All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 5, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
February 5, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, basically all-everything.
Maha Rushi, your highly trained broadcast specialist, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
And we're going to get to your phone calls in this hour.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Now, just a couple more things.
I'm going to go to some more audio soundbites.
I'm still struck by Senator McCain's attack on Mitt Romney today.
Mitt Romney simply said in response to the letter that Bob Dole sent me that he thinks it's somebody better to send a letter than Dole.
What he meant was, hey, you know, Dole ran a campaign like you're running.
Big military guy, war hero against a Clinton.
We lost that one.
It's probably going to happen again.
McCain retorts that McRomney ought to apologize.
Romney never served in the military, blah, blah, blah.
I want to issue this caution.
If Senator McCain becomes the Republican nominee and tries to pull this you didn't serve in the military line, which, by the way, I think the purpose of that is to conceal the rest of his record.
You think it's going to work telling Obama, you didn't serve in the military.
I did.
I know what I'm doing.
You didn't serve it.
Hillary, you didn't serve.
You know, Hillary's got to come back.
Hillary's, I wanted to join the Marines, but they wouldn't let me because I was a woman.
She's already tried that.
But it won't work.
Democrats and independents and the liberal media are not going to be intimidated by that in the general election.
The Democrats and independents and media don't give a damn about military service or the military, period.
And they won't care about the surge either.
Once Senator McCain becomes the nominee, they're not going to care about any of that.
And this is going to lead to Senator McCain having to defend that part of his record that he can't and doesn't want to defend.
That would be McCain Kennedy, McCain Feingold, McCain Lieberman, McCain Kennedy Edwards, whatever the hell it was.
Gang of 14.
Now, I mentioned when I was reading Bob Dole's letter that Warren Rudman was the Republican responsible for fooling everybody on the bona fides, the conservative bona fides of Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
You know, Bush nominated him.
He was recommended to then Chief of Staff John Sununu by New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman.
Warren Rudman happens to be, I think, he's got a prominent role in the McCain campaign.
I don't know what his title is, but he's got a prominent role.
The guy that McCain is telling everybody conservative judges, I'm going to make sure we get those guys, constructionists, strict constructionists, but the guy who misled us all on David Souter happens to be a top honcho in McCain's campaign.
And I got the, you know, what happened immediately on the court, by the way, when Souter got there, he proved himself to be among the most radical of the justices.
He has voted for every liberal activist issue to come his way.
And the guy who recommended him, Warren Rudman, is a high-ranking official in the McCain campaign, general chairman, in fact, of the McCain campaign.
Senator McCain thanks so much of Warren Rudman.
He's put him in charge of the overall operation.
I'm sure people have said to me, though, and I get emails, but Rush, what about all these endorsements?
I mean, what do we make of all these endorsements?
Well, we've read some op-eds about all these endorsements.
I find them to be a little odd, frankly, to tell you.
Example, I mean, I think, you know, a candidate uses endorsements to create different impressions, even conflicting impressions, as a way of pandering to certain voters.
For example, Tom Coburn has endorsed McCain.
Now, McCoburn is a fiscal conservative from Oklahoma.
Schwarzenegger has endorsed McCain.
He's a big spending liberal who supports socialist health care in California.
Now, what are we to make of these two endorsements?
Just as an example, what we make of them is that there's something more to it than just the endorsement.
The endorsement is designed to show, create an impression for the voter.
But there's nothing, and Colburn and Schwarzenegger don't agree on much, but yet they're endorsing McCain.
Now, when you have such an illogical combination of endorsements, and when that's noted, by the way, the McCain camp's response is, well, this shows how he can unite the Republican Party.
But Colburn and Schwarzenegger have almost nothing in common.
Their economic positions could never be squared.
Then we have Rudman.
Warren Rudman is running the campaign and Ted Olson.
Both of them are supporting McCain.
Rudman, as I said, gave the Nation David Souter a total disaster on the Supreme Court.
