All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
January 28, 2008, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
Kicking off a full week of broadcast excellence here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you with us.
I called it, I told you to Clintons.
We're going to play the race card.
Not only did they play the race card, people have been asking me all weekend, so what do you think of this?
I said, it's very simple to explain.
We have gone from Bull Connor to Bull Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.
That's the way to express what has happened to the Democrat Party, now totally divided along the lines of race and gender, but particularly race, from Bull Connor to Bull Clinton.
And if you wonder why I say, Mike, grab audio soundbite.
I told him to stand by if you're number one or 13.
So what do I do?
Grab number two.
Here is Bill Clinton Saturday in Columbia, South Carolina.
This is outside a polling station, and the president, the former president, is speaking with reporters.
An unidentified reporter says, what does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?
Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in 84 and 88.
And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here.
He's run a good campaign.
Bill Clinton has compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson.
We've gone from Bull Connor to Bill or Bull Clinton in one little nine-second soundbite.
Now, you know, you remember that Clinton also took out Jesse Jackson.
The Reverend Jackson was sister soldiered out there.
So this is, look, a lot of people are saying, and I say, Rush, you were right.
This is exactly what the Clintons wanted to happen.
They wanted a big racial defeat so they could go out.
And their firewall is going to be Hispanics.
Mrs. Clinton's going to go out there and try to shore up Hispanics now playing the race card again.
But I don't think they expected to be in this position.
I don't think they expected Tony Morrison, who claimed that Clinton was the first black president to endorse Barack Obama.
And I don't think they expected the JFK side of the Kennedy family to endorse Barack.
Now, Ted Kennedy has his endorsement speech coming up in a few minutes, about six and a half minutes.
We might jip this.
We might jip.
It depends on whether it starts on time.
And of course, it might start with a bunch of introductions before we get to Senator Kennedy.
I really hope, folks, I mean, I really mean this.
I hope they've got Senator Kennedy backstage saying it is Obama.
Remember the B.
It is Obama.
Don't do what you did at the National Press Club and say Osama.
And don't say Bin.
Just say Barack.
You know, just stick with Barack.
And I think that's why they're doing it in the early afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, rather than a late afternoon or evening endorsement.
But really, let's start with the Republicans here because the Democrats don't have a primary that counts until a week from tomorrow.
The Republicans have the Florida primary tomorrow, and the Rasmussen poll right now has the lead for Mitt Romney, 33% of the vote, McCain at 27.
This poll was conducted Saturday afternoon before the endorsement of our governor here, Charlie Crist, who announced his endorsement for McCain.
What are you shaking your head?
What are you shaking your head for in there?
I know for those of you that, for those of you that don't know, Charlie Crist ran as a conservative and has ended up governing not very much like one.
If you look at a list of other endorsements that McCain is getting, Howard Baker, let's see what's he got out there.
Howard Baker, it's a bunch of country clubbers.
It's a bunch of blue-blood country club Republicans who are endorsing Senator McCain.
And I have dubbed them the Jurassic Park vote.
Then there is an argument, even in the drive-by media over the weekend, who's the Republican establishment, me or McCain?
I'm not running.
I am not on a ballot.
But I tell you, if anybody is the Republican establishment, it would be Senator McCain in the sense of the old-time country club blue-blood establishment.
No, no, there's no, I know I'm the conservative establishment, and that's why they're asking the question.
By the way, Mort Kondracki said on the Beltway Boys on Saturday that if McCain wins, it means I lose.
Well, how come the New York Times is not credited for losing?
They endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and what happened?
Barry Obama wins big in South Carolina, and I know they were endorsing full-fledged presidential nominees.
But you'll notice when their endorsements happen and they never get what they wanted, nobody says, well, the New York Times lost.
They're so eager to proclaim that I did.
So the by the way, I understand, and I have this on good authority, ladies and gentlemen.
Ted Kennedy was really torn over his endorsement.
He just was unable at first when he started.
He made the decision to abandon the Clintons, and he abandoned the Clinton.
He called Clinton and said so.
He called Clinton and said, look, I don't like this politics of personal destruction that you're running.
I don't like the way you're injecting race into this.
I just don't like any of it.
And Clinton tried to talk him out of it.
Didn't work.
Clinton was trying to talk him into staying neutral.
So after Ted Kennedy decided he wasn't going to endorse Hillary, then it was down to two people.
It was down to Obama or Senator McCain that Senator Kennedy was thinking of it.
