All Episodes
Previous Next
May 24, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
May 24, 2010, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
From deep in the heart of Texas, we bid you good day.
Happy Monday.
I know it is a 12 to 15% less happy Monday for you.
Oh, I wish Rush was there.
Hey, listen, I wish Rush was there.
But you got me today, Walter Williams tomorrow, and Rush returns on Wednesday.
It is always a joy to be here.
I much, much appreciate it.
From here within the confines of proud Rush Limbaugh affiliate WBAP Dallas, Fort Worth, I come to you with a weekend full of news stories and a brain full of reactions to them.
Let's put my thoughts together with yours and let's just have a good time with it.
It's 1-800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882.
Always go to rushlimbaugh.com, even when the fill-in guys are here.
And again, it's me today, Mark Davis.
Pleasure to meet you if we've never met before.
And I really can't wait for tomorrow, Dr. Walter Williams with you tomorrow in the EIB chair and rush back on Wednesday.
Okay, let's hop in.
Let's do some stuff as fresh as this morning's headlines.
And on a Monday, that means taking a look at the various things that happened over the weekend.
We've got some oil talk.
I mean, oil and Arizona.
I mean, the talk show gods are smiling these days.
And one could argue that there's only so much one can say about an oil spill.
And there's only really so much one can say about Arizona.
But after those things have been said, it seems that both of these stories yield additional wrinkles that deserve our attention.
It's also a kind of an interesting weekend for a guy who's going to have a very interesting few months, and that is one would think Senator to be Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Praiseworthy views.
The controversial ones need to be explained, probably.
And the best person to explain them is Rand Paul.
But he passed on an opportunity to do that on Meet the Press.
That's not good.
I'll share a thought or two about that.
For those who thought that healthcare went away, it's funny, in the middle of the healthcare debate, I remember telling people, just musing one day about this on my local show, I said, hey, everybody, remember immigration?
I mean, it was a few months ago, 80% of our national content was healthcare, healthcare, and more healthcare.
I remember telling people at some point immigration will come back and say, remember me?
I'm a big issue too.
Now it's almost like the tide has turned.
It's almost impossible to get a whole lot of healthcare talk going.
But you know what?
This will take 30 seconds.
I'll give this to you because it puts a smile on my face.
Maybe this old country's got some sense in her yet.
After Obamacare passed, what did you think would happen to Obamacare in the public mind?
Did you think that maybe its popularity would nudge upward because some people would just go, oh, whatever, okay?
I guess there are some good things in it, so whatever.
And that others, even some conservatives, would be so downtrodden and embittered that they would just go, all right, whatever.
And that the lethargy and nonchalance would take over.
And that maybe the two to one margin of Americans who despised Obamacare, it would start to improve, that its stock would begin to rise.
Well, guess again.
For a good while now, weekly polling at Rasmussen on support for repealing, repealing the new national health care plan, 54, 58%.
This morning, the good people of Rasmussen tell us that their latest national telephone survey finds that support for repealing Obamacare, repealing it, support for repealing it at its highest level ever at 63%.
So there, there you go.
There's so much angst and so many things to get all worked up about with regard to Arizona and the oil spill.
I just thought I'd give you one thing that's just some unadulterated good news.
So, with that, let's hop into a little oil, a little Arizona, and other things as we progress.
And you're welcome to bring me whatever you want on those issues or others for that matter, 1-800-282-2882.
As a talk show guy, the question always arises: if something occurs to me to say and it's been said a million times in some form or another, should it be said a million and one times?
The answer is yes, if it is an undeniable truth grasped by an insufficient number of people.
What are you talking about?
Well, I'm going to give you a sentence in the English language, and here you go.
And it'll be, it's, it's very generic talk show guy stuff, but it's completely true and needs to be said until everyone realizes just what's going on here.
Imagine for me, if you will, if this were day 30, whatever of this oil spill, don't get ahead of me.
Okay, get ahead of me.
What if this were a month plus of this oil spill under George W. Bush?
