All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
October 14, 2010, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the Nags are having a tough time making up their mind.
Do they want an apology or do they not want an apology?
A National Association of Gals.
That's our pet name for the now gang.
They called on Democrat gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown to fire the supposed aid who suggested that the campaign called Republican Meg Whitman a whore.
The problem is it was his wife.
That's a story.
His wife called Meg Woodman a whore.
Hours later, however, the uh the nags backed away from that position, calling the incident a teachable moment.
So first the nags want an apology, and then the nags back off and don't want an apology.
Now they call it a teachable moment.
I'll tell you what's teachable about it is that the nags are a bunch of whores to liberalism and that they are not faithful to women, and they never have been about women's issues.
It's been about the advancement of, I mean, for crying out loud, you take this and you reverse this any other way.
If Whitman had somebody on her candidate to call Jerry Brown's wife a whore, can you imagine what the Nags would have done?
I mean, here's a woman.
And this woman, by the way, Meg Whitman's a Republican, but nobody's gonna ever confuse her with a Tea Party type person.
I mean, she's a McCain-like.
I mean, she's the ideal.
If you listen to what the nags have said over the years what they want women to be, Meg Whitman's it.
That uh she's got that R by her name.
That just won't do.
Now, before we get to the Christine O'Donnell sound bites, and they're predictable and a little bit frustrating, um, because Wolf Blitzer and uh the other female moderator focus in on the on the uh the template issues, the things that she said in the past, making her explain her thoughts on evolution and so forth.
It's uh it's kind of comical, actually.
But I've been talking about this New York Times interview that prints out the 16 pages.
And the best way to express this, my favorite part of this interview, let me just read this to you.
I want you to keep in mind that Barack Obama as president has had a slavish media.
He's had literally no criticism from so-called mainstream media.
The mainstream media has propped him up.
They have looked the other way, they have created an image of him unlike anybody else.
He's had a supermajority in the House of Representatives.
He had 60 votes in the Senate.
He had virtually everything in place to get accomplished everything he wanted.
The Republicans could not have stopped him.
No matter what, they did not have the votes.
Republicans could not have stopped anything Obama wanted to do.
He arrives in Washington with this aura of promise, almost messianic.
Supporters think that magic is about to happen, that all the things that make them unhappy is going to be swept away, that all of the disagreement and the partisanship and the angst and all of the arguments are gonna vanish.
The world is going to once again love us.
They're not gonna hate us as they supposedly did because of Bush and Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their terrorists will lay down their.
This is this is the way he was positioned.
It's the way he wrote into town.
This is the way he was immaculated.
But if there was only one voice of dissent throughout this whole country, publicly it was I. Il Rushbo, who said, I hope he fails.
I mean, everybody else of the Republican side was scared to death.
They were afraid of any criticism whatsoever because they would be charged with racism.
And by the way, again, it was I who said that racism would only get worse.
The racial divide would only widen because the left would see to it that any criticism of Obama would be said to be racist.
Nobody wants to be called a racist, nobody wants to run the risk of having that stick, so they didn't criticize him.
Only I said they hope he failed.
Bottom line is he had everything.
No president, no president has arrived in office with a greater chance with more support from key areas and a skid totally greased for success.
No president Has ever been inaugurated with the trappings of power electorally, politically that Obama had.
Now keep that in mind.
My favorite part of the New York Times interview.
In their darkest moments, White House aides wonder aloud whether it's even possible for a modern president to succeed.
No matter how many bills he signs, everything seems to conspire against the idea.
An implacable opposition with little, if any, real interest in collaboration.
A news media saturated with triviality and conflict.
A culture that demands solutions yesterday, a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard.
Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on Mount Rushmore for Obama two years ago, privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all.
In this environment, they have been increasingly concluding it may be that every modern president is going to be at best average.
Oh, for crying out loud.
Grab me the Kleenex.
The gusher of tears.
Everything.
If I can't be great, nobody else can.
But even this, everything seemed to conspire against the idea.
An implacable opposition?
That's the Republicans, with little, if any, real interest in collaboration.
They couldn't, they couldn't have stopped him.
He had 60 Democrat votes in the Senate.
All he had to do is unify his own party.
He had a supermajority in the House.
The Republicans couldn't have stopped a thing.
And there were several Republicans he could have co-opted.
The Rhinos, some of the Northeastern Republicans, just give him a couple bones.
He could have had their votes on health care.
He didn't want their support.
And I this is this is why folks, I think he's actually happy the Republicans are going to have a big sweep.
