All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
January 22, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha!
How are you?
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You're tuned to the most listened to, the most influential, the most loved and adored and appreciated radio talk show in the United States of America, the Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB network, where we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
Looking forward to talking to you.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Right, so we talked about Mr. Brooks in his column from 2006.
And just to review, two interesting things in this column, he says there are three parties in America.
It's back in 2006, the Democrat Party, Republican Party, and the McCain-Lieberman Party.
The McCain-Lieberman Party, and by the way, you know, McCain-Lieberman's been an act here on the political stage for a while.
2003, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act or some sort of global warming boondoggle.
Anyway, Mr. Brooks writes that the McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni Shiite style of politics itself.
Meaning, you don't fight for your principles.
You don't get into these insurgent battles.
McCain-Lieberman Party rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism.
Mr. Brooks has a piece today called The Voters Revolt.
And although it doesn't say this in the headline, we've added it here on our copy.
Parentheses, the voters revolt against Rush Limbaugh, end parentheses.
The Reagan administration had its pragmatists, so-called ideologues, Ed James Baker as well as Ed Meese.
Reagan carried moderate states like Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Washington, as well as conservative ones like Wyoming and South Carolina.
But then a great tightening occurred.
Conservative institutions and interest groups proliferated in Washington.
The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed.
It became necessary to pass certain purity tests on immigration, abortion, taxes, Terry Shaivo.
An oppositional mentality set in.
If the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax.
No, David, it's a hoax because it's a hoax.
When the liberals propose something, we conservatives are naturally suspicious.
There's a track record of liberalism and socialism, David.
Our opposition is not knee-jerk.
If the New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it okay.
No, Mr. Brooks, waterboarding worked in the case of Sheikh, what is name, Abdul Sahib Skyhook, mastermind, whatever his name was, of 9-11.
It works.
Talking national security, one of your big issues.
Your guy, Senator McCain of the McCain-Lieberman Party, wants to go a long way to making it tough to deal with terrorists, wants to give them constitutional rights.
And even after all this, he writes, the corset tightened.
Many professional conservatives do not regard Mike Huckabee or John McCain as true conservatives.
I am here to tell you if either of these two guys gets a nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party.
Rush Limbaugh said recently on his show, it's going to change it forever.
It's going to be the end of it.
Some of the contributors to the National Review's highly influential blog, The Corner, looked to Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney to save the movement.
Their hatred of McCain is so strong it's earned its own name, McCain derangement syndrome.
Yet a funny thing happened on this primary season.
Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders.
Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you'd get from conservative officialdom.
While various conservative poo-bahs threaten to move to Idaho if Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, the silent majority of conservative voters seems to like these candidates.
I haven't seen, David, I really haven't seen here a groundswell of support for anyone.
What's happening is the Republican Party's making do with what's there.
But what's interesting here, and Rich Lowry points this out at the National Review's highly influential blog, The Corner.
Brooks writes of Huckabee today, Huckabee's done very well among evangelicals while loudly deviating from conservative economic orthodoxy.
Well, yeah, but this is a far cry from the grandiose claims that Brooks made about Huckabee after Iowa, that he understands we have a crisis of authority in this country and how middle-class anxiety has really lived, and his victory opens up the way for a new coalition.
And Rich is right here.
When Huckabee won Iowa, the Brooks, New York, Washington cabal all over Hicks.
Oh, wonderful.
Fabulous.
Precisely because he's not conservative.
Well, what Huckabee did in Iowa was appeal to a segment of a segment of the Republican base, and that's it.
It's what he did everywhere.
In Iowa, he got 46% of the evangelicals.
In New Hampshire, 28%.
Michigan, 29%.
South Carolina, 40%.
What's amazing about this is that Huckabee has been running a campaign pitched exclusively to evangelicals, and still a majority of them have gone someplace else.
Why?
Probably because they are conservatives, and they're looking for a plausible conservative candidate, and Huckabee isn't it.
And I guess that the criticisms from Rush and others helped convince them Huckabee isn't such a candidate.
I fully maintain we drove down McCain's numbers in South Carolina on Saturday.