Ted Olson is a huge favorite with conservatives and the very conservative Federalist Society.
Rudman and Olson have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to the selection of Supreme Court justices, yet both now endorse McCain.
What is a conservative to make of such endorsements?
And the answer is, to those of you who have asked me, nothing much.
Senator McCain basically sought the endorsement of anybody Republican, regardless of philosophy or past record, because he's trying to create the impression of inevitability by releasing lists of Republicans who are supporting him, regardless of their views.
And he's trying to use various endorsements to justify a non-mainstream record, especially on domestic issues.
I'll give you an example of that.
That's why he's holding out Jack Kemp as someone who vouches for his position on taxes, even though McCain is not a supply sider, like Jack Kemp is.
So he holds out, here he is, follow me on his endorsement of Jack Kemp, a supply sider who McCain is not, at the same time, holds out the endorsements of Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, who are huge tax and spend liberals in the Republican Party.
What are we to make of these endorsements?
Now, this, you know, this will all play out to the detriment of the McCain campaign, the GOP and the conservative movement.
Should he become the nominee?
These questions I'm asking are questions that are going to be raised after McCain wins the nomination.
We head down to the general election.
He's trying to be all things to all people now, even though we know by virtue of his record and what he does, not what he says, what he does.
He's a McCain Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Feingold, Republican.
And again, I ask: we know what Kennedy and Lieberman and Feingold got out of all that.
What did McCain get?
Or more precisely, with McCain-Kennedy, McCain, Lieberman, McCain-Feingold, we know what Kennedy-Lieberman-Feingold and the Democrats got out of that, and we know what McCain got out of it.
But what did the Republican Party get out of McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Feingold?
What did we get?
We got screwed.
Republican Party got the shaft, if you would prefer to put it that way.
Let's see.
Let me run a soundbite in here to take us up to the break.
We'll come back, and I promise, I promise.
You're getting impatient people out there on the phones, Mr. Sterling?
Oh, you are.
Okay, well, let me tell you this because this is from a hodgepodge of similar soundbites.
Carol Costello on CNN, who basically says that today is Super Doomsday for Rush Limbaugh.
This is from yesterday afternoon, the Situation Room of Wolf Blitzer.
We have a montage here of Carol Costello's report on McCain Talk Radio and Super Tuesday.
If you're John McCain, the talk on talk radio is pretty darn vile.
Super Tuesday is shaping up to be more like Super Doomsday for conservative talkers.
McCain will kill conservatism as a dominant force in the Republican Party.
They're pulling out all of their best auditory shots to hurt John McCain's candidacy, but they appear to be losing.
McCain, the man conservative talk hosts love to hate, owns the latest Republican poll of polls.
He gets 45% of likely Republican voters.
Mitt Romney gets 24%.
As you know, Mitt Romney is using all of this to campaign.
You know, the anti-John McCain rhetoric.
And I guess, Wolf, we may know tomorrow or maybe Wednesday if McCain will indeed be hurt by all the talk.
We'll see how influential they are among conservative Republicans.
And once again, even after all this time I spent on this yesterday and after all the detail I gave Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post today and he reported most of it verbatim.
Maybe I should read some of those quotes I gave Kurtz in case you haven't read the story.
But after all of that, they still don't get how I measure my success.
Wolf, you're talking about Bill Crystal and David Brooks and Fred Barnes and these people that are conservative pundits in the Beltway.
That's how they define their success.
Who wins elections and who implements the policy ideas they have?
I do not measure my success by who wins elections.
My success doesn't depend on that, as has been evidenced for the last 20 years.
They're never going to get it.
And I should stop trying to beat my head against the wall so that they do.
It's best remain a dirty little secret to them.
All right.
Now let me read to you from Howard Kurtz's piece of Washington Post today, Limbaugh on McCain.
It's better to be right all the time.
This is what I told him about.
He sent me some questions.
And one of the questions was, will you take this a personal setback if McCain wins?
