All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 11, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:25
February 11, 2008, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, here we are.
Back at it, ladies and gentlemen, after a brief timeout there at the top of the hour, Rush Limbaugh, and the most listened to Radio Talk Show in America, a program growing by leaps and bounds.
Our telephone number, if you would like to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the new email address is L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Well, conservative icon Paul Wyrick has just announced his endorsement of Mike Huckabee.
Paul Weyrick is the uh chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
He was also there at the start-up in the beginning of the Heritage Foundation.
He uh, by the way, joins Dobson now, James Dobson, who has endorsed uh Governor Huckabee as well.
He says, I believe the voters in this Republican nomination contest here in Virginia and across the country deserve a real choice.
Governor Huckabee is clearly the conservative alternative.
He is the best choice, he is my choice.
So I am voting for Governor Huckabee on Tuesday here in Virginia.
Uh Mr. Weirick says I don't buy the idea that John McCain's a true conservative, nor do I buy the idea that Mike Huckabee should get out of this contest.
The people in the Potomac area, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
In addition, we have many important states coming up, including my home state of Wisconsin.
Folks in all those states deserve a choice, a real choice.
I had been a supporter of Mitt Romney, but now I'm very glad that Governor Huckabee's decided to stay in the race.
I appreciate that he's staying in, just as I appreciate that Governor Huckabee and Senator McCain are not going at each other's throats.
A vigorous debate about important issues is the healthiest thing possible for the Republican Party.
By voting for Governor Huckabee, people will be telling Senator McCain and the Republican Party establishment that they better accommodate these conservatives and their heartfelt beliefs, or else the GOP will not be able to win the general election in November.
Like Governor Huckabee, I have great respect for Senator McCain, but he and his Republican Party backers have to make sure that they accommodate the base of the Republican Party.
So Paul Weyrick now joins James Dobson and endorses Mike Huckabee as a four president of the United States.
And isn't this interesting?
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution uh yesterday.
Is John McCain giving fit for the presidency a new meaning, or are the tales about his temper overblown?
This is not me.
This is not me, and maybe you don't want me to be telling you about this, because it's gonna harm McCain candidates.
I said last hour, folks.
If I really really wanted a torpedo, a little naval term there, if I really wanted to torpedo the McCain candidacy, I would endorse him.
Full throated, passionate, vigorous, energetic.
In doing so, I would send the moderates and the independents and the liberals that plan on voting for him scurrying back to their real home in the Democrat Party.
At any rate, so this is the Atlanta Urinal Constipation, raising questions about McCain's temper, quoting various people about his temper.
James Dobson, Stephen Greenhunt of the Orange County Register, he's a libertarian columnist.
Pat Buchanan, who says uh McCain will look make Cheney look like Gundy.
Uh they quote Thad Cochrane.
They quote the um Economist of London, a prickly patriot.
And they also quote Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, who knows McCain and by the way, loves McCain.
And here's what Norman Ornstein said is in this uh Atlanta paper.
I've seen the temper.
It doesn't particularly trouble me.
He gets angry from time to time and erupts, but it goes away there right away.
This whole thing has been overstated and twisted by his adversaries.
What really matters here is how quickly does it blow over.
Bill Clinton has a legendary temper, but he lashes out and then it's over.
I don't think that in any way affected his ability to govern.
So now I'm just telling you this story of the Atlanta urinal and constipation.
Raising questions about Senator McCain's temper.
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, the host Chris Wallace interviewed President Bush.
And they had this exchange.
Rush Limbaugh says that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party.
Ann Coulter says she would vote for Hillary Clinton because she is more of a conservative than McCain is.
What do you think of that kind of talk?
I think that uh if John's a nominee, he has got some convincing to do uh to convince people that he is a solid conservative.
And I'd be glad to help him if he is a nominee.
Why he is a conservative.
Look, he's very strong on national defense.
He's tough fiscally.
He believes that tax cuts ought to be permanent.
