All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:24
January 14, 2008, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained, committed broadcast specialist, standing firmly for conservative principles and ideas which are immutable.
They are not redefinable, ladies and gentlemen.
Conservatism is not a scheme.
It's not a plan.
In order to placate and satisfy people, it's quite much more than that.
Greetings and welcome back.
800 282-2882 is the phone number if you want to be on the program.
By popular demand, we're repeating the opening of the program today, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll start today with the Democrats, ladies and gentlemen.
There's an uncivil war brewing on the left.
On one side, African Americans.
On the other side, Clinton Americans.
And caught in the middle of this, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Clintons, ladies and gentlemen, plain for all to see, will do or say anything to win.
But now the question will African Americans take anything.
Amazing to watch this, is it not?
Clinton Eastes saying about Obama and Obama saying about the Clintons.
What they have been saying for decades about us.
What they have been saying for decades about us.
Charges of racism on both sides of the Democrat presidential campaign.
Bringing up once again the drug use rumors, the drug selling rumors of Barack Obama.
The besmirching of a fine American actor, Sidney Poitier.
Compared to Obama and vice versa, as a sellout.
Going to the white folks' home for dinner.
Reviving the concept of the black and magic Negro.
Yes, Mr. Sturdley, the question I asked a Clinton plane to see will do anything, say anything to win, but will African Americans take anything.
How will they line up in this?
A little pop quiz.
Give me that music at a little higher volume at there, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
This is when Johnny comes marching home.
It's from Dr. Strangelove and it fits.
What does macaca translate to in Clinton speak?
Because the Clintons have had multiple macaca moments here.
Well, one way you translate macaca in Clinton speak is fairy tale.
Even Clinton Americans were shocked and they awed when the former president called the Obama campaign a fairy tale.
If you believe your ears, or called his position on the war a fairy tale.
If you believe his lion eyes.
I don't know if we've had our Fort Sumter yet, but Mrs. Clinton has already declared that she is the victim of the black guy.
The black guy is attacking Mrs. Clinton.
That would be Obama.
It's the vast left-wing conspiracy, the Obama conspiracy.
Mrs. Clinton, as you know, had the audacity to insult the memory of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who from the grave finds himself in the middle of this mucaca moment in the Democrat Party.
What did Mrs. Clinton say?
In response to Obama...
who praised Dr. King for the civil rights movement.
Mrs. Clinton in a typical liberal big government moment said, so what?
It were it not for a Democrat president, what Dr. King did would never have happened.
Several black leaders scratched their heads.
Could this possibly have been said by the wife of the first black president in the United States?
That King was irrelevant.
Mrs. Clinton, totally willing to diss a civil rights icon, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
In order to make the transparent point that Obama, with all of his hope, with all of his courage, can't do diddly squat.
Diddly squat can only be accomplished with Mrs. Clinton in the White House.
Thank you.
Latest polling data, the Rasmussen reports polling data.
Mrs. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 41 to 27.
Obama leads Mrs. Clinton among African American voters 66 to 16.
What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a Democrat Party at war with itself, an uncivil war.
Splitting right down the middle on racial lines.
The Democrat Party, who would have ever believed this?
Mrs. Clinton?
Obama arguing over the race issue.
Mrs. Clinton, in an effort to show she really cares, opposed to Obama who just cares, says she's going to attend a Dr. Martin Luther King event.
The first black president, Bill Clinton, continues to make the rounds on black radio programs.
In the meantime, ABC News and the Washington Post are reporting in their latest poll.
A huge shift nationwide to Obama.
A huge shift in the world.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, did you see Bill Clinton defending Hillary over the weekend?
He only did it because she's being beaten by a black guy.
I have noticed that Bill Clinton did not take on noticeably anyway any other candidates that went after Hillary since the presidential race started.
But Bill Clinton getting in on the uncivil war and the racial divide in the Democrat Party attacking the man of hope.
Barack Hussein Obama.
Only because his wife being beaten by a black guy.
Meanwhile, the founder of the Black Entertainment Television Network, Robert Johnson, has slammed Obama in South Carolina and once again raised the specter of drug use.
