All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:52
May 10, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity.
The big voice on the right.
Firmly ensconced between, or behind, I should say, the golden EIB microphone here at the one and only Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's a thrill and a delight to have you with us.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
I do have a couple columns that I want to dissect today.
Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, The Myth of American Exceptionalism.
Wait till you hear what he believes it is.
And David Brooks, who's written a good column and I'm sure does not know why, in the New York Times called The Missing Fifth.
It's about 20% of the adult male population in this country gets up every day and does not go to work.
Does not try to find a job.
Does not want to or care to.
It's got some interesting statistical data in it.
We'll get to all of that.
And Mitt Romney.
Where is it?
Mitt Romney, this is from the Swampland blog at Time magazine.
Complete with PowerPoint presentation, Mitt Romney will lay out his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare on Thursday.
Romney will not back off his past statements on his Massachusetts healthcare law.
The plan he's releasing is an updated version of the one he ran on in 2008.
Romney's rivals believe healthcare makes him unnominatable.
Romney's failed so far convincing the media and others that he can explain his record on this issue.
By putting out a detailed plan well before any of his opponents, Romney has his best chance to remove, I'm sorry, to move the conversation from the past to the future.
So that's Thursday.
There's more to this story, details on that coming up.
But the Tea Party is dead.
Who said that?
Ron Williams, the Tea Party's dead, said it Sunday.
E.J. Deion Jr. said the Tea Party is dead.
Seems to me the Tea Party is far from dead.
John Boehner, huge speech, according to bidnessinsider.com, huge speech on the debt ceiling delivered last night, the Economic Club of New York.
Before letting you hear some sound bites, Boehner said that everything is on the table except taxes.
Medicare, for example.
The one thing Boehner and therefore the House Republicans will not accept in the upcoming debt ceiling fight is tax increases.
He says he does not think the debt limit is urgent, and it's not.
It is not an emergency.
It does not have to be solved this week.
He does not think default is a real risk.
In other words, he's not buying any of the premises put forth by the Democrats and the liberals in the media.
He will not support spending cut triggers.
These are seen as a gimmick to kick the can down the road.
He said the cuts must happen now.
He agreed that defense spending needs a fundamental review.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
This is Boehner last night, the Economic Club of New York, meeting actually in some hotel.
And I think what one of the things is going on here is that Boehner is letting the Libs know that the Tea Party is not dead yet.
Oh, where is there's a story here?
Oh, folks, you know, we're talking yesterday and last week about how, in my inarguable opinion, Obama is imminently beatable.
I don't have to remake the arguments I made yesterday.
If you missed yesterday's show, it's a shame for you.
But you can also always review it at rushlinbaugh.com.
My basic point is, if Obama's unbeatable, let's have him campaign on $6 a gallon gasoline and let's move the unemployment rate up to 10%.
If this is the stuff that gets presidents re-elected, then why not more of it?
It's a bunch of cockadoodoo out there that are trying to tell us this guy's unbeatable with this record.
Trying to dispirit everybody.
It's bogus.
From thehill.com.
Gallup poll sees growing support for third party in GOP, Tea Party.
52% of Republicans and an even stronger number of Tea Party supporters support the creation of a major third political party, underscoring the occasional tensions between grassroots conservatives and the GOP establishment.
I don't doubt that those tensions, and we know they're there, but here's how Obama can win.
Third party.
This is the one guaranteed way for Obama to win.
Why else is Gallup doing this story?
Why else doing the poll?
Why, oh, look, they're so happy.
52% want a third party.
They know what it means.
Here's Boehner.
We've got, let's say, three or four of these.
We'll just take them in order.
Let me be as clear as I can be.
Without significant spending cuts and changes in the way we spend the American people's money, there will be no increase in the debt limit.
And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in the debt limit that the president has given.
We're not talking about billions here.
We should be talking about cuts in trillions if we're serious about addressing America's fiscal problems.
Again, John Boehner, Speaker of the House.
Now, he can back this up, but they can't do anything without the House.
And we firmly control the House.
If Boehner can hold the line on this, everything he's saying here is true.
And by the way, as you listen to these bites, you will, along with me, you will conclude he's giving himself no room to walk back here.
If he walks back from this, he's finished.
You go out and say it this firmly.
You say it with this degree of certainty and this degree of commitment.
And then in the next couple of weeks or months, you know what?
Things have changed since I made that speech.
We're not really going to be, okay, we'll go along with a couple million bucks.
