All Episodes
Previous Next
May 24, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
May 24, 2010, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

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, because the definition of what it means to be serious about the Constitution may be in a state of flux.
I think that as recently as the Reagan years, when Reagan and Tip O'Neill were duking it out over certain things, there wasn't a lot of talk about only one side really caring about the constitutional structure of our system of laws.
These were disagreements that you could have with a Tip O'Neill or a Jim Wright.
And it was back when Democrats could actually be patriots like Scoop Jackson and folks like that.
These days, though, things have 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 really do believe that our liberal brothers and sisters hold the Constitution in high regard through their own political lenses.
And by that, I mean as a document that lives and breathes and changes with the swaying wind 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 or a federal right to be free of thoroughly reasonable law enforcement scrutiny in Arizona,
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, well, then they'll love the Constitution as much as I will.
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 everything, but filtering the modern world through what the founders intended.
And by that I mean this.
If we could somehow, speaking of the time tunnel, one of my favorite premises and one of my favorite shows when I was 11, and bring the founders up to the modern day, if we could sit Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin down and show them some cinema 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 21st century, all kinds of things that the founders would have made their brains explode beneath their powdered wigs.
That is a way to take the modern incarnations of what we have in our modern life, our modern society.
There are all kinds of things that would have made the founders recoil.
But our sensibilities filtered through a constitutional lens allow all kinds.
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, just as a conservative, I'll share this with you, that I don't favor the overturning of Roe versus Wade because I'm pro-life.
My pro-life-ness 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, the Constitution's not the 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 versus 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, 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.
Sounds good to me.
That's a victory.
That's how you win.
And I'll wrap this up here in a second, 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 what's called the generic ballot, irrespective of name, would you vote for a Republican or a Democrat in this and 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.
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 60, 65 seats in the House, and that becomes the expectation, well, then you know what the average is in an off-year election?
24.
The party not in power usually picks up about 24.
In order to win back in the House, it's 42 or something, right?
So let's say it's 30.
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-some 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 got a business trip.
I'm going to be good.
Republicans are going to win back a bunch of seats.
They don't even need me.
Well, guess what?
Yes, they do.
We got to fight hard and fight smart every single day, fighting not just liberalism, but our own complacency because we're like the team that is up, you know, 2114 midway through the second quarter.
Stuff can happen.
We can get lazy.
You know, heaven forbid the economy should improve.
And I say that totally tongue-in-cheek.
I would love for the economy to improve.
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 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 what we saddle up for.
That's what we put on the armor for.
How many metaphors can I come up with here?
That's what we do.
And we have to fight hard every day, all the way till November, because if we fall asleep at the switch from overconfidence or all, we got this one.
The mood's going our way.
We got this one.
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 BP oil spill talk and the politics and the engineering issues of that and just a number of other things going on.
Oh, duh, 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 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 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 very heavily wired into it.
My buddy Phil Dennis, who's sort of the grand poo-bah of the Dallas Tea Party, sent me an email.
And here's what it is.
It has to do with Phoenix.
And so actually, it's going to 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 the big 550 KFYI in Phoenix because your afternoon guy, Mike Broomhead, is going to emcee this thing.
Good for you, Mike.
And here's the bottom line: 6 o'clock Saturday evening at Tempe Diablo Stadium.
It's in Tempe, of course.
It's the sort of the spring training home of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, one of the most confusingly titled sports franchises in history.
But it's at Tempe Diablo Stadium.
And it's 6 o'clock, and everybody's going to show up.
And it's a big rally in support of Arizona.
And details and stuff at standwitharrizona.org.
And you're going to hear from a couple of people.
This one's worth the price of admission, which is free.
I think you're always, and 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 Arpaio, the always irrepressible and always inspiring Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
But also there, a woman named Dr. Gina Louden.
And she is the founder and national leader of the Bycott Arizona campaign, Bycott, B-U-Y, C-O-T-T.
And in the 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 boycott by choosing proactively to shower your money onto the unfairly victimized boycott victim.
That is a bycott 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 bycott 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 wish it's 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 would absolutely be on that stage with these good folks.
It is 6 o'clock Saturday, May 29th at Tempe Diablo Stadium.
So go.
So go.
And then call Rushback on Monday and tell how that worked out.