He got 42% on 2006.
He had 33%, whatever it was, 33% on Saturday.
And he wasn't even running against two big guns on the Republican side.
They weren't even present.
Anyway, let's go to the audio soundbites because we have Mr. Brooks on NPR's All Things Considered.
Last night, the host at Melissa Block says, seems like knives are really being sharpened for John McCain.
Tom DeLay, former House Majority Leader, telling Fox News McCain's done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of.
That's the fight John McCain wants.
It's true there are some people in the Republican establishment who are against McCain, and Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh are the two primary ones.
But I think you're seeing a couple things.
First, you're seeing a lot of establishment Republicans figuring he's the least bad option.
And second, I think one of the most fascinating things that's happened this year is that the Republican voters are not following the Republican establishment.
And they have gone for McCain, even though he's not popular with the Republican establishment.
I think one of the lessons of this year, both with Huckabee doing well and McCain doing well, is the Republican voters are a lot more diverse, a lot more interested in changing the party than maybe some of the Republicans in Washington are.
It's the exact opposite.
It's the Republicans in Washington who want to change the party, and I'll tell you why in a moment.
The Republicans and conservatives out in the country are trying to save the damn thing.
Mr. Brooks, we're trying to save this party.
You are the guys that want it to reform, reshape, reconstitute itself.
I'm going to explain this as succinctly as I can.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Brooks, and there are lots of these people in Washington in the media, and they're on both sides.
They're on the Democrat, Liberal side, Republican, conservative side.
And if anybody's establishment, it is them.
They measure themselves by one thing, and that is their influence with policymakers.
They don't care about their influence with you.
They've never had any, and they don't expect to.
They don't want to have influence with you.
They're not in touch with you as voters.
They do not influence you.
They don't care to.
But there are those of us who do.
It used to be in the good old days that the establishment in Washington, from the think tanks to the protected media class, say at the Washington Post, New York Times, the networks, and elected officials all work together to advance policy.
It's not happening anymore because you, the voters, in greater and greater numbers, are yourselves influencing policy.
And the people in the Washington establishment structure are not.
And they resent it.
They resent you, and they resent the people who've made this happen, i.e. me and my brethren.
And a great illustration would be the amnesty bill.
Mr. Brooks and his crowd, they were livid at what was being said about the amnesty bill.
They were livid that you were being ripped into a new one on it.
And they thought that if it hadn't been for people like me, you would never have known what was in it.
They totally misunderstand who you are.
They're not particularly concerned with what the American people think.
They're concerned with what the American people do, but not what you think.
And they certainly don't want you determining policy.
That's theirs.
That's their purview.
That's their bailiwick.
That's their little area.
How can you say that people who write for a newspaper that basically has what's a circulation in New York?
Isn't that nationwide?
It's a million people.
And most of that's New York City and some of it Washington.
Same thing with the Washington Post.
I mean, the idea that even if some of them are nationally syndicated, the idea that they're concerned about influence, they're writing for each other and they're writing to gain influence within the power structures of Washington.
And those power structures in Washington have been infiltrated or permeated, holes blown through them by virtue of you.
You are influencing what elected officials do.
And that's their job.
And that's how they measure their success and their influence.
And they've lost some of it.
And it's troubling to them.
And so now the lashout continues.
And I think, you know, if you go back to Mr. Brooks' piece in 2006, he wants kind of a unity party, like the Christian Democrats in Germany or the UK.
Not exactly like that, but he wants a unity party where principles are negotiable and leadership means leading by committee.
And you come to a consensus on what's best according to the people who think they're more informed and knowledgeable than regular old robes who live in flyover country.
Here's another example.
The Harriet Myers nomination.
Now, in this case, the Washington media axis and talk radio were aligned.
Everybody on our side thought this is a horrible mistake, the Harriet Myers nomination.
And there were people who began to speak out about it and so forth.
And the race was on when the president decided to withdraw Harriet Myers and put who in her place?
Samuel Alito.
The race was on in the Washington crowd for who had been responsible for it.
Hell yeah, it was Bill Crystal that did that.
