All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 15, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
December 15, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at that.
Final Senate vote on tax cut compromise underway.
There aren't any tax cuts.
Are we not all blue in the face reacting that way and pointing that out?
There aren't any tax cuts.
The tax cut compromise.
And by now, by the way, they are Obama's tax cuts.
It's Obama's tax cut compromise.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
We will get to your phone calls in this hour.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
The editors at National Review Online have a little blurb here today about what Harry Reid's trying to do.
They're calling it Harry Reid's holiday jam.
What the Senate wants to pass while you're not paying attention.
In the famous formulation often attributed to George Washington, the U.S. Senate is the saucer designed to let the beverage cool before it becomes law.
Let all the heat get out of the legislation so that reason and discourse can take place, so that the rash of emotions doesn't dictate legislation that's passed.
In Dingy Harry's rush to beat the looming expiration of the 111th Congress, the Senate has become the express lane to jam through changes in military rules, giant spending bill, even an arms treaty, and all with virtually no deliberation.
And they ask the question of the year, the two years.
Hell, they ask the question I've been asking, we've all been asking for 20 years.
Why are Republicans putting up with it?
People have been asking me, why don't the Republicans do X or why are the Republicans?
I don't have the answer.
I wish I did.
All we can do is guess.
At this point, I'm not sure the Republicans are putting up with it.
What they are doing right now is expressing the predictable outrage over the whole thing.
Why are Republicans putting up with it?
The only answer I could give you is based on years of conversations with people who happen to be in leadership in Republican positions.
And it is fear.
It's fear of being criticized for opposing.
It's fear of Obama's race.
Although in this case, Obama really has nothing to do with what Reed's doing directly.
It's fear of the media.
It's fear of being criticized.
It's fear of being called obstructionists.
It's total fear about what somebody's going to say about them.
Nothing irritates me more than to have behavior guided by that kind of fear.
I'm sorry, this is Wall Street Journal.
I misappropriated this to National Review.
I got confused by the similarity in fonts.
It's, well, actually, it is a salient point.
The National...
Bush, bite your tongue.
It is a salient point.
I must correct, but it is the Wall Street Journal doing this.
Why are Republicans putting up with it?
Fear is the only thing I can tell you based on the conversations I've had with them over the years.
Fear what's going to be said about them.
Fear of the criticism.
Fear that they're going to be called heartless to the poor, indifferent to the old.
You know, the stuff that's been said about them for 30 years.
Fearful that it will be said again.
Here's what Harry Reid is trying to ram through here before they leave.
A new start Arms treaty with Russia.
The bipartisan tax deal.
The Immigration Dream Act, which basically legalizes illegals who go to college.
A lands bill.
A bill to let gays serve openly in the military.
And yesterday dropped on his colleagues the nearly 2,000-page $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2011 that no one.
But a few appropriators have read, even if they have.
So why are the Republicans putting up with it?
We've been asking this question for who knows how long.
Moving on to other things.
From Washington, AP.
A growing chorus of conservative criticism is prompting some House members to rethink the $850 billion package of tax cuts and extended jobless benefits that Obama has negotiated with top Republicans in Congress.
The attacks are unlikely to derail the measure, which gets the final vote on Wednesday in the Senate, going on right now, I'm told, to be followed by a debate and a vote in the House.
But they underscore the difficulty of building centrist coalitions after an election in which Tea Party conservatives ousted many Democrats and some veteran Republicans who were seen as too willing to compromise with opponents.
Now, this is AP's language, but the conservative criticism underscores the difficulty of building centrist coalitions.
Who in the world's talking about building centrist coalitions?
That wasn't what this election was about.
This election wasn't about empowering this no labels bunch.
Do you see now, snurdy, why I spent so much time on it yesterday?
Right here we have it at AP.
Conservative criticism underscores the difficulty of building centrist coalitions after an election in which, blah, blah.
Who cares about centrist coalitions?
This election was about defeating centrist coalitions.
This election was about defeating people who believe in them, like Mike Castle and Bob Bennett.
And the list goes on and on and on.
This election was about sending centrists to the ash heap of history, not building coalitions with them.
This remains the wet dream of people in the media and the Democrat Party and this no labels bunch.
Centrist coalitions.
And if you want to get down to brass tax, who's to say the Tea Party isn't one?
This whole notion, you know, I said yesterday, what if you and I are the actual middle in this country?
Who is it that's been defining the middle anyway?
The left, isn't it?
