All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
December 22, 2008, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey folks, how many of you have heard the phrase, now probably ad nauseum now, that taxpayers will pay for the bailout?
Or how many of you have stopped to realize that less than half of the American people pay taxes?
So only half the taxpayers are paying for the bailout.
If there ever was an argument that everybody should pay taxes, this is it.
Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you.
We come to you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Looking forward to talking to you today.
So the Democrats want to lower expectations.
See, they're already trying to manage Obama's legacy before he even takes office.
And by lowering expectations.
And by the way, isn't this kind of like a guy running as Superman and telling us he's just Clark Kent?
I'm just Clark Kent.
Don't expect no leaping at tall buildings or nothing.
No miracles here.
I'm just old Clark Kent.
You didn't elect Superman.
The dirty little secret here, ladies and gentlemen, is that when you lower expectations, what are you doing?
You're telling people it's going to be bad for a long time.
And I know how they're going to do it.
And the New York Times got the ball rolling yesterday with one of the most irresponsible pieces of journalism, and that's saying something that I've seen in a long time, blaming Bush for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blaming Bush for the housing crisis.
They didn't touch on who started all this, Jimmy Carter.
They didn't mention who elevated or expanded the program, Bill Clinton.
They didn't talk about any of Acorn's involvement, shaking down banks.
They didn't talk about the community agitators in Illinois.
They didn't talk about Barney Frank or Chris Dodd other than to mostly exonerate him.
And of course, this gives Barney the chance to go out there now and say, Fee, it was Bush along with Bush.
And the White House, to its credit, is firing back on this.
They sent Dana Perino out there.
They sent Ed Gillespie out there this morning.
Gillespie said, you know, here's a company that's worth no more than junk bonds, having to mortgage its own building to stay afloat.
And I guess that's about what their work product is worth these days, junk.
Because this is classically untrue.
So they're shifting all of this now to Bush, which we predicted.
Everything that goes wrong is going to be laid at the feet of George W. Bush.
And when Obama is inaugurated and when it's time to expand our troop presence in Afghanistan, and when it's time not to get out of Iraq, I can tell you what they're going to say.
They're going to say, well, you know what?
We didn't know all that we now know during the campaign.
And the Bush administration kept a lot of things from us.
The circumstances are far more dire than we knew.
Same thing is going to be said about the housing crisis.
Same thing is going to be said about the credit crunch.
Same thing is going to be said about the economy in general.
In fact, that's what this lowering of expectations is really all about.
Well, it's far worse than we knew.
We just weren't privy to information they didn't share with us.
But the real secret here is that by proclaiming an ongoing crisis that is going to be a long time solved, a long time in being solved, you just keep the people in a crisis mode.
You keep them depressed.
keep them thirsty and hungry for a fix, which means that Obama and his team will be allowed to do whatever they want in the name of fixing this crisis.
And they want to do a lot.
They want to spend and spend and spend, and they don't want to do this to rescue the economy.
What they're trying to rescue is the Democrat Party.
What they're trying to fix is the Democrat Party.
And I don't say this lightly, and I'm not trying to be funny with this.
But FDR got this ball rolling with the New Deal.
The New Deal didn't solve anything.
It prolonged the Great Depression.
Obama is set to follow in his footsteps.
What did it do?
It cemented Democrats in power for 50 uninterrupted years in the all-important House of Representatives.
And it set them up for practically running the show.
There were interruptions.
But for 50, 40 years, they never lost the appropriations power in Washington.
And that's what they want to get back to.
The loss of the House in 1994 for all those years up through 2006 stung them more than anybody knows.
They and their birthright are power.
They are not meant to be out of power, and they were for 12 years.
They were wandering aimlessly in the deserts.
Now they've got it back, and they are going to grow it.
They're going to cement it, and they're not going to give it up.
And they have, like Rahm Emanuel said, this is a great crisis, too big a crisis to waste.
You got a great opportunity here to implement what we want to implement, which is government control over as much of the free market economy as possible, so that whatever you want, you have to go somewhere in government to get.
Of course, the risk they run is overreaching, overreaching too soon and too fast.
The American people have very high economic expectations.
That's why small recessions make everybody so mad.
The American people's economic expectations are very high.
