All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:56
March 26, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's nice to see everybody seated on time for the start of the program in there today.
Trust everybody had a good weekend out there.
I did.
Spent about six hours in a golf course yesterday, and I got the kink fixed.
Well, it was more than a kink, but it's exciting out there.
I've been miserable playing this game since November, but I think now I got it fixed, and I'm on the way to start them.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Full week of broadcast excellence straight ahead here on the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number, if you want to join us today, 800-282-2882 on tap today, Katie Couric's interview with the Edwards family, John and Elizabeth, last night.
She's coming under some fire for her tough questions to the Edwards.
And I dispute that she asked tough questions.
I mean, the subject matter might have been tough, but I think Katie took the easy way out in asking these questions.
For example, for example, if I had Arnold Schwarzenegger on the program and as a senator or Governor Schwarzenegger, some people say that you're selling out.
Some people say that if that's a favorite reporter trick to, I think it's born of cowardice, actually.
When a reporter is interviewing me and says, well, some people say that you ex.
I always say, who says this?
Name them.
Because what the reporter really means is that she or he thinks this.
But they don't have the guts to put it in their own voice.
So they slough it off to a bunch of unnamed people.
Somebody says, some people say that you're just doing this for sympathy.
The answer is, who's saying that?
And that way you gain control of the interview and you, I don't know.
The subject matter was, you know, some people are claiming it's really tough and good stuff, but I thought it was this.
I mean, for somebody that has the stature she supposedly has, as one of the three nightly news anchorettes, there's a tougher way to ask these questions.
Anyway, we got sound bites of that coming up and a lot of people reacting to it as well.
Sean Penn, Jeff Spicoli blathering on in an incomprehensible rant.
It's funny.
Chuck Hagel out there demanding or talking about impeach.
This is the most amazing.
I don't know where you get the idea that impeachment can be the subject matter of policy differences, but we'll talk about that.
Mrs. Bill Clinton had a town meeting today.
Good morning, America.
And while I was eating my, what was it, about 200-calorie breakfast, which doesn't take long, I turned it on and I was watching this and it was high definition.
And I'm saying, Mrs. Clinton, stay away from HD.
And my first reaction was, stay away from HD.
And then I learned later, as you will hear, Robin Roberts was the info babe asking Mrs. Clinton questions.
But ABC admitted later on in the program that they let the Clinton campaign stack the room in terms of the people, the average ordinary Americans, and you average ordinary Americans know who you are, being in the audience.
ABC let the Clinton campaign stack the whole deck.
But I have to, and we've got all kinds of stuff about the Brits and the Iranians and so forth, Tony Blair fit to be tied.
And we've got our usual global warming stack that's burgeoning out there.
Speaking of that, how many of you happened to see last night's first three episodes of the 11-part series on Discovery Channel, Planet Earth?
Now, I've been waiting for this because you haven't.
You haven't.
I mean, they've got footage of animals doing things and captured in natural habitats that have never been seen before.
And it's in high definition.
I think they were five years in the making, over 200 shoots, different locations.
It is just astounding.
It was just astound.
The first episode last night was pole to pole, and they went from the North Pole to South Pole.
And the reason I bring this up is not just because of the beautiful photography and the things that we've never seen before about the animal kingdom and all this sort of thing.
This series buttresses the point that I've been trying to make about how massive and complex our whole climate and planet are.
And it makes the point in this first episode.
It made the point that without the sun, nothing's here.
The sun is the source of all energy.
It is the source of all life.
And they start out by talking to discussing the six-month winter at the North Pole of what happens when the Earth, when summer happens up there and you get 24-hour sunlight, but it's not direct sun rays and so forth.
It was just beautiful in HD.
It was just astounding.
First three last night, they're being rerun through the course of the week, and there are 11 here in total.
It was produced by the BBC.
Sigourney Weaver is the narrator.
And there's some obligatory references to how if we don't do this, then this poor little animal won't survive.
Such as a leopard that only exists in Russia.
There's something like only 11 or 12 pairs of them left.
And it's up to us and so forth.
All that is to be expected.
It wasn't too much.
But I tell you, folks, if you watch this, and the second one was on mountains and how they were formed and how old they are, it just makes the case of how literally insignificant we are in everything that has ever happened on this planet.
But the salient point is the point they make in the first episode called Pole to Pole about the power of the sun.
The sun is the source of virtually all life and virtually all energy.
And if you watch this with any kind of an open mind, you cannot escape the conclusion that there is nothing we can do about the sun.