But I guess he decided to stay loyal to the party because he figures with the ideology he can get both with the Obama endorsement.
So anyway, Saturday afternoon, it got desperate here in Florida for the Senator McCain campaign.
It's been written about all weekend.
I don't know if you have been following it, but Catherine Lopez at National Review Online has the best summary of this.
On Saturday afternoon, the McCain campaign issued the following statement.
Mitt Romney's position on the war in Iraq has been a study in flexibility.
Like every other issue of importance in this race, Romney has changed his position.
On April 3rd, 2007, he advocated secret timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.
His exact words were, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, unquote.
In October of 2007, Romney said that Hillary Clinton, who supports Iraq withdrawal, is not going to be demanding a dramatically different course in Iraq than Republican nominee will.
These statements, along with Romney's inability to stick with a consistent position, provide further evidence that he lacks the critical experience and judgment necessary to lead as commander-in-chief.
Now, this was totally dishonest.
This attack by Senator McCain just wasn't true.
Romney has never advocated timetables, and it's, I mean, everybody, it doesn't matter who you are.
The New York Times labeled this as untrue.
The AP leveled it as untrue.
But Senator McCain had to change the subject because, and I think they got some bad polling data to indicate that they had to change the subject.
But this really roiled a lot of people over the weekend.
This was just blatant.
This was just an out-and-out lie.
And many people think that McCain thought that the McCain camp thought they would get away with it because of their love and slavish devotion of the drive-by media.
But it didn't work.
He didn't get away with it.
It remains to be seen what impact it will have on primary voters in Florida tomorrow.
My friend Andrew McCarthy had the funniest take on this.
I so wanted to steal this as my own, but I have ethics.
And I think when people come up with great stuff, they deserve the credit for it.
Andrew McCarthy on Saturday afternoon, in the midst of all of this, said, I'm starting to think Senator McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary.
I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true.
And if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it, they'd be in violation of McCain's reform of campaign finance regulations.
What a racket McCain is.
Is that not brilliant?
And it's absolutely right.
McCain comes out with this lie about Romney in the middle of the afternoon on Saturday, and there's no way a Romney camp or group can run an ad on television here in Florida refuting it because you can't do that 30 days before a primary under McCain Feingold's restrictions of free speech.
But the candidates can go out there and say what they want.
So Romney had to do the replying himself.
We put a video up and they were quick getting it out.
But McCarthy's point is just it's right on the money.
It's hilarious.
Hey, Senator McCain, you can't say anything about any candidate within 30 days before the election.
McCain Feingold ought to extend to the candidates too, don't you think?
We have video of this.
Well, I'm audio from video coming up on this and a lot more as the EIB network just now gets rolling.
Stay with us.
As I suspected, ladies and gentlemen, the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama delayed.
I mean, just naturally delayed.
They never start when they say they're going to start.
But I happen to have here, I'm holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a copy of an email Senator Kennedy sent out today, just about mid-morning today.
It's a combo fundraising and endorsement letter, and it's from the Committee for a Democrat Majority.
And I'm going to give you just some highlights from this letter that Ted Kennedy has sent out.
I think you'll probably hear these lines in his speech endorsing Senator Obama.
He says, Through Barack, I believe we will move beyond the politics of fear and personal destruction and unite our country with the politics of common purpose.
Whoa!
Whoa!
Folks, it's going to be hard to heal after this one because he is accusing the Clintons of the politics of personal destruction.
He is taking the Clintons' line that they have used about conservatives and turning it right around and boomeranging them with it.
And, you know, there are a lot of other people that are coming out, Democrats, liberals, members of the media, and people who are working on the Obama campaign who say, no, it was fun when the Clintons were doing this to Republicans.
We got a new perspective here of what it's like running against these people when they're doing it to us.
A lot of this guy, Jonathan Chait, L.A. Times, personally hates George W. Bush, has written that he personally hates Bush.
He says he's starting to see the light in the Clintons, starting to understand a little bit why conservatives had such personal animus toward Clinton.
Frank Rich, the New York Times, Maureen Dowed the New York Times.
I am telling you that this is not what the Clintons intended when they started playing the race card in the South Carolina primary.
Two more little clips here or excerpts from Senator Kennedy's endorsement letter, which I feel confident will be in his speech today.
He said, I remember another leader who inspired the nation, especially our youth, to fulfill a promise of change.
Those inspired young people marched.
They sat in lunch counters.
They protested the war in Vietnam, and they served honorably in that war even when they opposed it.