Oh, David Brooks did that.
No, no, no, it was Fred Barnes that did that.
No, no, no, it was Charles Krauthammer that did that.
That's how they measure their success.
We're more like Ronald Reagan.
I don't care who gets the credit as long as the right thing gets done.
And I remember writing, I wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal around this period of time in October 17th of 2005.
It was called Holding Court.
And let me just give you some excerpts of what I wrote.
And you can contrast this with what Mr. Brooks is saying about the McCain-Lieberman Party tribalism, getting rid of the Sunnis and Shiites in American politics, coming up with a unity party where you compromise principle in order to get big to advance whatever you think you want to advance.
I love being a conservative.
We conservatives are proud of our philosophy.
Unlike our liberal friends who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals.
We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them.
We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a colorblind society, and national security.
We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, free political speech, homeowners' rights, and we support the war on terrorism.
And at our core, we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation, the U.S. Constitution.
Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given right to be free, the Constitution is the foundation on which our government's built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.
We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles.
And we're never more vulnerable than when we're not advancing our principles, when we're compromising them, when we're shaving them, all to somehow expand.
Conservatives are not thrilled when we go out and campaign to try to bring Democrats and liberals and moderates into the fold by being like Democrats, liberals, and moderates.
We are all for bringing Democrats, liberals, and moderates into our fold as converts.
But we don't want to bring liberals and Democrats and moderates into our fold as liberals, Democrats, and moderates.
And sadly, that seems to be what's happening with the two top-tier candidates in our primary at this moment.
The show prep never stops.
Here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I want to say to you and everybody else here in the audience that I talk about David Brooks not because he is influential, because he's not.
That's the point.
He lost his influence.
That's why they're upset.
And they're lashing out the people they think have robbed them of their influence.
But I do it.
I talk about Mr. Brooks, who I've never met and I have no personal animus for.
But I talk about Mr. Brooks because he is the vessel through which I choose to address the other liberals and pseudo-conservatives who wish the demise of conservatism as they promote McCain.
Purely and simply, a lot of people, I'm getting emailed, Rush, why are you talking about this guy?
All you're doing is elevating him.
Hey, he's talking about me.
But in this case, he is the perfect vessel to address liberals and pseudo-conservatives who want conservatism to go down the drain as they promote McCain.
You know, in fact, a couple of the things here about Senator McCain.
I think that he's campaigning.
This is hard to say.
I'm difficult to say.
I think he's campaigning in a dishonest fashion.
I think he tells people what they want to hear in New Hampshire about global warming.
He talks about almost exclusively his military record in South Carolina.
He's claiming to be tough on Castro in Miami.
I wonder if he will support normalizing ties with Cuba as he did Communist Vietnam.
Well, just have to wait and see.
And he's denying his record on amnesty everywhere because it's so unpopular.
It's not amnesty, my boy.
How many times do I have to say it?
There is a fine, $5,000, $5,000.
Right, Senator, I understand that, but who's going to track him down and collect it?
What if they don't pay?
It will be paid.
The budget will show it.
So it's not amnesty.
You got it?
Right, it's not amnesty.
Enough said on that.
What we need, ladies and gentlemen, are more people talking about McCain's record, not fewer.
They're telling us to shut up.
They're telling us, come on, Limboy, you're destroying a party.
You're breaking it apart.
Just be quiet.
Let this process take out.
Fred Barnes today says, McCain should come by my house.
Here in Florida, we should have a meet and greet.
Talk about conservatism.
Find a nanny, but Fred, why don't you go by Romney's house?
Why don't you go by Rudy's house?
Why don't you go buy one of Mitt Romney's three houses?
Just kidding, folks.
Why don't you go to the conservatives and find out what they think?
They speak of McCain as though he is the nominee.
Some of us are trying to present, prevent rather big government interventionists who doesn't like conservatism or the Republican Party so much anyway from leading both by default.
But, you know, these guys think that there's just one or two issues with McCain if we just resolve those.
Everyone will be hunky-dory, and it's not that simple.
Just not that simple.