There you go.
Discuss.
You know what?
There's not really that much need to discuss.
Just absorb, absorb and understand.
Now, there's another reason for me to bring this up because while even Bill Maher grasps this on real time on HBO, said this a couple of weeks back: how is Obama getting a free pass on this oil stuff?
You know, we'd be crucifying Bush.
You know, Bill Maher will drive you insane, but every once in a while, there'll be that moment of clarity that, you know, I've got to give him a momentary thumbs up for.
And that was one of them.
He gets it.
And if you don't, you need to too.
Are you kidding?
Especially with the oil connections and just being Bush, being a Republican president.
The articles of impeachment would have been drawn up by now for insufficient attention to an environmental disaster.
The motivations and underpinnings for a Bush administration nonchalance to the oil spill would have been documented ad nauseum.
You know, can you imagine what the hateful Keith Olberman would have to say about an oil spill that got this much inattention or let's just say insufficient attention from a Bush administration?
Can you imagine it would have been because he loves oil and won't crack down on an oil company, certainly would have been because he hates the environment, and certainly would have been another opportunity to destroy more lives of people in Louisiana.
And I'm sure Kanye would have probably reminded us of what President Bush thinks of black people.
You know, this would be happening.
Now, that is self-evidently true.
And I know that even many of you on the left know that I'm right about this.
So the question arises: why bring it up?
Okay, there's media bias.
Why bring it up?
Here's why it's interesting here.
I am not looking for or calling for the dominant media culture to kick Barack Obama in the crotch for the oil spill.
Because I don't, please, you tell me what 14 things government could do better in the last month.
But I'll make you a deal on that.
Don't go demonizing BP just yet either.
Now, listen, we may ultimately, weeks, months down the road, find all kinds of regulatory oversights.
Those will be government's fault.
All kinds of corners cut by BP.
That'll be business's fault or Transocean or Halliburton or whoever.
I mean, we may discover all kinds of things that will enable us to scapegoat with some level of skill and accuracy.
Until then, it's just a really bad thing that happened.
And nobody knows how much, where to put blame or even how much blame there is to be assigned.
Sometimes things just happen.
So if I'm not looking for the president's willing handmaidens in the dominant media culture to come down hard on him, what am I calling for?
Well, I can't hop in the time tunnel and go back to 2005 and have the media treat President Bush better in the era of Katrina.
But I suppose from here on out, it's just a call for consistency.
If a president does something that he deserves to be really roundly criticized for, do it.
But don't just do it if he's a Republican.
And if a president has a problem in his face that's really not much his fault and not a whole lot he can do about it, well, go easy on him, even if he's a Republican.
That's all I'm asking.
And I know I'm asking too much.
So let's just move on.
And let's, in fact, go to a couple of developments in this story.
And of course, if there's anything that the situation needs, anything any situation needs, no problem is really a problem.
Nothing is really settled into concrete until there's a bipartisan commission.
All right, we can sleep better at night now.
The president, here's Bloomberg's story.
President Barack Obama, faced with growing criticism of the government's response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, created a bipartisan commission to investigate the disaster.
On it, Democrat Bob Graham of Florida, former U.S. Senator and Florida governor, and Republican William Riley, former EPA administrator.
They will lead the probe.
The commission will seek to assure the American people that similar catastrophes will not recur.
What?
By what magical power will they do that?
Nothing like absurd expectations.
And again, I know this just falls into an existing narrative as well.
By the magic of his own appointment of a bipartisan commission, we will be able to tell the American people that similar catastrophes will not occur.
Well, guess what?
The Anointed One cannot tell us that things like this will not recur.
This is nothing against Senator Graham or former EPA administrator Mr. Riley.
They seem talented people to do this.
Delightful, fine waste of money, probably, but please, my waste of money complaint list looks like the Manhattan phone book.
This would rank pretty low.
The best anybody can do is study it, examine it, see if anything really did go wrong that was either BP's fault or government's fault, vow to do better, and then cross your fingers really tight and go from there.