He's pro-life.
I mean, he's uh his principles are sound and solid as far as I'm concerned.
And then on CNN's late edition with Wolf Blitzer, uh he had John Boehner of the House of Representatives.
Blitzer said, Rush Limbaugh has said to McCain will kill conservatism as a dominant force in a Republican Party.
Do you agree, Mr. Leader?
Wolf, I do not agree.
John McCain is a solid conservative.
It's not that I've agreed with him on every position he's taken over the years, uh, but when you look at his record on fiscal responsibility, you look at his record on getting rid of wasteful Washington spending, uh, look at his record on a strong national offense and leading forward uh in the fight on terrorism, he's a solid conservative.
Well, they think these guys are gonna say that.
I mean, the political class has to join hands.
The political the political class is always going to uh uh you know unite behind the nominee.
I uh I don't take this stuff personally snurdily.
Doesn't this bother you?
All these people repudiate.
No, I this is not a personal repudiation.
I don't think that I learned long ago, folks.
I know I don't care I I really don't care what it is in life.
If you start taking things personally, you're doomed.
If you think that everything that happens negatively to you or that people say about you is personal, you know what I've learned most more it took me a long time to learn this.
But most of the time when people start ripping you, they're really telling you more about themselves than they are you.
Uh but this uh Snurtly can't believe I'm not outraged and angry by No, I don't I take none of this personally.
This is all a business.
These people are doing what they have to do.
What was that, Dawn?
What did you say?
Yeah, I you know that's true.
I have so many friends who take all this stuff personally for me.
Get so mad, they get so outraged.
My buddy Mark Levin, I can't tell you he gets he just every time he reads a rip of me, he sends me a note planning his response attack.
And I uh you know, I appreciate it.
Maybe it's because I know I got all of you taking it personally for me that I have the freedom not to.
But in these in this case, what's the president going to do?
The President of the United States is not gonna come out and oppose the nominee of his own party.
I don't care what.
And Boehner's not going to do that either.
Uh so I do not, Mr. Snerdley, take this as a personal repudiation whatsoever.
Here, let's move on.
CNN reliable sources.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post.
I interviewed Rush Limbaugh about this question last week and asked him whether it was right for the media to cast a McCain victory as a defeat for Rush Limbaugh, since he obviously was uh suggesting that Mid Rowney was the far superior candidate.
On his radio program, he read what he said to me.
Let's listen.
My success is not determined by who wins elections, Limbaugh said.
Elected officials come and go.
I'm here for as long as I wish to stay.
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?
And then Kurtz said to Michelle Covell of the New Republic, so is it a little simplistic for those of us in the press to say, well, Limbaugh's a loser here because McCain's winning?
I actually think he'll be a winner in terms of it'll give him something to talk about And complain about for the next four years.
As far as like getting his policy, you know, as far as being a kingmaker of sorts, sure, it makes him look a little bad or a little worn around the edges.
But hey, his ratings should be good if there's a McCain presidency.
There's this, you know, I that's another thing.
Don't take this personally.
I have resigned myself to the fact that people in the drive-bys are never going.
I could I could meet with them individually.
I could meet with each individual drive-by reporter.
I could give them an hour.
I could exp I know they've all called.
I could explain the business model of the program.
I can explain my philosophy of broadcasting.
I could define my definition of success in a whole bunch of different if what I said did not fit their narrative and template, they won't even hear it.
On next to Jim Garrity, who was a guest on the show.
He's from National Review Online.
Kurt said, Jim, I think we may be falling into the trap of saying, well, these people only have clout if they can influence elections.
They're not political leaders.
They're people who to some degree reflect what their listeners believe.
They're obviously playing to their base, who try to have an impact, but also try to educate, maybe move their listeners to a certain degree, but they're not running for office.
Look, Rush would be the first person to tell you his listeners are not my numb robots.
There's a certain degree of irony to the term dittohead.