The Breck girl, John Edwards, firing on four cylinders, has criticized Mrs. Clinton's comments on the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.
So what do we have here?
Hillary Clinton the gender card.
The Breck girl John Edwards left trying to play a class card.
Major poker game going on on the Democrat side.
Supporters of each of these candidates.
And the drive-by media struggling against the new reality that the favored old disqualification tack doesn't work since they're all liberals.
You can't disqualify Mrs. Clinton for throwing the race card, she's a liberal.
You can't disqualify Obama for holding the race card.
He's a liberal.
You can't disqualify Mrs. Clinton for using the gender card, she's a liberal.
You can't disqualify the Breck girl for playing the class envy card.
He's a liberal.
So what's the drive-by media to do?
Find a way to blame all of this on Mitt Romney.
Supporters of all three Democrat candidates in the drive-bys are struggling against this new reality.
Trying to navigate this awkward political reality without dashing the diversity canards that have held them in such good stead for so many decades.
Which, by the way, these diversity canards have led to moments of high comedy.
Andrew Young arguing for Clinton being blacker than Obama because he's been with more black women than Obama.
The race card was obviously thrown.
Racist comments much earlier in this campaign than the drivebys are willing to acknowledge.
Michelle Obama, wife of the man of hope, touting her husband as a better candidate for women than Clinton, because he's a man comfortable with strong women in his life.
The Bret Girl supporters touting him as potentially the first female president.
And all the stuff that just happened in the last week with Mrs. Clinton Barack Obama, the Reverend Dr. King, Robert Johnson, Black Entertainment Television, the Shock and Jive, don't forget that, the fairy tale, the kid.
It is funny to watch.
And ladies and gentlemen, a final observation here.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, have you noticed?
It's Obama versus the Clintons.
Two against one.
Obama campaigning against both of the Clintons.
I wonder how well Mrs. Clinton would hold up.
If the shoe was on the other foot, that is, if she had to run against an ex-president and a senator.
I think she'd cry and complain about the unfairness.
For all of her BS about being a victim and piling on Obama is holding his own against both of them, doing more than his share of the spade work.
Maybe even gaining ground at the moment.
Using not only the spade, ladies and gentlemen, but when he finishes with the spade in the garden of corruption planted by the Clintons, he turns to the hoe.
And so the spade work and his expertise using a hoe.
He's faring well.
The real story is that Obama is being tag teamed.
He's running against an ex-president and senator.
He's the one who's holding up and more.
He's the one proving to be a man.
Well, she is proving to be weak.
Think about it.
She cracked up the tears came because she was losing.
She was crying for herself.
Obama has yet to cry.
Mrs. Clinton bipolitical.
She wants to be treated as a man, wants to be viewed as a woman.
This election is more about perceptions than substance so far.
It always is in primaries.
Hillary supposedly tough as a man, but then cries at the first sign of personal trouble.
Obama says nothing but is likable, can deliver a hell of a vapid speech.
But that matters.
Vapidity matters in the Democrat Party.
In the meantime, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. turns over in his grave.
As does Senator J. William Fulbright, who asks from the Great Beyond, why did this take so long to happen?
People have been waiting patiently to appear on the program.
It's understandable.
And so let's head to the phones.
We'll go to St. Louis.
This is Mary Kay.
Thanks for your patience and welcome.
All right, this is the second call we have attempted to take in a row, and nobody's there.
Mary Kay, if you're there, just hang on.
Is she or is she gone?
I'm no, I'm here.
Very good.
Welcome back.
Uh you were out there in the ether for a while.
We'll blame it on the engineer.
Okay, let's do that.
Uh my comment is I don't understand how Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, can vote for John McCain.
He's a liberal Democrat in Republican clothing.
And if he gets the nomination for the first time in forty-two years, I will not vote.
And I don't care who we get.
Um, you know, I've uh I'm hearing variations of this from uh quite a few people, uh, and not just members of the audience, but from uh a cadre of uh of friends of mine.
