As always, a thrill and a delight to share three hours with you each and every day as we discuss and explore the crucial issues and determine the future of the United States.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Let me expand a little bit on this theory that I posited right before the conclusion of the previous hour.
And the theory basically is, and we've seen this, and this, I've always talked about the Washington culture.
And I have joked here, but it's not really a joke.
Over the course of almost 20 years, I have, you know, when I have to go to Washington, I'm not spending a night there.
I'm not going to do my radio show from Washington.
I mean, I love our affiliate there, WMAL, but I don't want to get caught in that culture.
I have no desire to get, it's a whole different world, Washington is.
It has nothing in common with the rest of the country.
And the people who are there have their own culture as well.
And it's not just political.
It is social.
And everybody that works there and lives there wants to matter, and they want to matter prominently.
They want to be big people.
And they want to be liked.
That place, Washington, D.C., is dominated by a liberal culture.
It always will be.
It always has been.
You ask yourselves constantly, and you call here and you ask me, what happened to the Republicans?
What happened to them?
I mean, they campaign as big-time conservatives.
They win the House in 1993.
They get inaugurated in 94.
And look at now.
Where are we?
We're about to have a 70-seat deficit in the House of Representatives 14 years later.
One of the things that I think happens is that these guys get up there and they come from mom-and-pop areas of the country and get caught up in this culture.
And of course, they get caught up in wanting to improve and acquire power.
I mean, it's what these jobs are all about.
In the media, in the House, in the Senate, it's all about power.
You've got to do things to climb the ladder.
You like media approval.
Everybody wants to be liked.
I mean, this is a fact of life.
It's human nature.
Everybody wants to be liked.
Some people deal with it better than others, but let's face it, we all want to be liked.
Very few of us are raised wanting to be hated.
Hitler might have been one.
But I don't know too many people who are raised wanting to be hated.
I wasn't.
I didn't grow up wanting to be hated.
I know you didn't either.
So when these clowns in this power structure of Washington target you and they hate you, what do you do?
They like it.
I mean, everybody wants to get along with the people that are neighbors.
You want to get along with the people you work with.
So I think one of the many things that happens here is the pull to be liked, the pull to matter, the pull to be a big guy.
Why, that inspires weakness, causes weakness in a lot of people on our side.
Seeking the approval of the people who run the town, seeking approval of the people who run the social aspects of the town, seeking the appeal of the media, the approval of the media in this town.
And boy, when the media, and liberals, by the way, ideologically are, I mean, these people are on a war footing constantly.
And their one objective is to rid themselves of any meaningful liberal or conservative opposition.
They have no desire to get along.
They have no desire.
They couldn't care less about being liked except by their own, but they don't care whether we like them or not.
Our side cares.
It's all too prevalent.
It's all too obvious.
And it's nothing that's relatively new.
This is why I mentioned McCain.
And if you'll think back, isn't one of the reasons that those of you who have doubts and suspicions about McCain have them because he seems so eager to be approved of by the people we know to be our political enemies.
I told the House freshman this when I went up there for the orientation.
They asked me to come up there and speak an orientation.
And I said, don't be fooled.
These people in the media are not here to like you.
They don't like you.
They don't think that you're great.
They're not going to treat you as the majority.
They're going to treat you as temporary interlopers.
They're going to send Koki Roberts out there to interview with big almond eyes.
You're going to bat those eyelashes at you and you're going to melt.
And you're going to think the media loves you.
And you think they're going to treat you because you're the majority the way they've treated Democrats for 40 years.
It isn't going to happen.
As I said, go through the list of people.
It's a very small list that I've mentioned here, but there are countless other names.
John Dean has been turned to the left.
He's now anti-American, anti-Republican, anti-conservative.
David Gergen used to be in the Reagan White House.
Now, Gergen was never a doctrinaire conservative, but he sure wasn't what he is today.
David Gergen used to be the conservative on the McNeil Lehrer News Hour.
He's now he's at this Kennedy school or whatever, and he's a regular commentator on CNN.
And he's loved.
And he's respected.
He can hold his head high.
He has been allowed in the establishment.
And he is considered a learned fellow.
He has seen the light.
He has abandoned his prior loyalties.
Same thing can be said for Colin Powell.
Same thing can be said for Armitage.
And here was McCain.
He was out there basically fostering this.
He was the media's favorite conservative.
Why?
Because he always attacked his own side.
He attacked President Bush.
