All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
August 14, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
I just looked at something on television.
I saw something that I thought I saw that I didn't actually see.
That's why I paused out there.
I looked at a graphic of the hurricane I thought hitting Hawaii.
It's not the hurricane.
It's the, and I'm going to Hawaii later this month.
It's the earthquake.
And a hurricane was not supposed to hit where it looked like it hit was an earthquake.
So anyway, we're here.
And we are focused and we are revved up and we are ready to go on the one and only EIB network radios in America all tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And of course, the email address, if you'd rather do that, is rush at EIBnet.com.
I do check those during our profit center timeouts here.
Some confusion.
I have been checking emails.
Some confusion about when the episode of the Half Hour News Hour airs featuring my Cold Open.
By the way, I'll just give a little hint.
I play myself in this, not the President of the United States.
And it's hilarious.
It is hilarious.
I announced yesterday that it was going to air Thursday night at 9 Eastern Time on the Fox News Channel.
And it was when I said this.
After the program yesterday, I got a note, I guess it's about 4 o'clock, saying that we're moving the show to Friday night at 8.
So it's going to air twice, Friday night at 8 and 11.
It's going to stand in for O'Reilly.
As such, one of the little bits had to be taken out of it because it's no longer relevant.
And that's as much.
That's as much as I'm going to say.
But it does air Friday night at 8 and 11 on the Fox News channel.
Now, also a programming note, Carl Rove will join us tomorrow morning, or afternoon rather, morning on the left coast in our second hour for 10 or 15 minutes.
It'll be his first radio interview.
And you can hear Karl Rove as he is.
The vitriol, the hatred, the undisguised ways in which the drive-by media and Democrats detest Karl Rove was on full display last night on many of the cable news channels and some of the broadcast networks like Nightline last night.
We have audio soundbites to illustrate this.
But I want to start off here.
I think it's time to go back to Conservatism 101.
I like to do this now and then because I've been doing this.
We're in our 20th year now, and it's sometimes unavoidable that I will just assume that after all these years that you have been listening to this program, that the fundamentals of conservatism are understood here.
Then I run across a story and people's reaction to it, and I say, nope, this is something that needs to be constantly reinforced.
Basic conservatism 101, something that needs to be constantly taught.
And I should remember my own admonition because I think this is what happened to the Republicans in 1994 when they started with their first time in 40 years control of the House.
They made the assumption that the voters had all of us say, yep, conservatism's what we want.
And so they stopped teaching it.
They just started implementing a bunch of things without the accompanying explanation.
And it kind of scared some people.
And there's another reason for this too, folks, and it is this.
And this is inarguable.
An organization, any group of people, I don't care whether it's a family, a classroom, a bureaucracy, you name it.
If it is not conservative, it will, by definition, be liberal.
Conservatism is something that it's an applied intellectual pursuit, and it has to constantly be reinforced.
Liberalism is easy.
You just, you see something that's like somebody's suffering.
Oh, oh, that's horrible.
We've got to do something.
And you think, ah, I'm a good person.
I care.
You don't really examine what needs to be done to solve or cure or stop the suffering.
And you really don't even, gee, I wonder why that person suffering.
What are the circumstances it led to?
You don't even, until you get into conservatism, applied intellectual conservatism, you will never ask that question.
Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.
And it requires no solutions.
All it requires is caring and empathy, sympathy, and feeling bad and getting mad and getting mad that people feel this way or suffering this way.
And then the final nail in the liberal coffin is you want everybody else's money from them to fix the problem.
Never mind the fact that throughout decades, the millennia of human civilization, such procedures don't work.
Now, what is it that makes me think we need to reestablish conservatism 101?
Well, in Chicago, Alderman wants to tax bottled water.
Alderman George Cardenas, and he may pronounce it Cardinus, I'm not sure, wants to slap a tax of up to 25 cents on the cost of every bottle of bottled water to help close a $217 million budget gap.
He said people enjoy jogging or driving with a bottle of water.
There's a cost associated with this behavior.
You have to pay for it.
