All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
November 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the era of limbaugh.
So stated by Daily Variety, the era of limbaugh.
You know, the last time there was an era of anything, the most previous era, you know what it's called?
And do you know what it was?
I looked this up.
It was the era of good feelings, and it was from 1850 to 1824.
And I guess that's when partisan bickering took a timeout.
The era of good feelings.
1815 to 1824.
Now, I think we've had eras of good feelings since then, but I think the era of limbaugh is actually the second era of good feeling.
And if the left and the far left and the far, far left and the lunatic fringe left would only join me and all of us in the good feeling so-called center, we could really end this bickering by the left.
Anyway, greetings, my friends.
Great to have you with us.
The Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
Revved up, ready to go for three straight hours.
Telephone number if you want to join us today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, you heard that Governor Spitzer gave up on the illegal driver's license thing for illegal immigrants yesterday.
But did you also know he also gave up, he dropped his internet tax idea that we talked about yesterday on this program.
Marcia Kramer at CBS2HD in New York reported that the governor reversed course on two major issues in one day, immigrant driver's licenses and the internet sales tax.
Snurdley, you may not have heard me talking about this because you were screening calls, but he's going to up the sales tax on internet purchases starting in December for the Christmas season.
And so two up and two down, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to us here at the EIB network.
Now, let's talk about Mrs. Clinton for just a second here because we got the big debate tonight out in Las Vegas.
So what I understand, the first hour is going to be Wolf Blitzer running the thing.
The second hour is going to be questions posed by registered independent voters with guidance provided by Suzanne Malvo.
I'm wondering how many of those are going to be planted.
You know, the last time, did a little research on this back in 2000 for a Senate debate that Hillary was having that CNN ran and Wolf Blitzer, they did it at some university, I forget which, and the students were going to be participating and asking questions.
And they submitted their questions a day in advance to CNN.
Remember this in CNN and went through the questions, decided which ones were going to get asked.
Nobody knows if Mrs. Clinton was giving a heads up as to what questions were coming.
But I remember talking about at the time, and the same thing with this YouTube stuff that they tried earlier this season.
You got to screen these things.
You can't just, you can't put rank amateurs up there.
There's a ratings component to this as well as everything else.
So I'm not surprised that CNN would be screening it.
Carol Simpson, what about Carol?
Carol Simpson, she was the moderator at the Ponytail Guy debate between George H.W. Bush, H. Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.
Well, I know there have always been questions about how these particular independent voters or members of the public get in there and what questions that they are asked.
Speaking of which, this is from The Nation, which is one of these lunatic fringe left-wing publications.
The editor there is Hurricane Katrina Vandenhoe.
As Hillary Clinton aims to regain momentum in tonight's presidential debate, new videos have surfaced on YouTube with young voters asking her questions that are similar to the fake question posed by a Grinnell college student last week.
Now, there's no direct indication that the new footage, apparently taken from October 16th, event at a hot scruple in Salem, New Hampshire, demonstrates any concerted effort with a Clinton campaign to plant questions.
But in an era where web videos can spread fast and shape the views of activists and voters, the clips may feed the narrative that Clinton's tightly run campaign is shielding her from voters' scrutiny.
One way for the Clinton campaign to address questions about the new clips would be to release the original list of fake questions.
Then voters could see for themselves what other topics were proposed for planting and confirmed that last week's plants were an isolated incident.
Ah, this is just great.
This is just not going away, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, Mrs. Clinton's latest position on driver's licenses and illegals is also an admission.
All the BS that came out this past week, all the stuff from the war room and from Clinton Inc., all the phony accusations are being piled on the pathetic use of the gender card.
You remember Mrs. Clinton said, this is to Tim, this is a gotcha moment.
Well, we know what gotcha means and we know what it's always meant.
Gotcha means Hillary's caught trying not to be a leader, trying not to take a stand.
Now she's been caught making phony accusations, phony, because she was forced to admit that she was the problem, not Russert, not Dodd, not Edwards, not Obama, nor the press.
Hillary got pushed into a corner that she wasn't expecting to get pushed into.
She wasn't expecting the question.
Thank you, America.
We forced it here.
And she was forced into taking a position.
And so she flip-flopped during the debate.
She went to that corner, kicking, screaming, making false accusations about the debate moderator, other Democrats running for president.
Then the Schlickmeister came into the fray saying the boys were getting tough with her, but that she could handle it.
But she can't.
You know, that's the bottom line.
She didn't.
