All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 1, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
December 1, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back El Rushbo behind the golden EIB microphone, now documented to be almost always right 99.5% of the time because of the revelation that the man-made global warming story is officially a hoax.
It's amazing how times change, you know, when certain leaders on our national stage change.
Back during the Clinton-Lewinsky era, it was, ah, everybody does that.
Everybody has affairs.
Everybody has sex.
It didn't distract him from his work.
Now with Tiger Woods, oh, it's horrible to have affairs now.
It's officially bad to have affairs.
No more everybody does it.
And if it doesn't affect his job, it's none of our business.
It's just sex.
It's just sex.
I love the sports media.
Sports media is out there.
He doesn't know anybody.
That's the name, but he ought to tell us anyway.
That's basically sum up what the sports media is saying.
Well, yeah, he has a right to remain solid.
But he should tell us something, even though he doesn't have to.
I mean, we're the media.
We should have a statement from him here.
Otherwise, he's going to lose control of the story.
It's just amazing.
Oh, by the way, the first leak here, Obama intends to end the Afghanistan war within three years, according to senior administration officials.
What's the point of the speech if his people keep leaking the contents?
Can we maybe do the Snoopy special at Charlie Brown Christmas now?
One of these leaked the speech, and then we move on with the standard programming tonight so the little kids will not have to pretend they're watching Snoopy and his big ears when they look at Obama.
But folks, if you ever wondered why the cost of every Obama program is $900 billion or $898 billion or have you ever noticed that every Obama program, be it healthcare or what have you, there's this magic number.
It's only going to cost $900 billion.
From Obama's big health care address, September 9th, 2009, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
And there's a website called costofwar.com.
It's a lefty website, and they claim that Afghanistan and Iraq combined have cost $937 billion since 2001, according to all the lefty websites.
So that's the reason.
You sell health governments.
Hey, they're not going to cost nearly as much as these wars, and those wars were truly a waste.
Now the politico today, ever since Watergate hero Bob Woodward revealed a 66-page secret Pentagon report September 22nd in the Washington Post that revealed U.S. General Stanley McChrystal was seeking an additional 40,000 American troops for Afghanistan, the White House has deftly controlled the message, shaped the narrative, crafted the president's wartime image, and kept the news media eating out of its hand as it made its way toward a final decision.
On the surface, it might appear that publication of the McChrystal report came as a surprise to Obama, forcing him to scramble to respond before he wanted to and triggering a slow two-months-plus reassessment that has been criticized by former Vice President Cheney as dithering.
However, a detailed examination of news coverage of the reassessment issue in the major national newspapers, primarily the Washington Post and the New York Times, suggests that many angles and details of the stories were being carefully fed by White House aides to all too willing reporters who dressed it up as the inside dope.
In reality, many reporters were steered into spinning the story exactly the way the White House wanted it told, with relatively little skepticism or criticism.
Well, duh.
Look, it's a pretty good story considering where it runs, but this is it's every news story that is happening this way, not just this troop story in Afghanistan.
And now that a decision will be announced on Tuesday night, here's how the media told it.
Obama, faced with a difficult and agonizing decision, was wisely taking his time and deliberatively listening to all the arguments, pro and con, including dissenters on his staff, pushing the military for more details about goals, tactics, cost in dollars, exit strategies, and timetables.
In short, he was showing the public he was doing the job of managing a war in a serious, thoughtful, and cautious way, and by implication, a job that his predecessor, George Bush, failed to do.
Overall, it was a common narrative, Obama good, Bush bad, that the White House has honed to a sharp edge since the inauguration, and it worked.
In a November 25th, page 1 Washington Post analysis, under the headline in his slow decision-making, Obama Goes with Head, Not Gut, Joel Aachenbach wrote, Obama's handling of the Afghanistan conundrum has been a spectacle of deliberation unlike anything seen in the White House in recent memory.
Continuing what could have been a spoon-fed Obama White House narrative, Aachenbach quoted Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell, saying, Obama's establishing his decision-making process as being diametrically the opposite of the previous administration, going on to say the Bush-Cheney style was cowboy-like, typical Texas, typical Wyoming, extremely secretive.
This is the guy who was Chief of Staffer Colin Powell, the ideal Republican presidential candidate, by the way, in the eyes of the same media.
Clearly, the Obama White House was not blindsided by Woodward's revelation of McChrystal's report.