He noted there's a nearly $40 million shortfall in the city's water and sewer funds, in part because of a decline in water usage.
How is this possible when we have a water system that's won honors?
It's because bottled water has become a $15 billion industry that's growing at a rate of 20 to 30 percent a year, he said.
He also said a bottled water tax would help the environment by dissuading people from buying the plastic bottles that end up in landfills.
Now, I don't know what the people of Chicago think about this, but I can make a pretty good prediction that there are several reactions.
First, you're going to have people, this is absurd, this is outrageous.
Some people are the people that like bottled water are going to say, no, don't tax my water, tax cigarettes, tax soda pop, tax something about leave me alone, I need my bottled water.
Others are going to say, who don't drink bottled water, yeah, zap them.
Eb's absolutely right.
Tax those people.
Drinking bottled water is something a bunch of phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and rollers do.
A bunch of snobs.
Tax them.
People who are educated say, you know, it never stops, no matter what it is.
The first time somebody figures out in government that an industry is making a profit, why we got to go claim it.
Like Mrs. Clinton wants the big profits of oil.
She wants to claim them and use the money for her own do-gooder ways and ideas.
And because people hate big oil, they go, yeah, yeah, go punish those people.
Tax cuts on the or tax increases on the rich.
Oh, yeah, really make those people hurt.
I'm sick and tired of those people getting away with highway robbery.
It's not fair they have more money than I do.
Most people, when they hear that a certain segment of the population is going to be taxed, particularly if they are not members of that segment, like in this case, the bottled water crowd, they don't care.
And conservatism 101 says that it doesn't matter whose ox is being gored, be it yours or somebody else's, you need to care.
Because a tax on one segment is simply a stealth way of raising taxes on everybody else.
It's the way the Democrats are trying now to get universal health care enacted in this country.
They went for the whole thing.
They went for comprehensive national health care, Hillary Care back in the early 90s.
Didn't work, bombed out.
Went for comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, early this summer.
Bombed out.
Didn't work.
So now they go the incremental route.
In the case of Mrs. Clinton, it's the SHIPS program.
Children are now 25 and under.
Families who make 80 grand will be eligible for their neighbors paying health care for their kids.
It is a stealth way.
And of course, everybody goes, well, a lot of people go, oh, it's okay because is this not right that so many children in that country don't have health insurance?
Is that so horrible?
It's so horrible.
That's the feel-good liberal reaction to it.
The applied intellectual conservative reactions.
Wait a second.
This is just a giant trick.
This is liberals being liberals.
This is their incremental way of finally getting what they want by doing it segment by segment.
Same thing here with this bottled water business in Chicago.
The idea that simply because this alderman thinks that this industry is making too much money and that people are running around drinking while they drive and while they jog and that they ought to be paying for that.
Is there already a sales tax on bottled water in Chicago?
I will bet you there is.
Anyway, I want to expand on this.
I got to take a profit center timeout myself here before some liberal comes along and seizes it.
We'll be back and we will continue on this conservatism 101 right after this.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity here on the EIB Network.
Now, setting this suggested tax increase, 25 cents a bottle on bottled water in Chicago.
You have to understand that this is the new liberal fad.
This is the new anti-U.S. SUV fad.
San Francisco wants to ban bottled water for all of the right environmental reasons.
New York Times had a story recently on how rotten bottled water is and how unfair the profits being made by these companies.
That may well be, but we had the stories about some of the bottled waters have some tap water in them, which I have long suspected.
But that's not the point of this.
Now you have this Chicago business.
And by the way, in Virginia, the wrangling, they've got a new law, a bad driver tax in Virginia.
And a judge has just ruled in Richmond that the tax, the fees, are constitutional.
Fresh evidence emerged that legislators and the governor may have enacted the fees without fully researching the effect on the poor of comparable programs in other states.
But the judge said, nope, it's okay.
The licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan, including many low-income drivers, have been suspended because of unpaid fees.
Michigan judges calling for repeal of the program because they are seeing an influx of motorists cited for driving unsuspended licenses, which prompts a new round of fees that many people can't afford.