Limbaugh dismissed the notion that a McCain win would be a personal setback for him.
My success is not determined by who wins elections, Limbaugh said.
Election officials, elected officials come and go.
I'm here for as long as I wish to stay.
Then I said to Howard Kurtz, yesterday it was Limbaugh versus Donovan McNabb.
Limbaugh versus Michael J. Fox.
Before that, it was Limbaugh versus Bill Clinton.
Tomorrow it'll be Limbaugh versus Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
And I note the media never applies this template to anyone else in the media.
Not to anyone in cable news, not to any of the endorsements of the major newspapers.
Why are the New York Times and the Washington Post not asked about the setback they both suffered when George Bush beat both their endorsed candidates in 2000 and 2004?
Then Kurtz puts this line in noted that McCain won Florida last week, even though Limbaugh broadcasts from Palm Beach.
What's that got to do with anything?
What does the fact that I broadcast from Palm Beach have anything to do with McCain winning for one?
Am I some sort of a favorite son candidate that got creamed or something?
No matter how many times I talk to these drive-by people, they hear it, but it doesn't permeate, penetrate.
They just are unable to process it.
All right, Daryl in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Thank you very much for waiting.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Thanks.
Yeah, this is Jarrell from Sacramento.
I've been missing to you since 1992 when Bush ran against Clinton the first time.
I appreciate that.
Anyway, I was just wondering if there's a good chance that John McCain's going to be the nominee tomorrow.
Are you going to be able to get behind him this November?
If it's a good chance McCain will be the nominee, am I going to be able to get behind him in November?
Yeah, sooner or later, I mean, will you come around?
And because out here we've got to see ABC anything but Clinton.
Anything but a Clinton.
We'll take anything, even Obama over at Clinton.
I understand that sentiment.
Yeah.
I understand that sentiment is very strong.
I understand that sentiment is making people look past what they might get instead of Clinton, which might be pretty much the same thing with some variations.
But yes, my decision on who to vote for in November is not going to be made tomorrow.
It's not going to be made tonight.
It's not going to be made in March, which is the point of saying it's a long campaign to go.
This quote that people have me that I said to Howard Kurtz is being misinterpreted because when I used the word if, I meant the future.
If down the road, I think that our candidate's going to be no different than Hillary Obama.
I'm just content to let the Democrats take the hit for the mess they're going to make of the country.
I stand by that, but I haven't made that decision now.
Who knows what's going to happen between now and November, regardless who wins the party nominations.
Thanks for the call, Daryl.
Bill in Shepherdsville, Kentucky.
It's great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Yes.
I'm a 40-year registered Democrat.
I'm not going to tell you I voted that way.
I'm one of those guys that you talk about all the time.
I guess you call them a moderate.
I'm stuck in the middle.
No, you're a Democrat.
You just said you're a Democrat.
No, no.
I voted Republican way more than I have Democrat.
And I've been a member of a union, and I have caught it more than once from guys I work with, but I vote my mind.
But I can tell you, I was telling the guy that when I called in, you need to quit whining, Samad.
I got this picture of all these hardcore Republicans that they call themselves conservatives.
And I have this picture in my mind with these guys standing around with black glasses on, little tape in the middle of them, whining and crying.
And if anything goes wrong, they run to their mama.
And that's they need to.
Who are you talking about there, Bill?
I don't know anybody like that.
Well, I hear these guys that call themselves conservatives crying so much.
They need to quit crying and go on the offensive.
Who's crying?
I hear these guys whining all the time about, you know, well, what's going on here and what's going on there?
I wouldn't go through this.
Quit whining about it and go after it.
Attack it.
What do you think?
Now, wait a minute.
Now, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
You think I'm one of the people crying?
I think you've gotten your tone of your voice has gotten on the defensive as well.
No, no, no, no.
I am on offense here like I haven't been in a long time.
I'm just.
Let me tell you, I'm rooting for you.