Now, that's a little veiled attack at Bill Clinton, too, and his loathe of the military letter.
And then comes this from Senator Kennedy.
That leader challenged them to ask what they could do for their country, and together they changed the world.
So in the words of that leader, John Kennedy, the world is changing.
The old ways will not do.
It is time for a new generation of leadership.
It's a full throttle on the Clintons.
And then this, Barack will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past.
He sees the world clearly without being cynical.
He fights for the causes he believes in, but refuses to demonize those who hold a different view.
He has just accused in this fundraising letter, in this endorsement letter to Clintons of politics of personal destruction, the politics of fear, and the fact that they demonize those who hold a different view.
What this all means is that everybody in the Democrat establishment has long known exactly who and what the Clintons are.
And as long as the Clintons were turning their venom on Republicans and conservatives, it was hunky-dory.
It was fine.
But now that Bill Clinton has become Bull Clinton, from Bull Connor to Bull Clinton, now that Clinton is turning and his wife is turning their tactics on fellow Democrats, particularly a likable young black guy, the Democrat establishment doesn't like what they see.
We have the Kennedy wing in full.
It's a head-on assault against the Clinton wing, and it's delicious.
Now, the RFK wing of the party is still hanging in there with the Clintons.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.
By the way, did I not tell you?
I have warned you people about this.
Every time Clinton goes out there and endorses somebody and tries to help them, he hurts them.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, running for governor in Maryland, went out and endorsed her, campaigned for her, nothing for her.
So the RFK member of the family or wing of the family is for the Clintons, but that's about it.
The JFK wing in full tilt and passionately so, not just for Obama, but they're letting it be known they don't have any respect or regard for what the Clintons are doing.
Back to Senator McCain.
Let's start here on Meet the Press.
Tim Russert yesterday said, this is what you said in a statement yesterday about Governor Romney.
The fact is, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.
What are you talking about here?
Whether we should have maintained the surge in Iraq and whether at the April of 2007, when we had a choice between doing the surge, when things were at their lowest, when Republicans and the Democrats were saying that we've got to withdraw.
We have to have, quote, timetables.
Timetables was the buzzword at that time.
And there were, and it was a defining moment.
It was a low point in my political career.
And we, Lindsey Graham, I, the president, and others, said, this is what needs to be done, no matter what the consequences are.
Governor Romney obviously said there had to be, quote, timetables, although they had to be secret, because we weren't going to tell the enemy when we were leaving.
I mean, that's just a fact.
And if we'd have done that, as the Democrats and some Republicans wanted to do, we would have lost that surge and Al-Qaeda would be celebrating a victory over the United States of America.
This, to me, is, you know, as you people know, I've got my political problems with Senator McCain, but this is just, I mean, this is beneath even him.
This is just contemptible.
Romney said nothing of the sort.
Everybody's looked into it and concluded the same thing.
Saturday afternoon, in fact, this really disappoints me.
The one thing about Senator McCain everybody's always been able to point to is his honor.
And there's no honor in this.
There's just desperation.
Saturday afternoon, Romney said, I think Senator McCain ought to apologize.
McCain came back and said, I'm not going to apologize.
He ought to apologize to the men and women in uniform for sabotaging the mission.
I'm paraphrasing.
This, I mean, to do something so obviously disprovable, Russert said, well, Governor Romney said he never suggested a specific timetable that you're being dishonest and you should apologize.
He was asked, should the timetable, should there be a timetable for withdrawing troops?
Well, there's no question.
The President and Prime Minister Al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but they shouldn't be for public pronouncement.
You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone.
That's, my friend, is the quote.
That was a clear indication of setting timetables that you don't, but you don't want to tell the enemy when you're going to be gone.
It's very clear.
McCain wants us to believe that Romney was for surrender.
This is Clinton-esque.
There's no other way to put this.
Here's Romney.
This is what he said, April 3rd, 2007.
Good morning, America.
Well, there's no question but that the president and Prime Minister Al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about.
But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement.
You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone.
Does that sound to me like he's against putting timetables on troop withdrawals?
And this is something McCain knows.
Here's what Romney said late edition Sunday responding to this question of whether or not McCain has a point about this.
No, he doesn't have a point.
I've never said that we should have a date certain to withdraw.
He knows it.
I've been asked that question time again.
He's simply being dishonest.
He knows that.
But he desperately is trying to change the subject because he does not understand the economy, has no experience in the private economy.
And right now, that's the biggest issue people are facing.
So he's doing his best to change topics.