What an absurd thing to say, well, you know, we're going to ensure the American people that similar catastrophes will not recur.
They very well might recur.
They very well might.
And that will give mush-brained Robert Redford, which is hard for me to say.
I like Barb Redford.
I enjoyed Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
And the Sting.
Okay, maybe not much else.
But anyway, it'll enable him to get out in front of some attractive stretch of beach and tell us that the oil spill, that the BP, that the Gulf oil spill is just a message that we should all heed, that the drilling is just bad, bad stuff.
Well, no.
The BP spill reminds us that drilling is risky.
The planet will be spoiled to some degree by all manner of human productivity.
The existence of humanity leaves the planet a little less pristine than it would be if all of us were not here.
So the balance that we always need to strike is how to be good stewards of the planet and yet derive from it the resources we need to be productive.
And listen, as the years unfold, right here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, there's some big, and I mean big, 25, is it 25,000?
25,000?
A ton of people are here for something on wind power.
I know, insert your own joke here.
And that's fine.
Wind, solar, you know, peanut butter.
You want to run your car, run your house on anything.
If you find something that works, good for you.
And if it's embraced by the marketplace, good for everybody.
But don't be jamming unproven technologies down an unwilling public's throat.
Find what works and go with it and go with it.
And until we find all kinds of other alternative energy sources that are reliable and plentiful and easy and affordable, we like oil.
We love us some fossil fuels.
And there's nothing, nothing wrong with that.
So no more talk of being addicted to oil.
None of that.
Oil has run the engines that has made America great.
150 years from now, will it be something else?
It may well be.
I don't know.
But for now, that's what it is.
And as long as that's what it is, we better find a bunch more oil.
And I'd like to find it not so much in tankers arriving from countries that want to kill us.
Domestic oil exploration is one of the most important things we do.
So, all right.
So there's a little oil talk.
And I tell you what, as we progress, I think we might do a call or two here and welcome some folks in on that or various other things you want to do.
But particularly, those listening on the big 550 KFYI in Phoenix, the Rush station there in proud Phoenix, Arizona, you guys have a big thing coming up on Saturday.
I know a little something about it.
You know, let me tell you about that next.
Get some Arizona talk going on this.
Because if you have had it up to your eyeballs with Arizona being slapped around for passing a law to enforce the law, there's a little something coming that you might want to attend in the Phoenix area, whether you live there or in Bangor, Maine, you may want to attend this.
Start driving now if that's the case, but I'll give you some updates on that and a bunch of other things.
Lots going on.
Come join me, 1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in from WBAP in Dallas-Fort Worth.
And we'll continue in just a moment on the EIB network.
It is the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in from WBAP Dallas-Fort Worth.
I'll tell you what, let me throw you all a bone.
There, anywhere in Arizona or driving distance, there's a big Saturday event, Saturday, right, the 29th.
The standwitharizona.org is your conduit to some things to participate in something being called a Bycot.
A Bycott is a B-U-Y-C-O-T-T where you subvert a boycott that seeks to unfairly punish some entity, in this case, state of Arizona, with your strategically spent dollars.
More on that here.
Let's do that very next segment because there's a very heavy big 550 KFYI contingent to this, the Proud Rush affiliate there.
But let's go to Miami because Tom is on to talk about something that I'm going to spend some time on today.
It's called Play Hard and Play Smart.
Rand Paul is a worthy and inspiring candidate who needs to have the courage of his convictions and not bail on meet the press on Friday just because it was going to get tough under questioning from David Gregory.
And that's anybody whom we decide to get really excited about for president in 2012 had better learn that same thing.
And I'll go into some detail on this because I think Tom's going to take a different point.
So let's go to Miami.
And Tom, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Oh, no, no, no.
Oh, no.
Oh, okay.
Oh, hang on a second.
Hi, Tom.
How are you?
Hey, Mark.
How are you?
Very nice to have you.
I thought that we had lost you.
Good.
The floor is yours, sir.
