All Episodes
Previous Next
May 24, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:24
May 24, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And a pleasant third hour to you.
Marjorie Susley.
I'm Mark Davis in For Rush today.
Tomorrow it'll be Walter Williams, and Rush is back on Wednesday.
All righty, we've had two freewheeling hours of stuff going on in the news, and very next segment, back to it.
I've been paying close attention to Governor Bobby Jindahl because after we have our proper reactions to the effect on the environment, the effect on people and on all of this and the political arguments over drilling, one of the things that will be observed by history is how did Governor Jindahl handle this and how does that affect, if at all, his presidential aspirations.
So that's just one of the things I still have in my vest pocket for you here.
So lots more to come in this final hour of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
But first up, what a pleasure to meet this woman.
If I were to tell you that there is an outfit called the Susan B. Anthony List, you might think it was some kind of feminist organization.
And you'd be right.
But it is feminism by an interesting definition because the Susan B. Anthony list is about pro-life feminism, which they will tell you is not a contradiction in terms.
Their goal is to get pro-life women elected to high office.
And their president out of the D.C. suburb of Arlington, Virginia, is Marjorie Dennenfelser.
Marjorie, Mark Davis, pleasure to meet you.
How are you?
A pleasure to meet you too.
Thank you, Mark, for having me on.
It is my great honor.
Anytime I have the, speaking of honors, anytime I have the great honor of filling the Rush Limbaugh chair, there are two things I want to do, throw around a lot of my opinions and mix it up with people, but also welcome some people to the show and get hip to what they're doing.
So getting pro-life women elected to Congress.
How long has the Susan B. Anthony list been about this?
Yeah, you were so right in the prelude.
We think of ourselves as putting feminine back into feminism.
And we started when I was on the Hill watching only pro-abortion women take the floor and talk about how abortion was necessary for the liberation of all women.
And if you couldn't have it, well, then you might as well just go home and live in a cave.
And that was simply not true.
Certainly not reflective of what the early feminists were all about.
And so I and a few others decided to put a political machine behind a different kind of woman in public office.
We're seeing a lot of them right now.
And that's been going on since the early 90s.
And we've grown and grown and grown.
And we are very excited to have, especially this year, there's a breakthrough going on right now, some very high-profile races with pro-life women running to provide that different model along the lines of Sarah Palin.
Well, I want you to, and Michelle Bachman is a big bright light in that regard.
And feel free.
I'm going to give you a chance to sprinkle some names out to us of some races to pay attention to.
But some broad things first.
Anytime one looks at the quest of the Susan B. Anthony list to say to get pro-life women elected, one might ask, well, how is that different than having pro-life men elected?
The first thing that occurs to me is only a pro-life woman can offer the strongest defense that women's rights are defined only by protecting the right to have an abortion.
That's right.
I mean, we are the first people to say we love men here.
And that's because we follow the model that the early feminists did, which was to see men and women as complementary and not in conflict, and to see our unborn children as complementary, and our rights are completely enmeshed in theirs and not in conflict.
I mean, anyone would think that when Michelle Bachman now takes to the floor, that a strong woman, if you didn't know who she was, you'd say she's going to stand up there and talk about abortion rights are so vital with the implication that somehow her children and men are a speed bump to her success.
But no, what is so compelling with this new model of feminism is that it is inclusive.
It takes the people that are so important in our lives and includes them and brings everybody along and doesn't push people off to the margins because you really can't build your rights on the broken rights of other human beings.
And that's a model of love, really, that is attractive that people can follow.
And there's money and activism and real consequences to that model that we're very proud of.
Marjorie Dannen-Felser is here, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Check them out at SBA-List, S-B-A-List.org.
Let's go to the name, shall we, Marjorie?
The Susan B. Anthony list.
Hmm.
Why would one name a pro-life group after Susan B. Anthony?
There's a bit of a war of history going on over how pro-life was she.
And give us your short essay on that.
