All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
September 8, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, everybody's talking about Mayor Daly quitting the gig, and that Ron Emmanuel wants to gig as mayor of Chicago, but I haven't seen anybody asking or questioning whether or not Ron Emmanuel's corrupt enough for that job.
I don't think there's any question about it, but people aren't asking that, and it gets qualification.
Poor old Obama, this dog thing, people are not letting a dog thing go.
It's got to be tough.
Do you know there may be something cosmic about this, too, because Obama's name spelled backwards is dog.
Greetings, welcome.
Rush Limbaugh, EIB Network, 800-282-2882, email address, God.
Obama's name spelled backwards is dog.
800-282-2882, the telephone number, email address, LRushbaugh at eibnet.com.
I mean, it has to hurt out there to be talked about like a dog when you're used to being talked about like a god.
And so now he's out there where in Ohio today.
He selected John Boehner as his villain.
I guess he got tired of using me.
Didn't work.
Now he's going to try Boehner.
Boehner's proposed a two-year freeze on tax rates and return to spending levels of 2008 in exchange for Obama making him the villain.
So poor old Barry.
Yeah, poor old us, actually.
Barry's actually doing pretty well given what he set out to do.
Before we get into the serious news, I got an email yesterday.
Who was it from?
Oh, friend of mine in Hawaii.
Rush, could you go a day without mentioning Obama?
Now, I've already blown it today if I set out to do that.
It's depressing enough.
You have to constantly talk about Obama.
It became a challenge.
Could we do a program today, a full three-hour program, without talking about Obama?
I mean, obviously we could, but would it make any sense to do this?
It would be interesting.
Well, I know they said, can you just get it?
They said the same thing back there in Clinton.
Could you do a whole show without talking about Clinton?
And I was thinking about it.
Obama has permeated so much of life that it would be a challenge.
We'll look into it.
You never know.
But there is this interesting thing here, and it tells a lot about us culturally.
It's from MSNBC.
Most of us think that we are better looking than average.
Most of us think we are hotter than average, according to a survey.
60% are satisfied with their appearance in a new survey from MSNBC.com and L magazine, E-L-L-E.
Now, this is interesting because the way they start the story, we're fatter than we've ever been.
At the same time, our idea of the ideal body has gone from lean to impossibly leaner still.
We're pretty damn pleased with the way we look, according to the new survey.
60% of men and women alike said they were pretty satisfied with the way they look, even though many of them admit that they wouldn't exactly call their bodies ideal.
Now, it's worth noting here that this 60% figure is about the same percentage of Americans who it is said are overweight.
Now, what is the result of this?
Obviously, folks, some of you people are lying to yourselves about this.
I mean, let's we have to be honest.
This is what happens when we teach self-esteem in the scrools and so forth above all else.
The self-esteem lobby, everybody thinks that they are better than average.
Well, 60% do.
But in order to have an average, somebody has to be below average, which means that some of you people who everybody knows are below average on the look scale are lying to yourselves and therefore skewing the survey.
I remember the below average.
Well, somebody, in order to have an average snirdly, you got to have people below average, right?
You got to have people above average and below average.
But 60% think they're above average.
And they're making $75,000 a year or more.
And, of course, we know from yesterday that once you hit $75,000, that's the peak of contentment and happiness.
Any dollar or any amount of dollars you earn above $75,000 is going to make you unhappier.
$75,000 is where you ought to stop.
Now, the reason for that poll yesterday was in a Wall Street Journal is because they're trying to condition us, the opportunity to make $75,000 is getting further and further and further away from us.
So it's the way the regime is trying to tell us via the Wall Street Journal.
Yeah, don't worry about earning a lot of money because the more you earn, the unhappier you are.
Most of us think we are better looking than average, between a six and a seven on a 10-point scale.
The under-30s are an especially confident group.
28% of young women, 30% of young men rate themselves between an eight and a ten.
And why not?
They've been told they are since the moment they were born.
They have been told they're special.
They have been told they're beautiful.
They have been educated to believe their self-esteem is this and that.
The real problem with this is what it's going to do to Michelle Obama's obesity plan.
Because if 60% of the American people think that they're hot, when 60% of the people are overweight, her program's doomed to fail.
Is it not?
That's going to be hard for Michelle, my bell.
Well, we use, yes, that's true, Don.