Governor Romney has a point there.
Didn't rise to debate, just flat out denied it.
And this didn't sell.
It didn't fly with anybody on Saturday in the mainstream media, New York Times.
I don't care where you look.
AP, they also, wow, this is just, it's not true.
And so McCain kept it up on Sunday of just a la Clinton, just keep repeating it as though it's true, hoping people will finally accept it.
Very disappointing.
We'll be back.
By the way, Ted Kennedy saying that he's against the politics of personal destruction is like Bill Clinton saying he's for monogamy.
It might arguably be stated that it was Ted Kennedy and his Robert Bork statement from the floor of the Senate, which started the modern era of the politics of personal destruction.
But no matter.
He's going to go out there.
He's going to rip Clinton for the politics of personal destruction.
It's going to be fascinating to see how the Clintons respond to this.
I mean, they're going to get the impression everybody's ganging up against them here in the Democratic Party, and they just don't go away.
And remember, they are the villains in the soap opera.
And as I have told you, soap opera villains never die off.
They are never written out of the script.
They're the reason people keep watching.
Guess what's being recycled?
Remember the picture of Mrs. Clinton that Drudge posted back in December?
The unfortunate picture it was called.
She's looking very tired, wrinkled, haggard, made up improperly during campaign swings in New Hampshire.
And of course, I raised a question that few would have had the courage to raise, and that is, how's this going to play if she's the nominee?
Here we are, a culture that is so devoted and addicted to perfection, particularly in women.
And as you know, I mean, I don't want to repeat the whole monologue, but it was very brilliant.
And I ended up asking, and I knew that when I asked this question, everything else that I said prior to it would be ignored.
Turns out it wasn't totally ignored, but I knew this question would be the hook.
Does the country really want to watch a woman grow older by the day as she leaves the country?
That woman is not going to want to appear as though she's growing older every day.
We'll take steps to correct it, whatever are necessary, because of the need to suppress declining poll numbers.
That story is back.
It has been brought back to life at ABC News.
Of all the things to talk about regarding the South Carolina primary of the Democrats on Saturday, why in the world would ABC News think that it's time to recycle a story with the headline, is Clinton scrutinized about her looks too much?
Some experts say the New York Senator criticized more than her male opponent.
Yes, that was my point.
That's going to be the case.
That's the case throughout all of life.
Go ask aging Hollywood actresses how easy it is to get lead roles, as opposed to aging Hollywood men and their ability to get lead role.
Look at whether it's fair or not, and it probably isn't.
It's the way we are.
This is the way our culture is.
We all know, and people, you know, some women get mad at having to admit this with some disgust.
That is certain men grow older, they look more distinguished.
They look more powerful.
They look more accomplished and more achieved.
It's the way it is.
You can blame God.
You can blame our culture.
And, of course, people immediately retorted, well, Rush, what about Margaret Thatcher?
What about Golden Meir?
And what about Indira Gandhi?
I'm talking about U.S. culture.
And besides, you're talking about women who were elected with strong ideas who weren't running on a bunch of specious slogans and so forth.
Anyway, ABC brings this back to life.
Is Clinton scrutinized about her looks too much?
And of course, the obligatory reference to yours truly, America's anchorman, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, spoke about the photograph in December, posing the question that was on many people's minds.
Oh, now it was on many people's minds.
Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?
And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she's getting older because it'll impact poll numbers, Limbaugh said.
It will impact perceptions.
So writes Emily Friedman at ABC News, while it's too soon to tell whether a droopy physical appearance will translate into drooping support at the polls.
No, it's not.
Political gurus told ABC News that gender bias is responsible for the media's willingness to openly discuss Clinton's Botox options while hardly mentioning Obama's worn-out appearance.
What worn-out appearances?
Has Obama appeared worn out to you?
This is the first I've heard of this.
Doesn't look worn out to me.
And by the way, we discussed John Kerry's Botox frequently here, Emily, during the 2004 campaign.
But anyway, let me address this.
I think the reason they bring this up, the reason why ABC is bringing this up, is that she doesn't look good.
She looks tired.
And that's why she got beaten by landslide proportions of South Carolina, right?
They want to.
Well, this is ABC.
No, this is ABC trying to say it wasn't race.
Maybe it's the unfairness of the American, because remember the quote here, when they quote me, they say, I posed the question that was on many people's minds.
Back when I originally said this, I was the only one who thought it, remember?
Now the question was on many people's minds.
And so this is ABC's attempt to deflect that this had anything to do with race.