Yeah, well, it's very easy because all of our knowledge about her comes out directly out of her mouth and out of the mouths of all the women that she worked with.
She called abortion child murder.
She said the practice will burden a woman's conscience and life, will burden her soul in the grave.
Thrice Guilty is the one who drove her to the dreadful deed.
She was very clear.
It was not a high-profile debate in that day like it is right now, but there was no sense of dividing the rights of women and their children.
It was always a block, those two.
Her best friend and ally in the suffrage movement, and they had already been involved in the abolition movement, by the way, was Elizabeth Caddy Stanton.
And she said, when we consider that women are treated as property, it's degrading to women to treat our children as property to be disposed of when we see fit.
So there's an unbroken line of strong women, Alice Paul, the original author of the Equal Rights Amendment, a long, unbroken line until you get to 1960s and 70s.
And a whole new breed of women who put abortion at the center of women, the women's rights movement did us all a great disservice.
And now the bottom is absolutely falling out of that movement.
And therefore, new women are stepping up to fill that void.
Let me ask you about the climate of 2010 because a party, I mean, conservatism was on Republicanism was on the rocks.
Conservatism had its head hung low after 06 and 08.
When can we ever reclaim the debate?
And things are no doubt turning around, and Tea Party passions are about a lot of that.
The one thing I've noticed about the Tea Party thing, though, is it is largely fairly silent on social issues, abortion included.
But are you noticing a kind of a parallel energizing of folks who, whether inside or outside the Tea Party construct, are interested in scoring some points for the unborn here in the 2010 elections?
Oh, without question.
It is an ideal partnership because it is an organic movement, just like the pro-life movement is.
And you don't have to look at the polls, but you could.
Gallup Gallup has shown the last three polls that it does that the new norm on the life issue is that far more people self-label pro-life over pro-choice.
That's the new norm.
And it is certainly far more dramatic pro-life quotient in the Tea Party movement.
I spoke in Kansas City recently with Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, and I spoke on the life issue, and that stadium was on fire, on fire for life.
So there's no question that it is the perfect alliance, in my view, to resurrect the Reagan model of how to win elections.
Help everybody to focus on the target of electing a human being who is a great leader and at the same time respecting each other, even while we're working on different issues.
That's the model that wins.
Well, let's pick a couple of two or three people, and you'll, I'm sure, frost those whom you don't mention, but I do want to cut a couple.
I can't do 15.
But are there some districts to look at, some states to look at, some people you'd like us to pay attention to?
Being praiseworthy for being pro-life is one thing, but I'd like you to filter your search, if you will, and give me some folks who you think might actually win.
Well, I'm going to give you, real quick, I'm going to give you four: two Senate, two House.
Carly Fiorina, very, very strong.
California.
She's going to beat Barbara Boxer, isn't she?
She is the ideal matchup.
We have been waiting for her since Barbara Boxer was elected to Congress when she was in the House and jumped over to that Senate.
She did it all a great disservice.
It was Emily's List badge of honor.
Now, Carly Fiorina, one of the most articulate women on this issue that I've ever met.
When she comes walking through the door, and I've been at a lot of board meetings, I bet a lot of people said to themselves, hmm, strong, successful woman, I bet she's pro-choice.
But that has totally changed.
Now she is putting a new face, along with Palin and Bachman and others, on what it means to be a strong woman.
Being strong for others is also what it means to be a strong woman.
And as you said before, speaking with authority on the issue of life because she's a woman and she can speak in a complimentary way with men about what it means for a woman to go through that and the desire to keep that at bay.
Jane Norton in Colorado is another who has defunded Planned Parenthood in Colorado.
She is a great advocate for the unborn and understands very, very well what Planned Parenthood has done to target women and kind of put them adrift after they give them an abortion, say, hey, you got your abortion, you're gone, we're done with you.
And the people of Colorado know her because she used to be lieutenant governor.
That's right.
And she was.
She's not like she's just somebody who's just dropped from the sky.
She did not.
She has a long track record of being a great leader, and she's got a tough primary.