And what Obama and his team plan on doing, especially here now by lowering expectations, is going to make people upset and angry because there's still a sizable number of people in this country who understand that their prosperity does not go through Washington, and they don't want to have to go through Washington in order to become prosperous.
And it's going to irritate.
So they probably will overreach.
I don't know when or how long it's going to take.
And the problem is they might overreach after a point has been reached.
Not much can be do about it.
The 2010 elections are going to be pretty important in this regard.
So we hope that they overreach pretty fast.
And it sounds like that they're going to.
And this is something keep your eyes on out there, folks.
I mean, Democrats are making the case that it's bad now, but our fixes will be in place for years to come.
And they mean that.
It's bad now, but our fixes are going to be in place for years to come.
That's exactly what they're hoping for.
Just as FDR's fixes were in place for a long time.
This is about rescuing the Democrat Party and returning it to power indefinitely.
Officials also are casting doubt on an early projection at 4 million to 5 million.
What if it 4 million?
It was 6 million that were going to show up for the inauguration.
They're casting doubt on that now, casting doubt that 4 to 5 million people could jam downtown D.C. on Inauguration Day, saying it's more likely that the crowd will be about half that size.
Now, keep that in mind.
What is half of $5 to $6 million?
2.5 to 3 million.
Okay, keep that number in mind.
I just read you the opening paragraph.
Okay, and a headline.
Inauguration day crowd estimated reduced by half.
Washington authorities said the earlier estimates provided by the mayor were based on speculation surrounding the historic nature of the swearing in.
After weeks of checking with charter bus companies, airlines, and other sources, they are reassessing.
Oh, really?
They're reassessing.
They made bets based on speculation.
These guys sound like the same people that deal in the oil markets.
It's more of an art than a science, said the city administrator Dan Tangerlini.
The fact is, earlier it was speculation.
Now we're beginning to flesh it out and what the physical capacities of the system are.
The Secret Service has dismissed these high-end estimates, 5 million people, but there is universal agreement among security officials and planners that massive numbers of peoples will flock to the swearing-in of Obama, who has been drawing huge crowds.
Now, listen to this.
This is where it gets interesting.
Remember the headline, Inauguration Day crowd estimate reduced by half.
Officials casting doubt on early projection, 4 million, 5 million, 6 million people could jam downtown.
Go now to the next paragraph.
Turnout could easily reach 2 million.
2 million is just one-third of what they were speculating.
The 2 million would far outstrip the 400,000 who attended the 05 inauguration of President Bush.
Although it's possible that 5 million people will descend on the area in the days leading up to the inauguration, it appears unlikely that trains and local roads could get them all to the mall and the parade route on January 20th.
Yes, we're back to 400 to 500,000 now.
Well, we're back.
Whatever the crowd is, if the crowd is 25, it'll be reported as 401,000.
The crowd's going to be bigger than Bush 05 no matter what happens.
But see, this is classic drive-by media, classic.
Report 6 million.
The sea levels will fall.
All of these wonderful, magical things are going, maybe 2 million.
Tops.
We don't even have the facilities to get any more than that down there in the parade room of the mall.
But you let this image of a nation that cannot be kept away from Washington on Inauguration Day, and it's all part of the strategy to make this guy Superman when he's telling us he's only Clark Kent.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones we go, ladies and gentlemen, here on Christmas week on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Stephen Roanoke, Virginia.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next, and it's nice to have you here.
Thank you, Rosh.
Dan, that has been Merry Christmas.
Thank you.
I just wanted to say, don't listen to all the naysayers who believe that this global darkening is a trend that's going to go away.
I think only the most merciful, when he gets in office, will be able to take care of this, and it will be by the elimination of all of our HDTVs and direct and DVD players.
Well, you know, wait a minute.
You're on a cell phone.
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
Obama, you think, will fix the leakage of daylight going to the southern hemisphere by doing what?
Banning HDTVs and so forth?
That's correct, sir.
Yeah.
Well, it remains to be seen.
I don't know that it can be fixed.
I don't know that this is something we can do anything about.
Well, if we cause, we don't know what caused it.
It has not been linked to climate change.
This has something to, something other than climate change is causing this leakage of sunlight.
