All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
February 6, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
By the way, Mike, we'll start at the top of the audio sound by Snerdley, get in here.
Get in here.
I had to talk him off the ledge today.
I have never seen such a droopy posture in my life.
Jeez, oh, man, I mean, get in here.
Sit down and start answering the phones.
800-282-2882.
You want to do phone calls?
Sure, I'm going to take phone calls today.
We're going to do a lot of stuff today.
We've got all kinds of stuff today.
800-282-2882 is the phone number.
The email address, Rush, at EIBNet.com, or El Rushbo.
I'm sorry, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
We do have a lot to do.
Guess what?
My buddy Rosso won the town council election yesterday, won it by 55 votes.
Huge, huge bash to celebrate the victory up at Trevini here on Palm Beach.
And Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney lost everything south of Jefferson City in Missouri except Cape Girardea County.
You look on the bright side here, folks.
I've got the audio soundbite roster.
Let me just give you a sample.
You grab soundbite number one.
Diane Sawyer, this is last night during ABC's Decision 2008 coverage early in the night.
There is, according to a lot of people, an independent primary taking place, and it is the primary of Rush Limbaugh.
The primary of Rush Limbaugh.
It gets even better than this as we go through the soundbites of coverage last night.
Couple things here, folks.
It is being reported.
I saw this at freerepublic.com.
The freepers are on the case on this.
Reports are rolling in at talk radio stations in San Diego about a whole bunch of Republican vote suppression.
You realize the, by the way, this is not sour grapes.
I'm just telling you what's being reported out there.
The exit polls, again, were just off the charts wrong.
Off the charts.
Drive-by media, look at their conventional wisdom that they get wrong.
The drive-by conventional wisdom was that Hillary was inevitable.
It should go skate through.
But the Republicans are going to head to a brokered convention.
It looks just the opposite.
It looks like we've got our nominee and maybe even our VEEP.
Some people think that McCain is going to have to choose Huckabee because if you look at what McCain won last, it's interesting.
The Washington Post on their website has maps.
Both Republican and Democrat states won delegate totals both on Super Tuesday in total.
And what Huckabee did last night in the South has stunned everybody because he spent about four bucks and he just swept through the South.
The real story last night, Bo, is not that McCain or that Huckabee won in the South.
The story is that McCain didn't win the South.
It's not that Huckabee did because Huckabee is not going to be the nominee.
McCain, for all intents and purposes, is the nominee.
Now, it's not over.
Nothing can happen.
But for all intents and purposes, McCain is the nominee.
And the fact that he did not win the South is important.
The reason is simple.
He's not strong in the South, and Republicans cannot win.
The White House cannot win a presidential race without winning in the South.
And McCain demonstrated he can't do that last night unless he puts the huckster on the ticket as the Veep.
I say huckster, not in a definitional nickname thing.
We like Huckabee here.
Don't misunderstand.
The point is, and a huckster may be thinking that he's in line for VEEP, but if he is, he doesn't know the real John McCain.
Well, we deal in reality here, Mr. Snerdley.
Snurdly, just answer the phones.
Just answer, let me handle a program.
You just answer the phones.
This is how you open.
Doesn't it appear to you?
I mean, it looks at McCain as a nominee now.
He's got a delegate head start.
Romney's going to have to run the table.
Romney is going to have to run the table to pull this off.
And I, you know, also note, by the way, that the Clinton, now, this is rumored.
It's not established here, but the Clintons apparently are digging into their own personal wealth to fund Hillary's campaign.
Howard Wolfson was asked about this today and said he didn't know, but there are rumors that this is happening.
I'm thinking maybe of doing a fundraiser.
Don't know if this is true.
We'll follow up and find out if it is.
Look, here's the thing of McCain.
He can't win conservatives in the South by virtue of this primary yesterday.
Small mountain states, most other places.
In fact, McCain's big margins of victory were states like California, New York, New Jersey, these places.
They're going to vote Democrat no matter who is the Democrat nominee, no matter who the Republican nominee is.
So all these big states that McCain won, they're good for delegate totals, but in terms of translating to a national victory, you know that Republicans or that voters in those states are going to elect Democrats.
Whoever it is, Hillary or Obama.
These blue states are going to be what McCain won last night are places that has no chance in November.
And that is the big story to me.
So therefore, it would depend on who McCain selects as his vice president.
And that's why people today are suggesting that it might be Huckabee.
We also learned that the Kennedys aren't as strong as the media make them out to be, and neither really are the Clintons.