Now, you say I'm a registered Democrat.
I have been for years because I can't get nothing done in my area without it.
But I do go more towards the conservative end, but I'm not going to tell you I'm 100% conservative.
This global warming stuff, I am sick of this archaic carbon fuel technology that we're on.
It's time to get off of it.
Well, do you realize you got no option in the presidential race on that issue?
We've always got an option.
You do not have an option.
If Senator McCain is a nominee or Senator Clinton or Obama the nominee, you don't have an option.
They're all espousing the same stuff, the stuff you disagree with.
Not 100%.
Yes, 100%.
There's a difference between McCain and Obama and McCain and not on that issue.
This is what I'm trying to say.
You think I sound defensive.
I'm imploring people to pay attention.
I implore people to believe what I tell them on this.
I don't come behind this microphone and lie about things.
When you are not going to permit the drilling of oil in your own country, when you are going to start focusing on carbon footprints and carbon credits, you're going to accept the premise that the left puts forth that the United States is to blame for destroying the planet, which A isn't true, B isn't true, and you're going to adopt their solutions to fix it.
You're going to devastate the economy.
You're going to lose freedom.
You're going to lose some liberty.
You talk about drilling in this country.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
That is archaic thinking.
It's time to get off carbon fuels.
It's time to get off of it.
Our technology is here.
There's a wide open market for it, for the same technology.
Bill, I hate to disagree with you, but no, the time has not come to get off of carbon fuels or fossil fuels.
Whether you want to believe it or not, this is a world upon which freedom, democracy, and economic prosperity depend on one thing, oil.
There's nothing to replace it.
We're nowhere near having anything to replace it.
I hear people talk about the tyranny of oil.
If oil is some sort of a dirty word, it isn't.
It is a natural element, natural substance found in the planet.
The planet continues to make it.
We have put it to great use.
We are not destroying anything.
We're creating prosperity.
And there's nothing to replace it.
Let me tell you something.
They keep making airplanes, don't they?
They keep building bigger and bigger airplanes, and guys in the United Arab Emirates keep buying them and adding them to their fleets.
And I'll guarantee you this.
And they're ordering airplanes 30 years out in the future.
You've got to look at what people are doing and not what a bunch of empty suit people are saying.
The real world will tell you what's happening in the world of oil.
And if you're having people invest gazillions of dollars in equipment that runs on oil and its derivatives 30, 40 years down the road, you have to conclude that the people, especially the Middle East, you have to conclude they know they got enough.
There's plenty to fund the fuel these airplanes and everything else they need to do.
You can wish it away.
But you're dreaming.
Ideal in reality.
The politest and the most engaging of all hosts hosting big-time radio programs in the major media.
Doing what I was born to do.
Now, let me review our last call.
Nice guy from Kentucky.
What was his first name, Mr. Snerdley?
Forget his first name.
Very nice guy.
He's a Democrat, moderate, Republican.
He says a Democrat, but he got to be a Democrat to get things done there.
But he votes Republican.
Sometimes he's a moderate.
And he called essentially to whine about global warming after whining about whining.
Whining about fossil fuels now.
We know we've got to get rid of it.
Folks, you know, sometimes I think I'm just based in too much reality.
Sometimes I think the problems I have in communicating are not lack of skill, but rather some people are just out there, get all caught up in emotion and feeling.
And I don't get caught up in that stuff.
I get caught up in what is.
I live in the moment.
I'm not worried about next week because I have no clue what's going to happen.
And I don't tell myself I do know what's going to happen.
And I don't get caught up in touchy-feely new age things.
Oil is good.
Oil fuels our economy.
Oil fuels freedom.
Oil fuels democracy.
Oil keeps us warm in the winter, keeps us cool in the summer.
It enables us to travel.
It's used in manufacturing.
It creates jobs.
Thank God for oil, who, by the way, created it.
If not for oil, there would have been no Industrial Revolution.
If oil is this easily replaced, why hasn't it been done anywhere in the world?