We can't cool it down.
We can't heat it up.
We can't move it.
We can't do diddly squat.
This series, whether it intends to or not, for the thinking people watching in the audience, will shoot all kinds of holes.
I mean, you watch this and there is no way, there is literally no way that switching from fluorescent light bulbs or incandescent light bulbs to these fluorescent things will make a smidgen's bit of difference.
And you can't help but conclude this.
The photography, forget the narration.
The photography alone would help make this point.
You parents out there who are worried about the polar bears and so forth and that we're killing the polar bears.
The scene, first episode opens with a mama polar bear coming out of her den after the hibernation of winter with the two little cubs.
And they casually throw in that in nature, half the cubs don't survive.
And many of the cubs are eaten by their fathers.
That they come out of the den, they're so hungry.
And it's the same thing with grizzly bears.
That the mother has to keep the cubs away from the father because if the father's hungry, it doesn't matter.
It's a little thing.
He can handle it.
Bam, bam, bam.
It's gone.
They don't show it.
They don't show this.
I mean, they're killing each other, and we're sitting here supposedly destroying them.
Some of the most amazing footage of a great white shark.
I have never seen this kind of thing.
Great white shark popping out of the ocean, swallowing whole, a huge seal.
You see animals in the way they live.
See these dogs, these sort of, I don't even remember the name, but they are somewhere in Africa chasing Impala and how they work in tandem to catch these impala and then wipe them out.
All kids ought to be made to watch this to see how nature really works.
They get to the Amazon pole to pole, means they go from the North Pole to the South Pole and cover as much of the Earth as possible.
But I mean, it was just, aside from all of these observations I'm making today, and I actually think that even people who are not intellectually curious about this are going to be in awe.
People who watch it are going to be in awe of the complexity and the size and of the insignificance of any one living organism by itself and alone on the fate of the planet.
It's just that well done.
Some of the photography, all of photography is just out of this world if you have high-definition TV.
It was, you know, and I've, I, I, something else I want to share with you too.
You know, one of the monologues that I've done on global warming in recent months on this broadcast, I spent a lot of time telling you that my fundamental reason, and it is true, my fundamental reason for not buying all of this leftist global warming garbage is my belief in God.
I think if you don't believe in God, you believe in anything.
If you don't believe in God, you got to have a replacement.
Everybody, even atheists, believe in something.
It's the planet or something.
The global warming people, you know, this is their religion.
When you watch, you cannot come away from watching this.
And I had confirmed my thought that God created this magnificent planet and its climate and environment and all that.
The idea that we can destroy it is just absurd.
Just in the second episode alone, watching the mountains and how they're formed and think that we could have ever stopped this.
And there were people alive when these mountains were formed, came out of the bottom of the ocean.
Volcanoes created them.
We couldn't have stopped it if we had wanted to.
We couldn't have changed light bulbs to stop it.
And of course, that created new continents.
Who knows what kind of life was displaced or killed in the process?
Of course, these happens, the mountain ranges form so slow that they're in the process of still being formed.
Some of them are being eaten away by erosion.
The Andes are in trouble.
The Rockies are in trouble.
The Rockies are disintegrating now, by the way, in certain parts.
So, according to this series, parts of the Alps are too, which is a normal, natural thing.
It's not being caused by our SUVs.
Which speak, I have a question.
Here's a little think piece question for you people.
As you know, we are in the midst of this scare that global warming is destroying the planet.
And of course, that we are primarily responsible for this.
Bjorn Lomborg had a great piece in the New York Post on Sunday.
He said, Look, warming's happening.
No question it's warming up.
It's always warming or cooling on this planet.
And it may be being enhanced somewhat by man-made activity.
But one of the terribly misleading things about Al Gore, for example, is they talk about all of the horrible things that will happen when things heat up.
But this series, last night, makes it plain that the greatest concentration of life, all kinds of life, is in the tropics, where it is the hottest, where it is the most humid.
You get to the rainforests and all these places in the tropics that are equatorial.
That's where all kinds of life is teeming.
The idea that heating things up, the global warming, is going to destroy people.
Lomborg points out: well, if that happens, think of all the winter and freeze-related deaths that will not happen.
So it may be a net wash.
There may be no new deaths really specifically tied to global warming.
We don't have any idea.
But here's the question.
Here's my think piece.
Here's the question for you.
We are told that it is our SUVs.
And we are told that it is our light bulbs.
And we are told that it is our smokestacks.