After getting pummeled in the press in a poll, she capitulated.
And how did she capitulate?
She capitulated by taking a position that was more popular than her original statement at the debate and her original statement supporting Spitzer's plan to the Nashua, New Hampshire newspaper editorial board.
It's a good thing she won't meet with our enemies.
God only knows what she'd give away within the course of one meeting.
This driver's license thing is a big blunder on several levels.
There are now David Broder, the dean of Washington punditry, has written a piece that's just scathing the Democrats here and warning them on their untenable position on illegal immigration and a couple other things.
All this coming up in great detail on the program, by the way.
And Ann Kornbloot in the Washington Post has, for her, here's the headline.
And it's on a blog.
It's not in the paper, but it's on a blog.
Spitzer drops license plan, but damage to Democrats is done.
The damage being that it is illegal immigration, the issue they hope to stay away from, that they hope would divide the Republicans, is now tormenting them.
Broder's piece is headlined, the icebergs ahead for the Democrats.
So anyway, Hillary Clinton is like a child of the 60s.
Her answers are blowing in the wind, and there might be a parody song in there.
Tim Russert has to be smiling.
I hope he is.
He may be the first guy in the drive-bys that got smeared by a Clinton and emerged the clear victor in just a matter of days.
And in that, he joins me because I too have been smeared by Clinton Inc. and Harry Reed Inc. and have emerged victorious and shining and am now the Johnny apple seed of American politics, planting seeds of truth that are growing and sprouting throughout our glorious country.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out.
There's a devastating poll for the Democrats today, too, from Gallup.
Americans widely disappointed with Democrats in Congress.
Majority more displeased and content with the handling of seven issues.
All of that and much more straight ahead right after this.
This just cannot be great news for the Democrats.
It's a major drive-my media organization in its poll, the Gallup poll, amidst a swirl of public dissatisfaction about the Iraq war, the economy, government corruption, and with President Bush more generally.
Americans went to the polls in November 2006, voted enough Republicans out of office to give the Democrats majority control of Congress a year later.
Americans are as negative about the job Congress is doing as they were leading up to the 2006 midterm elections.
And according to recent Gallup polling, Americans are distinctly negative about the Democrats' handling of several front-burner policy issues.
The latest Gallup panel survey was conducted October 25th to the 28th.
Asked Americans to say whether they are pleased, neutral, or disappointed, or angry about the way Democrats in Congress have been dealing with seven major issues confronting the nation.
Here's a question.
As you may know, the Democrat Party gained majority control of Congress in January.
How do you feel about the job the Democrats in Congress are doing on each of the following issues?
Pleased, neutral, disappointed, or angry.
On terrorism, 17% are pleased, 35% neutral, 31% disappointed, 16% angry.
You add the last two, you get 47% angry.
On the economy, you add the last two and you get 53% disappointed or angry at the Democrats.
On government reform, you add the last two, disappointed and angry, and you get 45% who are 55%, sorry, 55% angry on government reform, on health care.
You add disappointed and angry 43 and 17, and you get what?
You get 60% angry at the Democrats on health care, on Iraq.
You add 43 and 25.
You get 68% either disappointed or angry with the Democrats and Iraq on immigration.
You add 39 and 26, and you get 65% angry at the Democrats.
Ha!
And they thought those numbers would be reserved for Republicans.
On the federal budget deficit, you add the last two, disappointed and angry, and you get 50, sorry, you get 60% angry.
These are not numbers that Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi are going to appreciate.
But do they not do, folks?
Don't doubt me.
I have been assuring you that this was going to be the case with these people.
They are not universally loved.
The drive-by media is not succeeding in persuading a majority of Americans that the Democrats are doing so wonderful.
If it just weren't for Bush, they could be doing all kinds of great things.
And I think part and parcel of these numbers is the fact that the Democrats just don't present themselves as likable people either.
When they go on deep, Dingy Harry, Nancy Pelosi, whoever they trot out there, they're not likable.
And the people that speak for them say these mean and just outrageous, enraged, lunatic, insane things.
And it's taking its toll.
Now, interesting take on this poll.
This is from Mark Tapscott.
Mark Tepscott is the editorial page editor of the Washington Examiner.
And he's gone through the same numbers here that I just shared with you.
And he said, look, before Republicans get too happy about seeing the Democrats' abysmal failure, I suggest the root of these numbers isn't simply a dissatisfaction with policy failures, but rather an indication of a deeper disappointment born of the widespread failure of big government.