The uh I mean the the point about uh if if somebody like McCain or Huckabee gets a nomination, they're just not gonna vote.
I'm not.
And just gonna, you know, leave it up to you know another four years of Jimmy Carter like leadership, and then uh That's what we'll have if McCain or Huckabee get in.
What difference does it make?
Well, if any of the Democrats get in, the same thing.
I right.
So if they're the same.
They're one and the same.
And where are the conservatives?
Why are all these Republicans voting for John McCain?
They're not yet.
You know, this is the point that I'm trying to make.
There haven't been that many Republicans vote in these primaries at Mary Kay.
Now you gotta you gotta chill out there.
But what I mean, but if they're not voting, I mean, crying out loud, we're gonna have a primary here.
I don't care if John McCain is winning.
I'm gonna go vote for somebody else.
Look at what listen to what I'm telling you.
We've had two states.
You know who's leading in the delegate count right now, far and away is Romney.
Right, yes.
Everybody's discounting, oh, it doesn't matter, Russia.
Of course it does.
Because delegates at the convention are how you get the nomination, wrapping up the most, the majority of the uh over 1,100 needed on the Republican side.
We've had Iowa, we've had New Hampshire, and in the case of New Hampshire, it was the majority of Democrats and independents that voted for McCain.
Uh Romney got the majority of the Republican vote in New Hampshire.
Now wait till South Carolina and wait till some of these other states, we get in a super Tuesday, and it it might be a different story, but it's it's a it's a salient question you're asking.
Why are all these Republicans voting for McCain?
All that many aren't.
So what you're saying is don't get hysterical.
Uh well, you're a woman and and you're entitled.
And this is m this thing's making a lot of people hysterical.
It's because of what I said in the last half hour.
All these people trying to redefine conservatism, conservatism is immutable.
Conservatism is not a scheme, it's not a plan that you modify in order to s bend in shape and fit the uh discourse of the American people.
That's what liberalism or populism is.
Conservative all the conservatives, that's how the Republicans have won in the past.
It's been conservatives.
Tell me.
What is it they don't understand about that?
Uh, you got me.
It's one of the it's one of the questions.
Ronald Reagan showed how to do it.
The Republicans that took over the Congress in 1994 showed how to do it.
Why it is being abandoned and eschewed, who knows.
Uh but clearly there are a lot of people on our side who are very eager to go out and redefine conservatism as them.
And not just candidates, but people in the media, people uh uh who are commentators and pundits, and it's a it's it's a mystery to me.
I I don't quite understand it if the objective is winning.
Now it might well be ego, might well be power, who knows what it is.
But uh look at the New York Times has a story about how people in South Carolina, after hearing Fred Thompson in the debate, Republicans, uh changed their minds instantly.
And what did he do?
He lashed into Huckabee for being liberal.
It wasn't forget the fact he was talking about Huckabee.
He was talking ideology.
He was talking conservative principles.
There's a hunger for it in the Republican Party right now.
We our problem is not that conservatism's changed.
Our problem is not that the conservative era has died.
The problem is that we don't have anybody leading the conservative movement.
We don't have anybody willing to espouse those principles and those tenets and leading a movement.
Why?
I don't I I I your guess is as good as mine, but it's very frustrating to see more and more Republicans think that the way they can win, and the only way they can win is to go snatch a couple liberal votes here from Pennsylvania, a couple liberal votes from New York, a couple liberal votes in Massachusetts, a couple liberal votes in California.
It's not gonna work.
It is not going to succeed.
I don't know what happened to them.
And it's and it's maddening.
I I don't understand.
I mean they know how to win.
That's how to win.
Well, see, that you know maybe it comes down to that.
Do they know how to win?
Well, maybe they don't.
Maybe they don't.
I mean, once they get into office, they seem to they seem to buckle under the Democrats.
The temptation for people who win elections.
Conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, what have you.
Once you get hold of that amount of money, the Federal Treasury, once you can start doling it out to keep yourself in office.
I imagine that's an awfully powerful aphrodisiac.
I imagine the allure of that for the wrong people could water down anybody's principles.