They loved him.
We resented it.
We don't like seeing this stuff happen out in the open.
Here comes McClellan.
He's just the latest.
Everybody that knew McClellan is saying, I don't know this guy.
This is not the Scott McClellan we knew.
We never heard him say one word about any of this that he's written in his book.
And McCain, by the way, speaking of McCain, you know, he went out there with his McCain fine gold campaign finance reform and basically neutered the money machine that led to advantages for the Republican Party.
So it was all these things.
This is why I've never gone there.
It's why I don't want to live there.
It is why I do not, I don't want to get caught.
I don't care.
I am one actually who doesn't care who likes me or dislikes me.
I used to, but I don't anymore.
It doesn't matter to me.
I am at this stage in my life and what I do, I'm actually as proud of the people who hate me as I am of my friends because they hate me for a good reason.
That's because I'm a problem.
That's because I pose them a great problem and because they can't turn me.
That's why I don't go to the White House correspondence dinner.
I've told you over and over what a phony charade that is.
For one night, all these people gather, 1,200 people at the Washington Hilton.
The president shows up as the butt of everybody's jokes when he's a Republican.
And all the Republicans in the room sit there and they laugh at it too.
And they shake hands with all the liberals in the press and in the government and everywhere and act like we're all just one big happy family for one night.
And it's all phony.
None of it's real.
Well, one part of it's real, and that is our side hoping to be liked by the Democrats and the liberals that are in the White House correspondence dinner room itself.
If, you know, if McClellan were right, if Scott McClellan were right about this administration, Scott McClellan's book would not have come out.
I mean, here he is portraying a picture of the Bush administration as constantly campaigning, lying, deceiving, all this conspiracy going on in private meetings that McClellan wasn't allowed to be part of.
But see, to a lot of us, one of the problems with this administration has always been that they are not what McClellan and the left says they are.
They are not confrontational.
They are not ideologically aligned.
They don't do battles ideologically.
If the Bush administration were what McClellan says it is, then somebody like the ruthless Jim Baker, remember now, how long ago was it?
Just a few months ago that we got the first excerpt from McClellan's book.
And remember how the, I forget what it was, but the press went gaga over this thing.
I forget what the excerpt was.
If the Bush administration were what Scott McClellan says it is, when that excerpt came out, they would have found the ruthless Jim Baker or some such.
And they would have summoned little old Scott McClellan to a come to Jesus meeting.
And they would have said, you know, Scott, your little book here, not a good idea for your family's future.
The little book that you're going to write here, Scott, it's really not good for your future.
And then they'd give him some job at the Carlisle group, at the Blackstone group, where he never had to show up.
They'd pay him off and they'd just put him somewhere, a no-show job at one of these Republican things and be rid of him.
But they don't play hardball politics like that.
That's not what this administration does.
And yet, McClellan's written a book described if this had been tried, if who, McCurry or some other spokesman in the Clinton administration had done something like this?
Let your mind wander, folks, and think what would happen to that guy.
Let me take a couple phone calls here.
And then I want to expand this in terms of what's happening to our elected officials and others with what's happening to some of the conservative media as well, because it's all the same thing.
Dale in Las Vegas, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
None of that was rush.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, anyway, you speak so poorly of Scott McClellan.
It's telling everybody in the world that he has struck a raw nerve.
Is that right?
Yes, something he said was very sensitive and maybe even true.
You know it, and I know it.
No, I don't know it.
All I know is that the people that know Scott McClellan don't know this Scott McClellan.
He's never said anything like this before.
He wasn't in half the meetings, if not more.
And of course, the motivation that he has for this is certainly what people are questioning.
Well, I'll tell you what.
You'd never believed me when I called you a year ago.
I told you three things.
And you said I was Mr. Gloom and Doom.
I said that the Republican Party was gone.
I said McCain was a sham.
And I said the economy was down the tubes.
And at the time, you said, well, the stock market's a pie.
And you also, oh, anyway, the price of oil at that time was $60 a barrel.
Today it's $127.
Yeah, coming down.
I've got two big predictions for you.
No, good.
Can't wait.
What are these?
Obama becomes president, Israel is toast.
And I'm really sorry to say that.
I'm a Reagan Republican, and I know what this means for the whole country.
And I'll call you back in a year and a half if you still have a microphone, and we'll talk about it.
All right.
Dale, I'll look forward to that.
You know it, and I know it.