I think, Steve, the answer is obviously going to be tax increases and stimulus package spending in order to help people get through the darkness.
We just can't stop living, and we can't all move to the southern hemisphere.
That just won't work.
We're going to have crop failure.
Crops aren't going to grow.
We're going to become big importers.
We're going to have to redo NAFTA.
There's going to be a number of things here that we'll have to do in order to survive.
Virginia in Bristol, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Yes.
Hello, Rush.
Merry Christmas to you.
And to you, Mr. Dittos, from a longtime listener, when I can listen, and I have several members who also listen to you faithfully.
Great, thank you.
I'd like to bring up two things.
First of all, I noticed in the news that there is still a lot of negativity associated with Governor Palin, who I just wanted to mention served both honorably as a mayor and now governor with much responsibility from public works to taxes and everything in between.
But somehow there seems to be a lack of honorability in Washington, D.C. at this point.
But also, I wanted to give you a compliment and hopefully a little Merry Christmas gift to you.
While my oldest son was in college, he read your first book and Cal Thomas' book.
And to his business major, he added public administration.
He went on for his master's in public administration at American University.
And now he's serving as a public administrator in the field and both doing, you know, working positively and honorably and making changes in his area, you know, almost daily, you know, trying to make a better life for people.
And I just want to thank you for that.
Well, you're more than welcome.
I'm happy to be accredited or associated with the good works of your son.
Yeah, he's doing well, and he loves what he does and works hard.
But that's what bothers me when people in Washington downplay what people do, like what Governor Palin did from mayor on up.
Well, you know, you've got to, you know, there's this thing called campaign rhetoric and this thing called politics.
Sarah Palin was targeted for destruction precisely because she's effective, because she was rallying excited crowds that outdid Obama's.
Obama's crowds were showing up just to be there.
Sarah Palin's crowds showed up because of what she was saying, not how she was saying it.
They showed up because they were genuinely thrilled to have somebody representing their point of view on a national campaign.
And this scared a lot of people.
It scared Republicans who are of the Rockefeller moderate stripe, the Colin Powell, Bill Weld Republicans.
It scared Democrats and liberals.
It scared the media, so she had to be destroyed.
Folks, we're going to have to understand something.
There's no such thing as an incompetent Democrat or liberal.
It makes total sense, common sense, to compare Sarah Palin and her life with Caroline Schlossberg is in a case of those two women.
There is no question, cut and dried, hands down, who is the more qualified to serve in an elected position in Washington, D.C.
It's not even close.
And yet Caroline Schlossberg is said to be qualified because of her last name, because of her DNA, because she's a mother and because she cares.
Look at this Clinton Massage Parlor Library Foundation.
Look at the conflicts of interest.
Look, ladies and gentlemen, practically all of the oil nations and sheikhs from the Middle East have thrown gobs of money at the Clintons.
His wife is going to be Secretary of State.
About a conflict of interest, but it will not be a conflict of interest because where the Democrats are concerned, there's no possibility of ethics violations, except in the case of Blagojevich, and these are selected cases.
But the same rules do not apply.
Somebody sent me a note earlier today when we did our side-by-side comparison of Blagojevich and his denial press conference on Friday, and I had Shanklin do the whole thing in the voice of Obama.
And I said, be Obama.
I don't want any funny affectations.
Just be who the guy is because I want to illustrate that it's how he says what he says, not what he says, that mesmerizes people.
So Shanklin did a good job, and he put in all of the protracted, elongated pauses.
And somebody sent me a note saying, look, Nixon did the same thing.
Nixon had these pregnant pauses where he was thinking, how come Obama is treated one way and Nixon another?
It's the template.
Obama's thoughtful.
Obama's the Messiah.
Obama's deep.
Nixon was a schemer.
All Republicans are schemers.
And so this is, you know, to expect the same kinds of standards to be applied here is never, ever going to happen by the media, is never, ever going to happen.
Those standards have to be applied evenly by voters.
And if there are a lot of voters who are not treated to a daily dose of just how unethical and corrupt Democrats are, then the argument is that they will never know it.
It's just the world we live in.
It's one of the challenges that we all face to take the truth to as far and wide an audience as possible.
Look, here's another one.
There's a great, I can't believe I'm saying this, it's a great column by Nicholas Kristoff published on Saturday in the New York Times.
