All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
April 7, 2008, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Operation Chaos continues to inflict casualties, ladies and gentlemen.
Big time.
Rampant confusion arguments among Hillary and Obama big donors at private cocktail parties on Fifth Avenue in New York with Howard Dean in the middle of the fight.
This happened late last week, Thursday night, at the home of Maureen White and Steve Ratner, who is little Pinch Schulzberger's best friend.
Yeah, greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, and we are here with Broadcast Excellence for three hours at the infamous, distinguished, highly respected, and greatly feared Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am your host, a highly trained broadcast specialist at Rush Limbaugh, showing how it's done.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today.
As always, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
They are blaming me for Hillary losing, and they are blaming me for Obama not being to wrap it up yet, not being able to wrap it up yet, on the cable news networks on CNN.
Operation Chaos continues to unfold.
And in Albuquerque, note what state Albuquerque is in.
Albuquerque is in the state of New Mexico.
You know who the governor of New Mexico is?
Bill Richardson is the governor of Mexico.
Hillary Clinton vowed a strong fight in the remainder of the Democrat presidential nominating contest.
She brushed aside any notion of bowing out yesterday during a fundraiser in Albuquerque, raked at about $150,000.
I'm going to campaign hard in all the remaining states, she said.
She flew in and flew out of New Mexico for the fundraiser.
I want to tell you the campaign's going well.
She said, anybody who believes that she should bow out of her race against Obama, who leads in the delegate count, should take a lesson from college basketball's final four.
Why should anybody play North Carolina?
You saw what happened last night, said Hillary, referring to Kansas's upset win over the tar heels.
No accident here that she goes out to New Mexico, flies in, flies out, does a fundraiser saying that she is not going to leave the campaign.
She is not going to get out.
You know, folks, I find it fascinating here that Mrs. Clinton, on the one hand, says that we have to get out of Iraq.
We just have to, and so does Obama.
We've got to get out of Iraq.
Our country has a better chance of winning in the Middle East than she has of winning the Democrat primary, yet she wants to fight to the end in her campaign, but quit in Iraq.
Did you hear about Nancy Pelosi over the weekend late last week?
I think it was on Friday, the day I was off and went to the memorial service for William F. Buckley.
Nancy Pelosi issued a warning to General Petraeus, who's due to testify with the ambassador to Iraq, excuse me, Mr. Crocker, sometime this week.
And Pelosi said, don't you dare come up here and give us good news because we're not going to believe it because there isn't any.
Don't you dare.
It's a warning shot across the bow.
Clinton master strategerist Mark Penn, no longer her strategerist.
I've often wondered, ladies and gentlemen, just why the smartest woman in the world needs somebody to strategerize for her.
Why does the smartest woman in the world need anybody on her campaign team?
At any rate, typical Clinton fashion, he's out doesn't mean that he's out.
He's out as a strategerist, but he's not out as her pollster.
You know, Mark Penn works for, well, he owns Burston Marceller, which is a PR firm.
And the problem is, ladies and gentlemen, that he consorted with our South American ally, Colombia, to help him get a free trade agreement passed.
While the left is sucking up to the anti-trade unions, Mrs. Clinton will now do anything to win dissing NAFTA.
And so Penn, you know, who's got a side business, a PR agency and so forth, is out there actually lobbying for the free trade agreement with Colombia to work.
And this is important.
I don't think a lot of people understand why this is important, but get to that in a second.
The Clintons and Obama.
But the Democrat Party, Pelosi on down, Dingy Harry Reid, are all standing with their constituents in the big unions and denying.
And this is a huge ally of ours.
And it would make all kinds of great economic sense.
Plus, it would provide a bulwark against Hugo Chavez and some of the other communist dictatorships in South America.
But because of the campaign, we can't normalize relations with Colombia.
Democrats opposing free trade again.
You could easily call this the Uribe or Chavez decision.
If we weaken our ally of Colombia, we strengthen the Chavez regime.
And if we, of course, strengthen Cuba, or Colombia, rather, we weaken the Hugo Chavez review.
So the question is, do we want him to get stronger or weaker?