The problem with that is that when that happens to conservatives, they become liberals, because that's precisely how liberals view the world.
Liberals view the world.
In fact, I'll tell you what I I ran across something I was reading the Power Line blog over the weekend, and they posted a uh an excerpt from Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.
Uh how he uh concludes with a warning of the kind of despotism to which uh uh democratic societies are especially susceptible.
Uh you gotta hear this, because it uh I'm telling you he de Tocqueville, who wrote this hundreds of years ago is defining, well, not hundreds, but long time ago, is defining America precisely in this.
Back in a sec.
Serving humanity and making more sense than anybody else happens to be saying out there because we are dedicated to a relentless and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the book.
He passed away 149 years ago, came to the United States, traveled around, wrote a book.
Parts of this book, well, all of it is amazing, but parts of this book are so prescient.
Uh and I got this uh this excerpt from the Power Line uh blog yesterday.
Uh he concludes in the book, Democracy in America with a warning of the kind of despotism to which democratic societies are usually and especially susceptible.
He warns that the passion for equality will give rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender their freedom democratically to a tutelary power.
Now tutelary power think think protector, think guardian, think nanny state.
Here's the excerpt.
Above these citizens, an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate.
It is absolute, detailed, far-seeing, and mild.
It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood.
But on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood.
It likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided they think they are only of enjoying themselves.
It work willingly works for their happiness, but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of their happiness.
It provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances.
Can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens.
It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their will.
Thus, little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls.
This is Alexis De Tokyo.
Died 149 years ago.
And when he writes, be one thing if the nanny state prepared people for adulthood and manhood, but it doesn't.
It wants to keep us perpetually childlike.
They, the government, want to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of happiness.
They want to provide for our security.
They foresee and secure our needs.
They facilitate their our pleasures, conduct our principal affairs, direct our industry, regulate our houses and homes, divide our inheritances.
Can all this not take away from us entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
And so, by the way, it doesn't take government to make this happen.
Oprah Winfrey has made it happen for many in her audience, the Oprahfication.
And this is what too many candidates, we expect this on the left, but there are Republican candidates who are now running under this basic idea.
Life is too complicated.
We're going to fix it for you.
We're going to make you happy, we're going to make you dependent, and we're going to make everybody equal.
And we're going to divide up your inheritance.
And we're going to regulate your homes, as in where you can and can't smoke, what you can and can't do with your land, what kind of car you can and can't drive, and we might even regulate the thermostat.
To tell you how cold and warm and hot and so forth you can and can't be.
And then we're going to tell you what kind of light bulbs you can and can't use.
We're doing all this for your pleasure.
We're doing all of this for your own good.
He spotted one of the tenets of his book here is to spot the pitfalls of Democrat societies.
Remember, we're not a democracy, we're a representative republic.
And that also is being attacked as well.
So, and of course, a lot of people will uh you know, this will resonate with a lot of people, and here it especially during primary time, because primary time, folks, is not really where elections are devoted to substance.
They're devoted to perception and image and feel-good type things.
When you when you get to the presidential election, contrary to what the Libs like to say, contrary to what the drive-by's like to say, presidential elections are about issues.
But will that change?
Who knows?
But the point is the antidote for this is conservatism.
And there just isn't anybody on the front burner that is explaining and leading with these principles instead, way too many people are trying to water them down and redefine them so as not to have to deal with them.
Because it's hard.
I've always said conservatism is hard.
Conservatism does not baby people.
It doesn't do what De Tocqueville was describing here.
It doesn't keep you a perpetual child.
Conservatism doesn't try to find a way to make you happy.
Conservatism is about making yourself happy and productive and fulfilled, and making sure that there are as few obstacles in your path to all that as possible.
But liberalism, nanny statism, why it's easy.
It's the most gutless choice you can make.
Just tell everybody you care about them, understand that they can't survive against the odds, and are going to punish the people who do, and we're going to try to make everybody equal, and we're going to make sure you're as happy as you can be.
We're going to make sure that you don't do any damage to the country, you don't do any damage to the planet, you don't do any damage to your neighborhood, you don't do any damage to your house.