We have created a federal leviathan that promises to deliver something for everybody with its regulations and taxation directly or directing virtually every corner of daily life.
There is no way that government can do that, so failures are inevitable.
But over a period of time, as the failures in particular arenas multiply, there comes a point when the many specific failures merge into one general mood of dissatisfaction.
This widespread dissatisfaction with the inability of big government to deliver on its promises presents conservatives with an historic opportunity to refocus public debate, to redefine what is expected of government, to slim it down to more manageable proportions so that it can deliver on the most important things.
Mr. Tapscott is dead on.
And shortly after Hurricane Katrina and immigration reform and the amnesty bill that failed, one of the things that I tried and tried to point out continuously, I didn't try, I did do it.
This is big government at work and people are seeing this.
They're seeing, especially in the immigration debate.
And I said, this is going to cross party lines.
They are seeing the ineffectiveness of it.
Not only did I say they're seeing the ineffectiveness, they're seeing the sleaze.
The amnesty bill was put together behind closed doors.
It was fast-tracked.
There wasn't going to be any debate.
There weren't going to be any committee hearings.
The last thing that the architects of the Amnesty Bill wanted is for anybody to know what it was about.
They didn't want anybody to know the details.
And the details broke.
There were some senators in there.
Jeff Sessions did tremendous work in making sure that the word got out.
A lot of people did.
And so the attempt failed, as you all know.
What that episode illustrated, quite obviously, is when government gets that big, it gets arrogant, it gets elitist.
Look at Governor Spitzer.
You know what really is the guiding force with Governor Spitzer's mistakes here?
It's not that they're immune.
It's not that they don't hear what the public says.
It's that they don't care.
They are a different class of people in their mind.
You are Rubes.
You are Hayseed Hicks.
You are not sufficiently educated, nor are you sufficiently sophisticated to understand these complexities that the brilliant elitists among us have to deal with.
And it's so complex and it's so difficult.
And we are all so, so unsophisticated that they're not even going to take the time to try to tell us because it's a waste of time in their minds.
We don't have the brain power to understand it.
That also is what you get with an out-of-control federal government, people with that kind of attitude in it, that they're better than everybody else and that they're smarter than everybody.
So Tap Scott here is right on the money.
Everything that's been happening recently is a great illustration of the size of government, way too big, and how it becomes grossly inefficient and incompetent.
And in light of this, given how we've seen all these other issues handled, from Hurricane Katrina to, what, the amnesty bill and the DREAM Act, all the efforts to get it ramrodded through without our knowing about it, any number of things.
Why would anybody, how about the State Department botching up people's summer vacations because of the delay in issuing passports?
These the people you want running health care.
It has just constantly amazed me that there are people out there who will turn over something that's the size of one-seventh of the U.S. economy to the same people that botch everything else they have to do in life from the DMV on up.
But the way it happens, I think, is psychologically.
The people in government, candidates promising this single-payer health care plan, have convinced people it's going to be free.
It's not going to cost them anything.
And so they're willing to put up, they think, with whatever bureaucratic inefficiencies there are.
But in a common sense way, why would anybody want to have this government run anything that's percolating fine in the private sector?
In short, back to Mr. Tap Scott here, the coming decade could be the greatest opportunity this generation is likely to see to make the case for a rejuvenated federalism of limited government.
We simply have to find new ways to speak the timeless message of Ronald Reagan's first inaugural.
Listen to this.
What Reagan said, it's my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment, to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states and to the people.
All of us need to be reminded the federal government didn't create the states.
The states created the federal government.
Now, so there'll be no misunderstanding.
It's not my intention to do away with government.
It is rather to make it work.
Work with us, not over us, to stand by our side, not ride on our back.
Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it.
Foster productivity, not stifle it.
That's Reagan, first inaugural.
One more lesson of importance here for conservatives, writes Tap Scott, and one that ought to give us heart.
When your political power depends, as it does, for our liberal friends, on promising more and more, but doing so assures that you'll be able to actually deliver less and less, you sow the seeds of your own downfall.
Now, I do have an observation about that when we come back.
Yeah, you need it up to at least 800 decibels, ladies and gentlemen, so that you do not miss one dulcet tone from me.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-feeling, all-sensing, Maha Roshnishi, 800-282-2882.
Now, Mark Tapscott writes, and by the way, it's a great premise.
Big government faces paralysis by promise, the inability to deliver on what everybody expects.
And he concludes his analysis of the Gallup poll this way.
