Rush could have easily blown today off, hopped on the big plane and gone to his speaking engagement tonight and just thrown the show to me or any of the other marks or Walter Williams or whoever else.
But no, he wanted to give you two solid gold hours of analysis and then hop on the plane at the genuinely the last minute.
It would have really put the screws to the schedule to do the whole show, and he didn't want to do that and disserve the event that he has tonight.
So they fired up all the dominoes to drop in the following way.
So I'm here for this hour and this hour only.
And Rush is back tomorrow.
So I think if we can fight our way through this, everything will be okay.
I'm Mark Davis from Proud Rush Affiliate WBAP, Dallas-Fort Worth.
And listen, the best thing I could do today, ordinarily when I fill in for all three hours or when any of us enjoy that privilege, we do the same kind of show prep that we do for our regular shows, if we have shows, or all the homework that we would ordinarily do.
This was easy and delightful today.
The prep I've done today, other than my own show here in Texas, is listening to the first two hours of Rush, which I've been sitting here going through emails and just doing stuff and listening.
So let's pick up exactly where Rush left off, and I will add a couple of other layers and we'll get it all done together here at 1-800-282-2882 on the EIB network.
First, I believe we need to set up our special number for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Oh, my heavens.
I followed that entire line of logic from Rush.
And if you're just, if you're starting to get texted, it's like, what was Rush talking about with the Heinz Ward of the Steelers?
And blah, blah, blah.
Number one, Rush loves Heinz Ward.
Number two, Rush loves the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Number three, none of this is about Heinz Ward or the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Young Mr. Ward, well, old by NFL standards at roughly 34, I guess, but young by mine, has been sworn in to a presidential panel.
Boy, I wonder if anything, even in this White House, transcends politics.
Mostly these panels like the President's Commission on Physical Fitness or whatever tend to be apolitical.
But by Rush's description, nothing in these people's lives is apolitical.
And when you have something that is essentially the Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islanders tasked with being the benevolent government liaison for people of that ethnic stripe, of course, it's going to be fraught with politics.
So again, the significance to Rush was Steelers and Heinz Ward, and that's all lovely.
That's great, great, great.
His love for that team and that particular player has nothing to do with Mr. Ward's appointment to this board.
His question was, and I joined him in asking it, and I really wanted to take it another step farther.
Why does this thing need to exist?
Why do we need a government commission to somehow provide a conduit of communication or whatever between any racial group and the government?
It is the government's job to do whatever it should do for the well-being of all people of all races.
If there is something specific to a single race, and I think that thinking in those terms is part of what has us in this sorry, balkanized, hyphenated state of affairs today, then government will do it.
I mean, if there's something that black folks or Asian folks or Hispanic folks have where they need to interact with the government, then interact with the government.
Lord knows they'll listen because they want you all to vote for them.
Sometimes little things mean a lot.
Sometimes little things mean a lot.
And I know you probably don't drive around in the midst of your busy day suggesting that the existence of a commission on Asian American and Pacific Islanders is the Republic hangs by a thread and we're on the brink of financial disaster.
This is not front of mind.
But it is if you start to think about the little things that government does, that it doesn't have to do, that because it keeps doing, it in fact slows the progress that we should otherwise be making.
Here's what I mean.
I'm going to lay out a whole bunch of things, and in a way they are different.
In a way, they are the same.
All right.
The Hispanic Firefighters Association, the Congressional Black Caucus, any one of a number of other professional and political organizations that exist solely for membership by and in the interests of specific ethnic groups.
Now, I'm not an idiot.
I know that race is absolutely still an issue.
I know that racism still exists.
I know.
I'm well aware.
But my theory here, along the lines of the continuing existence of the President's Advisory Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islanders, suggests that these folks simply cannot get by without a government commission.
The existence of the Hispanic Firefighters Association or the Congressional Black Caucus suggests that somehow the interests of a Hispanic firefighter or the interests of a black member of Congress should by their very nature be different.
Now, again, I know full well that the Hispanic firefighter will face, I don't know, slings and arrows of racism.
Maybe a white firefighter might not.
I know that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus occupy a sphere that contains issues unique to blackness, and I understand all of that.
But when you set up the Hispanic Firefighters Association, or the Black Firefighters, or Hispanic Caucus, or Black, certain caucuses, certain associations, it perpetuates separatism.
Isn't the goal to have all firefighters have the same set of concerns that are firefighter-related rather than pigment-related?
Isn't the goal to have all members of Congress, be they Republican or Democrat, to have them have their plates empty of things about race because we're working toward a time of Dr. King's actual dream?
Remember Dr. King?
Liberals seem to have forgotten him.
It is the conservatives among us who are out there actually behaving on content of character and not color of skin.
So if that's where we're trying to get toward not color blindness, but color irrelevancy, the very existence of the Hispanic Firefighters Association, Black Firefighters Association, Eskimo firefighters, whatever you want to do, it perpetuates separatism.
Now, if it's 1954, you know, and the country is just treating you, I mean, the country institutionally is treating you so very, very differently because you're a particular color.
Fine, when that struggle is yet to be fought, I understand completely.
But the struggle's been fought and the struggle's been won institutionally in America.
America in our system of laws, we no longer punish people for being Hispanic or being black or being any of those things.
Are there individual racists you can find who will mistreat someone on the basis of race?
Sure.
But the country as an entity has purged itself of this.
In fact, the only group of people that America systemically gladly discriminates against now is white people through affirmative action, stuff like that.
No, I'm not engaged in a lengthy gripe about that.
It is a multiple standard, but that's not where I'm going today.
Let me just wrap a bow around it in the following way.
If every member of the Hispanic or Black Firefighters Association dissolved that group immediately and said, you know what we are?
We're firefighters.
If there are issues that arise that uniquely or specifically affect those of us who are black or those of us who are Hispanic or something like that, we'll deal with that.
But we'll deal with it as firefighters.
If the Congressional Black Caucus were to dismantle itself tomorrow, of course, many members of it maybe return to private life in a few weeks.
More on that later.
That would do more to unite America than maybe any other single thing.
Because all of a sudden, you know what the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are?
They're Democrats.
What really is the difference between Charlie Wrangell or Maxine Waters or Eddie Bernice Johnson here in Dallas and Nancy Pelosi or other congressional Democrats?
Ideologically, what really is the difference?
These days, not much.
So why have it?
When I see a black Democrat on television, you know what I see?
I see a Democrat who happens to be black.
If a building's on fire and a Hispanic firefighter hops out of the truck to extinguish the fire, you know what I see?
I see a firefighter.
He happens to be Hispanic, but I don't care.
And that's sort of where we are.
So these things, advisory commissions, so the government can make sure that the channels of everything are open between certain ethnicities and government.
Phew, are we really doing ourselves any favors?
Firefighter police associations, congressional caucuses given to specific specific racial interests perpetuates the notion that the races, by their nature, have different interests.
I know that the races, by their nature, are different.
Continuing in the I Am Not an Idiot chapter two, there's some things I have absolutely no problem with.
Black entertainment television.
Please, it's one of 500 channels.
Of course, that's fine.
I mean, I think I have Norwegian entertainment television.
I mean, I think I'm probably from Uganda to Nepal.
They probably have their own channel at some point on somebody's dish.
And that's fine.
That's just another choice you have out there in the wide world of popular culture.
If you want to have Miss Black America, I don't care.
And I know you'll always get those things.
Well, we can't have Miss White America.
Well, we did for a long time.
It was called Miss America.
We can't have white entertainment television.
Well, we did for a while.
It was called NBC, CBS, and ABC.
I know, I know, I know, I know.
We got better, okay?
We got better.
We fixed that.
But I don't care about beauty pageants or TV networks.
But when the people who either protect us as cops or put out our fires or make our laws are separating themselves out into these balkanized remote spheres of their own influence, that ain't healthy, man.
It's not the way to go.
So, anyway, might Rahm Emmanuel be gone by October?
Little White House shake-up news we'll talk about here in just a moment.
And we're good with calls, of course.
Obviously, calls have been gathered all day, and we're going to continue with that on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis just filling in for this last hour.
Do not be alarmed.
Rush probably already wheels up at the airport of his choice and on his way to an engagement tonight and back with you on the show tomorrow.
I'll be back with you on the phone lines next, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis filling in just this final hour on the EIB Network.
It is the Wednesday Rush Limbaugh show.
Rush on his way to an engagement this evening that necessitated his departure from the third hour and third hour only.
So if you are thinking, darn, I sure do remember listening to Rush an hour or two ago.
You were.
I'm here just now.
I'm glad to do so.
And Rush is back tomorrow.