Her life and feminine combination, I think, will pull it out there.
And then a couple of others.
Indiana is just God's country.
I mean, don't you love Indiana?
So many people, great people come from there.
Jackie Walorski in the 2nd District of Indiana is someone I like to put on everybody's radar.
She is a force of nature.
She just won the primary.
She's got a very good shot of winning there against a guy who caved when it came time to protect the unborn.
He was one of those pro-life so-called Democrats that voted against keeping taxpayer funding out of abortion.
So Donnelly is a Congressman.
Joe Donnelly, yeah?
Joe Donnelly, yeah.
And so this is the greatest chance we've got in a long time.
And for her to defeat him, especially because she's very focused on his betrayal on that vote, will be a great, a great victory.
And finally.
And finally, someone who I'm very, very sure can win if she gets through the primary is Cecily Bledsoe, who is in Arkansas's third district.
She is a bright light, beautiful woman, very experienced.
It's an open seat, which is always fun because, you know, it is a very Republican seat, and she can definitely win and pull that out.
She's just a great advocate, and has already been in the legislature and has already fought for life, which is our, you know, the legislatures, of course, are our farm team.
We're always.
This is the John Boozman seat who's going to run off and be a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Now, Ms. Bledsoe brings a little something that it's always nice to have with you.
Doesn't she have some sort of health care background of some sort, I think?
She does.
She does have a very deep and wide knowledge of health care.
And so you're right, it does.
You know what it means to take care.
You know, there are two patients when a woman is pregnant.
And you also just bring a little extra scientific knowledge to the background of what this is all about.
So these are just a few, but you know, this is the highest number of women running for office in the Republican Party.
And it is great news for the pro-life movement because the vast majority, most, almost all of them, are very pro-life.
And that's a real shift.
They are scared, I got to tell you, the Senators and NARAL and now and Emily's List, as powerful as they have been, are seeing a strong erosion of their base.
And we know why.
We know why.
Well, put Susan B. Anthony List on your bookmark list on your browser.
It's SBA-List, S-B-A, as in Susan B. Anthony, hyphen listliest.org.
Marjorie Dennenfelser is the president.
Pleasure to meet you, ma'am, and thank you very, very much.
I appreciate it.
Come visit us when you come to D.C.
That I shall.
Appreciate it.
It's the Susan B. Anthony List, SBA-List.org.
All right, there may be things in there that sparked a thought or two in your head.
You may.
It may.
I got a couple of things I want to give you a brief riff on.
But if you're just joining us, we were talking about just a bunch of things.
Imagine that.
Some constitutional talk about from wars to Civil Rights Act things, thanks to Brother Paul giving us a little talk show, talk show topicality over the last few days and various other things.
And let's take a real good look here.
And again, I will be the first to tell you that how this oil spill affects Bobby Jindahl's 2012 chances is no higher than the fifth most important thing right now.
Fourth, okay, maybe fourth.
But you can't not go there.
I mean, the first thing is, is how it affects living things, both human and animal.
It's a terrible, terrible thing.
We've got to learn from it and have drilling.
Maybe we can learn some lessons.
We've got to have drilling.
So let's have it be as free of such events as possible.
And all of this.
And everybody in Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, they're in our prayers, they're in our thoughts.
But one of three things is going to happen to Bobby Jindahl as a result of this.
One of three.
One, he'll handle this like a champion, and his 2012 stock will increase.
He'll mess up somehow or be pilloried somehow and it will hurt him or it'll be a wash.
It'll have no great effect.
And I have no idea which of those it'll be.
Daily events on the ground, as they say, or in the water, more appropriately, will be the determiner there.
So let's take stock of that.
And a bunch of other things in our remaining 040 minutes together on the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in down here in Dallas-Fort Worth at WBAP.
And you folks are next on the radio in just a moment.
It is the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in, WBAP, Dallas-Fort Worth.
And tomorrow, Dr. Walter Williams will open up his big brain and share some things.