They're looking for a voice who will represent what they what they believe who could be a conservative voice, but they're not saying Rush, tell me who to vote for.
It's one of those things where Rush Limbaugh's audience is about 13 million to 20 million.
62 million Americans voted for George W. Bush.
There are a lot of Republicans out there who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.
And we've got that's that's that's from the friendly Nashville Review Online.
We'll take a break, we'll be back.
Your phone calls and more big sound bites coming up right after this.
Back to the audio soundbites.
This is Sunday.
Fox News Channel's You Decide 2008.
The anchor Eric Sean says this about Senator McCain.
John McCain has faced a variety of enemies and rivals.
The North Vietnamese, some Democrats and Republicans, and now there's the nation's biggest talk show radio host.
They've been lined up against him.
Rush Limbaugh says his election will destroy the Republican Party.
And there you have it on Fox News.
I've just been compared to the North Vietnamese.
It's a great day, folks.
We are surpassing, we're going beyond all the previously established boundaries here.
Ross McKenzie.
Now I assume that this is the Richmond Times dispatch.
Ross McKenzie is uh the retired editor of the editorial pages, and he had a piece yesterday.
And let me just read to you a uh brief couple of paragraphs from the piece.
The ultimate ideologues of the 20th century were perhaps the Soviet and Maoist communists who promulgated the party or dialectical line, however constant or variable.
Movement by anyone away from the line the decreed norm was deemed deviationism, and deviationists, if incapable of re-education, were read out of the movement, sent to the gulag or shot.
In this paragraph, Ross McKenzie compares me and James Dobson and Sean Hannity and all the others to the Maoists and Soviet ideologues.
Early contemporary conservatism, emphatically not an ideology, was a big tent affair with room for everybody, embracing certain key principles, no matter how wacky some of the consequent views might be.
No one dictated acceptable positions on any issue.
The effort of some conservatives to reject McCain as a deviationist from their decreed line to judge him by their litmus tests that in their minds he fails attests to a 20-year ideolog i uh ideologi il ideologization of the Republican Party's purest wing.
But what about McCain Feingold?
Immigration torture, McCain's participation in gang of 14, his early votes against the Bush tax cuts.
So on Fox News, I'm compared to the North Vietnamese who held McCain prisoner.
McKenzie compares me to a Maoist Stalinist bunch of ideologues.
You See, folks, this is when this all comes shattering down, if it does it, it's gonna be guys like this who are going to be to blame for it.
They're gonna try to blame all of us, but it isn't gonna flow, but it isn't gonna fly because they're the ones who have seen to it that there has been no consistent devotion to principle here.
They've allowed them to become watered down.
This this is nuts.
Uh now, some of these people uh with their moronic comparisons with communism and us.
Me?
A communist?
We're now hardline ideologues.
Bill Bennett compared us to Trotskyites.
Now this McKenzie guy compares us to Maoists.
I need to go out and get a Mao hat.
You know the little Mao jacket.
Hillary's got these.
She wears them.
She wears Mao type jacket.
She don't wear the hat, but I'm sure I could find one.
Put a little red star on it or something.
Uh the website.
Michelle would do it.
Michelle put me in a Mao uniform.
Put me swimming in the river in a Mao uniform.
Like the last picture of Mao.
They said he was alive swimming in the Yangtze River.
He wasn't, he was dead then.
But no, Michelle, don't put me in a river.
You know, put me in a Mao uniform and then put me in a South Vietnam or North Vietnamese prison camp.
Uh and then dress me up like Stalin to illustrate how I am being characterized by people who call themselves conservatives.
But keep this in mind too, folks.
While today I am a Maoist, a Stalinist, a North Vietnamese prison guard.
When I supported Bush, we were all Bush sycophants.
We were putting party before principles.
Remember, they give us all kind of grief for supporting President Bush on a number of things.
They said you're just a lapdog.
You're just you just you just carrying you're just an apologist for Bush.
Um it is it is all I'm saying.