If he does that, heap big trouble, not just for him, but for all of the Republicans.
Here's the next bite.
These should be actual cuts, real reforms to these programs, not broad deficit or deficit targets that punt the questions to the future.
And with the exception of tax hikes, which in my opinion will destroy American jobs, everything is on the table.
And I mean everything.
That includes honest conversations how to best preserve Medicare.
Because without a changing Medicare, with millions of baby boomers about to retire, the status quo is unsustainable.
Okay, so a couple soundbites.
That's Boehner last night at his speech at the New York Economic Club.
Well, that also, Snurdy just asked me, what does this do for their story about them throwing Medicare under the bus?
They obviously weren't.
See, again, those two stories yesterday about that were attempt by the media, as was the Chris Salizza story on Mitch Daniels, all designed to throw a stink bomb right in the entire Tea Party slash Republican Party conservative movement.
Put a couple stories about how the Republicans, you know what?
We don't really mean it about Medicare.
We don't really mean everybody all ticked off.
It was Boehner making it clear here that none of that was true.
And again, you know, he always could do it.
I mean, a politician is a politician, but it's going to be really tough to walk back from this.
This is not we might require more cuts than the increase in the debt.
You know, we might deal with Medicare.
We might oppose tax increases.
No, this is as definitive as anything we've heard yet.
So he went to the Today Show Today.
He talked to the co-host Matt Wauer.
And Matt Wauer said, well, why not use an increase in revenues, tax hikes, to help with the debt problem?
What's the evidence that you can present that tax cuts of the Bush era have accomplished their goals?
What some are suggesting is that we take this money from people who would invest in our economy and create jobs, and we give it to the government.
The fact is, you can't tax the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and create jobs.
Washington doesn't have a revenue problem.
Washington has a spending problem.
So next up, Matt Wauer said, well, you talk about creating jobs.
When the Bush-era tax cuts were passed in 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Today it's 9%, just down from 10%.
Why are the Bush-era tax cuts creating jobs?
They created about 8 million jobs over the first 10 years that they were in existence.
We've lost about 5 million of those jobs during this recession.
But you can't raise taxes.
We could take all of the money from the wealthy, and guess what?
We'd hardly make a dent in the annual deficit and do nothing about the $14.3 trillion worth of debt.
So as you sit here today, raising taxes, that's a nonsense.
It is off the table.
Everything else is on the table.
Matt, you ought to be thanking him.
You'll be able to feed your kids next year.
No, we've got to raise taxes.
Somebody ought to, Matt, why do you think we need to raise taxes?
Because the answers he would give are pure formulaic right from the Democrat playbook.
You could knock his answers out of a park with a half swing on his, you know, would you raise taxes?
I would have reminded him, hey, Matt, did you know who extended these Bush tax cuts last December?
Who was it that said we had to do this to save the economic recovery?
Who said that, Matt?
It was President Obama.
President Obama, last December, during that emergency session, a lame duck session, we had to maintain the Bush.
Now he's coming out for repealing and ending the Bush tax rates simply because it's election time.
He's got to get his base to vote for him.
Unemployment just crept up when reelection was not really a primary concern when maintaining this illusion of an economic recovery was the foremost idea the president had.
It was make sure we don't raise taxes.
Matt.
So we move over to the sister network, PMS NBC.
The guest there is the author and journalist Carl Bernstein, and they were talking about the economy in Boehner's speech to the New York Economic Club.
Carl Bernstein, Watergate famed, said this.
The press has got to start reporting on the economy and the debate in a different way.
We can't be captive to John Boehner making statements like that without going in on a news report and saying, what's he talking about?
What are the realities of this?
What are the taxes?
What happens with the debt ceiling?
What will happen to our allies if we, including those who are buying debt, if we go ahead and do what John Boehner says, we go ahead and do what John Boehner says, you're going to really see the economy tank.
You're going to see a disaster.
This is, of course, hilarious.
We're in the middle of a disaster, Mr. Bernstein, because of things you endorse.
We're in the middle.
We had 50 months, a record 50 some-odd months of job creation under President Bush.
How many months of job creation have there been with economic stimuluses and tarps and bailouts here and there?
How many jobs have been created here?
And of course, then this mythical job saved business.
Press has got to start reporting on the economy and the debate a different way.
We can't be captive to Boehner.
What press are you talking about?
Juan Williams, America's newsroom on Fox today.
