All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:58
June 18, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh and I am having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, which means that you are too.
This is the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Rush Limbaugh program on over 600 great radio stations in this country where we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
Here's the phone number and we're going to be getting your phone calls quickly in this hour since I didn't get to any yesterday and I'm going to be out Thursday and Friday.
We've got Mark Davis here tomorrow and Jason Lewis on Friday.
I'll be back on Monday.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
You know, the Mississippi River, it's really swollen out there.
It's swelling up, threatening all these levees in Illinois and Iowa, now down to Quincy, Illinois, and approaching Hannibal, Missouri.
We all know where the Mississippi River ends up, don't we?
Where does the Mississippi River end up, Brian?
Where does it end up?
It ends up in New Orleans.
That's exactly right.
The Mississippi River ends up, a flooded Mississippi River is going to end up in New Orleans.
And when it does, you are going to see an entirely different kind of coverage from the drive-by media when the Mississippi River is just, you know, a day or two away from reaching New Orleans and the Delta.
They're going to go nuts out there.
We've got one more audio soundbite here from Barack Obama as we conclude our little discussion here on the president's proposal today to lift the executive order prohibiting drilling and exploration off the continental shelf and in and war.
This is Obama yesterday aboard his campaign plane.
Most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price of oil by a few cents.
So this is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems.
The guy is an idiot.
He is just an idiot.
He is locked into this position because he's a leftist radical Democrat.
Have you ever noticed who is it that really makes things happen in this country?
It's the entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs of all stripes, all sizes, create business of all sizes.
They're a wide range.
And who is it that always sets out to punish them and destroy them?
Liberals, the American left.
Absolutely right, Brian.
I can read your lips in there.
Good going.
It's just to me.
What does Obama want?
Barack Obama wants you to suffer.
Barack Obama wants higher prices on fuel right now.
Barack Obama wants a windfall profits tax right now.
Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes, by the way, right now.
He wants to raise capital gains taxes right now.
He wants to raise Social Security taxes right now.
Obama wants you to suffer.
The Democrat Party wants you in pain.
They want you angry.
And they are willing to block any remedy to this problem in order to keep you suffering and in pain and angry.
Obama wants prices up.
He wants your income down and he wants taxes up, ladies and gentlemen.
This business, the most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price by a few cents.
He's getting that from Chuck Schumer, but Chuck Schumer's contradicting himself.
The world's going nuts here over the fact that Saudi is going to pump an additional 800,000 barrels a day and war would give us a million.
And everybody's talking about massive $30 to $40 a barrel off the market price if we just add a million dollars a barrel.
But nobody's saying cents except the Democrats.
So Obama says offshore drilling will only save a few cents.
Repealing the gas tax, it'll only save a few cents.
Offshore drilling, it'll only save a few cents.
And war, it'll only save a few cents.
Everything is only a few cents.
How much does changing your light bulb save, Obama?
Here's a Democrat talking point on this, a montage.
This is Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon.
Bet you didn't know that there are 31 million acres leased in the Gulf of Mexico that the oil companies have not drilled.
The oil companies have 68 million acres already under lease they're not using.
So why just give them more acres?
We have 68 million acres that can be drilled.
Come on, guys.
They are not developing what they have now.
There's 20 years supply out there.
They haven't developed it.
Well, even if this is true and it isn't, could we ask all of you Democrats why?
Could it be you?
Could it be that there are so many ridiculous, stupid environmental obstacles in their way?
Could it be that there are so many taxes waiting upon them, put in place by you?
Could it well be that you are the ones impeding them?
But I don't even accept the premise.
Here are the numbers.
As you just heard, the Congressional Democrats are claiming that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres and are not tapping federal leases they own.
Here's some facts for you on this.
And this is from the Institute for Energy Research.
Now, the Institute for Energy Research is an energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation.
Great people.
The reality is that 97% of federal offshore areas are not leased.
97% federal offshore areas are not leased.
94% of federal onshore areas are not leased.
Right now, only 15% of the outer continental shelf acreage is even available for leasing.
With domestic oil production in the U.S. declining since 2000 to the lowest level since 1947, it is clear that we need to tap more domestic oil.
The oil companies have paid money for the leases they own in addition to an annual fee.