But in Virginia, they're going to go ahead with this.
And they also said they intend to find a way to impose those fees on out-of-state motorists when the General Assembly convenes in January.
So here's the thing.
If it moves, they will tax it.
And one of the ways they get away with it is, well, it doesn't affect me.
I don't care.
Let those bottled water people pay it.
Okay, so tax on cigars?
No problem.
I don't smoke cigars.
Tax on toll roads?
No problem.
I don't have to travel that way if I don't want to.
Transfer tax on selling property?
No problem.
I rent.
Doesn't affect me.
Tax them to the end of the earth.
Bottled water tax?
No problem.
I don't buy that expensive stuff.
Yacht tax?
No problem.
Why, I'm not going to be buying in a yacht anytime soon.
Cigarette tax?
No problem.
Serves those idiots right for smoking cigarettes.
Hotel tax?
No problem.
That only affects people who come here from out of town.
I couldn't care less about the hotel tax.
Gas tax?
Gang, I thought it was just oil company profits.
But go ahead.
No, I don't want my gas tax raised.
Folks, you need to be reminded of something here.
When one segment of the population is taxed, we are all taxed.
Our elected leaders in a city, a state, government, federal government have a disease.
It requires them to be fed.
They have to be fed our money as fast as we can earn it because their disease is no spending restraint whatsoever.
Why is it the fault of the bottled water drinkers in Chicago that the city is running a $217 million budget deficit?
Why isn't the bottled water?
Is it their fault?
Or is it these people running the government?
Why should they just be able to choose a segment and say, we're going to go get those people?
And then the rest of the town doesn't do bottled water.
Yeah, yeah.
And of course, when you couple this with the drive-by media hit on the whole bottled water industry these days, and these things rotate like SUVs and so forth, they get away with this.
And it's not just a tax in Chicago on bottled water.
Tax on one segment of the population is a tax on all of us.
Each and every tax, each and every toll has a ripple of unintended consequences that eventually catches us all in the current.
And the ships thing, I'll tell you, is one of the greatest examples of this, this child care health insurance bill.
I mean, it is what?
Children are now 25 years of age.
Families of four making 80 grand qualify for their neighbors to pay for health insurance for their kids.
So conservative applied conservatism 101 would understand what taxation really is.
It is a form of control.
It is also a form of anger.
This alderman in Chicago in this story sounds mad.
He sounds mad that people are enjoying bottled water, but he's got a $217 million budget deficit, and he claims it's now the fault of the people to buy bottled water because they're not paying enough tax.
And I'll bet you in Chicago, there are plenty of people saying, yeah, soak them.
Soak them.
They're polluting the environment.
A bunch of elitists just drinking out of the tap like I do.
And that's how these bureaucrats and government people survive.
It's called envy, class envy.
And an incremental tax leads to a tax on everybody at some point.
A British clown, changing the subject here, British clown has had the smile wiped off his face after being told that he could not use balloons in his act because children might be allergic to latex.
Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous than this?
The children, the widow children, why they might be, they might be allergic to latex.
Meanwhile, in every damn school in the expletive deleted country, we're urging them to wear condoms for crying out loud.
What the hell is a condom made of?
Give them condoms for every damn thing in the world that's wrong with them.
And then they can't go to a circus and be around a clown with a bunch of balloons.
You know what?
This is going to end up in this country because it always does.
All this stuff of the European Union is going to end up here at a circus is going to be a problem, not because the lions and tigers might get loose and eat the kids.
No, because of Buster the Clown and his stupid little balloons.
Endangering our widowed children.
You realize 25 or 30 years, we're going to have a nation of no adults.
We're going to have, if these people, well, not a nation of no adults, we're going to have a growing percentage of our population as adults.
It's the biggest bunch of wusses on the face of the earth.
Mommy, mommy, mommy, I'm not going to go to the circus, mommy.
They have balloons.
I'm afraid of balloons, mom.
I want to go see the dog or somebody, but I can't go see the balloons.
The 47-year-old clown known as Tony Turner has previously had to ditch his bubble-making machine.