These are the geniuses that are pulling the party and the movement over the cliff.
Uh they have they have rallied behind the most liberal candidate and the weakest candidate we could have nominated.
And they're trying to act like that hasn't happened.
And they're blaming me while they're out there trying to convince everybody how conservative is and reminding him how to be conservative before CPAC.
By the way, speaking of CPAC, they had a straw poll vote there.
You know who won the straw poll vote at CPAC?
Romney.
This is before the McCain people bought up half the house for his speech.
Um anyway, who's next?
Let's let's go to uh Mass the Moss Turnpike.
And Margaret, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Nice to talk to you.
Thank you.
About three callers ago, I think it was a gentleman was talking about the money we're throwing away in Iraq and he doesn't care about Iraq, and my brain wants to melt when I hear stuff like that.
Not only because thank God for the soldiers and bless them all and you, but what about the money that we throw away in this country?
In fact, we'd be better off throwing it away than spending it on some of the things that we're spending on.
We're destroying the country, spending money that oh it's money.
You're not you're talking to the you're preaching to the choir here to the converted.
You're exactly when I hear these liberals talk about all the money we're spending in Iraq and how we could spend it on education or on uh social problems, we are throwing money at problems in this country and not solving them, and we're compounding the problem by throwing more money at it.
The idea that we're short of money in this country, when our government just proposed a 3.1 trillion dollar budget, uh look it, it it tries my patience the same as yours.
Even that rebate thing, how much the processing cost on that when you get right down to it?
How much is that gonna cost us to get our money back?
Forget that.
It's it's it's it's it's uh well, no, don't forget it.
But I mean that's not the primary cost.
The primary cost is it's it's it's essentially there are no new money here being generated that's supposedly being sent.
What what in fact the way to play this stupid stimulus thing is, you know, Democrats are proposing it, right?
And what are they they're proposing money be given to people for what reason?
To stimulate the economy.
Well, couldn't we say to the Democrats proposed, then why do you oppose tax cuts?
Because tax cuts do the same thing.
Tax cuts leave people with more of what they earn.
If giving people 300, 600, 1200, 2400 bucks will stimulate the economy, why not cut their taxes permanently?
Well, do that, Mr. Limbaugh.
The Treasury runs short of money and so on and so on.
We got him if we'll just press them.
Talent on loan from God.
Back to the funds now.
Ken in Winter Haven, Florida.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Appreciate you taking my call.
I just wanted to comment that Robert uh several callers who really irritated me talking about the surge not working.
I have a son who is a combat marine.
Fortunately he's in camp with June.
He got back okay, did get hit by a hang grenade, but he's all right.
Uh he told me when he first went to Ramani with his unit, they were in eighty firefights a week.
Eight months later, they didn't have one firefight in over two weeks.
He said the surge is absolutely working very, very well.
And it irritates when somebody like this who doesn't know what he's talking about uh can pop his mouth off like that when he's not.
You know, it does me too.
Frustrating.
These people are all over the place, though.
They're they're invested in their own nation's defeat.
They are invested in uh their own military's failure.
Uh there's nothing rational amount it, and uh you know, it there's an old saying it's stupid to get into an argument with a fool because people will not be able to tell the difference.
And not the truth.
I just want to let you know, like I said, my son was there, he was a combat marine, he he was in these fights, he knows all about it better than anybody, and we are winning over there.
It's doing we're doing a wonderful job, and uh I just wanted to get on here and voice my opinion.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
It uh my pleasure, and and uh God bless your son.
That you you give him all of our regards.
I also have two other boys, one just got the army, the other one's in the Navy, so I'm very proud of all of them.
Well, you should be.
And I'm a voter myself, so well, yeah, so are all of us.
Well, we appreciate it.
I'm proud of all of you.
Thanks for helping us and keeping uh you know the spirit up towards the guys in the service.
They appreciate it.
Thank you, Ken.
Well, that's why I mentioned the success of this in the first hour.