And I know we're all glad about that.
Listen, I've brought up a couple of things, and let's just hop right to phones and see what's going on.
Let us roll first to Memphis and Tommy.
Hi, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in.
Welcome.
How are you?
I am Mark.
I heard a lot of talk about double-dip recession.
What in the heck is a double-dip recession?
A double-dip recession.
I'm sorry, you had a line prepared.
I stepped on it.
Go ahead.
No, I was just, is that between a recession and a depression or whatever?
No, a double-dip recession is when you have a recession, it stops.
There's a period of not recession, but then the recession comes back, comes back for an encore.
It dips in once, comes out, dips in again.
The reason people are fond of using double-dip recession for the last few weeks is they have wanted to snow you into thinking that the first one ended in the first place.
And now we have a bunch of pinhead economists up in Massachusetts who say, oh, wow, the recession actually ended.
What was it?
June of 09.
Oh, what a glorious 15 months it's been.
Hasn't the time since June 09 been a time of enormous broad prosperity?
And the unemployment went down to like 7%, didn't it?
No, it didn't.
No?
Oh, my.
I can't afford any more prosperity.
Exactly right.
This kind of prosperity will break us personally and institutionally.
No, double-dip recession, the actual textbook definition is when a recession rears its head again after a recent ending.
I believe it is used fraudulently today because this recession has never ended.
It has never ended, and God only knows when it will with this job-crushing business-hating regime in power.
Right.
Can I add one more quick comment?
You surely may.
If Christine McDonough was a Democrat and had an abortion, would she be a brilliant person?
Well, gosh.
It depends on whom you're asking.
I'd say what, Bill, or Tommy, let me thank you for that because there were some calls on the first couple hours of Rush about the O'Donnell double standard and things like that.
I wanted to attempt to wax eloquent on a couple of those.
Thank you.
The stupid witchcraft thing.
I've talked about that on my local show, and we talked about it the other day when I was filled in for the whole day for Rush.
And I got emails who said, hey, Mark, if this were a Democrat candidate who had revealed dabbling in witchcraft in high school, wouldn't you be all over it, suggesting that some shred of Satan worshiping or whatever must still be around?
And the short answer is no, because I'm willing to give consistent special dispensation in the following way.
I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you did a bunch of stupid stuff when you were in high school.
Now, if you're 22, we might need to talk about what you did in high school.
But if you're in your 40s or beyond, stuff you did in high school short of a felony, I'm prepared to overlook if there's no evidence of significance in the modern day.
Christine's opponent, Chris Koons, writes this thing about the bearded Marxist essay.
Well, I think one fairly asks if some of that bearded or non-bearded Marxism is still rattling around in his Democrat head because he's certainly willing to march in lockstep with a White House that absolutely sings from the Marxist hymnal.
That's a reason to wonder if maybe that's still kicking around.
In Christine's case, have we failed to recognize how we know about the dabbling in witchcraft in the first place?
What was she doing on Bill Maher in the late 90s in the first place?
She was there as a representative of, creator of, I don't know, an outfit called SALT, the Savior's Alliance lifting truth.
She was a died-in-the-wool fundamentalist Christian.
And I'm sure the politically incorrect goes looking for some of those folks to point at and make fun of, but at least they stuck her on the panel.
And that's why she was there.
Because just within, what was she, maybe 11 years past high school at that point?
She had long, that dabbling, the reason that was such an anecdotal aberration is because she's sitting there in the late 90s as a thoroughly devout Christian, willing to tell you about a dalliance she had back in high school with a witch boyfriend.
And now she comes out today and says, you know, who among us didn't do something stupid in high school?
Fine, that's absolutely right.
But the thing is, the role that she was invited to be on politically correct for is de facto evidence that that whole witchcraft idiocy was long gone even by then, even by then.
So to suggest that it somehow has relevance now, I mean, please, please.
But again, to be even-handed, and this is fun.
This is what actually tickles me a little bit.
Do Democrats of today, does today's Democratic Party want to start walking down a road in which we pay a whole lot of attention to what candidates are doing in high school or college?
Do we really want to do that in today's Democratic Party?
Don't they need to have a little meeting around the big mahogany table that says, look, we need to stop talking about what our Republican opponents are doing when they're 17 to 22?
Because if people start looking at some of the stuff we're doing between 17 and 22, we'll never get elected to anything again.