Go right ahead.
Yeah, my opinion about this is that just like Rush, why waste your time going on meet the press with liberals who want to destroy you?
He don't represent Northeastern liberals and liberal journals.
He represents the people of Kentucky.
There's an answer to that.
The answer to that question.
I don't care.
The answer to that, I understand that.
The answer to that, but there may be people in Kentucky who are wondering about him, and he needs to courageously answer questions about his views.
Listen, if you wanted to say, I'm not going to appear on the show, okay, we can talk about that.
But to agree to and then bail, fairly or not, gives the image of somebody who just didn't want to be bothered explaining his somewhat complicated view on the, on the, but supportable view on the Civil Rights Act in a hostile room.
If you don't have the guts to show up in a hostile room at Meet the Press, I mean, you think things aren't going to get tough for you in the Senate?
Well, I mean, so come on.
What about the liberals?
They don't show up on Fox News or Bill O'Reilly.
They don't have to do that.
Actually, many of them, well, actually, they do.
If you're an actual watcher of Fox News, you saw Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic Party, on there.
Hillary has been on there, and it is good for them to do that.
And I will tell you, liberals are treated much better on Fox News than conservatives are on some of the other mainstream shows.
But you've got to do this.
Especially if it is a live show.
If it is a live.
No, I'm afraid not.
Listen, I mean, Rush himself built his ascendancy on showing up to defend his views against those who would question them.
Here's the difference.
If somebody says we're going to send a reporter to do a package on you and it'll be subject to editing, boy, I'd hold that at arm's length all day long.
But if someone says we're going to sit you down live, I would welcome their challenging questions.
But you've got to be, Tom, Tom, you've got to be tough enough to withstand the ambush.
You've got to take the ambush and put it right back in the questioner's face.
You've got to be able to look at someone asking you an unfair or impertinent question and say, I reject the very premise of your question.
Here's what I actually believe.
That's what you've got to do to be considered tough enough to explain yourself to the electorate.
So, I mean, listen, I'm sorry.
I mean, we can wimp out all day.
You know, old Rand said that it was fatigue.
I'll tell you what I grow fatigued of is insufficient spying to explain yourself even in a hostile room.
Anybody tough enough to be a U.S. Senator has got to be tough enough to do that.
And I hope that Rand will.
Why?
Because there are points that he can make.
And I'll tell you what those are when we come back.
What does he need to say?
He won't say it, so I will.
Be right back.
Good times indeed.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Rush is back on Wednesday.
Dr. Walter Williams with you tomorrow.
I want to thank Tom out of Miami for getting us started on the whole Rand Paul thing.
All right.
So if my wish would have been for Senate candidate the younger Dr. Paul to actually show up on Meet the Press and actually endure a tough question or two from David Gregory or whomever, how might that have gone?
Well, if Dr. Paul is the kind of tough and worthy candidate that I believe him to be, he could have woven and may yet do so some paragraphs that sound like this.
I view things through a lens of liberty.
And that means freedom on the parts of individuals to do many things that will delight us, amaze us, but maybe sometimes even repel us.
Just as the First Amendment gives us the liberty to say and write and draw all kinds of things that are really repugnant, liberty for persons and individuals might also involve tolerating some behaviors that we view as repugnant.
And the situation then leads to a marketplace that has its way with those entities.
Imagine, if you will, a restaurant freed to say, we don't accept black people.
Do you think people would have a thing or two to say about that?
They would be met with the sternest, and appropriately so, the sternest of public rebukes.
Imagine a business that said, we don't hire any Hispanics.
Well, not only is that business shooting itself in the foot by turning down worthy applicants who are Latino, but there would also be, I imagine, a little bit of bad press about that.
Those businesses would be punished under the weight of their own intolerance.
Now, in the case of, you know, who gets let into a restaurant or something like that, you know, that's one thing.
But if there's a place where our noble purpose has really turned into a negative, that's in the world of hiring.
And it becomes sort of an affirmative action issue.