And it's entitled Bleeding Heart Tightwads.
And the essence of Mr. Kristoff's column is how shocked researchers have been recently to learn that conservatives and Republicans are far more personally charitable than liberal Democrats.
He says, we liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest at home and abroad.
Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Now, Mr. Kristoff, if I might interject here, this is not compassion.
We're talking about hypocrisy.
But see, liberals cannot ever be called hypocrites.
Democrats will never be called hypocrites either.
And he talks about a book by Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares?
I'll share some of the details of this with you when we get back, so don't go anywhere.
Ha, you, great to have you back.
It's Rush Limbaugh at Christmastime, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have 800-282-2882.
Arthur Brooks is quoted or referenced, I should say, by Nicholas Kristoff in his Saturday New York Times column, Bleeding Heart Tightwads.
Arthur Brooks, by the way, is a guy who writes a lot of things, scholarly works.
He's the guy who has chronicled how conservatives and Republicans are much happier people than liberal Democrats are.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, who really cares, cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30% more to charity than households headed by liberals.
A study by Google found an even greater disproportion.
Average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has produced similar conclusions.
The Generosity Index from the Catalog for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats who speak passionately about the hungry and the homeless personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans.
And Mr. Christoph, I must say the fact that this surprises anybody is the problem.
You guys live in your protected, cocoon-like worlds with all of your templates, so that real-world truth is a shock.
Conservatives have always known instinctively that Republicans and conservatives are far more personally charitable than liberals are.
Liberals love to use other people's money to get their credit for compassion.
The upshot is that Democrats who speak passionately about the hungry and the homeless personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans.
When I started doing research on charity, Mr. Brooks wrote, I expected to find that political liberals, who I believe genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did, would turn out to be the most privately charitable people.
Well, bingo.
But there he proves our point.
This pointy-headed guy, whoever he is, actually thought liberals did care more because that's the template.
That's the public relations.
I can't tell you the number of times that people who care for me greatly will come to me and say, you know, you, talking to me personally and as a conservative, you've got to do something to change what people think of you because you're really such a nice guy.
And all these people have to think you're the worst thing trotting the earth today.
Or you conservatives, you've got to get more PR about the good works that you do.
And I said, what's the point of doing good works?
Is it to get credit for it?
Or is it to do the good works?
There's a story, I guess it was yesterday, at some point during my last show prep cycle.
All of the military people that George Bush and Dick Cheney personally visited, consoled, thanked, and spoke to over the years, both active military and their families.
And everybody's shocked because they thought that Bush was this cold-hearted, mean-spirited guy who sent other people's kids off to die in battle and didn't care.
Now, those of us who know George W. Bush know just the exact opposite.
But Bush doesn't do it to get credit for it.
Our culture today is largely built on perceptions, not reality.
And this is a great illustration.
The reality of personal charitable giving is that Republicans, conservatives personally contribute twice, more than double what liberals contribute privately, and yet everybody thinks they're the ones who care.
Everybody thinks they're the ones who are the good guys.
You know, when people say to me personally, Rush, all these people have these wrong perceptions about you.
Why don't you do something about it?
I said, what could I possibly do?
They know.
They already know the truth.
They're not either going to report it.
That got their templates.
Look, I'm hated and despised by these people because I'm effective.
They're not interested in making me look good, and I don't do what I do to look good.
I'm not in this for public relations.
Sometimes my whole career, what I do privately, charitably is.
I'm not into it for public relations.
Now, the Harry Reid smear letter, that was a different thing.
That was, you know, he tried to smear me and so forth with this phony soldiers business, but that was a giant national fundraising effort.
It was not done to make me look good.
It was done to embarrass Harry Reid and to raise money for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation using a Harry Reid written and signed letter.
Let me expand this: this whole notion that people in this country react to public relations, PR moves, image, and so on, because we just elected a president on that basis.
I hadn't planned on discussing this, so if I tend to stumble while putting my thoughts together, please forgive me.
But I have been watching this Bernie Madoff scandal unfold before my very eyes.
For those of you who have been following it, you are well aware that lots of people where I live, Palm Beach, Florida, have either been wiped out or severely hurt, have lost a tremendous amount of their net worth.