I mean, what of Ted Kennedy's influence and John Kerry's influence?
I mean, Hillary wins Massachusetts.
Kennedy home turf.
And Ted Kennedy is in the political business.
And of course, Diane Sawyer did not say that we had an independent primary taking place tonight, the primary of Ted Kennedy.
No other endorsers are held up to this kind of scrutiny except yours truly, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, and humiliation, El Rushbo.
Also, from Free Republic, just this morning, Republicans for Choice endorsed John McCain.
This is what they say.
Our first choice, Rudy Giuliani, did not win.
He ran a campaign with a risky strategy.
It didn't work, but our number two choice did win, John McCain.
McCain in second in a survey of our membership, Republicans for Choice.
They further say that while McCain is personally pro-life, he has time and again reached out and worked with people across the spectrum.
We know we can work with him to create common ground on abortion that will allow moderate and conservatives to come together to rebuild the GOP.
Republicans for Choice joins with Rudy Giuliani in asking our supporters to consider McCain as they go vote over the next few weeks.
McCain's a true American hero, strong in consistent values.
He'll provide the leadership.
It'll rebuild America's confidence in itself and among our allies worldwide.
And they think they're going to be able to work with him on abortion.
Dawn's nodding her head, and they probably are right.
We have some in-depth analysis on all of this.
You know, as you people know over the past couple weeks, I have, well, you may not have detected it, but I have been in a struggle with myself here to properly explain my problems with Senator McCain.
He is beyond issues and so forth.
And I think I've gotten close to it, and I will share that with you as the program unfolds.
We also have some hilarious audio sound bites from the coverage last night of the election returns.
And let me just give you some of the headlines here in the McCain stack.
McCain, I can work with Democrats.
That's a plus for him, which is something that we know that he can work with Democrats.
The problem is that he doesn't want to really work with Republicans.
Now, he said in his acceptance speech last night that he wants to go out and establish his conservatism and so forth.
The New York Times, this is hilarious.
New York Times editorial.
I just want to read to you a couple of paragraphs here.
Among the Republicans, as Mr. McCain has pulled ahead, he has been shrilly attacked by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who have said they'd rather lose the White House than have a nominee who doesn't pass all their litmus tests.
I never said that.
Ann might have.
I have not said that.
Anyway, let me start again.
That's not the point I wanted to make here.
Among the Republicans, as Mr. McCain pulled ahead, he has been shrilly attacked by Rush Limbaugh and Coulter, who have said that he'd rather lose the White House than have a nominee who does not pass all their litmus tests.
That is not the way democracy is supposed to work, writes the New York Times.
Their claim that Mr. McCain is not a conservative based largely on his willingness to actually talk to Democrats is ludicrous, but it's damaging to a party bloodied by eight years of the politics of George Bush and Karl Rove.
So the way I interpret this is the New York Times, just because he talks to Democrats doesn't mean he isn't conservative.
Well, he does more than talk to Democrats.
He gets in league with them.
And this is essential to understand that the New York Times, the House organ of American liberalism, considers democracy to be fully flowered and functioning when Republicans cave against their own beliefs and their own party and join with them.
So they got a one-way definition of democracy, and they've got a one-way definition of bipartisanship and a one-way definition of progress.
And anybody who is opposed to Republicans caving to Democrats is called shrill.
Well, I'm honored.
I'll adopt that as my new middle name.
Before we get to the in-depth analysis here, on both sides, by the way, fascinating.
I mentioned the Washington Post map on the Republican side, showing McCain winning the blue states that will not vote Republican in November, and Huckabee winning some states that Republicans have to have in order to win the presidency.
If you look at the Democrat side of things, you know how many, I mean, the percentage of the white vote that went to Obama is huge.
And where that white vote is was it's in the South.
Southern white people voted Obama, folks.
Major, major shift in the, you know, the tried and true Northeast elite whites, they went for Madam Clinton.
So we're going to get into all this in further detail.
Let's go to PMS NBC, otherwise known as DNC-TV.
Hardball with Chris Matthews.
Talking to Howard Feynman of Newsweek and somebody named Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Voice.
Matthews says, it just seems to me that McCain has two ways to win.
Huckabee wins or he wins, and that's fine with him.
The big fear for McCain is that he won't be able to unite the party, that even if he does well tonight, that whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Dr. James Dobson or whatever, or Rick Santorum, that this will be a rejectionist front that will just stay out there and live off the land and fight against him all the way through election day.