In addition to the balloons, because he couldn't get public liability insurance, his company's assessed that youngsters might slip and hurt themselves as the bubbles hit the ground and they walk around.
This is the chickification of our society.
Nobody is competent.
Nobody can do it.
Everybody needs cradle-to-grave care.
He must be shielded from bubbles.
Bubble machine.
I remember when I was a kid, you could go to the store, you'd get some of this bubble stuff, your little plastic stick with a circle on it, blow through it, green bubbles.
Wow, it was fun when you're whatever age, six or seven years old.
Little did we know then that we were on the verge of personal destruction and danger with our bubble machine.
Try this headline.
Noose Titans Around Vic at amazing speed.
Michael Vic's two buddies or his three co-defendants are flipping.
But it's the headline here.
It's an AP story based in USA Today.
Noose Titans Around Vic.
Whoa, what a picture.
Amazing choice of words.
By the way, we had this yesterday.
I didn't get a chance to mention it.
And I don't think I've seen any audio on it.
But after the press conference yesterday, the joint press conference with President Bush and Karl Rove, it's over.
And Bush is making his way, helicopter or wherever.
And Bill Plant of CBS shouts out, if Rove is so smart, how come you lost Congress?
Which they can ask whatever they want.
But, you know, had I been there, had I been in the press corps, you know what I would have said, hey, Plant, if you're so smart, how come Katie Couric's doing the CBS evening news?
In greats.
I tell you, this is a Rove derangement syndrome.
And Waydole, when you get back for the break, we'll play you some of these soundbites.
I mean, these people, folks, the victory oil comes out of their mouth in liquid form, spittle, spit.
Can't contain themselves.
By the way, 14 people have died in a China bridge collapse, 65 missing.
Oops, updated.
China bridge toll death toll now rises to 22.
You know, a bridge in China shouldn't fall down, ladies and gentlemen.
I wonder what year did George Bush design this bridge in China?
That's right, man, a living legend, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, a prophet, a general all-around good guy, a well-known radio racon tour as well, at 800-282-2882.
All right, let's go to the audio soundbites.
Drive-by meanness over the top on Carl Rove, the victory oil and the hatred just dripping from drive-by coverage last night.
The level of meanness that you will hear in their voices is staggering.
We have Terry Moran of ABC, Chris Lehman of Congressional Quarterly.
This is a montage you got coming up.
Chris Matthews, Jessica Yellen at CNN, David Wright at ABC, James Moore at PMS NBC, David Gergen, David Roddengergen from, well, he rotates.
I guess he's at time now, but he goes from the Kennedy School and Newsweek to CNN to wherever.
Jim Axerod, CBS, Dan Abrams, PMSNBC, all talking here about Karl Rove's departure.
Divisiveness, anger, ruthlessness.
That's what you call Rovian politics.
The news to most Americans here isn't so much that Karl Rove is leaving as that Karl Rove has a family.
He was knighting the guy, and he said he was going to take care of this bomb.
The dark prince of the Bush administration.
Many saw his fingerprints in the attack on John McCain's character.
2004 witnessed a similar sustained attack on John Kerry's war record.
There's a certain part of this guy that is pathological.
An evil one who manipulated politics.
Karl Rove is packing his bags and raving the party in tatters.
Karl Rove had been a professional wrestler.
They might have called him the constitutional crippler.
You just have to laugh at this.
I mean, you can get offended and mad at it, but after that, you just have to laugh at it.
Chris Lehman is the guy who said, and he's from Congressional Quarterly, the news to most Americans here is not so much that Rove is leaving as that Carl Rove has a family.
Now, I want to make a point about all this.
The only reason these people hate Rove is because he outsmarted them at nearly every turn.
And they hate that they are the, you know, power is theirs by birthright.
Rove, in their minds, is the one person that came along and took it away from them and kept it away from them for all these years, and they just despise him.
They are the smartest people in the room to be outsmarted by rubes like Rove from Texas and Bush just offends them all to hell.
They're blaming Rove for the Swiftboat attacks now.