Thanks for reminding me.
We did learn yesterday that losing weight puts toxins in the blood.
Toxins are stored in the fat.
When you lose the fat, the toxins in the blood get in there and it leads to diabetes and a bunch of other things.
We were told gaining weight led to diabetes and poison.
Now losing weight.
So where are we?
60% of you think you're hot when you're not.
75 grand is a peak of what you ought to earn.
Any more than that, you're going to be miserable.
And losing weight can make you sick.
Now, doesn't all of this jibe very simply with the confusion we have leading the country?
And why?
There's a story: Steve Ratner, who was the original car czar, best friend of Pinch Schultzberger of the New York Times, first car czar, has written a book about how tough it is and how tough it was to find a CEO for General Motors.
The government can't find a good CEO for General Motors.
That just means they couldn't find anybody willing to answer to Obama.
Who wants to be the CEO of a government-run company like that?
Can't find a qualified CEO.
Back to this story.
Perhaps we're finally starting to realize that so much of what we see on TV and in the movies and in magazines is actually fake.
A few women's blogs, particularly Jezebel, have become sort of watchdogs for Photoshop fakery and women's magazines.
Most recently, the blog attained an untouched photo of Jennifer Anniston posting the untouched picture next to the airbrushed photo of the actress that appeared in Australian magazine.
And what?
We saw what she really looks like when she's untouched.
And was it not a pretty picture?
I don't know.
Jezebel, I've never been there.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, there's a lot of lying to people themselves in our culture.
Can your body satisfaction ever be too good?
Maybe if, for example, somebody needed to gain or lose weight for their overall health, a smug sense of self-esteem might hinder them from taking action.
I remember back in the days when I did the brilliant commentary banning the ugly from the streets in daytime, and people said, well, how are you going to do this?
I said, easy.
We make it voluntary.
The ugly know who they are.
Apparently, that's no longer the case.
Because people who are below average are now obviously lying to themselves about how above average they are.
Get this.
Cybercast News Service, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent federal agency, loaned more than $1 billion to the Mexican State Oil Company in 2009 to support that company's oil drilling in the southern Gulf of Mexico.
The bank has another $1 billion in loans in the pipeline for this year, unless Congress stops it.
On May 27th, after the British petroleum oil spill, Obama imposed a moratorium on U.S. deepwater drilling in the Gulf, affecting 33 rigs in the region.
Now, P-Mex, which is the Mexican company, was the export-import bank's largest borrower in 2009 and has borrowed $8.3 billion from the U.S. federal government since 1998.
So it's not just Mexico that we have lent money to.
It's, what was it, Brazil?
That we'd get $10, what was it, billion dollars for them to drill for oil while we are shutting down.
And a lot of people think that this is, well, this is just government working as usual.
Well, you know, they don't know what their left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
I refuse to believe that this is an accidental screw-up.
They say the import-export bank is independent.
But if you put the pieces together, we have a president who does not like this country the way it was founded, a president who believes that oil is the evil substance destroying the planet, a president who the first chance he got put a drilling moratorium on the Gulf and has not lifted it, a president who thinks this country needs to pay a price for its excessive prosperity since the days of its founding,
bans drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and then sees to it that neighboring countries in our hemisphere are lent money to drill for oil themselves.
Meanwhile, the Chikoms and the Cubans are getting together in the Gulf of Mexico.
We're not.
So this is more than just the government not knowing what it's doing and making big-time mistakes and so forth.
There's a method here to all this madness, and it's absurd.
We didn't get to it yesterday, but Peter Orzag, the first director of Office of Management and Budget, had a column in the New York Times in which he just ran for the hills from Obama on extending the Bush tax cuts.
He's in favor of extending them for two years for everybody.
And Obama was asked about it, or Gibbs was asked about it.
We have the sound bites coming up.
And the White House is clearly on the defensive here.
He threw Obama overboard, threw Obama under the bus.
Now, Orzog was the guy credited by Harry Reid as being the man responsible for finally putting together the budget numbers of Obamacare that made it all work out.
He's gone.
He's out of there.
Christina Romer gone and out of there.
And it's obvious these people value their reputations.
They do.
And they are wanting away from this administration the greatest indication that we can have that we are headed for a doom disaster.
Architect and authored by Obama is the fact these people are running from the hills and going public about how they disagree with what Obama's doing.
