All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
January 22, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, let's test it.
1234.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, my friends, it's a little stronger today.
I'd say the voice is about uh seventy-five percent.
And I went home yesterday and I did not say a word, even watching.
At Democrat debate last night on CNN, I did not say a word.
And that was tough.
As I wanted to scream.
I can't tell you how many times.
Anyway, it's great to have you with us.
We've got broadcast excellence here for the next three hours, hosted by me, highly trained broadcast specialist Rush Limbaugh.
And the phone number here, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
It's been a thrill.
It's been sort of fun to watch CNBC today.
You know, the uh Federal Reserve slashed uh interest rates, uh 75 basis points today, three quarters of a cut, everybody expecting half a point, uh, got three quarters of a point, uh, and so now the uh interest rate here down to three and a half percent.
And CNN, I'm sorry, well, probably CNN too, but I've had CNBC on.
They have just been spoiling for a recession.
They have been spoiling for a crash today.
It's that of course that means ratings for them.
Uh, but they've been doing everything they could to make this worse.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average opened a day uh down about 300, and I think it was high as down 390.
Uh now it's uh it's down 144.
What a buying opportunity.
What an absolute buying opportunity here.
The last time the Federal Reserve cut rates as much as they did today was in August 1982, uh, about 26 years ago.
This this this is absolutely huge.
And have you noticed the price of oil, ladies and gentlemen?
Price of oil, uh, where it is right now, crude oil is uh futures 88 bucks, 88.58 cents.
Uh down from uh when it was nearly flirting with uh at the 100 dollar per barrel price.
And Harry Reid.
Dingy Harry uh says the economy is or could be heading towards a recession.
Now that folks is the best news of the week.
The absolute best news of the week, the politician who said we lost the war is now saying that we have lost or are losing the economy.
And so what I know is this when Dingy Harry makes a call, the opposite is almost a sure thing.
I want to explain this uh for for for people because there is a a lot of angst and there's a lot of panic out there, and it's been driven and uh the flames are being fanned uh by the drive-by media today, particularly CNB said by the wheels.
They've got the money honey over there in Davos, Switzerland, the annual Davos Economic Forum, and I saw the strangest thing.
She's standing outside, and she's wearing one of those you know, communist uh, you know, raccoon hats, the kind of Bill Schneider wears at uh at CNN when the temperature drops below 60.
A giant thing on a and she's all bundled up a couple scarves and a kind of snow on the ground.
Wow.
It's cold and there's lots of snow in Switzerland here in January.
I was stunned to see that.
I I I didn't expect to see snow, and I didn't expect to see the money honey all bundled up because of global warming.
Apps uh Alps were melting, that's what we're told.
Well, the snow on the Alps, uh, Mr. Snertley, the uh mountains themselves don't melt.
Uh, we need to get a lot closer to the sun for that to happen.
But look, folks, we we live here in a dynamic economy.
We live in the most robust economy in the history of human civilization.
A lot of us are not aware of that because we've only lived here, and so we have expectations based on uh relative strength and prosperity and affluence, and the expectation, all that's gonna increase.
And when there are moments and it appears that we're gonna take a downward cycle, people panic, uh, refusing to keep things in proper perspective.
Uh but in a dynamic Economy such as ours, in a capitalist economy such as ours, markets correct.
Remember that word, correct.
That is short for correct mistakes.
If you leave the market alone, it'll fix itself.
May take some time, but it will.
Businesses, out of necessity, correct their mistakes.
Lenders, banks correct their mistakes.
Sometimes those mistakes are big.
Sometimes they're huge.
Sometimes they are hurtful.
Sometimes they are devastating.
But they correct their mistakes.
Can I give you an example of something that does not correct its mistakes?
Very often, if ever, bureaucracies.
Bureaucracies do not correct their mistakes.
They pile on them.
And that's why a free economy will get more productive and bloated bureaucracies will get more bloated.
And when I say bureaucracy here, think of the federal government.
It's safe to say that what's going on right now is that the markets are correcting.
And if the politicians, and I mean politicians on both sides here, in an election year would follow the Hippocratic oath, first do no harm, the correction could not be so deep and not so long.
On the other hand, if a bunch of lawyers decide to fix it, we could be in a fix.
I make no predictions here.
But this reminder, for those of you who don't know your history, and this is key, and especially if the privatization of Social Security ever comes up again, this little statistic is going to come in so handy.