The Democrats, the media, they've been telling us what this revered and respected middle is.
What if we're it?
You and I are much closer to the middle of this country than anybody on the left or the far right happens to be.
I don't even like that term far right.
There aren't that many people out there.
Who's to say we're not the middle?
Who's to say that we aren't the centrist coalition?
Look at the polls.
The Tea Party, we, we are the center.
Building centrist coalitions?
What does that mean then?
Building centrist coalitions means forging agreements with liberals, forging agreements with the people that lost.
Let's peep the people that lost and give them some say-so here.
That's what the AP so desperately wants.
Conservative criticism is making sure that liberal participation is being denied.
Conservative criticism is seeing to it that the losers stay out of the way.
Conservative criticism is making sure that the losers don't have a say-so.
And the AP is just terrified by that notion.
And of course, who do you think is leading all of this?
It is I, El Rushbo, Conservative Talk Show host Rush Limbaugh, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, and the Tea Party Patriots have denounced the plan, which previously was criticized mainly by liberals as a giveaway to the wealthy.
The new approach from conservatives is that the package would swell the federal debt while failing to make permanent tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 by then President Bush.
Yep, pretty much right.
Congressional insiders still predict that the tax plan will pass in some form before January 1st, when almost every American's income tax rates would go up if a new law isn't in place.
But you mean middle class?
How can the middle class tax rates go up?
I didn't think there was a middle class tax cut.
They've been telling us for the last 10 years the Bush tax cuts were only tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires.
Now look what we learn.
Jack Kingston, GOP Republican man, says the longer we wait, the harder it's going to be.
He's leaning against the package.
He said that House leaders probably are close to assembling enough support to pass it.
But many Republican lawmakers are hearing from constituents who follow commentators such as Limbaugh.
A radio talk show host says the package should cut taxes and not leave them at the Bush levels.
From the politico, while the tax cut deal poised for Senate passage Wednesday at noon or with it poised for passage, House Republicans trying to tamp down discontent in their ranks from fiscal conservatives are issuing a simple message.
This isn't the bill we would have written, but it's good enough.
Republicans think that 15 to 20 conservatives in the House are going to vote against it without changes like the state tax increase.
Mike Pence came out forthrightly against it yesterday.
But House Republican leaders expect only 15 to 20 conservatives to vote against Obama's tax cut prompt.
They're at Obama's tax cut compliment.
Obama's tax cut comp.
First, it's not Obama's.
Two, it's not a tax cut.
That would mean that only 60 out of 255 Democrats would have to vote for the legislation to secure passage.
Not a heavy lift, the majority said.
White House Tuesday said that Obama and his economic team are making calls to House lawmakers to line up support for the plan.
So there you have it, folks.
It's the Obama tax cut plan.
It's poised for passage.
There are just 15 or 20 wacko conservatives opposed to it.
That's because of Limbaugh, who really thinks there ought to be tax cuts in it.
Here's Obama this morning in Washington, Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
I am absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan, while not perfect, will help grow our economy and create jobs in the private sector.
I know there are different aspects of this plan to which members of Congress on both sides of the aisle object.
That's the nature of compromise.
But we worked hard to negotiate an agreement that's a win for middle-class families and a win for our economy.
And we can't afford to let it fall victim to either delay or defeat.
Why is it a win for middle-class families?
It's a win because their taxes aren't going up.
Really?
Well, now, again, I must point out that for the last 10 years, there weren't any middle-class tax cuts.
The Bush tax rates were only for millionaires and billionaires.
And all of a sudden, when the rubber meets the road, when a pedal hits the metal, all of a sudden there are middle-class tax cuts.
And if this is allowed to expire, guess what?
Their taxes go up.
Can't have that.
So now we have the Obama tax cut compromise.
Here is a media montage.
All these people out there who are reacting to the news that I am leading the opposition.
Critics who have come out on the far right against this compromise include Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh.
A lot of the Republican caucus are now coming out.
Rush Limbaugh and some other conservatives chiming in now.
Rush Limbaugh.
Totally against it.
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin don't like it.
Republicans are running away from this.
Limbaugh, Palin, Romney.
Rush Limbaugh is very much against this tax plan.
We're now in a situation where Rush Limbaugh and Move On agree with each other.
That's Richard Wolf in the take in the can with Obama over there.
So, yeah.
So now, ladies and gentlemen, I, El Rushbo, and the extremist.
I am the far-right extremist.
And what am I standing for?
I'm standing for tax cuts.