Liberals in Congress waiting and watching the union bosses for marching orders.
All of South America is watching us for direction.
Freedom or Hugo Chavez.
And in this case, it's up to the Democrat Party.
Now, while all this is going on with Mark Penn, he's out, but not really out.
This has not gotten much play.
But this hit on April the 4th.
And I'm flying back from New York Friday afternoon, and I'm watching TV.
This didn't get hardly any play at all.
A key advisor to Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, which is a plan that's totally at odds with the public pledge Obama has made to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
Now, the New York Sun got hold of this paper written by Colin Call for the Center for New American Security.
It's a left-wing bunch.
The paper called Stay on Success, a Policy of Conditional Engagement.
Colin Call writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government, the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable overwatch posture, maybe 60,000 to 80,000 forces, by the end of 2010, although specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground.
I guarantee you this is what's going to happen if either of these two win.
We're not pulling out of Iraq, despite what they say during their campaign.
This is not the first time that the opinion of an advisor to the Obama campaign has differed with his own stated Iraq policy.
In February, Obama's first foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, told the BBC that the senator's current Iraq plan would likely change based on the advice of military commanders in 2009.
She has since resigned her position as a formal advisor.
Mr. Call's approach, the latest Obama advisor to disagree with Obama, would call on the remaining troops in Iraq to play an overwatch role.
The term is used by multinational forces in Iraq to describe the long-term goal of coalition force presence in the country.
It refers, this is his words, it refers to the U.S. being out of the lead, largely in a support role.
It doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't do things like targeted counterterrorism missions or continue to train and advise the Iraqis.
But it would not be 150,000 Americans taking the lead in counterinsurgencies.
I just want you to, this is from the Obama campaign, and I know a lot of you liberals religiously listen to this program while never admitting it.
Is this clear to you?
Pulling out in the Obama campaign means leaving 60 to 80,000 troops on the ground in Iraq.
It doesn't mean total withdrawal.
A lot of reaction here to the Clintons' income as reported in their tax returns.
I'm not an accountant, by the way.
I do not play one on the radio.
But I think some people are missing one of the real angles in the so-called Clinton income shocker: $109 million in seven years.
Now, first, I don't begrudge anybody making money.
I don't care if you even those who get money throw at them, thrown at them like Clinton does.
I do not begrudge anybody who earns money.
The $109 million, though, not the whole story, that $109 million is the money that went directly to them.
It doesn't include the money, if any, that went to the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor.
It doesn't include any money that went to the Clinton Family Trust, nor does it include any of the money that went to the Clinton Foundation.
Just last year, the Clinton Foundation got contributions of $109 million in pledges, $109 million pledges of another $105 million, and then some $3 million of other income.
So that's $132 million in revenues, $92 million in expenses.
So you have a surplus there of $39 million.
Now, the forms do not include any deferred income.
Deferred income is money that's earned and not paid in the present tax year.
Now, a lot of people are making a big deal out of the Clinton Family Foundation because the large 10% charitable donation that's reported in their returns went to the Clinton Family Foundation, whatever it's called.
That's fine.
There's nothing wrong with that.
And I've seen something that only a very small percentage of what they've donated to their family foundation has actually been paid out.
The rules on foundations are quite simple.
Anybody can set one up.
And let's just use Clinton numbers, for example.
Let's say the Clintons wanted to set up a family foundation, which they did.
And the year they set it up, let's say they fund it with $10 million.
They get an immediate tax deduction of $10 million in that year, but they only have to dole it out in small increments.
I think you only have to give away, I'm guessing at the figure, 5% a year.
And a lot of people do this.
Now, they lose control of the money.
Don't misunderstand.
It's not theirs when it goes to the Family Foundation.
It's a charitable donation.
And then that foundation in turn donates to charities that the trustees are interested in.
However, if you look at one of the donations from the Clinton Family Foundation, it went to a library in South Carolina, a local South Carolina library, the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in the early primary there in South Carolina.
I'll tell you what I think is going on with this presidential campaign as much as the Clintons want to get their mitts on the country and bend it, shape it, form it as liberals the best they can.