Okay, now finally, one more thing here before we go back to the phones.
And I mentioned this briefly right before the break.
Now, look at me, folks.
Look at me.
These guys, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Crystal, others in the Republican unity movement, the McCain-Lieberman Party, they want us to believe that there is a single issue that we conservatives take issue with McCain on.
Maybe two.
But if we could just get past them and have a meeting and find common ground, then all will be good.
The fact of the matter is, there probably is only one issue that we agree with McCain on, and that's the wall and the war on terror.
And even that has an asterisk because open borders and amnesty and granting constitutional rights to terrorist prisoners of war is not full-fledged on the war on terror.
So even that has an asterisk.
So they're asking us, so the McCain-Lieberman party, asking us to overlook 20 other things just because we might have some common ground on the wall.
And I, you know, it's an issue of trust here, but more than trust.
More than trust.
Look, you got judges.
You have, for example, McCain has said that he's going to appoint judges like Scalia and Roberts, overturn Roe versus Wade and so forth.
Well, guess what?
Those same kinds of judges might also overturn McCain Feingold.
Now, is he going to appoint judges that might overturn his signature piece of legislation?
We have to ask this.
And that's what this period of time is for.
We have to ask this.
So you got judges, you have illegal immigration, tax cuts, Kyoto, global warming, cafe-like standards, campaign financing.
Our disagreement, and I think for those of you in the McCain-Lieberman Party, what you have to understand here, our disagreement with Senator McCain is not issue by issue by issue or an issue here, an issue there.
Our disagreement, our problem is ideological.
It's about ideology.
We are firm in our principles that form our ideology.
And you and the McCain-Lieberman Party look at us as a bunch of Shiites and Sunnis.
And what you are is a bunch of spineless linguini.
You know, man, I'm a tribal chief.
By the way, progress being made on our casino.
I am Chief Wagga Wagga El Rushball of the El Conservo tribe.
Well, if I'm a tribal chief, we're going to go after our own casino, sell cigarettes tax-free.
And we're going to get special dispensation so people can actually smoke the cigarettes they buy from us.
How about that in the United States of America?
People are going to love our casino.
At any rate, it's ideological.
It's not issue by issue by issue.
And that's, I think, what they don't understand.
Try this headline from Chicago Tribune.
This, this is as bad as what CNBC has been trying to do all day by run the market down.
What is it now, by the way?
Down, it's down 131.69, 132.01 right now.
Was down 399 earlier in the day.
All you really need to know about this story is the headline.
Dogs, cats, the latest victims of subprime mortgage miss.
Animals lose families as owners lose homes.
The tentacles of the foreclosure monster reach all the way into a Naperville, Illinois animal shelter, where McKenzie and Rocket are its collateral damage.
The doggy duo, a black lab retriever and a Sheba Inu, wound up there a few days ago when their owners, facing the loss of their home, gave the pets to the shelter.
We're seeing quite a few animals being surrendered due to economic reasons, including foreclosures, said Angie Wood, the assistant executive director of the Naperville Area Humane Society, which, in addition to McKenzie and Rocket, these are the two dogs, is sheltering Bailey, a foreclosure cat.
Mary Umberger, who wrote the story for Chicago Tribune, requested interviews with McKenzie and Rocket and Bailey, but they were not available for comment.
Reportedly, too depressed.
And they didn't want to say bad things about their owners because they might not get new ones.
Yes, we're seeing people in bad financial situations who are moving to places where they can't have pets.
Definitely has been an increase in the past six months to a year.
Well, now this is bad enough when women and minorities are hardest hit, but now when dogs and cats are victims of the subprime mortgage myth, now we know it's serious.
All right, back to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Let's go to Seattle.
This is Chris.
Thank you for your patience, sir.
Hello.
Rush, how are you doing?
You are the most influential, and I am in your tribe.
But I am going to tell you, and I'm that I do like John McCain for a lot of reasons.
And I think that the oath that he's going to take if he ends up doing winning it is going to end up being the same one he took as a naval aviator to uphold and defend the Constitution.
And I think he believes that.
And he's got a remarkable history as an American.