That's the hour that's on Armed Forces Radio.
Um I've got I know it's all anecdotal.
Uh, but our good buddy Taz, Joe Katsu Katezinski is over there.
Uh he's in the Air Force, and he can't tell me where he is.
But he says, we are kicking ass.
We have these people on the run.
And he says, How come it's not being reported?
And I said, Precisely because of that.
That's why it's not a that's what's what the Democrats are not making it an issue.
That's what's so great about Pelosi.
That that's what's so fabulous about Pelosi sitting here and bringing it back up.
Surge isn't working.
By the way, I have heard that Pelosi is not.
Now, this this, if this is true, this is third hand, and so I'm I'm I'm I'm just gonna pass this on as third hand information, but I'm heard that Pelosi is telling people that if Obama wins a nomination, that he'll win the presidency, of course, and bring seventy-five seats to the House of Representatives.
75 new seats.
Now, if that's true, if Ms. Pelosi believes that.
Hmm.
And of course the Queen Bee syndrome has to kick in here at some point.
You know, there can only be one powerful woman in Washington.
Two and there be it loggerheads.
Uh Ron and Corpus Christie, Texas.
Hello, sir.
Thank you for calling.
Yeah, hi, Russ.
I was calling about something you said on Friday when you uh said that there really wouldn't be any difference whether uh Killy or McCain um there's president.
I just uh I'm sorry, I just can't buy that comparison because the Clintons, I mean, they're just you know, they're really uh immoral and corrupt people.
They've been their whole lives like that.
And I mean, let's face it, I mean, the guy's uh a predator, and she's his willing enabler.
Uh they pardon fugitives, they pardon terrorists for their own benefit.
They all these illegal canton contributions, all these uh sleezing money deals.
I I I just can't see the comparison to McCain.
McCain is more conservative than they are.
He's he's not very conservative, but he's conservative enough, and he's not uh on an ethical scale.
He's not like the Clintons.
Let me explain the comment to you.
I uh of course you are correct.
There's no comparison in a moral sense between uh Senator McCain and the Clintons.
I'm I'm simply talking about the kind of uh legislation and uh policies that will get passed.
Uh and here's why.
Let's assume that uh, you know, with a Democrat president, uh let's assume or even McCain.
Let's assume what what the conventional wisdom of the polling data tells us that the Democrats are going to expand their margins in both the House and the Senate.
Uh Right now they don't have enough votes in the Senate to get anything done because there's a Republican president here who will veto what they want to do.
But they've got uh 51 seats.
They need nine more votes to get to sixty to get anything done.
Let's say the projections are right and they end up with 55 Democrats or 56 Democrats in the Senate to our 45 or 44.
Well, all they need is four or five votes to get to sixty, and they've got them with Olympia Snow and Susan Collins and a number of other Republican liberals that are on the Republican side in the Senate.
Ditto in the House, they're supposed to pick up a lot more seats.
Now let's say McCain's the president.
Presidents like to get things done.
They define getting things done as getting legislation done.
The Democrats are going to be in charge of what gets done.
They're going to have the voting majorities.
Senator McCain has shown a willingness not to reach across the aisle, but to literally walk across the aisle and make deals with them on any number of things.
Campaign finance reform.
They're going to want to expand restrictions on free speech.
He can't very well oppose that because he'd be going against himself.
So in order for the next president to get things done, they're going to have to work with Democrats and do it on Democrats' terms.
McCain has shown a total willingness to do that on any number of things other than the Iraq war.
So my only point was that if Democrats are in in charge of, if they're going to determine the direction of the country the next four years, then they may as well get the credit for what damage results.
And I cited something else.
I said, Ronald Reagan had a worse problem that Senator McCain is going to have if he gets elected.
Ronald Reagan was dealing with a House majority.
What was a Democrat majority?
120 seats or something?
It was incredible.
And the House was run by a genuine professional, a real cutthroat professional, uh Tip O'Neill.
