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 the movie.
Love what I said about it.
That's why a caller 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 gum drugs.
Here we are.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, 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. Snerdley.
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.
New email address is L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
No stallone called.
He said he loved what I had to say about the movie.
Uh last night, because not getting good reviews.
He got one and a half stars in the New York Post.
Variety said that's okay as an action if there's no plot in it.
So he he uh he loved what I had to say, but he wants to come on the program to uh discuss it and thank me.
So that's gonna happen in the uh in the third hour of the five minutes or so.
I said, okay.
Uh so five or ten minutes or so.
So no, I didn't give away the whole.
He was in fact he was he was uh 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, but the right uh yeah, well described 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 practitioned.
If you look at global warming, Michael Crichton made this point in a brilliant speech about.
Uh, 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 the creation of the divine.
Then it has original sin.
It's got his garden of Eden.
Uh, and then it's got penance, it's got it's 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.
Uh there have been uh 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, a bono.
It's Bono Houston, right?
Of uh of uh of you two 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 or like an Irish priest.
You confess your sins.
Father Al.
I am a not just a noise polluter.
I am a noise polluting, diesel sucking, and you know, methane emitting ghost stream flying.
Rockstar.
And what and what are you going to do about it, son?
Are you going to kick the habit?
I I'm trying, I'm trying, Father Al, but 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 you're making light of it, but that's the point.
Father Al, uh Al Gore the High Priest of the Global Warming Religion.
Now remember we go to the uh the uh debate Monday night, the Democrat debate, and Mrs. Clinton said this to uh Barack Obama.
I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezco, in his slum landlord business and inner city, Chicago.
And they booed and they applauded, they did the whole thing.
Guess what surfaced on the internet uh and it's it's on the Drudge Report.
It is a picture of Rezco standing between a smiling bill and Hillary Clinton.
It's true.
Uh here it is.
I don't know, I don't it it's it's uh it's an internet exclusive to the Drudge Report.
Is Hillary and Clinton and they're standing next to an American flag in this Rezco guy.
Uh he's he's sort of smiling, but they are really beaming.
Uh 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 sound bites.
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.
Uh, 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 Mao O'Hour, who said, We have uh 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 uh was leveled against me by Senator.
It was a counterpunch.
I understand that.
Obviously, it it was a counterpunch.
I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself, and I do have to counterpunch.
No, I 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. Dion 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 uh ability to communicate, winning the Cold War.
Yes, E.J. Dion Jr. is still around, still relevant.
Uh and uh uh 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.
Well, pulled that ad, by the way.
They pulled the ad because it's it's factually uh it's factually incorrect.
Obama calls it a victory for truth.
But this picture, uh this this picture here of Hillary, she wearing it looks like from this picture she's wearing pink, and it's a dress.
Uh and then there's there's Tony Rezco and uh and Clinton, and obviously he was meeting a group of younger people because his hair has not been dyed gray in in this picture.
But I got a better, I've got a better capture 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.
That's that's what 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 Sun Times.
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.
Uh about how their lives are thrown upside down when their owners were foreclosed on, and they just dumped the pets in a local shelter.
The French news agency has picked the story up.
And the headline today, it's a January twenty-fifth 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 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.
I mean, that's that's that's really mean.
But this is just typical.
Animals, family pets, hardest hit in the subprime crisis.
Newark Bay uh 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.
Uh a six hundred and seventy foot uh orange sun ship and a dredging vessel, uh New York collided around two o'clock in the afternoon.
Uh the New York had been taking on water but was stabilized.
The orange on the orange juice boat was being tugged back to the pier.
Uh Newark Bay includes Port Newark, Elizabeth in New Jersey, the main port of entry for goods to the Greater New York City area.
Who 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 could I mean and get this.
How many how many 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 bottled it up all found to die earlier.
According to a new study, this is from the University of Michigan Scrual 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 uh 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 Harburg, uh, 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, uh I mean, not just for men, women too.
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 sound bites.
First, uh, from uh I guess it's 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 uh Rushland.
He is a voice that is respected by a lot of people who are in our party.
Um I've been trying to convince everybody that uh I am the most qualified.
And then in an interview on uh uh 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, uh Remucker, I'm not sure you pronounce it.