And we are told that it is big oil that is causing the greenhouse emissions, our carbon feetprints, if you will, to skyrocket out there and put inexorable, inalterable pressure on our climate, causing this massive heat up.
Now, let's just say that in 1979, when Newsweek and Time magazine ran their covers on global cooling, let's say that that had stuck as the cause du jour.
And let's say that instead of Al Gore running around with Earth in the balance because of global warming, he was running around talking about we are chilling down.
We are getting colder.
Would, if we were in the midst of global warming, would these same advocates be telling us to drive more and bigger SUVs?
Would they be telling us to get rid of the carbon fluorescent bulbs and go back to these incandescents as much power as possible?
Would they be telling us to build as many factories as possible with smokestacks as high as we can build them to belch all kinds of pollutants out there to warm the planet up?
Do you think so?
Do you think that they would be suggesting we rely even more on oil, do everything we can to find even more and burn it because we need to heat this planet up?
Do you think they would be doing that?
Anyone want to take a stab at that?
I have to take a quick break.
We're a little long here in this segment, but we'll be back.
We'll continue with all the rest of today's program.
By the way, here's the number again if you want to be on the program: 800-282-2882.
And if you want to go email, I do check it now and then put a sexy subject line in there, and I might notice it.
Don't write, if anybody puts sexy subject line, I'm going to purposely ignore it.
Ignore it.
I mean, put a creative subject line in there.
That's how I notice this stuff.
800-282-2882 and rush at eibnet.com.
Oh, this is funny.
I just checked the email to see if there are any sexy subject lines in there.
Guy sends me a note: I don't care about Iran.
I don't care about the Brits.
I don't care about global warming.
I don't care about your Gulf.
I don't care.
If you have any power, you will do what you can to get Anna Nicole Smith off the news.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am powerless to get Anna Nicole Smith off the news.
The fact of the matter is, the reason she's all over the news is that you watch it.
Well, maybe not you.
But ratings for these cable nets are through the roof on the Anna Nicole Smith story.
I went over to some friends' house last night and we're discussing the fate of modern culture.
We discussed the Edwards situation.
And this couple in their late 60s was just simply aghast that the Edwards would make all of this public.
They come from a family, family's generation, where stiff upper lip and quiet strength were measures of character.
And they were just stunned.
I said, this is nothing.
I said, you better get used to it.
All politics is public now.
Nothing's personal.
Everybody's out there.
Every kid's got a MySpace page.
Every kid's got something of himself or herself on YouTube.
Everybody wants fame.
Everybody wants to be famous.
Everybody's doing everything they can to cash in on it.
Nobody is interested that much in privacy as a cultural thing.
It really is a demonstrable shift on this.
Anna Nicole Smith story is just classic.
It's no different than Princess Di.
And I know people disagree with me when I say this, but look, here's Princess Diana.
She passed away.
She had the accident, dies.
Big funeral over there.
And look at the throngs, the gazillions that showed up to send notes.
They posted notes out there on the fence at, well, I guess it was Buckingham Palace, and then they had notes and flowers all over the funeral parade route.
What was that all about?
That was people wanting to be part of the story in combination with people who actually, well, we have a term for this.
I did a story and I forget the term, but there is a psychological term for people whose lives are so empty that they establish connections with celebrities that are on television and in the movies.
And that connection that is not real, that connections in their mind gives them self-esteem and so forth.
So they all want to be part of the story and they all want to establish this.
That's what this Anna Nicole Smith is all about.
Plus, I'm sure there's a little voyeurism in this.
Some people watching it are just curious to see what the circus is all about, combination of things, but no denying major cultural shifts.
Speaking of major cultural shifts, everybody wants to get in the act.
Get this.
President Clinton is a big fan of 24.
Everybody wants to get in the act.
Bill Clinton, big fan of 24, even though, quote, an uber right-wing guy produces it.
That would be Joel Cernow.
Clinton told TV advertisers Friday his favorite show is the chick soap opera Gray's Anatomy.
He also likes Boston Illegal for the dynamic between William Shatner and James Spader.
Clinton said that's something to behold.
I have to tell you, I'm a little worried because these are three of my favorite shows.
I know I used to make fun of Gray's Anatomy, but you get hooked on it.
As for 24, Clinton said he enjoys the fact that conservatives and liberals alike can be the bad guys in the show.
Clinton says that they're trying to be fair on 24.
His other must-see TV shows, Clintons, are All in a Family, I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show, and Bonanza, all of which air on TV land, which sponsored his appearance.
Now, folks, does anybody believe there was Hillary out in Beverly Hills over the weekend raising 2.6 large?
