Rush Limbaugh Program - May 24, 2010, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 24, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:22

May 24, 2010, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you, Johnny.
	Thank you, everybody, and a happy Monday to you, hour two of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm here with you today, about to hop back to more of your calls on weekend developments and fresh Monday headlines, Dr. Walter Williams with you tomorrow, one of the grand protectors of the Constitution in our midst, and then rushes back on Wednesday.
	And you know, it is that pesky Constitution that has us in a sort of an interesting dither as a country today, um because the definition of what it means to be serious about the Constitution may be in a state of flux.
	I I think that as recently as the Reagan years, when uh, you know, Reagan and Tip O'Neill were duking it out over certain things, there wasn't a lot of talk about one only one side really caring about the constitutional structure of our system of laws, uh, these were disagreements that you could have, you know, with a with a tip O'Neill or a Jim Wright or and it was back when Democrats could actually be patriots like Scoop Jackson and folks like that.
	Uh these days, though, things have um balkanized so starkly that when conservatives step forward and ask, not always rhetorically, are we the only ones who care about what the Constitution says, that it's a fair point.
	Now, I I I really do believe that our liberal brothers and sisters uh hold the Constitution in high regard in th through their own political lenses.
	And by that I mean as a document that lives and breathes and changes with the swaying wind of uh of the always turbulent mores of the modern day, a living, breathing document and all of that nonsense.
	That if the Constitution can be that, that if they can somehow argue that the Constitution does indeed contain a federal right to terminate pregnancy, or any one of a number of or a federal right to be free of thoroughly reasonable law enforcement scrutiny in Arizona,
	uh that if they can concoct and fashion out of whole cloth things on their agenda and wrap them in the Constitution, if they can hose an inattentive country into buying that, uh well then they'll they'll they'll love the Constitution as much as I will.
	Uh but the funny thing about me, and I presume many of you, is that the Constitution was written with words in the English language that deserve to be understood and respected, not in terms of maintaining late 18th century standards of uh of of everything, but filtering the modern world through what the founders intended, and by that I mean this.
	Uh if if if we could somehow, speaking of the Time Tunnel, one of my favorite premises and one of my favorite shows when I was eleven, uh and bring the founders up to the modern day.
	If we could sit, you know, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin down and show them some cinemax on a cable system on a Saturday night.
	They might look at each other and say, you know, that First Amendment thing, we might have to rethink it.
	And I say that, of course, flippantly.
	The point being that the First Amendment, freedom of expression, allows in the twenty-first century, all kinds of things that the founders that would have made their brains explode beneath their powdered wigs.
	That is a way to take the modern incarnations of what we have in in our modern life, our modern society.
	There are all kinds of things that that would have made the founders recoil.
	But our sensibilities filtered through a constitutional lens, uh allow all kind it's it's my favorite sentence maybe ever.
	Freedom means people are going to do things that you won't like.
	They'll say things you don't like, they'll write things you don't like, frequently they'll do things that you don't like.
	Liberty means recognizing that some of those things are things people have a right to do.
	So when we talk about the Constitution, and when we talk about and just as as a as a conservative, I'll share this with you.
	That I I don't favor the overturning of Roe v.
	Wade because I'm pro-life.
	My pro-lifeness is irrelevant.
	It's what does the Constitution say.
	And the Constitution, since it is silent on abortion, through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments leaves those matters to the states.
	Ditto with gay marriage and all those things that fill the headlines today.
	So from whether or not to allow the termination of pregnancy or whether or not to allow legal equanimity to homosexual unions that heterosexual unions enjoy, that is something that every state should decide for itself.
	That's what honors the Constitution today.
	There is no federal right to expect legal equality for your gay marriage.
	There is no constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, and we're working on getting the Constitution made right in that regard.
	Well, Constitution's not a problem.
	I'm looking on getting Roe v.
	Wade overturned, because only then will the Constitution be honored.
	Now the reason I mention that is that once the Constitution is honored in that regard, I know full well that there are states that will have abortion laws far more liberal than I would like.
	There will be states that give precise equality to gay marriage, which some people may like and some people may not.
	The conservative argument is not to have the Constitution reflect our political whim in every state, it is to free the states to make decisions that they have a right to make.
	That's the argument.