I think he wants Republicans running the House.
I think he wouldn't mind if Republicans run the Senate.
I think he's eager to run against the Republicans.
He can't run against his own party.
He can't blame his failures on his own party.
They had every advantage.
I mean, this is sophistry.
An implacable opposition with little, if any, real interest in collaboration?
Why is it that collaboration only works in one way?
Why wasn't why did a shame Obama did not want to collaborate with them?
They had some pretty good ideas.
Why is this collaboration, this bipartisanship?
It seems to only work one way.
We have to cross the aisle, compromise what we believe, agree with them, and that didn't happen this time.
Oh, poor Obama.
There's no a there's no collaboration.
He didn't need it.
The dirty little secret is that our young boy president couldn't even unite his own party.
A news media saturated with triviality and conflict.
How about a news media slavishly devoted to reporting absolute lies and falsehoods about the success and the goodness of his ideas?
For crying out loud, the guy hasn't had one shred of opposition in the so-called mainstream press.
He's nothing but a bunch of people's tongues are on the ground.
Please choose me.
Some White House aides ready to carve a new spot on Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago, privately conceded now that he can't be another Lincoln after all.
He can't be great.
Greatness will elude even Obama.
And if Obama can't be great, then no one can be great.
We live at a time, the country's going through economic problems that are almost unprecedented.
And even now, this 16 pages, it's all about him.
And how, oh, he's been denied his chance for greatness for all of these nefarious reasons.
Like, you may have forgotten this, but shortly after the 9-11 attack, some Democrats actually went public and said it's a shame this didn't happen when Clinton was president so he could have a chance for greatness.
I mean, they make it all about themselves.
There's a great piece today in the American Spectator, George Newmare.
And I just want to read to you the couple of opening paragraphs.
Because we're sitting here, we're always trying to come up with the flawless, perfect, succinct explanation definition of liberalism.
And this is pretty good.
The political success of liberalism is parasitic, feeding off order and prosperity that the implementation of liberal policies couldn't possibly create.
In other words, Ronald Reagan, conservatism, private sector, low taxes, investment, entrepreneurism, a growing private sector, a growing economy.
Only that can allow liberalism to steal from it.
Only that can allow liberalism to fleece the golden goose.
Liberalism doesn't create the golden goose.
It depletes it.
It's like government cannot create wealth.
It can only confiscate it.
Liberals do not have the slightest idea about creating wealth, only confiscating it.
Bill Clinton's recent bragging on the campaign trail about the budgets that he balanced in the 90s is an illustration.
Where did those budgets come from?
Not from the policies of liberalism.
Take away the significant reductions in defense spending.
It came from Reagan winning the Cold War.
The wealth from an entrepreneurial economy that an era of tax cuts generated, and the check on Democrat spending schemes from Gingrich's Congress, and those budgets would never have balanced.
It's a great way of putting it.
They're a bunch of parasites.
They cannot take and transfer and redistribute until somebody else earns it.
And it's not their policies that facilitate the earning it, as we are living and witnessing now.
Name one Obama policy leading to economic growth.
Or employment.
Name one thing Obama has done that has changed the direction the country's headed economy.
Not one thing.
All he's done is continue to plunder it.
In the midst of all of this, in the midst of 85% of college graduates moving home with their parents, that's what that frankly, as an American, embarrasses me.
85% of children moving home with their parents, and we get 16 pages in the New York Times about, woe is us in the White House, so bad!
Obama can never be great.
Oh, it's such a it's always about them.
Every event, how will this play out for Obama?
The new unemployment numbers.
How can we spin this for what does it mean for Obama?
And that's the great contrast for the Chilean president.
One thing the Chilean president was doing in the last week had to do with him.
Even some miners, you know, the mine collapse like this in China, the miners are sacrificed.
They're dead.
The government cares not a whit about them.
And a couple of Chinese miners wrote on a blog, thank God these miners lived in Chile.
If this had happened in China, we would have been abandoned to die a slow death.
No effort to rescue us would have been made.
Chilean president didn't make anything about him.
He didn't rip the mining industry, didn't try to find somebody to blame.
It was just what do we have to do to fix it.
And he actually told the miners after contact with them had been established, he said, don't worry, bureaucracy will not get in the way.
We're going to get rid of all that and get down there and get you out.
And he did.
And that produces comments, some liberals saying, Yeah, yeah, Tea Party, those people have been killing each other.
They've been for self-reliance, why they'd be dead.
I mean, folks, there is a cultural divide.
There's a political divide in this country right now.
The things, the traditions, the institutions that made this country great are under assault.
And they constitute a threat to the existing power structure of the American left as this movie secretariat.
It represents a threat.
The mine rescue is a threat.
Oh my God.
Rugged individualism, it actually worked.
So now we have to disparage rugged individualism.
And we have to compare rugged individualism to the Tea Party.
So they're on the run.
All these people, their opponents, tea, are raising unprecedented amounts of campaign money from average citizens in small amounts, $100 or less, not going through the Republican National Committee.
There is an ascension, a conservative ascension, there's an earthquake taking place.
And we got 16 pages in the New York Times this Sunday.
Oh, so bad for Obama.
Oh, we were going to have a place on Mount Rose.
Whoa, no, if he can't be great, nobody can be great.
Narcissistic.
Everything about him.
Everything about them.
Look at look at the mining disaster and compare that to the um oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.
Did the Chilean president shut down the mining business industry in Chile?
That's pretty big accident down there.
33 men buried.
Huge collapse.
What did Obama do?
First thing he did was 50 days, he didn't do anything other than shut down all drilling.
So he shuts down an entire industry only in America.
The Brazilians continue to drill.
The Chicons continue to drill.
The Mexicans can everybody continues to drill except us.
Shuts it all down after one accident.
And the contrasts here are stark.
And the solutions to the problems we face are clear as a bell.
And they're being seen by more and more people.
That that Reuters poll came out Obama's approval, the margin of error.
He's at 39% approval at the bottom of the margin.
The numbers are 43, 53, 43 approve, 53 disapprove.
Here we get 16 pages in the New York Times about, oh, oh, poor Obama.
Poor Obama.
Look at people have run out of unemployment checks after 99 weeks.
They can't find work.
We get 16 pages in the New York Times.
Oh, poor Obama.
We're not going to have his sculpted likeness on Mount Rushmore.
Foreclosures at an all-time high.
Poor Obama.
Sixteen pages about if he can't be great, nobody can.
Well, Michelle Obama's over in Spain.
Sixty rooms at a five-star resort on us on a vacation.
Poor Obama.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
All right, F. Chuck Todd.
This is now the second effort here on the part of a mainstream state-controlled media operative to express shock and dismay over Obama's interview in the New York Times.
F. Chuck Todd with Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington.
Question.
Peter Baker did an interview with the president.
It's in the New York Times Sunday magazine.
A lot of people in Democrat circles are asking, what was the president thinking of?
Doing an interview seemed to be talking about the mistakes he made.
This is not the way you fire up the voters before an election.
What's he doing, F. Chuck?
Maybe he's trying to get the post-mortem out of the way before the election.
This is the type of interview you'd expect the president to be giving, say, two days after the election.
You know, and we are the entire press corps and the and the White House apparatus is leaving for India three days after the election, so maybe the White House feels as if they need to get some of this stuff out now because he's gonna be overseas for 10 days during the postmortem period, where a lot of this back and forth is normally would be a time for it to come out.
But you're right, Andrea, it was certainly uh eyebrow raising to a lot of Democrats that are out there right now wondering why eyebrow raising and Democrats, how about eyebrow raising to the media?
The media can't figure this out.
Why is he doing this?
This is not how you fire up the base.
Why he's talking about all the things he did wrong?
He's talking about how stupid he is.
He's talking about he's got so much to do about uh learning about why why do this now after all the help we've given him?
That's what they're stumped, stupefied about.
After all the help we've given the guy, how does he do this?
F. Chuck, it's all about him.
The post-mortem out of the way now, and would make it a pre-mortem.
Obama's doing a pre-mortem.
He just threw the Democrats overboard.
That's it it proves, folks.
I'm telling you, you're not gonna be upset at all when the Republicans end up running the show.
Mark in New York City, you're uh up next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Uh, just wanted to call three quick comments.
watching Fox News yesterday morning.
Condoleezza Rice was on with Gretchen on the couch.
They were talking about the Chilean rescue effort.
And I found her comments very telling.
As soon as it was discovered that the miners were alive, the Chilean president sent out an international appeal to for help, asking that the best and brightest from around the world come to help attack the problem of rescuing the miners.
Right.
That's how the Americans got there.
And isn't it amazing what untethered ingenuity can achieve?
They beat all the timetables.
They weren't supposed to be out till December, but by allowing them to work, getting the best in Brightest in, they were able to do that.
Compare that to the reaction of the Obama administration to the Gulf Oil Crisis.
They refused all help and it became a fiasco.
Yeah, but you know why?
One after another.
You know why?
You know why Obama refused help?
Well, it comes back to uh him uh being the omnipotent one.
No, it has to do it's something called a Jones Act.
And presidents have waived the Jones Act repeatedly.
Jones Act basically says that anybody from a foreign country or anybody working on a U.S. disaster has to be unionized, has to be a member of a union.
Well, the Dutch and a number of people who have some expertise in an oil rig fires and collapses, offered to come in and help.
And Obama would not waive the Jones Act because it would have uh insulted his union buddies.
I mean, that that's just one of the explanations of one of the reasons, but your uh point is well taken.
I'm glad you called.
Thanks, Mark, very much.
All right, now look, I keep moving it back, but I promise.
Christine O'Donnell and uh Marxist in a beard uh debate sound bites are coming up right immediately when we get well close to when we get back.
Say, Mark from New York City, there's another reason, and this is uh crucial.
There's another reason Obama didn't move fast during the BP oil spill.
He wanted he wanted the disaster.
He wanted it to play out over time.
They were going to use and exploit that disaster.
And that's why it took 50 days to do anything seriously about it.
David Korn.
Uh is where does Corn right now?
Well, he's used to be at the nation.
He's moving on to somewhere.
At any rate, uh David Korn, could the White House have picked a worse time to open up to the New York Times magazine about its mistakes?
All these guys in the media are just and then Korn goes on his last paragraph.
Obama, what you ought to be doing is swinging at the opposition.
This is not the time to be naval-gazed, and it's not the time for self-analysis.
This is not the time to be admitting your mistakes.
It's time to go after the opposition.
We're gonna mention a bunch of right-wing cooks in the Senate if you're not careful.
Rand Paul's gonna end up in there, and Sharon Angle's gonna end up in there, and they're gonna blow you up.
These media people are paranoid.
They're obviously on Obama's side.
They can't understand what he's doing.
David Korn is Mother Jones, Washington bureau chief.
Big deal, whoop big whoop.
But still's fascinating because he's a he's a is a great illustration of the state-controlled media.
They're just apoplectic over this New York Times piece.
Deservedly so.
All right, here we go.
Audio sound bites, and as usual, um, the left, Christine O'Donnell represents an opportunity for them to focus on narratives and templates that they use to identify conservatives as nutcases and freaks.
And so in this bite, you're gonna hear Wolf Blitzer focus on evolution.
Now, you know it's a it's an article of faith with the left that there is no creation.
There's no intelligent design.
We're all here, essentially by accident.
Big bang, and we've all just evolved.
And anybody who doesn't think that in the playbook, anybody who doesn't think that is an absolute certifiable nutcase.
So listen to the first soundbite here at the University of Delaware between uh the Marxist bearded guy uh Chris Coons and uh Christine O'Donnell.
Wolf Blitzer says in a TV appearance back in 1988 on Bill Marr's show, you said evolution's a myth.
Do you believe evolution's a myth?
I was talking about what a local school taught, and that should be decided on the local community.
But please let me respond to what he just said.
We will let you respond, but answer the question.
Do you believe evolution is a myth?
Local schools should make that decision.
I made that remark based on the case.
What do you believe?
What I believe is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?
Because what I voters want to know what you what I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their in their classrooms.
And what I was talking about on that show was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution.
That is against their constitutional rights, and that is is an overreaching arm of the government.
But you hear a blitzer here.
Well, I don't know what you answered a question.
What do you think about evolution?
What do you think about evolution?
The voters want to know what you think about evolution.
Voters care.
Voters want to Wolf, you wouldn't know what the voters care about.
You'd be working a different network if you knew what voters cared about.
Wolf, you'd have a different job if you knew what voters cared about.
You'd have higher ratings, Wolf, if you knew what voters cared about.
You'd actually have an audience, Wolf, if you knew what voters cared about.
They don't care right now about what somebody thinks about evolution.
They want jobs, Wolf, and they're tired of government getting so big.
But it's this is one of these.
It's it's uh I'm having a mental block on on on what evolution is.
It's this it's it's one of these things that engenders a knee-jerk reaction, these people.
It's it's it's like a like Ann Coulter calls it it's a heckling point.
It's just it's a way for them to heckle.
And to try to portray uh uh right-wingers as kooks, which is what they what they think in the first place.
Or so that's the answer, and I thought she parried it pretty well.
Blitzer is forcing her to explain her beliefs in evolution, and she she persisted and insisted and triumphed at explaining what she was talking about, in essence, uh the context.
So after endless questioning on her past statements, she then nailed Kuhn's on the bearded Marxist article.
He said these statements that we made should be taken into consideration when casting your your vote.
So then I would be remiss not to bring up the fact that my opponent has recently said that it was studying under a Marxist professor that made him become a Democrat.
So when you look at his position on things like raising taxes, which is one of the tenets of Marxism, not supporting eliminating the death tax, which is a tenet of Marxism, I would argue that there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist beliefs.
And I'm using his own words.
Let him clarify.
Let him clarify.
I'm using his own words.
She's making a point.
If they're going to talk, if you want to bring up the fact that I made a joke about dabbling in witchcraft on a comedy show way back then, well, it certainly is right to focus on this bearded Marxist saying that a communist professor is what inspired him to become a Democrat, which I thought was pretty clever.
Chris Coons clarified.
There was a group of folks who I had shared a room with, my roommate's junior year, who were in the Young Republican Club and who thought when I returned from Kenya and registered as a Democrat, that doing so was proof that I'd gone all the way over to the far left end.
And so they jokingly called me a bearded Marxist.
If you take five minutes and read the article, it's clear on the face of it.
It was a joke.
Despite that, my opponent and lots of folks in the right wing media have endlessly spun this.
I am not now, nor have I ever been.
Anything but a clean-shaven capitalist.
It's probably the first time he said that.
So now he comes out, so he says, like Joe Manchin in West Virginia.
Hey, I'm a Reagan Republican.
Well, Kuhn's may have shaved his beard, but he has not shaved off his Marxism.
And just because he wants to sit there and call himself a capitalist doesn't make it so.
So he was put on the defensive.
He had to finally explain this.
The bottom line is, it was a wacko professor, a Marxist professor, that inspired him to become a Democrat.
Now, after Koons tried to say his bearded Marxist article was a joke, here's what Christine O'Donnell said.
If you're saying what I said on a comedy show is relevant to this election, then absolutely you writing an article, forget the beardest Marxist comment.
You writing an article saying that you learned your beliefs from an articulate, intelligent Marxist professor, and that's what made you become a Democrat.
That should send chills up the spine of every Delaware voter.
So she comes right back at him, and she and the the whole room, well, Wolf Butzer and the female moderator lined up against her as well as as Coons.
And uh she had a a um a decent presence of a great presence of mind.
And that from these bites, I didn't see it, but from these bites, it doesn't sound like she was talked off her game.
And she got her digs in.
And she said things about Coons that the media will not.
And she asked questions about Coons that the media won't.
And she would not allow the media paper over things about Coons that the media would paper over.
So people learn some things about Coons that they otherwise wouldn't know because the media in Delaware will not tell them.
So all in all, from what I've heard so far is pretty good.
We have lots more to go on this.
One more.
Uh let's see.
What was that?
That was number seven.
I've already put it the back of the seven's coming up.
Seven's all right, right.
So here's the uh question from uh Coons answers the question during the debate.
Why should the voters of Delaware trust a Democrat this time around?
And now the moderator Nancy uh Carabajin, whatever, uh Carabaginian.
Ms. O'Donnell, you have one minute for a rebuttal here.
Unemployment here in Newcastle County rose, almost doubled in the last two years under his watch as Newcastle County executive.
He will continue to rubber stamp the spending policy is coming from Washington.
We were promised that the stimulus bill would create jobs, but instead it cost us 2.6 million jobs.
We were promised that it would keep unemployment at 8%.
But instead, we see unemployment at 9.7%.
The Democrats are bragging that unemployment has leveled out, but while unemployment has leveled out, more people than ever are on food stamps, and our welfare spending is higher than ever.
This is not the right move.
This is not a move towards real economic recovery.
This is a move towards creating a culture of dependency.
I got no problem with that.
You have any problem with that, Snerdly?
Don't see any problem with that.
The reason I'm reacting this way is because I'm reading some email and people say, eh, she didn't do herself a whole lot of good, but she really didn't get hurt either.
So I'm balancing what people's opinions is of the debate as they've expressed them to me versus what I am uh what I'm hearing.
Yeah, because I didn't see it myself last night.
Your guiding life are times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, despair, mine collapses, economic collapse, and even the good times.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by being here.
Okay, we'll get back to the Christine O'Donnell and uh Marxist in a beard debate here in just a second.
But uh grab a couple phone calls.
People have been patiently waiting, starting in Newark, New Jersey.
Alex, you're next.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Russ, um big fan.
Thank you.
Um quickly, just uh first point is uh I really feel that this uh this new um this new uh pledge to America is nothing like our 1944, uh 1994 edition of uh contract with America.
I feel it was strong enough.
It it's not a specific, you know, there's a lot that are they they were much more specific in 1994, and they they didn't have all this uh we hate the Democrats, you know, and uh they're not doing it.
It was much more like we're gonna do stuff.
Second, um I really I I really really feel that, you know, when we booed Bush, when they booed Bush, you know, the you know, the people were booing Bush, and we were all screaming, right?
The Republicans were all up and at it.
You know, he's our president, there's a certain amount of respect by being our president that we'll show him no matter what he does.
He could, you know, he could do anything, and that's there's a certain amount of respect, and you getting on the air and calling our president a jackass is just it's so not in, you know, in key with everything that we as Republicans, you know, and conservatives believe in.
You know, that there's a certain amount of respect that we have, no matter what he does.
That's how I feel.
I don't know, you know.
I know you don't.
Uh, yeah, I do.
I know you don't.
Well, you said you know you don't, and I know you don't.
Uh the difference here in what was said about Bush and all the mean spirited things about Bush.
Am I calling Obama jackass?
I'm telling the truth.
All that stuff about Bush was lies.
It was made up, it was character assassination.
Uh I don't know what your problem the pledge is.
Um let me ask you the let me Alex, have you read the pledge?
How many how many pages are in the pledge?
There's 37 pages, and there's a lot of graphics in the new pledge as opposed to the as opposed to the contract with America, which was like two or three pages, no all shiny pictures of the Statue of Liberty.
There was just we're gonna do this.
This is how we're gonna do it, how much time we're gonna do it in, and by the first year we'll have it out.
And that was, you know, I'm a major conservative.
I love that.
You know, I I watched the I'm I live in Newark, New Jersey, and I watched that whole debate with with uh O'Donnell yesterday, and you know, good for her, she was great.
And I I'm a real conservative, but there's a limit.
There's a limit on how we treat other people, and especially our president, who is our representative.
When we insult him, we insult our representative.
We're insulting whether we voted in him or not, he's our president.
You know, as soon as it was.
Let me ask you a question here.
If people keep reacting this uh this jackass business, would you rather me repeatedly say the man is purposely trying to destroy the United States economy?
He has grudge against this country.
Obviously, he doesn't like it.
Uh he wants it to cut it, be cut down to something.
Are you okay with that?
That's an opinion.
That you know what that's an opinion.
I might not agree.
I might think that you know he's actually doing something good.
Well, yes, but jackass is not an opinion.
That's a jackass is a statement of fact.
I don't know.
I I uh here's here's some stuff from the pledge.
What's not specific about this?
Permanently extend all the Bush tax cuts, including those on the wealthy.
Cancel all unspent stimulus money.
Repeal the Obama health care bill, replacing it with Republican proposals.
Nothing in the there's nothing in the pledge about hating Democrats.
Um I think your your your priorities are a little out of the way.
You're you're worried about how people are gonna think of you rather than what they are doing to the country.
You know, I've right now, frankly, I don't care about their feelings.
They obviously don't care about ours either.
Uh and I don't think this pledge or even the jackass comment takes away from decorum in any way, shape.
In fact, I frankly have been amazed at how it penetrated out of all the things.
And it's because brevity is the soul of wit.
The fewer words you can say to make a point, the more powerful the point.
Steve in Green Bay.
We have less than a minute, but I wanted to get to you, sir.
Hello.
How are you doing, Roger?
Good.
Say you touched on something in the first hour connected with with the miners, you know, that we've been trapped down in our hole for what, twelve, fourteen months.
Right.
Uh and then you said maybe even longer.
And yeah, I think this is where the Republicans need to finish the race.
It's been four years since the Democrats took over.
They campaigned on on what?
Finish uh ending the corruption in Washington.
Have they succeeded?
No.
They were gonna end the uh foolish spending.
Have they succeeded?
No.
They were gonna end the Rock War, not win the Iraq war, end the Iraq war.
They haven't succeeded in anything they campaigned on four years ago.
Now the Republicans can finish the deal.
Are we better off?
The question the statement that came to mind, I was listening to your show the day after that election in November in November of 2006.
Harry Reid said, word for word, this just goes to show that one party rule does not work in this.
I remember exactly right.
Well, our hopes are high.
And we're gonna have more than hopes behind what we do.
I gotta run.
I'm a little over time here.
Sit tight, folks, we'll be back and continue right after this on the EIB network.
▲
Export Selection