Does anybody think Bill Clinton's at home watching Andy Griffith and Barney Fife?
This is this stuff.
And of course, drive-bys are just eating this up.
Clinton says, you know, my wife's away a lot out there.
She's on campaign trails, so I'm home alone a lot.
And I'm particularly grateful, TV Land, for giving me something to do at night.
Can you?
So he's watching Andy Griffith and he's watching Bonanza and I Love Lucy on TV Land, and they just happen to be his sponsors.
You know, we keep hearing, we've got to spread the internet.
We've got to get it to the urban communities.
We've got to get the internet out there.
It's not fair.
It's just not fair.
So many people have the internet.
So many people don't, just like the old days, long-distance phone service, rural phone service.
We had to have a tax on everybody's phone bill to get it out there.
Get this.
A little under one-third, about 29% of American households have no internet access, and they don't plan to get it, and they don't want any.
Most of the households seeing little use for it in their lives.
This, according to a survey released on Friday, Park Associates in Dallas said 29% of U.S. households at 31 million homes don't have internet access.
They don't intend to subscribe to an internet service over the next 12 months.
They have no need.
They see no need.
A third of American households.
That's not insignificant.
Be right back.
Ha.
Are you America's real anchor man, the doctor of democracy, America's truth detector, serving humanity with half my brand tied behind my back just to make it fair?
One of the other interesting things on one of the Discovery shows last night, Planet Earth, had anything to do with Panda.
Panda, they're not plentiful, and one of the reasons is their diet.
Panda eat bamboo.
Now, we didn't dictate that.
God did.
God designed Panda eat bamboo.
Problem is that bamboo is not all that rich in nutrients, and they have to eat tons of it in order to get the proper nutrition.
And that's one of the reasons that there's a shortage of panda bears out there.
And also, the fact, you know, Ron Popil came along and started selling the bamboo steamer some years ago, and there's created a shortage of bamboo for the bears that eat this stuff.
It's nothing to do with us.
This is in the discovery show Planet Earthly.
There's just not enough bamboo out there.
They ate bamboo shoots, but they have to eat so much of it, and there's not that much of it to be found.
But I have found a companion story about panda bears in the Washington Post today.
It's actually an AP story.
It's out of Beijing.
Let me just read the headline to you.
Panda poop to do double duty in China.
There's a new Chinese saying, when life hands your panda poop make paper, researchers at a giant panda reserve in southern China are looking for paper mills to process their surplus of fiber-rich panda excrement into high-quality paper.
A researcher at a panda breeding base in the Sichuan province said that the idea came to him after a visit to Thailand last year, where they found paper made from elephant dung.
They thought panda poop would produce an even finer quality paper.
They hope to have a product line available by next year.
This is going to put even more strains on bamboo because what do you think is the first step in the process of creating panda poop?
So you might well soon be going to your office and supply store and picking up a new ream of paper and it's going to be paper made from panda poop.
In fact, my hope one day is the New York Times decides to print its daily edition on paper made of panda poop.
And then I can run around saying, I don't need to read that crap.
The New York Times, I don't need to read that crap.
Of course, they should.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley, what's what about the panda bears?
What about?
Well, yeah, okay.
Mr. Snerdley's question is, who is it that decides what's the right number for any species?
Well, look, putting on my science hat, the science hat would say you need a certain number to keep the species going.
But the real answer is if the species can't get going and they can't keep going, you know, Darwin, natural selection, the survival of the fittest, if they can't keep going, it's their problem.
Now, we have stewardship over the planet.
We find these animals that are cuddly and lovable, and we make cartoon characters out of them, and we want the species to survive, like the condor.
You know, we tried to save the California condor.
The thing would drink, you know, those things.
It would drink antifreeze, antifreeze dripping out of the cars, and it did drink the stuff.
I think, you know, went to great efforts to save the California condor.
As far as the number, like this new leopard that's been discovered, first ever footage of this leopard that lives only in Russia.
And I think, I don't remember specifically, I think they said there's 11 pairs plus the cubs, and it's tough because they live in Russia where there's not a whole lot of food in the wintertime, and they don't move.
They stay there.
And there's not a whole lot to be found.
So the question would be, well, if they're too stupid to move, then it's too bad.
They're too stupid, like birds migrate, other animals migrate.
Oh, migration is a big part of this thing as well.
But I think the correct number of ace species is determined by humans who project their own attitudes on life toward these various species and so forth.
But we do.
We decide this, Mr. Snerdley.
