All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
January 25, 2008, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, he's not mad at me for giving away to movie.
Love what I said about it.
That's why Calla wants to be on the program.
What do you mean is he mad at what I said about the movie?
I didn't give the movie away.
I did not, I did not give the movie away.
You watch it and you'll see that I did not give the movie away.
See, underlings can argue with me and live to tell about it minutes later.
Greetings.
Great to have you, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Goody goody gun drops.
Here we are.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo and all of that.
Open Line Friday, known in the big media as one of the greatest risks taken by a highly trained broadcast specialist ever.
And that is turning over content of the program to rank amateurs, lovable, adorable, rank amateurs, but nevertheless, amateurs.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things I care about, unless you're able to sneak something boring past Mr. Snirdley.
But on Friday, whatever, for the most part, you wish to discuss, feel free.
Use it as an opportunity.
Questions, comments?
You want to whine and moan?
You want to run the risk of that?
Feel free.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address, Rush, or El Rushbo.
Sorry, new email address is LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
No Stallone called.
He said he loved what I had to say about the movie last night.
It's not getting good reviews.
He got one and a half stars in the New York Post.
Variety.
So that's okay as an action if there's no plot in it.
So he loved what I had to say, but he wants to come on the program to discuss it and thank me.
So that's going to happen in the third hour.
I did five minutes or so.
I said, okay.
So five or ten minutes or so.
So no, I didn't give away the whole thing.
In fact, he was listening to it yesterday, was excited.
It was the passion with which I was discussing this thing that he was thrilled about.
I mean, how could I give away a 90-minute movie talking about it for five minutes?
Because I'm a broadcast specialist.
Yeah, well, I'll describe the Democrat Party in about a minute.
At any rate, Stallone's coming up.
By the way, what have I always told you people?
Well, I know a lot.
The global warming hoax is nothing more than a religion that it's practiced.
If you look at global warming, Michael Crichton made this point in a brilliant speech about it.
If you look at global warming, it has all of the elements of every major religion on the planet.
It's got its, you know, the creation of the divine.
And it has original sin.
It's got his Garden of Eden.
And then it's got penance.
It's got it has everything.
And the most important element that it has is faith because the people who believe in it can't prove it.
So it is nothing more than a religion for people who have not a whole lot of foundation in their lives and they want their lives to have meaning.
And so they think they're running around and doing these inconsequential things that they're mattering, which everybody wants to do.
There have been many incidents of evidence that I am right about this, but perhaps the best one happened yesterday in Davos, Switzerland.
The famous rock star Bono Abono, it's Bono Husson, right?
Of U2, was at the World Economic Forum.
This is a portion of his discussion of Al Gore.
It's not even a professorial thing, as has been cited.
He's more so rabbinical and like an Irish priest.
You confess your sins.
Father Al, I am a not just a noise polluter.
I am a noise-polluting, diesel-sooking, you know, methane-emitting, ghost stream-flying rock star.
And what are you going to do about it, son?
Are you going to kick the habit?
I'm trying, Father Al, but to be honest with you, you know, oil has been very good for me.
It's been very good for me.
It's been very good to me.
You know, those convoys of articulated lorries and, you know, petrochemical products, hair gel.
Now, I'm making light of it, but that's the point.
Father Al, Al Gore, the high priest of the global warming religion.
Now, remember, we go to the debate Monday night, the Democrat debate, and Mrs. Clinton said this to Barack Obama.
I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.
Oh, and they booed and they applauded.
They did the whole thing.
Guess what surfaced on the internet?
And it's on the Drudge Report.
It is a picture of Rezco standing between a smiling Bill and Hillary Clinton.
It's true.
Here it is.
I don't know.
It's an internet exclusive to the Drudge Report.
Here's Hillary and Clinton.
And they're standing next to an American flag and this Rezco guy.
He's sort of smiling, but they are really beaming.
And of course, the only way you got one of these was to fork it over.
The only way you got one of these pictures, what do you mean, am I going to discuss the Republican debate?
To have to be asked a question like that.
Of course, I'm going to discuss the Republican debate.
We have all kinds of soundbites.
It's a three-hour show.
Be patient.
Anyway, Mrs. Clinton, here's the picture for those of you watching on the ditto cam.
Let me zoom in a little bit there.
I'll zoom in even a little more.
There you go.
That's Rezco.
That's the slum lord standing next to the Clintons, right between them.