I mean, Obama's tax cut compromise, that's impressive even for AP.
Every word's a lie.
Every word is a lie.
The Obama tax cut compromise.
And of course, Limbaugh's opposed to it, but he doesn't have any real sway.
Only 15 to 20 House Republicans are opposed to the bill.
The Obama tax cut compromise, poised to see the light of day.
Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews, talking about the tax rate compromise, said this.
Here's Rush Limbaugh this Friday saying where he stands.
Here's Rush Limbaugh.
Let's listen.
I now hope this deal fails.
I say it directly and officially.
Let the tax rates go up on January 1st.
Let them go up.
Wait for our cavalry to show up and deal with this the right way.
Exactly.
That's what the president was worried about, what Rush Limbaugh beautifully put.
What he wants to happen is nothing gets passed this year.
The cavalry, I think he stole that word from me, meaning the Republicans, they control the House.
Effectively, they're going to have control of the Senate on this issue if you count the numbers.
Yeah, well, Matthews, he knows what's going on here.
The Republican winners in November being aced out, having no say-so in this.
It passed the Senate just now.
The Obama tax cut compromise passed the Senate 81 to 19.
The Obama tax cut compromise.
So here's Matthews.
Yay!
That sets Rush exactly.
That's what Rush president was worried about.
Rush Limbaugh put this beautifully.
So the same show last night, Matthews spoke with the former Democrat National Committee Chairman, the punk, Terry McAuliffe, about all this.
And Matthews says, let me ask you about Rush Limbaugh.
Now, we're all looking at the same facts.
Rush was just on the radio.
Here he is saying, I wish they didn't have a bill.
I wish it cut a deal because I'm hoping that the taxes go up again January 1st.
Republicans come in, own the House.
Effectively, I think they would have the vote in the Senate too.
And they're the ones that cut taxes.
He called it the cavalry.
Same image I used.
Isn't that a good argument of the progressives that both presidents had to do this?
Otherwise, the cavalry would come in in January and jam this down the throats of the country.
This is what you got to respect about President Obama.
And you've got to give him credit for moving forward with this.
It wasn't about politics.
It was about doing something immediately now with our economy in such a very difficult position.
Put all the politics aside.
Let us move forward.
Let's do it jointly.
The public wanted to see our politicians working together.
They're sick of the fighting.
So I give President Obama tremendous credit.
So now we have the entire meaning of the November election being rewritten, too.
This is all about people working.
My God, what a victory Obama had in November.
What a brilliant man.
He got out in front of this.
Why, it wasn't about politics.
Of course not.
No, it's for the good of the country, right?
The good of the country would mean Obama resigns.
Short of that, everything that continues to happen is not for the good of the country.
That's the only thing it's going to help this country is if he resigns, and we know that isn't going to happen.
But now look at, it's the Obama tax cut compromise, and the meaning of the November elections was that we wanted to see these guys in Washington working together, led by President Obama.
What a great, great day this is.
One other little item on this before we get to your phone calls.
A tax bill has just passed the Senate, the Obama tax cut compromise, just passed the Senate 81 to 19.
Do you remember how this all got started?
The White House dispatched Bite Me over to talk to Mitch McConnell about this.
And in fact, the National Journal reports that the bill, the product of an agreement reached by the White House and minority leader Mike McConnell, would extend all Bush era and blah, blah, blah.
That's not how tax bills happen in the Constitution of the United States.
Tax bills happen in the House of Representatives.
Every tax and spend piece of legislation originates in the people's house.
Obama sent Bite Me over to Mitch McConnell to talk about this.
And it's a problem.
One, it's not kosher with the Constitution.
Number two, ah, geez.
Well, let's face it.
There are a bunch of Republicans who really want to try to get as much of this stuff out of the way before the cavalry arrives.
A lot of Republicans are not happy that the Tea Party people are showing up in January.
So let's get this out of the way so they can't affect it.
A bunch of Republicans that don't want to fight.
A bunch of Republicans who don't want to try to repeal Obamacare.
They don't think they can.
They're not going to control government.
So let's, you know, let's just shut this down as quick as we can.
We're not going to run the government.
We're not going to have the power.
We don't want these Tea Party people coming in here.
They don't know how this place works.
Let's not have them coming in here and have a whole lot of say-so about what's going on.
So the White House calls the Senate.
How about you guys and I come to a deal on this and screw the Tea Party?
Okay, we can talk about that.
This is not, this is not how this is supposed to happen.
Tax bills, spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.
You can look it up.