When your political power depends, as it does for our liberal friends, on promising more and more, but doing so assures that you'll be able to actually deliver less and less, you sow the seeds of your own downfall.
Now, theoretically, I think that's valid.
But in a practical application, can you think of a group of people that have been voting Democrat for decades, expecting and expecting and expecting, and being disappointed and disappointed and disappointed, and not receiving what they think they're going to expect?
Yes, you can.
The African-American community in this country, when it comes to voting for Democrat presidents, does so at 90 to 93% every four years.
And they've been doing it since the 60s.
And they continue to have all this hope held out.
The Democrats are going to get even with these people discriminating against you.
We're going to get even with the racists and the bigots.
We're going to make sure that you're not in jail.
We're going to make sure that all this economic good stuff happens.
And they still complain.
They still complain.
And you see a guy like Bill Clinton, who did nothing for them in the 90s.
And they proclaim him the first black president.
And so while the theory would seem to work in practical application, at least for one voting bloc, the idea that promising more and more, but failing to deliver less and less, will sow the seeds of your downfall.
It has not sown the scenes of the Democrat Party's downfall with black voters and presidential races.
To the phones, we'll start in Fort Worth, Texas.
Billy, I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, how are you doing, Mrs. Lumpie?
I'm fine, sir.
Thank you.
Well, listen, I think y'all doing overkill on Mrs. Clinton because, hey, whatever I turn on, listen to you and Sean Hennedten and other talk shows y'all talk about, all I hear is hate, hate, hate.
Mrs. Clinton, you know, hey, I'm not for Ms. Clinton.
I am a Democrat.
And I'm a Christian.
And what I hear from you guys is hate.
And that lady that got on TV and was talking with Mr. McCain, talking about how can we stop, you know, the lady with the B-word.
I mean, I can believe they would say that.
She would say that.
That's hate.
And I don't think Christians are about hate.
And look at, I think you guys go help Ms. Clinton win by what you guys are doing.
I don't think Christians is about hate.
All I hear is hate, And I think that's wrong.
That's overkill.
Billy, I love Mrs. Clinton.
I've met Mrs. Clinton.
I don't hate her.
You know, I don't hate anybody.
I do like to point out when people in politics who are given these vast grand images of greatness prove that they are false.
But I disagree with Mrs. Clinton on policy matters almost across the board.
And that's what this is about.
But you know, you raise an interesting point, Billy, because as a Democrat, you say you were undecided about voting for Mrs. Clinton.
No, I ain't never been for Mrs. Clinton.
I like Edwards and Phy.
But now you're steering, you find yourself sympathizing with Mrs. Clinton, right, because of all this so-called hate that you hear out there.
So you're thinking of supporting her the first chance you get, right?
If she be the Democratic nominee, I will.
Well, of course you will, Bill.
You're a Democrat.
You're going to support whoever the Democrats nominate.
How do you know that?
You don't know that.
Well, I got the law of averages on my side.
You're a Democrat.
I did not know that.
You're a Democrat.
And I think you're taking everything for granted.
No, you're not.
Black people ain't like that, fella.
Billy, you are getting contentious with me for no reason.
I have done nothing but show you calm, reasoned respect.
And I've asked you questions desiring your opinion.
And here you are lashing out in it.
You sound like you're filled with hate today, calling me.
No, no, I'm not.
I'm just looking.
Hey, I wouldn't mind voting for Newt Rockman, you know.
But you're not going to vote.
I'm looking at five.
You're not going to vote for Mitt Romney.
How do you know?
Well, because I don't know, but I'm just guessing at some pretty good conversation.
Just like you guys always said, Mr. Jackson and Billy, you got to stop.
I'm 57 years old and you guys don't know that.
You got to stop with this all you guys business.
I am one guy.
I am the big guy.
It's the era of limbaugh.
Okay, but I think you can, if Mrs. Clinton gets elected, it'll be because of the people, you and Sean Hennedy and the people on the right.
All this hate.
And y'all need to stop that hate.
You know, in a way, you have a valid point about that, but not the way you're thinking.
Kathleen Parker wrote a great column today about how the treatment of Mrs. Clinton could create sympathy for her.
And it's not by attacking her on her issues.
If people attack her appearance, attack the way she dresses, if they attack her looks, this sort of thing, that won't fly.
That will rally women to Mrs. Clinton more than anything possibly could.
You know that B words rally them to Ms. Clinton.
You know the B word.