And I cannot wait.
If I'm allowed to throw this down, and listen, I love old people.
I mean, you know, Brother Stein and folks through the years, I just love it.
I mean, I really do.
And I've always enjoyed the Limbaugh fill-in hosts, which is why it means an enormous amount to me to be part of that bench strength.
But over the years, I have learned so much, so much from the good professor, Walter Williams.
And he will be with you, and I'll be listening to tomorrow.
And Rush returns on Wednesday.
All right, I'll tell you what, let me just take care of some folks that really been hanging on for a little while.
It's going to be a bit of a topical free-for-all, but that's Open Line Monday, if you will.
And that's fine.
And then we'll revisit a couple of things that we've had going since we got started today.
We are in Washington, Iowa.
Matt has a point about conservatism and credit card consumer protections.
I'm intrigued by stuff like this.
And Matt, it's very nice to have you.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
How are you?
Great.
Thanks for hanging on.
What's up?
So I'm kind of interested to hear what a conservative point of view would be on this matter.
You open up the statement now, and they kind of like they lay out, and this is regulated by the government.
They're making them do this, lay out a three-year payment plan.
And it shows you just a little bit, how long a little bit goes making a little extra payment.
And so I've always been kind of a free market type and never liked the government interaction.
However, now it just, to me, it seems like there's some good things about it.
Well, there are.
And you do not have to abandon your conservatism to feel somewhat warmly about it.
And if they're not telling credit card companies what their interest rates can be, but they are, for example, requiring 45 days of notice of interest rate increases.
The decision was made to stop penalizing people who pay on time, some of that double cycle billing practice.
I mean, one can say that that's something a credit card company ought to be able to do in an atmosphere of perfect liberty.
But you know what?
I'm not lying awake at night worrying about it.
It seems scurrilous.
The only people who are really going to be annoyed by the credit card, the credit card accountability responsibility and disclosure act, whatever it was called last year, are the kind of people who bristle at nutrition labels on the side of a box of crackers.
They're making the companies actually tell you how much interest you'll pay over if you only make them in on payment.
And then they're going to be able to do that.
I have no quarrel with that whatsoever.
I have no quarrel with information almost never makes me bristle.
You know, it just doesn't.
I mean, if they're getting to the point where they're telling banks what a fee can be or telling them what they can charge, then I'll be there to fight it.
But the compulsion to inform the public is rarely detestable.
Well, the information is absolutely wonderful.
I found out on a $350 payment, it was going to take 27 years.
And I'm a double business major.
I could have calculated this my own, but I just never would.
And, you know, my receptionist were only one that know-how, but 27 years, $11,000 interest with a $350 payment, a $500 payment, three years.
And Matt, you're completely right.
I've got to hit the bottom of the hour here, but you're totally right about that.
And we can run 1,000 PSAs that say, hey, if you're doing minimum payment, you'll be paying until the year 2,500.
But to have a little something in there in the statement means it'll hit a lot of eyes that it wouldn't otherwise hit.
I got no problem.
Back in a moment.
And we greet you, everybody.
Mark Davis in for Rush Limbaugh on this Monday.
Telephone number 1-800-282-2882.
Go to rushlimbaugh.com even when the fill-in guys are here.
Walter Williams tomorrow and me today.
I'm very, very grateful.
All righty, let us head to South Philly.
Pat, Mark Davis, you're in on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
How are you?
Mr. Davis, God bless you.
And God bless guys like Rush Limbaugh for what they speak, of course, they call a spade a spade, and they tell it exactly like it is.
But my question is about this oil spill around the Gulf.
I just can't understand when I heard Saturday that BP, BP, somebody big, wanted to see it, said they couldn't do anything about that oil gushing out.
And they say they wouldn't be able to do anything until Tuesday.
But this bum, this bum in Washington, D.C., that's in the White House, this guy does absolutely nothing.
Of course, they're all passing the buck.
And I imagine when you do contribute so much money to campaigns, you know, I'm scratching your back.