I mean, if Republicans in the House want to oppose it for that reason and stand by that, they could.
They don't have to listen to me.
No, I don't expect them to.
I'm just a purist.
Constitution matters to me, but that's just me.
That's just an old fuddy duddy.
Do you believe this guy, Limbaugh, actually still believes the Constitution crap?
Still reads that stuff?
Can you believe?
My God.
No wonder what we're up against.
Gee whiz, he still, he still, he still really thinks that matters.
Limbaugh still thinks it matters.
No wonder we got a problem.
All right, well, look.
Yeah, send somebody to the White House down here.
We'll take care of this.
So there you have it.
All right.
Now, I fully intended to get the phone calls in that segment, but it didn't happen.
Oh, yeah, it's setting up to be a fun two years.
You know, we've often heard that journalism is the first write of history.
Journalism is the first revision of history.
Journalists are trying to tell us that what happened in November didn't happen and that what happened didn't happen for the reasons it did.
All right, let's go to the phones.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, where the Republican Party is more afraid of the media than they are the voters.
This is Janet in Cleveland.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Rush, I love you as much as I do my husband.
I want to talk to you about Sherrod Brown.
He said he would vote no on this tax bill.
And in today's newspaper, he said that he was going to vote yes after he talked to his administer.
Hello, did we talk maybe like for forgiveness?
And also reading constituent concerns, the voters' concerns.
I've already sent three emails to him, and the fourth one is on its way.
His name is on the naughty list, not only for Santa Claus, but for the voters of 2012.
He has nothing but a hook in his nose, and he follows the powers that be wherever they go.
Well, you're talking about Sherrod Brown here.
Yep.
Yeah.
Loud and clear.
Said he was going to vote against it, and then he went and talked to a man of the cloth.
Right.
Yeah, he knows one?
That I know.
I doubt it.
So he goes and talks to him.
He goes to the White House man of the cloth?
Yeah.
I have no idea.
You're not surprised, are you?
I mean, this guy's been your whatever he is for who knows how long.
Yeah.
Well, 2012, that's the magic year for Sherrod Brown and a number of these people.
They do not know what they're dealing with here.
This arrogant, I tell you, they keep this up, and there aren't going to be any Democrats left in this government.
They keep this up.
They keep this up.
And you say, well, a few Republicans too, but I mean, this is spitting in the face.
This is, you know, this is urinating in our pool, folks.
I cannot describe what these people are doing here.
And they think they're sneaking this through.
They think you're out there Christmas shopping and reveling it up here and waiting for old Santa to come down.
By the way, Santa can't come down the chimney.
The guy is too fat.
What do we, I got this story here.
Oh, yeah.
What's this?
This is from the French news agency.
After getting a warning from physicists, Santa has now had his card marked by doctors.
Sleep deprivation and the temptations of booze laid out by grateful families could turn him into a public menace.
Each year, Sandy Claus and his team of elves and reindeer stay awake for days and nights so he can deliver presents to children all over the world for Christmas as Franco Capuccio and Michelle Miller of Britain's University of Warwick Medical School.
But he could be putting his health at risk along with the elves.
Capuccio and Miller, making a cunning pitch for their new book on the perils of sleep deprivation, assess the perils faced and posed by Santa Claus.
Days without sleep, frantic all-night driving, tippies by the Christmas tree, i.e. adult beverages, all add up to a terrifying picture of a sleigh crash in slow motion.
Considering that he does it only once a year, it may not be too bad for his long-term health.
But if Santa ever starts using a cell phone in that sleigh, then all bets are off.
Do they not know this is well, what do these people keep trying to ruin Christmas?
Of all things, to try to warn people.
Santa Claus is cruising for an early death because of all the goodies people leave for him.
He's overworked, and he's so big now he can't get down the chimney.
And think about, by the way, all the secondhand smoke Santa has to deal with in those chimneys.
People put fires in their fireplaces, and Santa has to negotiate the flames getting secondhand smoke.
It's a wonder the guy is still alive as it is.
Man, the Scrooges are everywhere out there, including in university research teams.
Here's Bob in Port Charlotte, Florida.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Thank you.
I'm calling because I oppose the assault treaty.
I don't know how we can conclude a treaty with Russia reducing nuclear weapons that does not include China.
China's been increasing their military power for years now.
Wait, you misunderstand this.
This is not about China reducing nuclear weapons.
It's not about Russia reducing nuclear weapons.
It's about us reducing ours.
Yeah, but how does that help?