You mean this guy that asked McCain the question and referred to Hillary as a B.I.H.?
But a lady.
That was a lady.
It was a lady?
There was a lady.
Oh, well, then what's the problem?
Women can say whatever they want about women.
They're going to rally people to her support, I'm telling.
And I wish you win now because all of this hate.
And all you think about.
Wait a minute.
Y'all need to be honest.
I just hate it.
Wait, I need to ask you a serious question here.
Yes.
Before you heard what you think is hate on the radio about Mrs. Clinton, you weren't prepared to vote for her.
You were looking at Edwards, or did you say Obama or Biden?
Biden, Edwards and Biden.
Well, that's really interesting.
So what is it that you didn't like about Mrs. Clinton before you started hearing all this hate?
What business I didn't like?
Well, the way her attitude is.
I really, you know, I look at a person and I don't really think she can, well, she's not a Bill Clinton, okay?
I used to wait with Bill Clinton's cousin there in Arkansas, and she's not a Bill Clinton, okay?
And I don't know why people hate Bill Clinton either.
You ever stop to think that if Hillary gets elected, Bill's back in there and they're going to have a co-presidency?
I don't know about that.
That's what people are saying.
I don't know about that.
I know the Clintons like every square inch of my glorious naked body, Billy, and I can tell you it's going to be a co-president.
But I got to go back.
You don't like Hillary's attitude.
So you would actually end up voting for somebody you don't like just because you think a bunch of people are piling on her unfairly.
I sure will because of hate.
And I'm a Christian.
Well, I don't think you're hating.
That may be Shala.
That may be.
But I hope she don't get to be the nomination.
You guys, let me tell you, you guys on the left, Billy, are going to have to reexamine the way you define hate because the hate in our culture is coming from the Democrat Party and it's coming from the American left.
I don't hate anybody.
Sean Hannity doesn't hate anybody.
We love the country.
We want the best country we can be.
We want people to be the best they can be.
We want people to reach their dreams, their wildest dreams and aspirations.
We have faith that they can do it if government gets out of their way.
We don't have hate for people.
We love people.
In fact, Billy, we love them to the point that we see the best in them.
And we know that there's the best in everybody, but they're not inspired by enough people.
Their expectations are not high enough.
The hate in this culture is coming from the people in your party and further left in the lunatic fringe blogosphere.
Whatever you're hearing me discuss about Mrs. Clinton, it is not rooted in hate.
Maybe a little schadenfreude, but not hate.
Brief timeout.
Thanks, Billy.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have the fastest three hours and the fastest week in media.
Here is Kathleen Parker's column regarding how, and of course, Kathleen Parker, you can correctly assume, is a woman.
And this is her piece on how to avoid criticizing Hillary in order to create sympathy.
You don't want to do that.
Will women vote for Hillary Clinton only because she's a woman?
That question keeps getting bounced around.
I've recently revised my answer from no to yes.
That is, yes.
Women will vote for Clinton because she's a woman if men target her as a woman.
Translation, gentlemen, if you don't want another Clinton in the White House, don't say unkind things about her persona, her demeanor, her appearance, even if bullseye true.
Not even in your own kitchen with your own wife.
Women have radar for anti-woman sediments, and all guys have anti-woman sediments to some degree.
Blame mom if you haven't already.
And no one has benefited more from being a victim than the candidate formerly known as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The truth is, Clinton might not be a senator from New York if not for her victimization as first spouse.
How soon we forget the circumstances of her rise to power?
It may be arguable that Clinton is a good enough senator, but that's not the point.
It is inarguable that she won the office in 2000 because women rallied around her.
Overall, women voted for Clinton over Rick Lazio 60 to 39 percent.
In upstate New York, typically a Republican stronghold, women voted for Clinton 55 to 43 percent.
And it really had as much to do with Clinton the victim as Clinton the candidate.
But gentlemen, Hillary Clinton should lose the presidency for legitimate reasons, not because men find her unappealing.
Let men criticize Clinton personally, and a funny thing happens.
Contaminating the air is a slight whip of misogyny that women recognize and recoil against.
When men speak derogatorily about Clinton's looks, all women feel a little bit wounded.
What woman can withstand such scrutiny, after all?
Women may attack each other, but when a man does it, something female kicks in among even the least girly of us.
Bottom line is this, what women have in common with Hillary Clinton will always exceed what women have in common with men.
This is powder room wisdom.
Two women can disagree on the most controversial issues at the table, but when they head to the ladies' room inevitably together, they see eyeball to eyeball real fast over the most basic and ultimately most important matters.