In 1987, 20 years ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than one-third in two weeks.
On October 5th of 87, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 26.58.
On October 19th, 1987, just two weeks later, the Dow Jones Industrial Average low was 16.77.
So in two weeks, went from 26.58 to 16.77 on October 19th of 87.
That was the best buying opportunity in the last 20 years.
Because since 1987, we have gone from 16.77 on the Dow to 14,200.
Don't you wish your retirement fund had started in 1987 at 16.77 on the Dow?
Even today, we're at uh 1199.
We're flirting with 12,000 today.
What a growth opportunity.
What a buying opportunity that was.
Now, some of the things that we might want to correct.
I said bureaucracies never correct their mistakes.
They only add to them.
Governments never correct their mistakes.
How about this business jobs Americans won't do?
That's that's Holcomb.
We could correct it.
We are too proud, and we are too guilty to produce our own energy.
We encourage citizens to go out and buy a muffler, and doing that is not as productive as encouraging business to expand and business to hire.
Of course, the Great Society, the war on poverty, everything else, miserable failures.
What do we do?
Compound the failure by adding to the failure with the same plans, redundant over and over again.
We don't correct our mistakes in government.
We never admit them.
Well, the people in government don't.
And they don't have to correct.
And they should.
Now, not everybody is ignoring the expected Democrat tax increases.
Voters might ignore reality, but businesses won't.
So this is going to be very interesting to watch to see what happens with this rate cut with the drive-by's doing everything they can to drive down the perception of the economy today, and they're failing.
But there you should watch this.
It's just it's been fascinating to see.
Mrs. Clinton, by the way, we've got we've got audio sound bites on this debate last night.
It was entertaining as it could be in spots.
Did you see it?
Did you watch us, Nurley?
Oh, reading the transcript will not do it for you in this case.
I mean, you you have to see.
I mean, Barack and Hillary went at it there for a while.
Uh Hillary accused him of doing business with a slum lord after he accused her of being a corporate lawyer on the Walmart board while he was fighting for the little people in uh in Illinois, and he stood up and he said, I don't like the fact uh that you're factually incorrect uh in assessing my positions on things.
And by the way, the Clintons love this.
They absolutely love it because it they they think it takes Barack off message uh when he has to respond to them.
There was also I'm not gonna say this.
Never mind, I'm not gonna say it because all I would do would make women mad don't want to do that, making women mad will just send, all right, I'll go ahead and say it, but I'm gonna stop doing this in the future.
After the first part of the debate, they were standing up there at those podiums, and then they took a commercial break, uh commercial break, and blitzer came back and they were all sitting in chairs.
Dob gonna pay for this.
This see, that this is the kind of thing that you're not supposed to say.
That when you say this, all it does is drive people to Hillary, women especially.
But see, I'm I'm not gonna tease you.
It's it's really unfair to say I'm gonna say something and not gonna say it, so I gotta say it now.
She was the only one sitting there who could not cross her legs.
That's just horrible, Mr. Limbo.
I can't believe you said that.
That's horrible.
Why do you even know to think like that, Mr. Limbo?
I can't believe you.
Very simple, ladies and gentlemen.
I I'm a leg man, I'm jealous.
I can't do it either.
I can't cross my legs sitting in a chair like that.
I'm jealous of people who can, and I notice other people who can't makes me feel better about myself, okay.
I can't do it either.
Welcome back.
Uh Rush Limboy here, the excellence in broadcasting.
Network 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the uh email address Hell Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Uh what I was gonna say before I got sidetracked, uh latest uh uh questionably uh questionable uh taste uh comment, uh for which I've now quasi apologized.
Uh but not really.
Uh Mrs. Clinton said something.
It was I heard a clip of her at an MLK event, the Martin Luther King event, uh, and uh paraphrase this because I didn't have the exact quote in front of me.
She said, After 40 years, we are nowhere near solving the problems of race, and it's time to step up and get it done.
Uh we made no progress.
A black man is running for president, and we made no progress.
She and Uncle Bill were in the White House for eight years and there was no progress made.
Man, that that's that's a clip made to order for the RNC when the general election comes up.
By the way, speaking of that, we told you last week we read excerpts from the Judicial Watch website of Hillary Clinton's actual White House papers in terms of how they were planning to get her health care plan passed.