And if you engage in fraudulent or mistaken practices that cost you economically, don't worry about it.
No harm, no foul because you were too stupid to know what you were doing in the first place, So we will fix it and make you indentured servants of ours, constantly owing us in the government for whatever pleasure and happiness you find in life, and that will keep you dependent on it and will keep you looking everywhere but yourself for contentment, for happiness, for satisfaction, and for pleasure.
That, my friends, is what he's talking about.
That's what liberalism is, and it pains me to say we have Republicans running on the same premise for the presidency in this campaign.
James in uh in Winston, Salem, North Carolina.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush.
I have a question for you about uh Martin Luther King.
Yeah.
Uh if he were alive today, uh, and assuming I guess this question assumes he would vote democratically.
Who who do you think he would support for president?
I have it the foggiest idea.
That's that's that's not possible to know.
But I I I can say with relative confidence that if you you listen to the things Martin Luther King said, not just in his I Have a Dream speech, but the things he said outside that speech and all the other appearances, things he was fighting for.
He would be today outraged to see what has become of the black family.
He would be outraged to see what has become of the Democrat Party and the way it is it is pandering and treating uh black voters in this country.
I think it's safe to assume that he would be outraged that people like Shelby Steele, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and uh Colin Powell, others of profound career achievement would be ridiculed, destroyed, or attempted to be destroyed.
I think he'd be outraged.
So I don't know that it's safe to assume he would be a Democrat today.
As to who he would be supporting, you know, I I uh impossible to hazard a guess on something like that.
The other stuff that I said I stand by firmly.
Back after this.
Yeah, I'm just looking to the stack, and there's all kinds of stuff here that uh has nothing to do with politics, and the stack just keeps piling up.
So I'm gonna keep piling up the stack because at some point we'll have to deal with some of this stuff, because there is lots of other news being made out there besides uh the presidential campaigns.
But let's stick with the phones because a lot of people have been on hold since the first hour.
Uh, not one of them here.
Paul in Cincinnati, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Super ditto, Rush.
Thank you.
Two things real quick.
I'd like to uh I know you've been working real hard to be enable to accept gifts, so I'd like to say thank you for that wonderful monologue that you probably wrote on your birthday while watching the football games.
You mean which one?
There have been two really stellar ones today.
Uh opening up.
That was that was major.
The uh the Democrats in the race business?
Absolutely.
Well, I appreciate that.
Number two, uh, you've used the term mystified a couple of times today, and I'd like to uh say that uh Thomas Paine wrote that without an informed electorate, democracy would surely fail.
And if you substitute uninformed with misinformed with the way the mass media is giving out all this information, that's the reason we're so confused.
Well, there's no question, but look here, I uh uh I I will admit that I am uh among those of you who are frustrated and angry over a bunch of ridiculous things happening that are not needed.
We don't need Republicans traveling off the conservative reservation to win.
We don't need people who are willing to abandon conservative principles for whatever reason in order to win.
But it's happened.
Okay, so it is what it is.
Things are cyclical.
Uh I I read a piece today, I forget who wrote it, uh uh uh not intentionally forgetting this, it's in the American Spectator on their website.
Uh, and it it's about how maybe conservatism does need to go through some uh uh uh changes here.
And a lot of people on our side are starting to say this.
And it's that the premise here, the Reagan era is over.
We got a bunch of young people who are coming of age now in the political spectrum who weren't alive during the Cold War, have no idea the Berlin Wall falling, yep-yip yahoo.
They didn't live through it just like you, Limbaugh didn't live through the Great Depression.
You know, so you don't care about another depression happening.
You don't care what the politics were back then, au contraire, by the way, but I have people telling me this.
Uh and so these young people couldn't care less.
They just like young people today are not imbued with um any sort of romance over the Clinton era because they don't really remember it.
They're 18 and 20 now, but back then it wasn't any big deal.
So I I profoundly disagree with this notion that conservatism is somehow fading away.
It can't.
It's immutable.
It is a set of principles.