Right now, sadly, there are people who are black or Hispanic or maybe even women who aspersions are cast on them by people who might at some point say, well, I wonder how this guy got that job.
I guess they needed a black guy.
I guess I know how you got that job.
They might not have had enough Hispanics.
If you get rid of all of that and hire purely on merit, no one will ever ask that question again.
You know, if there's a black guy on the loading dock or in the CEO's office, if there's a Hispanic guy in the mailroom or on the board of directors, you know how he got there because he deserved to be there.
And that helps race relations progress far better than the government-mandated bean counting that we have now with people rushing through workplaces, large and small, making sure that you've got enough of this, enough of this, and enough of that.
Now, if you give people the liberty to make those choices in hiring, let's say, just to stay on that, might there be some people who bring their own racism into play and you start to get the feeling that, you know what, it's kind of tough to get a job at XYZ Corporation if you're black, or it's kind of known that XYZ Corporation or whatever, you know, doesn't hire Hispanics.
If that gets out, the slings and arrows of public reaction will give them exactly the ruinous reputation that they deserve.
Now, Dr. Paul would have to be much briefer about this than I am, but I'm essentially laying out the premise that there is an absolute point that can be made when principled critics of federal power oppose efforts to impose Washington's will on states and private institutions.
It is a point that can be made.
Now, the reality of the situation is, and where Rand Paul's difficulty may arise, is it is possible to hold certain views that you can intellectually hold up all day long, but which in the political marketplace are tantamount to suicide.
This may be one of them.
I guess we're about to find out.
Or maybe we're not because he may be about to cave on this for better public consumption.
I don't know.
But whatever decision he made, it needed to be on display on Meet the Press on Sunday because we're up against a Democratic Party that will stop at nothing.
We are in guerrilla warfare, metaphorically speaking, against people who do not observe the usual decorum of fairness, propriety, and civility.
And if you get the vapors at the notion of being asked some things by David Gregory, one fairly wonders if you're tough enough to be in a Senate led by Harry Reed.
So as we go looking for candidates, as we go rooting and tooting and hollering and shouting our support for our 2010 candidates, we better offer them some advice.
It's called Gut Up.
And as we go looking for people in 2012 to return Barack Obama to private life, they'd better be people who can explain themselves unapologetically and clearly and survive that process.
I mean, God bless her.
There was Governor Palin on Fox News in an otherwise lovely appearance.
Always love her and she's great and she was great on Fox News.
But weaving this all-too-familiar scenario, and it may well have been true of the gotcha question, because I think the first two places that Rand Paul went after his win were NPR and MSNBC.
We may have to talk about who's booking his interviews.
But even into those hostile enclaves, you walk in there, you sit down, you explain yourself.
And if some people recoil, you go, well, let's listen.
Here's what I believe and here's what I don't believe.
I'm not tolerating discrimination.
It's a discussion of what government should do in terms of fighting it.
And there's a sentence that has come out of his mouth or his writing.
It was a quote of his, a free society will tolerate private discrimination.
Well, how much is that true?
Is that true?
Okay, I guess we get a trial balloon on that now.
But you explain it.
Anyway, what Sarah did is just say, you know, oh, there they go again.
It's the mainstream media trying to trap them, trying to trap them with an unfair question.
There are no unfair questions.
Here's what I mean.
If you're running for something and you are in a hostile environment of questioning and someone asks you a question that is impertinent or that has a false premise.
Let's not say impertinent.
That's in the eye of the beholder.
But if someone, okay, what's the worst it could be?
So Dr. Paul, why don't you like black people?
At that point, it is quite frankly not a hard thing to do to say, what an absurd thing to ask me.
How could anyone, from what I've expressed about the Civil Rights Act, if you know what I'm talking about, think that it's because I don't like black people?
And if anybody is slow on the uptake on that, I'll explain myself now and then take 60 seconds and do it.
Do it.
This is the plight of every conservative that's ever going to run for anything.