So it would make no sense to leave them dormant and not drill for oil or even test to determine what oil capabilities are there, particularly at a time of $130 oil.
Companies have every incentive to explore, tap the existing leases that they have.
Just a series of lies, misrepresentations by the Democrats.
They want you mad.
They want you suffering.
I'm telling you, this is a great issue of contrast.
Republicans versus Democrats, conservatives versus liberals, rightists versus leftists, however you want to put it.
Because it is clear who is on the side of the American people, who's on the side of independence, who's on the side of liberty, who's on the side of lower prices.
And it ain't the party of the so-called little guy.
It is not the Democrat Party.
Get this next sound by.
We're going to get the phones after the break here.
This is yesterday in Taylor, Michigan.
Christian Broadcast Network News senior national correspondent David Brody interviewed Barack Obama.
And Brody says Michelle Obama has come under criticism from some conservatives because some comments that they suggest she's unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, and outside the mainstream.
This has unfortunately become a habit in our politics where anything's fair game and we just make things up about people.
The fact that people have tried to make her a target based essentially on a couple of comments in which she was critical of what's happening to our American dream and the enormous difficulties that people are experiencing, difficulties that she hears directly as she's traveling across the country, I think is really distressing.
And, you know, I've said publicly before, and I'll say again, I think families are off limits.
I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue.
And if I saw people doing that, I would speak out against it.
And the fact that I haven't seen that from John McCain, I think, is a deep disappointment.
Oh!
McCain won't criticize people who are criticizing my wife.
Look, McCain's got a lot on his plate, Senator.
Why is it McCain's responsibility to denounce these people?
Besides, Senator Obama, you and I know both who got this whole thing.
And we know what you're talking about.
You're talking about the tape, the rumored tape, the whitey tape, which nobody's ever seen, doesn't exist.
I'm not trying to spread the rumor.
He knows what we're talking about here.
That's what he was talking about.
And we all know that it was a Democrat blogger that started that whole thing, Larry Johnson, who was working for the Clinton campaign.
That's who started this whole thing.
And he knows it.
And why it's up to McCain or any of us to denounce this liberal blogger is beyond me.
Let's see.
Oh, I mentioned this yesterday.
I had the scoop on this from Bill Salmon, but I want you to hear this.
There's a Barack Obama campaign conference call.
Bill Salmon of the Washington Examiner says to the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, should bin Laden have the same rights that were granted by the Supreme Court last week to other terrorists?
Most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price of oil.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights.
If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights.
Okay, so here's John Kerry, an advisor.
By the way, real change here, right?
Revolutionary, new, never-before-seen mindset enlightenment.
And here's John Kerry.
I've told you, losing in the Democrat Party is the biggest resume enhancement you can have.
So here's Kerry saying, yep, damn right, Obama gets the same constitutional rights as anybody else.
Next up, Richard Clark, another hack.
Certainly not new, certainly not fresh, certainly nothing enlightened.
And he chimed in on the very same question.
If he were to be brought back, force, the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of aviator Scorpus.
But fifth, terrorists have routinely in the past, prior to this administration, been successfully captured around the world and prosecuted, including in the United States.
With the exception of one participant in the World Trade Center attack of 1993, they were all found, all brought back to the United States, all given their rights, and all convicted, and they're all locked up in Supermax in Colorado.
That is an out-and-out falsehood.
That is an out-and-out lie.
And we went through the details of this yesterday.
But again, the point is that Holbrook, well, Holbrook, too, but this is Richard Clark.
Yep, damn right.
Bin Laden gets constitutional rights.
So this is new.
We're going to go back to the Clinton era way of fighting the war on terror in the courts.
You know, we indicted Bin Laden in 1998.
We still don't have him, do we?
We did get, we did indict some, you know, the blind sheikh and some of his cohorts for the 93 World Trade Center bombing, and yep, put some of them in jail.
And look at all the terrorism that happened after that.
See, the thing about this, these are supposed to be the best and the brightest minds around.
John Kerry, Richard Clark.
The fact is, the legal approach, the indictment approach, it only happens after they've done their dirty work, after they have committed a terrorist act.
And if we're fortunate to catch them, only then does their policy matter.
And does it stop terror?
Nope.
No way.
It's nothing more.
These people are incompetent.
They cannot be put back in charge.
You can see what happened all during the 90s with a buildup.
But I just wanted you to hear this.
Barack Obama, the enlightened one, the Messiah, with brand new policies that never have before been seen, wants to bring back retreads from the past, the Clinton administration and a failed presidential campaign, to put an exclamation point on the proposition that, yes, if we capture bin Laden damn straight, he gets an ACLU lawyer, he gets Mirandaized, rights read to him, and he gets constitutional rights in the United States of America.
One more thing, and we're going to go to the phones.
You might have seen the news yesterday that Al Gore's home is now using 10% more electricity after taking all of these energy-saving steps that he highly touted one year ago.
We have, therefore, proof from Al Gore that we need to drill for more oil.
We have proof that conservation does not work.
Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker points out that the morality play on offer from these environmentalist wackos and their media buddies says that we can't drill our way to cheaper oil prices, but that conservation and new technologies for alternative energy are the answer.
Thus, we should all be thankful to vice perpetrator Al Gore for proving that even in a high-profile demonstration project, these solutions will not work.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that Al Gore's home in Nashville has increased its energy use by 10% in the past year.
This is in the face of proudly announced and expensive energy-saving steps.
Stop the ACLUs cites the Soros-funded Think Progress site for information here.
Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residents, including signing up for 100% green power through Green Power Switch.
They've installed solar panels.
They've used compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy-saving technology.
And it didn't work.
His usage went up 10%.
So now that Al Gore has proven his measures are ineffective, it is time to drill offshore.
It is time to drill and end war.
It is time to mine coal and to start on nuclear power plants.
Al Gore, by the way, is not going to join Obama on the campaign trail.
He's not going to subject himself to questions on global warming.
He will not debate.
What are you laughing at in there?
Just tell me what's so funny.
Is my hair out of whack or what?
What is so funny?
Just.
Oh, you're not laughing at anything happening on the program.
Okay, so you're paying attention to something other than the program in there, and that's making you laugh.
All right, back to the phones.
Not back to the phones.
We got to go to the phones.
We'll start here with Mike in Bend, Oregon.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Mr. Limbaugh, it's an honor, sir.
Thank you very much.
I'm not a highly educated guy, so maybe you can help me out with something.
Didn't the threat of Star Wars technology from President Reagan and the showing of funding for that from Congress, didn't that start the dismantling of communism in Europe?
It was the final straw.
It really wasn't.
It didn't start things.
It was the final straw.
This, by the way, you're exactly right, according to Lady Thatcher, who, you know, I've spoken to her several times about this personally.
I've heard her give lectures on this.
And she said that the Soviet Union knew that when we announced the strategic to defense initiative, Star Wars, they knew.
I mean, they were over.
They were a third world country with a first-rate military.
They could not keep up with us.
They did not have the ingenuity.
They didn't have the entrepreneurism.
They didn't have the freedom to create something like that.
They could not keep up with it.
And they realized.
So what they tried to do, Gorbachev tried a bunch of things, Glas Nost and Perestroika, tried to hold on to the communist infrastructure while granting a little freedom here and a little freedom there, and it fell apart on him.
And Star Wars technology may never have even existed, but the threat is what started that process.
Exactly right, sir.
This may be apples and oranges, but wouldn't the solidarity of our country with the president in a Congress that shows that we are going to drill, that we're going to go after our own oil, wouldn't that bring the price of oil down like tomorrow?
I mean, the last thing OPEC wants is for us to produce our own oil.
And the fastest way for them to slow us down would be for them to drop the price of oil so that we would not be so interested in drilling for our own oil.
Well, but see, nobody's in charge of dropping the price of oil or raising it.
Too many market factors that really make the price of oil what it is.
But theoretically, I assume that, yeah, they would be very alarmed if there were much greater supply coming on the market, regardless where it came from, because it is going to have a downward put downward pressure on the price.
For those of you in Rio Linda, let me speak your language, it will lower the price rather than downward pressure.
I also think that simply if we did unite and congressional and approval with the president sign a legislation, yep, we're going to do this, I do think that it would immediately impact the oil markets in a positive way with a whole lot of confidence because it would mean more supply.