In fact, it's very likely somebody in the White House leaked it to Woodward to get the already underway Obama reassessment into the public realm and begin orchestrating the story from their side.
How do we know?
Well, Obama himself on September 20th, only hours before the Woodward report was published, made the rounds of five Sunday TV talk shows.
In each, he dropped cautioning hints that an Afghanistan reassessment was coming.
Also, the day after the McChrystal report was made public, the New York Times ran a page one story largely sourced to unnamed administration officials, revealing that a sweeping reassessment and a possible strategy shift had been underway since September 13th.
The article described the meeting in detail and underscored that Vice President Biden had taken on the role of dissenter in calling for a scaling back of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
That narrative, picked up by the media at large and now considered conventional wisdom, was reinforced by a Newsweek cover story in early October framing Biden as an inconvenient truth-teller.
The story was sprinkled with quotes from unnamed White House sources describing in detail the internal debate taking place in White House strategy meetings.
Biden himself, most likely, was one of the sources.
In a post-Woodward on the record interview with the Times, James Jones, the president's national security advisor, polished the hearing all-sides strategy by painting a picture for the public of Obama being open to dissenting views, but still standing tall as commander-in-chief.
Meanwhile, with American troop deaths in Afghanistan reaching their highest levels in October and Obama seeking, as he underwent the reassessment, to avoid projecting an image of a president being callous to the needs of the military, The White House was careful to place him in public situations where he showed respect for the fallen.
Many newspapers ran page one photos of the middle-of-the-night visit to Dover Air Force Base.
I guess Mr. Benedetto here is confirming what everybody with an ounce of common sense knew that that was a photo op.
You see, folks, in the universe of lies, everything is not real.
Everything is structured.
Everything is spin because these are liberals.
Liberals have to cover up who they really are.
Obama is not deliberate.
He is planning a way to get media support praising him as something new and fresh and smarter and more deliberative than that cowboy Bush and that cowboy Cheney.
This is all about continuing the notion that the problems Obama faces are monumental, but they all stem from the eight years of Bush Cheney.
This is to then provide cover for what Obama will do elsewhere in his agenda.
My only point about this story is that the White House does not have to spin these guys.
The White House does not have to tweak them.
The White House does not have to spoon feed them.
The state-controlled media is the state-controlled media.
The state-controlled media is on his side.
They don't have to be guided.
They don't have to be tweaked or shown the way.
They're on the same page.
They already are prepared to write that Obama's special and greater and better than any president that has ever been.
And add to it, he's historic.
They hated Bush with a purple passion.
It's not hard to continue that narrative.
But at least in the politico, in this one instance, we have a former journalist and now a professor outlining how it's done.
The point to take away from this, my friends, is, however, that none of this is honest.
We were all set up.
Everybody was set up to hear a story, not to learn facts.
This speech tonight, to me, is practically irrelevant because it's the culmination of a giant spin effort.
It's designed to present Obama as someone who he isn't.
He is not a big fan of the military.
He has not spent hours agonizing over this.
He did not consult dissenters.
He did not go after and have a bunch of advice.
He was not undecided.
He just created an image to make it look like he is something he isn't.
And this is happening in virtually every area of his presidency.
Make no mistake about it.
They live in the universe of lies.
And another thing, folks, to consider here about this political story and the media not being spun.
Remember, they've got skin in this game.
They created this image of this guy.
They helped right along with it.
He's got to succeed so they can succeed.
I mean, they're the ones that told us this guy's who he was, and he went out and said so, and they said so.
And so that's why they have to continue with this mythology about him.
They created it.
The idea that they're just a bunch of innocent little babes in the woods being spun here is not true.
They are soulmates.
They're on the same page.
All right, to the phones.
People have been lined up for a long time.
Richard in Atlanta, we're going to start with you.
It's great to have you with us today on the EIB Network.
It is an awesome honor and privilege to speak to you, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you, sir.
I've been listening to you since 1990.
I've been served in my whole life.
I have a 21-year-old Lance Corporal son in the Marine Corps.
I am very, very distressed about our commander-in-chief.
I have no confidence in him, and he has none either.
He was sent to Ramadi last year.
He spent seven months in Iraq last year.
In January, he's sent for another deployment, but he doesn't know whether you're going to Afghanistan or not.
And we just have no confidence in this man.