It doesn't help.
That's the point.
That's why I say that.
You think we're actually going to tell the people that hold all of our debt?
Hey, by the way, get rid of your weapons.
So what's the purpose of it?
I mean, it's the purpose of it is so it does nothing to do to make.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's all about Obama.
He wants to burn his credential as a peace president, reducing nuclear arms.
It's all about having the strength and the power to stare down Vladimir Putin, whose mistress is on the first cover of Russian Vogue.
You know, there's a new edition of Russia, Vogue magazine in Russia.
It's called Volksky.
Vogsky, it's exactly right.
I'm not kidding.
There is a new version of Vogue.
It's in Russia.
And Putin's mistress is proudly identified as such on the cover.
And get this, she's a gymnast.
Putin's mistress is on the cover of Vogsky, and she is a gymnast.
So Obama wants credit for staring down the Russians.
The Russians are saying, we don't care when this gets done.
We're not under any pressure.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Number 26.
This is F. Chuck Todd just a moment ago on Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
And this is, they're talking about DeMint trying to have the spending bill, start treaty and all that read on the Senate floor.
Mitchell said the White House put out a statement calling DeMint's threat, which apparently a very real threat there, F. Chuck, to read the entire treaty on the floor.
It's a new low, says the White House, putting political stunts ahead of national security.
Yeah, it's a political stunt to have senators know what they're voting on.
The Washington game playing, the American people are sick of, part of the White House lashing of DeMint.
Do they think they can get by with this?
Will it stay on the floor if they continue to read it?
They're hoping DeMint is overplaying his hand by forcing the clerk to read the bill.
I think they're hoping that somehow other members of the Republican caucus, you know, go to Mitch McConnell and Kyle and say, hey, wait a minute, guys, this is getting ridiculous.
This is now going to hurt all of us.
That is something the White House is hoping could happen if DeMint goes through with this.
Let's see what happens.
You hear these threats a lot, and they can get started, and then suddenly someone backs off and says, yeah, okay, maybe this does look ridiculous.
Yeah, it looks ridiculous to read the bill on the floor.
You notice now the total reversal here in common.
Nobody knows what the Start Treaty says.
Dement says, let's read it.
Clerk shall read the bill.
It's a Senate rule.
Let's read the bill.
Find out what's in it.
He's just, come on.
We're putting political stunts over national security.
Really?
President Obama, you mean to tell us that you have something in mind for this country that equals national security?
That's what's hard for me to stomach.
President Obama actually has national security in mind with the START Treaty.
There's nothing in there to tell the Russians what to get rid of.
It's all about what we're going to get rid of.
Robert Gibbs, rest of the media, angry that somebody will read legislation before voting on it.
That's being called a political stunt now.
That's how upside down and out of whack everything is.
Here's Dennis in Oneida, New York.
You're next.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hello.
I was just wondering how stupid they really think we are because they're Monday between 10 and 2 on the TV.
I seen an ad going across the bottom of the TV screen saying that Russia wants to take an upgrade their nuclear weapons and build new ones.
And here they want us to downgrade ours.
Yeah, that's about it.
So I'm just wondering how stupid they are.
Who?
In Washington.
Sorry, it's not.
It's not Obama in them.
No, it's not stupid.
I mean, I'm not too smart myself, but I know there's something going on.
Well, no, you're smarter than you think you are.
You're looking at something that doesn't make sense, and you're thinking it's because of you.
No, it doesn't make sense because you think, how can somebody be so stupid?
It isn't stupid.
The question is, why would somebody want to weaken our nuclear presence?
That's the question.
Not how stupid they are.
Why?
Why would a president of the United States want to purposefully weaken U.S. national security?
That's the question.
And it's a question a lot of people don't even want to confront, don't even want to admit.
They can't conceive that such a thing could ever happen.
Serving humanity simply by showing up, executing assigned host duties flawlessly zero.
Mistakes.
Why would Obama want to weaken the national security of the United States?
Why would he want to weaken the national defense of the United States?
Simple, consistency.
Why change now?
Robert, Fort Worth, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Thank you very much, Rush.
What I wanted to say is stop picking on Harry Reid and Pelosi for that matter.
We should be celebrating them.
I wish we had a Republican that would fight like that for what we believe in.
I don't think we've had one in my lifetime.
Yeah, you have.
How old are you?
I'm goodness, 49 years old.
Yeah, you have.
You've had Ronald Reagan.
Not in the Congress, though.