And the one thing I think that a lot of Republicans see is that he is going to be the guy that can actually beat Hillary or beat Obama, who are socialists.
And they see him having a good voice.
He's articulate.
He's well-spoken.
What does it matter?
Wait a minute.
Chris, what's it matter if he beats Hillary or Obama?
What's the difference?
I don't think he's a socialist.
And I agree with you.
I think Reaganism works everywhere it's tried.
I agree with that.
And I think that he is not flip-flopping so much, but he's coming out of being a senator and finding that he has to have a national voice.
And I think he's trying to find that national voice.
I know George.
He's got the national voice.
He's had the national voice for eight years.
That's all the difference in the world from being a senator.
Chris Matthews, all of DNC TV, MSNBC, has got a national voice.
I agree.
You've got a national voice.
But I think as a leader, as being president, I think you have to, you all of a sudden realize the huge weight, the history, the remarkable singleness of that job.
It's easy to criticize presidents, but we've never been one, and there's very few people that ever have.
And I think that John McCain could end up finding that he's a different person as president than a lot of times what you're ending up representing him as right now.
Now, I agree with almost everything you say.
I love you.
I'd love to play golf with you, have a steak with you sometimes, smoke a cigar.
But I'm telling you right now, I think John McCain ends up being the one guy the Republicans say he can beat Hillary.
And I got to tell you, we don't want the Clinton back.
You see, Lynn Boy, this, this is how I have a fool.
They think that what I've been in the past is irrelevant.
They know that I'm going to shave up in prison.
See, see, they will forget everything they know about me, Lynn Boy, no matter what you try to do to remind them.
I can't lose.
I can't lose.
Quicksailer 360.
Pete in Chicago.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
15-year dittoist, buddy.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Do you think that this left-handed truce, This phony truce, temporary truce that Ms. Rodham laid on Barack a couple of months ago was just a phony contrived shield to take the Obama camp, like their guard down a little bit, so the former philanderer-in-chief, you know, Mr. Schlikmeister, could run around just bashing land-basing Barack behind everybody's back, all over the media, like a fucking money.
I don't think that Clinton's ever agreed to a truce.
The only people agree to a truce are those who are losing and need to reload and rearm.
The media declared the truce.
And Clinton said, now this is going to work out well, Hillary.
They've held us.
They've told everybody that we're going to be nice, guys.
Now, this is a time for me to get out there and start ripping a new one, Hillary.
You know it's going to work.
People love me, and we've got to get this done so that we get back to the White House because you ain't going to be able to pull off yourself.
I have to do this.
They go vote for me.
They won't be back in there.
But you'll take it.
You'll take it because you'll get the Oval Office, but we'll be back in there, babe.
We'll be back.
And that's what's happening here.
Did you notice, though, how when Barack deconstructed it last night, she just went ballistic and started pulling out all these verbal attacks?
Yeah, because you're not supposed to do that.
Right.
Look at what happened to Chris Matthews.
Chris Matthews happens for once in his life to get something right.
And he has to do a Maya culpa.
You don't do that to the Clinton.
You don't tell the truth about him.
You know, freedom of the press is one thing when they take it away from you.
Chris Matthews gave it away himself.
PMS, and the, I'm told the executives at DNC-TV, PMS NBC, were just beside themselves if Clintons were so mad because they might lose access.
And so here came the apology.
We have all these audio sound bites coming up by the way of the debate.
I should get started on those pretty soon because we have a lot of them.
I appreciate the phone call.
Let me take a brief timeout.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Just to make it easy.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
All right.
The salaries for various Disney executives have been announced.
Wall Street Journal reported recently that the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger, received a 7% pay increase in 2007, a total financial compensation, salary bonus stock of $27.7 million.
Now, that's a decent amount of money.
Big cartoon here.
Big cartoon, big movie, making a lot of money for a big CEO at Disney.
And I want to call this to the attention of Mrs. Clinton.
There's some money you can take here.
Well, I mean, she's going to go out there and take profits from Exxon.
I mean, big, big, big cartoon.
Well, that's a problem.