	And yet you have people walking around believing and saying that if Roe v.
	Wade is overturned, abortion will be illegal across America.
	That is a lie.
	And I tell this as a way to get us back to what we were talking about at the end of last hour.
	This is why people with libertarian views, even mainstream conservative views, have to get out there and explain ourselves to as many people as will listen.
	Because Rand Paul is a trailblazer.
	The Tea Party people are trailblazers.
	Every day people are opening their eyes to libertarianism, to conservatism, to fiscal restraint, and considering it maybe for the first time in their lives, because the status quo under radical leftists is just so sorry.
	And if as they go looking for some alternate worldview, if we cocoon ourselves up and say, well, you know, we don't need to explain this to you know David Gregory or, you know, or CNN or something like that, oh yes, we do.
	Not to appease them or assuage them or kiss the rings of hostile network anchors, but to maybe be seen by an undecided voter, by someone who sees, oh, there's a Tea Party guy.
	I've heard they're crackpots, and then you're on TV for two or three minutes.
	Well, it's not a crackpot.
	He's talking about less taxes and less government.
	I sounds good to me.
	That's a victory.
	That's how you win.
	And I'll just I'll I'll wrap this up here in a second and start taking some calls in the very next segment.
	I'm wondering what's driving some of you here.
	I hope it's not overconfidence.
	If you find yourself looking at the what's called the generic ballot, irrespective of name, would you vote for a Republican or a Democrat in this and the thus and such race?
	And Republicans have not done as well as they're doing now in a really long time.
	And there are people out there with all kinds of predictions and projections of how many Republican seats might be picked up in the House and in the Senate.
	I wish that some of these people would shut up.
	I it's in terms of, well, we're definitely going to win back the House and the Senate.
	Well, look, I know we might.
	Are you kidding me?
	That would be tremendous.
	Is it a possibility?
	Of course it is.
	But if we have people out there talking about sixty, sixty-five seats in the House, and and that becomes the expectation.
	Well, then we can you know the average is in an off-year election?
	24.
	The party not in power usually picks up about 24.
	In order to win back the House, it's 42 or something, right?
	So let's say it's 30.
	That would be I will be dancing in the streets if we get 30.
	Dancing somewhat more festively if we get 50, but dancing nonetheless.
	I know there's a visual for you.
	But if the expectations are at the 40 sum level, because everybody's been saying that and expecting it, first thing is maybe that will adversely affect turnout, because they'll think, oh, man, I I got a business trip.
	I'm gonna be good.
	Republicans are gonna win back a bunch of seats.
	They don't even need me.
	Well, guess what?
	Yes, they do.
	We gotta fight hard and fight smart every single day, fighting not just liberalism, but our own complacency.
	Because uh we're like the team that is up, you know, 2114 midway through the second quarter.
	Stuff can happen.
	We can get lazy.
	Uh you know, heaven forbid the economy should improve.
	And I say that totally tongue in cheek.
	I would love for the economy improve to improve.
	That that is our occasion to say, look, there's the resiliency of the American economy, an economy so strong and so resilient that not even these people could kill it.
	And that's what you say.
	And then you say you really want to see some continued improvement, then let's have some growth unfettered by confiscatory taxation.
	Let's have uh an entrepreneurial spirit and a pro-business environment coming from Washington so that we can have even more job growth, even more economic growth, even more strong GDP numbers, even more strong consumer confidence.
	So that's that's what we we saddle up for.
	That's what we we put on the armor for.
	How many metaphors can I come up with here?
	That that's that's what we do.
	And we have to fight hard every day all the way till November.
	Because if if we fall asleep at the switch from overconfidence, or oh, we got this one, the mood's going our way, we got this one.
	Uh we're going to be bitterly disappointed.
	And listen, if we are disappointed, I don't want it to be because we only got 30 seats instead of the 50 everybody was predicting.
	So the expectations game is always a kind of a weird bird.
	So there's a thought or two about that.
	Now, how about a thought or two from you about anything you like?
	Got uh BP oil spill talk and you know what's the the politics and and the the engineering issues of that, uh, and just uh a number of other things going on.
	Oh, it duh, I've I I meant, you know what let's do?
	Let's do something I mentioned about 35 minutes ago, but things got so busy that I didn't get a chance to.
	So coming back right from this break, attention, people of Arizona.
	Shoot, attention, people of anywhere who want to go to Arizona this Memorial Day weekend and then do something uh do something good for that good state.
	Got a suggestion for you.
	There's an event you need to know about, and I'll tell you about it next on the Rush Limbaugh Show for a Monday.
	I'm Mark Davis filling in from WBAP Dallas Fort Worth.
	More of your calls and some and some travel suggestions for your weekend coming right up.
	It is the Rush Limbaugh Show for a Monday, 1-800-282-2882.
	I'm Mark Davis filling in from WBAP Dallas Fort Worth.
	And you know, the reason I know a little something about this next thing in Arizona is because some of our own local tea party are verily uh are very heavily wired into it.
	My buddy Phil Dennis, who's sort of the uh grand poo-ba of the Dallas Tea Party, uh sent me an email, and uh, and here's what it is, it has to do with uh with Phoenix.
	And so actually it's gonna be in Tempe, so head out into the East Valley, if you will.
	And this is a real heads up for those listening on Proud Rush Limbaugh affiliate, uh, the big 550 KFYI in Phoenix.
	Because your afternoon guy, Mike Broomhead's going to MC this thing.
	Good for you, Mike.
	And um here's the bottom line six o'clock, uh Saturday evening at Tempe Diablo Stadium.
	Uh it's in Tempe, of course.
	It's uh the sort of the spring training home of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, one of the most confusingly uh titled sports franchises in history.
	Uh, but it's at Tempe Diablo Stadium, and it's six o'clock, and everybody's gonna show up, and it's it's uh it's a big rally in support of uh of Arizona and uh details and stuff at standwitharizona.org.
	And uh you're gonna hear from a couple of people.
	This one's worth the price of admission, which is free.
	Uh I think they're they're I think they'll uh you're always in anything that's free, they'll always have something you can donate to if you want to to just help the cause or help them do other events of this type.
	You can do whatever you like.
	But this would be worth it if it were a pricey ticket, and it's not.
	Sheriff Joe Arpayo, the always irrepressible and always inspiring Sheriff Joe Arpayo.
	But also there, a woman named Dr. Gina Louden, and she is uh the founder and national leader of the Bicott Arizona campaign, bycot, B-U-Y-C-O-T.
	And in the uh world of economic wars, here's how this goes.
	Let's say something is boycotted by people who are looking to damage it, but you view the target of the boycott as unduly punished and unfairly victimized.
	So you want to subvert the effects of the of the boycott by uh choosing uh proactively to shower your money onto the unfairly victimized boycott victim.
	That is a bycot, where you say, okay, you folks are not going to spend money in Arizona.
	Well guess what?
	How about if I spend five times more than I was thinking of spending.
	How about that?
	That is the bycot concept and Dr. Gina Louden will be there to explain that and everybody will get all pumped up and thrilled to be there to support the good people of the state of Arizona.
	Learn about it at StandwithArizona.org.
	I have nothing to do with this.
	I I I wish I it's a memorial day.
	I'm going to be with my in-laws where I belong with family and all that good stuff.
	But if I were not, if I were free, I the they I would absolutely be on that stage with these good folks, it is six o'clock Saturday, May 29th at Tempe Diablo Stadium.
	So go.
	So go.
	And then call Rush back on Monday and tell them how that worked out.
	Because uh if if people are going to step forward and savage the state of Arizona, if we're going to have a federal government that is hinting and maybe not even hinting that it will turn a blind eye to actual illegal immigrants placed in its pipeline by the thoroughly worthy Arizona law.
	If if people have the right to lie about the people of Arizona, to insult its people and insult its police officers by laying out this fictitious narrative of of some horrific wasteland of of profiling and race-based victimization, if they can spread their lies and and we can have those hit our ears and have it energize us to direct some money and sub and some support toward Arizona, then so be it.
	And so stand with Arizona.org, 6 o'clock Saturday night, Tempe Diablo Stadium, uh big old event there uh by the people for the people it says stand with Arizona so good good for those folks and I hope that just works out.
	Works out superbly.
	All righty 1-800-282-2882 let us head next to Roxboro, North Carolina.
	Ken Mark Davis in for Rush, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Hello.