We have no confidence in his leadership abilities.
We have no confidence in his decision-making.
You know, we just, I'm kind of at the end of my rope here with some of these conservative ideas and conservative implementation in this country.
You have to excuse me.
I'm very nervous.
I've been listening to you for years, and it's an honor to speak to you.
Well, I appreciate it.
I'd be nervous speaking to me, too.
Thankfully, I don't talk to myself that I know of.
But if I did, I would be nervous.
Well, you might be interested knowing your 21-year-old son's a Marine and another leak that has just come out.
I think it's the Washington Post.
Maybe it's the New York Times.
I just saw it.
They're going to expedite the deployment.
The first wave of Marines will arrive around Christmastime.
And this 30,000 deployment he hopes to have completed in six months.
I read that on Drudge Report today.
Yeah.
It's on the Drudge Report.
Yes, there was an article detailing some of that.
His deployment is set for January 18th.
His deployment was already set about six months ago.
But, you know, I just have no confidence in our leadership.
Why not?
He goes to Afghanistan.
Why not look at the examples they've set for the last 11 months?
Even going back further, to me, there's no difference anymore between a Republican and a Democrat.
There are conservatives and liberals, but I see nothing that distinguishes the two parties from each other anymore.
Well, I'm very, very frustrated.
Wait a second.
No, no, no.
That's a wave that's starting out there that we're going to have to try to nip in the bud.
What you're saying, I think, is you're saying all politicians are the same, whether they're Republicans or Democrats.
And I know the Republican Party has let a lot of people down by not advocating conservatism or implementing it as they campaigned on.
But I don't think that there's a Republican out there that would propose any of the Obama agenda.
I don't think there's a Republican out there that would have suggested the way to get out of the recession is to do what Obama did.
I mean, there are clear differences between liberals and even moderate Republicans.
Rhino-Republicans are a different thing altogether.
The problem politically here is the war within the Republican Party over who is going to dominate it and lead it.
But when I hear you say that there's no difference in the two parties, you're being set up for this third party stuff that is the guaranteed outcome of that is Democrat power in perpetuity.
The people are just sadly mistaken if they think third party is the way to battle what's going on here with the Obama administration and his policies.
Dave in Luddington, Michigan, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'm quite stunned I was able to get through.
Well, I'm glad you did.
Okay, point I wanted to make.
You know, politics aside, because I'm an independent philosophy and I really don't buy into either party's politics 100%.
So let me just say, as an American and what I've studied, it seems to me the turning point of the entire Afghan war was dropping the ball at Tora Bora.
And from what I've read and, you know, Woodward's book, Bush at War, some 60 Minutes material that I saw not too long ago suggests that for some crazy reason, the Rangers were told to stand down when they had Bin Laden encircled, and it was paramount to let the tribesmen take them out.
Well, that whole thing stinks to me.
I mean, it smells of a pre-cut deal.
I'm not making any accusations because I don't have that information to do so.
But very much like the Tet Offensive into Vietnam as a turning point, nothing was ever the same since.
And that's my point, I guess.
You say you're an independent.
Yes, sir.
Sound just like John Kerry in his Senate report on Monday.
And you sound just like Maurice Hensche, a Democrat today.
Well, believe me, I don't put credence in what John Kerry really says about Vietnam.
Well, you're just agreeing with him right down the line on what you've said here.
These are feelings I've had, you know, for a couple of years now.
And they've just each information.
They're not feelings, they're thoughts.
And look at the source for your thoughts.
The media.
And whose side is the media always on?
You're citing John 60 Minutes?
You're citing Bob Woodward?
Do you know that we turned Tora Bora 2,000 degrees?
I believe, or as some people, I feel, that Bin Laden's dead.
I think we got him at Tora Bora.
I don't know that there's any proof of it.
And I think that if we did, we didn't want to say so.
We didn't want to martyr him and so forth and create even a bigger hero out of the guy.
But it's interesting that you call today and call yourself an independent, parroting the very strategy that's been articulated in the mainstream media by way of John Kerry and his Senate report.
Now, the same guy, John Kerry, in 2001 said, no, no, no, we shouldn't send more troops in there.
We don't want a quagmire.
See, you've got to be careful who you align yourself with here because when you align yourself with Democrats and claim to be an independent, you're sort of making it hard to believe that you are an independent.