Our scientists decide this, our animal warming experts, our Animal rights experts.
Story from the UK Daily Mail, for years, feminists have fought for equality, believing it's the key to a better society.
Now, researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health.
A study in Sweden, and don't discount this, Sweden is arguably one of the most egalitarian countries in the world.
Study there discovered that men and women who are equal are more likely to suffer illness or disability.
Those who earn the same are also more likely to become unwell or suffer a disability.
People who have management gigs, male or female, were also found to die younger than those with a less pressured lifestyle.
Oh, I'm going to asterisk that because that reminds me of something.
Scientists looked at both public and private sector workers.
They used nine indicators of equality, including the proportion of men and women in management jobs and their average income.
These were all related to local figures for life expectancy, disability, and absence from work through ill health.
Study compared data from all of Sweden's 290 municipalities.
The scientists said that a possible explanation for the link between equality and illness is that men's health may be adversely affected by a loss of what had been seen as traditional male privileges or roles.
So you emasculate a man and you make him sick.
His health is adversely affected.
You take away from him what he naturally is.
You turn him into some sort of linguini-spined wimp, and he gets sick all the time because he doesn't feel like a man anymore.
It also suggested that women's health could be damaged by greater opportunities for risky behavior as a result of increased income combined with the stress of longer working hours.
The study been published here in the journal Social Science and Medicine also put forward a theory that equality has not yet been fully achieved in society.
These effects are part of a transitional process.
And once we really achieve equality, then we're really going to be screwed up.
Reports said that the results suggest an unfortunate trade-off between gender equality as we know it and public health.
Sweden may have reached a critical point where further one-sided expansion by women into traditionally male roles, spheres, and activities will not lead to positive health effects unless men also significantly alter their behavior.
In other words, become less like men, which is what the feminist movement is partially all about.
Back to this business here.
People who have management jobs, male or female, were also found to die younger than those with a less pressured lifestyle.
Do you remember the story we had not long ago?
There was a big study out there that house cleaning decreases your chance of getting breast cancer.
Remember that?
Well, you take that study, put it together with this study, and you might be able to convince more women to stay at home and do the vacuuming and all the house cleaning rather than get into management gigs.
That way, men don't get sick, women don't get sick, and voila, we're back to traditional roles.
Next thing up, we'll be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
I doubt anybody will go there.
House cleaning's a good enough start.
Be right back, folks.
Rushlimball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling maha-rushy.
Your highly trained broadcast specialist showing everybody how it should be done, and it is done here at 800-282-2882.
Buddy F. Lee Levin sent me a story today.
I don't know that I would have caught this on my own.
It's from the Bloomberg Newswire, Bloomberg.com, their website.
And it's a column posted on Bloomberg by a man named Kevin Hassett.
Now, Kevin Hassett is a director of economic policy studies at AEI of the American Enterprise Institute, chief economic advisor to Republican Senator McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries.
And his column is all about my interview and kerfuffle with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
And the headline, Arnold Rush, Battle for Republican Party Soul.
Last week, two titans of American popular culture had a dust-up.
It was Arnold versus Rush for the heavyweight championship.
Much of the news coverage focused on the outsized personalities of the two, Governor Schwarzenegger, California, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, but the context of their exchange was surprisingly important.
Indeed, this squabble may well receive extensive treatment in the history books.
The Republican Party is at a historical crossroads.
If you are Republican, the odds are you're ideologically either with Rush or Arnold.
Only one side can win, and as is so often the case, California is the canary in the political coal mine of America.
Republicans seeking to run the federal government are bedeviled by the opposition of Democrats.
In California, it's a lot worse.
Someone's going to try Schwarzenegger's approach of bipartisan governments at the governance at the federal level, and soon.
If you are a conservative governing California, you face an almost impossible challenge.
A large portion of the political might in the state is held by those whose views are closer to those of a typical labor union rep than those of, say, a scholar at Palo Alto's Hoover Institution.
So you have to choose between approaches.
And he goes on.
We've got this linked, by the way, in the big orange banner for current content at rushlimbaugh.com.
Let me just move forward here to the end of the piece.
Limbaugh irrelevant?
Those words brought out the terminator in Schwarzenegger when I said that Arnold had sold out.
I should read the first paragraph.
My popularity might come at the expense of principal.
Limbaugh said as much, stating provocatively that Schwarzenegger had sold out.
Now, here's the truth of the matter.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has done the typical sell-out move.
He's sold out, and there are too many conservatives selling out these days.