But you have if you have four more years of Clinton or nine, whatever it is, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Family Trust, the Clinton Library and Massage Parlors, the Clinton speaking fees, can you imagine how much money they would rake in?
This is a business, as much as it is politics.
And these are the people, it is Clinton Inc., but these are the people who routinely run around and say, you know, we don't need those bush tax cuts.
I never had any money before in my life, but I love telling you, because I know Bugs Limbaugh, I love telling you how rich Hillary and I have gotten.
But you can see from these returns, Hillary didn't contribute.
Diddley squat 10 million bucks, and I came pain and brought in the rest.
I'm the breadwinner.
I always have been the breadwinner.
She's adjunct, but we combine it all.
But the reason why we want to win, of course, we want to turn the country into Moscow West, but we also want to keep burning the big bucks so we can tell people how rich we are, how we don't need to pay all these tax cuts and so forth.
That way, the little people out there think we love them while we laugh at them as I go to bed every night in my bed and she goes to bed in hers.
Charlton Heston passed away over the weekend, as everybody knows.
Complications from Alzheimer's.
Again, I was fortunate to be able to get to know Charlton Heston.
Actually, because of my friendship with Mr. Buckley, the first time I met Charlton Heston, he had never heard of me.
My show was on the air in Los Angeles, like 18 in 1989 or 1990.
And National Review did a lot of seminars all over the country, and he was a board member of National Review, Mr. Heston was.
And I was invited to attend one in Los Angeles when I was out there for a Rush to Excellence tour stop, as well as promote our relationship with KFI, AM640, and was introduced to Mr. Heston.
And he was fascinated, but he had no idea who I was.
I was fascinated with what was going on.
He said he was going to listen.
And he did.
And he became a somewhat regular contributor here to the program on occasion.
He was honored by National Review some years later, also out in California.
And I was asked to be the MC.
This would have been 1994 or 95.
And it was, he was, he was exactly, when you think of celebrities, it was exactly what you would hope he would be if you didn't know him and were going to meet him.
No heirs whatsoever about him, just a genuinely authentic, and he was committed to his beliefs.
Married the same woman over 50 years, Lydia.
And he told me once, yeah, the secret to this rush is I've learned four words.
Honey, I was wrong.
That's the secret.
Dawn's in there nodding her head in agreement.
He called the program on February 3rd, 1995.
He wanted to read from Michael Crichton's prologue of Jurassic Park.
When Moses calls, you let him on the program.
1995.
Listen to this as it relates to global warming today.
You think man can destroy the planet?
What intoxicating vanity.
Let me tell you about our planet.
Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
There's been life on it for nearly that long.
3.8 billion years.
Bacteria first, later the first melticellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land, then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on billions of years.
Great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away.
All this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval.
Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving in endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years.
Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us.
If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the Earth was clicking hot for 100,000 years, life would survive somewhere under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice.
Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again.
The evolutionary process would begin again.
It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety.
Of course, it would be very different from what it is now.
But the Earth would survive our folly.
Only we would not.
If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the Earth.
So what?
Ultraviolet radiation is good for life.
It's powerful energy.
It promotes mutation, change.
Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation.
Many others will die out.
You think this is the first time that's happened?
Think about oxygen.
Necessary for life now.
But oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on Earth.
Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas.
Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life.
Nevertheless, life on Earth took care of itself.
In the thinking of a human being, 100 years is a long time.
100 years ago, we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers, or vaccines.
It was a whole different world.
But to the Earth, 100 years is nothing.
A million years is nothing.
This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale.
We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try.
We've been residents here for the blink of an eye.
If we're gone tomorrow, the Earth will not miss us.
Charlton Heston, reading from the prologue of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park on this program all the way back February 3rd, 1995, you know, he spoke of hundreds of years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers, or vaccines.
I found something fascinating over the weekend from the Heritage Foundation.
The number of years it took for major technologies to reach 50% of American homes.
Now, what's interesting about this is when I get to this after the break, when you hear the number of years it took for major technologies to reach 50% of American homes, meaning they could afford it, you will see how fast our country has progressed and has grown as opposed to 100 years ago, as Mr. Heston was reading there from Michael Crichton.