Ferris in Hartford, Connecticut.
Welcome to the program, sir.
It's always a high honor to chat.
And I wanted to follow your explanation of tonight's Obama speech at West Point and try to caution everyone about the glamorous trappings of the setting that he's going to have tonight.
And for him to be at West Point with a very disciplined response from the audience, you're going to have to keep a sharp eye, as always, but probably sharper than ever, on what he says rather than the setting that it's in and the cooperative response he gets from the military.
I'm very concerned that he's going to word his way into a, typically, a having it both ways outcome.
You're right, but there's no way he can get anything other than a respectful response.
The commander-in-chief's going to the United States Military Academy.
He ought to be making this speech from the Oval Office.
He's turning all of this into nothing more than a giant act and using the U.S. Military Academy and whatever people he has behind him purely as props.
All right, folks, and I'm detecting a trend here, and it's time to let you in on what's going on.
First, the two parties, they're no different.
That means we need to go third party.
No difference between the parties.
Look, for one thing, the Republican Party, for all its faults, has always wanted to win when we deploy the military.
Come on, folks.
You got to get real about this.
The Republican Party, as bad as it is, is not the Democrat Party.
We don't have statists in our party.
We do not have socialists and Marxists in our party that have any kind of power whatsoever.
And none would ever get elected in our party.
Now, snap out of this.
Get real.
It's time to face this and fix it, not abandon it.
And a third party is giving up on things.
A third party, you're just creating another room to go in and shout.
You're just creating a room to go vent, but you're not going to get anything done with a third party.
It's one thing to say in hindsight that the wrong strategy was used vis-a-vis bin Laden at Tora Bora.
But to doubt Bush's will to capture, defeat, and kill those people behind 9-11 is absurd.
I'm not saying Bush was a political trophy hunter, but for Bush to have bin Laden's scalp would have been huge.
And to pass that up on purpose is literally absurd.
It's insane.
And who's putting it out there?
The Democrats.
John Kerry's putting it out there.
And it's all to give Obama cover because this is nothing more than an annoyance to him.
This is nothing more than an inconvenience.
Obama has said he's not comfortable with the concept of victory in Afghanistan.
Henrietta Mitchell, in me, senior from Washington, interviewed National Security Council Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough this afternoon.
She said to him, I got to ask you about former Vice President Cheney.
And what he told Politico, quote, here's a guy without much experience who campaigned against much of what we put in place, who now travels the world apologizing.
I think our adversaries, especially when it's preceded by a deep bow, see that as a sign of weakness.
Your comments, sir.
The president's going to make very clear to the country that we're committed to this effort, which frankly, over the course of eight years was a drift.
And I think even if you could go back to as late as the early 1990s when then Vice President Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, we made a very grave mistake when we walked away from Afghanistan and Pakistan and frankly may have created some of the challenges we face today.
So while we'll make sure that we continue to read about what the Vice President has to say on this, we'll also continue to work to make sure that we can pick up the pieces that were left behind.
So they're setting the stage here for Obama's speech.
It's all about Bush and Cheney incompetence going back to the 90s and the first Gulf War.
And listen, see this little eggheads voice?
In other ways, Ivy League eggheads that pretends to have some knowledge of international affairs.
We didn't walk away from anything over there.
Now, you people are falling prey to this.
I'm disappointed.
So I'm going to have to tell you right up front, I'm disappointed in some of you.
I know you're smarter than this.
You're falling for this third party stuff, and it's a dangerous route.
Ask yourself when one has ever succeeded in advancing conservatism.
Can you name me a third party that has succeeded doing that?
There hasn't been one that tried to do that, and there will not be one.
The third party is simply a place for you to go and get in a room where the other people are all agitated and angry about stuff and start shouting.
And that's all you're going to end up accomplishing.
And this business that we ran away from bin Laden at Tora Bora.
I have Tommy Franks op-ed, October 19th, 2004, New York Times.
President Bush and Senator Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism.
And those differences ought to be debated in this campaign, but the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.
On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America.
He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape.
How did it happen?
Well, according to Mr. Kerry, we outsourced the job to Afghan warlords.
And we just had a caller who claims to be an independent saying that he read about this in Bob Woodward's book and saw it on 60 Minutes and so it must be true.
Well, here's the commanding officer writing about it in the New York Times.
As commander of the Allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora.