So Mrs. Clinton was on the Today Show today with Matt Wauer, who said, we have an undated picture of you and your husband with Tony Rezco.
You know anything about that picture?
You remember meeting this guy?
No, I don't.
You know, I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures.
But of course, Matt, you didn't show what preceded what I said, which was a direct attack, one of several that still me by saying that.
It was a counterpunch.
I understand that.
Obviously, it was a counterpunch.
I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself, and I do have to counterpunch.
No, I don't know the man.
I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door.
I don't have a 17-year relationship with him.
Ooh, I wouldn't.
Doesn't matter.
He was in your presence, and everybody knows that when he was in your presence, it was because he gave money.
But all this is moot anyway, because she's going to get the nomination, and all these people criticizing her and her husband for whatever they're doing are going to end up voting for them.
It's like E.J. Deion Jr. today has a piece, The Washington Post, excoriating Clinton for forgetting the fact that he in 1991 sang Ronald Reagan's praises about his anti-communism, about his ability to communicate, winning the Cold War.
Yes, E.J. Deion Jr. Still around, still relevant.
And he just excoriates Clinton.
Hey, you made a big deal out of Reagan back in 1991 when you were campaigning.
I've got the story.
We've got the quotes.
And now they're out there now attacking Obama for this.
They pulled that ad, by the way.
They pulled the ad because it's factually incorrect.
Obama calls it a victory for truth.
But this picture, this picture here of Hillary, it looks like from this picture, she's wearing pink and it's a dress.
And then there's Tony Rezco and Clinton.
And obviously he was meeting a group of younger people because his hair has not been dyed gray in this picture.
I've got a better caption for this.
I mean, the drudge caption is, I don't remember meeting Rezco.
The caption is, a pair of slimy politicians meet with a Chicago businessman.
A pair of slimy politicians meet with a Chicago businessman.
I do not believe this.
You remember earlier we had the story from Chicago.
I think it was a Tribune.
It could have been the sometimes.
I think it was a Tribune about dogs and cats also falling victim to the subprime crisis.
All right.
And we had, it was about two dogs and a cat.
They had names, and the media was trying to get comments from them, but they couldn't, about how their lives are thrown upside down when their owners were foreclosed on, and they just dumped the pets in the local shelter.
The French news agency has picked the story up.
And the headline today, it's a January 25th story.
Family pets fall victim to subprime crisis.
Forget about the lost furnishings and finances.
The most pitiful victims of the subprime mortgage crisis rocking the U.S. are the family pets.
Shelters across the country have seen sharp upticks in the number of people giving up their pets in recent months because they've been forced from their homes.
And more tragically, neighbors, police, and foreclosure agents are finding increasing numbers of pets left to fend for themselves in abandoned homes.
We're finding too many animals have starved to death out there, said Stephanie Shane, director of outreach for the Humane Society.
Some people dump their pets on the street.
Others go so far as to lock the animal in a closet where their cries for help are harder to hear.
Now, people are doing that.
I mean, that's really mean.
But this is just typical.
Animals, family pets, hardest hit in the subprime crisis.
Newark Bay has been closed, ladies and gentlemen, after two ships collided.
Their ship carrying orange juice collided with a dredging vessel in Newark Bay on Thursday, closed the bay to all ship traffic, according to the Coast Guard.
A 670-foot orange sun ship and a dredging vessel, New York, collided around 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
The New York had been taking on water, but was stabilized.
The orange sun, the orange juice boat was being tugged back to the pier.
Newark Bay includes Port Newark, Elizabeth and New Jersey, the main port of entry for goods to the greater New York City area.
Who's running the ports there?
I mean, it's the Tri-State Port Authority, right?
Would this have happened with Dubai and the Dubai ports?
I mean, and get this.
How many variations or iterations of this story have we heard?
Fighting with your spouse can make you live longer.
Fighting with your spouse can actually be good for your health, with people who bottle it up all found to die earlier.
According to a new study, this is from the University of Michigan Scruel of Public Health and its psychology department, released preliminary findings after 17 years of following 192 couples.
They fell into four categories.
Both partners expressed anger when they felt unfairly attacked, where neither partner expressed their anger, and one category each where the wife suppressed her feelings and where the husband did so.
I would say if you don't express your feelings to your partner and tell them what the problem is, when you're unfairly attacked, then you're in trouble, said Ernest Harberg, the lead author of the study, found that those who kept their anger in were twice as likely to die earlier than those who don't, which may have been the objective of some of those people in keeping the anger in.