They're blaming Rove for the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry.
Nobody ever disproved any of the allegations made by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
The problem that the Libs have with that is you don't dare tell the truth about them.
That's the violation here.
You don't run commercials about the truth regarding Democrats, John Kerry, or whoever.
They are immune for this.
You have to understand their attitude.
They're high and they're exalted.
They live on the mountaintop.
And they are not to be held accountable and they are not to be put under scrutiny.
Certainly not by the opposition.
Certainly not by conservatives.
But the point I want to make here is to show you just how stupid, dumb, uninformed, and forgetful these people are.
If Rove was in charge of everything, can we go back to the first month of the Bush presidency in 2001?
Does anybody remember the new tone?
Bush came to town determined to end the bickering and partisanship that had featured, been featured in eight years of Clinton.
And as such, he let Ted Kennedy write the health care bill, went along with a whole bunch of liberal ideas, courted liberals, had them up to the White House, brought the Kennedy Klan up to watch some movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis or something.
Just went out of his way.
Do they think Rove was involved in that at all?
And if they do think Rove is involved in it, do they think it was sincere and genuine, or do they think they were being used?
Because I'm here to tell you it was sincere and it was genuine.
Bush had succeeded in bringing Democrats and Republicans together when he was governor of Texas.
He really thought he could do it here.
And Rove was with him in Texas.
And look what it got him.
Look what it got him.
Look what the new tone got him.
Look what joining them on immigration got him.
Look at the way Rove is being discussed today after all of the levels of outreach.
George Bush and Karl Rove do not criticize these people publicly at all.
They are not partisan.
Most of their Bush supporters wish they would, wish they would fight back, wish they would respond to all of these insulting allegations about Bush lying and people dying and Bush is Hitler and Bush is dumb and Bush is a loser.
He doesn't talk about the Democrats that way and neither does Karl Rove.
All they did was go out and beat them.
All they did was get Sam Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court.
By the way, you can talk about Iraq all you want, but that issue, that Supreme Court, and getting rid of the conservative, the quasi-conservative majority and making sure it doesn't grow, that's as much on the minds of people like Chuck Schemer as the Iraq War or any other issue is.
If they lose the White House again, a Republican president has aimed at two or three more Supreme Court nominations, they are dead in the water for a generation or two, at least.
Make no mistake about it.
And Rove and Bush got these two guys on the court, Alito and Roberts.
But they never talk about the Democrats the way you hear these media people talking about Karl Rove, the way you hear them talking about George W. Bush.
So for them to sit there and say divisiveness, anger, ruthlessness, it was the dark prince of the Bush administration.
This extends or descends, I should say, from the hubris and from the elitism and from the arrogance of liberals who believe themselves above being beaten, immune from criticism and so forth.
Last night on Nightline, Terry Moran interviewed Donna Brazile.
And Moran says, did Rove play dirty?
I would say that Call has gotten away with things that many of us on the Democratic side could never get away with.
Like what?
Well, for example, we couldn't pit white evangelical Christians against gays.
We couldn't pit gun owners against, you know, blacks.
And yet Call could find a way to pit one group after another.
Whoa.
I have, normally I have some respect for Donna Brazil, but this is just absurd.
To say that Karl Rove and George W. Bush are divisive, blacks against what?
Gun owners?
Ladies and gentlemen, page one of the Democrat Party playbook is keep people divided, fighting with each other, angry, resenting each other.
Make sure that there is constant crisis and angst.
Make sure there is no unity on whatever the issue.
Wedge everything.
Cause a gap to exist between everything, no desire for unity whatsoever, unless their opponents decide to change their principles and drop their principles and join the Democrats.
We're listening to an alternative universe here.
Here's another one.
This is Mark Halperin.
He used to write the note on ABC's website.
He's on the news hour of Jim Lara.
And the question, he's also on there with David Rodham Gergen.
And Jim Lara said, some of the glow gone, Mark, how would you characterize how this man should be remembered?
Someone who wanted to bring conservative change and felt that it was more important to win power and try to make conservative change than it was to seek bipartisan compromise.