And the drive-by media hasn't done a thing on that.
Now that's expected.
And the reason the drive-by's haven't done anything on it is because they were to be enlisted to assist getting the thing done.
Uh Jay Rockefeller said that the news media was waiting for guidance from the White House on how to proceed to get this all done.
But where's the RNC on this?
I hope they're saving this for the general election, because this is not what somebody thinks about Mrs. Clinton, and this is not from some think tank.
These are actual White House documents.
Uh and it is it is a perfect definition of who she is.
And I'm gonna tell you something.
This woman does not cry.
And after watching that debate last night, this woman does not cry, except when it becomes expedient.
Now, let's move to the Republican side here for just a second.
Uh yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we discussed it some detail at some length a piece that appeared Sunday in the Washington Post.
Uh and the the the essence of the piece was that uh I am now irrelevant that Senator McCain beat me in the South Carolina primary, even though I was not on the ballot.
I've been I've been rendered irrelevant no longer do conservatives and Republicans follow my advice.
You heard all this yesterday.
I'm not gonna relive it, but that was the essence of it.
I also said during the program yesterday, uh, during a heartfelt moment, with a caller who was asking me a series of questions.
I said I can I I it's possible that I might not even vote for the Republican nominee this year.
So it's possible.
Today I'm hearing from all over the fruited plain.
A Los Angeles Times blog has done an entire post on that and how frustrated I am and what it might mean.
Other radio hosts all across the fruited plain are focusing on what I said about this yesterday.
Fred Barnes in the Wall Street Journal today has a piece, the title of which Now McCain must convince the right.
Now I'm confused by all of this.
I thought yesterday I was irrelevant and should just shut up.
So why is what I said yesterday worth means to anybody?
Why is it that I'm the one being discussed?
Why is it the that I'm the one being written about when yesterday I was actually Sunday in the Washington Post and uh uh several well, a couple other talk show hosts proclaim me dead, irrelevant.
And in fact, the problem.
And of course, there were the demands that I just shut up and stop talking about this.
Here's Fred Barnes today.
John McCain has a problem.
After winning South Carolina's primary last Saturday, he should be the overwhelming favorite to capture the Republican presidential nomination.
He's not, at least not yet.
And the reason is that he's alienated so many conservatives over the past eight years.
Mr. McCain may become the Republican nominee anyway, in spite of thunderous opposition by conservatives, including talk show host Rush Limbaugh, former Senator Rick Santorum, David Keene of the American Conservative Union.
But even then, to win the general, he must find a way to reconcile with conservatives and unify the Republican Party.
Really?
Uh I don't think that's what his game is.
I don't think unifying the Republican Party is the game here.
I think going out and getting Democrats and independents and moderates is his game.
But anyway.
Mr. Barnes says that Mr. McCain will have to take the initiative to repair the relationship, and he appears ready to do just that.
Then you jump to the uh last couple paragraphs of this piece as in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Barnes advising Mr. McCain on reaching out to conservatives to unify the Republican Party.
And he says this.
Spotlighting his conservative positions would be a start for McCain.
A few gestures bound to gain national attention would help.
Appearing at today's March for Life demonstration at Washington would underscore his anti-abortion voting record.
More on that as the program unfolds.
And then Barnes writes this.
As Mr. McCain campaigns in Florida before next Tuesday's primary, a visit to Rush Limbaugh's home in Palm Beach to discuss conservative issues makes sense.
How can this be, Brian?
Yesterday I'm irrelevant.
I'm told to shut up.
I'm being blamed for the problem.
I'm told that uh no longer do people follow my influence.
I've become a Republican establishment, and a Republican establishment is dead.
They don't care about you anymore, Limbaugh.
They're doing the exact opposite of what you say, Limboy, you've lost it.
Limbaugh, they said, then they've been saying it since 1988.
Now today, Fred Barnes is suggesting that McCain look me up here in Palm Beach before the Florida primary.
I have a similar idea.
Why shouldn't Mr. Barnes call up Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson and ask to go by their house to discuss conservatism?
Why do I have to sit and talk to McCain about conservatives?
What's going to happen there?
You notice how this is working.
Even though I'm irrelevant, somehow these guys have got to get my stamp of approval.
And it and it it and I and perhaps others on Talk Radio remain the holdouts here.
So until McCain does this, he's going to have Problems unifying the Republican Party.