You know, it's always the lack of supply of a necessity that causes unease and sometimes panic.
It causes disquiet.
It causes nervousness.
I mean, we're talking about a need here.
You know, we're not talking here about a shortage of the paperclips.
We're talking about a shortage of supply, necessary supply, just to maintain current levels of use and even growth of oil.
And that's going to make a lot of people nervous.
And if people figure out that the world's banding together one way or the other to go get more of it, it will no question have a very positive effect.
But OPEC would not, first place, they're not the cartel.
OPEC is not the cartel that they were.
Not every oil-producing country is a member of OPEC.
If there's a cartel, but the problem is that the oil cartel today is not producing any.
The oil cartel is people standing in the way of production.
At any rate, brief timeout, folks.
We'll be back.
More of your phone calls on the other side of this obscene profit timeout.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Lots of noise from the mouth of Barack Obama, once again on his campaign plan yesterday, goes right to the Democrat playbook and says, don't lecture me on terrorism.
This is the same kind of fear mongering that got us into Iraq, that has caused us to be hugely distracted from the war.
We do have to fight against terrorism.
And it's exactly that failed foreign policy that I want to reverse.
Strictly clichés, right out of the Democrat Party playbook.
Folks, one of the things that's bothering me here is that this is just juvenile.
I'm trying here.
I'm aware that being too critical of this guy can evoke all kinds of sympathy for him.
Everybody, everybody's really pounding Obama.
He's such a nice guy.
All he wants to do is have a good country.
He's safe to change in his future.
And I don't want to create this kind of sympathy, but I listen to this stuff and I am going nuts over this.
This is supposed to be a sman.
What we're finding, this man is not an independent thinker at all.
This is dogma.
Yeah, Clinton changed it up a little bit from speech to speech, but this is nothing but Democrat Party leftist anti-American dogma.
And I'm caught between two vices.
I want you to understand, I want to tell you how just brilliantly naive and truly dangerous this is.
But at the same time, I don't want to come across as another thing.
Can somebody explain to me why it is with every, every Democrat first lady possibility, we have to do a makeover?
We didn't have to make over Laura Bush.
We didn't have to makeover Nancy Reagan.
We didn't have to makeover Pat Nixon.
And we didn't have to make over Betty Ford.
And we didn't have to make over Barbara Bush or Laura Bush.
But every day we had to make it.
Wait, it already had 14 different images a day from bacon cookies at home to Nurse Ratchet.
And now they got Michelle Mybel Obama, a big New York Times story to how we got to repackage her.
They went out and hired some cutter babe to come in and be your chief of staff and spokesman.
And I'll tell you, the answer to that is because they can't afford to let them be who they really are.
They will offend and they will offend as many people in this country as anybody could possibly do.
And so they have to bring them in and basically say, look, you can't be who you are or we're sunk.
So we're going to put different clothes on you.
We're going to make you speak a different way.
We're going to give you some words not to use.
We're going to tell you to smile all the time.
And we're going to really have you tell everybody how you came from dirt.
You came from the wrong side of tracks.
You came from nothing.
And you don't even have much now, but you've come farther from where you started than anybody ever expected that you would.
Every damn potential first lady that the Democrats have, they got to do makeovers.
Anyway, I did not lose my place here.
This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq.
Fear-mongering that got us into Iraq.
Have you ever heard of 9-11 senator?
We have not abandoned the war on terror.
We're in Afghanistan.
We have routed the Taliban.
We have not been distracted whatsoever from the fight against terrorism.
Senator Obama, it's your party.
It is your party that has stood in the way of fighting the war on terror.
It is your party along with you, Senator, who have assured the American people we can't win it.
You've been out there saying, this war is lost.
We haven't even gotten bin Laden.
And now you call this a failed policy?
Failed foreign policy you want to reverse?
You want to reverse victory?
Here's the next bite.
This to say, I'm still on the same plane.
I wish this plane would land somewhere.
These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11.
In part because of their failed strategies, we've got bin Laden still sending out audio tapes.
And so I don't think they have much standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9-11.
Audacity of this inexperienced rookie to sit there and say things that these are the same guys that helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq.
Senator, what in the world have you done to prevent another attack on this country?