Is it in the Congress, in the Congress?
If a mind like yours should take that long.
Yeah, you may have a point there.
Comes to Congress.
I don't want to uniformly agree with you.
The fact I am, well, I know I was thinking, Newt.
Newt, he was, yeah, for the longest time.
It was after he became Speaker, but six years after, five years after, that kind of priorities changed.
I would give Newt credit, but Dennis Haster, I don't think he ever fought for anything, and I'm worried about this next guy.
Boehner?
Yes, I am.
Why?
What are you worried about, Boehner?
I don't think he's, you know, I don't think he's going to push a true, say, conservative or constitutional agenda.
Why?
And what have you seen to make you think that?
I haven't seen anything out of him in the past, and I'm not seeing anything out of him now.
Well, let me give you a name of somebody who would, but they won't let her.
Michelle Bachman.
Oh, a high curve.
Yeah, see?
Do you know what we really need?
What we really need.
We need a, we can call it a Republican or a conservative or a constitutional person in the government on our side that's tough as LBJ, that has his strong hands, long fingers, and sharp fingernails.
Well, I think if in analyzing what you're saying, I understand, gosh, you wish we had somebody like Reed.
We really don't want somebody like Reed.
I know what you're saying, but we don't want people that are unethical and cheats.
We don't want to have to defend that kind of stuff.
But what is Reed and what is Pelosi?
They are full thoroughbred liberals, and they fight for that.
We don't really have a whole lot of thoroughbred conservatives in our leadership.
We got a lot of them up there, but they are sequestered, segmented, and the effort is made to keep them out of significant leadership positions.
And we got conservatives up there, but we don't have ideologues.
These people are true believers.
That's really what you're saying.
They're true believers.
And these people, you know, we have people who are concerned about the country.
Pelosi and Reed couldn't care a whit about the country.
Do you really want somebody like that?
They care about themselves and their own power and the country be damned.
And that's one of the problems that we have in coming up with counterweights to them.
Some people say you need fire to fight fire.
They don't care a whit about the country.
They care about their party and they care about their power and they care about their buddies and all, but they don't care about the Constitution's an obstacle to them.
They don't want any part of it.
So it's like, do we want an al Capone?
Well, do we want an Al Capone?
Some people might say, yeah.
Right now we take an Al Capone.
That's what we're up against.
You know, do we want an Al Capone?
Do we want, you know, pick your favorite gangster?
I mean, that's what we're really up.
We're up against a mafia here.
We're up against a mob that didn't care about ethics.
They don't care about...
We got a bunch of J.R. Ewings over here.
Once you get past the ethics arrest, it's easy.
We don't have people like that.
There's no question.
You know, some people say that we need one.
We don't want people who are going to put party before principle or country before principle, but that's what we're up against.
And the question is, how do you do?
How do you stop people like that?
And I don't even know that the objective on our part is to stop them.
And it could well be, ladies and gentlemen, that we're fighting the wrong enemy in the Middle East.
Maybe the real terrorists that we face are on Capitol Hill.
I mean, really, who's doing as good a job to undermine what this country stands for as the terrorists?
Dingy Harry, Nancy Pelosi.
I mean, look, if they call us hostage takers and gangsters, then why can't we call them what they are?
They are terrorists.
They certainly seem suicidal.
Look at what they're doing.
Look at what they did.
They knew they were going to get shellacked in this election, and they did it.
They knew they were going to lose.
And they want to take us with them.
So I know exactly what you say.
Wish we had a Harry Reid.
We've got to stop dumping on here.
Wish we had a Nancy Pelosi.
I don't know.
I don't think we're ever going to, you know, the quirks, the characteristics, the traits of a Harry Reid and a Pelosi just don't ever merge with ours.
You don't.
Where's the compromise between people with ethics and without them?
Well, I know.
People that don't say it care what they say about them, that would help.
I know that's one of the single largest obstacles for any person, much less group of people, to overcome.
I think it may be one of the hardest things for individuals, the way they live their lives, I don't care what they do, to overcome, and that is to hell with what people think of you.
Most people's lives are governed by what people think of them.
What they say is based on what people are going to think.
What they do is based on what people are going to think of them.
You think Reid and Pelosi give a rat's rear end about that?
There's a theory that says the Democrats will always win because they understand a basic fact of American human nature.
That Americans are lazy and would much rather have something for nothing.
And that there are enough of those people every four years to win elections.
Think about that.
In the meantime, a brief timeout, and we'll continue.
▲
Export Selection