They don't want their names and reputations tied to it.
We've got to take a brief time out.
We'll do that.
We'll come back to your phone calls as well.
All happening on the EIB network today.
Oh, and I have been thinking of people want to know my NFL predictions.
Who's going to be in the Super Bowl?
And I don't look at the season that way normally.
Picking a Super Bowl winner in, you know, well, the two teams in the Super Bowl in August or September is not something that I generally have engaged in because there's no way anybody can possibly know.
And I'm a literalist.
I told you, I live in Litteralville, which gets me in a lot of trouble with most people who don't live in Litteralville.
You ought to try to talk to people who don't live in Litteralville.
When you live in Litteralville, when you know, most people don't mean half of what they say.
But if you live in Litteralville, you believe what people say and you act on it.
Half of them don't remember what they said.
The other half don't believe what they said.
And when reminded of it, deny it.
Meanwhile, I act on it.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
So if 60% of the American people believe they are hot, when we know 60% of the American people are not hot, what percentage of the American people believe they're Muslims?
I think it's a question worth asking.
Here's a question for you.
If you could choose only one, you can choose only one, would you guarantee yourself to be good-looking, wealthy, or born in America?
Born in America.
Yeah, that's the obvious choice.
That's the obvious choice.
Born in America, you have the opportunity to be wealthy, and you will be made to believe you are good-looking by our school system.
However, the answer to the question is not as simple as it seems.
Because Obama is in charge.
That means the opportunity to be wealthy is limited.
And we might not have borders in two years.
So this complicates that question.
Very much so.
Orzak, by the way, resigned on June 21st, which was the first day of the summer of recovery.
And it was Obama okaying up to $10 billion in loans to Brazil to drill for oil.
Now, Mexico, Import-Export Bank, we gave them a billion dollars to drill for oil.
Mexico is one of the largest oil exporters in the world.
And that company, P-Mex, is one of the world's largest petrochemical corporations.
So it's clear they need all the help they can get from the U.S. taxpayer.
Now, even Democrats are starting to get nervous about this.
And there was some allusion to this yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, and a couple of days before, even on Labor Day on Monday, when Obama first floated this notion of a $50 million stimulus.
They don't call it stimulus.
Another job infrastructure.
The infrastructure building, schools, roads, runways, all this stuff that was supposed to be done with the first stimulus plan.
We all know this is just another SOP to the unions.
But there were stories.
Drudge had a headline, Democrats not on board this new spending.
This is from theHill.com.
Senator Michael Bennett, Democrat Colorado, broke with Obama today, saying he would not support any additional stimulus spending.
Bennett was endorsed by the president in Colorado, but is facing...
This is the guy who said he would not have Obama show up to campaign for him.
I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package, Bennett said in a statement.
A sharp pivot for Bennett, it says here, who voted for the initial stimulus plan favored by Obama in 2009.
The freshman senator sounded more like a Republican on Wednesday, calling for any new spending to be funded through unspent stimulus dollars.
I'll tell you, the American people have Democrats on the run.
This is going to be a bloodbath.
There's a Rassmussen poll out.
68% favor smaller government and lower taxes.
Another way of saying this is that 68% want conservative principles.
And there are a lot of Republicans running for office who are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that they are not conservatives.
And the Republican establishment in Washington is encouraging some of these non-conservative Republicans to run.
The Mike Castle race in Delaware has become a focal point of controversy.
His opponent, Ms. O'Donnell, a lot of conservatives are dumping on her for, I mean, it's almost universal.
The inside the beltway conservative media dumping all over her, despite the fact that Mike Castle is proud as a member of Congress to have voted for 99% of the Obama agenda.
He voted for the stimulus.
But people are saying, well, we need to get control of Senate rush.
And if it's going to take a guy like Mike Castle in Delaware to get control of the Senate, then we're going to have to go for that.
We're going to have to do it.
Mike Castle gives us 51 votes, then we're in there.
When there were what?
I mean, I don't know.
I think a lot of people have become party people here rather than conservatives and are somehow imagining that just getting hold of their chairmanships is the objective here rather than reversing course.
I mean, the overriding concern ought to be defeating liberals wherever they are and however it's done.
There's no contest here.
Obama and the left have to go.
They have to be defeated.
The Republican Party does not need to be propped up first and foremost.
Obama's got to go.