Why hasn't oil been replaced?
It's so easy to replace it.
Why had it been done?
Because we're addicted to it, Rush.
Don't give me that.
That is pure sophistry.
It's like saying you're addicted to food.
It's like saying you're addicted to air.
It's like saying you're addicted to water.
We're addicted to oil.
If you want to live your life without oil and any of its derivatives, go ahead.
Show us the way.
You freeze at night like they did in Oklahoma when they lost power.
It was Bill in Shepherdsville, Kentucky.
Nice guy, but whiner.
Calling to accuse me of whining.
Dan in Manalapat, New Jersey.
Nice to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, how are you doing, Rush?
Great.
Never better.
Good.
Just call them to speak about your relevancy because the drive-bys seem to be pronouncing you dead already.
And I started listening to you in August.
I'm 29 years old.
I live in the liberal state of New Jersey.
When I was in high school, I was a Clinton supporter.
And now I see the light.
I understand just where they're coming from.
I'm not a socialist.
I don't want to go there.
That was the first thing I wanted to say, because now that I listen to you, I won't stop listening to you because I agree with what you have to say.
You make so much sense, it's ridiculous.
And something else I wanted to talk about was illegal immigration.
All right.
Here we have people saying that there are jobs out there that other people don't want.
Well, what I do for a living is I dig holes.
All right.
I just got a $9,000 bonus.
I dig holes.
I install lawn sprinklers.
All right.
And I have a foreman who is an illegal immigrant.
Okay.
And I was talking to him today.
I know what he makes.
He makes less than me, but he makes pretty good money.
He makes a little over $50,000 a year.
And you can't tell me that there isn't an American out there who, I mean, there's a lot of people who would love to be making $9,000.
It's fascinating you bring up illegal immigration here.
Isn't it?
It's fab.
Yes, there is because I have a story here, actually a commentary piece from today's Wall Street Journal by Rosa Rosales called Immigration Misfire.
You have provided me an excellent transition to it.
I appreciate your comments.
And you're right.
I make so much sense, it hurts, I think, a lot of people.
But here's, and you said something about the drive-bys and my relevancy.
Can I show you the hypocrisy of the drive-bys on this?
The drive-bys are going against their own errant logic when they say a McCain victory is the end of limbaugh.
Why?
They still cling to the flawed analysis that Bill Clinton beating me made the EIB network into the powerhouse that it is today.
Remember back in 1992, well, that's the end of Limbaugh, they said.
And then it mythologically became Limbaugh was made during the Clinton term, even though I started that term with 500 stations and ended it with 612.
They believe that Clinton made me.
So by the same token, audience grew during Clinton.
If they believe that I reached my height because of Clinton in office, they should logically, erroneously too, but they should logically conclude that a McCain victory will expand my audience yet again, right?
If the guy I oppose happens to win and that makes me, which is what they said about Clinton, then shouldn't they be writing, you know, Limbaugh secretly wants McCain to win because he knows his audience will skyrocket?
I mean, that's the kind of sheer idiocy we are dealing with here in Drive-By Analysis.
Now to this story.
Wall Street Journal.
It's entitled Immigration Misfire by Rosa Rosales.
Political pundits used to maintain, by the way, you have to understand a Wall Street Journal, big, big, big open borders people.
They have a lot of advertising from big agriculture.
They have ties to big agriculture.
Everybody does have ties to something.
Wall Street Journal, huge open borders crowd.
They were always in favor of McCain-Kennedy, the amnesty bill.
Well, not just in the news pages, but editorial pages as well.
Political pundits used to maintain, begins Ms. Rosales, that the American electorate was galvanized around the issue of illegal immigration.
Voters, they claimed, would punish any candidate who failed to take a tough stance in immigrants and did not adamantly oppose the amnesty word in all its tortured definitions.
Yet a funny thing happened in Iowa and in New Hampshire and South Carolina and Florida.