And I can tell you the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.
The senator's understanding of events, if I may commentate here, he makes it up as he goes.
There's no understanding of events.
These people live in the universe of lies.
First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we had an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden and that we had him surrounded.
We don't know to this day whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001.
Some intelligence sources said he was.
Others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time.
Still others suggested he was in Kashmir.
Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured.
But Mr. Bin Laden was never within our grasp.
Secondly, we did not outsource military action.
We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, which is a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It's where Afghan mujahideen hold up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union.
Killing and capturing Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and the tunnels.
Third, the Afghans were not left to do the job alone.
Special forces from the U.S. and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in airstrikes.
Pakistani troops also provided significant help.
As many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
Who the hell do you people think ended up in all these prisons?
Contrary to Senator Kennedy, President Bush never took his eye off the ball when it came to bin Laden.
The war on terrorism has a global focus.
It can't be divided into separate and unrelated wars.
One in Afghanistan, another in Iraq.
Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they're able to strike us again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction.
Terror cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the U.S. is waging this war on many fronts.
Anyway, the piece goes on.
I will link to it at rushlinbog.com.
It's Tommy Franks writing in the New York Times, op-ed, October 19th of 2004.
Now, already today, and I don't believe that guy was independent.
I believe we're getting scammed here by seminar callers, the left, the universe of lies, and they're just following the rupee.
And this is, you know, Politico had the story.
We just shared it with you about all this, how all this is orchestrated and how it happens.
And now they got their army out calling this show and other shows like it.
And they're doing it because they have to cover up for somebody who hasn't a care in the world how this actually ends up.
The president of the United States is doing this speech tonight as a photo op.
He's doing it as a political necessity.
He's also doing it so he won't lose his base.
And he's doing it to keep his base by bashing Bush and Cheney again.
It's nothing more complicated than that.
It's no more complicated to understand than asking how the hell two crashers got into the White House.
They're not crashers.
Somebody let them in.
Nobody gets in that place.
Nobody gets in that place that somebody doesn't want them there.
Nobody.
And look who's being thrown under the bus on this.
The Secret Service is being thrown under the bus on this.
There can be no way.
They're even now saying that a White House office person was not at the checkpoint.
If that's true, why that's just, I just don't believe it.
I just don't believe it.
And they know they've got the Secret Service by the shorts because the Secret Service can't go public and say a word about this.
So if they say, yeah, the White House staffer was not there, it can't be us that let them in.
Just be vigilant, folks.
Be vigilant.
We're being scammed.
We're being spun.
The universe of lies has us surrounded.
We're in a little bubble here called the universe of reality.
The universe of lies is all around us.
We're just one little bubble in it.
We're trying to stay pure and not be corrupted by it.
Now to Obama and his paid hacks on TV today, tell me.
I want to know, how many people has Barack Obama liberated?
You say he's such a great president.
He's had such a command of all these foreign policy issues and military issues.
How many people has Barack Obama liberated from bondage?
Reagan liberated Eastern Europe.
Reagan liberated Latin America.
Bush 43 liberated 50 million Muslims.
Obama hasn't liberated anyone, and he won't.
Barack Obama likes Fidel Castro.
He likes Hugo Chavez.
He likes the dictators in the Middle East.
He bows down to them.
He kisses up to them.
Obama has yet to be challenged as Reagan or Bush or most presidents have been challenged.
Not yet anyway.
So he and his paid hacks try to diminish those who preceded him in order to try to build Obama up because there is no substance to build up.
Obama's poll numbers are plummeting.
The things that he is accomplishing are things the American people now realize they didn't vote for and do not want.
They realize that he's unpopular, but they don't care about that.
Because right now they don't think there's anything we can do to stop it because we don't have the votes of opposition in either the House or Senate to stop anything.
And you couple that with the arrogance and the conceit, not only of Obama, but Rahm Emanuel and all the people around him.
You have a leadership that is impervious.
They don't even view this as a republic or as a democracy.
It's their country now.
They've gotten hold of it.
They do realize that it would be best if the American people continued to have wonderful thoughts of Obama, so they try to spin all of this stuff to cover up the fact he really doesn't care about this.
This is just a little annoyance.
Afghanistan is just a little annoyance.
His focus is on getting out of there.
His focus is not on winning.
His focus is not on protecting the American people, contrary to what everybody thinks a commander-in-chief does, because that's just the way Americans have been raised.