What policies have you supported?
What policies have you authored that have prevented an attack on the United States of America?
Would you also explain to me, Senator, what impact, what economic, what destructive impact does an audio tape from somebody claiming to be Osama bin Laden have?
How in the world, Senator, do you proclaim a failed policy on the basis that bin Laden is still making audio tapes?
What is it, sir, about audio tapes that scares you?
What is it about audio tapes in bin Laden or Zawahiri that make you feel intimidated?
Would you rather have them sending out a bunch of meaningless audio tapes or hijacking airplanes?
Would you rather have them get killed and knocked off in Iraq and have their numbers dwindled and their spirits lowered?
Or would you rather have them sending out audio tapes?
This is dangerously irresponsible.
You can't just say that this is, well, Russia, a presidential campaign.
He's got to say something opposite to Republicans.
It may be a presidential campaign, but damn it, this is the United States of America.
And we've got a Democrat Party presidential candidate who is doing everything he can to reverse the policies of victory, to reverse the policies of national security.
And he calls them failed policies.
You know, I want to go back to something.
And I'll go back to your phone calls.
It wasn't too long ago in this very program, we played audio soundbites from the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and Richard Clark, well-known White House terrorism advisor, both Clinton and Bush 43.
And they both agreed with the premise, oh, yeah, yeah, indictment's a way to go.
The legal system, bring bin Laden to court.
If he were captured, damn right.
We bring him to court, we give him a lawyer, and we get an indictment.
And yeah, that's what Supreme Court said, that's what we want to do.
You talk about a failed policy.
That's a Clinton policy to fight the war on terror in the courtroom because you only do that after you've been hit.
It's not preventive in any way.
And these guys want to do that.
Well, let's take this to some logical steps using the U.S. court system.
We capture Obama, Osama.
We capture Osama.
Wherever he is, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
And we bring him to the United States.
And we assign his trial in Manhattan because the indictment that's on his head since 19, by the way, you think he's scared of the indictment on his head?
So we bring him to New York, put him on trial in federal district court in New York.
Do we assume that he's innocent until proven guilty, if there's a trial?
Yeah.
We have to, folks.
If we're going to give these guys constitutional rights, Osama bin Laden's got to be brought in here under the presumption of innocence.
Now stick with me on this.
And then a lawyer is going to go into the case here.
Then a lawyer is going to have fun with this.
There's going to be a trial.
What if he's found innocent?
What if bin Laden is found innocent on some technicality?
Or what if the evidence is not sufficient to meet the criminal standard, the criminal standard?
He's presumed innocent in the courtroom after all, right?
Is that true?
You want this?
Vote Obama.
You want these people brought in under the presumption of innocence?
As a matter of fact, somebody ought to ask Obama this question.
If we capture Osama bin Laden and we put him on trial, do you believe, sir, he should be presumed innocent?
Somebody ask Obama this question.
Because it's a damn good question.
Bill Salmon, next time you're on one of these conference calls, Bill, ask the haughty John Kerry or Richard Clark or whoever's on the conference call with you, ask them, based on your last conference call, I can't get on these conference calls.
So Bill's my plant.
So I said, Billy, ask him, should Obama be presumed innocent if captured and brought to the U.S. for trial?
Osama.
Osama.
I got my Ted Kennedy hat on today.
It's Osama.
We're talking about Osama.
Should Osama be presumed innocent in a U.S. court?
Should there be a trial?
Now, for the rest of you, you don't think so?
Can you imagine that circus?
Can you now?
But with all that, here is the PACA resistance.
If, ladies and gentlemen, Osama bin Laden brought to the United States under these new Supreme Court rules, as supported by the haughty John Kerry and Richard Clark and everybody else in Obama's foreign policy apparatus, we bring Osama in under the presumption of innocence.
Somebody explain to me why we are trying to kill him.
Why have we sent out special ops, SEAL teams, drones?
Why have we sent the best we've got into those mountainous regions since 2001 to kill Obama if in our court system he would be presumed innocent?
And why is it that so many Democrats, oh, these many years, have proclaimed a war on terror failure because we have not killed Obama.
Osama, sorry, we killed Osama.
We haven't captured Osama.