Sometimes conservative activists get in a mood where they prefer to lose.
They prefer to lose.
Yes.
That's what they want to do.
They make it a lot of fun.
Yes, I just think that's so true, Michelle.
I think these guys like Rush Limbaugh, who I think is a great professional of what he does, would love to be the government in exile, have a Democrat like Hillary Clinton, especially Hillary Clinton, as president, and he could go, he'd be in heaven for four years, putting her in hell.
We're back to this.
I'm not going to be.
Last night from the ABC, it was the primary of Rush Limbaugh.
Now they say I want to lead a government in exile.
And that I really want to lose.
I really want Hillary there because that's how I make my career.
I'm going to tell you again what my fear is here, folks.
My fear is that in order to keep from losing, leaders of our party will go out and try to get as many liberals and moderates, which is the same thing, to join our party as liberals and moderates, and in the process, water down the Republican Party and essentially change it.
In fact, Tony Blankley writes about this.
Tony Blankley used to be the Washington Times.
Might still be, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure where this piece is from, but it is published today.
Let me just give you the last third of this.
So the mischievous gremlins and elves inside the wheel of history have served up John McCain to lead Ronald Reagan's party into November battle.
McCain is both the finest war hero since Eisenhower to run for president and the one senior Republican who has gleefully put his thumb in the eyes of his fellow Republicans and conservatives for a decade and a half.
He is the apostate leader of a party tending toward ossified orthodoxy.
Conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh worry with good cause that this fluke of Republican history might permanently deflect the course of the party away from conservatism.
And that's precisely what I have been trying to say.
Not that I want to lose so I can get Hillary in there and cause her grief to my benefit.
Not that at all.
I've not even said that I want Hillary to win.
Others have said it.
It has been misreported, misunderstood that I have said that.
Anyway, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh worry with good cause that this fluke of Republican history might permanently deflect the course of the party away from conservatism.
And indeed, we came to power in the party through in part a fluke of history.
In the nomination fight of 1964, in which Tony Blankley was a youth coordinator for Goldwater in California, Goldwater had been running even or behind all spring.
He lost New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, West Virginia, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
He won Illinois, Texas, Indiana, Nebraska, some caucus states.
We were losing the decisive California primary until a few days before the vote when Nelson Rockefeller's new young second wife, Happy, gave birth to little Nelson Jr., reminding social conservatives of his previous presumed adultery.
Goldwater won the California primary by a thin 2%.
And we went on to the Cow Palace Convention in San Francisco in 1964, where we Goldwaterites and Rockefeller exchanged vulgar, angry epithets.
Rockefeller, Mitt Romney's dad, George, and other moderates refused to support Goldwater.
Some moderates formed Republicans for Lyndon Johnson all the way back in 1964.
Would we conservatives have taken over the party if Goldwater had lost that California primary?
Perhaps we had history's wind at our backs anyway, but I remember being very grateful at the timing of young Nelson Jr.'s birth.
History is made of such things.
If we conservatives sit on our hands this November, as moderates did 44 years ago, will we marginalize ourselves within the party as the old Romney moderates did?
Or will we be saving the party for the grand old cause?
Let's watch McCain's next moves.
That's Tony Blank.
Essentially, folks, he's saying the same thing happened in 1964, except reverse it.
The conservatives were taking over the party.
The moderates got all their nose bit out of joint, and they said, screw you, Goldwater, and screw you.
And they sat around, and you know what happened?
Reagan goes out, delivers that campaign speech for Goldwater, and essentially Reagan took over the party after Goldwater's landslide defeat.
But that gave birth to conservatism as the base of the Republican Party.
Jump forward to today, where the moderates are taking back over.
They're trying to take charge.
They have.
They have succeeded.
The moderates in our party pay no price for sabotaging the party.
They join Democrats.
They come up with legislation that grows government, that places government in charge of everybody's lives more than ever, spends more money like crazy.
I mean, I hear McCain talk about being a deficit hawk.
Wait till you hear how much his global warming plan with Lieberman is going to cost you.
Far more than Clinton's proposed carbon tax increase in 1993.
But anyway, I jump ahead of myself.
Point is, we have moderates in our party who want to claim they're conservatives.
They are free to jump across the aisle.
They get praised for it.
They not only get praised for it, they pay no price in their own party for it.
So it has changed dramatically.
So the question for conservatives, no, is the same question that the moderates in San Francisco faced in 1964.
Sit out and let these guys die in a landslide and take over, or get involved in unifying all.