Now, this doesn't jibe with the fact that I have no power anymore and that people are rejecting me.
But it also presumes that McCain's the nominee.
It also presumes that I'm the one that needs to get my mind right.
And McCain can come and do that.
That's right, Limboy.
It wouldn't take me ten minutes, because I will dazzle you.
Yeah, I got gaseled the North Vietnamese.
Okay, so I gotta come, I consider bedazzled.
Uh why should these other media guys not have to go talk to Romney or Fred Thompson or Rudy in their homes to find out about conservatism?
Uh fascinating.
I mean, this is some position to be in, folks, as someone who's finished, who've been written off as irrelevant.
But this is not, don't misunderstand my ego's not hurt here.
I'm fascinated by the ebb and flow of this.
I should be shut up.
Now they want me to talk to the guy, or him to talk to me.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh, a man, a living legend, a way of life, learn it, love it, live it, also a national treasure, a prophet, host of an exp audience going through the roof in the fall rating book reporting period.
More influential than ever, more listened to than ever here on the EIB network.
We now move to the Los Angeles Times blog, where once again, the irrelevant Rush Limbaugh is the sole focus.
By the way, I don't want you to misunderstand this, folks.
I this does not hurt my feelings, and I'm not lashing back here.
I'm having fun with this.
They're the ones who make all these points.
Do you hear?
Do you remember me running around and you don't matter anymore?
I may as well quit.
That's not what this is.
I'm amazed at what irrelevant has come to mean in the uh in the drive-by media.
Anyway, this is Malcolm, Andrew Malcolm, uh, who one of the political bloggers at the LA Times and their blog called The Top of the Ticket.
And here's an excerpt.
Monday on the air.
He had had enough of these impure candidates, Limbaugh had, and enough of all these questions about his endorsement and when it would come and how he'd make his decision.
He just blurted out to Jim in Kansas City and a few million others listening, I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee.
What?
He writes in all caps.
Across the country, people were dropping their coffee cups, choking on sandwiches, fainting and driving off the road.
The king of conservative talk radio not supporting the Republican nominee.
Was Rush Limbaugh pulling a James Dobson on his now nervous fans?
And then he quotes me and says, I never thought I would say that in my life.
This stuff is very tough.
Mr. Malcolm writes, no kidding.
Well, who'd have thought it's tough enough just listening to Limbaugh go through this, let alone live it like he is.
What's a genuine broadcast conservative icon to do?
You don't have to be a genuine down the list conservative, he noted, so he advised a Republican voter must look at variables.
Quotes me accurately throughout this thing.
Now, my reaction.
Which is what makes this interesting after all, true.
Not only was I said on Sunday in the Washington Post, and echoed by some inconsequential talk show hosts, to be without clout now.
Clout's gone.
The conservative South Carolina gave me the bird, is what they wanted to suggest.
But they also used to say I was in the tank for the GOP.
Remember those days?
And whatever the GOP did, I was right there.
Limbaugh was nothing but a cheerleader.
And now yesterday I mentioned the possibility that I can see not voting for the Republican nominee this year.
It's just clear these people do not my 20th year and they still don't understand this show.
They still look at this show in their cliched prism or through their cliched prism.
Uh they do not understand it's so simple.
I am a conservative who puts the country first.
Not a political party or a particular nominee.
I didn't say I would not vote for the Republican nominee.
I said I might not.
Now, for all this talk about conservatism being dead, may I ask you people, you lovely adorable, wonderful people in this audience a question?
Why are all the Republican candidates pretending to be Ronald Reagan if the era of Reagan is over?
If conservatism is over, why are they all trying to be Reagan, including McCain?
How come McCain's not running on his amnesty record?
Why is McCain not running on several aspects of his record that are not conservative?
Why is he not doing this?
Why has Romney become pro-life?
Why does Huckabee pretend he never raised taxes and has always wanted border enforcement?
Why does he do these things?
Does that sound like conservatism is dead to you?
You should have seen a Democrat debate last night.
Ronald Reagan was a star.
They got into an argument.
Hillary and Obama got into an argument over whether Reagan was praised by Obama.
And all Reagan said was he's a transformational figure.
And Hillary said, You can't, well, you you used-I never used Reagan's name, but you knew who I was talking about.
I was taught I never said I liked this policy.
Good.
Reagan's captivating everyone.
And who brought Reagan into all of this in this camp?