Okay, thanks.
Thanks, New York.
Here's Candy in Marenco, Ohio.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
I'm great.
Thank you.
Listen, you know this whole Scott McClellan thing?
Even Reagan had his Michael Beaver.
And it just seems like these people are really well-versed at being able to ferret out these moles and to be able to twist them in the back of the current president.
Wait a second.
What did Deaver do?
He wrote a tell-all book.
Don't you remember about how terrible the Reagan administration was and how the press touted it as being just now we can see who the real Reagan is.
Oh, yeah.
I have a vague memory of this.
You know, Stephanopoulos also wrote a tell-all book on the Clintons, but I don't, I think it got swept out of the, I really don't remember it.
But regardless, Stephanopoulos is now a senior journalist at ABC.
I'd forgotten the Deaver book, and I'm still not fully up to speed on it.
Would you put it in the same category as this?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And the reason I do, I did not read the book because I was a Reagan supporter and still am.
But the reason that I did not read it was because the media made such a big deal of who the real Reagan was.
Now we could see who the real Reagan was, and now we knew what he was really like.
Well, all it does is confirm the theory and confirm the thing that bothers me the most about all of this, and that is the culture of Washington and what it takes to get along there, what it takes to be approved there, what it takes to be insulated from these kinds of attacks.
Like I tell you, Scott McClellan is forever going to be an expert on the Bush administration.
He is going to be a most favored status guest on cable TV.
You know, maybe he couldn't find a gig.
Maybe one of the problems was he couldn't find work.
So he writes the book, hoping that this will get him a job with the Drive-By Media somewhere down the line.
Who knows?
Becky in Houston.
I'm glad you called.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
First of all, I want to say that it's really good to talk to you.
Thanks.
I know there's a lot of issues that I've been listening to you since I was a senior high school in 1992 and driving home, just listening.
My dad and I picked you up in high school, listening to you, some election coverage back when.
And I just want to, and I listen to you now faithfully.
I'm working out, listen to you every time I exercise.
And I just want to make a quick, quick sort of reference to that.
And that's a, you know, we may not always agree on a lot of the things on, you know, some of the things that you propose and some of the things that you subscribe to, but it's kind of like working out right now.
I feel like if you don't exercise and I don't feel the burn right now, I don't feel my muscles aching, I'm not really making my body any better.
So I feel the same way as just want to make a point about intellectual consumerism and darling your caller.
And I think that what she said was really, I mean, I kind of disagree with a little bit of the melodrama that her commentary veered into.
But I want to say she said towards the end of her comment that she listens to both liberal and conservative.
Well, I want to just tell you the same way.
I feel like if I don't work out my brain and listen to views that I don't necessarily agree with, then I feel like I can't tell you what.
Wait a minute now.
Slow down a minute, Camille.
I feel like I'm talking to Camille Paglia here.
You are lightning fast here with your tongue.
I'm sorry.
I just had a red bull.
I guess that I was on a treadmill.
Every time I exercise, these are some of the things I don't agree with.
I got to keep the dial on because I may not agree with you.
Jesus, you took a Red Bull and you got on a treadmill.
That's how you deal with things I say you don't agree with?
No.
No, I mean, I'm saying, if I don't agree with it, rather than I resist the impulse to tune out if I don't.
Okay, well, what I want to know is this.
Give me an example of something I say that you don't agree with.
Okay, well, this is something I don't agree with.
I'm going to propose a radical theory that I have now.
And that theory is: what if the reason why Scott McClellan is writing this book is because he just genuinely is having a crisis of conscience, and thus the disparity between what current White House staffers remember of him and don't remember him.
And that's the reason why he's writing this book is because, I mean, I just remember watching all of his press conferences during 2006, and I remember that I was a fan of his.
I thought, you know what, poor guy.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
By crisis of conscience, you mean he's telling the truth, finally.
Well, what I mean is, like, what if he just didn't feel he was in the loop?
What if he was truly an embattled White House secretary?
I mean, you have to give the guy props for really, really, really trying to make everything sound cogent.
I have never.
You didn't think so?
I thought.
I have.
I have never, ever.
And I've talked to a lot of women.
I have never spoken to somebody who speaks as fast as you do and never stutters.
I stop working out.
I'm sorry.
I'm nervous.
My heart's beating fast talking to you.
But like I said, I talked to you once before when I was a kid and I was 17 back when in 1992.