	Hey Mark Ryan Paul's obviously a smart guy, but I don't know what he was thinking on this thing.
	He missed a golden opportunity to remind people of exactly who stood where on the 64 Civil Rights Act.
	You know, William J. Fulbright, Clinton's mentor, filibustered it, Robert Byrd still serving.
	Filibustered it, uh Al Gore Sr. filibustered Sam Irvin.
	Um it was a golden opportunity to remind folks and dispel this myth that you know racism is within the Republican Party and then not also a a problem within the Democrat party.
	Well exactly right because by by two to one margins uh Republicans favored the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more than Democrats did.
	And especially in the season in the context of where people with these ideas of of strong but limited government, lower taxation, seriously less spending, are tarred and feathered as racists if if somebody gets a hold of th this makes him triple quadruply important.
	Dr. Paul's got to come out there and fight for himself in his own reputation.
	In the vacuum there are people saying well, there's a libertarian for you.
	You know there he you don't like black people and you and there are people saying that many of them have television shows who are saying that or suggesting it and when that's happening to you, when you are being lied about, you got to step up and defend yourself.
	So I don't want to make too much of the decision to bail on Meet the Press.
	I hope that uh the the the Senator to be Paul will show the guts that his father has shown and uh and and show up in the future for to take to take whatever questions await.
	Yep, I agree.
	All right, sir.
	Thanks.
	Appreciate it very much.
	All righty uh 1-800-282-2882 1-800-282-2882.
	As we progress into this next half hour uh more calls on this and various other things.
	Uh but let's also take a little bit of a look at uh at what's going on specifically BP s uh in the oil spill story, because that's still very, very front of mind.
	Uh BP says that it is doing all in its power to stop uh the the the oil disaster but as soon as BP steps forward and says we're doing all we can uh th there's going to be skepticism uh some of it worthy skepticism I guess you know there's gonna be skepticism from a White House uh that is eager to kick BP in the teeth.
	And that just, you know, pardon the usage here, it it m makes the water murky, because ultimately we should be about trying to figure out who really does deserve blame, uh, absent the political whim of the moment.
	I know.
	Good luck with that.
	We'll talk about it more as we progress.
	Mark Davis, in for Rush Limbaugh.
	It's 1-800-282-2882.
	Always go to RushLimbaugh.com, even when the substitute guys are here.
	Be right back.
	In the middle of the Monday Rush Limbaugh show, Dr. Walter Williams with you tomorrow.
	I'm Mark Davis with you today from WBAP at Alice Fort Worth.
	All right, let's get back to some of your calls.
	Uh something very, very interesting, and I I think and hope useful is going on uh as we take a look at mm v the last few days in the life of Rand Paul and the next few months in the effort to uh uh infuse some people with the value of liberty and what liberty does and what liberty means.
	I mean, uh uh both Russia's and my close buddy Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny as has laid this out so well.
	And like a whole lot of concepts, you can embrace a lot a lot of people want to embrace the parts of it that they like, but then along comes something else that kind of bites them in the butt, they go, ooh, I don't like that part.
	And and here's what I mean.
	Here's where I'm going.
	We'll take this into our wall of calls on various other things.
	Freedom of association.
	Let's talk about liberty to be around those whom you wish to be around.
	All right.
	It can mean any one of a number of things.
	I'm going to give you a couple of examples that any leftist would be okay with, and that quite frankly, any fair-minded person should be okay with, because it's about freedom of association.
	Should the black students association at the local college be forced to take white people?
	Remember remember the the Hooters lawsuit where there were dudes who wanted to work at Hooters?
	Boy, that's wrong on so many levels.
	But I digress.
	Uh should the the remember the gay softball world series?
	Well, don't tell me you missed that story.
	There are bisexual people who sued the gay softball world series, and the gay softball world series said, nope, you're not gay enough.
	Now you can spend all day if you want to on the uh minutiae of that lawsuit, but the bottom line was there they had an event they wanted to have and they define the people they wanted to include in it.
	And they have that right.
	Now you can either like or not like the logic of the gay softball world series, and you can either admire or not admire uh the uh I believe somewhat um archaic separatism of the Black Students Association or the Hispanic Firefighters Association or whatever.
	But the fact of the matter is they get to do it.