The left has to go.
We'll be back tight.
Okay, let's go to the audio soundbites.
This morning on Scarborough Show on Mess NBC, David Axelrud appeared.
And of course, they were talking about Orzag and his suggestion to keep the Bush tax cuts, including for the rich, for the next two years.
The question, I take you back to what Obama said during the campaign.
He was asked a question about raising taxes, even for people making over $250,000 during the campaign.
He said if the economic downturn continued, of course, he would consider not raising taxes because it might hurt the economy.
Obviously, real unemployment, 14, 15% right now.
Wouldn't that suggest maybe you ought to do what Orzag suggested in the New York Times and wait a year or two before you allow those taxes to go up?
Well, Joe, you should read Peter's column more closely because what he said was his preference would be that we move forward with the middle-class tax cuts because the middle class and not the upper income tax cuts, the middle class is the people in our economy, that 97% are people who have been really hit hard in the last 10 years.
They're the ones who will spend the money and get our economy moving.
He's very conscious of the deficits and he understands that a $700 billion bill to do the other 3% is something we can't afford.
But what Peter said was we may have to do that in order to pass the legislation.
He was giving us legislative advice, not economic advice.
Oh, this is a huge spin because that's not what Orsag was doing in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Now, this notion that only the middle class and their spending will drive an economy, only the middle class.
We had the story for you yesterday that we got back from the archives.
The AP was all maybe it was Reuters.
They were all concerned that the rich had stopped spending.
The rich had stopped spending, and that threatened the recovery.
The rich had stopped spending.
Now, obviously, what they're doing here, they're playing the old class warfare game, and they're playing the numbers game.
Obviously, there are far more people in the middle class than there are, quote unquote, the rich here defined as people making over $250,000 a year.
So this simply Axelrod and a boys and Obama, which is what the Democrats have always done, is simply shotgun at that large group of people, playing off the resentment they supposedly have for the rich.
Well, I'm wondering right now in this economic climate, with unemployment as high as it is, with foreclosures, I mean, the absolute destruction of the economic circumstance, particularly the American private sector, I think the American middle class is a little bit more sophisticated than the average Democrat may think these days.
I don't think that there is nearly the resentment for the rich continuing at this current tax rates that the Democrats would like everybody to believe that there is.
Now, here's an Orzag quote: Ideally, only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now.
Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too, and that would still be worth it.
But how many employees make over $250,000 a year?
How many employers, in fact, make over $200,000 a year?
Do 90% of employers make over $200,000 a year?
Isn't this supposed to be about creating and saving jobs?
No, it is.
That's what Obama wants you to think, but this is still about punishment.
This is still about punishing achievement.
This is still about class.
This is about destroying the opportunity to acquire wealth, which is what this administration is all about.
And that's what they're playing on.
So Orzak's going off the reservation.
They have to send Axelrod out to try to spin this, doing his best to cover up why Orsag left.
But Orzag just couldn't keep lying about the budget anymore.
He does care about his economic reputation.
He's going to be long and around long after Obama's gone.
So Mike Barnacle jumped in with this.
Said, well, look, if all of these component parts of the president's economic program, as he started, will continue today to address, if they're so critical, so important to the health, the economic health of the middle class, why didn't you do them a year ago or this spring?
Well, actually, Mike, you know, we passed $300 billion in tax cuts that were for that same 97%.
That was one of the first things that we did that was opposed by the Republicans in the Congress.
But we've been on this from the very beginning.
The president ran promising a make-work-pay tax cut.
He delivered on that promise.
But we can't now turn our back on the middle class in the middle of this very difficult economic time.
We can't turn our back on the middle class.
Can't turn our back.
My God, you have savaged the middle class, the middle class is in the Obama administration's crosshairs.
Who is it that's suffering in all this?
Who is it that's really hurting in this economic downturn?
It's not the rich.
It's the middle class when people can't find jobs.
It's the way it always is.
The Democrats always claim their policies are for the little guy.
And by the time their policies are enacted, guess who it is that pays the price for Democrat liberal policies?
It's the little guy.
Who is it that's unemployed at 14 to 15 percent or higher in this country?
And he's running around here talking about how we can't turn our back on the middle class in the middle of this very difficult.
I thought, in fact, that we had recovered a summer of recovery.
I thought we'd come back from the brink.