The House and Senate today are run by rank amateur Democrats.
They're just the most incompetent leadership around, but they're going to be emboldened if their numbers increase.
You can stop Democrats, and you can, in fact, advance your agenda by by attracting their voters as conservatives.
But that's not going to happen here.
McCain is going to attract Democrats and independents as Democrats and independents.
He's not going to attract them as converted to conservative voters, which is what Reagan did.
So Reagan was able to get what he wanted because he was straight down the middle conservative rock rib principle, and he was able to get his agenda advanced because he attracted enough of Tip O'Neill's voters as conservatives that they saw the light.
They had to go along.
Reagan held all the cards.
McCain's not going to hold any cards.
I'm not comparing them morality-wise.
I'm not comparing, you know, of course Clinton's a predator and McCain's not.
I'm simply talking about legislation is going to get done that that's going to shape the future of the country.
Well, well, Russ, I was just going to say that, you know, whoever gets elected president, you know, they stand will they'll they'll stand or follow their performance, you know, and they'll have to answer for it in four years.
But uh the part of the Clintons being back in there, I have respect for the Oval Office.
And if McCain or Obama got there, I wouldn't feel ashamed.
I'm really serious about this.
Russ, let me if I got it, if you if you got any more time, I got to tell you something.
A woman a while ago, she told she said that you inspire her.
But you inspire me.
Because I don't know if you remember this.
I called you back in 2006.
I'm the person that found the uh Murpha Avskamp.
That was me.
And it took some inspiration to do it.
When I found out how unethical empowered Huntley Murphy is and was his whole career.
I decided to pursue that thing, and I was inspired by people like Hannity.
I was inspired by people like Woodward Bernstein, and I was inspired mostly by you.
And it changed my life forever what I did.
I reduce I do remember you, and you did the right thing.
You did a great thing.
And I just uh I really feel very strongly about ethics.
And um I just for me it's just hard to fathom the two of them being back, and it would be a package deal.
Oh, I know.
Don't misunderstand.
Look at you know, this is we're we want the same thing.
I don't want them in the White House either.
That's what's got me so whatever.
Angry, frustrated.
There's a way to keep them out of there.
And and nobody's doing it.
The way the the way we're trying to keep them out of there is try to attract enough of their voters to vote with our guy.
Now you talk about the four years down the road.
Let me you also probably heard me say that if McCain or Huckabee get the nomination, they win the presidency, that our party is finished as we know it.
It's going to take on a different identity.
Let's talk about your four years.
Let us say, uh hypothetically, McCain wins with these Democrat majorities.
Okay, you've got a great ethics guy in the Oval Office.
You've got somebody whose uh honor and integrity are beyond repute.
So you're you're good there.
But you've also got a guy who's going to want to get things done and does it by attracting Democrats and independents to vote for him, which makes it easy for him to do deals with the Democrats.
Four years later, uh what's to say the Republican Party is going to lose?
I mean, if the Republican Party is newly constituted by virtue of an expansion of independents who are liberal and Democrats who are liberal voting for it, and they're all happy and hunky-dory with how McCain and the Democrat Congress work together to get Democrat things done.
Why would that why would that version of Republican Party lose in four years?
See, you and I want the same things.
The Clintons out of there.
We want honor and integrity in the White House.
But where we where we separate is, I'm assuming, I don't want a liberal Republican in the White House.
But we're we're odds are we're gonna end up with somebody, whatever degree of liberalism there is, either McCain or the Democrat, we're gonna end up with a liberal or somebody with liberal tendencies uh in in the White House.
And this is going to pretend uh portend some frightening things down the road.
Uh it it it just I think people are totally misunderstanding my position on this.
It's not personal, it's not about me, it's not my way must happen, or I'm taking the ball and going, Oh, it's about the country.
It's about the future of the country.
I think liberalism needs to be beat back.
I think it needs to be defeated.
I think politically it is the enemy.
It is the reason that begets people like the Clintons.