It's a feeble attempt.
I will explain you why.
The fact of the matter is, is this campaign goes on, and this is, by the way, to be honest here, ladies and gentlemen, this is nothing personal.
This is something that affects every candidate running and every president who's elected.
They get older.
They age faster when they're in the stress of the office or stress of the campaign, both men and women.
This was my point.
It's just that when women age, it's not as graceful as when men do, according to the way society looks at things.
I am not pronouncing this from on high.
We all know it.
Some of us don't have the courage to admit it, but it's true.
But I want to prove here something else.
I want to prove that we members of the vast right-wing conspiracy are above the superficialness of her outward appearance.
Let's take a look, ladies and gentlemen.
If you will with me, since I started this, let me close the loop on this.
Let us take a look at how Mrs. Clinton really looks.
Now, you drive by women and the media matters people.
I'm going to give you 10 seconds here to get the tape recorders going or to get your computer set up or to get a notepad and pencil.
I want you to get there where we are going to discuss how Mrs. Clinton really looks.
Okay?
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Mrs. Clinton looks desperate when she launches those personal attack ads against Barack Obama.
Mrs. Clinton really looks lost when she has to rely on Bull Clinton to campaign so much for her.
Mrs. Clinton looks foolish when Bull Clinton loses his temper campaigning for her and personally attacking Obama and then blowing up at reporters.
Mrs. Clinton looks ridiculous when to hurt Barack Obama, she tries to give LBJ credit over Martin Luther King since he's the guy who signed the legislation the civil rights movement pushed so hard for.
The reason she looks ridiculous is we can't find outside the state of Texas a street or building named for LBJ.
Well, there may be one in Washington recently, but they're all named for Martin Luther King.
She looks ridiculous.
Mrs. Clinton looks, actually looks spiteful when she says that she can't win South Carolina because of all those blacks.
And Mrs. Clinton actually and really looks silly, resorting to crying about how hard American life is for female candidates and thinking that's a serious argument for electing her president.
What we owe her because she's a woman.
America owes Barack because he's black.
America owes McCain because he's a hero.
The question is not what do we owe these people.
The question is what do they owe us?
They owe us honesty.
They owe us honor.
They owe us ethics, which have been in short supply in way too many parts and places of government.
But to get beyond the superficiality of Mrs. Clinton in any photo, if you in the drive-by want to know how she really looks, she looks desperate.
She looks lost.
She looks foolish.
She looks ridiculous.
She looks spiteful.
And she looks silly.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh Talent on lawn from God.
And let's start with the phones.
I could go on, but I want to get some phones.
I want to mix it up here today.
So we're going to start in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Bill, glad you called.
Thank you for waiting, and welcome to the big show.
Good afternoon, Rush.
It's an honor.
I'd like to say that do you think that these words by Senator Kennedy can come back to haunt the Democratic Party if Hillary goes on to get the nomination?
I mean, this is an attack from a very influential member of the Democratic Party.
They're not going to be able to say this is right-wing conservatives attacking them.
Is this going to be ammunition for whoever goes on to win?
Hopefully Mitt Romney?
You know, normally, my knee-jerk reaction to this question will be, no, no, By the time we get there, the Democrats will make nice with each other and the Kennedys will be out there full-fledged endorsing the Clintons and so forth.
And that will negate any of the acrimony that existed during the primaries.
That is normally what happens.
I'm trying to temper.
I'm trying to stay objective about this.
I'm trying to temper my wishful thinking.
I don't think that the Democrats had any intention of these kinds of true divisions of their party being wide open for everybody to see.
You and I have all known that the real racism in this country is in the Democrat Party, that the real bigotry in this party, in this country, is in their party, and that they promote it politically and try to blame it on Republicans and conservatives.
But this riff is just huge.
I mean, people who are not Democrats are seeing this, and people who are Democrats are seeing it.
And I think people who are Democrats, you know, Obama has a lot of support here.
It's not as though he's a second-tier candidate with no chance.
He has a legitimate chance now, and there are Democrats who have worked for the Clintons or worked for other Democrat candidates who are working for Obama.
And they're getting a taste of what the Clintons are like.
So my judgment here is that this has a chance to have some long-lasting impact on the Clintons, not so much within the Democrat Party, because they'll come together regardless who gets a nomination.
Because remember, their real hatred is always reserved for us.
The real hatred that the liberals and Democrats have is for conservatives.
And all this that's going on now is giving them a chance to vent.