And I also want to talk about the evolution and a little bit about intellectual consumerism.
No, you still haven't answered my question.
Name something that I've said you disagree with.
Well, I disagree that your reason for Scott McClellan coming out with his book and his primary motivation is the culture of Washington and just trying to be liked and trying to, you know, that maybe it's because he's trying to cash in.
No, but that's only half of it.
He doesn't mean I'm from Texas.
Scott McClellan doesn't need any money.
His mother, you know, his mother was state comtroller here.
You suggested one reason that I thought Connor was a cheap shot, that maybe he's doing this because Bush didn't support his mom's independent run.
That's just somebody's theory.
Okay, so, well, I mean, one of the things that you propose that you threw out there is that, you know, a lot of people are, you know, one of the things that you throw out there for supporting why he might be doing this.
Well, what I disagree with, to answer your question, is that he's doing this surely out of reasons that have to be disingenuous.
So maybe he really is just embattled White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
And this is the frustration of an embattled press secretary really just coming out.
I'm sorry, folks, I couldn't do anything about it.
As we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, I got up today, was reading my usual voluminous amount of reading material for show prep, and I saw that the CEO, the president and the CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, was going to come under assault today in Dallas at the annual shareholders at a monthly shareholders meeting or whatever for ExxonMobil.
Now, ExxonMobil, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the smallest oil companies in the world.
It's the largest oil company in the United States.
It's one of the smallest oil companies in the world.
It is.
What?
Are you still laughing about the last caller?
What was her name?
What was her name?
Becky from Houston.
Yeah, you know, during the break, folks, as I say, it's very fortunate that I am the only member of my staff who has a microphone.
Because I was getting like HR said, hey, you think she's single?
Somebody else said, you know what?
You ought to give her a subscriber membership to the limb ball letter so you go back and listen to her call.
She may not know how fast she speaks.
Anyway, Rex Tillerson was supposed to be ousted today from one of these two positions.
Now, ExxonMobil is the old standard oil, which is the Rockefellers.
And the story I read today was that the Rockefeller family was going to make a beeline for Rex Tillerson.
And they were going to get him canned from one of these two positions because he wasn't taking the company in the direction they wanted it to go.
And that is searching for alternative fuel sources and energy sources.
And why should he?
He's in the oil business.
So the Wall Street Journal just sends out this little blurb here.
ExxonMobil shareholders rejected a proposal to create an independent chairman, handing management a shaky victory, but not the strong vote of confidence it sought.
At the oil company's annual meeting, 39.5% of shareholders voted to create an independent chairman in line with the 40% the proposal received last year.
Currently, Rex Tillerson holds both the chairman and the CEO jobs.
The ISU, which has been on the Exxon proxy for several years, gained considerable attention in recent weeks when members of the Rockefeller family said they were supporting the measure.
So the shareholders told the Rockefeller family, we're going to keep Rex in both positions.
Now, they can call this a shaky victory by my count.
It's 60-40, which in politics would be a landslide.
Scott McClellan got another note.
Rush, stop bashing McClellan.
We don't have to hit McClellan.
You're nothing new in his book.
It's just liberal talking points.
That's the whole point.
How does a guy in the Bush administration who was the spokesman ends up getting fired?
How does he end up writing a book that could have been written by moveon.org bloggers?
How does this happen?
This is not isolated.
It is, folks, it really is a problem.
It is a problem that conservatism has faced and will continue to face as long as there are many gutless among us.
Now, McClellan, I have a little quote here from McClellan.
Back when he was the White House spokesman, Richard Clark came out.
He also quit the administration.
Richard Clark, he quit the administration.
He wrote some tell-all book about how the Bush administration and Connolly Rice dropped the ball and 9-11 was basically their fault.
And we're all sitting here scratching our heads: who the hell is this guy?
We find out he was in the Clinton administration.
Aha!
A plant.
But Bush sort of deserved it because they held the guy over from the Clinton administration.
So McClellan, as press secretary, was asked about this.
Here's what he said.
Why all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, Richard Clark, did he not raise these sooner?
This is one and a half years after he left the administration.
And now all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had.
And I think you have to look at some of the facts.
One, he's bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign.
He has written a book.
He certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.
Certainly, let's look at the politics of it.
Thank you, Scott.
You too have written a book.
You couldn't wait till the administration of your president was over.
You had to inject your book into this presidential campaign.
And you and your grave concerns.