The way the media field is striped, you're always going to get hostile questions.
You're always going to get questions based on a false premise.
You're always going to get, when did you beat your, you stop beating your wife type questions.
And it's a candidate's job, if they remotely want to consider themselves worthy of the actual office to be able to navigate those media-related potholes, speed bumps, obstacles with some level of skill.
So anyway, I don't want to come down too hard on Dr. Paul, but I will just tell you that that was not good, bailing on Meet the Press.
That was not good.
And so David Gregory just got to riff on this for a few minutes and said that his failure to appear here means that there are remaining questions, that there are questions that he will need to ask on, that need to answer on other things, like the minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety regulations.
He should relish the opportunity to answer all three.
I don't presume that his answers would be the same as mine, but if I'm sitting there, minimum wage, you're darn right it's wrong.
What business is it of government to tell a business what it can pay people?
The marketplace is perfect here.
If you've got a business and you've got five jobs to put out on the market and you put it out at X dollars per hour and you have takers for all five jobs, the system worked.
Even if, heaven forbid, it was, you know, 15 cents or even a dollar lower than what the minimum wage might have otherwise been.
If you put out a job at X dollars per hour and get no takers, then you need to offer more money for that job.
The marketplace is perfect in this regard.
It is wrong for government to tell employers what to pay people.
The minimum wage is wrong, and any libertarian needs the courage to say so.
Now, child labor laws, because they are child labor laws, it's the difference between seatbelt laws for adults, which are, I don't lie awake at night complaining that there are seatbelt laws.
But from a liberty perspective, do you have the right to be an idiot in your car and not wear one?
Yeah, you know, yeah.
I mean, that's an unnecessary intrusion into your life.
Are you a moron if you don't wear seatbelts?
Yes.
Should the law tell you to?
Probably not.
But if you got a kid, if you're dumb enough, let your kid go bouncing around the back of a Buick, as I guess I pretty well did for my entire childhood, and I somehow survived.
But nonetheless, since it's your kids, I have no problem.
Most people have no problem with the notion of requiring you to do things for your kids.
And child labor laws, same logic.
Of course, child labor laws are fine.
Workplace safety regulations?
Answer is it depends.
It depends.
Now, there are plenty of laws that properly protect against whether it's mines or oil rigs or various other less front of mind venues to make sure that unscrupulous employers aren't cutting corners that result in dead employees.
Of course, those are fine workplace safety regulations.
But over the years, have there been regulations that have been onerous intrusions into business decision making that were not necessary to achieve safety?
Of course, that's happened.
You got to take those on a case-by-case basis.
Listen, I'm not Einstein.
I'm nothing special.
Except on the days I'm guest hosting the Limbaugh Show.
I am not remarkable.
I've just managed to deliver this logic.
Dr. Paul is going to need to start delivering logic or something like that.
And I will tell you, and maybe I'll ask you this, as we get ready to take a bunch of phone calls on this and other things, 1-800-282-2882.
It may well be that if Dr. Paul is as forthcoming about this as he needs to be, that it will end his political career before it begins.
And if that's the case, that is to the nation's disadvantage.
You know, but we'll see.
Multiple issues and questions there.
I mean, sometimes, as we break here, let me leave you with the following.
Sometimes you have to play the field the way it is striped and not the way that you wish it were.
And if I need to expound on that, I will.
But let's let some people talk on the phone, shall we?
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for Rush Limbaugh, and we'll be right back.
1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in from Texas.
Let's head to Canton, Georgia.
Tom, Mark Davis, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hello.
Hello, Mark.
How you doing today?
Fantastic.
Thank you.
A comment on Mr. Paul.
The fact of the matter is, oh my God, I use that term.
I believe that no idea, no concept, no position, or any position that you take, I should be saying, has absolutely no value until it's tested.
And to stand before a group of people who believe as you believe and say things that you know they're going to accept gives you no credibility.
You must seek out the most critical adversary in a public place and let them question you.
And then if you can withstand that test, you will have credibility.