	And whether you like it or I like it or I like it and you don't is irrelevant.
	Isn't it the same logic with public accommodation?
	And boy, the the the f uh probably the foremost libertarian out there uh in in media these days is John Stossel, uh who's I don't know if this led to him being bounced from ABC, I don't know.
	But he uh does a Fox business uh gig now and has said that that uh there are freedom of association assertions people will make that we will admire and some that we won't admire.
	But uh this is not like government having, you know, colored drinking fountains at the at the courthouse.
	None of this is about I mean, we we can have all kinds of rules uh against government discriminating because that's all of our tax money going into a single hopper.
	But if you've got a uh a restaurant that's that's dumb enough to discriminate against people, well, let's all get together and talk about how repulsive that is.
	But is it the law's business?
	And the Liberty lens, if you're looking at things through the liberty lens, that answer is no.
	Now, that gets us to the next place to go, which is, quite frankly, the more germane and pertinent place to go these days, because that America doesn't exist and won't exist for a while.
	So should someone wax eloquent about it when they're running for the U.S. Senate and entertain the this little portion of the worldview that says, you know, uh a free society tolerates private discrimination.
	There are there is such a thing as thoroughly intellectually defensible statements you can make that will end your political career.
	So what's more important?
	Revealing every molecule of your logic or winning.
	Now you shouldn't fib, shouldn't lie, shouldn't uh, you know, uh sugarcoat what you think.
	If you're asked a question, you ought to answer it.
	But um I think one of the questions that will be asked about Rand Paul is did he really have to go into that?
	Was it helpful for him to go into that?
	I don't know.
	And the the answer to that, I don't know.
	Uh part of me is is thrilled that he did because it starts the conversation.
	And it's a conversation I so want to have.
	Uh what does liberty actually do?
	What does it really mean?
	What will America look like when we're all looking through the lens of liberty?
	I mean, liberty is a self-evident good thing, right?
	That all of us can agree on.
	Well, not always.
	Because as we talked about uh you know earlier, liberty also means you get rid of the minimum wage.
	Absolutely get rid of the minimum wage.
	You can't tell businesses what to uh what to what to pay people.
	They'll they they'll offer what they want to pay people.
	If they don't get enough people, they'll increase the salary.
	If they do get enough people, boom, guess what?
	Didn't need to pay them anymore.
	Because you know one thing that you know, and people say, Well, that's cruel to offer a job at uh at such a low uh wage.
	Oh, really?
	Cruelty has nothing to do with it.
	It has nothing to do with how you feel about the salary being offered.
	If a business has a job and it offers up a salary that no one accepts, guess what?
	It was too low.
	Need to ramp that up.
	If they offer a job that is accepted at that salary, you know what you instantly know?
	That that was a job someone was willing to accept at that salary.
	Boom.
	That's it.
	And how you feel about it or I feel about it is a complete irrelevancy.
	Anyway.
	All righty.
	I love days like this.
	1-800-282-2882.
	Go to Rush Limbaugh.com, even when the substitute guys are here, and that's me, Mark Davis, today in Texas, Dr. Walter Williams with you tomorrow, and rush back on Wednesday.
	All righty, we are in Walnut Creek, California.
	John, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	Hello.
	Hey Mark, how are you doing?
	Doing great.
	Thank you.
	Um I just want uh you mentioned uh how you know Democrats and Republicans both used to you know vote constitutionally and whatnot, and now Democrats don't, and Republicans are the only ones that do now.
	But I mean, I kind of have to disagree.
	Um I believe that Republicans also vote unconstitutionally.
	Oh, I th I don't think anybody's record is free of blemish, but give me the examples that occur to you of egregious Republican departures from constitutional truth.
	Well, uh, for example, the wars in uh Afghanistan and Iraq, I remember uh I heard you uh well.
	I'm sorry, I apologize.
	I'll I'll curtail my laughter while you go ahead and no problem.
	But you know, you I heard you talking about Rand Paul and how you uh you know, it sounds like you support him a great deal.
	And um, as you know, uh Braun Paul actually voted against both wars uh when you know they came up and they had to vote.
	And his son and his son agrees with him.
	His his son Rand is also in favor of shutting down Guantanamo and uh wants the uh the Patriot Act repealed.