We grow up.
have faith in the traditions and institutions that protect us and defend.
I'm going to more on that, by the way, because this swine flu, we may reach a tipping point here where, and there are several opportunities to reach a tipping point.
The swine flu thing may be one of them, where people start to join me in instinctively not trusting government.
Back after this.
While I have your attention, third party, as this third party stuff has got to stop, folks, unless you are for a third party for the Democrats.
Like, I'm all for Ralph Nader running again.
I'd love for Howard Dean to get fed up or some other Democrat to get fed up with Obama, and I'd love for a third party of Democrats and liberals to establish itself.
I want all kinds of liberals to line up and run in third parties.
That's how we weaken their side.
As for our side, the focus must be to take back the Republican Party.
That's the way you win.
You can draw attention to yourself by denouncing both parties at the same time, and you can think that you're relating to a whole lot of people who are being disabused and forgotten about.
But you do a grave disservice in doing so because you're never going to win anything.
You're going to guarantee Democrat victory in perpetuity.
We need a strong conservative movement that takes back the Republican Party, and then we have a strong Republican Party.
It's hard work, but it is happening.
There is a conservative ascendancy here.
Why in the world waste what is happening here with this new conservative ascendancy and weaken it and split it up by forming a third party?
So far, not a single Republican is going to vote for government-run health care.
If the parties were the same, the vote would be unanimous, would it not?
If the parties were the same, all the Republicans would be on board for this in the House and the Senate, and they're not.
I think one Republican in the House voted for government-run health care.
When cap and trade came up, eight Republicans voted for it.
The rest voted against it.
In the Senate, all but a couple of Republicans voted against the stimulus bill.
If the parties were the same, sweeping majorities.
Health care would already be the law of the land if the Republican Party was the same as the Democrat Party.
There wouldn't have been any Tea Parties.
There wouldn't be having to mess around with all these various bills and CBO scores because Republicans have voted for it.
Folks, it's all out in front of your face.
It's right in the middle of your face, right in front of your eyes.
The parties are not the same.
We need more of this.
And you don't get more of this by insisting that there's no difference between the parties.
Now, I'm the first to tell you, and I'm the first to agree that the Republican Party has screwed up and it needs to continue to find its legs.
And with our help, it will have no choice but to become a traditional conservative party.
We don't have Marxists in our party.
We don't have Maoists leading the charge in our party.
Those people have found a home in Obama's party and government, but not in the Republican Party.
The problem is that there are people trying to confuse the issue.
They're saying, well, the Republicans spent too much, and they did this, and they gave us a new entitlement.
They spent just like the Democrats, and they all spend.
They all spend the same.
I get that.
I fought them on those things.
I was deeply upset and opposed to a lot of this spending.
I had emissaries from the White House sent down here to try to get my mind right on these things.
But they are not, as a matter of ideology, the Republicans are not seeking the destruction of capitalism and the private sector.
They are not trying to hollow out the military.
They are not undermining our intelligence services and so forth.
The Republican Party has lost its way because of one issue, abortion.
The Ivy League, Republican in name only, so-called moderate Republicans who are truly liberal Republicans, do not like the social issue of abortion and other social issues like family values and morality and all that, having a role in the party platform.
It's as simple as that.
They didn't like it when Reagan ran the show and was winning big landslides.
But they are not Marxists.
They are not Maoists.
They do not hate the U.S. military.
They are not apologizing for the United States of America around the world.
Snap out of this.
Snap out of this.
There's no difference between the two parties.
The Republican Party right now has lost its way.
This conservative ascendancy can help it find its way.
The Democrat Party has found its way, and it's the radical left way, and that's who they are now, and they have to be stopped.
And they will not be stopped if a third party ends up being the result of this little internecine war in the Republican Party.
They will be in power.
The Democrats will be in perpetuity if a third party emerges out of our party.
On the Today Show today, they did a segment how extracurricular activities are no longer affordable for a lot of families.
And that's good.
That's good because the kids get to come home and spend time with the family and the togetherness and the recession's good.
But I thought extracurricular activities were what we needed in order to have well-rounded children doing all kinds of things outside the classroom.
And try this from the Washington Post.
Loneliness can be transmitted, according to a survey.
If you're alone, how do you infect anybody with anything?
▲
Export Selection