Those words brought out the terminator in Schwarzenegger.
Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant, he replied.
I'm not his servant.
Later, Schwarzenegger appeared on Limbaugh's radio show, and the exchange was lively and telling.
Limbaugh railed against a $1.25 increase in the minimum wage.
Schwarzenegger defended himself, saying the Democrats wanted $2.50.
The exchange continued in that vein until Rush closed with this telling summary.
The problem with that, governor, is that the liberals and the Democrats aren't going to punt their ideology because it defines them.
And so when we end up agreeing with them just to get compromise, even if the numbers they want aren't as much as they wanted, we're still compromising our ideology, and they are not.
If you could find a workable crystal ball and tune it forward to the first major debate of the Republican presidential primaries, my guess is that the main point of contention would be the same.
Some candidates will refrain from laying out strong policies and will argue the country urgently needs to come together to address long-run problems such as the entitlement programs headed for financial ruin.
That can only be done, it'll be argued, if Republicans are willing to compromise with Democrats.
Others will describe explicit conservative policies, flat-tax social security privatization, for example, and will passionately argue the merits of those reforms.
The compromisers will call the traditional conservatives unrealistic and ideological obstacles.
The traditional conservatives will call the compromisers sellouts.
The voters will have the difficult job of choosing between them.
So how will they choose?
Schwarzenegger's might seem to suggest the compromisers will win, but I'm not so sure.
Republican policy in the last six years has been so far from mainline conservative theory that many in the party must hunger for a candidate who returns the party to its roots.
Boy, is Mr. Hassett ever right about that.
And that's why you look at the current Republican field, it's like the buffet at Denny's.
I mean, there's a little something on there that you like about everything, but you don't want the whole thing.
And that's why somebody like Fred Thompson can throw his name in there and all hell breaks.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
All these guys are likable, but there's not one genuine conservative that lights everybody's fire.
The conservatives fire.
Anyway, the conclusion.
As you read Russia's exchange with Arnold, there was a clear victory.
Rush won by a knockout.
It is hard to imagine that a presidential debate covering the same territory would go differently.
That is, if there is somebody like me in the presidential debates.
And right now, I don't know that there is somebody like me in the presidential debates.
This is Alan Irma.
I'm Kevin Hassett, I'm sorry, who is Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
And, you know, Levin sent this to me today, and I said, well, this is a little over the top, isn't it?
A little overstated that this battle between Arnold and me is a quintessential mirror image of the battle in the Republican Party.
And Levin wrote back, you're crazy.
He's always telling me I don't have enough consciousness of my own position.
He says, it was classic.
I mean, that interview between you and Schwarzenegger was Goldwater versus Rockefeller.
So in that sense, it was important.
The bottom line is that we got too many Republicans pushing a liberal Democrat agenda in order to get along with them, and they're compromising what we believe.
And they're saying that the less Republicans expand entitlements and raise taxes and surrender their liberties, i.e. global warming, that they'll lose.
This is what Republican candidates are being told.
And they're always told this.
Got to move to the center.
Conservatism can't win.
And you've got some weak-needed and linguinish mind Republicans who happen to believe this.
And the problem is, folks, that the liberals don't compromise.
This whole notion of compromising to get along, first place, politics is not about getting along.
It's about winning.
And I don't care if we've been oprahized or opra fight or what.
It's not about getting along.
These are core principles and beliefs that determine the future of the country and our way of life.
And the liberals do not compromise.
Like my point that I made to Schwarzenegger on the minimum wage, he still accepted the premise.
He's all happy that he only gave a buck and a half instead of the two and a half they wanted, or buck and a quarter that he gave them the two and a half, but he still got the increase.
Well, he said we've already got the minimum wage and said that people have told me it made a difference in their lives.
I bet it has.
Some people have been fired.
Some businesses have had to do some horrible things because they had to cut back jobs and workers because they had to raise a minimum wage.
It's not an endless pile of money sitting in the bank accounts of all these small businesses and so forth.
And it boils down to this, folks.
It's not just that there may not be an actual pedal-to-the-metal conservative out there in the race right now or very many places that elected office.
It's that even if there are, they're not very good at articulating it.
That was the real strength of Ronald Reagan.
So conservatives who can't make the conservative case don't have the leadership skills to do it.
And that's what's missing.
Conservative leadership.
It's plain and simple.
It's right out there.
Got a run.
Back here in just a second with much more broadcast excellence.
Yeah, look, folks, the objective is to get the liberals to cave to our premises.
▲
Export Selection