Where were they all the time you were out there fronting for the administration?
No, no, no, folks.
This is this is important stuff.
Now, what did I do?
Oh, here it is.
Piece that ran yesterday in national review by Alex Castellanos called Cuovadas G-O-P. Castellanos, a Republican media consultant who lives in Alexandria, Virginia.
And he's all over cable TV doing Republican strategist talk.
Have you noticed how many Republican and Democrat strategists these cable TV people come up with?
I think they just grab good-looking people off the street and bring them in and say, Do you know what the difference of Republican and Democrat is?
Okay, you're a Democrat strategist on this next segment.
Who are these people?
You put something up that says Democrat strategist, then they must work somewhere where they strategize for Democrats.
They must work for a candidate.
They must work.
Where do they work?
Who are these people?
Never heard of half of them.
Republican strategist.
I'm not being partisan here.
Republican strategists, the same thing.
Anyway, here's the subhead title of Mr. Castellanos' piece is How a Conservative Can Love Government.
Now, this begins the problem.
One of the problems that I've always identified is that too many on our side accept the premise of any liberal argument and then try to tweak it around the edges and give it some sort of a conservative identity or flavor, which is defeat.
It's surrender.
Happy surrender.
Just accept their premise and then try to tweak it a little bit.
Mr. Castellanos begins thus.
The Republican Party is having an identity crisis, a full-blown public meltdown, complete with teenage existential angst.
Eric Erickson, the psychologist who coined the term, described an identity crisis as the absence of a set of constant social, philosophical, or religious values to guide human action in a constantly changing environment.
That pretty much describes today's Republicans who have no clue who they are, where they're going, or why.
A serious impairment if you presume to lead a conga line, much more so for the most powerful nation on earth.
Then he has a couple paragraphs where he sort of takes to task in a pretty good way some of the pseudo-conservative intellectual media.
David Brooks, he singles out.
He also singles out Tom Davis, member of Congress from Virginia, who's a classic example of what I'm talking about.
Just a classic former leader of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee writes, the Republican brand is in the trash can.
And he quotes Peggy Noonan, some of her latest hand-wringing, and he quotes the New Yorker and goes on and He then says, conservatives do have something to say about this.
Our British cohorts, as Brooks notes, are expressing it this way.
They want voters to think of the Tories, the British conservatives, as the party of society, while labor is the party of the state.
They want the country to see the Tories as the party of decentralized organic networks and labor rights as the party of top-down mechanistic control, mechanistic.
But the conservative revival that David Brooks has discovered in the Anglo-motherland is new only in expression, not in principle or practice.
Conservatives have always believed in bottom-up self-government, not top-down state-imposed administration.
Conservatives do not hate government.
We never have.
We love life when it is well-governed.
We respect the flag, our country, and traditional authority.
We like a world where rules are observed and regulations are respected.
We revere the order of the church.
We respect the lines on the playing field and we stop at traffic lights.
We want things to work.
We want trains to run on time and to stay on the rails.
We want our lives to be ordered.
We want our lives to be governed, just not by others.
We want our lives governed by the face we see in the mirror.
We want our lives governed by ourselves.
So far, so good, right?
You like this so far, sternly?
Okay, sit tight then.
Liberals do not. love government.
What they love is power, especially when it is concentrated in the state and they have their hands on it.
Whether that power actually governs anything is immaterial.
Well, now we're starting to get into the little gray area.
Now we're going to start redefining government so that we can still use the term, but on our terms.
So we're going to accept the liberal term of government.
Government should do this.
Government should do.
This is where Mr. Costellanos is headed.
Yes, government should keep the trains on time.
We, governing ourselves, should keep the trains on time.
So bear with me on this, folks.
This is actually rather simple to explain.
Liberals do not love government.
What they love is power, especially when it's concentrated in the state and they have their hands on it.
Whether that power actually governs anything is immaterial.
Yes, they believe in a large and growing public sector, but liberalism's antique industrial age imperative that all authority must be top-down and emanate from the public sector has established a colossal record of failure.
The big old machine is broken.
Liberalism doesn't govern anything these days.
Which is true.
Liberalism doesn't mean, no, but by his depth, government, when he says liberalism doesn't govern anything, he says liberalism doesn't make anything work.
But they do govern.
They use the power of the state to infringe individual freedom and liberty.
Liberalism doesn't govern spending.
It's out of control in Washington.
Liberalism doesn't govern education.