I thought all this was being taken care of.
Now there's an acknowledgement that we're still in the tank and we can't turn our back on the middle class.
And somehow, extending tax cuts for every American, including people who make over $250,000, is turning our backs on the middle class.
Next question from Maria Barcharomo.
Let me ask you a question.
So many people have been asking in relation to the president's plans to spend $50 billion on new infrastructure.
Where's that money?
Where's the money that was targeted toward infrastructure in the first stimulus spending?
What was that?
Almost $200 billion.
Did that actually go to work?
It absolutely did.
And tens of thousands of projects across this country, all over America, there's work going on right now, and it will be ongoing for the rest of this year and into next, rebuilding this country.
And it's one of the reasons why we've, even the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, has said that we are responsible for three to three and a half million people working today who wouldn't have been working.
I mean, that's just absolute drivel.
It's bogus.
They haven't created three and a half million jobs or saved three and a half million jobs.
Look, folks, go to any of the formerly great cities in the United States that have been run year after year, decade after Democrat by Democrats, and see what condition those cities are in.
You will see what socialism does to the middle class.
You will see what liberalism does to the middle class.
It destroys the middle class.
The things Mr. Exelrod believes in, the things that President Obama believes in, destroys the middle class.
It leaves only the very rich and the very poor.
And the very poor become a larger and larger number.
The very rich do not increase their numbers, but the very poor do, and the middle class ceases to exist.
When you're talking about Detroit, for example, are talking about bulldozing houses.
I mean, you think they're bulldozing houses of the rich there?
You know, they're getting even with the rich in Detroit.
Hell no, they're getting, if anybody's being gotten even with, it's the middle class.
It's the middle class that gets destroyed with unfettered, unchecked Democrat policy, liberalism, socialism, whatever you wish to call it.
Orzag knows this.
Christina Romer, even though she's never been outside academia, knows she, they can all see where this is going.
Bennett in Colorado, they all see where this is headed.
Most of the Democrats running for re-election in November, they see where this is headed and they don't want their names on it anymore.
But it's too late for that because none of this that has been done in any way, shape, manner, or form would anybody ever say are Republican and certainly not conservative ideas.
Amberbach Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, Homewood, Illinois.
Gail, you're up first.
Great to have you on the program today.
Hi, Rush.
This is an absolute thrill.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
I am absolutely flabbergasted and angered that the American people have not picked up on this.
Obama is using the presidency and our money like he's won the lottery.
With all the trips he takes, they weren't even unpacked at the White House, and they were already on their way to Europe to go shopping.
What makes you think the American people haven't figured this out?
Have you seen his poll numbers?
Oh, the poll numbers, but no one's mentioned the fact that he's spending money like there is no tomorrow, and it happens to be our money.
Well, okay, I'll make a note of that.
That nobody's talking about how much money Obama's spending.
We'll start talking about that on the program.
You have done that, but like his mindset, like it's his money that he's allowed to spend it how he wants to.
Okay.
That's right.
And we'll make a note.
Thanks, Gail, very much.
Lynn in Delaware somewhere.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Very well, thank you.
Are you there?
Yeah, right here.
Well, what I wanted to call and tell you is you said that the conservatives in Delaware were dumping on Christine O'Donnell.
No, no, no, no, no.
I did not say that.
I said inside the Beltway media, Washington media, conservative media dumping on Christine O'Donnell.
Yeah, the conservatives here in Delaware are supporting her 100%.
We are doing battle against the media here in this state, which is very pro-Mike Castle, and against the established Republican Party here that is just tearing her to shreds.
Well, here's the thinking on all this, and I've examined it in some detail.
They're saying Delaware is a northeastern state, that this is the Biden seat, and for a Republican, any Republican to win the Biden seat.
Well, that's nirvana.
That's huge.
That's big.
Besides, a conservative really can't win in Delaware, just like they say about Carly Fiorina in California.
Well, you know, you got to, Rush, it's California.
She's going to have to be a little liberal out there.
She's going to win.
Well, okay, fine.
If that's what people, if we want to start rebuilding the Republican Senate with a bunch of Arlen Specter types, then go for it.
I mean, that's what we're looking at here.
If having a majority of Republicans, like getting 51, takes seven or eight Arlen Specter types, where are we?
That's right.
That's what we're thinking here in Delaware.
There's no way.