But the story goes even beyond that.
This is a community of there's three or four different Palm Beaches.
And there's the Palm Beach of everybody's image, and that is of old bluebloods who are about 105 who start sipping gin cocktails at 4:30 in the afternoon and still don't know that we won the Gulf War in 91 because it doesn't matter.
That Palm Beach doesn't exist much anymore because those people have gotten old, and those people resented earned income.
These are people that inherited family wealth from long, long, long ago.
And they look down on, and not just here, but anywhere in the country where there's this level of society.
The other, you know, there's another Palm Beach that features the sons and daughters of the blue bloods who wouldn't know how to work a day in their lives if they had to.
So they depend on coupon clipping and this sort of thing.
I never see any of these people, by the way.
I only read about them, but I don't see them.
And then the other two Palm Beaches are made up of an ever-increasing younger demographic who are still working, but because of the prosperity of the U.S. economy, they are able to afford to live somewhere either here or near here.
And this group still works, and those people hang around with each other, and some of them are semi-retired, but they're certainly not the bluebloods of the old past.
Now, with the Madoff scandal, what is being highlighted here, and I've always had a bugaboo about this.
This is going to be a tough thing for me to explain because I've thought about it for decades.
I've been suspicious of it for decades, but I have never articulated it to anyone, certainly not publicly like this, because it always seemed to be taboo because we're talking charities.
But I have always been amazed at how one climbs the ranks of society by being involved in charities.
Many of these people don't donate a dime to the charity.
They go out and raise money for a gigantic party or a series of balls or what have you, where the women put on their finest clothes and jewelry and the men reluctantly stuff themselves into tuxedos.
And they head to these fabulous places where the cost to put the whole thing on may be a million dollars and the net amount raised is a hundred grand.
All of the newspaper society reporters are there.
All of the photographers are there.
All the phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and roller people who are impressed with people who have wealth.
They might be reprobates.
They might be worthless.
They might be mean.
They might be dull, boring, but because they have a lot of money, they are fascinating.
And what they do is considered fascinating.
And so this creates a cycle where these sometimes dull, boring, dry, phony frauds that they go on and not donating a dime and going out there asking everybody else to give them a dime then get their pictures in the society pages and written up and they massage the reporters and they try to get all this good stuff said about them.
They try to get themselves on the boards of directors of a lot of charities, create boards of directors and put themselves on these things.
It's all image, it's all PR, and they get all this credit for caring and they all liberal Democrats for the vast majority of them and they're all empty suits.
At the end of the day, there's nothing there.
The Madoff scandal is illustrating this.
All these charities have been wiped out and you have to ask yourself, was the money ever really there?
There was a lot of money running around, but all these people owed it to each other in one way or another.
Did anybody ever really have it?
And if they had it, did they give it all to Madoff and that he then redistributed the, the profits that came in the door out one other door?
But it's just.
I'm spinning off all of the this story here about how conservatives are far more personally charitable than Liberals.
And yet liberals get all the credit and they get.
They got all the notice because they're on boards of charities and they hold parties for charities and hell folks, it gets, it gets this, try this.
It gets to the point that retail outlets will hold a fundraiser for a zoo or something and all the swells in town where it's not just here number, will show up to sip champagne, donate 75 bucks or so so that the baby jaguar can eat for another day.
It'll show up on all the society pages and columns.
Is how gratefully contributing these people are, how compassionate they all are, and when the whole point here is for the retail outlet hosting the thing to sell whatever they've got inside the store and to get published, it's all pr.
There isn't a whole lot of substance to it, as this made off thing is illustrating.
Some people with the highest of reputation, most impeccable reputations, are now toast because they were associated with made off, and i'll guarantee you that in the privacy of their homes, they're devastated, not just over the money that was swindled, but because of the loss of stature that they feel.
And I just I look at this and I feel a little sad because the people who pursue stature to me are people who will never ever be happy, because it's all external, it's all based on what you can craft as an image, which is what what people think of you, rather than crafting a life of substance and genuineness based on what you do and who cares?
Who knows about it?
In fact, a lot of people want to live that way, want to live a little anonymously so as not to be browbeat uh, when their charitable donations are discovered.