He was perhaps a little tone-deaf to the mood of the country, and that was he was too partisan, sought partisan victories, and to defeat and destroy his enemies rather than to seek compromise.
Man, oh man, if you're talking about the Clintons, that's a brilliant comment.
Seek and destroy their enemies is exactly what is this business of compromise?
This guy just makes my point.
The clichés that these guys live with.
Someone who wanted to bring conservative change, felt that it was more important to win power, try to make conservative change than it was to seek bipartisan compromise.
When a liberal says it's important for bipartisan compromise, what a liberal means is that you conservatives better drop your principles and agree with us, let us have our way.
Because your way is conservatism, and that stinks, and that's a threat to us, and you don't even really exist.
We don't even get to give you the time of day.
We're not even going to debate you on it because it's an illegitimate way of thinking.
We're the majority.
We're the smart people.
We're the elites.
And so Rove tried to win.
Not only tried, did.
You know what's funny about this?
In addition to everything I have brilliantly laid out, if they think this has been a conservative administration, can you imagine what they would do if somebody like me showed up or if somebody like Ronald Reagan came back?
If they think this administration has been conservative and that Rove, these guys went out of their way, as I say, via the new tone, to join Democrats in a whole bunch of issues, a whole bunch of ways.
You remember the Medicare Part B entitlement, this new prescription drug entitlement for the seasoned citizens?
Now, normally, under normal circumstances, the Democrats would love that.
Why, that'd be great.
Why?
Another government entitlement that we can never change.
It's always going to get more money and it goes to the senior citizens and they vote in big numbers.
They hated it.
They despised it.
And you know why?
Because it wasn't theirs.
And they didn't think they'd be able to get credit for it.
And they don't want conservatives or Republicans getting credit for big government entitlement.
Frankly, we conservatives don't want that kind of thing.
I got a long argument with Tom DeLay about Medicare Part B because he insisted that it was not that big of an entitlement, that it brought market forces into prescription prices.
And he's right about that, but it still is a new entitlement.
It's still something under normal circumstances, Democrats would have loved it.
So who is it that's concerned with the welfare of the people and doing right?
Or who's obsessed with getting credit and having victory and winning and so forth?
They wouldn't join Bush on anything, other than those issues where they were scared not to, and the big one being the Iraq war.
Now, Gergen was asked a question by Jim Lara.
Do you agree with that, David, that all Rove wanted to do, go out there and destroy his enemies?
There are many, many Americans who feel, wait a minute, this was an artist of the smear.
This is a guy who played politics of destruction.
This is a guy who played hardball right from the beginning.
I swear, folks, it's like when you go read these liberal blogs, these kook fringe Democrat base members, they're all upset because their elected officials aren't mean enough.
They're afraid of Bush.
They're not attacking.
And they ought to be thrilled if that's what they really want.
If they just want to be bad-mouthing, they want their elected leaders to be bad-mouthing the president.
My God, they should be happy.
They should be euphoric because that's all the Democrats have been doing.
Okay, one more soundbite, then we'll go to the phones.
This is our old buddy Howard Feynman, who was on PMS NBC last night, saying this about Rove and Bush.
In many ways, Bush and Rove have won because as the Democrats are conceding quietly, if not openly, it's going to be hard to yank all of the troops out of Iraq.
And as the Democrats are showing, they're probably not going to have the guts to abolish George Bush's tax cuts.
So in certain respects, Bush and Rove have won.
Certain respects!
Who's been in the White House the last six and a half years?
Yes.
That's what eats them up.
All right, Carl in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
You're first as we go to the phones today in the EIB network.
Rush, why can't we all just get along?
Oh, Carl, don't give me a break.
Don't do a Rodney King on me.
You've got to be kidding me.
No, no, I'm not kidding you.
I think it's a very realistic thing.
See, here's what I hear.
First of all, as an independent, all the politicians work for me.
Well, they work for all of us.
But what I hear is if someone on one side of the aisle comes up with a good idea, the other side has to disagree with it just because they're on the opposite side.