Uh Rush Limbaugh, Senator McCain.
Why why 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 uh then last night on CNN, uh Senator McCain asked yet again about me.
I know.
Oh, yeah, it's he's very influential person.
All right.
Um so this is honest, this is a far cry from a few years ago.
And I uh m might this been the 2004 race or the 06 race.
I'm not really I'm not really sure when it was, but some somehow might have been during a piece of legislation.
I don't I don't re it seems like it was just yesterday, but like it's probably two or four years ago, I'm not sure.
Uh but I was critical of something Senator McCain was doing.
Uh and he was going on the media and other radio and television programs and telling people, uh, you can't take limbo seriously, just 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 uh at the time, I think that might have shall we say irritated him.
Uh the McCain mutiny uh might have been I my memory escapes me on this.
But I just want to say here, I m uh to clarify this, if anybody has any doubts uh whatsoever, my differences with Senator McCain are substantive.
I've never met him, just like as he has never met me.
Uh none of none of this is personal with with any of these candidates, uh, particularly on uh on our side.
The Clinton's a little different because they have actively sought uh to do considerable professional harm to this program and others who do it.
Uh Orlando is Fox 35, okay.
Now, I don't I don't know him, and I am sh well, I am I'm sure uh uh McCain is very likable.
A lot of people love John McCain.
There's no question about it.
Uh but my attention is uh 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, uh announced its endorsements for the Democrats and Republicans.
Um there they are.
There was no surprise who they uh endorse for the uh for the uh Democrats.
Uh 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 a serious, serious question, serious number now of uh liberal newspapers that have endorsed John McCain.
I have to I just I ask myself, you know, I'm not maybe 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 gonna vote for him.
When I know for a fact that when it comes to November, whenever they issue their final endorsements, they're gonna endorse Hillary or whoever the Democrat is.
So what is the game plan here?
What what is 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, uh Democrat side, how can we endorse this big-time conservative on the rights?
I I don't understand it.
Uh well, I mean, I do understand it, but I I 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.
Uh and Republican voters probably don't care about the three newspapers here in Florida have endorsed McCain, one in uh well I forget.
Well, Palm Beach Post, I forget the other two.
Gainesville, maybe, uh 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.
in So what what 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.
A good take.
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, uh, 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 look at it, but it's not even finally agreed to yet.
That's if the thing was agreed to and signed into law by President Bush.
Uh in fact, this is uh it's in the Washington Post today.
Speedy deal on stimulus uh may not yield short-term help.
The stimulus plan will not stimulate, is the bottom line.
The uh 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.
Uh uh some won't arrive until early August.
Uh Mark Zande, the chief economist of Moody's consulting firm said this doesn't solve the fundamental problem plaguing the economy.
It's not meant to.
Speaking no, they can't go to the check cashing store 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 well, I look what do I know?
I mean, how the the payday check cash store may do it?
Well, how 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 that issue of the unbanked?
We had a Clinton and what's uh what's his name?
Uh Clinton and Schwarzenegger.
Joined 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 Istuk 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 reference to the Clinton and uh Schwarzenegger piece.
It turns out that let me find this.
Uh 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 600 or 897 per bank account that was started.
In Denver, the Mile High United Way won a grant of uh over a million dollars to persuade 2300 people to open a bank account at 533 dollars a piece.
In Chicago, the Center for Law and Human Services was selected for a $686,000 grant to help a thousand 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 uh $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.
Uh Brad Riedel of the Heritage Foundation says tax rebates fail.
This is going to the stimulus here's 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 just recycled.
Nobody's producing anything new here to get it's just it's just it's just a scam.
They aren't they 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 powers created.
It's merely redistributed from one group of people to another.
And that's why, Mr. Snurley, you are not getting a rebate check.
That's why you are not participating in the stimulus.
What's the question?
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Uh well, they reach out.
I don't know how they reach out.
Uh uh anyway, as Istuk begins his piece here, uh, Washington lawmakers are excited because they found a formula that works, not a formula to fix the economy, but a formula to 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 program called First Accounts, run by the Treasury, and 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 there are reasons for this, and it's it's us, it's all Istuk's point here is that it's all under the umbrella of economic stimulus.
Uh but there's um the idea this is something new.
I I just 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 gonna start with you on the phones today on open line Friday.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
I've been a long time listener, and I finally got through.
Good.
I'm glad you're talking about this uh stupid stimulus package.
I'd like to put a little uh positive spin on it for you.
Uh Nancy Pelosi has been up singing the praises of this uh stimulus package, saying it will stimulate the economy.
Isn't that tantamount to an emission that left money in the hands of government is good for the economy?
Um it is, but they're not going to be held on it.
Here's I had this call yesterday.
Let me let me explain this all over again.
Uh the call yesterday uh 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 a refund.
It's gonna tax refund.
Except this is not a rebuy, 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 why can't they be held to account on it?
Well, they the way they get around that is 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 uh with with the the class envy aspect of it.
Uh but the bottom line is what this is what Ernest Istuk was trying to say.
this 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 got to get a rebate.
Don't 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 no no 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 Fawns 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 when a man can be very successful, work very hard, become very rich.
I mean, isn't that the promise of conservatism?
Uh well, it's it's yes, it's the promise of America, if administered by conservatives.
Uh because the the founding, yes, it's 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 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 they're not conservative, is what I've been trying to tell you.
That's what I'm trying to.
I'm trying to say we've we've got a bunch of we got a couple people in this list who are not conservative.
And that's that's why, you know, I'm I'm sitting here, I'm trying to hold the coalition of Republican Party together.
If a couple people, one of the two people win this party's nomination, we're gonna we're gonna lose in a landslide to make Goldwater look like a victory.
And when that when that landslide happens, the finger pointing in the Republican Party is gonna start, and everybody's gonna get blamed by everybody.
Uh I'm gonna get blamed, candidate's gonna get blamed, Peggy Noonan's gonna get blamed, David Brooks are gonna get well, sorry, Brooks and that group will not get blamed.
They'll get the they'll be assigned the duty of assigning blame.
And then we'll sit around and tell them how they're wrong.
Uh but no, this is this is that that that's that's exactly you, your your question is right on a how 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.
Uh 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, uh telling jokes about about Romney's wealth, that's that's 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 did he doesn't have much economic knowledge.
His expertise is foreign policy and um that sort of thing.
Uh he does he do he needs, he needs, in fact, he's reading Greenspan's books.
He needs more knowledge on economics.
So Russard asked him about that quote.
McCain said, I don't remember saying it.
I don't think he 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 has he said it a couple times.
That Romney has uh he's demonstrated an understanding of economics.
No, it's Clinton that says that a long time ago.
You can't hold me, you can't hold that against me, Limba for what I said, my youth.
But President Clinton, it was six weeks ago.
You still, I mean, uh you've got to prove it.
Anyway, that's that's the um that's that's the answer.
Now, here here is um here.
Let me go to audio soundbite number four.
David Gregory on NAC Nightly News.
Uh, this is before the uh 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 gonna destroy the Republican Party, it's gonna change it forever, be the end of it.
A lot of people aren't gonna vote.
You watch.
But in Red State, South Carolina, conservatives did vote for both McCain and Huckabee.
Yeah, but change is in the air this campaign.
Look, is the Grand Old Party ready to become something new?
In your dream, see, that's the 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 gonna play on a triple A team, I'm not gonna play on a double A team, I'm not gonna play an NCAA Division IV, I'm not gonna 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 is the end of the party.
It's the end of the party as we know it.
Republican Party's not going to go away.
But I will guarantee you, if either of these guys get the nomination, it's gonna be a landslide defeat.
And it's gonna be the Clintons pulling it off.
Because Obama's not gonna get the nomination.
You can dream that he's not gonna get the nomination.
If we if this if we're not careful, we're gonna have such a landslide defeat that the first thing that'll happen is the evangelicals are gonna 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 for Yeah, we're trying to hold that together.
But Reagan did not attract those people by being like them.
What 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 the 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 a Republican Party, and they're not gonna be in a Republican Party being commie 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 um that McCain's internal numbers show him down like all the other polls do.
Uh he slammed Mitt Romney today in his, I mean, really slammed Romney on being a manager, not a leader uh in uh 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 the media.
I can't believe the first hour's 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