Because 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 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 some horrific wasteland of profiling and race-based victimization, if they can spread their lies and we can have those hit our ears and have it energize us to direct some money and some support toward Arizona, then so be it.
And so standwitharizona.org, 6 o'clock Saturday night, Tempe Diablo Stadium.
Big old event there by the people, for the people.
It says stand with Arizona.
So 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.
Rand 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.
Al Gore Sr. filibustered.
Sam Irvin.
It was a golden opportunity to remind folks and dispel this myth that, you know, racism is within the Republican Party and not also a problem within the Democrat Party.
Well, exactly right, because by two to one margins, Republicans favored 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 strong but limited government, lower taxation, seriously less spending, are tarred and feathered as racists.
If somebody gets a hold of, this makes him triply, quadruply important.
Dr. Paul's got to come out there and fight for himself and his own reputation.
In the vacuum, there are people saying, well, there's a libertarian for you.
You don't like black people.
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 Senator Toby Paul will show the guts that his father has shown and show up in the future to take whatever questions away.
Yep, I agree.
All right, sir.
Thanks.
Appreciate it very much.
All righty.
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
As we progress into this next half hour, more calls on this and various other things.
But let's also take a little bit of a look at what's going on specifically.
BP in the oil spill story, because that's still very, very front of mind.
BP says that it is doing all in its power to stop the oil disaster.
But as soon as BP steps forward and says we're doing all we can, there's going to be skepticism.
Some of it, worthy skepticism, I guess.
You know there's going to be skepticism from a White House that is eager to kick BP in the teeth.
And that just, you know, pardon the usage here, it makes the water murky because ultimately we should be about trying to figure out who really does deserve blame, 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 Dallas Fort Worth.
All right, let's get back to some of your calls.
Something very, very interesting, and I think and hope useful is going on as we take a look at the last few days in the life of Rand Paul and the next few months in the effort to infuse some people with the value of liberty and what liberty does and what liberty means.
I mean, both Rush's and my close buddy Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny has laid this out so well.
And like a whole lot of concepts, you can embrace 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 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 the Hooters lawsuit where there were dudes who wanted to work at Hooters?
Boy, that's wrong on so many levels, but I digress.
Should the, but we, remember the gay softball world series?
Well, don't tell me you missed that story.
There were 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 minutia of that lawsuit.
But the bottom line was there, they had an event they wanted to have, and they defined 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 the, I believe, somewhat 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, probably the foremost libertarian out there in media these days is John Stossel.
I don't know if this led to him being bounced from ABC.
I don't know.
But he does a Fox business gig now and has said that there are freedom of association assertions people will make that we will admire and some that we won't admire.
But this is not like government having colored drinking fountains at the courthouse.
None of this is about, I mean, we can have all kinds of rules against government discriminating because that's all of our tax money going into a single hopper.
But if you've got 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 this little portion of the worldview that says, you know, a free society tolerates private discrimination.
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, you know, sugarcoat what you think.
If you're asked a question, you ought to answer it.
But 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 answer to that, I don't know.
Part of me is thrilled that he did because it starts the conversation.
And it's a conversation I so want to have.
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 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 pay people.
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 such a low 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 rushlimbaugh.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.
You mentioned how Democrats and Republicans both used to 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.
I believe that Republicans also vote unconstitutionally.
Oh, 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, for example, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I remember I heard you.
No, no, I'm sorry.
I apologize.
I'll curtail my laughter while you go ahead and no problem.
But, you know, I heard you talking about Rand Paul and how you, you know, sounds like you support him a great deal.
And as you know, Ron Paul actually voted against both wars when they came up and they had to vote on it.
And his son agrees with him.
His son Rand is also in favor of shutting down Guantanamo and wants the Patriot Act repealed.
So that is why I am a very mixed bag guy.
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 with that.
Well, why?
Unconstitutional.
I mean, we got it.
Well, that's why, because it's not.
Because that's absolutely absurd.
And sorry, you're going to war.
Unconstitutional.
All right.
Make your case how 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 a war can happen.
We haven't gone to war since Warren.
Okay, whom would we and whom would we declare it on?
Well, that's the problem.
We've got to change the Constitution, but we can't just.
No, no, no, no, I'm asking.