But the solution to this, I mean, not just for men, women, go home, yell at your spouse, and die happy.
Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we'll get to your phone calls as soon as Snerdley puts some on the board.
800-282-2882 is the number.
All right, now we focus again on the I am irrelevant segment of the program.
This is with audio soundbites.
First, from West Palm Beach, I guess you're right across the bridge yesterday.
Senator McCain, after a town hall meeting, spoke with reporters.
He was asked about me.
This is what he said.
I respect Rush Limbaugh.
He is a voice that is respected by a lot of people who are in our party.
I've been trying to convince everybody that I am the most qualified.
And then in an interview on Fox 35, where is Fox 35?
Fox down here is 29.
Fox 35, no, where is that?
Somewhere here in Florida, Fox 35, Kale Raymaker, Ramacher, I'm not sure you pronounce it.
Rush Limbaugh, Senator McCain, why does he not like you?
I don't know.
I've never met Mr. Limbaugh.
I just have to run a positive campaign, my vision for the future of the country.
And then last night on CNN, Senator McCain asked yet again about me.
I know.
Oh, yeah.
He's a very influential person.
All right, so this is, let's be honest, this is a far cry from a few years ago.
And might this have been the 2004 race or the 06 race?
I'm not really sure when it was, but somehow it might have been during a piece of legislation.
It seems like it was just yesterday, but it's probably two or four years ago.
I'm not sure.
But I was critical of something Senator McCain was doing.
And he was going on the media and other radio and television programs and telling people, look, you can't take Limbaugh serious.
He's just an entertainer.
I mean, he's a good entertainer, but he's just an entertainer.
And it might have been some of the parodies that were playing at the time.
I think it might have, shall we say, irritated him.
The McCain mutiny might have been.
My memory escapes me on this.
But I just want to say here, to clarify this, if anybody has any doubts whatsoever, my differences with Senator McCain are substantive.
I've never met him, just as he has never met me.
None of this is personal with any of these candidates, particularly on our side.
The Clintons is a little different because they have actively sought to do considerable professional harm to this program and others who do what Orlando is Fox 35.
Okay.
Now, I don't know him, and I'm sure McCain is very likable.
A lot of people love John McCain.
There's no question about it.
But my attention is on issues and always has been.
The New York Times, by the way, yesterday, hold on to your coffee cup or your steering wheel if you haven't heard this.
After months of pondering, announced its endorsements for the Democrats and Republicans.
And there they are.
There was no surprise who they endorse for the Democrats.
And there was not much surprise about who they endorse for our side.
They endorsed Hillary on the Democrat side and they endorsed McCain.
So this is a serious, serious question, a serious number now of liberal newspapers that have endorsed John McCain.
I have to, I just, I ask myself, you know, I'm not even asking you to think about this.
I'm just thinking, I'm thinking to myself here, and I happen to be verbalizing the thoughts.
What in the world am I supposed to think when liberal newspapers endorse McCain as the Republican, when I know for a fact they're not going to vote for him?
When I know for a fact that when it comes to November, whenever they issue their final endorsements, they're going to endorse Hillary or whoever the Democrat is.
So what is the game plan here?
What is the gambit?
What are these liberal papers trying to do?
Are they trying to be consistent?
Well, if we're going to endorse a liberal Democrat, the Democrat side, how can we endorse this big-time conservative on the rights?
I don't understand it.
Well, I mean, I do understand it, but I don't understand what they hope to accomplish.
Well, I understand that too.
Sorry, I do know what they hope to accomplish.
What I don't know is what Republican primary voters think of all this.
They probably don't think too much of it because we don't care about the New York Times.
And Republican voters probably don't care about the three newspapers here in Florida endorsed McCain.
One in Palm Beach Post, I forget the other two.
Gainesville, maybe.
Tallahassee was maybe the other one.
There will be others.
They're all liberal newspapers.
When we get to November, they're not going to endorse McCain.
So what will the Republican primary voters' reaction be to this?
And also in this New York Times editorial.
My God, folks, the hatred, the out and out hatred for Rudy Giuliani in the New York Times editorial endorsing McCain and Hillary.
I mean, they savage Rudy.
They loathe, and they almost draw and quarter Rudy Giuliani, which gives me pause.
If the New York Times, and we all know who they are and what their ultimate objectives and desire for the country happen to be, if they are savaging Rudy Giuliani, maybe he deserves a second look.
Good.