They sat out and the conservatives, even in a landslide defeat, took over.
So the question is, do we conservatives sit out?
And nobody's seriously talking about it, but some people are.
But just theoretically, now hypothetically, do we sit out on the theory that, all right, you guys, you moderates are going to destroy this party.
You're going to change it forever.
Conservative base is gone.
We sit out and have a landslide loss.
And what happens then?
Does a landslide loss re-empower conservatives, or does it, as in 64, empower the losers?
And that's why Blankly says we got to watch McCain's next moves to get some sort of an indication.
I think I already know, but we'll be back.
All right, we're back.
And despite it all, folks, we're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Snurdly still steaming over my reference to the possible vice presidential nomination by McCain of Huckabee.
Look at others are saying it.
I don't presume to know what's going to happen here.
Other than this, I think if Huckabee thinks he's going to be Veep, he better be prepared.
He's going to be thrown overboard once McCain's finished with him.
I mean, that's a history of things.
But McCain's going to need somebody to help him pick up these votes in the South that he didn't get.
Do you know, folks, I looked at some of the exit poll data.
Do you know in the Republican primaries yesterday that a full 75% of the voters were Republican?
Isn't that amazing?
What a swell turnout that was.
75% of the voters in the Republican primary were actual Republicans.
We are making headway, are we not?
My point is, it's not only are Republicans changing the Republican, not only Republicans crossing the aisle, working with Democrats, getting praised for doing it, paying no price for it, paying no price for undermining their own party.
They're getting praised for it.
And their own party is not upset and making them pay any kind of a price for it.
And it's even people who are not Republicans are getting away with this, as evidenced by the fact that 75% of our primary voters were Republicans.
Tom Brokaw, this is on Super Tuesday coverage on NBC last night.
He must be a website subscriber.
He must subscribe to Rush 24-7 because the last two or three mentions he has made of me, it's been things that he's read on my website.
I was looking at Rush Limbaugh's website today, and he has a picture of John McCain surrounded by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani.
And the caption says, it's pretty plain that John McCain likes to surround himself with liberals.
Now, I don't think either Rudy Giuliani or Arnold Schwarzenegger will be invited to be a groomsman at a Jane Ponda wedding.
I don't think that they're going to fit into that category.
We've seldom seen the Republican Party, as I've been saying this evening, in such disarray.
Yes, you have.
It's common.
But the guess thinks I went too far calling McCain a lib.
Anyway, let's go to the phones.
Suzanne, nice to have you.
Hagerstown, Maryland.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Listen, I don't think the media gets it.
I don't think these Republican pundits get it.
I'm 50 years old.
I've been a Republican since I was a child because my mother was a Republican Party precinct leader.
And I have never voted in a federal election for anybody but the Republican candidate.
Not because they were Republican, but because they were conservative.
I cannot vote for John McCain.
I don't care what he says between now.
Why not?
Why not?
You know, I hear so many people say, why not?
Because as Thomas Sowell so well put it, you know, people are looking at, he betrayed us.
You know, Hillary and Obama can go out there and be liberal and say what they are.
He said he was one of us.
And then, because he lost an election, he turned around, and because he hated Bush, you know, he hates, he always has to hate somebody, he hated us.
He hated the conservatives.
He hated the Christian right.
He turned around and slapped us over and over and over again.
He twice wanted to leave the party.
And now the Republicans have the audacity to ask me, a person who has supported them, given them money, given them time, to support this man.
I'm not going to do it.
I don't care what he says.
He can reincarnate Reagan and run with him.
I will not vote for this man for president.
And this hurts.
This is a hard thing to come to the Philippines.
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.
Are you just going to get a vote?
Are you going to go out there and vote for the Democrats?
At this point, I'm not going to vote.
If I think McCain can win, I will vote for the Democrat.
Because I do not want him as a representative of all the things Republicans have fought for.
In Russia, I'm not the only one.
I have talked, well, nobody in my family.
I mean, I know a lot of my husband, his wife, my cousin, my grown children.
This is nobody gets this.
You know, Thomas Sowell wrote a piece last week, and he said something which I think is really profound.
What was that?
And that was that Benedict Arnold was a war hero, too, before he betrayed his country.
Tom McCain.
I didn't see that.
Yes, he wrote an article called McCain's Straight Lies.
He didn't say it exactly like that, but what he said was that, you know, and this war hero stuff, when is the Vietnam War going to end?
You know, I'm tired of it.