The fill-in host over there, Heather Nauert, spoke with Juan Williams, said, Chuck Schumer basically saying Republicans are behaving like children.
He said, Mr. Boehner needs to have an adult moment right here, right now.
The next speech by the speaker will be a litmus test on whether House Republicans plan to finally approach the debt ceiling as adults.
Will Republicans have to make concessions, Mr. Williams?
And will conservatives be looking at tax increases?
Now, this is in response to Boehner last night.
And you just heard Boehner was definitive as he could be.
And this is what drives them nuts.
Drew Carl Bernstein nuts.
And here, Juan Williams, of course, one foot inside the padded cell in this answer.
What you're looking at here is basically casino politics with everybody bluffing in the room and everybody looking for some sign about what the other guy's going to do.
What we're seeing, I think, from Boehner is basically posturing.
There's no doubt that what you're seeing from Boehner and Cantor, Eric Cantor, another member of the Republican leadership having meetings today with people on Wall Street is to say to them, you know what?
We have to appease our base here.
Okay, so Juan Williams thinks that Boehner doesn't really mean this.
He's just appealing to the base.
Juan, let me tell you, if he walks back from this now, he can kiss the base goodbye.
That's pretty much a certitude.
Would you agree with me on this, Snurdle?
I mean, he didn't tiptoe into this.
Boehner did not tiptoe.
There were no maybes.
There was no equivocation.
There was ontological certitude.
You know, Boehner's actually on thin ice because the first debt continuing resolution debate, we were going to have $100 billion in cuts and then $60 billion.
And then we're going to get $18 billion.
And then we're going to settle for $10 or $12 billion.
We ended up at $352 million.
So he's already on thin ice.
But with our base, it's not just what you say to them.
It's you better do it.
That's what's gotten Republicans in trouble every election they've lost.
You go talk to Republican voters, they will tell you without exception.
We're sick and tired of these guys campaigning on one thing and getting to Washington and not following through on it.
They are held to a different standard by their base than the Democrat base holds their people to.
So over on CNN, in the arena, client number nine's show, he spoke with their congressional correspondent Dan Abash last night about Boehner's speech at the New York Economic Club.
Client number nine said, Look, I'm not quite sure what his strategy is, being so rigid on this, knowing the Democrats are going to have to be equally rigid on the other side.
Seems like an odd negotiating strategy.
I've been told that the discussions that have been going on so far inside the Republican Party, especially the House, is urging House leaders not to draw a line in the sand for that reason, because then they would have to pull back from it eventually, because that's the way negotiations are.
He made clear to these people on Wall Street, as he has here in Washington, as he has across the country.
Congress is not going to let the United States default.
But there's got to be some giving room there.
Yeah, it has to be some giving.
No, there doesn't.
There doesn't.
There does not have to be a debt limit deal this week.
We are not going to default.
It's not a crisis.
The Republicans can stop all this.
They own the House.
They can stop anything from happening.
And Boehner's made it sound like that's what he intends to do.
He's wedded to this now.
Snurdley, I got a story here that you're just going to love.
And it's right up your alley and it's in the Wall Street Journal.
And its basic point is that the birth control pill has destroyed nature's chemistry that created the whole male versus female chase.
That the chemical messages sent by women, say, when ovulating are no longer sent.
Men don't pick them up.
That the pill has just destroyed that which has never been defined.
Why do people love each other?
What is it that attracts them to each other?
We've never been able to figure it out.
These people claim that all these chemical reactions take place in the bodies, and the pill is destroying that.
It's far more in-depth than that.
But Snerdley's an expert on male-female relationships, which is why I know if I have a chance, and that's the three things I've now committed myself to.
I got Richard Cohen and the myth of American exceptionalism.
We got David Brooks and his column, The Missing Fifth, which is actually pretty good, but I'm sure he doesn't know why.
And the story in the Wall Street Journal, the tricky chemistry of attraction.
Taking birth control pills may mask the signals that draw the sexes together.
New studies suggest that when women use hormonal contraceptives, such as a birth control pill, it disrupts some of those chemical signals, affecting their attractiveness to men and women's own preferences for romantic partners.
Now, you could say if that's true, you couple that with how confused militant feminism has made everybody.
And it might tell us why 20% of American men get up and don't care to go to work.
These stories may be linked.
You just don't know.
That's what we're going to explore here.
And I've got an expert on male-female relationships on my staff, Snerdley, to help guide me through this when we tackle it.
In the meantime, it obscene profit timeout.