But the minute the Clintons turn this same behavior on us, they'll be heroes again.
The real question here is the black vote in the Democrat Party and what their memories will be.
You have to understand this, and I'm sure most of you do.
When you get to the presidential race, the Democrats' margin of victory or their narrowness of defeat is largely attributable to vote blocking or vote or blocked voting by the Democrats blacks.
When you get 92% of the black vote in every presidential race, that's considerable.
However, if you just lose 5% of it, remember, no Clinton has ever gotten more than 50%.
Well, Hillary might in the Senate, but Bill Clinton never got more than 50%, 49% in a national race.
You take away the black vote, he doesn't win.
Just a small portion.
You have to take away all of it.
And I think that one of the things that's happening here is that there is a genuine acrimony occurring in the black Democrat population against the Clintons by virtue of what they're doing to Barack Obama.
Even though they don't personally identify with Obama as a civil rights guy and as somebody who's been down for the struggle, they still see Obama as a nice guy, a soaring visionary.
Their view is that Obama's got this great vision and he's above the fray and he's not taking the bait and that he's just generally younger and all this Kennedy appellation.
I mean, some Democrats are just so desirous for another Camelot.
And that's Obama.
The Clintons are not Camelot, folks.
The Clintons are the evil knights hiding out in the jungle and in the woods that come and steal from everybody and get rid of people who get in their way.
They don't view Obama that way.
And so I think the real fallout here would be among the black vote.
And especially, you know, Mrs. Clinton's got to do something about this.
And her firewall, as it's, you know, labeled by everybody in politics, she's going to go out and she's going to be playing the race card again.
And this time she's going to be doing it with Hispanics.
Mark my words on this, folks.
Her efforts next, why do you think she's heading to California?
Just like she did in Nevada.
She's heading to California to shore up the Hispanic vote.
Now, one of the problems is the Hispanic vote, you know, the largest minority in the country, but their record of turning out is less than blacks.
So she's going to go out once again and she's going to try to stipulate that, you know, look at what's happening to our party.
Black people are siphoning off and all they care about is themselves.
And all they care about is each other.
She's not going to say this in so many words is she going to point out, look what they did in South Carolina.
Here I am, the savior and the mother superior of this country.
And look what they did.
They just rallied around somebody because of their skin color.
And the message is going to be Hispanics, don't let them take me out and don't let them, those black people, marginalize you.
So these divisions are going to continue to happen the longer this goes.
And I think there will be some residual fallout for Democrats if it's Mrs. Clinton in November as a result of what's happening here with the blatant play.
I mean, look at, when I say that we've gone from Bull Conner to Bull Clinton, believe me, there are plenty in this audience, black voters, and they will spread and they know exactly what that means.
And he looks like Bull Clinton.
The only thing he doesn't have is the hose.
You know, Bull Connor's spraying a fire hose on these guys, but Bill Clinton's doing his best to marginalize them, to say they're not important.
That slam that Clinton made against Obama, well, just like Jesse Jackson.
Jesse Jackson's a nobody in the Democrat Party without the Clintons.
Jesse Jackson never got close to anything.
What they're saying is, hey, you people getting all worked up here, but he's just another loser.
Hey, just Jesse Jackson.
Just like Jesse Jackson ran a good campaign now.
What the hell do you expect to happen?
A guy like Jesse Jackson comes in, Obama, with a bunch of black people to stay.
What the hell do you people think to happen?
You think you're going to vote for a bunch of white people?
Hell no.
What he's saying is these blacks in South Carolina, a bunch of racists, and they're hanging together.
Don't doubt me on this.
The black population of this country hears this, those that pay attention to this, and they are getting it.
Mr. Stertley, a question.
Mr. Stertley's black.
I need to ask him a question.
How old are you, Mr. Universe?
50s, think I need to give a short history on who Bull Conner.
You do.
Think I need to give a short history on who Bull Connor was so that people fully understand the Bull Conner to Bull Conner.
Okay, I'll do that.
I'll be glad to do it.
I'll do it in the next hour.
Also, I'm always getting email from Rush.
What is it with Senator McCain?
I don't know how I can be more clear about it, but I'm going to add one thing when we get back from the break here at the top of the hour.
And let me tease you with this.
Have you enjoyed the way Republican Congress behaved with a Republican president who was not a conservative?
I bet you haven't.
Do you want more of the same?
Do you want a decidedly conservative bunch of Republicans in Congress who are constantly opposing their own president who's not conservative?
Do you want that?
▲
Export Selection