For God's sake, it's 2008.
Can we move on?
You know, well, the Vietnam stuff is purposely up front to help obscure the problems in Senator McCain's record.
I mean, that story is there to cover up or to relegate to insignificance in terms of this primary race McCain's record on things.
So that's why it's there.
And of course, the media lovely.
What has he done since then?
I mean, that's the point.
You know, everybody gives him a pass.
And it's just, it, you know, I don't know at what point, how much they think we're going to take.
You know, they called me for money last week, you know, and I told them, you know, no way.
Let me ask you a question.
Can you name the chairman of the Republican National Committee?
Currently?
Who?
You mean right now?
Yeah, National Committee.
No, I can't.
I know.
I can't.
Can you name the chairman of the Democrat National Committee?
Yeah, Dean.
Right.
No, it's not Martinez.
Martinez is a figurehead.
There's an actual chairman of Democrat or Republican National Committee.
I don't know who it is either.
Oh, I was going to say.
I would have to look it up.
I know.
You know what?
I may actually.
No, it doesn't matter.
You don't know it.
That's the point.
No, no, because it wasn't made here.
I was just trying to illustrate a point.
They're not on the field.
No.
And that's what you're right.
What are they going to lose?
Not only are they going to lose the presidency, they're going to lose down ballot.
I mean, it's bad now.
And what my fear is in all of this, you know, is that there's not going to be anybody that's going to put up a fence.
There's not even going to be anybody fighting for it.
I mean, McCain's more likely to build a bridge than a fence.
There's not going to be any, and the people voting for Huckabee.
Listen, I'm a Christian.
I'm Catholic, so I'm Christian right.
Those people that voted for Huckabee, I understand because he's an evangelical and they want one of us and they have been spit upon.
But the problem is, is they not only threw their vote away, they threw away all their power.
Because believe me, I have a theory about that.
I have a theory about that.
Look, Suzanne, I appreciate it.
I'm getting close to break time.
I got a robot.
I love your passion.
You've led me here.
You've transitioned me here into some of my in-depth analysis.
As far as the regional vote, what's being called the regional vote, the southern vote for Huckabee, there are a number of things that go into this.
And one of the things that I think is relevant here is, in fact, geography, the southern component, the regionalism of Huckabee being an Arkansas governor.
Second thing, of course, is the evangelical vote.
And I think you heard the anger from Suzanne, and she said that she is Catholic.
She's Christian, so she thinks she's Christian right.
But I think there's starting to be in the Republican Party sort of an equivalence between blacks in the Democrat Party and evangelicals in the Republican Party in this sense.
And we've looked at blacks for 50 years.
They keep voting for Democrats.
The Democrats do nothing but destroy their families.
They do nothing to increase their economic circumstances.
They do nothing to redress the grievances, and yet the blacks keep voting for them on the basis of the promise and the notion that Republicans are racist, sexist, bigots, homophobes are going to really make them be bad.
So they keep hanging with the Democrats and nothing changes.
Evangelicals, since 1973, have stuck with Republicans, basically on the promise, we're going to do something about abortion.
We're going to fix the cultural rot that's going on in this country.
We're going to make sure they're in any gay marriage.
We're going to stop this overall lurch to depravity that's occurring in our culture.
And the Republican candidates have all said, I'm your man.
We're going to do that.
And they make the right speeches, but nothing's really changing on it.
And so they, the evangelicals, are a little bit, you know, sharper to a little bit quicker to realize when they're being taken for granted.
And so their votes is, look, we're going to go with one of ours.
At least we can trust this guy.
Plus, we do hate the IRS.
You haven't heard us.
You keep promising tax reform, not tax cuts, tax reform.
And every year it gets harder and harder for us to file our taxes.
And we're paying more and more, and we can't get ahead because of taxes.
And this guy wants to get rid of the IRS.
So, bam, you've had it.
And they're voting for their guy.
They're voting for Huckabee.
I think it's genuine support for Huckabee.
I think the IRS factor is a big deal in his support.
And of course, I've got enough email to know this too.
There are a whole host of reasons that make up this vote.
But you also have in certain evangelicals just no stomach whatsoever for Mormons.
You know, just all of these things.
It's not just one thing.
It's not one.
It's all these things combined that I think explain the regionalism, Huckabee being from Arkansas, being one of them, dissatisfaction with all the false promises that have come from Republicans, just the lip service, opportunity to vote for one of their own finally who will not take them for granted because he is one of them.