Then your phone calls, I promise, when we get back, Snerdley, did you ever think, and I'm bouncing off of all places for this story on the pill to appear, the Wall Street Journal?
You know, this is not in Cosmo.
It's not in People Magazine.
It's in a big men's business paper.
The tricky chemistry of attraction.
Do you ever think maybe that birth control hormones in our water supply might account for metrosexual men?
Did you ever stop to think of that?
I mean, Out of the blue, it was what, 10, 15 years ago on this program.
I remember reading there were all kinds of stories in New York being written about the new man, the new metrosexual.
We even had a couple parody songs about it.
Where did that come from?
How did that happen?
Well, you got to throw it all in the mix now.
If they're going to start saying that the birth control pill masked all of the chemical signals that draw the sexes together, and you couple that with militant feminism, and it might be no wonder why everybody's just confused.
We'll get to all that, but I haven't taken a phone call yet, or have I?
No, I got to do that.
People, I can't believe how patient you guys are.
I really appreciate it.
We'll start in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi, David.
Great to have you up first today on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I love your show.
Thank you very much, sir.
I read about Boehner's speech last night, and I liked it.
I didn't like it when the part about refusing higher taxes.
And then I was thinking about it later, and I was thinking about something that Milton Friedman said.
He said that to spend is to tax.
It is.
So I thought if we agreed in principle to tax increases and then fought to keep them as low as possible, say, just for example, we could get a 5% spending decrease for a 1% tax increase.
Wouldn't that be a bigger, effective tax cut than would be like a $100 billion spending decrease and no tax increase?
No.
Because there's a dynamic involved to raising and lowering taxes.
Let me put it to you this way.
Of course, it all depends.
Now, you personally, it all depends on what purpose you assign to taxes.
Let me get that out of the way.
What is the purpose of taxation?
As far as you're concerned, what should the reason for taxation be?
To fund the government.
Would it surprise you then to learn that that's not at all the purpose for taxation as employed by Democrats and the left?
They couldn't care less.
You want some evidence?
Okay.
The Bush tax cuts led to 50 consecutive months of job growth.
The Bush tax cuts led to the expansion of the U.S. economy.
The Bush tax cuts, including capital gains tax rates, increased revenue to the Treasury tenfold beyond expectations and predictions.
The Reagan tax cuts in the 80s, I'll just give you the quick numbers.
1980, 81, when Reagan assumes office, the total take to the Treasury is $500 billion.
Reagan cuts the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.
In 1989, when he leaves office, the take to the Treasury has doubled.
It's demonstrably proven that tax.
Wait a minute now.
It's demonstrably proven that tax cuts increase revenue, which is what you say the purpose is.
Now, did the stimulus bill of Obama's create new revenue?
Did it create new jobs?
Did it cause more money to be created for government?
I don't believe so.
No, it's contrary.
Don't believe it.
Just the exact opposite.
I mean, intellectually now, if you state that the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue, there's no question what to do.
You cut taxes.
That's how you increase revenue.
The Democrats are not interested in raising revenue.
They don't care about that.
They love the debt.
They love the penalties of debt.
They love the loss of liberty and freedom that comes with debt.
They love the circumstances they have given us.
But until 2012, they will control the Senate and the White House.
So if the Republicans were to use possible tax increases as a bargaining tool, couldn't we get a much larger spending decrease?
No, no.
Now, listen to me now.
Listen to me, David.
I'm glad you called.
Every time we've done that, the spending cuts have never happened.
Reagan did it.
Reagan agreed to a tax incree called TEFRA.
And the deal was that for every dollar in new taxes, there would be $2 in cuts.
The cuts never happened.
The Democrats simply reneged.
They didn't happen.
No, no, no.
We don't raise taxes on the Republican side.
We just don't.
Look what happened to George W. Bush.
Read my lips.
No new taxes.
1990.
Uh-oh, raise taxes by George W. Bush.
Squandered an 89% approval rating with what was, albeit a small tax increase.
We do this every time.
Every time we make this cockamame deal.
Let me ask you a question.
David, isn't $14 trillion enough?
Have we not borrowed and generated and raised enough money?
We have.
This has got to stop.
Boehner is right on the money.
Raising taxes, especially now, is not going to do anything but cause the private sector to slow down and stop growth.
There's no economic or intellectual reason to take money out of the private sector, give it to government, with the objective being that you're going to have a roaring economy as a result.
It never happens.
It just doesn't.
Don't doubt me.
Don't argue with me.