When I listen to radio talk show hosts, I hear the same thing.
I hear the conservative people whining about the liberals.
I hear the liberals whining about the conservatives.
And you can go through any kind of newspaper articles that you want and pick and choose whatever you want, what works for you.
You know, there's probably just as many articles there that would be opposite and against what you have to say.
What?
Most of them would be opposite and against what I have to say.
In a newspaper?
I mean, look at.
I mean, when I listen to the public, I have a question.
What I hear is that you pick and choose different newspaper articles, and you say, here, look at this.
Retro.
That's right.
I'm an agenda guy.
I have a belief system.
It's called conservatism.
I believe it's the best thing for the most people.
So let me ask you this then.
If you think conservatism is the best thing for most people, should we just wipe out the Democratic Party altogether?
No, you have to beat them.
I'd love to be able to do it.
But that's not the way you want to do it.
No, but I mean, just eliminate them.
Just eliminate them.
Let's just have a conservative Republicans.
No, because, Carl, now look at it.
Now, be realistic.
That's what you sound like when you talk.
Yes, I'd love to wipe them out to the point that they are a minority for the rest of this nation's history.
Yes, exactly right, Carl, because I think a Democrat Party and liberalism will destroy the fabric and the institutions and traditions that made this country great.
But how about all the people on the opposite side of the aisle that are saying the exact same thing?
You see, Carl, you're not hearing me.
You're not hearing me because you're not letting me finish the point.
I want to do it in the democratic political system that we have in this country.
I want as many informed people as possible voting and defeating those people so that we have a genuine governing mandate.
Now, here I can illustrate the problem that you have with all this with one question.
What makes you think I have a problem?
That's part of my problem with you.
You called and said you've got a problem.
You don't want to call it victory.
You called and said, can't we all just get along?
That, to me, tells me you've got a problem.
I got one question.
No, it was a question.
It's not a problem.
It stems from a problem.
You're upset, Carl.
You wish all this weren't going on.
You want us to all get along, and for that to happen, one side's got to give up.
Oh, we can't just compromise and meet in the middle.
One side of the street.
You can't compromise on principles.
You can't compromise on good versus evil.
You can't compromise on victory and defeat.
The Democrats are evil, as you see it.
Well, no, I think something abortion is.
And you don't compromise on pro-life versus killing a baby in the womb.
Where's the compromise on that?
That's what I mean.
Now, let me ask you a question because this is central to helping you understand where you are.
As an independent, what do you stand for?
How do you mean the question?
What do I stand for?
What do you believe in?
As an independent, what do you believe in?
What are your core principles?
In terms of what exactly?
I mean, I'm not taking everything as a whole.
I'm looking at everything.
This is not a trick question.
And I'm not trying to.
You're not being roped into anything here.
As an independent or moderate, whatever you called yourself an independent, what do you stand for?
Give me an example.
Victory or defeat in Iraq.
Well, that's going to open up a whole nother kettle of fish.
Well, see, there's the problem.
You don't have a core belief running through your body at all.
And so you have nothing to stand for.
You got nothing you believe in that you want to be victorious with because you believe it's right.
So you sit out there and you hear people who have these core beliefs argue about it makes you nervous, and you want to do a Rodney King on the country.
And that's not going to solve any problem.
I'm glad you called.
I really am glad.
You know, yesterday, Michelle Obama, the wife of Barack Obama, said, we're still playing around with a question, is he black enough?
Stop that nonsense.
And today their media said, well, who's asking these questions?
Of course, my answer, the liberal media.
The drive-bys are asking the question, is he black enough?
Here's another illustration today in Newsweek.
Is Obama poor enough is the question.
I mean, he's doing really well with upscale people, but he's not doing well with downscale Democrats.
He's got to find a way to relate to the downscaled Democrats, meaning the poor Democrats.
So not only is the question, is he black enough, now the question, we'll go into this in greater detail in the next hour, is Obama poor enough?
Or can he act it?
We'll have some music to go along with this too, folks.
So sit tight.
▲
Export Selection