You scratch my back.
Just like all them bums on Wall Street that that Sachs thing, they donated so much money to this bum when he was a senator in Chicago, Illinois.
So in other words, that's why they're not going after them.
There's a network.
Bet, I'll tell you what.
Not that you're not on a roll, but I think you've pointed out a very interesting dichotomy.
This is an anti-oil administration, but if BP has written huge checks, then it puts them in a state of conflict.
It's certainly an anti-business administration.
But if Goldman Sachs writes a big check, it puts them in a state of conflict.
Go.
Mark, nothing to cut you off.
But the people in this country, you know what I mean?
I mean, could they all be donkeys or they're all brainwashed to say, you know what I mean?
You could do things to change things.
You know what they're doing.
And these so-called lawyers that they give them a title like a lobbyist, they're all seats.
They're all seats.
In other words, Washington, D.C., corporate America, controls Washington, D.C.
And these people, these voters in this country, I mean, this guy backed three losers.
He backed a little loser over here in my state of Pennsylvania, Specta.
He was like a fixture on a wall.
There's so many of them that are fixtures on a wall.
I mean, how do they live?
Term limits, get out.
Term limits, get out.
I don't care who you are.
I mean, they're all wobbled dwarf.
They live high on the hog.
I don't.
I'm a little retired maintenance man.
I'm retired.
I'm a senior citizen.
But boy, there's not one day that don't go by, Mark, that I don't watch the Fox News Network.
It's the best network between Hannity, between O'Reilly, between Beck, between Grand Fan Cesser, and them two sharp guys.
And O'Reilly's got to win a lot of people.
I was going to say.
Do we want to visit the weekend lineup in Brother Hockerby?
Pat, I'll tell you something.
God bless the.
I mean, number one, God bless you for the energy.
Number two, God bless you for two minutes of enormously great radio.
And number three, and this is interesting.
This is interesting.
I will never seek to douse anyone's cynicism because it is usually so well placed.
I don't for a minute believe they're all crooks.
I couldn't put on my pants and get out of the house if I thought it was universal corruption.
And listen, there's plenty to criticize on Wall Street.
There's plenty to criticize in the business world, the government world.
But I believe that there are principled people.
And I don't just mean those who politically agree with me.
There are principled people trying to get out there and do what they believe is right.
And to do so without corruption and do so without lawbreaking, there just aren't enough of them.
So if we can find and encourage that, I think Will be in good shape.
And as for the current bums in power, may I invoke the time tunnel for the third time in today's show?
We would need a time tunnel to leap back to the George W. Bush administration, maybe even the Reagan administration.
I know to a degree it would be a technological issue, but I'd love to see, I'd love to know how a Republican administration would respond to this oil spill.
Because what we're dealing with right now is, I don't think there is a soul alive who absolutely knows to what extent regulatory failure or government oversight was a problem in the oil spill.
I also don't believe that there is a soul alive who knows yet just how culpable private industry, PP, Transocean, Halliburton, et cetera, et cetera.
Everybody involved, I mean, these are all yet to be determined.
Since that's yet to be determined, I have a hard time placing blame.
And I think you should have a hard time placing blame too.
And that means I don't want to hear the White House demonizing business.
I don't necessarily want to hear people drawing the conclusion that this is the White House's fault.
I said this at the beginning of this show: that if this were happening under Bush, we would have had articles of impeachment drawn up by now for inattention to the oil spill.
And that's not me calling for attacks on the Obama White House because of the oil spill.
I'm just calling for consistency.
If there is something that a White House can't do a whole lot about in the opening weeks of it, you know, and maybe they could certainly do X amount for hurricanes, but that's certainly federal government, state government, and local government.
But in terms of something like this, which by and large just doesn't happen hardly at all, we're all on a really bad learning curve.
We're learning as we go along.
And we may learn that there are things we could have done better with this particular oil platform.
We may learn that there are things that we can do better in responding to the next one.
Heaven forbid there's a next one, but I bet there will be.