You know what I heard today about the economic stimulus?
If the president signs the bill next week, you will get your stimulus check in August.
Well, whoever among you who are getting stimulus checks, you will get them in August.
Now, this is that's speedy.
We got to head off this recession.
That's not a recession, right?
So, and then look at it, but it's not even finally agreed to you.
That's if the thing was agreed to and signed into law by President Bush.
In fact, this is it's in the Washington Post today.
Speedy deal on stimulus may not yield short-term help.
The stimulus plan will not stimulate is the bottom line.
The checks are mailed in May, and some will arrive in August.
The first of the 117 million checks won't be in the mail until late May.
Some won't arrive until early August.
Mark Zamde, the chief economist of Moody's consulting firm, said this doesn't solve a fundamental problem plaguing the economy.
It's not meant to.
Speaking, no, they can't go to the check cashing store and get the money now because the deal is not signed into law and there's no receipt.
No, you can't, you're not going to be able to go to the payday checker store and then get and get, no, that's, I look at, what do I know?
I mean, how the payday check cash store may do it.
Hell if I know, but I would think you have to have some proof that you're going to get the money, like a pay stub or something.
Anyway, do you know we were talking about that issue of the unbanked?
We had a Clinton and what's his name?
Clinton and Schwarzenegger joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday on the unbanked and how we need to get the unbanked banked.
Ernest Istook happened to be listening to this program yesterday.
Ernest Istook is a recovering congressman from Oklahoma, and he's now at the Heritage Foundation.
And it just so happened that he was writing a column for World Net Daily yesterday.
So he threw my little, the reference to the Clinton and the Schwarzenegger piece.
It turns out that, let me find this.
Six years ago, Bill Clinton promoted a program called First Accounts, run by the U.S. Treasury.
It gave banks, it gave grants to banks and credit unions and other groups to reach out to the unbanked and induce them to open a bank account.
And it cost the American people anywhere from $285 to $897 per bank account that was started.
In Denver, the Mile High United Way won a grant of over a million dollars to persuade 2,300 people to open a bank account at $533 apiece.
In Chicago, the Center for Law and Human Services was selected for a $686,000 grant to help 1,000 people open an account.
That was $686 each.
In Flint, Michigan, the Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency was picked for a $592,000 grant so that 660 people could open a bank account.
That was $897 each.
And there's more, as described at the Treasury Department's website.
That was $8,357,000 in wasted tax money used to incentivize 35,445 people to open a bank account at an average cost of $236 per account.
Brad Riedel of the Heritage Foundation says tax rebates fail.
This is going to the stimulus here as a little addition.
Tax rebates fail because they don't encourage productivity or wealth creation.
To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, nobody has to save, nobody has to invest or create any new wealth.
Supporters of rebates argue that they inject new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production.
But every dollar that the government rebates inject into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy.
So it is recycled.
Nobody's producing anything new here to get, it's just a scam.
They don't stimulate.
They aren't meant to stimulate.
Every dollar that government rebates inject into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy.
No new spending power is created.
It's merely redistributed from one group of people to another.
And that's why, Mr. Sterdley, you are not getting a rebate check.
That's why you are not participating in the stimulus.
That's a question.
Will they reach out?
I don't know how they reach out.
Anyway, as Istuk begins his piece here, Washington lawmakers are excited because they found a formula that works, not a formula to fix the economy, but a formula for how to spend excessively without making people mad.
Economic stimulus is a label that succeeds almost as well as it's for the kids as an all-purpose excuse to justify any and all spending.
It makes people act in haste as well as in waste.
At the debate, Edwards and Obama complained that many Americans don't have a bank account, so we need to teach them financial literacy by helping them to open one.
Now former President Clinton and Schwarzenegger trying to promote this very thing, saying we should help the unbanked to open checking and savings accounts.
We've seen this bad idea before.
Six years ago, Clinton promoted a program called First Accounts, run by the Treasury.
I've just repeated all of this.
The point is, this has already been done.
And yet here, Clinton and Schwarzenegger out doing it again.
And there are reasons for this.
And it's us.
It's all Istuk's point here is that it's all under the umbrella of economic stimulus.
But there's the idea this was something new.
Yesterday I was stunned.
The unbanked.
Here I have an op-ed.
We need to get the unbanked banked.
And who benefits from that?
Well, bankers primarily.
You know what it costs to maintain a checking account.
Service fees.
Once you have a bank account, you go to the ATM.