You can't take it from Disney.
You can't take it from big Hollywood people.
In fact, you know, the writer's a little bit upset, Mrs. Clinton not supporting them because they're union.
Learn from it.
Union people learn from it.
By the way, Bill Clinton's going to get a payout of about $20 million for leaving the Ucaipa companies, Ron Burkel's Ucaipa companies.
Clinton getting out of there because Ucaipa has got a sensitive partnership with Dubai.
Can't have that when your wife's running for president.
You can go to Dubai when Bush is president, your wife isn't running, and you're running the country now when you're in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, but you can't do a deal with Dubai, so you get paid 20 mil to get out.
There's some money you can take, Mrs. Clinton.
Guys, I mean, you're in that high-tax bracket that you don't need all that money.
So she needs money for all these programs she's proposing.
And there's Bob Iger's 27 mil and her husband's 20.
It's 47 mil right there.
It ain't chump change, folks.
Not when it comes to feeding a child.
You realize how many children you can feed with 27 and 20, 47 billion dollars.
To the audio soundbites.
Live on CNN last night, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
It was the Brett girl, it was Obama and Hillary.
Suzanne Malvo says, Senator Obama, it was just a few days ago that Senator Clinton asserted that she was the strongest candidate when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
She says the new programs she proposes, she can essentially pay for.
She says that you have failed in that regard to the tune of some $50 billion worth of new programs you can't account for.
How do you respond to that charge?
What you said wasn't true.
We account for every single dollar that we propose.
Now, this, I think, is one of the things that's happened during the course of this campaign: that there's a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate.
When Senator Clinton said, or President Clinton says that I wasn't opposed to the war from the start, or says it's a fairy tale that I opposed the war.
That is simply not true.
When Senator Clinton or President Clinton asserts that I said that the Republicans had had better economic policies since 1980, that is not the case.
Okay, so this started the fireworks because Obama here basically said that the Clintons were lying about him.
So Hillary shot back with this.
When it comes to a lot of the issues that are important in this race, it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said because as soon as he is confronted on it, he says that's not what he meant.
The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years.
And we can give you the exact quote: They were bad ideas for America.
And I want to be just very explicit about this.
We are not, neither my campaign nor anyone associated with it, are in any way saying you did not oppose the war in Iraq.
It was after having given that speech.
By the next year, the speech was off your website.
By the next year, you were telling reporters that you agreed with President Bush in his conduct of the war.
And by the next year, when you were in the Senate, you were voting to fund the war time after time after time.
So that exchange, that's what got all this going.
All right.
Now, here is Obama responding.
Let's talk about Ronald Reagan.
What you just repeated here today is Pat and Law.
Wait, no, Hillary, you just.
I did not say anything about Ronald Reagan.
You said two things.
You talked about admiring Ronald Reagan, and you talked about the ideas of the Republicans.
I didn't talk about Ronald Reagan.
We just had the tape.
You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas.
That is not true.
What I said, and I will provide you with the quote: what I said was that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shipped overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Walmart.
Mrs. Clinton did not like that answer.
You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader.
I did not mention his name.
Your husband did.
Well, I'm here.
He's not.
Well, I can't tell who I'm running against that.
But you also talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.
They were good ones.
Well, you can read the context of it.
It certainly came across.
Well, it certainly came across in the way that it was presented as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas.
I'm just reacting to the fact: yes, they did have ideas and they were bad ideas, bad for America.
And I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.
Okay, now, while all well and good, poor old Barry, he's just been insulted here.
He's got a dirty contributor, a slumlord.
The Clintons say he's got a dirty.
Where's Barry coming back?
Have you ever heard of Norman Chu?
Have you ever heard of the Riottis?
Have you ever heard of the Lippo group?
Charlie Tree.
He didn't say a word of that.
He did not say a word of it.
Yeah, realistically didn't say a word of that.
And I can tell you why, if you want to know.
We'll be back.
Now, that's not why he can't turn to her and respond to her accusing him of a slumlord contributor.
There are other reasons why he can't.
I'll explain it when we get back.
▲
Export Selection