The most anti-immigrant candidates performed below expectations, and those accused of supporting amnesty and in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants won.
How is this possible, she writes?
How could John McCain, the author of the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill, beat Mitt Romney, who aired anti-illegal immigrant commercials more than 12,000 times in Iowa and New Hampshire alone?
Well, it turns out that 57% of Iowa primary voters actually favored earned citizenship for the undocumented.
In Florida, Romney's anti-illegal immigrant message led Cuban Americans to vote for McCain by a 5-1 margin.
Additionally, CNN exit polls showed that the Republicans who favored deportation for illegal immigrants constituted only 40% of the vote, while 58% favored either the temporary resident status or an earned pathway to citizenships.
Apparently, conservative voters respond to issues that impact their personal quality of life far more than they do racially polarized rhetoric designed to pit one group of Americans against it.
So here we go.
Once again, the open borders crowd is telling all of us who opposed amnesty that we're racists.
This in the form of the Wall Street Journal.
Now, let me ask Miss Rosalis this question.
If immigration is no longer a hot-button issue, why did Congress practically fall all over themselves to shut down any loophole that would have allowed illegals to get a rebate from the stimulus package?
The answer is they knew that if illegals got a rebate check in the stimulus package, it would torpedo the whole thing.
I have another suggestion as to why immigration might have borne itself out the way it did in these early primaries.
And this is an AP story from February 3rd, a couple of days ago.
Illegal immigrants leaving Arizona and Oklahoma.
They're going to Texas.
Illegal immigrants are coming into Texas, but not from where one might think.
The rush is coming from Arizona, Oklahoma, and other states, places that have recently passed tough new anti-illegal immigrant laws.
The two toughest measures are in Arizona and Oklahoma.
And I've got other stories like this.
When states pass and enforce tough laws, the problem changes.
And people are seeing some change take place because the states are getting in gear on this.
And it's, you know, this whole open borders crowd is doing everything it can to discredit all of those who fought successfully the immigration bill.
And let's take this a little further and let's take Mr. O'Sala's piece to the presidential campaign.
McCain now says he gets it.
That we were right.
We need border security first and all that.
He says if the bill came back before his desk again, though, he would sign it.
But he said we're past that point.
But he would sign amnesty if it came across his desk as president.
So McCain's out there saying he gets it.
He understands now how fervently anti-amnesty people are.
That we were right on border security.
We're going to do border security first.
They don't even acknowledge the facts on the ground now.
They're obsessed with amnesty and open borders and they're writers for big ag here at the Wall Street Journal.
But the point of this is, the point of this is, is that McCain's supporters don't even believe what he's telling voters now.
They know he supports amnesty and open borders, and that's why they support him.
When the truth, when the rubber hits the road, these people of the journal and everywhere else think that when it comes down to it again, McCain will get it done, will get amnesty done.
They haven't given up on this.
I told you they haven't given up on it.
They're not going to give up on it.
They don't even believe McCain's denials on this.
If they did, they would be railing against him like they rail against us.
But they're not.
That's why the New York Times supports Senator McCain.
They know he's blowing smoke when he talks about taxes and border security now.
The New York Times is endorsing the liberal John McCain, the McCain who hates the Republican Party and doesn't have much love for conservatives.
And you would not be wrong in thinking that they also support him because they think Hillary can beat him.
I mean, it's a win-win as far as the New York Times and the Washington Post are concerned.
Imagine this.
I told you this yesterday.
Some of you out there, you go nuts when the media loves what we do because you've been looking for approval from the wrong place.
You've been looking for approval from the mainstream media.
Hey, Rush.
And I get calls like not so many anymore, but you used to get a lot of calls.
I saw the mainstream media they finally Why do you care what they say?
Do you understand they're never, ever going to be us?
And if you rely on the mainstream media for your own validation, you're going to forever be disappointed.
But I guess there still lingers a hope and a desire that the mainstream media will love us.