Me.
The guy who's lost all the clout.
I start talking about Reagan and Reaganism and conservatism and a bunch of people, the era of Reagan is over.
And yet every one of our nominees on the Republican side is doing their damnedest to fit into the Reagan mold.
Does this sound like conservatism is dead to you?
It sure doesn't to me.
So these are fascinating things to uh to watch.
Uh by the way, McCain, you know, the Florida primary is Tuesday.
Remember when he went into Michigan?
Uh, and he said, and he was being given great credit here by the drive-by, straight talk.
Straight shooter.
Hit people right between the eyes, being really honest with them.
He said, hey, you people in Michigan, some of these jobs you've lost are not coming back.
Romney said, What do you mean?
We'll get them back.
The correct answer, they might not come back in the form in which they were lost, but the idea we can't modernize the mission economy, Michigan economy, the idea we can't bring new kinds of jobs there is silly.
For somebody to say these jobs are not coming back, implies they're not going to try anything to get them back.
Okay, and then the drive by that's a kind of straight talk we need.
We need to tell people their future sucks.
We need to tell people there's no hope.
That's honest.
And that's the kind of thing he gets praised for.
Has done it again in the Florida primary.
McCain told local reporters in a hurricane strike zone that he did not support national catastrophic insurance or catastrophe insurance, a position certain to wrankle some Floridians and perhaps draw fire from his opponents, namely Rudy.
McCain said, I believe this nation and federal government has an obligation to help out in any tragedy or natural disaster.
Very badly, we need to fix our ability to bring relief, help, and assistance, both short-term and long-term, to the victims of disaster, but I don't support a national catastrophic insurance policy.
That insurance policy is there, and it's called FEMA, and it's called disaster preparedness, and it's called addressing disasters.
Now, if some of McCain's opponents are on a ball, they could say, well, John McCain said you lose your home in a hurricane, it's not coming back.
We're just not going to get those homes back.
Think FEMA going to rebuild your house?
They may give you a trailer that'll never get there.
How conservative is this?
It's straight, but we get it sure.
Just call FEMA.
I'm gonna be in charge, it's gonna work.
Okay, so the trailers are gonna come in, the bottled water is gonna come in.
But uh can't buy catastrophe insurance.
So got a hurricane that hits, it's gonna happen again.
Uh Those homes that are lost won't be coming back.
I don't know if any of our guys run against McCain have the uh the ability to put it that way.
Uh guidance for me, of course, uh irrelevant since I have lost my clout.
Uh but it's what it's what you could translate it.
It said, if we lose homes in Florida, they're not coming back.
Just like the jobs in Michigan.
Uh quick call here before we go to the break.
This is Joe in Dallas.
Nice to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Um lifelong um conservative, and what I wanted to say today was, you know, I've been watching this battle with uh Hillary and Bill and uh Obama, and I have a great deal of admiration for Obama.
I mean, he's taken the high road, and uh he seems to be uh just an honest young man, and when you're running against a couple of patent liars like he is, it's really difficult.
And uh I'm certainly not gonna vote for him.
I think just listening to the dialogue that you just had um uh instead of uh calling McCain McCain, I I would call him a hurricane because I no one's gonna shove McCain down the throat of a uh conservative Republican thing.
Well, it's not gonna happen.
Yeah, it's not the throat that's the orifice I'm concerned with.
Yeah.
Well, that too.
But uh, you know, we're just sitting here, we've all pulled back our uh most of us have pulled back our funding for the Republican.
They used to just put their hand out, they'd get it.
They don't get it anymore, and it's driving them crazy.
Um we're just waiting in the bushes.
But uh McCain is not going to uh pass the witness test for uh conservatives this time around.
And and we do have a choice.
I I think Romney is uh uh with all of his uh flaws is certainly not Ronald Reagan.
Uh but uh and I have a portrait of Reagan hanging over my door in my career weight him out.
Let's let me refer there there is no Reagan.
Uh Reagan was just an expert uh at implementing the basic philosophies and foundation of conservatism, and he combined it with just a hugely charismatic, likable personality.
Um personalities are are unique to uh each individual, but the conservatism survives.
You know, with with Reagan, we we're not talking about a cult of personality here, we're talking about fealty uh to things that we know work, the Constitution, the future of the country, so forth uh and and so on.
Look, Joe, I appreciate it.
I gotta run, quick timeout, and EIB obscene profit center break here.
We'll be back in a moment.
Okay.
So Senator McCain's position uh is that there's no disaster insurance for citizens, no no catastrophe insurance for citizens.
That's fine.
Good, cool.
But yes, McCain says yes to social security and health care and in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants.
So you see, uh, ladies and gentlemen, there's nothing logical or conservative about holding these two positions.
If we're not gonna have catastrophic uh insurance for hurricanes in Florida or elsewhere, because it would be budget busting or whatever, uh, but we are gonna provide so security and health care and in-state tuition benefits for illegals.
Why?
How do you reconcile those two?
Uh and McCain is, by the way, he's he's running around saying he's against big government spending.
He's gonna rein it in.
They're gonna get serious about this.
Well, if that's true, uh he should never have been leading the biggest budget busting new program of all.
You know what that is?
What what was the biggest budget busting new program of all?
Recently.
No.
Amnesty for illegals.
Do you realize how much that would have cost?
An enormous amount of federal tax dollars that amnesty bill would have cost.
You know, I uh Mr. Brooks at the uh New York Times back at it today, uh mentioning me as he does uh did also last night on all things considered on NPR.
And I when I when I read these guys uh in Fred Marne's piece today, uh and by the way, you need to understand I am no personal animus.
I've never met David Brooks.
Uh I've met Fred a couple times, and back in the early days of the program, Fred guest hosted this program when we were looking for, you know, a roster of uh of guest hosts.
I have nothing personal here.
These are in fact these are the kind of arguments uh, you know, a political party and a movement ought to be having, particularly at this point in the electoral process during primaries and so forth.
But I get the impression, as I listened to uh or I read Fred Barnes' piece today and David Brooks and uh and some of the others in that crowd uh that their opinion is that we really only have one disagreement with McCain.
Uh if we could just get past that, then uh everything would be fine.
And it's the uh it's it things could be no further.
That that couldn't be further uh from the truth.
I think illegal immigration is the single biggest problem that we have, uh, and that we should all be able to put that aside because of uh McCain's staunch foreign policy and war on terror.
Well, this amnesty thing, illegal immigration, that's just the latest problem.
Uh they've been piling up here for for many, many years.
Also, when I when I found out last night that I was once again going to be mentioned in the New York Times David Brooks column, I went and did a research.
Uh I want I went back and I found a previous column written by Mr. Brooks.
Let me see if I get it here.
Yes.
August 10th of 2006.
Now, this piece, and I'm going to have more on this as the program unfolds.
This is just to tease you a little bit.
August 10th, 2006.
About three months, August September, yeah, two months before the uh November elections.
And the title of this piece is party number three.
Mr. Brooks began his piece thus.
There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America.
Mr. Snerdley, I want you to listen to this.
Put the caller on hold.
Stop screaming at the call.
I want you to hear this because you might get calls on this later.
David Brooks, August 10th, 2006, party number three.
There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America.
There is the Democrat Party, there is the Republican Party, and the McCain Lieberman Party.
Now, when I saw that, I said, wow, this explains everything that Mr. Brooks has been writing recently, the McCain Lieberman Party.
The McCain Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni Shiite style of politics itself.
He has referred to that recently in terms of me and my cabal, this is Sunni versus Shiite.
The McCain Lieberman Party, after rejecting the Sunni Shiite style of politics, rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism.
He also called me a tribal leader.
It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.
I read this.
Mr. Brooks has had it in for me for quite a while here.
And I know it goes back in part to illegal immigration.
Mr. Brooks included me in a list of people who were nativists and other bigoted type comments, because we didn't see the value of illegal aliens being given amnesty.
And having open borders.
But the McCain-Lieberman party rejects the Sunni Shiite style, rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all consuming it becomes a form of tribalism.
Am I attached to this not to a party?
I just said yesterday I might not vote for the party.
Anyway, more on that and uh deeper analysis coming up as the program unfolds.
Don't go away, folks.
I'll be right with you.
Now look at me, folks.
Look at me.
That article from David Brooks in 2006, New York Times, says it all.
Because what it says is he's looking for a kind of unity party, the kind they have in Europe.
But not exactly.
So for Mr. Brooks and his gang, all principles are negotiable, and leadership means leading by committee.
As long as your ideas are adopted by the committee.
We'll be right back.
▲
Export Selection