	Uh so that is why that is why that is why I I uh uh am a very mixed bag guy that I want Rand Paul to win, other than the Democrat running against him, but I would vociferously disagree with him on those war on terror issues, and I would certainly disagree.
	Well, why if we're doing it?
	Well, well, that's why, because it's not.
	Because that's that's patently absurd.
	And so even a war.
	All right, may make your case how the war uh the war on terror is unconstitutional.
	Go.
	We never declared war.
	It's unconstitutional.
	Well, and that's the only way a war can happen.
	Well, that's the only way the constitution says the war can happen.
	We haven't gone to war since war.
	Okay, whom would we and whom would we declare it on?
	Well, that's the problem.
	We'd have to change the constitution, but we can't just No, no, no, no, I'm asking.
	No, and I'm asking.
	How could how could the war on terror be fought and pass your constitutional muster?
	Well, personally, I don't think the war on terror should have been uh fought necessarily.
	It's not about whether you like it, it's not about whether we like it or dislike it.
	It's a constitutional question.
	How how could the war on terror since it's not against a country?
	It's not against some uniformed army that we can have, you know, we can't declare war on Japan like we did uh in the shadow after, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	Well the thing is it couldn't.
	That's what I'm saying.
	But the thing is, war unconstitutionally, we should at least change the constitution to be a country of laws and not just one that says, well, it doesn't work under the const current constitution, but you know, who cares about that anyway.
	Well, but but then you but the the constitution also makes the president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
	It gives gives a wide latitude on things such a chief executive can do.
	Yeah, but he can't wage wars.
	Well, yeah, you can.
	Well, no, he can't, not under the Constitution.
	Well, I I I tell you what let's do.
	It it is not an unfair point.
	Uh and I have a feeling that you probably are uh with you with your finger on the pulse of sort of the Paul family logic on that.
	So I'd say let's do let me take a break and I'll come back and put that into the microscope, because it is a fair, worthy point, and I'll and I'll I'll give it some uh some attention that it deserves.
	And I appreciate you getting in touch.
	All righty, uh let's examine that and other things on your mind at 1800-282-2882.
	Mark Davis in for Rush on the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
	This is the EIB Network.
	It's the Rush Limbaugh Show for O Monday.
	Mark Davis filling in from Texas, 1800-282-2882.
	All right, to your calls here in a moment.
	The constitutionality of uh of war, of any war, all right.
	Because uh the whole Paul family, which is uh under the microscope once again, uh from uh Daddy Ron to Son Rand, uh they all they make for particularly intriguing political figures because they garner a lot of support from conservatives, rightfully so, because they have a libertarian uh craving for lower taxation, less government, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	But the Paul family brand of libertarianism also leads them to uh I won't necessarily call it isolationism, but it also brings with it a disapproval of uh the general disapproval of the war on terror, shutting down Guantanamo and uh and uh the Patriot Act and things like that.
	And the last gentleman said, All right, let's take a look at the Constitution in terms of the actual declaration of war.
	The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	Does it limit any American war only to those that are declared by Congress?
	We went through this with the war powers resolution in 1973, a United States Congress joint resolution saying that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress.
	This sets up a battle royal in terms of separation of powers.
	It is the commander-in-chief who is it is the president who is the the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
	And does a congressional turnstile saying that it is through this turnstile that any war must happen.
	Is that a a subversion of the president's power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces?
	Now, I I don't purport to have I mean, I know what my thought is, and I think we know what our last caller's thought is.
	Tremendous.
	This is a debate that can be had, and it is a conversation that is more than worthy.
	But I I guess there are two things really that you could say that are uh that would be improper.
	Uh well, I guess the one thing you could say is, well, this has been settled.
	Such things that you have the war on terror, for example, against an incredibly nebulous enemy.
	Uh I mean, uh I I ask again, whom would we declare it against?
	Uh that that means that that if something is vague enough, then by definition it's a war into which we cannot enter.
	That would be an unfortunate conclusion, I think, to reach.
	But that's uh that that is the thought uh process in and not just the Paul family.
	I mean, uh this is I have a feeling it is that and the pesky drug legalization thing that keeps a lot of conservatives from uh just saying I I absolutely am libertarian.
	You know, and um so there you go.
	Righty, one-eight hundred-two eight two eight eight two.