Our public schools are a painful wreck.
Liberalism doesn't govern health care.
Liberalism doesn't govern energy.
It doesn't govern drugs, crime, decaying infrastructure, lackluster economy.
Liberalism doesn't govern our culture.
It is unwinding.
Liberalism doesn't govern retirement.
Pick anything, anything.
Washington has been tasked to govern.
Washington has proven unable to administer it.
What liberals believe governs nothing.
What liberals believe doesn't work.
What postmodern conservatives believe, however, does work.
The evidence is all around us and the successful embrace of capitalism now lifting nations around the planet.
In fact, the language of the internet, the communications age, and the environmental and civil rights movements describe postmodern conservatism with perfection and grace.
What we believe in is people-driven, choice-filled, dynamic, flexible, equal opportunity self-government.
We should call it organic government.
We want to know what your government is going to look like 20 years from now.
Ask your kids.
They'll say it'll look a lot less like General Motors and a lot more like MySpace.
The Internet's an education for us all, a place where people self-organize and govern themselves with maximum freedom.
In its reflection, we can see more than the future of technology and communications.
We can see the promise of democracy.
So there's another page here, but you see where this is going.
It's really good in parts, but still, we conservatives, in order to persuade people that our ideas are better, still must do it within the confines of government because we've lost the argument.
Liberals own the term government.
Government is good.
Government is a great benefactor.
Government's the end-all, everything.
We must, we can't get rid of that term.
And we can't say government's bad.
And we can't say big government because people like it.
So now we have to go organic government, self-government.
Anyway, quick time out.
Back in a jiffy.
You won't even know how long we're going.
Okay, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
Let me just give you the last paragraph here from Mr. Castellano's Pace National Review Online, from which I have just recently been reading.
Our theme, our brand, our identity, how about this?
Republicans are not the party of a decaying old static industrial age, top-down government in Washington.
We are the communications age party of genuinely democratic dynamic government, or for and by real people.
And we want to get money and power out of Washington, into the hands of people, not because we want no government, but because we believe people who live in liberty create the best government when they are trusted to govern themselves.
Fellow conservatives, let's learn to say it.
We need more government, lots of it.
But we need the kind that actually works, bottom-up self-government by a mature people.
And we need that government in our hands because it's not natural, efficient, or beneficial to leave something so powerful in the hands of anyone else.
Now, look, folks, see, this is very seductive because who can disagree with this?
But it's using the word government here.
He's trying to give us a way to convince liberals to join us or to keep recalcitrant conservatives with us.
But it's sort of like our side's way to proceed on global warming.
Okay, let's just accept the premise.
There is global warming, man-made global warming, but we've got to come up with solutions here that don't cost us as much money as what the liberals are going to do.
Now, what's happening is that, frankly, the lesser lights out there on our side are trying to rewrite natural law.
That is our principles.
They are trying to become this modern equivalent of philosopher kings.
Their agenda is very different from ours.
We're advocating the principles of our founding, which are the principles of human nature.
Natural law.
That's the brilliance of our founding.
Human nature as created by God.
All these new philosopher kings on our side are not doing this.
They're not only using the language of the left, they are seeding the principles too.
I mean, I don't know that they know that they're doing this, but they are.
We're not against government, he says.
Of course we are against government.
If the government doesn't operate within its limits, we don't exist for government.
It exists for us.
And yet we've got people on our side that government is this great thing.
It's the government's become the shining city on the hill.
The government is not the country.
It's the people who make the country work.
There are things we can like about the government, things we don't like about it.
It all depends on whether the government's authority actually exists or whether it has been exercised improperly.
Not a word about the Constitution from any of these people that are writing these theories and philosophies on how to win, which reveals the heart of the problem.
They've given up on the Constitution, or else they ignore it, as the left usually does, or they invoke it when it serves some perceived political end.
But this is just semantic BS.
It's like Mr. Castellanos is advocating conservatism, but recommending we call it freedom and individual responsibility.
government so we can fool the voters with a semantic ruse that we really favor government too this is what the whole point of it he wants us with this piece to go out and tell liberals hey no no no we love government too we we don't hate government like you think we love government so we have to accept their premise yes we love government but we think the government ought to be bottom up ought to be why don't you just Why don't you just go out and say the Republican words, screw this brand search?
Let's just get back to conservatism.
How about it will solve most of this?
I just have one more thing to say about all this, and that is, what do we do next?