Don't doubt me.
I'm doing you a favor.
Larry in Cleveland, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello, Cleveland, Ohio.
Yes, sir.
Good afternoon.
Hi.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
Thank you.
I can imagine.
I was listening to your story earlier about Best Buy and electric cars, and I have a humble suggestion for you for your terminology whenever you cover that story and similar stories in the future.
And if I'm not mistaken, I believe that electricity generation in the United States, the primary, the number one source of electric generation in the United States is coal power.
And I believe nuclear generated electricity is the second highest source in the United States.
So my humble suggestion is this.
So when you cover this story in the future, you don't talk about electric cars.
Perhaps better say coal cars or even better yet, coal nuclear cars whenever you cover this story in the future.
Coal-fired cars would work.
And we've made that point numerous times in just asking people straight out, okay, you plug your new electric car into the wall to charge it to get 40 miles to one charge.
That's exciting right there.
Man, I can't wait for mine.
Just on that note, a little 40 miles.
Where do you think that charge is coming from?
Local weeds.
It's coming from the dirty coal that you people hate, trying to put out.
It's going to increase our use of coal.
You're absolutely right.
John in Indianapolis.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you here on the EIB Network.
Hi.
Bachelor City Dittos from Indianapolis.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I know you say you aren't attacking Governor Daniels, but I feel duty-bound to defend him and to state that he is the most Reagan-esque conservative governor in America.
He's not a panderer.
He doesn't use empty rhetoric to cynically fire up the base and then not do anything.
He's not a phony like Romney.
He just signed a defunding Planned Parenthood bill in Indiana because they perform abortions.
So my point to you is he called for the truce, and I know that was troublesome.
But here's a prediction for you.
And I think he's running, first of all, he will be a formidable candidate, and if he wins, America will be stronger militarily, financially, and morally than when he took office.
Okay, look, let me ask you a quick question here.
All right.
Because I know you're right.
He did defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana, and he's also signed some pretty good education reform bills.
Absolutely.
So why does he then say, after successfully tackling Planned Parenthood as a governor, why does he say, by the way, we shouldn't be talking about social issues.
We need to forget about that.
We need a truce on the social.
Why can't he be proud of what he's done, use it on his resume, and say, here's how you do this?
Why does he want to do that?
I think it's a tactical, possibly a tactical mistake, but perhaps he will be instructed.
I wrote him a letter and suggested there's a way around this.
That Ronald Reagan, remember what Reagan said about abortion?
I think you do.
Here's what I remember him saying.
Why can't we have adoption?
He wasn't very virulent in his rhetoric, but he did more, and he appointed Supreme Court justices, and he did a lot for the pro-life movement.
I believe Mitch Daniels would do the same thing.
I think what he said was taken out of context.
I know it's an easy thing to say, but trust me, Rush, he's a true conservative socially, fiscally, and any other way.
I understand.
I was not coming out in opposition yesterday.
I know.
People want to know what I think of these people.
And I'm not going to sit here and milk toast it, but I just have this.
If he's willing to walk the walk, as you say, why not talk the talk?
Because he's going to have to talk the talk to win.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Why will he not do something as president that he very happily did as governor?
Well, I think he will.
I think he will.
He hasn't even been engaged yet into the debate, but he will.
And he'll do so in an effective, intelligent way.
And I think his point is, I want to win this election big so I can carry a Senate majority so we can actually do what we want.
He focused last year.
Let me tell you what he did in Indiana, Rush.
He helped fund the campaigns of Indiana legislators and state senators so that he would be able to push through incredible reforms in this state.
He was smart.
He was focused.
He didn't go out to Iowa.
He didn't go out to New Hampshire.
He didn't do any of that baloney.
He focused on his job as governor.
We'll see how the reforms work.
But that's the kind of guy he is.
He's a substantive guy.
You ought to interview him for the Limball Rhetoric because I think he'll be very impressed.
He's not a phony.
He's a tough, smart.
And you used the word moderate yesterday.
You didn't say he was a moderate, but you used the word.
He is no moderate.
He's a principled, likable, intelligent, courageous conservative.
You ought to take a better.
Take a look at it, Rush.
I have.
I remember when he was OMB for Reagan.
Yep.
Or Bush.
I remember singing the guy's praises.
You've forgotten it's been years ago.
No, no, I remember.
But there's certainly.
He used to work for Reagan.
He also worked for Reagan.
Yeah, Reagan went off.