You know what the ATM fees are.
People complain about those more than they complain about the price of gas.
All right, Don in Laurel, Maryland, we're going to start with you on the phones today on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
I've been a longtime listener, and I finally got through.
Good.
I'm glad you're talking about this stupid stimulus package.
I'd like to put a little positive spin on it for you.
Nancy Pelosi has been up singing the praises of this stimulus package, saying it will stimulate the economy.
Isn't that tantamount to an admission that less money in the hands of government is good for the economy?
It is, but they're not going to be held on.
I had this call yesterday.
Let me explain this all over again.
The call yesterday was making the point, hey, aren't the Democrats admitting here that tax cuts, which is how they are portraying this, and you can look at this as, you know, you're getting a rebate just like you get a refund.
It's going to go to a tax refund, except this is not a rebate because you haven't paid into this, theoretically.
We all have, but it's.
So the Democrats are admitting that money in the hands of private citizens spurs the economy.
So why can't they be held to account on it?
Well, the way they get around that is, oh, we've always been for tax cuts for the middle class.
It's tax cuts for the rich that we oppose.
They get around it with the class envy aspect of it.
But the bottom line is, this is what Ernest Istuk was trying to say, and the guy at the Heritage Foundation, Brad Riedel, this is not like a tax cut.
This is simply redistribution.
The money that is going to be rebated to certain people is going to be taken from others.
And how is that?
Well, not all of you, I would venture to say most in this audience are not going to get a rebate.
A lot of you won't.
I know I'm not going to get a rebate.
Snurdley's going to get a rebate.
Dawn's not going to get a rebate.
Brian's not going to get a rebate.
But yet a lot of people are.
Guess who's going to be paying for those rebates?
It's us.
So there's no new money being added to the economy here is the point.
And so it's just, it's an election year.
What do you call it?
Three-card money game.
It's just, it's a scam.
It's just an election year scam.
Because giving away money can always get bipartisanship on that in an election year.
And welcome back.
Great to have you, El Rush Bull.
Open line Friday back to the phones to Falls Church, Virginia.
This is Jason Heiley.
How are you, sir?
Rush, it's an honor.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thanks very much.
Great, Rush.
If I had a dollar for every time Huckabee complained about Romney being rich and Huckabee being poor, I'd be as rich as Romney.
Well, that's what populists do.
You know what's crazy is when a man can be very successful, work very hard, become very rich.
I mean, isn't that the promise of conservatism?
Well, yes, it's the promise of America if administered by conservatives.
Because the founding, yes, everybody's entitled.
We are all endowed by our creator.
Certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, however you define that.
If happiness to you is earning a lot of money, then that's what this country is for.
If happiness to you, well, within moral grounds, I mean, if happiness to you is sleeping with horses, then of course we draw the line, except in Seattle.
So how is it that Republicans can use this as sort of like a negative attack?
Because they're not conservative is what I've been trying to tell you.
That's what I'm trying.
I'm trying to say we've got a bunch of, we've got a couple people in this list who are not conservative.
And that's why, you know, I'm sitting here.
I'm trying to hold the coalition and Republican Party together.
If a couple people, one of the two people, win this party's nomination, we're going to lose in a landslide and make Goldwater look like a victory.
And when that landslide happens, the finger pointing in the Republican Party is going to start, and everybody's going to get blamed by everybody.
I'm going to get blamed.
Canada's going to get blamed.
Peggy Noonan's going to get blamed.
David Brooks are going to get blamed.
Well, sorry.
Brooks and that group will not get blamed.
They'll be assigned the duty of assigning blame.
And then we'll sit around and tell them how they're wrong.
But no, that's exact.
Your question is right.
And look at Huckabee.
I saw this last night.
He's just out telling jokes.
He's trying to be, he doesn't have any money in Florida.
He's run out of money.
So he's using the debate here to try to shore some things up.
Although the latest poll in Georgia is he's leading everybody in Georgia.
Yes, Huckabee, Governor Huckabee leading everybody in Georgia now.
At any rate, telling jokes about Romney's wealth, that's populism.
That's what liberals do.
Make fun of people who have money or criticize them for having money or say they're out of touch because they have money for crying out.
Mitt Romney, this is not an endorsement.
Mitt Romney has demonstrated economic expertise.
Where are we headed?
Where do most people think we're headed?
They think we're headed to a recession, even though we're not.
Not one Democrat has demonstrated any knowledge about the economy.