I'm asking, 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 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 could the war on, 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 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 current Constitution, but who cares about that anyway?
Well, but the Constitution also makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
It gives wide latitude on things such a chief executive can do.
Yeah, but he can't wage wars.
Well, yeah, he can.
Well, no, he can't, not under the Constitution.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, I tell you what, let's do.
It is not an unfair point.
And I have a feeling that you probably are with your finger on the pulse of sort of the Paul family logic on that.
So I'll tell you what, let's do.
Let me take a break.
I'll come back.
I'll put that under the microscope because it is a fair, worthy point, and I'll give it some attention that it deserves.
And I appreciate you getting in touch.
All righty, let's examine that.
And other things on your mind at 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for Rush on the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
This is the EIB Network.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show for a Monday.
Mark Davis filling in from Texas, 1-800-282-2882.
All right, to your calls here in a moment.
The constitutionality of war, of any war, all right?
Because the whole Paul family, which is under the microscope once again, from Daddy Ron to son Rand, they make for particularly intriguing political figures because they garner a lot of support from conservatives, rightfully so, because they have a libertarian craving for lower taxation, less government, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
But the Paul family brand of libertarianism also leads them to, I won't necessarily call it isolationism, but it also brings with it a disapproval of the general disapproval of the war on terror, shutting down Guantanamo and 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 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 subversion of the president's power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces?
Now, 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 guess there are two things really that you could say that would be improper.
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.
I mean, I ask again, whom would we declare it against?
That that means 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 is the thought process and not just the Paul family.
I mean, this is, I have a feeling it is that and the pesky drug legalization thing that keeps a lot of conservatives from just saying I absolutely am libertarian.
You know, and so there you go.
All righty, 1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
We are in Virginia Beach.
Let's head down Tidewater area of Virginia.
Dave, hi, Mark Davis in for Rush.
Welcome.
How are you?
Hi, Mark.
Always enjoy when you're on the show.
Thank you.
I was calling on the Rand Paul issue just to say that it seemed to me that the mood is being missed a bit to the outcome of him not showing up on David Gregory's Meet the Press, that the incumbency and seniority that you hear people kicking to the curb with 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 Kentucky.
Secondly, he'll represent the USA.
No, it's not so much first and second.
Careful.
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 microscope, it is important.
There is an absolute responsibility for the standard bearers, the nationally noteworthy standard bearers of such, to be courageous enough to show up for the occasional Q ⁇ A.
Well, I think that's going to be the interesting 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 his first meetings maybe should have been with his local newspaper and local television.
Well, listen, I'm sure that from Paducah to Bowling Green to Louisville, I'm sure he did.
And we could talk all day about whether it was smart to go to NPR, MSNBC, whatever.
Go wherever.
Go wherever you know where he should be going?
He should be going to places that offer him the exposure necessary to win in Kentucky.
And it is a big point.
They're in line with the second.
But if I can finish the sentence, there is additional value, and I believe vital value to his showing up on the national stage in order to establish his national office worthiness, the Senate being a national level stage, and just to show an entire country that's paying close attention to his views that they are views that he is more than willing to explain and support.
That's the point I think that's being missed by the media.
The media is being somewhat self-serving because the national interest is to stop nationalizing local politicians.
Well, I think you're right about that.
And that's why the great value of Rand Paul or Mark, I mean, 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.
Let's just go talk to newspapers in Tallahassee and St. Petersburg.
No, there's some important stuff going on here.
Very important stuff going on.
But I mentioned Bennett and the reports after that loss was that, you know, how could they possibly have voted out somebody with such seniority?
And I think we're going to see a lot of that in the middle.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, that's kind of a different subject, but you're totally right about that.
And it was downright weird to see people recoil at the Bennett loss.
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 Davison for Rush.
Be right back.
The previous caller invoking the Bob Bennett loss in Utah.
I'll never forget watching David Brooks on Meet the Press referring to this as a damn outrage.
An outrage that people of Utah wanted someone more conservative than Bob Bennett?
When the marketplace is an outrage, it's always an interesting opportunity to look in the mirror.
I think that gives us, I think, an interesting point of departure for a topic or two in our last hour.
But the first thing we're going to 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.
Stick around.
▲
Export Selection