And until then, let's actually inform ourselves before we go either blistering a White House we don't like, protecting a White House we do like, if that's you, protecting a business we may like, or demonizing a business we don't like.
I guess there are your four possibilities.
And I know we don't like this.
We usually like to arrive at lightning fast conclusions.
And it may not take long.
I don't know.
We got that bipartisan commission thing.
Oh, thank God we got a bipartisan commission that'll investigate this and see what there is to learn.
But the stuff that I do want to absolutely fight against is those who will use this, and they are plentiful, those who will use this as some kind of watershed moment when we are supposedly informed.
Some would say by God, I always love the God angle to this, that, well, this was divine intervention to show America not to, you know, to stop spoiling God's Gulf coastline.
Well, guess what?
Let's leave God out of this, at least in terms of his particular intervention in making the oil spill happen.
I will tell you that the planet that God created will do its usual amazing job of self-cleansing as it did in Alaska.
But what God has given us is the minds and the resolve to learn from this.
And as best people talk about preventing it, I don't think it can be prevented any more than you learn from a plane crash and you hope that maybe that prevents future plane crashes.
Doesn't happen.
We're going to have oil spills.
We should try to have as few as possible.
And one would certainly think, learn to contain them more quickly than this.
Could this have been done more quickly?
Is it an outrage that we don't have this, that we didn't have this thing capped inside of a week?
I don't know.
And nobody else does either right now, I don't believe.
So let's find out.
And at some point, we'll learn a bunch of stuff and be able to find somebody to kick in the teeth, I'm sure.
All right, 1-800-282-2882.
I'm Mark Davis in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas on the mighty WBAP, proud Limbaugh affiliate since, oh, I want to say 1993.
And wherever you're listening on whatever affiliate, glad to have you here.
Dr. Walter Williams is in tomorrow.
I'm Mark Davis in today for about 18 more minutes.
So let's see what happens next on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Rush is back on Wednesday here on the EIB Network.
It is the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filming in.
Rush Back Wednesday.
Dr. Walter Williams with you tomorrow.
Phone number 1-800-282-2882.
So Governor Bobby Jindahl down in Louisiana held a news conference today.
I want to let you hear a little piece of it because one of the things that'll come into sharp focus, one hopes, is the federal government being asked to do certain things.
There will come a time when I guess it's a work in progress, evaluating the quality, the speed of the government response to this.
And unlike what was done to the Bush administration in Katrina, I want it done fairly, even-handedly and neither overcritically or undercritically.
You know, I call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but the little narrative running through some people's minds, you don't think this White House would be slow in responding to the oil spill so that the oil spill could look worse and be of greater value to those who decry the dangers of drilling.
Oh, they would never do that, would they?
Well, I would hope not.
But here's Governor Jindahl today down on the Louisiana coast talking about some things he's been asking for from this administration.
On April 30th, we requested a commercial fisheries failure from the U.S. Department of Commerce to activate critical assistance to our fishermen, our multi-billion dollar a year fishing industry that is suffering from this oil spill.
We still haven't seen this request granted as of today.
We've got some of our fishing industry folks here with us today.
They can tell you about the hardships they're facing on a day like today.
By the way, when we were out by these islands, when we're out today, we didn't see any boats out there.
On a day like today, on a beautiful day like today, there should have been over 100 fishing boats just in that area alone.
And yet, maybe two boats left the marina today.
Governor Bobby Jindahl of Louisiana, and one of the 10 plot lines of all this is how will he be perceived as having handled this?
Well, let's handle a final few of your calls before we have to close up shop for today's Rush Limbaugh Show.
We are in Great Bend, Kansas.
Patrick, Mark Davis, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hello.
Hello, it's a pleasure to be with you today.
Thanks.
I hate to follow Pat in South Philly, but I'll do my best.
Good luck.
No problem.
I read a kind of a disturbing article this morning in Politico, and it kind of fueled my fire.