We'll be back right after this.
Stay with us.
Oh, screams of joy, screams of panic, simultaneously.
The very mention of my name.
One more thing about Charlton Heston, known as Chuck to his good friends.
Here was an actor, here was a man who fought for all that America stood for at its founding.
Charlton Heston worked to uphold the Bill of Rights when he marched with Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, as well as when he stood up for the Second Amendment.
Charlton Heston cut a figure of authenticity and credibility that Hollywood actors today could only dream of when they apply themselves to causes.
Ted Danson, Leonardo DiCaprio, all these people, they're just pure pretenders.
They carry no credibility, no authenticity whatsoever.
But Charlton Heston cut a figure of authenticity and credibility.
And like many conservatives, he eventually was shunned in Hollywood, although it was tougher for them to shun him.
He was not shunned from work.
He got the gigs, but he was still looked down upon eventually.
Now, as you heard, Heston just read on this program back in 1995 from the prologue of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park.
And he has this little passage: hundreds or hundred years ago, we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers, or vaccines.
100 years.
And he's right.
Didn't have those things.
And I mention this because here we are in a so-called recession or on the verge of a so-called recession.
We have the most prosperous country in the history of human civilization, and in particular, the last 100 years, the last 50, especially.
Only because of people's point of reference beginning life as Americans and having expectations do people get mad, depressed when economic downturns, which are certainly cyclical, occur because their expectations are much higher than any other people on earth.
Just to show you, and by the way, when we hit a recession, what do people want?
Well, they may not put it this way, but they want economic growth.
They want to grow out of a recession.
They want something.
They want whatever.
They haven't been taught economics in school.
I talked to a friend over the weekend from Texas who told me a story about another friend of his.
He sent his daughter to Stanford to major in economics.
She came home after two years.
He asked her what she'd learned.
He pulled her out of there.
She hadn't learned diddly squat two years into an economics major at Stanford.
This man is huge in business.
I mean, she'd learned some things, but she was way behind where he thought a college-educated, intelligent person ought to be in basic economic understanding.
Same in the public school system.
So, gasoline prices are rising.
Food prices are skyrocketing.
And in some places, the world are causing riots.
Any number of calamities, the mortgage crisis, even though almost 96% of Americans are paying their mortgages, a lot of people think that nobody's able to pay their mortgage.
We're on the cusp of a total meltdown and disaster.
The only way we'll have a meltdown and a disaster is if the federal government decides to bail out all these losers in the private sector.
If they do that, they set a precedent, they set expectations of everybody else that when their business goes south, they will get bailed out.
And that's not going to be the case, but it'll establish that expectation.
I heard stories of people speculating in the housing market.
You know, not everybody who's got caught up in this mortgage crisis is poor.
And not everybody was lent money that had no business being lent money.
A lot of these people were speculators and they were buying houses and flipping them, never living in them, just buying them and flipping them.
And when the whole crisis hit, bamo, they got caught in a flip.
And several of them, I can't give you an exact number, but there were speculators in the market who purposely, consciously decided not to pay their mortgages when this happened, betting on the fact that they would be bailed out because they knew that a lot of people got caught up in these adjustable rate mortgages, had no business being lent money in the first place, had no business borrowing it, but they were because government policy.
And they just, okay, if we hang around here, if we lurk and we don't pay, and the threat of foreclosure comes up, we think we'll get bailed out eventually.
That was some of the thinking on the part of the speculators.
Well, now, if that kind of thing among wealthy risk takers begins to take hold, if they think they're going to get bailed out, then they're going to be less conscious of any risk, and there's going to be less responsibility in the risk that they take.
And this is going to have a sort of a geometric progression or a sort of domino effect if this keeps going.
But anyway, back to the last 100 years, the last 50 years.
People want growth or whatever they think is going to get us and them out of a recession.
The telephone, it took 71 years after the invention of the telephone for 50% of the American people in homes to be able to afford one, to get one.
71 years before half the country had a phone.
It took 52 years before half the country had electricity.
Think of that.
Electricity is invented 52 years before half the country had it.
Radios, 28 years before half the country had radios.
