All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
December 31, 2010, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's so heartwarming to see a bunch of high-minded people out there on the left, you know, the no labels crowd, come out of the woodwork and pay the bail of the serial rapist Julian Assange.
I guess he was using a condom after all.
Otherwise, how could he get bail?
Michael Moore is contributing to the bail.
I mean, who knew that they were such fans of serial rapists out there, my friends?
Of course, they would help a thousand rapists if it would mean that one America hater might go free, but I think it's still great to see the accused rapist Julian Assange get bail.
I mean, how can he be a flight risk?
I mean, he's only got a bunch of fake identities and passports and so what's the concern here?
It's amazing what hating America will get you in court.
It really is.
And in this country as well.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
It's Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
Three straight hours of broadcast excellence.
Happy to have you along.
A little pop quiz.
What was the no-label label before they changed their names?
I mean, there's this bunch that came up when the new group, no labels.
What was their label before they changed their name?
Well, losers, yeah, but that was not their label.
They had a label.
Well, no.
Progressive is it.
The broadcast engineer, Mr. Mamon, gets it.
Progressives.
Exactly right.
When liberalism was rejected, liberals called themselves progressives.
And now that progressives are being rejected, former liberals, former progressives are now calling themselves the no-label group.
How many more changes are there going to be?
Ben Smith, Politico, notes that the no-label group has stolen its icon design from a graphic artist named Thomas Porotsky.
Sorry, Porostaki, a very unhappy graphic artist for good reason.
Mayor Bloomberg is big in this group, and he has lots of money, which means he could easily have just paid for the designs that his group stole.
And there's their icons, their logos are side by side.
There is no question that they've been stolen, which is typical from the politico here.
No labels short on Republicans.
The group No Labels kicked off its first conference yesterday at New York's Columbia University with just one label largely absent, Republican.
The nonpartisan initiative with the slogan not left, not right, forward is, why would anybody want to emulate MSNBC and their slogan?
I mean, theirs is leaning forward, seeking to fill what the American people regularly tell pollsters is the vital center, a non-ideological space where the commitment is to getting things done.
And its speakers, who ranged from Republican moderates like ex-Virginia Representative Tom Davis to liberal Democrats like New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, sang the praises of cooperation and compromise.
But the only Republicans present seemed to be those who had recently lost primary races, like South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis, Delaware Congressman Mike Castle, former Republicans like Charlie Crist, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
No other senior elected Republican officials were in attendance, though a range of Democrats were present, some of them seeming a bit mystified by the bipartisan cast of the event.
What do you got, Republicans here?
They're mystified by the bipartisan cast, and yet they're setting themselves up with no labels.
Not left, not right, forward.
The effort at nonpartisanship was, however, earnest.
The stage was framed by two posters featuring a variety of half-red, half-blue animals, a giraffe, a small, a snail, four penguins of bipartisanship staring back.
These are the stolen icons and logos from a graphic artist.
These are the stolen icons and locos.
So again, what you have here is simply a bunch of people, a bunch of Democrats out of work who want to target big money politicians and get them to go in as a third-party candidate or as an independent.
If you were a liberal, Democrat, or progressive, you wouldn't want to be labeled that either.
And they're sucking in a bunch of Republicans on this that makes it look like they are the future.
They are the smartest in the room.
They are the ones with all the magnanimity.
These no-label people, we're the ones who really have the finger on the pulse of the American people.
American people want compromise.
They do.
Nobody wants compromise.
Nobody likes to compromise this tax deal.
Where's all the people?
American people want compromise.
We've got compromise going on.
Where's all the praise for it?
There isn't.
You can't take labels off of things.
As I so astutely pointed out yesterday, labels are part of the English language.
You can't take labels out of our conversations, political or otherwise.
Last night on the PBS News Hour, this Jim Lehrer, co-hosted here, Judy Woodruff, spoke to the no labels movement co-founders, Kiki McClain, a Democrat campaign consultant looking for her next candidate, and Mark McKinnon, a Democrat campaign consultant whose only Republican client, well, had Bush and then McCain, but he quit McCain and he threatened to quit McCain.
He said, if you guys start attacking Obama, I'm out of here.
And when the slightest bit of criticism of Obama was mounted by the McCain campaign, McKinnon split the scene.
So these are the two no-labels people Judy Woodruff talking to.
She said, Mark, what's the dream scenario here?
What would you like to have happen?
We'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans who today don't feel like their voices are represented.
They look at Washington, they see the hyper-partisanship.
They see loud microphones on the left, loud microphones on the right, and nobody really rewarding good behavior in the middle.
People are just, in fact, they're getting punished whenever they try and extend their arm across the aisle or work in a bipartisan fashion.
Loud microphones.
I knew it.
I knew it, folks.
At the end of the day, this is about me.
Loud microphones.
You know what else this is about?
These people, these Democrats, they don't know what to do.
All these centrists, all the independents have moved to Republicans in droves.
And the Republicans didn't have to do one thing but stay alive to get them.
The independents have abandoned the Democrat Party.
The Independents have abandoned the left.
And they've done so in a most profound way because they finally have seen liberalism wide open, up close and personal.
They have seen it.
They don't have to rely on people to tell them what it is.
They've seen it for two years.
They've seen how it destroys.
They've seen the destruction that liberalism is.
And they want no part of it.
Ergo, here come these people.
And they don't care about the American people.
You know, this, well, we'd like to provide a vehicle to the channel for the millions of Americans who today don't feel their voice.
A lot of Americans do feel their voices are heard.
A whole bunch of them were heard last November, Mark.
That was a huge election, and the majority of Americans voted a certain way, and their voices are being heard.
They don't have any question about that.
They know their voices might be ignored now and then, but they know their voices are heard.
But let's get to the bottom.
You guys don't care about the people.
We'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans who today.
That's not you.
You care about yourselves.
You guys are the ones on the outs.
You guys are the ones looking for clients.
You guys are the ones looking for work.
These people, you know, this no labels crowd, they have been rejected.
Everything they said the last two years about what wins elections has been proven to be wrong.
They have been totally discredited.
So now they seek a new home, trying to redefine themselves in the name of what the American people want.
If these people knew what the American people want, they would have victorious clients on their resumes.
But they do not have, other than McKinnon and Bush.
Kiki McClain took her shot next.
Judy Woodruff said, Kiki McClain.
You also hear people saying, what's wrong with feeling strongly, feeling passionately about issues?
There's a lot at stake here.
Why shouldn't we be arguing these things, debating these things vigorously?
Passion and partisanship is okay.
Hyper-partisanship is not.
If the goal when you start a conversation is to make sure somebody else loses, we all lose.
And there's too much of that going on today.
Can you blame me if I think this is about me?
What?
If the goal when you start a conversation is to make sure somebody else loses.
Yeah?
I mean, Kiki, what happens in elections?
Elections are campaigns.
Campaigns are conversations.
What happens in elections?
Somebody loses.
One of the honchos of this group, John Evlon, wrote a book with a label for a title, Wingnuts.
And he mentioned me in this book a lot, hoping I would mention his book so that it would sell.
But here's a no labels head honcho with a title of his book.
In fact, a label.
Wingnuts.
Now, Judy Woodruff, you know, she's, even Judy is having trouble with this.
She finally says this to both Kiki McClain and Mark McKinnon.
Mark McKinnon, I heard you say today that the rest of the country is not as polarized as Washington.
And yet, I'll tell you, quite candidly, I was around the country covering several Senate races this year.
This is anecdotal, but I found people pretty partisan in their views.
The idea that Washington is more partisan than the rest of the people, the rest of the country not as polarized as Washington.
Mark, who's been running Washington the past two years?
Your guys.
The liberal Democrats.
Next, you know, these panty wastes are going to want to outlaw high school and college debate clubs because somebody loses.
I mean, there's a conversation that started and a purpose is for somebody to lose.
These people are just Either they're sad they can't compete, or they don't want to compete, or in truth, follow the money.
They're looking for political candidates, rich political candidates to be clients.
And Bloomberg, and a number of politicians who love this whole idea of being in the center, Bloomberg is one of them.
But he's not a centrist.
He's an Uber leftist.
Look at his policy ideas.
Too much salt in the city, too much trans fat, can't smoke here, can't do that there.
It's a fullborn uber leftist.
He's a Democrat, called himself a Republican to get elected.
Now, what is the difference, folks, in a partisan and a hyper-partisan?
I mean, Kiki McLean here said, passion and partisanship is okay, but hyper-partisanship is not.
What's the difference?
I mean, that's how cockamame these people are here.
Last night's CNN Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer spoke with David Rodham Gergen about the No Labels movement.
Blitzer says, is this a moderate version of the Tea Party movement?
Now, would anybody say that how can you have a moderate version of the Tea Party movement?
The Tea Party movement is very active.
They are grassroots and they are conservative.
And yet the question, is this a moderate version of the Tea Party movement?
And get this answer.
It is, Wolf.
This is a group that's new, it's nascent, it's small, but it's trying to give voice to the many disgusted Americans who just have watched our politics see it as hyper-partisan, paralyzed, and they worry about the future of the country and would like to give a fresh voice to the middle of the people saying, look, it's fine to be conservative.
It's fine to be liberal, but sometimes you guys have got to meet and agree upon things and get the country moving.
We simply can't be paralyzed.
And what Gergen and all these people mean is Republicans have to compromise.
Conservatives are the ones that always have to compromise.
That's how you meet in the middle.
So why are we calling these no labels people by their names?
Shouldn't they assign themselves numbers?
I mean, a name is a label.
Kiki Morris should be number one.
And Mark McKinnon should be number two.
And whoever this Avalon guy makes him number three.
I mean, names are labels.
You know, what these people are is anti-conservative.
They are anti-the people.
They don't like the outcome of the November elections.
That's why they've formed.
They're not interested in the middle.
They are interested in anti-conservatism.
They're interested in defeating conservatism.
And this no labels nonsense just shows you how idiotic and how out of touch they are.
The nation is at a crossroads.
We do have to choose a direction.
And they're talking about no labels, which has nothing to do with anything that matters.
A better name for this group would be No Brains.
Number one selling group in the holiday music festive category, Mannheim Steamroller.
Edging ahead of Elvis, Mark McKinney says, we'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans today who blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
We already have that.
It's called the Tea Party.
Average Americans who want to be heard and represented.
It's called the Tea Party.
And this after listening to David Gergen for almost a million years.
David Gergen's had his shot at the American people for, I don't know, he's worked in administration.
He worked at ABC.
He's working out CNN.
He's had his chance to coalesce a group of people behind him.
I checked the email during the break.
Always do this and find out how people are reacting.
What do you care about this?
The group's stupid.
They're not going anywhere.
Hope not.
That's the whole point.
I've been fighting this whole notion of how important the center is in this country ever since I've had this program.
And remember when during the middle of the Christine O'Donnell-Mike Castle race, after Christine O'Donnell won the race, a Washington insider consultant, Mike Murphy, posted a piece on the website Ricochet in which he identified himself as one of these latte-sipping wine and croissant people.
Say, you go ahead if you know how to do it.
It was really bent out of shape here.
If you know how to do it, then you guys, you quit your jobs and you get this woman elected, blah, blah.
And I made the point then that these political consultants concede the following.
They look at every presidential election this way.
Well, in fact, a lot of local elections, state members of House of Representatives elections, they look at it as 80% is already committed, 40% going to go Democrat, 40% going to go Republican, 15 to 20% always undecided, and that's where they make their money.
They make their money.
They pitch their services to candidates by saying, I can show you how to get to the middle.
I can show you how to get the middle to vote.
I can show you how to get the moderates.
I can show you how to get the independents.
So even, you know, a political consultant that's a Democrat or a political consultant that's a Republican still makes their living on that 20%.
So to them, it always exists.
There will always be the center, and it's always the most important because that's their bread and butter.
And they got everybody hopped up on this notion that elections are made in the center.
Everybody falls for this as though it's just inside the Beltway standard operating procedure.
It's conventional wisdom.
Nobody ever questions it except I, L. Rochebo.
And I would like to illustrate as my point, if you even want to say that in the November elections, the Republicans won big.
You say, yeah, they won big because the independents went to the right.
Well, what caused the independents to go to the right?
The Tea Party movement did not have a consultant per se.
The Tea Party was not represented by a candidate who had a consultant molding the campaign.
It's always issues that matter, and it's always conservatism that wins when it's articulated, when it is explained, when it is lived, when it's, or on the other hand, when liberalism is as clearly viewable and seable as it was.
So the great unwashed, all these precious independents, look where they ended up.
And there wasn't one political consultant that got them there.
What got them there is Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party.
And that's what has his no-labels bunch just totally out of whack because they're all Democrats.
They're all liberal Democrats.
And they've seen their precious middle move and they had nothing to do with it.
So now for the sake of their jobs, for the sake of their careers, they have to form this group, which, again, at the end of all this, is supposed to highlight their and theirs alone talent and ability to get these people to move in whatever direction they want to the benefit of their particular candidate.
And in the process, this group, no labels, has to defeat conservatism.
It's conservatism.
And by the way, the whole buildup of the so-called moderate centrist movement is in fact oriented toward just that, defeating conservatism.
And that's why I'm interested in it.
And that's why I keep pounding it so that more and more people will understand exactly why this is happening, who these people are, and why it's phony, why it's a trick, how it's a trick, and all that.
It's just plain as day to see if you know who the players are.
And I, El Rushbo, do.
I'll tell you another reason why these washed-up losers join this group.
A reason why people join the no-labels group, even Fox News is falling for these people end up being the balance on TV talk shows.
And Fox News, I've seen it there.
You'll have somebody from the left, and they'll have somebody from the right, some Republican flak, some Democrat flak, and then they'll give the last word to some self-described centrist from this group who will give the final and true analysis.
The no-labels guy or girl gets to go on and explain why both of these extremes happen to be wrong.
If you listen very carefully, the no-labels guy will sound an awful lot like the Democrat guy.
One other question here: who is the center?
Who defines the center?
Isn't it the left that's always defining the center?
Isn't it the media that always defines the center?
And guess who is never in the center?
Republicans, conservatives.
Even in this group, the story on this group points out that there weren't any Republicans that showed up to the meeting, a big inaugural meeting, except for Mark McKinnon.
Where were the Republicans here?
Well, what if, folks, what if you and I are the center in American politics and American life today?
What if we happen to be the center?
You know, we have been characterized as conservative, far-right, right-wing, what have you.
But what if we're the center?
I would maintain, ladies and gentlemen, you and I are the mainstream of this country.
You and I represent that large swath of people that make this country work.
Even geographically, you know, together, the great flyover country, the great unwashed in the center of the country.
You got the far left on both the coasts.
You got liberal Republicans on the right coast and so forth.
Geographically, ideologically, in life, we are the center of the country.
For this group to exist, we have to be defined as hyper-partisans on the right.
This no-labels group, let me give you another idea of who they are.
This is an extension of what liberals have been forcing on us slowly for several generations.
This no labels group and the things that they say is the same liberal mindset, a mindset that we see in Little League Baseball.
We're not supposed to keep score.
There aren't any losers.
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
Luthers simply be humiliated, and young children do not need to learn to be humiliated.
It could be destructive, and it could fit them badly for the rest of their life.
Right.
So the only thing wrong here is the kids do keep score.
The parents are out there thinking they're all advanced and compassionate and sheltering their precious little babies from any pain and suffering.
And yet the kids, they're keeping score.
They keep scores silently.
They know who's winning and losing, even though an official score might not be being kept.
They don't want to admit the score.
The score right now is conservative 63, liberals zero in the U.S. House in the elections.
It's six to nothing in the Senate for those of you keeping score.
It was about 700 to zero in the various state legislatures, about 12 to 0 in governorships.
That's why they don't want to keep score, because they're losing.
That's why they want to get rid of labels, because they're losing.
So they want to unplug the scoreboard.
They want to level the playing field, make things fair, help people feel better.
They might have had enough time to make it work with the general electorate had they kept winning elections, but they didn't.
They bombed out.
So that's why this is important.
It's just a bunch of liberals trying to reposition themselves for the future under no labels.
And I guarantee you, just as global warming sucked a lot of people in, this has the potential to suck a lot of people in.
I don't think it's going to suck any more than already think they're in the middle.
And we have a lot of people in the country, well, not a lot, but we have a certain percentage who think they are in the middle.
You know, moderates think they're smarter than everybody else.
They're more open-minded.
That's why they like to call themselves moderate.
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
We make up our mind, if you buy if you.
We are not rigidly along tied to something.
We're willing to be wrong.
Think about it.
Well, neither are we.
We conservatives are right about everything.
We are right about everything.
We are honest and truthful, and we are right about everything.
We are not interested in being wrong and trying to trick people into going along with us.
We don't have to lie to people about what we believe.
We don't need what we believe on teleprompters or on cue cards.
We don't have to have somebody tell us in an earpiece what we believe when a question is asked.
It's in our heart.
We don't have to make it up.
We don't have to lie.
We don't have to take polls.
We don't have to calculate what people want to hear when we're asked our opinion of an issue.
We know we're right.
We're happy knowing we're right.
And we're also happy knowing the left knows that they're wrong.
As I love to say, do you think Obama would have been elected president if he ran on the agenda he's implemented?
He wouldn't have gotten 20% of the vote.
He would not have gotten 30% of the vote.
He wouldn't have certainly, if he had run promising policies that guarantee 10% unemployment, a deficit of $1.5 trillion.
If he had run that this was the result of his policies, that this is what we hope to bring about.
No, he had to lie.
He had to lie about every aspect of his campaign.
He had to lie about it.
Otherwise, it wouldn't get elected.
Mike Castle.
Mike Castle ran as a conservative to try to win in the primary against Christine O'Donnell.
Where's the no labels group on that, by the way?
Castle running as a conservative.
Now, which takes me to global warming.
We set an all-time record.
Well, West Palm Beach did.
That's across the river.
It's always a little warmer here on the ocean.
West Palm Beach set an overnight low record, all-time low of 32 degrees.
I got a note from a friend of mine this morning.
You've been down here since 1997.
Has it ever been this cold?
I said, nope, and certainly not even close this time of year.
I mean, yeah, we've been since 1997.
We've been in the high 30s at night a couple of days, but in January or February, not in December.
Hell, it was 45 in Nassau last night.
Now, for all the hangers on on global warming, this is the, you know, you don't need to tell them that there's any global warming.
I mean, this has been going on.
This is the second or third winter in a row now, where it's been winter before winter even comes.
Around the world, record snowfalls in the UK.
And this is one of the reasons why these people have changed their name to climate change.
But it's all falling apart.
We know, you and I, who've studied it, we know the whole thing was from the get-go of fraud.
We know as long as there's more liberalism.
Lying to the American people, the people of the world, about their role in destroying the planet so as to set them up to agree with having their taxes raised, a global government to distribute resources fairly, save the planet, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But if you're going to tell people they got global warming, it better start getting hot.
And if it doesn't get hotter and if it starts getting demonstrably record-breaking colder, they have a problem.
And yet, in the Washington Post today, a story by Brian Palmer: which country is worse for emissions, India or China?
Why does that matter?
Mr. Limbaugh, everyone knows that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming.
Really?
Really, Mr. New Castrate?
Well, then, don't we need more of them?
It's colder than the witch's upper torso out there, and these people are running around worried about emissions.
It's forced to choose between the rising Asian powers, China clearly poised to do more environmental damage over the next few decades than India.
Although its per capita emissions are lower, China surpassed the U.S. as the largest total emitter of greenhouse gases in 2007.
By the way, they've always been exempt from any worldwide emissions program.
Yet, despite its surging environmental exploitation, China may be better poised than India to address pollution and climate.
Why does all this matter?
It's all hoax.
Emissions cannot possibly be leading to global warming because it isn't getting warmer.
And I don't want to hear Mithrid Limbaugh.
The day-to-day temperatures and weather is far different than the study of climate fiance.
It may be, but you're going to have a tough time convincing everybody freezing themselves to death while their heat bills go up and up and up while you tell them they are destroying the planet with global warming.
So we are in the midst of a nothing is real.
A fraud a day brought to you by the left.
Everything's a hoax.
And it's all designed to separate you from your money and to agree with enhanced government powers around the world.
And people are very willing to accept responsibility.
Everybody wants to matter.
So one thing I've learned over my short but highly valuable and productive life, everybody wants to matter.
Nobody likes to think they're irrelevant.
Nobody likes to get up every day and think that their life doesn't count, that it doesn't affect anything, doesn't matter.
So these leftists come along and say, you have destroyed the planet.