Senator McCain last night got caught in a debate.
He said, he has said that he doesn't have much economic knowledge.
His expertise is foreign policy and that sort of thing.
In fact, he's reading Greenspan's books.
He needs more knowledge on economics.
So Russert asked him about that quote.
McCain said, I don't remember saying it.
I don't think I said it.
And they ran a guy.
He said it a month ago.
Said it a month ago, six weeks ago, the Washington Post.
He said it a couple times.
Romney has demonstrated an understanding of economics.
No, it's Clinton that says a long time ago.
You can't hold me.
You can't hold that against me, Limbaugh, for what I said in my youth.
But President Clinton, it was six weeks ago.
You still, I mean, you got to prove it.
Anyway, that's the answer.
Now, here is here.
Let me go to audio soundbite number four, David Gregory on NBC Nightly News.
This is before the debate.
It was Reagan who united social, economic, and national security conservatives into a Republican coalition that has held the White House for 20 of the past 28 years.
Mitt Romney is campaigning as the only heir to that legacy.
And now some leading voices in the party, like Rush Limbaugh, fear the GOP will lose its way if McCain or Mike Huckabee wins the nomination.
I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party.
It's going to change it forever, be the end of it.
A lot of people aren't going to vote.
You watch.
But in Red State, South Carolina, conservatives did vote for both McCain and Huckabee.
Change is in the air this campaign.
Look, is the grand old party ready to become something new?
In your dream.
See, that's in your dream.
You want us to become something new because you want us to become like you.
And that's what we're trying to stop here.
The Republican Party is not the minor leagues of the Democrat Party.
And that's what people want to turn it into.
And I'm not going to play on a AAA team.
I'm not going to play on a double-A team.
I'm not going to play an NCAA Division IV.
I'm not going to be a farm team for the Democrat Party.
And that's what these people like Gregory and all these others, the New York Times endorsement of McCain, Palm Beach, all these other people are trying to, they're trying to destroy this party.
Peggy Noonan called me absurd today for saying this, that if Huckabee or McCain get the nomination, it's the end of the party.
It's the end of the party as we know it.
Republican Party is not going to go away.
But I will guarantee you, if either of these guys get the nomination, it's going to be a landslide defeat.
And it's going to be the Clintons pulling it off.
Because Obama's not going to get the nomination.
You can dream, but he's not going to get the nomination.
If we're not careful, we're going to have such a landslide defeat that the first thing that'll happen is the evangelicals are going to get blamed by the country club blue bloods who have wanted to get rid of the evangelicals in this party for as long as I can remember.
They didn't even particularly like Reagan.
And by the way, Gregory, this business of Reagan united social, economic, and national security conservatives into a coalition that's held the White House.
Yeah, we're trying to hold that together.
But Reagan did not attract those people by being like them.
Why do we as the Republican Party have to sit around and use as our basis for existence, gee, we hope the Democrats will accept us.
We hope we get some Democrats to vote for us.
Why don't we have the attitude that Democrats are the damn farm team forever?
And guess what?
Very few of them ever get drafted up to the big leagues.
And they have to go a long way to prove that they are worthwhile to be in the Republican Party.
And they're not going to be in the Republican Party being commi-libs.
But no, we don't have this attitude.
We still have this attitude of inferiority and defensiveness.
And somehow what we are as conservatives isn't enough.
It isn't good enough.
We have to open the tent and we have to show that, yeah, we got some of those crazy conservatives.
But look at the rest of us.
We are reasonable and we are understanding and you can trust us.
And we'll do our best to portray our own conservatives as a bunch of kooks, just like you do.
Please join us.
Well, screw that.
You know, this coalition that Reagan built was dynamic, and it did consist of Democrats and Independents and moderates, but we didn't do it.
He didn't do it by running around acting like them or trying to make them think he was one of them.
He changed their minds, he showed them a better way, and they reacted to it and they loved it.
McCain had a news conference in Florida today on his way over to Tampa.
I'm hearing that McCain's internal numbers show him down like all the other polls do.
He slammed Mitt Romney today in his project.
I mean, really slammed Romney on being a manager, not a leader in business.
And McCain, of course, I don't think has been in business.
Manager or leader.
Doesn't know economics.
In fact, says so.
Fastest three hours in media.
I can't believe the first hour is over.
But it is because it is what it is.
The clock doesn't lie.
We have atomic clocks here.
We got a little break here.
We'll be back and continue.
▲
Export Selection