Personal computers, 19 years before half the country had a personal computer.
Can you see the progression?
71 for telephones, 52 for electricity, 28 for radios.
You know what that is?
That's prosperity, folks.
That is rapid economic growth.
Color televisions, 18 years before half the country had a color tube in their house.
Cable television, 15 years before half the country was wired.
Cell phones, 14 years before half of American homes had cell phones.
VCRs, 12 years before half the country had VCRs.
CD players, 11 years before half the country had one.
Internet access, 10 years.
So we go from 71 years for half the country to get a phone to 10 years after it's invented for half the country to get internet access.
DVD players, five years.
After five years, half the country had DVD players.
And number one, the top of the techno list, iPods.
Four years is all it took for half the country to have iPods.
And real dollars, they're no more expensive than what telephones were.
Or electricity, four years.
So you can see 71, 52, 28, 19, 18, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 5, 4.
That represents massive economic growth, massive prosperity, massive discretionary spending on the part of at least half of the country.
And for this kind of growth to continue, energy prices have to be market-related, and energy has to be plentiful and so forth.
All these things are just – whenever I find evidence of the absolute power and greatness of this country economically, I love to pass it on.
Let's grab some phone calls before we start with the audio soundbites today.
Todd in Los Angeles, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
You lead us off today.
Thank you, Rush Rush.
To first start off by saying, you know, when they talk about talk radio, it's always Rush Limbaugh and then all those other wannabes because you are definitely excellent in broadcasting.
But, Rush, what really got me motivated to call you this morning when I was listening to watching Meet the Press yesterday, and I heard Ed Randell say that he could see a scenario where Mrs. Clinton could lose the popular vote, lose the number of delegates, lose the number of states that she's won, and yet these super delegates, or so-called super elite, can go behind a closed door and still nominate her for this election.
And if something like that was to transpire, I would think there will be hell to pay.
And I think how ironic it is that almost 40 years ago in 1968, when they had the protest in the Democratic Convention in Chicago, that we could see another scenario like that.
Because if Mr. Randell believes that there is a situation that these super elite people can go behind some closed doors and nominate Mrs. Clinton, despite the fact that she's lost the popular vote, lost the number of pledge delegates, that we would settle for something like that.
He has to be either smoking something or losing his mind because there's no way that we out here, these primary voters, are going to sit back and settle something, settle something like that.
I am concluding here, my man, that you are a Democrat.
Well, actually, I'm an independent, but I mean, I've drank this all day.
I'm independent.
But you're oriented toward supporting Mrs. Clinton from your vantage point of independence.
Oh, no, I'm supporting Mr. Obama.
Obama, I thought I'd.
That's what I'm saying.
Okay.
Well, good.
Todd, I'm glad you called because I've got a soundbite, Mrs. Clinton, here that I want you to hear.
And I also want to explain something to you.
I think you might think Fast Eddie is a little quick on his answer there, but you're listening to a foot soldier in Clinton, Inc., Todd, and they are telling you, he was saying yesterday, this delegate stuff doesn't count.
The vote doesn't count.
All that matters is what we can convince the superdelegates to do.
They are not going to sit around and politely concede defeat to Barack Obama.
They want this themselves.
The Clintons are going to do everything they can to get it if they have to cause riots out in Denver.
And if they do it in such a way that it takes it away, they steal it from Barack Obama.
You are exactly right.
The people support Obama here, largely black in the most recent primaries, will be fit to be tied because it's the Democrat Party which has promised these people that the Democrat Party is the place for emancipation, the place for upward mobility, the place for success.
And here it will be, the Democrat Party establishment yanking it away from Barack Obama.
That's one of the reasons we have Operation Chaos going on here.
It's one of the reasons, Todd, that Operation Chaos is so successful.
The other thing the Clintons are going to do is they're going to try to win as many of these primaries, get as close to these remaining 10, to show momentum, to show that Obama can't close it.
Hey, look, I might not have been able to win it, but this guy can't close me out.
This guy hasn't been able to close the deal.
If he can't close the deal with this kind of lead, he can't win.
She's out there telling people that Obama can't win.