I look at all the money donated to charity in this country and I look at all the tax revenue that's transferred to the needy and I really don't understand why we have needy people.
All of the charitable giving and all of the taxes and all the transfers.
What is it now?
$7 to $8 trillion in just a great society alone has been transferred from producers to non-producers since 1964.
And we still got the same percentages of people in need.
And every year, a bunch of brand new charities pop up competing for the charitable donation of charitable dollar.
And we find that some of those are frauds.
And it's all about people trying to ingratiate themselves in some social structure someplace, some social climate somewhere.
And in those situations, it's not the kind of person you are.
It's how much money you have.
And that's what's attractive about you.
And I just think that's horrible.
Well, to each his own, I would just hate to be trapped in that kind of life.
So we have all of these templates, all of these theories that conservatives are mean, spirited, rotten SOBs, cold-hearted and mean.
Liberals are the giants of compassion, the giants of tolerance.
It's just the exact opposite.
Liberals are tight wads.
They try to give a lot of money that's not theirs.
Conservatives do a lot of things privately.
Nobody knows about it because they're focused on the good works.
Conservatives don't seek PR because it's very difficult to get it, you know, unless you go out and hire a PR firm.
And even then, that's a waste of time.
Hiring a PR firm is an abject, utter waste of time.
You know what a PR firm is going to tell you?
I'll use myself here.
It's easy to do that.
Let's say I'm concerned about my public image and I want it changed.
And I'm going to go out and I'm going to hire the best PR firm I can.
You know what they're going to tell me to do?
They're going to arrange a meeting with the New York Times editorial board.
And this has happened to me.
I said, well, why do I need to talk to them?
I'm hiring you.
Well, they need to speak with you.
They need to see who the okay, then I fire them because there's no way that's going to change anything.
I'm not going to go groveling to some editorial board.
It is what it is.
And if you can't be made happy by the substance in your life, if you have to rely on what other people think of you and phony baloney crafted images, then you are setting yourself up for some type of similar experience to those who got involved with Bernie Madoff.
Maybe not on that big scale, but certainly on some scale.
By the way, if you are a Limbaugh Letter subscriber, ladies and gentlemen, we have this story about how conservatives are far more generous than liberals on a personal level in the May 2008 issue of the Limbaugh Letter on pages 12 and 13.
What is amazing about it is that it's found its way into a New York Times op-ed by Nicholas Christoph, who has written a piece called Bleeding Tightwads.
Now, Mr. Brooks, also the author of the book, entitled Who Really Cares, writes this, when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I'd made some sort of technical error.
I re-ran analyses.
I got new data.
Nothing worked.
In the end, I had no option but then to change my views, which are conservatives are more personally charitable by half or by two times than liberals are.
This guy tried everything he could to massage the facts, and he had to change his views.
He also found this.
If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, the American blood supply would increase by 45%.
But then again, we'd have to ask ourselves, do we want liberal blood coursing through the veins of otherwise innocent people?
Quickly, Mary and Madison, New Jersey, great to have you on the program.
Nice to have you here.
Nice to be here, Rush.
Merry Christmas.
Same to you.
I read Who Really Cares last year, or earlier this year, I guess it was.
And one of the things that I'm thinking is out there among your listenership, I know there are a lot of Democrats, and they'll be thinking, oh, sure, Republicans have more money.
That's why they give more money, you know, the party of the rich.
But it turns out that Arthur Brooks found he compared statistically family to family according to income and people in the family.
So that it's leveled.
It's person to person, and there's no doubt about it.
The conservatives are more generous people.
And I found not only with their money, but also with their time.
They volunteer behind the scenes.
They don't show up at balls.
Exactly right.
Exactly.
It's grunt work in the back room.
I know.
Look, we do have our charlatans that do things for show.
Oh, yeah.
But there's also substance behind what they're doing.
They just want public credit for it.
A lot of us couldn't care less about the public credit.
But it's an interesting question.
Even in similar income levels, the charitable contributions, personable, of conservatives, dwarf liberals.
And there has to be a reason for this.
And I, ladies and gentlemen, know what it is.
Fastest.
Fastest three hours in the media zipping by here, folks.
I mean, these last segments, it seemed like they only lasted about a half a minute.
That's how fast they're going.
▲
Export Selection