And that is that I just fear that the Republicans or the conservatives, depending on your flavor, that we're going to bloody ourselves to the point that we're going to be so bruised going into the November elections that we're going to be very vulnerable.
Bloodied and bruised how?
Well, specifically, I'll just state in this article, was talking about the race that Sue Louden is in, the primary that Sue Louden is again in Nevada.
Right.
And how Harry Reid was really excited about watching these conservatives destroy each other in the primaries and how he was looking forward to running against this Tea Party candidate in Nevada.
Now, to be completely fair, I don't know exactly what the dynamics of that race are, but I do know that I've heard Sue Louden on a couple different talk shows.
Sean Hannity's had her on, thought she was a great candidate.
And I think early on, she looked like she could beat Harry Reid.
Right.
Let me give you 30 seconds, 30 seconds of.
We've got plenty of time.
She is the former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, Sue Louden, and you're right about her.
She's a wonderful potential candidate.
Also running, though, are lawyer Danny Tarkanian, he of the famous basketball coach Dad, and a woman who has won the endorsement of the Tea Party crowd, a former Assemblywoman, Sharon Angle.
It's a primary.
It's okay.
I mean, will they, I mean, as with a ton of anytime, Republicans, there's going to be blood on the walls, and then everybody will unite behind whoever wins.
I just think there's no reason to believe, I think, that whoever emerges from that will be so battle-damaged that he, she will be unable to beat Harry Reid.
Yeah, well, and I agree with you, and that's what I think as well.
I'm just a little concerned that in the primaries it's going to become who's conservative enough?
And it's going to be everybody.
Is that a problem?
No, it's not a problem, but I think that what I hope it doesn't do is force good, quality, conservative candidates to try to become something that they're not to appease a far-right libertarian Tea Partier.
But what does that mean?
I mean, that's almost borderline code language.
How about everybody get out there?
You'll be asked questions about how conservative you are.
Some of those questions will involve how much you were willing to tolerate TARP or bailouts or stimulus packages.
And if you give the wrong answers on that, guess what?
You might lose.
Well, I guess that's what the election's all about.
Exactly right.
And that's not to be feared or debased.
It is to be embraced.
It is the marketplace of the moment that might finally not just return some Republicans to a Congress that has been nearly wiped clean of them in the last couple of elections, but the kind of Republicans who have an actual conservative rudder that got everybody so much in love with Reagan and got everybody so much in love with the Republican Party that really wanted strong, limited government, that really wanted fiscal sensibility.
Don't fear that.
And listen, if anybody does come along that's too edgy, too wacky, too extreme, whatever the definition of that is, those people won't win.
Marketplace is what it is, man.
It's going to be okay.
Keep track and get me back anytime when I'm filling in or call Rush anytime.
And I appreciate it.
Those are not unworthy concerns, but just relax and let the game come to you.
It's going to be okay.
All righty, let's get our final break in.
Come back, have a final word or two on the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in.
Walter Williams tomorrow, and we'll be back in just a moment on the EIB Network.
In the closing minute of today's Rush Limbaugh show, first enormous gratitude to Ed and HR, and of course to Rush for letting me even do this.
Always have a good, good time.
Walter Williams with you tomorrow.
But let's close with the last gentleman because I think he has a lot of company.
People are kind of concerned that, oh, my gosh, we're going to be eating our own and it's going to be incredible damage, internecine squabbles and such that will leave us less able to fight the Democrats.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I mean, when Tim Bridgwater and Mike Lee were chosen instead of Bob Bennett to carry the senatorial baton in the state of Utah, faux conservative David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, was on Meet the Press and referred to it as,
pardon me pg-13 quoting him a damn outrage uh brooks said that he was that bennett was punished for being a quote good conservative who is trying to get things done by bravely working with democrats on health care and supporting tarp just speaking for me i'm tired of people wanting to work with democrats on health care and supporting tarp you Let us bring our best game.
Let them do the same.
See who wins.
Mark Davis, see you next time.
▲
Export Selection