We already made the mistake of foisting Joe Biden on the rest of the nation.
We don't want to foist Joe Mike Castle on the rest of the nation.
Wait a minute.
What do you not like about Castle?
Just how liberal he is.
I mean, he gets on there and says that he's a fiscal conservative and all the things that he does.
And look at his voting record.
Well, somebody mentioned to me today that Castle votes with the Republicans 88% of the time.
However, he voted for TARP.
He voted for the economic stimulus bill in September of 2008.
The National Rifle Association has given him an F on his Second Amendment grade, and he voted for Cap and Trade.
He's in favor of that.
But other than that, he supposedly votes with Republicans.
Right, right.
Absolutely.
He doesn't.
I mean, we're hearing that he only, you know, you said it yourself.
He voted, what, 99% of the time for Obama?
And we all know that here.
We are fighting against this.
I mean, we even have a club here called the ABC Club.
Anybody but Castle.
I mean, the people in Delaware just don't want him.
Now, what are the objections that you're hearing to O'Donnell?
It's all been fiscal, like she doesn't have her own personal finances in order.
But we're at the point now where we're willing to overlook that.
Everybody makes mistakes in their lives.
It's nothing major.
She talks a very good conservative line.
And if she goes to Congress and votes the way she talks, conservatives finally win in this state.
Okay, well, it's a big bone of contention with a lot of conservatives.
Somebody asked me about this when I got back from Hawaii on Monday, so I've been delving into this race.
Do you know why I do not endorse in primaries?
My theory, politicians come and go, I'm forever.
I really don't.
They're all too flaky to tie yourselves to.
I mean, you just can't.
So I sit back, but I, particularly during primaries, but I have been struck by the unity and the symmetry of the opposition to Christine O'Donnell in conservative media, the Blogosphere, Wall Street Journal, some other places.
They're all saying the same things.
And they're quoting a line from Bill Buckley.
Buckley said they would always vote for the conservative who could win.
And they're using Buckley to suggest that he would not have voted for Christine O'Donnell because she can't win.
She might be able to beat Castle, but she won't beat the Democrat in the general.
That's the prevailing theory.
But when you look at Buckley, he supported a lot of losers.
He supported Barry Goldwater in 1964.
He supported Reagan in 1976.
Well, conservatives have to take a stand at some point.
We don't want another Arlen Specter or anything like that.
We have to stand up and sooner or later take a stand and say, enough is enough.
Republicans, if you aren't going to do follow the Conservative Party line, that's it.
We don't want your candidate either.
Well, it does boil down to the and this is something that's worried me that all of this is going to lead to a third party down the line because I think that the people like you throughout the country are willing to throw the Republican Party overboard as well as the Democrats in order to get conservatives in positions of power because we've tried career politicians.
We've tried people whose number one goal is to maintain their chairmanship or to keep their status inside the beltway.
And this, we're at a precipice here.
We're at the cliff.
We have an administration that is seeking to change fundamentally the kind of country this is.
And it's going to take a principle.
And there's opposition rising to it throughout this country at the grassroots level.
Tea Party typifies it.
And you can hear Lynn's voice here.
I mean, this is not politics as usual.
It's not Democrat versus Republican.
This is conservative versus liberal.
Absolutely.
And we feel that way.
I mean, and we also have someone to replace Mike Castle in the House by the name of Glenn Urquhart, who's extremely conservative.
That we feel if he gets in Congress, he's going to make a difference for us.
All right.
Well, look, I appreciate the call.
All right.
You bet.
Thanks very much.
Brief timeout, folks.
We'll come back and continue right after this.
Well, here's another way to look at this.
Castle, Mike Castle voted with the Republicans 88% of the time.
A lot of people are saying, hey, I mean, you got no problem with him.
Well, McCain votes with the party 95% of the time.
So you could say that Castle isn't even as loyal to the GOP as McCain has been.
And so I don't know.
The times are unique.
Circumstances are unique.
This is not the usual Democrat versus Republican.
This is not, Obama's not just the latest Democrat to occupy the office.
We've never seen, we've never had an administration with objectives and goals like this one.
And it's going to require principal conservative people to stop this.
I think the best policy to me is to vote for the most conservative, viable candidate because whatever's in the drinking water and whoever, when they get there in Washington, they're going to move left no matter who they are.
It just seems to happen.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection