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?
The 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 aide who suggested that the campaign called Republican Meg Whitman a whore.
The problem is it was his wife.
That's his story.
His wife called Meg Whitman a whore.
Hours later, however, the NAGs backed away from that position, calling the incident a teachable moment.
So first the NAGs want an apology, and then the NAS back off and don't want an apology.
Now they call it a teachable moment.
Now, 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 campaign that called 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, is a Republican, but nobody's going to 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.
She's got that R by her name that just won't do.
Now, before we get to the Christine O'Donnell soundbites, and they're predictable and they're a little bit frustrating because Wolf Blitzer and the other female moderator focus in on the template issues, the things that she said in the past, making her explain her thoughts on evolution and so forth.
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 going to vanish.
The world is going to once again love us.
They're not going to hate us, as they supposedly did because of Bush and Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their terrorists will lay down their—this is the way he was positioned.
This is the way he wrote into town.
This is the way he was immulated.
I mean, 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 on 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.
And 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.
So 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 have stopped him.
He had 60 Democrat votes in the Senate.
All he had to do is unify his own party.
He had a super majority 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 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 the 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 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 whose 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 concede 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.
Oh, this is narcissism.
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 attacks, 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 Newmeyer.
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 that came from Reagan winning the Cold War.
The wealth from an entrepreneurial economy that an era of tax cuts generated, and the check on Democrats' 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 economic.
Not one thing.
All he's done is continue to plunder it.
He has no idea how to replace 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.
Oh, it's so bad.
Obama can never be great.
Oh, it's statistic.
It's always about them.
Every event.
How will this play out for Obama?
The new unemployment numbers.
How can we spend this for what does it mean for Obama?
And that's the great contrast for the Chilean president.
Not one thing the Chilean president was doing in the last week had to do with him.
Even some miners, you know, 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.
He 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 self-reliant, why they'd be dead.
Folks, there is a cultural divide.
There is 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 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 compare rugged individualism to the Tea Party.
So they're on the run.
All these people, their opponents, Tea Party, 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 get 16 pages in the New York Times this Sunday.
Oh, it's so bad for Obama.
Oh, we were going to have a place on Mount Rushmore.
Whoa, no, if he can't be great, nobody can be great.
Narcissistic.
Everything about him.
Everything about them.
Look at the mining disaster and compare that to the oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.
Did the Chilean president shut down the mining business industry in Chile?
That's a pretty big accident down there.
33 men buried.
Huge collapse.
What did Obama do?
First thing he did for 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 Tricoms 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.
Reuters' poll came out of 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.
And 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.
16 pages about if he can't be great, nobody can.
While Michelle Obama's over in Spain, 60 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, 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 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 going to be overseas for 10 days during the post-mortem 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 eyebrow raising to a lot of Democrats that are out there right now wondering why.
Eyebrow raising in 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 learning about why do this after all the help we've given him.
That's what they're 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?
That would make it a pre-mortem.
Obama's doing a pre-mortem.
He just threw the Democrats overboard.
It proves, folks, I'm telling you, you're not going to be upset at all when the Republicans end up running the show.
Mark in New York City, you're up next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
I just wanted to three quick comments.
I was 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 for help, asking that the best and brightest from around the world come to help attack the problem of rescuing the miners.
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 until December, but by allowing them to work, getting the best and 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 him being the omnipotent one.
No, it has to do with 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 oil rig fires and collapses offered to come in and help.
And Obama would not waive the Jones Act because it would have insulted his union buddies.
I mean, that's just one of the explanations of one of the reasons, but your 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 the Christine O'Donnell and the Marxist in a Beard debate soundbites 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 crucial.
There's another reason Obama didn't move fast during the BP oil spill.
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 is, where does Korn right now?
Why the way he used to be at the nation.
He's moving on to somewhere.
At any rate, 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 in his last paragraph, Obama, what you ought to be doing is swinging at the opposition.
This is not the time to be navel-gazing.
This is not the time for self-analysis.
This is not the time to be admitting your mistakes.
It's time to go out to the opposition.
We're going to mention with a bunch of right-wing cooks in the Senate if you're not careful.