	One eight hundred-two eight two eight eight two.
	We are in Virginia Beach.
	Let's sit down the Tidewater area of Virginia.
	Dave, hi, Mark Davis in for rush.
	Welcome.
	How are you?
	Hi, Mark.
	Uh always enjoy when you're on the show.
	Thank you.
	Um I was calling on the uh Rand Paul issue just to say that it seemed to me that the mood is being missed a bit um to the outcome of him not showing up on on uh David Gregory's Meet the Press.
	That the incumbency and seniority uh that you hear people kicking the curb with uh Bennett, and then this Rand Paul not showing up on Meet the Press is I heard you agree with the gentleman from Kentucky that said, you know, first he's a senator from from Kentucky.
	Second, he'll represent the USA.
	Uh no, it's not so much first and sec.
	Careful.
	Uh I I didn't give them a hierarchy.
	There are two things, two very important things going on at exactly the same time.
	Number one is his pitch to the people of Kentucky to give him the honor of being their U.S. Senator, but with all the national attention paid to every senatorial race, and in this era of tea parties and liberty and conservatism under the uh under the microscope, it is important.
	There is an absolute responsibility for the standard bears, the nationally noteworthy standard bearers of such to uh to be courageous enough to show up for the occasional uh QA.
	Well, I think that's gonna be the interesting uh uh collision course is the era of the things you just mentioned against the era of people saying enough with Washington, D.C. and these folks running on Meet the Press, that they sh his first meetings maybe should have been with his local newspaper and local television.
	Well, I'm and listen, I and I listen and I'm sure that from from Paducah to Bowling Green to Louisville, one uh uh I I'm sure he did.
	Uh but he uh and we could talk all day about whether it was smart to go to NPR or MSNBC, whatever.
	Uh go wherever.
	Go go wherever you you know where you know where he should be going?
	He should be going to places that that offer him the exposure necessary to win in Kentucky, and it is uh it is particularly point.
	There in line.
	But but I but if I can finish the sentence, there is additional value, and I believe vital value to his showing up at uh on the national stage in order to m uh establish his national office worthiness, uh the Senate being a national level stage, and and to and to just to show an entire country that's paying close attention to his views that they are views that he is more than willing uh to explain and support.
	That's the point I think that that's being missed by the media.
	The media is being somewhat self-serving, because the national interest is to stop nationalizing local politicians.
	I think that's the one.
	Well, uh well, I I think you're right about that.
	And that's why the the great value uh of Rand Paul or Mar I mean there I've some of the some of my favorite days of the last few months has been Marco Rubio on Fox News wiping the floor with Charlie Crest.
	I mean, I suppose we could sit around all day and say, Oh, he shouldn't have done that.
	Uh l just go uh go talk to newspapers in Tallahassee and St. Petersburg.
	No, there's some there's some important stuff going on here.
	Well, very important stuff going on.
	But I mentioned Bennett and the and the reports after that uh loss was that you know how could they how could they possibly have voted out somebody with such seniority?
	And I think we're gonna see a lot of that in the case.
	Easy.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I mean, it's kind of a different subject, but uh, you're totally right about that.
	And there was it was it was downright weird to see people recoil at the Bennett loss.
	I I've I've you know if Bennett had won, good for him.
	He didn't.
	That was the voice of the people of Utah being heard, and there was a lot of national attention to that too, and I'm glad.
	Glad for your call.
	Thank you.
	Mark Davis in for rush, be right back.
	The previous caller invoking the Bob Bennett loss in Utah.
	I I'll never forget uh uh watching David Brooks on Meet the Press referring to this as a damn outrage.
	An outrage the people of Utah want it so on more conservative than Bob Bennett?
	When the marketplace is an outrage, um it's always an interesting opportunity to look in the mirror.
	I think uh that gives us a I think an interesting point of departure for a topic or two in our last hour.
	But the first thing we're gonna do is learn a little something called the Susan B. Anthony list.
	Hmm, what might that be?
	The Susan B. Anthony list is a political action committee helping pro-life women gain election to Congress.
	Well, what exactly is the best way to do that?
	We will speak with its director next.
	And we'll talk with a bunch more of you thereafter.
	Mark Davis in for rush on this Monday on the EIB Network.

▲