And by the way, let's be very open about this.
She's not denying it either.
This is the Bill Richardson conversation.
When she says to these superdelegates that Obama can't win, would you think there is a racial component to her statement?
I think so, given that their race war in the Democrat Party is obvious and it has been started by the Clintons.
Here is Mrs. Clinton talking about no such thing as a pledge delegate.
Now, we've mentioned to you that she said this before, but this is Thursday in Burbank, she held a press conference about the Democrat primary.
Obviously, you've heard me say, you've heard Howard Dean say, you've heard other people say, there is no such thing as a pledged delegate.
That is a misnomer.
There are delegates who are selected one way or another at some stage in the process.
I met people in California today who are hoping, quote, to be delegates.
And the whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain.
And I think that process goes all the way to the convention.
There you go, Todd.
They ain't going anywhere, all the way to the convention.
And she's essentially saying these delegates don't mean anything until we can get to them and see they can vote for whoever they want.
But you know what I find fascinating?
I just love this, folks.
I'm laughing myself silly.
This is the irony here, is that both of these candidates, Hillary and Obama, you know what they need to win?
White male voters.
All this thought.
We've got the first viable black candidate.
We got the first viable female candidate.
And when you get down to the nub of it, both of them are going to need white men in order to win this.
Ha, are you?
Great to be back.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network.
There's a rule of thumb in marketing when a new product is introduced.
And I just want to mention this to you as a follow-up to the number of years it took major technologies to reach 50% of American homes.
Telephone, 71 years, electricity, 52.
Radios, 28 years to reach half of American homes.
iPods four years.
DVD players five.
Internet access 10.
Great examples.
Here's the rule of thumb here.
When an innovation reaches 10% of the population, that's when the floodgates open and the acceleration to mass demand kicks in.
When 10% of the population accesses a new technology or a new product, that's when the manufacturers, okay, we got something here.
We've got a hit on our hands.
And that's when the mass marketing begins.
The prices start coming down.
And the ability of everybody.
Now, that's, if that figure is still relevant, 10%, think of how long it took, if it took 71 years for the telephone to reach half the American homes, how long did it take for 10% of them to get a phone or any of the other items on the list?
Color TVs, it took a long time because the floodgates open after about 10%.
That's when the prices come down and a vast majority of people can't afford whatever the new technology is.
We just had a guy on the phone who hung up and he was a good caller.
He was a Democrat.
He was a nice guy, but I guess he got frightened.
I've had this happen to me as a caller way, way back before I was a host.
Sitting out there waiting on hold.
The call screener says, stand by, you're next.
Rush really wants to talk to you.
Oh, no.
And then hangs up.
He said, I've been listening to Rush during this whole campaign say he doesn't want Democrats having anything to do with the Republican Party.
He doesn't want to work with Democrats to get anything done.
Is that true?
No, not quite.
I'd be happy to work with as many Democrats as possible when they join us, not when we join them.
I'll give you a great example.
This Al Gore initiative, $300 million initiative, global warming, Newt Gingrich's going to do a commercial with Pelosi, I think.
That's working with Democrats while compromising our own beliefs.
And Newt's not the only one.
There's a bunch of people doing it.
I don't want liberalism to triumph.
Democrat Party is the home of liberalism.
I'm all for bringing Democrats and independents into the Republican Party, but not as Democrats and independents.
The problem with working with Democrats is it's never that way.
Republicans always work with Democrats.
Democrats never work with us.
I mean, there may be compromises on judges now and then, but in terms of the real meaningful policies and definitions of, say, the role of government, there's no reason to work with Democrats on that.
They have nothing in common with us on that, nothing of substance.
So I just, I look at it as a sellout.
When Republicans want to work with Democrats, To get things done, generally it's the Republicans or the conservatives that are compromising everything.
The Democrats never do, or very rarely, unless you have a powerful presence like a Ronald Reagan, who was able to get a lot of things done working with Democrats, but it was a Democrats who caved with Reagan.
We're the ones caving now.
Burns me up.
That's the answer.
Okay, we have to take our usual top-of-the-hour break.
Operation Chaos.
▲
Export Selection