It survives it's not a scheme as I as I keep saying and there are people who are constant look at Detville a hundred and forty nine, a hundred and twenty years ago spelled out the basic challenge between liberalism and conservatism.
Conservatism was present at the founding of the country.
Liberalism's been around forever and it's not going away.
Conservatism isn't going away uh going away.
These are ideas.
These are battles of ideas and nobody's going to be able to erase conservatism as an idea.
It isn't going to happen.
One of the things that's happening you talk about young people because of course the drive by's and people outside this universe are not even aware of it.
But the phenomenon known as rush babies look at all the conservative Republican clubs at major institutions of higher learning.
Look at Berkeley more Republicans enrolled than liberal Democrats at the University of California in Berkeley.
Now these things are cyclical and it may well be there are consequences by the way to actions and if the Republican Party is going to end up nominating somebody who is going to try to steal votes from moderates independents and Democrats and liberals and gets elected that or loses that way, okay we're going to we're going to get either Mrs. Clinton or Obama.
And the odds are if they do what they promise we're going to get another four years of malays at some point.
We're going to get a Jimmy Carter type administration.
And that guess who is going to awaken a whole lot of people particularly young people who are now inspired by conservatism, forming clubs, going to universities, and and and uh living their lives based on these principles.
So it's unfortunate but sometimes it takes a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan.
Sometimes it it it's good you just look at there's another reason for I I I as you know I love President Bush but he's not been leading a movement had there been a genuine conservative movement being led these last eight years we wouldn't be in this situation.
But again, that's what it is.
And he never said he was going to so you can't you can't really sit there and blame him.
He's a Republican he's a conservative in certain things but he's not a conservative and and we haven't had one of those uh you know since the Republicans took over the House in 1994.
But it's there for the asking if uh if if somebody just wants to assume the mantle of leader uh in uh in in a forceful and uh and powerful way.
And it's going to be tough because it drive by as the Democrats will line up.
You see the drive by you can see who they're propping up on our side you can you you can identify who the conservatives are if you're questioning it if you're confused by looking who the drive by's tear down on our side and who they support.
And I guarantee the people they support drive by dem media people they support on our side are not conservative.
The Democrat Party, the Liberals in this country, the media would love nothing better than for the conservative movement to be made defunct a nonfactor.
And they would love for the Republican Party to be going uh go back to being dominated by a minority of country club blue bloods who didn't have to suffer the embarrassment of being in the same party with people who are pro-life.
Cooksville Tennessee we go back to the phones uh Jerry nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello hey happy birthday brother thank you very much appreciate it.
About John McKinney here real quick.
First can I give a shout out to the guys that at Veterans Barbershop quickly.
Okay.
Hey guys how you doing uh okay yeah John McCain said in the uh in the uh debate the other night that we need to uh keep the Bush uh tax uh tax cuts permanent but yet he voted against them twice.
And uh I mean the guy is such a hypocrite you know well uh they realizes his mistake here I th I think you know he's uh trying to rewrite rewrite history and make everybody forget that he opposed them uh like he wants people to forget that he opposed the um he proposed amnesty and so forth.
Here's here's look at we got some polling data from Michigan.
This is from uh McClanchy newspapers.
Romney led McCain by two to one among voters who rank the economy and jobs their top concern.
Romney led Huckabee by a slightly greater margin among those same voters, led McCain by two to one among likely voters who call themselves Republicans.
Uh McCain owes this is analysis on that piece.
McCain owes his solid standing to independents and Democrats, taking 38% of their support, while Huckabee had 22%, Romney had 18.
Evangelical Christians represented uh 46% of the likely primary vote in Michigan, and Huckabee got 31% of their support while Romney got 23.
Let me translate all this for you.
Republicans are rejecting McCain in Michigan.
Is what the and just like they always have.
Huckabee gets less than a third of evangelicals.
Uh an evangelical is going to stay home if Huckabee is not their nominee, for example.
Once we get to states where only Republicans can vote for other Republicans, this is going to be Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani in the contest.
You just wait and see if we get there before people crack up.
▲
Export Selection