Getting rid of the IRS is huge.
I'm telling you, it is.
And then, of course, the Mormon factor.
So you throw all these things together.
And it explains why McCain is not.
Well, look at it.
I got an analysis here from John Judas, New Republic, a lib who won Super Tuesday.
Hard to say.
You put a gun to my head, I'd say McCain and very slightly Hillary.
But the elections reveal weaknesses in McCain and in both the leading Democrat candidates.
McCain blunted Romney, but he failed consistently to win over conservative voters.
He's not getting them.
Hillary Clinton won the big states, so she had to win, and she arrested Obama's momentum.
But she's going to have problems with white male voters.
Obama's having trouble with white working class voters and Latinos.
And he goes on to run this down.
McCain failed to win a majority of Republicans.
McCain beat Romney in California, and that's the end of Romney.
But McCain continues to depend on moderate, non-evangelical Republicans or his victories.
In California, conservatives made up 62% of the primary electorate.
McCain won 30% of them.
In Tennessee, 73% of the voters were conservatives.
McCain won 22%.
In Missouri, 65% were conservatives.
McCain won 25%.
In these states, California, Tennessee, Missouri, McCain failed to win a majority of Republicans.
And he might face a revolt of those conservatives in the fall.
They're not going to vote for a Democrat.
They might not vote at all.
You just heard one of them on the phone from Maryland.
This is John Judas in the New Republic and his analysis today.
Be right back, folks, after this.
Wow.
Folks, I have to say, Suzanne from Hagerstown, Maryland.
Suzanne, you have launched a nuke.
I am being inundated with emails from friends, from subscribers of Rush 24-7.
She is speaking my language.
She is right.
Could we please get past Vet Nam?
She is so right about what's going to happen down the ballot.
The Republican Party in my state, pick your state, is non-existent.
If all this is true, what do you think the reason for this is, folks?
Why all of this anger/slash apathy?
And I got a theory.
It's because the conservatives are the base of this party, and they have been told to suck an egg for all these years, and they have been told, just get over it when we make deals with liberals on their terms, just get over it.
We have been told all these years, just get over it.
We're going to grow the government along with the Democrats because we believe in active government to get our agenda done.
That's one of the keys, by the way, in my upcoming in-depth analysis to explain what's happening here, in large measure on the Republican side.
And it's a sad thing to have to realize.
There are too many in our party who have, we know the liberals are who they are, and we know the Democrats are who they are.
There are too many on our side who have simply succumbed to the notion that government's the end-all, government's the answer, government should do this on global warming, government should do that on people being obese, government should do that on the price of heating oil.
Government, too many people on our side have bought into this, and the reason for it, ironically, I think, is, well, not the reason.
I think one of the factors is that we have promoted an active government in dealing with the war.
Now, that's constitutional.
That's one of government's jobs, the military, defending and protecting the country and the Constitution.
And in the process of speaking out in favor of executive power, presidential power to do these kind of things in the war, the message has been sent that maybe government should do other things too.
Of course, it's been creeping.
It's not just that.
It's been creeping 50 years since FDR and liberalism.
I don't have time to fully develop this now, but I'm going to in the next hour.
And I think this is not something that's subliminal with Republicans.
I mean, those of us who identified with Suzanne from Hagerstown, we see all this stuff and it frusts us.
And it doesn't make any sense.
We're not the party of big government.
We're not the party of an active big government.
We're not the party that says, in order to exist, we have to prostrate ourselves, get on the floor, and let Democrats run all over us.
We are not the party that says, in order for ourselves to be viable, we've got to deal with them on their terms, and that way we can be called adults.
And we're sick and tired of now the people who seem to be triumphing in our party being precisely those people who are selling the party out in terms of its ideology, all for the sake of being part of a growing government, a bigger government in which there are a lot more positions of power to be dispensed by the people that win elections and dole those positions out.
And you couple that with the tax bite, all of the frustrating things that are happening economically.
We see so many Republicans who are just their tongues hitting the floor, so excited, signing on to this global warming hoax.
And we know why they're doing it because a majority, they think a majority of the American people think that it's something to deal with.
And so that's democracy, Mr. Limblow.
We're elected officials.
We got to do what the people want.
No, if it's wrong, it's wrong and you tell them so instead of caving and capitulating.
And it's caving and capitulating.
It's got everybody's noses out of joint today.
I hear you.
Two senior Church of England bishops called today, yesterday actually, for people in the UK to cut back on carbon for Lent.
▲
Export Selection