It is the reason that people who have no ethics and morality and want to dispense with all of that, rise to positions of power in the Democrat Party.
And I don't want the country going in that direction.
It has to be beaten, not joined, not be reached out to, not be gotten along with, not worked with.
It needs to be beaten.
And the people are running our party right now do not think that.
They think we need to reach an accommodation with them, need to appease them, bring them into our party, work together for a new definition of conservatism that includes a bigger activist government doing whatever they think big activist government ought to do.
And I don't.
But it ain't about me personally.
You you and I, Ron, want the same things.
I just fear that.
Uh we're not gonna get the I'm over time here and I'm I'm trying to synthesize this and I'm having having trouble.
But just don't think for a moment that we don't want the same things.
When you've you've heard me say what I said, and I stand by it.
I hope my explanation for what I mean here uh has uh resonated with you.
Gotta go.
Quick timeout back after this.
Look at folks, it's real simple.
You can boil this down to his essence.
To explain my position in all of this.
I do believe liberalism is the enemy of a great future for this country as we have known it.
I think liberalism, and you most of you in this audience agree with this.
Liberalism is responsible for the cultural rot.
It's responsible for a lot of the corruption that exists.
Look at some of the cities in this.
Look at Detroit.
A fabulously great city at one day.
Look at what years and years and years of liberal leadership did.
Look at New Orleans.
It's beyond even ideology now.
It's just the corruption that comes from no boundaries.
Ethics and so forth.
This stuff is serious.
You know, so I don't favor making deals with these people, accommodating them, going across the aisle, and incorporating a lot of what they want to get things done.
They are to be defeated.
Not because I don't like them, and not because I look at this as a personal battle, because we're talking about country.
The direction of the country, where we're headed.
Kids, grandkids, you know, all of that.
What are they going to inherit?
Are they going to have any freedom?
Are their tax rates going to be so high that it's not going to be sensible for them to even try to get a decent job?
Are we going to have more and more citizens dependent for their needs on the government?
Once that happens, you know, I asked a question earlier.
Wait a second.
The Democrats are admitting, are they not, with this stimulus package, that putting money in the hands of people stimulates the economy.
We own them on that.
Yeah, we do accept, you know what they're going to say.
The psychology of the government giving people the money is a far bigger winner for liberalism than the notion of people earning it themselves and keeping it.
With liberalism, the more you earn and keep, the somehow more you're cheating your citizens, your fellow citizens, the more unfair it is.
And so we must take from you and make sure that others don't feel hurt or embarrassed or humiliated.
But when the government decides to give people money, why?
That's perfectly fine.
That's hunky dory.
As long as the money that is in the private sector that's stimulating the economy comes from government, from liberals, then liberals can say we stimulated the economy.
Which is exactly what they want.
They're never going to admit, for example, that they're giving people money, which is not even really what's happening.
They're just transferring.
They're never going to admit that giving people money is the same as people's own money stimulating the economy.
They're never going to agree to that.
And look what happened on the stimulus bill.
Whose principles triumphed here.
Liberals' principles triumphed.
Government giving away money.
And of course, what happened?
The Republicans went along.
Why?
Principle didn't matter.
Reelection mattered.
It's an election year, and all politicians will be happy as they can be to give money away.
What a great government we have.
Why, what a benevolent government.
Why they care about our economy.
Why they want to stimulate.
People don't stop to think that we wouldn't have a subprime problem if the government hadn't required certain lenders to lend money to people that were no more qualified to borrow it than an ant.
We deal with the emotional and the surface, and oh, this is so good.
But it's not.
So I simply think liberalism's the enemy.
Politically, it's to be defeated, made a minority.
It is not meant to be gotten along with.
That's it, my friends.
Another excursion into broadcast excellence in the proverbial can.
Twenty one hours away from another three hour excursion.
Can't wait, as always.
Look forward to seeing you then.
Thanks for being with us today, too.
▲
Export Selection