And maybe it is that people think, my gosh, even the media love McCain.
Why this is fabulous?
It's good to be on the side to media love.
Let me ask you a question, ladies and gentlemen.
How would, how do you think the Democrats react if, say, a conservative publication endorsed Hillary?
If a, if, if.
What if we ended up picking the Democrat nominee?
What do you think their reaction would be?
The Democrat react, you want Hillary?
Oh, wow.
They would know we wouldn't have their best interests at heart.
They would think, oh my gosh, they think they can beat Hillary.
Okay, they want Hillary.
The idea that we should let the drive-by media, which is a bunch of libs, pick our nominee, is as absurd as suggesting the Democrats would let us pick theirs.
Another question for you anti-oil people out there.
If another big government program can find a substitute for oil, why didn't a brilliant Bill Clinton do it back in the 90s along with a brilliant Al Gore?
Sometimes, you know, folks, it's tough.
It's tough for me to maintain my composure in the face of certain kinds of ignorance.
Well, it is.
You've heard me say it, the most expensive thing we pay for in this country is ignorance.
Because of ignorance, Hillary Clinton's viable.
Hillary Clinton's the least qualified, has no business being anywhere near the Democrat Party nominee, nowhere near it for any of the right reasons.
Zilch, zero nuta.
For that matter, neither is Obama.
But Obama's got this soaring, JFK-like, totally vapid, vapid rhetoric.
It makes me feel so good, right?
Fine.
I'm going to feel good, enjoy it while it lasts till he gets elected.
What?
What now, Snerdley?
I am, Snerdley keeps, you keep underestimating the value of hope.
No, I, you know, I don't, but this is, I guess this is going to perhaps rub people the wrong way.
And I don't like rubbing people the wrong way.
I really don't.
I'd like to rub you the right way.
I don't like being rubbed the wrong way.
There's a specific way to do it that I like.
I wouldn't want it done wrongly, incorrectly.
I'm underestimating the value of hope, did you say?
What are you hoping for right now, Mr. Snerdley?
What are you hoping for?
I mean, if you're going to talk to me about hope, how much time a day do you spend hoping?
And for what do you hope?
By the way, any of you on the phones want to try to answer this question, we get to what?
Tell me what you're hoping for.
What do you hope for?
You're hoping for a better country.
Okay, you were hoping for a better country.
You think I'm not?
No, I'm not hoping for it.
I'm trying to create it.
I'm trying to make it happen.
What are we hoping for?
I want it.
Hope, you don't look at the definition of hope.
Hope is, you know, it's valid.
It's a valid emotion.
You can't avoid it.
We all have...
Gee, I hope the plane's on time.
Jeez.
I hope, I hope my refund check arrives next week to pay off my subprime sub-loan so I can go out and get my new refrigerator.
I hope.
Hope is the stepchild of sympathy.
It's like sympathy.
You have sympathy for somebody.
Like I'm looking at Bob Beckelray.
I feel terribly sorry for him that he's where he is.
He's irrelevant to the Democrat Party.
But what good is that going to do him, my feeling sorry for him?
Or what good is anybody feeling sorry for me going to do my after you get that out of the way?
Then where are you?
I know that the liberals rely on hope.
They rely totally on emotion.
They're hoping for a better country.
They live in the best damn country in the history of the human race.
They don't have the ability to find it, see it, maximize it, participate in it, grow it.
They're hoping for something else.
They just want to get noticed.
Hope is the logical extension of people who think they don't matter to anything.
And a lot of people don't like not mattering.
Everybody wants to have meaning in their lives.
And so, if you hope for good things, if you hope for a better country, I matter because I care, because I hope for a better country.
What are you doing to create it?
You think we're going to get a better country by electing Hillary or Obama?
Your hope will lead you to a disastrous choice.
So Brian says to me, I hope a lot of conservatives show up and vote and they say, okay, what good is your hope to that outcome?
What does hope mean to that?
▲
Export Selection