But it's okay to nuke the guy on the battlefield.
Why are we trying to kill Osama bin Laden if he will be assumed innocent in an American courtroom?
Yeah, back to the phones.
I was looking at something here back on the computer, but we'll go back to the phones.
Rush Lynn bought a Dayton, Ohio.
This is Will.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Hey, it's great to be here, Rush.
I've been a big fan since I became politically aware when I was 12 years old.
I think the stuff you do is great.
I think it's a shame that you're probably going to get a lot of crap for that Obama slip you just made.
Yeah, but did that sound like I made that slip on purpose?
Well, no, of course not.
Well, of course not.
I can just say that.
I'm not the first guy to make that slip.
Hell, Ted Kennedy's made that slip.
It was purely, you know, I've said Obama about a gazillion times more than I've said Osama in the last six months, and that's the explanation for it.
I'm not going to look at it.
That doesn't matter.
If they give me crap, they give me crap.
They've been giving me crap.
I've got crap cannon back.
It doesn't matter.
But the reason why I called is I had called earlier when you were going on the tirade about how Obama is not going to be anything more than Jimmy Carter's second term.
And the Obama people are sitting there saying, well, McCain is just going to be Bush 3 and all that crap.
And to be honest, I think we need to, I don't think that's fair to the predecessors.
I think we need to address the candidates for who they are and not try.
And I know that Dems are just trying to bring this up because they want to keep Bush on the ticket because they think everybody hates Bush, which I'm disappointed in George Bush.
I am.
But I don't hate him.
I think he's done a lot of good.
All right.
Let's stay focused on your suggestion.
Your suggestion is that we be a little bit more detailed, say, about Obama than simply saying, hey, it's just going to be nothing more than Jimmy Carter's second term.
Right.
And I think Obama has the potential of being way more dangerous than Jimmy Carter ever was.
That'd be hard to do.
Years old.
How old did you say you are now, Will?
I'm 28.
28?
So I miss Jimmy Carter completely.
Yeah, that's what you don't know then.
You did not live through it.
I know what you mean by it could be worse than Carter.
Let me explain why this is done.
Now, we know why the Democrats are saying Bush 3.
They want Bush on the ballot.
The Democrats hate Bush.
The media hate Bush.
They think, therefore, most Americans hate Bush.
So if they can turn McCain into Bush, then they're dimwit voters.
That's all they'll need, they think.
They're misunderstanding.
Bush is not hated.
He is unpopular.
A lot of his unpopularity stems from the fact he's disappointed people on his own side, but not fighting back and not defending himself against some of these outrageous attacks that he's undergone.
But nobody dislikes the guy.
The reason for Jimmy Carter II, and by the way, that was not how I started out explaining Obama.
We have dissected as much of Obama's policies as possible.
Every time he opens his mouth and says something that's just naive, ignorant, stupid, dangerously wrong, or whatever, I explain in great detail why.
But there's also this notion, the concept here of communication, the concept of persuasion, and the concept of illustration.
Shakespeare said it.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Now, to somebody like you, you're 28, so you were born in 1980.
Well, Carter was gone, and you weren't old enough, soon enough, to have any direct recollection of what those years of his were like.
But for people that are older than you are to say Jimmy Carter's second term, those who live through it do not want to do that again.
It is a simple way and a brief way of getting people to start thinking about who Obama is.
I agree with you.
You've got to back it up with in-depth analysis and commentary of his policies, which happens here regularly.
I get calls, Will, now and then from people similar to you.
And basically what you're saying is, can we stop at the labels?
Can we just stick to the substance?
Well, the problem is labels work.
A Marxist is a Marxist because he's a Marxist.
A leftist is a leftist because he's a leftist.
A communist is an SOB because he's a communist.
A conservative is a conservative because he's a conservative.
It gets a little bit more nebulous when you start talking about Republicans and Democrats because there's all kinds of Republicans, a couple kinds of Democrats.
But again, it's not labeling.
It's accurate description.
And the art of communication, persuasion, motivation, this sort of thing, those are key elements here in how one tends to convey honest impressions and opinions of others and their policies.
I appreciate the call.
We've got a brief timeout.
We'll back after.
This is a windfall profit timeout break here, folks.
▲
Export Selection