the book has been uh Bush's uh more compassionate than conservatives, some of the uh leadership fights between Army and uh and Gingrich, but there's a lot more in this book, uh as typified by the second half of uh of our discussion.
Wish you the best with the book.
Thank you for uh for all your time here.
Just one final thing here.
I for 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 Earl business now?
Well, the Democrats are still at it.
Uh it it I rush, I just gotta 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 gonna give up on me because they know I'm gonna be out there feel continue to fight for what I believe in, and I'm not giving up.
No retreat, no surrender.
Well, that's that's that's uh Clinton Inc.
right out of Saul Olinski.
It is.
You don't just defeat your enemies, you destroy them.
That's 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 two thousand six?
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.
Yeah.
Amen.
Tom Delay, again, the title of the book is No Retreat, No Surrender, One American's Fight.
We'll take a brief time out 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 gonna squeeze a lot of your phone calls in in the next hour since uh you didn't have a chance in this one.
Uh, we got some audio sound bites.
We'll talk about the uh continuing non scandal of the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys, a controversy over uh horse meat.
Uh in the uh in the United States.
As well, there's a lot of other exciting things in the stack, too.
So sit at Al Sharpton.
Al Sharpton is back, or he never left uh his bullhorn outside the campaign headquarters or home of Barack Obama.
We have audio of that as well.
▲
Export Selection