Why do you think we know nothing about this president's, well, there's some various writings of his we'll never see.
Oh my heavens.
I mean, can you imagine young Barack Obama's writings when he was 20 or 21?
He'd make Chris Kuhn's bearded Marxist thing look like William F. Buckley.
So just as a people, as a society, let's take a look at most of the stuff that people were doing when they were 20 and recognize not really all that relevant when they're twice that age or beyond.
Again, with an asterisk, unless there's something they're doing that seems to indicate that maybe they have a fond recollection for that peculiarity of youth.
All right.
Is that fair?
That worked for you?
Let me know.
1-800-282-2882.
All right.
We're going to be back on the phones here in just a moment.
We're going to talk about a wide variety of things.
I actually have some audio.
I arrive with my own little satchel of audio sort of in the overnight bag here when filling in for us.
More Jimmy Carter audio.
Enormously entertaining as Jimmy Carter weighs in on the subject of polarization.
How fitting because it certainly is something that he helped create in America, or helped exacerbate anyway in America.
Mark Davison for us just this last hour, half of which is done, half of which remains on the EIB network.
Everything is fine.
Rush is on the plane.
Got an evening gig.
Back tomorrow.
All is well.
I'm very glad to be with you.
So let's get back to some more of your calls.
But first, a little bit of interesting audio of the day.
First of all, Jimmy Carter in our lives for the last week or so.
First, we had him throwing Ted Kennedy under the bus, saying if Ted Kennedy hadn't blocked my efforts, we would have had universal health care by now.
It's his fault that we didn't have it.
Even though it was his goal, he wanted his name and his name only attached to it.
A story I have no real problem believing, even from Jimmy Carter, but I do wonder about the timing of sharing all that with us.
It just seems to be some of the bitterness and classlessness that have made Jimmy Carter's post-presidency infamous.
But boy, he is fond of that post-presidency.
Because you'll recall a couple of days after that, there was Jimmy Carter, this time I think, talking to Brian Williams.
First quote was from 60 Minutes, but then Brian Williams on NBC Natalie News that my post-presidency is better than everybody else's.
Scoreboarding other former presidents because of all the glorious things that he's done.
And listen, to the extent that he's built some houses for Habitat for Humanity, good for you, sir.
Love that.
But I've considered Jimmy Carter's post-presidency to be nearly as disastrous as his actual presidency with the coddling of tyrants, the excuse-making for terrorists, his completely unconstructive musings about the Middle East where his biases are clear.
And I know we all have biases.
I'm very pro-Israel, but not because I'm either A, Jewish or B, prone to be a shill for Israel.
I recognize good guys and bad guys.
I know there are good guys in the Arab world.
Absolutely.
I went to Jerusalem and a few years ago, did a week of shows out there.
Not like that educates you as if you're a native, but I've got an immediate faceful of how totally threatened Israel is by the countless people and filling countless square miles around that nation that seek that nation's violent eradication.
Did I find absolutely peace-loving, decent, and wonderful Palestinians?
Absolutely.
But they don't tend to constitute Palestinian leadership.
This is something that either Jimmy Carter is blind to or doesn't care about.
Anyway, though, my post-presidency is better than your post-presidency.
Was essentially the last blurtings from Jimmy Carter until now.
Now we have Jimmy Carter weighing in on polarization.
So let's listen and analyze thereafter.
Well, this country has become so polarized that it's almost astonishing.
Not only with the red and blue states, but now because of the massive influx of money into the campaigns.
So there's practically no relationship anymore between Democrats and Republicans once they're elected to the House or Senate.
Dramatically different from what it was when I was president.
I enjoyed a bipartisan interrelationship in Washington, which no longer exists.
So now I think President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we've ever seen, even maybe in the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states.
Oh, really?
Well, you know, maybe it's because there aren't any more Democrats like Tip O'Neill.
You know, the congeniality between Tip O'Neill and President Reagan is a model that I wish that we could still follow.
But it was the Reagan years that drove the modern Democrat Party off the hinges because Reagan was such a powerful force who came in and showed virtually everything they were doing to be disastrous and every thought in their head to be a lie.
Well, he just had to be brought down.
He had to be demonized.
He had to be cursed.
And oh, they did.
And Republicans didn't take really kindly to that.
And I don't want to suggest this is completely one-sided.
We have snotty Republicans too.
There's sometimes a Republican tone that I wish would, you know, back it off a couple of notches and stay on the issues and not get personal or stuff like that.
But the politics of personal destruction and the demonization of the opposition and the mischaracterizing of what people stand for in order to make them appear sinister.
Oh, that is straight from the Democrat playbook of the modern era.
So to have Jimmy Carter delivering this kind of lecture when it was his bitterness, his failure to grasp how in the world America could reject him and go for this Hollywood actor.
He's never gotten over that.
He's never gotten over that.
So what President Obama, quote unquote, suffers from is something that is very much the creation of his own party and something that this president exacerbates every day by lofting to a high art form, low art form, but you know, grand science, but a low art form, the demonization of the opposition.
Oppose him and you are racist.
Oppose him and you hate the planet.
Oppose him and you don't like poor people.
Oppose him and just, oh, I could go on.
But instead, let's go on to your calls after one more piece of audio because this, just in my attempt to be even-handed, no, quite seriously.
If I tell you I have Chris Matthews audio, I know, I know, just stay with me, stay with me, it's worth it.
Rush plays a lot of Chris Matthews audio, usually because of how just outrageous it tends to be.
But this is a very interesting moment.
We find Democrats on the ropes, and when Democrats, you know, how can you know when a Democrat is absolutely on the ropes?
They develop a sudden willingness to at least discuss tax cuts.
What is a tax cut?
Is a tax cut the government giving you money?
No, that operates from the default setting of it being the government's money.
What a tax cut is, is the government letting you keep more of your money.
It is your money, not Washington's money.
Now, for me to make that point, not a surprise.
For Rush to make that point, as he often does, not a surprise.
For Chris Matthews to make that point, you might pull over or risk running the car off the road.
I have one small tweak to make to what the president said today.
He should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money.
It's their money.
A tax cut is when the government doesn't take our money.
It's an important distinction.
He talked today, for example, about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut.
That's not the way it works.
If tax rates are kept lower, it's a matter of the check going to the government being smaller.
Again, it's an important distinction.
Yes, it is.
To have Chris Matthews make it maybe evidence of the apocalypse.
Greetings from the Springfield, Illinois, the home state of presidents like Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.
And now we have Barack Obama.
Well, as Meatloaf once said, two out of three ain't bad.
Well, I actually listened in earlier, and I was commenting on your remarks regarding the separation that's caused by associations for a particular ethnic area and our group.
And I couldn't agree more.
I work in the area of procurement, and what we find is that we're required by state law to certainly reach out to minority and disadvantaged groups.
But what we're finding is that even within the minority community, they're dividing that even further down.
And it's very difficult as a procurement specialist to deal with that because the law says there is a group called a minority group.
It doesn't say a particular ethnicity within that group.
So it makes it very difficult for us to sometimes abide by the wishes of those particular groups who feel they're being detrimentally affected by procurements and the ability to get state contracts.
Well, let me ask something very specific because I've always been intrigued by the notion of minority set-asides and stuff like that.
And again, if it's like 1956, then maybe I can see that.
But right now in 2010, minorities, if I were a minority contractor, a minority construction firm, I can't imagine anything more insulting to me than the notion that minority set-asides say one thing to minority groups.
They say, you can't cut it.
You cannot compete without this kind of set-aside.
Minority set-asides are, by their nature, racist.
Now, within that context, my question is, whenever I see or hear about minority set-asides, I think black firms or Hispanic firms is I don't tend to find Asian groups seeking these things.
They are indeed minorities in exactly the same way that blacks and Hispanics are.
Have you found any kind of distinctions in I have found the exact distinction that you just made.
In particular, we are approached more often regarding the African-American or Hispanic issue.
We have not been approached by the Asian American group.
Yeah, and I bring that up, you know, not to be fractious or anything like that, but it's just that, and it's also not to make generalities, but the Asian community tends not to sit around and wait for such things.
They get out there and they work their butts off and earn them.
Not that non-black and Hispanic firms don't do that.
They absolutely do.
But the black and Hispanic firms that have achieved that level of excellence don't need the set-asides.
So there's a lesson in there somewhere if people just pay attention to it.
Ken, thank you.
Go ahead and last word.
Go ahead.
As a professional, we are to look past those.
We're to be colorblind, if you will, and yet it makes it very difficult to do our job sometimes.
Oh, that's too rich.
We are to be colorblind, except for the days when we need to hand things out to people based on color.
Well, that's tremendous.
Thank you very, very much, sir.
Mark Davis in for Rush.
Be right back on the EIB Network.
What can we cram into just one hour of filling in for Rush?
Therein has been our challenge, and it's been great.
You've certainly done your share of the heavy lifting, and I appreciate it.
Rush on the plane for an engagement tonight and back with you tomorrow.
It's been a joy.
Let's put a couple more folks on the radio before we have to fold up the tent for this day.
Let us head to White Swan, Washington, certainly the prettiest sounding place on the show today, I believe.
Angelo, Mark Davis, in for Rush.
How are you?
Good afternoon, Mr. Davis.
I'm wonderful.
How about yourself?
Very, very well.
As the name would seem to suggest, is that at or near any of Washington State's Indian territory?
Sir, I'm a cattleman that lives right directly in the middle of the greater Yakima Indian Reservation, which is part of the 13 Confederated Tribes.
Wow.
I'm instantly fascinated.
The floor is yours.
What's up?
Well, you were talking about focus on splinter groups, caucuses, and I'd like to throw unions in on that.
The more focus that we get on those splinter groups, the less focus that we have on, it's kind of a house divided, I guess, is what I'd like to say.
What we need to realize are we are citizens of one of the greatest republics in the history of the world, if not the greatest.
Discounting the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, some of those, those weren't republics.
But if we are to concentrate, if we are to come together as citizens of this great republic, then we look more to the political issues, the well-being of our republic, rather than to the well-being of individual minority groups.
Then we work as a citizenry.
Yeah, because when we established group rights, boy, I can certainly understand in the remote area where you are, but the cell is a little dicey.
So let me thank you and Scoot.
I so appreciate you, sir.
Thank you.
There are a lot of sort of platitudes that I could lay out and that you might hear.
And I mean, how does something get to be a platitude, except there's probably some certain truth to it, that we're all hyphenated Americans and we should be Americans first.
And those aren't just platitudes to me.
That's true.
It's true.
It's true.
But it's possible for people to just say those things and then not do very, very much about them to actually bring about the kind of unity that comes when people of goodwill, of different races, different religions, different backgrounds, different politics, all simply want to elevate what is already, as the gentleman suggested, I believe, the greatest society the world has ever known.
We are not without blemish.
There are things that we as a country have done and may yet do that history will not smile upon.
But when we spend our time focusing on and accentuating those, at the cost of it, the expense of it, the loss of a focus on the genius of the founding of this country and the genius of the ascendancy of this country as a beacon of liberty and of freedom and of equality of opportunity,
not equality of result, not guaranteed equality of income or anything else, but equality of opportunity, that if we are imbuing that into our kids and if it's embraced by all of our adults, irrespective of ethnicity, irrespective of national origin, irrespective of religion, only then are we all trying to push the country upward.
I mean, some will try to push it left, some will try to push it right, but we all need to be trying to push upward.
And I hope that metaphor works.
And as we can run that one around in our brains, I'll take our final break and come back and see what happens in the final moments of today's Rush Limbaugh show.
Mark Davis in for us just today.
He's back tomorrow, and we're back in a moment on the EIB network.
Well, all right.
What to do in the final 90 seconds or so?
One might be to expand just a little bit on the really flowery and sucrose references I was making at the end about we may be left, we may be right, but we should be trying to move the country in an upward direction.
I can almost hear you saying, yeah, Mark, well, the problem is, when's the last time people are on the left were actually trying to lift and elevate America?
And the answer is, it used to be.
I mean, it used to be possible to be liberal and a patriot, like Scoop Jackson.
It used to be possible.
And then the Democratic Party so radically secularized itself and so radically separated itself from being in America's best interest.
So, I don't know, in wartime, if they can get their act back together, and in one of the more interesting ironies, the whole Tea Party movement may scare that wisdom right into them.
And we may actually return to a time when the worst thing I would say about any liberal is, I think you're mistaken.
You know, that's the way I feel about most people in my interpersonal world, but I mean, in actual elected office as well.
I mean, you know, Hubert Humphrey back in the 60s.
I mean, even on their worst days, I never felt that the disastrous Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were trying to change the very fabric of what America was.
That's the difference between them and these people.
These people are the problem, the current regime.
Chronicling that in greater detail, rush back with you tomorrow.
Mark Davis, it's been a great hour.
Glad to fill in on this final hour of today's Rush Show.