Rand Paul's going to end up in there and Sharon Engel's going to end up in there and they're going to 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 is fascinating because he's 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 soundbites.
And as usual, 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 going to hear Wolf Blitzer focus on evolution.
Now, you know, 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 the Marxist-bearded guy, Chris Koons, and Christine O'Donnell.
Wolf Blitzer says in a TV appearance back in 1988 on Bill Maher'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.
Well, let me 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- What do you believe?
What I believe is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?
Because what I will support.
What I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught 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 an overreaching arm of the government.
But you hear Blitzer here.
Well, I don't know what you answered the 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.
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 this is one of these, I'm having a mental block on what evolution is.
It's one of these things that engenders a knee-jerk reaction, these people.
It's like Ann Coulter calls it, it's a heckling point.
It's just a way for them to heckle and to try to portray right-wingers as kooks, which is what they think in the first place.
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 persisted and insisted and triumphed at explaining what she was talking about, in essence, the context.
So after endless questioning on her past statements, she then nailed Koons on the bearded Marxist article.
He said these statements that we made should be taken into consideration when casting 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.
Well, I'm using his own words.
She's making a point.
If they're going to talk, 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 Koons clarified.
There was a group of folks who I had shared a room with, my roommates 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, he says, like Joe Manchin in West Virginia, hey, I'm a Reagan Republican.
Well, Koons 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.
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 beardist 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 whole room, well, Wolf Blitzer and the female moderator lined up against her as well as Tess Coons.
And I thought she had a Decent presence, a great presence of mind.
And 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 learned 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.
Let's see.
What was that?
That was over seven.
I've already put it back in the seven's coming up.
Seven's.
All right, right.
So here's the question from Coons answers the question during the debate: Why should the voters of Delaware trust a Democrat this time around?
And now the moderator, Nancy Karabajin, whatever, Karabajinian.
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 policies 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.
Any problem with that, Snerdley?
Don't see any problem with that.
The reason I'm reacting this way is 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 about the debate as they've expressed them to me versus what I am, what I'm hearing.
Yeah, because I didn't see it myself last night.
You're guiding life through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, despair, mind 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 Marxist in a Beard debate here in just a second.
But 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, Rush.
Big fan.
Thank you.
Quickly, just first point is, I really feel that this new Pledge to America is nothing like our 1944, our 1994 edition of Contract with America.
I feel it wasn't strong enough.
It's not a specific, you know, there's a lot that are, They were much more specific in 1994, and they didn't have all this, we hate the Democrats, you know, and they're not doing it.
It was much more like we're going to do stuff.
Second, I really, 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, 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.
Yeah, I do.
I know you don't.
Well, you said you know you don't, and I know you don't.
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.
I don't know what your problem to pledge is.
Let me ask you.
Alex, have you read the pledge?
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 contract with America, which was like two or three pages.
No all shiny pictures of the Statue of Liberty.
There was just, we're going to do this.
This is how we're going to do it.
How much time we're going to 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 watched the, I live in Newark, New Jersey.
I watched that whole debate with O'Donnell yesterday.
You know, good for her.
She was great.
And 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.
Let me ask you a question here.
If people keep reacting to 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.
He wants it to be cut down to something.
Are you okay with that?
That's an opinion.
You know what?
That's an opinion.
I might not agree.
I might think that he's actually doing something good.
Well, but jackass is not an opinion.
That's a jackass statement of fact.
I don't know.
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.
There's nothing in the pledge about hating Democrats.
I don't know.
I think your priorities are a little out of way.
You're worried about how people are going to think of you rather than what they are doing to the country.
You know, I've written that framework.
I don't care about their feelings.
They obviously don't care about ours either.
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 you doing, Roger?
Good.
So you touched on something in the first hour connected with the miners, you know, that we've been trapped down in our hole for, what, 12, 14 months.
Right.
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 what?
Ending the corruption in Washington.
Have they succeeded?
No.
They were going to end the foolish spending.
Have they succeeded?
No.
They were going to end the Iraq 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 statement that came to mind, I was listening to your show the day after that election 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 going to have more than hopes behind what we do.
I got to 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