One of two things, one of two good things will happen.
Either you will win people over, in which case your time has been well spent, or if you don't, you will have at least displayed the courage of your convictions to withstand some challenging questioning.
Yeah, and that's, Tom, thanks.
I want to get a guy in from Kentucky because this is where it's all about.
And listen, I know, and I understand the whole notion, the sort of the vibe that says, you know, pardon the French here, you know, screw me, the press, and, you know, heck with the national media.
You know, they're our enemy.
And I know, and I know ordinarily, I'd probably be singing something like that tune.
But has anybody noticed that we're about something pretty special right now?
That this whole Tea Party thing, as maligned as it is, libertarianism is surely going to be maligned, that there is value in coming out of the cave and not just circling the wagons and saying, well, the heck with those people that might be slow to the concept.
No, no, not this year, not 2010 and not 2012.
You step out and you challenge people who want to challenge you.
You give them their questions right back to them with answers that make sense.
That's how you win converts.
Because again, unless you haven't noticed, 2010 and 2012 is about winning converts.
And with that, we head out to Paducah, Kentucky.
Terry, Mark Davis, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hello.
Hey, Mark.
How are you?
Mark, I called to tell you, I think you're way off base on Rand Paul.
Well, did you hear what I just said?
Then tell me what the problem is.
Rand Paul is running for Senate in the state of Kentucky, not the United States of America.
He will answer to the people of Kentucky.
And Mark, I truly believe that the people have had enough of the media.
They don't trust them.
They have a downright hatred or disdain of the media.
I know.
And deserved.
And so wouldn't it be better?
So wouldn't it be just soul-cleansingly great to have a candidate who will accept invitations from a hostile room and step in and show them and a watching nation the courage of his convictions?
Mark, why step down and stoop down to their level?
Because it gets you, there's an answer to that question.
Because it gets you millions more people who know, understand, and appreciate you than if you just draw a cocoon around the state of Kentucky and pretend the rest of the nation doesn't exist.
You are correct that the people who will elect him, and I pray that they will, are in your state, are in your state.
But down here in Texas, I'll tell you, and I think some people from Maine to Minnesota, from Florida to Washington state will say the same thing.
We're rooting for him, too.
We want people with his views to earn the favor, to earn the appreciation, to win over critics, because it ain't just about Kentucky.
If he makes the U.S. Senate, it is about the whole country.
And I want him to be out there duking it out with those who would misrepresent his views.
That's what I want.
It becomes about the rest of America when he gets elected.
Right now, it's about the people of Kentucky.
Oh, no doubt.
No doubt.
No, I understand.
And Terry, thank you.
And you're technically absolutely right about that.
But with an election season that's going to be paying a ton of attention to his views, I'd like not to have a missed opportunity.
I'd like to see Dr. Paul out there taking on all comers and to explain himself to whoever wants him to, because I think that'll help a whole lot of other people saying similar things in a vital election season.
All righty, it's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in, and we'll continue in just a moment.
All righty, we got about 60 golden seconds before the top of the hour.
So rather than give a caller a short shrift, let's get out of this with some degree of style and head into the next hour, take a bunch more of your calls on whatever you want.
Mark Davis in for rush, rush back Wednesday, Dr. Walter Williams tomorrow.
It is an odd, it's a little schizo, if you'll excuse me.
It's funny because the same people who will say with our views, with our conservatism, the newfound energy that we all have to fight for conservatism and take our country back and things like that, we got to fight.
We got to duke it out.
And yet some of these folks will then say that if you get a call to be on Meet the Press, oh, no, don't do that.
You know, just flip them the bird and don't show up.
Hello, fighting means fighting.
And sometimes it means fighting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
And sometimes it means fighting David Gregory.
And it's not the same dance, but it's a similar thing.
The willingness to show up and explain your views and see how many people you can win over.
We don't have the luxury of cocooning up in 2010 and 2012.
We got to get these views out there and explain them so that we can win.
Mark Davis in for rush.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection