All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:51
May 9, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
It's a thrill and a delight to have you with us, a telephone number if you want to join us, 800 282-2882 and the email address.
L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Now let me let me reiterate this, just gotta briefly summarize it from the from the first hour.
If you're a welfare recipient and you're just getting up, just now tuning in the in the show, what have you.
I'm not gonna go through the obviously the entire first hour again.
But today, uh, ladies and gentlemen, as is the case most days, the uh drive-bys are filled with stories about all the problems that Republican Party's having.
Ah, man, this Medicare proposal of Paul Ryan's it's killing the party.
They gotta throw it overboard.
They gotta get it.
They just they can't they gotta they gotta get rid of this.
They can't, they can't really they gotta I mean they're just they're they're fracturing, they're splitting, they're not unified, they're just losing everything.
And then they gotta throw away this debt ceiling argue.
They just the Republican Party is just throwing away everything in hand, and just the exact opposite.
Well, wait a minute, no.
Republican Party may eventually throw it all away, but the exact opposite is happening.
Michael Barone has a piece today, I forget where it's buried in the stack, but he's right about it.
The Democrats have a have a strategy.
One of many.
And one of their strategies is to join the chorus now and then about spending.
You'll even hear Obama talk of it.
Spending is too high, we gotta get our deficit manageable, all this sort of.
But then when it comes time to do it, never join.
Never ever come up with an idea.
Just sit back and let the Republicans do that, and then rip it to shreds.
Rip every suggestion they make to shreds.
Doesn't matter if it's entitlement form or a in a simple ten dollar cut somewhere.
Just rip it to shreds.
But the mood of the country is to if it is to just take a knife to the size of this government and pare it down.
It's just gotten out of hand.
It's too intrusive, it's too obstructionist, it's too big.
It's too unwieldy, unmanageable.
It's starting to encroach on personal and individual liberty here in ways that people never imagined.
Just got to get a handle.
So there was an election last November.
And it was a landslide victory for the people who campaigned on smaller government.
Essentially campaigned on conservative principles.
It was a shellacking.
It was a landslide.
Now that's November.
Here we are in May.
We're basically seven months later, and you know what?
The whole landscape's changed now.
In seven months, voters regret they elected Chris Christie.
They regret they elected Bob McConnell.
The voters don't want any spending cuts whatsoever.
The voters want state and public employee unions to make more and more money.
They want more campaign camp contributions going to the Democrat Party.
That's what we're to believe.
We're also told that Republicans, if they if they know what's good for them, they'll nominate somebody Obama's afraid of.
That Obama says he's afraid of.
The truth of the matter here is that there is an ascension taking place in this hemisphere toward conservatism.
The elections in Canada shocked all of the so-called experts.
To describe conservatism as ascending in Canada is to undersell what happened.
It is launching.
It is a rocket ship.
Conservatism in Canada.
As it is here, by virtue of elections.
But again, seven months after the elections, you know what?
That didn't matter.
People change their minds.
We know this because we've got polling data which says so, say the media.
And say the Democrats.
Look at the spin they've put out.
Obama is just unbeatable.
It's senseless for the Republicans to even nominate anybody this time.
I mean, there's no question.
He just can't be beat.
Exact opposite is true.
He's easily beatable.
As would anybody be with this Domestic record.
Anybody would be beatable as the author of $4 a gallon gasoline who has said, and it can be produced, that he doesn't care that it's four bucks.
He was only concerned about how fast it got to that level.
We've got a guy who openly wants to shut down domestic drilling.
I don't want to go through policy by policy.
But we know his numbers are look at the bin Laden situation to see the desperation.
Look at how desperately they're trying to spin the Bin Laden death into Obama greatness.
That will tell you how precarious they know they are.
Their own internal polling on a 2012 re-elect is dismal for Obama, as it should be, folks.
I mean, anybody who wants to try to make the case that this record equals people who can't wait to get to the polls to re-elect the president, that's that's absurd.
There's nobody voted for this.
Nobody wants this.
Nobody wants a declining United States.
Nobody wants a declining U.S. economy.
Nobody wants rising food prices.
Nobody wants rising gasoline prices.
Nobody wants the price of their home to be worth less than their mortgage.
Why would we reelect the guy who did it all?
This is so simple, it shouldn't require any time whatsoever to explain.
I'm happy to take the time.
But none of what's happening today was voted for.
You think people who voted for Obama in 2008 were voting for this?
If people were voting for this, his approvals would be in the 60s or the 70s.
Nobody voted for this.
Oh, you might have 20, 30% of the radical left in this country that enjoys it, but the people who make the country work, that's not what they want the country to be.
And they clearly didn't vote for it.
So where is the logic that says they can't wait to re-elect him?
Where's the logic that says, yeah, give us four more years of this?
Who's out there asking for four more years of this?
The only people who are asking for four more years of it are the media and the Democrats, which is all the same.
It's kind of misses the point to call them the media.
They're just, they're all liberals.
There's just degrees of liberalism that we talk about.
No, Marxist, socialist, communist, Democrat.
But they're all the same bunch.
Pure and simple.
The point of the election, if it were held tomorrow, it would not matter who the Republican nominee is.
Dirty little secret.
Wouldn't matter.
As long as his middle name is gasoline price is four bucks a gallon, or as long as his middle name is unemployment 9%.
In fact, if I'm a Republican nominee, I make my I officially change my name and I show the new birth certificate, reflecting the new name change.
I am Mitch on employment at 9% Daniels.
Or I am Donald.
Well, he doesn't need a middle name.
But folks, I mean, what are we talking about here?
Why even entertain for a moment unless you're obsessed in fear with fear, unless you're just drowning in fear?
Why, why even debate or you're concerned about election fraud?
Legitimate concern.
But there's nobody that voted for this.
And there's nobody that wants four more, not even Obama.
Obama's talking about fixing it.
Isn't he?
Is Obama promising you four more years of 9% unemployment?
Or is he trying to tell you he's going to fix it?
Is Obama promising you that your house is going to be less than your mortgage?
And we get four more years of it.
Not even Obama's campaigning on his agenda.
He does as far as his re-elect is concerned.
He cares about what people think as far as his re-elect is concerned.
If this is what people wanted, Obama would be promising 10% unemployment in two years.
Or 11%.
This is what's the country, if this is what the country needs, if this is what is good for the country, why stop at 9%?
Let's go 11%.
Why did Obama get so jazzed?
Why'd the regime get so jazzed over 244,000 jobs being created?
Simple.
They know they can't win.
If it doesn't change, they know they can't win at 9% unemployment.
They've got to make it look like.
The truth is Obama does want four more years of this, folks.
He's already got two and a half years under his belt, and he wants four more.
That's the problem.
He does want four more of this.
And a lot of his Democrat buddies would love four more of this, but they know they can't get elected saying so.
See, that's in that little phrase is where the truth finally emerges.
And that is none of what's happened.
Guarantees anybody re-election.
And yet that's what we're hearing.
He's so unbeatable it's senseless to even nominate serious contenders.
Save them for 2016.
Yeah, throw your throw your bench at him, throw the, you know, class A, class AAA, throw your losers at them, get them out of the way, clear the way for the big guns in 2012.
Yeah, 2016.
Yeah, that's a ticket, right?
Because everybody wants four more years of this crap.
And again, the Washington Post story here from Crystal is on Mitch Daniels, the man who could reshape the Republican field.
Here you have an agent of the regime, state control media, writing a piece that essentially says Mitch Daniels is the only guy that can save the Republican Party.
And at Mitch Daniel, the governor of Indiana, the only guy who can give the Republican Party any weight, any seriousness.
And if he decides not to run, why it's all over.
And you even have Obama quote in there talking about how formidable Daniels would be.
Yeah, he's a very serious guy.
Don't agree on him with him on everything, but maybe a formidable guy.
Well, that's another thing.
Yeah.
Obama, the Democrats, they really do want us to nominate their biggest threat, right?
They really do want us to nominate the guy they think can beat them.
Fact is they would love the nominee to be Ron Paul.
They would love the nominee to be somebody who's gonna get 20% of the vote.
They don't want the nominee to be somebody can beat them, yet here's a story about how they love that guy.
It could be about anybody.
I'm not attacking Mitch Daniels.
I'm sitting here, I'm reading the news, and I'm analyzing it as I do, seeing the stitches on a fastball.
Should Daniels opt not to run, the unpredictability that has ruled the race would almost certainly continue undebated.
A field without Daniels would equal the end of the Republican Party.
That's what the story says.
Well, that's what Obama wants.
The end of the Republican Party is what all of Insider Washington wants, and says here's a piece about how to do it.
We're supposed to sit here and think they want us to nominate somebody they think can beat them.
Sorry.
I'm not buying.
That's not how it works.
And then there's two stories.
Republicans, you better stop this Medicare overhaul if you have any hope of winning.
You better stop it.
Really?
The way to read that is they are so scared the Republicans are going to succeed here.
They're scared to death of entitlement reform.
The Democrats are.
They are scared to death.
They know it has to happen.
They want to try to kill the Republicans while they bring it about.
The trend in this hemisphere is toward conservatism.
Yeah, the election of Chris Christie in New Jersey.
You know, the citizens there really, they're embarrassed now.
They reject it.
That's what the media would like you to believe.
Same in Virginia.
Voters in Virginia who elected Bob McConnell, gosh, they wish they could do it again.
Voters in Massachusetts who elected the uh Senator there, Scott was his name.
I wish they could do it all over again, too.
This is not what they voters in last November who voted for smaller government, get spending and entitlements under control, stop this massive spending leading to uncontrollable debt.
Yeah, the voters have changed their mind.
They want new spending.
They want bigger government, and they want uncontrollable debt.
That's what they're telling us.
Sorry, folks, that hasn't happened.
The way people voted in November is the way they would vote tomorrow if there were an election.
And the Libs know this.
So don't fall for all of this stuff.
It's made to order.
To dispirit you and panic you.
The whole purpose of media today, yesterday, ten, twenty years ago tomorrow, the whole purpose is to convince you that conservatism loses.
In the midst of a huge conservative ascendancy of victory after victory after victory, they want you to think it's a loser.
Don't fall for it.
We'll be back.
We'll continue.
Phone calls next.
I'm going to tell you what, folks.
You know, if if the media succeeds in scaring the entire Republican apparatus into buying what they report, and that has been a problem.
And you and I you and I both know it.
One of the problems that we've faced over the years is that you and I understand what the media is trying to do to Republicans, fall prey to it.
And if it keeps up the whole damn apparatus is going to need to go out to San Francisco get an anadicty operation.
And Lord knows that's not what we hope becomes necessary.
Here's uh here's Scott in Fort Wayne, Indiana, as we start on the phone today.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you today.
Thank you, sir.
Um Rush, I am not an establishment Republican.
Um I too am very optimistic about our chances in 2012 to make this a one-term president.
But I have to ask the question, and it predates this article today.
Why are you so hard on Mitch Daniels?
I think if you look at his record, there's a there's a lot of very conservative things that this guy's done over his eight years in office.
When have I been hard on Mitch Daniels?
I'm not even being hard on him, but I'm just telling you what the Democrats in the media are saying, and the bottom line is nothing to do with Mitch Daniels.
I'm just tired of Democrats picking our candidates.
Um sick and tired of the Democrat Party in the media picking our candidates.
They picked McCain, they picked Dole.
I'm tired of it.
I don't care who the candidate is.
I'm sick of because I know that they're not going to pick somebody that can win.
That's the whole point.
I well, I I guess I would I I would agree.
I don't want the media picking our candidate.
Well, that's what's happening.
But uh but I would but I guess you f the first question you asked was when have you been hard on him?
And and and like most of your listeners, I I have a job, so I I sometimes I can't catch all the show, but I've but I hear enough over the last two to three weeks that um you know you slip a comment in about the social issue truth, truce, uh comment that that Governor Daniels made.
And I'm somebody who cares deeply about the second issue.
How in the world, how in the world is that being hard on Ms. Daniels when I'm simply telling people what he said.
Because I I believe that that com that comments being dropped, and sometimes it's not even attributed to Governor Daniels.
I believe that comments being dropped because it is it is it is aimed certainly at not flattering him, and I and I think that it is uh it is out you're gonna you're gonna jump on this, but I but I believe it's out of context with the record that Governor Daniels has put together over over seven years.
I mean, this is a guy that decertified the public unions his first day in office.
I mean, stack that up, stack that up relative to the rest of the field.
I mean, we've got some people that are thinking about running that couldn't even complete one term in office.
Have I chosen any of them?
No, sir, you have.
Okay, then.
Where are we here?
Well, I I guess I I guess what I my is uh as I listened to that C C Pack speech, which and there was a there was a comment out of there that you or there was a quote out of there that you pulled today, or at least a paraphrase, that Rush uh What was it?
It was uh something about we can't burn uh we can't burn the house down, we have to actually have victory, something like that.
Uh that we actually you know we actually have to get things enacted.
Here's what he said.
This is uh uh it's actually Alex Castellanos who said it, which is who I quoted, it's not Ms. Daniels Costellano's a Republican media consultant.
Daniels is the adult in the room saying the party's over, time to clean house.
Um wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.
Hit the finish that contrast and maturity is how Republican beats Obama.
Uh uh Daniels did say at CPAC, purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers.
Yeah.
Purity and martyrdom.
So it's right.
And I I guess he means, I know what he means.
He means that if all you are is conservative, you're going to lose.
We got to be moderate.
We got to go get the moderates, which we've done, by the way.
Well, right by having not even opened our mouths.
Well, you know, and here's where Rush, Lord knows, and I I've always I've always been afraid when I call that it would be an issue about where we might disagree, and then I'm going to get accused of being a seminar caller with the question.
I think you are, but I'm having fun anyway.
What's that?
I think you are.
Do you?
Yeah.
But I'm having fun anyway.
I mean, I like seminar callers.
I I would take any investigation you want to you want to heap on me, and I will I will tell you.
We don't do investigation.
It's okay.
We don't do investigations here.
We rely solely on my instinct.
Anyway, your question about the about the intellectual purity is, you know, Reagan, and I am I completely understand about negotiating, okay?
I totally I totally get that.
But at some point you have to get things enacted.
And even Reagan Rush, Reagan didn't get everything that he wanted every time.
He didn't.
We're talking about we're talking about two different things.
Now you I didn't start out this pro this program being critical of Mitch Daniels.
I'm just telling you, you know, it's amazing here what's actually happened.
I'm telling you what's in the Washington Post, and you're mad at me for reporting it.
All I'm doing is tell you what's in this story.
And you are mad at me for saying it.
I have not attacked Mitch Daniels.
He has gone after me, but I have not attacked him.
Okay, our last caller, and judging by the emails, the vast majority of those of you who wrote me in the last 10 minutes think that he was a seminar caller.
No matter to me.
Sometimes seminar callers are fun.
But the one thing that uh the seminar caller the caller said that I want to react to here is sometimes Rush, you gotta you gotta go along with the other sides what he meant to get things done.
All right, fine.
Well, we're talking about a campaign now, and I don't remember Ronaldus Magnus telling social Republicans to shut up or saying that we need to have a truce so that what they believe is not a factor.
I I I remember Reagan embracing conservatives.
He didn't care social, fiscal, what have you.
It's it's interesting.
The last time there was this amount of panic with phone callers, and Snerdley tells me that ever since my first hour today, the droves of people call here angry at me for savaging Mitch Daniels have been numerous.
And it's it this second to the second.
The first time this kind of reaction on the phones happened was with Trump.
So I'm sitting here, okay, what is this?
I have, let's just review this.
I live in Realville, and I have a purely logical mind combined with an insatiable curiosity.
So I've got this piece here from Chris Saliza in the Washington Post, headline, Mitch Daniels, the man who could reshape the Republican field.
Okay, I think Chris Salizza wants Obama to be reelected.
I know, Chris, he works at the Washington Post.
Chris Slizza is like everybody else in the mainstream media, doesn't want a conservative to be elected.
So here we get a piece in the Washington Post telling us that the only chance we really have as Republicans is if Daniels is a nominee.
Sorry, folks, it's the messenger here that is alerting my antenna.
And in this piece is a quasi endorsement of Mitch Daniels from none other than Obama.
Okay, well, I know Obama does not want Mitch Daniels elected president.
So why the hell is he endorsing him?
Or quasi endorsing him.
I know what I saw in the debate Thursday night.
I saw robust energetic proud, aggressive conservatism, and this piece rips it to shreds.
I know what I saw.
What I saw Thursday night of the debate does not lead to our defeat.
This story tells me it does.
This story tells me that that will cause us to lose, and therefore somebody who would not have sounded that way Thursday night is the only one who can win.
And in today's case, it happens to be Mitch Daniels.
I mean, tomorrow it could be Huckabee, who knows.
But I don't have the Huckabee story to react to yet.
But I do have this.
Now we've been there done that with this business of we got to cross the aisle.
It'll work with the other side.
We had that.
We've been there, we've done that.
We've had candidates who tell us that conservatism's not enough.
We've had candidates who've told us conservatism's an albatross.
Sorry, it's the way of the future.
From the Silizapiece, a Daniel's candidacy probably would be taken as a sign that the games are over for the Republican Party.
Time to buckle down, organize now to beat President Obama.
It's time to get serious now.
Well, given the source, I read that as a giant slam.
That's an insult.
That is a profound insult.
And I consider the soul.
Where's it coming from?
And you couple that with my belief, that is not a belief, it's a fact.
They'll all always tell us who they fear.
So you end up here with one giant cloud of suspicion on the part of your host.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all feeling, all concerned, Maha Rushi.
And if Daniels should opt not to run, the unpredictability that has ruled the Republican race would continue unabated, and that would be bad.
A field without Daniels would mean a race that remained in considerable flux as candidates considered side shows dominated headlines and complicate Republican efforts to convince the public the party can present a credible alternative.
So only Daniels?
The Washington Post is telling me today that only Mitch Daniels is a credible alternative.
And I'm surprised you want me to believe that, folks.
If you people really wanted me to think that, then I don't know why you would listen to me ever again.
Can you imagine if let's say there was no Chris Siliza story here?
And I just happened to come on the microphone today.
So, folks, guess what?
I thought about this long and hard.
The only creditable alternative to Barack Obama is Mitch Daniels.
Where would I be in your minds and hearts today?
What would you think had happened to me over the weekend?
Who would you okay?
Who bought Rush off?
Or how many, you know, what happened?
Russia had an accident, bang his head, what happened?
If I were to tell you that.
But we've got a Washington Post piece saying it.
And I tell you about it, and I L Rush Bowl on the problem today.
Well, just so all of you know, we aren't as confused as I might be making it sound here.
We know what's going on here at the EIB network.
We know why the seminar callers ramp up as they have today and as they did during Trump.
We know why it is.
And I'm gonna tell you, it'll infuriate you because a lot of people don't like it when I'm right, which is most of the time, 99.6% of the time almost, latest audit.
You believe it's the kiss of death if I oppose your candidate.
That's what you're afraid of.
So if your candidate is Mitch Daniels and I oppose him, you think that I can do almost permanent harm.
Well, I don't know that they're right or not, Sterling.
I'm just telling them that's that I think that's what they think.
I'll tell you what I'll do, folks.
I will give up the social issues when the Democrats do.
When the Democrats announce that they no longer care about killing babies in the womb, I'll go public and say I don't either.
But as long as they're for it, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna give it up.
Sorry.
Now, where do we go next?
Back to Indiana.
Hmm.
And uh Henry in Indianapolis.
Hi Henry, welcome to the program.
Great to have you here.
Hey Rush, Megadiddo's from a transplanted Floridian living in Hoosierville.
Thank you, sir.
Long, long time listener, very first caller.
Um all I can tell you is that I've lived under Mitch Daniels, my taxes are lower than when I got here.
And uh I actually agree with you, he's not the last great hope of the Republican Party, but I do hope that uh the other fifty-six states get to see what we've been enjoying up here for the last few years.
Um he's a great conservative.
I think it's a question of message over uh substance in that I don't think he's willing to cede uh you know the abortion or any other social issue to the Democrats.
But I do agree with him that in order to to get the mandate that we need to basically cut the federal government in half, that uh we do need to attract people that don't that don't listen to your show, unfortunately.
And unfortunately, I think the only thing that most people know about ru about Mitch is uh the Weekly Standard article, perhaps, and the CPAC uh speech.
So I do hope that he runs.
He has some problems because let's face it, he's vertically challenged and bald, but he's a wonderful candidate.
He ran a uh a brilliant campaign up here, and I just hope that uh he runs.
So let me go back to this one.
I want to get your understanding of something.
That you said it was unfortunate you agree with him.
But w in order to get the mandate that we need to cut the federal government in half.
We need to attract people that don't listen to my show.
And I think he also said Hannity's.
He did, he did.
Okay, now what does that mean to you?
I mean in in t in this context.
Well, you apparently there's some people out there who don't listen to me, and there's a reason why they don't, and we've got to go out there, and we've got to convince them that what the party is not Rush Limbaugh, that they're No, no, no, it's not that at all.
Uh let's face it.
Indiana is a state that is uh conservative by culture, but it's also Democrat by culture.
And Mitch Daniels at one point, I don't know what his current approval rating was, but it was seventy-some percent.
Is that Mitch Daniels changing his message to fit the people or the people being brought along by his message?
And I think it's the latter.
Well, see, that gets to my question.
Do people not listen to me because they disagree with me?
No, not necessarily.
I think they're well then why do we need those people?
No, you you you touched on it the uh couple days last week when you said that some people get turned off by your shtick thinking that you're arrogant and all that, and I have some of those in my family who are conservatives, but they don't listen to you because they they don't get it.
Right.
And I what was the first line of one of your first books was lighten up or something like that.
People don't listen to you for lots of reasons, Rush.
Other people listen to you for lots of reasons, people who agree and disagree.
Mitch Daniels is a conservative as somebody who is a social and a physical conservative.
I've lived in this state under you know Mitch Daniels' rule for the last, say, seven years, and you know it's it's it's indicative of his weakness right now from a from a recognition standpoint that there's a debate on whether or not he's conservative or not.
Because if you look at his record, he is a conservative socially and physically.
I think the comments in the CPAC speech were such just saying by message, you know, we're not gonna change who we are as conservatives, but we have to approach people where they are as opposed to where we are.
Meaning we got to compromise with them.
Not at all.
Not them is a question of changing your but you are you're saying they have to s we have to accommodate their premise In order to perhaps convince them or persuade them.
Well, Rush, let's look at back at Mitch's campaign.
You know, the idea that that all Republicans are rich white males who don't care about poor people.
Well, Mitch Daniels campaigned in an RV.
He went to the You see, this is my point.
I'm sorry.
I think accepting that premise is insulting.
This I and by the way, along the same lines, why do we need a mandate to cut the deficit in half?
Obama's already promised to do that, and he's not doing it, and he's unbeatable.
Why do we need a mandate?
I mean, that's what they're telling us.
I'm jumping back to something you said previously.
Not fair.
I'm taking you back to something you thought I'm sure you thought we were finished discussing, and I've got to take a time out here because of the constraints of the programming format.
But you see, Mitch Daniels, what do you what are you using here to convince me he's a good guy?
He drives an RV.
He's not a rich fat cat who doesn't care about people.
Well, is that not accepting the premise of all of liberalism, and that's who we all are?
So Mitch Daniels is driving an RV in a campaign to prove that he's not what they say.
Well, I wouldn't, I wouldn't drive an RB to proved anything to anybody.
I'd drive an RB only if I liked it.
I wouldn't get in an RV just to have something, somebody think something of me.
I I'm very proud of what I believe.
I'm happy to stand up for who I am and what I am and what I believe every day of the week.
And I'm happy to try to persuade as many people along the way as possible.
And there's not, you know, social issues, let's have a truce, let's put them aside.
I know what that means.
Just Ronald Reagan won two landslides with them.
And I don't know where.
Well, I do know.
I do know where this notion comes from.
We can't win on social issues.
It comes from liberal Republicans with nag wives.
Back after this.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh serving humanity.
The big voice on the right.
In uh 2009, in February, at the White House, Barack Obama convened a meeting of congressional leaders, Republicans and Democrats.
And at that meeting, President Barack Obama, liberal socialist Marxist, whatever you want to call him, said to John Boehner and the Republicans, you can't listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore.
That's not how things get done.
Barack Obama 2009.
Here's Mitch Daniels this February at CPAC.
We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone.
We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities.
We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Lara or Sean, who surf past C-SPAN to get to Sports Center, who, if they ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory.
Okay.
So Barack Obama, you just you can't listen to Rush.
That's not how things get done here.
Mitch Daniels, eh.
You're gonna need more people.
You can't gonna cut it.
We need people more than Rush and Laura Sean, whatever.
By the way, Ronald Reagan, and I know nobody's disagree with me on this.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on uniting social and fiscal conservatives.
Ronald Reagan never said, by the way, if you're an ex-conservative, I don't want you.
If you're an ex-conservative, we need to call a truce.
We need to make you irrelevant for this campaign.
Ronald Reagan never said to ex-conservative, you're the problem in this race.
Somehow we've got to make sure nobody hears from you.
Reagan never said that.
Here's one more Mitch Daniels bite.
Again, this from uh CPAC, February 12th in Washington.
We should distinguish carefully skepticism about big government from contempt for all government.
After all, it is a new government we hope to form.
I urge a similar thoughtfulness about the rhetoric we deploy in the great debate ahead.
I suspect everyone here regrets and laments the sad, crude coarsening of our popular culture.
President Reagan would admonish us.
Remember, we have no enemies, only opponents.
Good advice.
Then and now.
I submit that as we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course, it would help if they liked us just a bit.
Now it would help if they liked us.
You're gonna need people who never tune into Russia Glenn or Laura or Sean.
We need people.
It would help if they like us.
Well, why don't they like us?
There's another premise.
They don't like us, they hate us.
Why?
If we're so hated, how come we want a landslide in November?
You know, it's one thing to tailor a message to those who don't know you or have the wrong idea, but I can understand that, folks.
But it's another thing to want to reach those people by distancing yourself from or criticizing or trashing those who might support you or who do support you.
I mean it's one thing to go out and tailor a message to people who don't know you and say, look, I'm this.
But you don't do that by saying, and by the way, these other people like me, screw them.
I don't I don't care about them.
That's that's we're not unifying here when you do that.
Okay, I gotta take another boy.
The time is zipping by here.
It really is, and I've got very little of it left here, so we gotta go.
Now look, folks, don't misunderstand.
I know that Mitch Daniels is not saying that people should not listen to me.
I'm not, I know he's not saying that.
I just my question is: why is it that it's always us who have to change and accommodate the real extremists out there to look?
Why is it they never have to change, make us like them?
Why is it?
▲
Export Selection