Yeah, but that was then this is now.
And he's saying he's saying some things that just cause the antenna to go up a little bit here.
Well, because I know there is one thing I can't erase from my vast sphere of knowledge is that the Republican establishment does not like the Tea Party and they don't like it because it's conservative.
And the establishment Republicans really did not like Reagan.
They're not crazy about it.
I've encountered them.
I know this because of actual first-hand experience.
So when I hear people saying things to curry favor with that group, my antenna go up a little bit.
I don't think he's really doing that.
Wait till he runs.
I've said a month ago he's going to run, and he will run.
I think you'll be impressed.
I will say this.
His rhetoric will be softer than his actions.
And that's all I'm going to say.
He governs conservatively, intelligently.
The other thing he does, Rush, is he plays chess where everybody else is playing checkers.
He's looking two steps down the road.
He's a smart guy.
He would be tough in foreign affairs, and we would have a stronger military.
Now, okay.
You keep he said on foreign affairs that because of the bin Laden success, we're not really to engage Obama in foreign policy yet.
Ah, it's a throwaway line.
You wait.
You just wait.
I'm not kidding.
He hasn't begun to run yet, and he will.
He's going to announce within 10 days to two weeks, and he'll run, and he'll be in it to win, and he'll campaign very effectively.
I'll say this, though.
His rhetoric will be more moderate than his actions.
Trust me.
Well, see, you're asking us to trust something that has, shall we say, what's the word you're at?
Betrayed us in the past.
You know, we're supposed to trust.
Don't worry.
He's got to say certain things, but he's really X.
Well, he's going to have to talk this talk to get there to walk the walk.
But the talk has to be there first.
I'm probably guilty of this myself.
I don't know.
But I find it utterly fascinating to talk to passionate supporters of candidates and how their obvious weaknesses don't really exist.
Well, that's just out of context.
Well, you'll have to wait.
He's going to walk a bigger walk than he's going to talk a talk.
He really didn't mean that.
No, well, I sure probably didn't mean to say it the way it came out.
We all do this.
We all do it.
But it's fascinating to listen to any supporter, any dedicated supporter of a candidate.
It's instructive to me because if one's objective happens to be converting somebody to change their belief in something or someone to something else, it's a lesson in how you have to go about doing the conversion in order to succeed.
And facts don't work.
That's what I've learned.
Facts, when you're talking about somebody who is emotionally, passionately connected to some thing or somebody, facts are not going to work by themselves to convert.
Now, Mitch Daniels said that we shouldn't see, said this CPAC, we should not consider our political opponents as our enemies.
Well, tell that to Barack Obama.
Barack Obama told that Hispanic radio station that Hispanics have to punish our enemies, his enemies.
You have to punish your enemies.
They look at us guarantee we are a bigger enemy to them than Al-Qaeda is.
Conservatism, conservatives are the greatest enemy liberals, Marxists, socialists have.
Don't doubt for a moment that's how they see us.
Petersburg, Indiana.
This is Don.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Well, it's nice to be on here, Rush.
You bet, sir.
Well, here's what I'm calling about.
I live here in Petersburg, Indiana, and I supported Mitch Daniels during the election and his previous election.
But during the crisis we had when our House walked out of the Capitol and left, he said this wasn't the time to have this fight.
This isn't going to help Indiana.
I remember that.
I remember this is coming on the heels of Wisconsin.
That's exactly right.
And I do remember that.
And I didn't mention this yesterday.
I was trying to be fair.
Oh, yeah.
To show that I have balance.
I did not.
I purposely didn't mention that yesterday.
But he did say he did chastise.
Yep.
It's not the way we're going to go about this.
I'll tell you honestly, in 2008, I felt like I voted for John McCain twice here in Indiana.
I really did.
Well, might have.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Yeah, Mitch Daniels may be right for Indiana because he was the only choice we had.
Yeah.
But I do not want to see the same old thing in Washington.
All right.
Well, this just guarantees if people disagree with you are going to be inundating us now.
It just guarantees that.
I'm not sure of that, but every person inundates you with those.
That's right.
I'm not holding you responsible.
Don't worry about it.
I'm not holding you responsible for it.
I'm just making the observation.
I've got to go.
Time is flying by here too fast.
Thanks, Don.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
One thing we've observed here, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, any other candidate, it doesn't matter.
Mitch Daniels.
Nobody's even close.
The people in Indiana calling here to defend or comment on Mitch Daniels.
▲
Export Selection