Hair, for instance.
But also seriously, calm down.
You have problems with this?
The deeper Ken Starr cut into Bill Clinton's very private life, the more men felt sympathy for and aligned themselves with the president.
In the locker room, Schadenfreude has its limits.
Will women vote for Hillary just because she's a woman?
Only if men attack Hillary as a woman.
To be nice, boys, you may end up choking on the words, madam presidents.
I'm wondering now, having read this, if I can no longer refer to Mrs. Clinton and their ranting and screeching as reminding me of first and second ex-wives.
There is the one thing in here that I Snerdley is doubting all of this, but there's the one thing in here, I think, that makes sense is that you can go up to a woman, Snerdley, try this and find the most beautiful woman that you see and ask her, what does it feel like to feel beautiful?
And she'll tell you she doesn't know.
She doesn't feel beautiful.
They all think they got something wrong.
There's some flaw somewhere.
And so they rally around other women who are, especially if they are unattractive and men start laughing about it, making jokes about it, then there will be this bonding, so to speak.
That, I think, is a great point.
And it's true.
Look, I also think to go back and refight all that garbage in the 90s is a loser.
Mrs. Clinton and the future of America that she would make it is the issue here.
And that's essentially what Ms. Parker happens to be saying.
This is Nick in Daytona Beach, Florida.
Hi, Nick.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
I'm just fine, sir.
Thank you.
I've listened for so long, it's unbelievable.
No, it's totally believable and appreciated.
Sure.
Listen, I can't help but feel more and more optimistic every day.
You know, if you think about it, the Democrats would have won a lot of seats in the House, in the Congress altogether, anyway, because that's what normally happens in a presidency, second term, yada, yada, yada.
We've talked about that.
But what I cannot believe is the capital that they wasted fighting the war, which we have now won and are closing the deal on, fighting the president tooth and nail on every single thing for what?
To gain one or two seats to control a Congress here and there.
And I mean, they even turned against Joe Lieberman.
The amount of capital that they spent to win a war naturally won anyway.
This is all true.
So why do you think they blew it?
I think they blew it because they got what they wanted.
What they've blown is a chance to really compete for the presidency.
If they had been there with you and me for the last eight years and the Sean Hannities and everybody else, they could stand up and say, we've won.
Let's hug each other and now let's deal with the tough issues.
We're never going to do that.
These people are obsessed.
If you're a longtime listener, I don't want to have to be redundant here, but they're obsessed with rage and hatred at Bush for having stolen the election from them.
They actually think the election was stolen.
They think he's a Supreme Court elected president.
They still haven't gotten over it.
Kerry thinks that he could have won in Ohio if they hadn't messed around there with the voting machines.
These people aren't, they have become irrational.
You're demanding rational behavior and understanding from them, and they are totally irrational.
I mean, what is rational about running against George W. Bush in the 2008 election?
He's not on the ballot.
He will not be on the ballot.
What is rational about their arrogance and their condescension?
The answer to my question, why do you think they behave this way?
Their arrogance.
They believe power is their birthright.
They believe, whether people who like them, love them or not, that people are going to end up behaving and acting the way Democrats want them to.
They had 40 years of this kind of power.
They had no opposition.
They had no opposition in the media.
They had no opposition from the Republican Party.
I'm talking about in Congress where spending bills originate and so forth.
Republicans had the Senate now and then, but the Democrats ran the House for 40 years.
They ran the town.
That's why they hated Reagan.
There was an eight-year interruption in that.
They hated Reagan.
Personally, they despised Reagan because he took their power away from them.
And they've just, you have that kind of arrogance and condescension to people where you think you can't do wrong, that people, even if they don't understand you, will end up supporting you because you're Democrats.
Why we're Democrats?
Why?
We own the country.
Power is our birthright.
Yada, yada, yada.
So it's their attitude that's presenting them problems here.
Brief time out here.
Thanks for the call out there, Nick.
I appreciate it.
Don't go away.
Before we go to the break, folks, I want you to think about something.
Since 1969, I, as a red-blooded American male, have been told that all women want us to be equal.
They want to be equal.
They want equal pay.
They want equal this, equal opportunity.
They want to be equal.
I want to join the military, fight in the foxholes.
And during these 40 years, I can, as a man, I have to sit up, put up with all the fun being made the way I look.
Obama has to put up with Maureen Dowd making fun of his big ears.
▲
Export Selection