Oh, good.
I have the power to do that.
Cool.
You have the power to save it.
I do?
Yes, you do.
You certainly do, Hilda.
You have led to the near destruction of our climate, but you, Hilda, can save the world.
Really?
How?
Well, you must start driving certain kinds of cars.
You must stop using certain kinds of appliances.
You must always vote Democrat.
You must be prepared to pay higher taxes.
Is that all?
And I'll matter?
I can save the planet.
That's right, Hilda.
That's all you have to do.
And of course, the younger you go, the more fashionable all this is.
Mattering, saving the world, blah, blah, blah.
And that's part of the rite of passage, thinking that you're going to do that.
That's why half of the people who go into journalism do.
Think they're saving the world.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll get to your phone calls.
And of course, a rather more than cursory discussion of the health care legislation of where it is today.
What with the ruling of unconstitutionality from Judge Hudson in Virginia yesterday.
Okay, one more thing, a little flashback, a news flashback on this no labels business.
Back to October 20th of 2009 from Kinston, North Carolina.
Does that alone ring a bell?
Kinston, North Carolina, October 20th, 2009.
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections.
But the regime recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democrat Party being identified on a ballot.
In other words, the regime said Democrat voters in Kinston, North Carolina are so stupid that without the D next to the candidate's name, they won't know who to vote for.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for city, council, and mayor, these are local races, obviously.
The Justice Department's ruling went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their candidates of choice identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
You believe this?
I mean, you remember this now?
So, in addition to everything else, no labels is racist.
No labels is a racist organization because the Justice Department, no less of the regime, has said that black voters in Kinston, North Carolina, have to have the word Democrat next to the candidate of the label.
In fact, black voters can elect their candidates of choice identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
So the Justice Department here is saying that the only way to have a fair election is for blacks to vote Democrat.
Blacks have to vote Democrat or it's not a fair election.
And the only way to ensure a fair election, fair to blacks, make sure that they do vote for the Democrat is to make sure that the D is next to the candidate's name.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston, North Carolina, will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats, and therefore the city can't get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
Racist, insulting.
This is what the regime's Justice Department thinks of black voters in North Carolina: that they are so dumb.
I mean, everybody knows that blacks are going to vote Democrat.
That's just assumed.
But you got to put the D up there, otherwise, they won't know.
And this is done under the guise of civil rights.
On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. overturning a valid election.
He said, this is un-American.
This is some people who disagree with this.
So you see, the no labels people at the end of the day even end up being racist.
But the Justice Department demands labels so that blacks will know who to vote for in North Carolina.
Brian in Albany, New York, your first today on the EIB network.
Sir, great to have you with us.
Good morning, Rush.
Afternoon.
I remember in 2008, Obama won the election.
Democrats gained control, especially during the inauguration.
The people have spoken.
It's the will of the people.
Right?
Conservatism is dead.
The Republican Party is going to spend 40 years in the desert wandering.
That's the reality of 2008.
Two years later, we find ourselves Republican victory.
But the highest calling in politics right now is compromise.
Let me tell you something, Rush.
If I wanted my congressman to compromise with the president, I would have voted Democrat.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
And by the way, there's nobody talking about the Democrats wandering in the desert for 40 years now, is there?
They got shellacked.
The Democrats got shellacked in this election far worse than McCain got shellacked, far worse than Republicans got shellaked.
And nobody's talking about how the Republicans or the Democrats are going to be wandering in the desert aimlessly for 40 years.
You're right.
Two years ago, Republicans had to go away.
Now, Republicans have to compromise since they won.
It's a great point.
If you wanted your congressman to compromise, you would have voted for a Democrat.
I love that.
And let me tell you some more about the no-labels mindset.
The no-labels mindset leads to not being willing to admit who the terrorists are.
I can't say Muslim.
I can't say Islamist extremists.
We're all in the middle.
You can't, can't, can't, can't say that.
You can't identify people, especially our enemies.
You can't identify them.
It's the mindset that leads us to submitting to strip searches at airports for blondes and little old ladies with blue hair while burqas and young men with one-way tickets go untouched.
It's that mindset.
That's why this is important.
And there are other examples that I can and will give you when I have more time.
Right now I'm out of time.
▲
Export Selection