All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
December 5, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be the result of a relentless and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Great to have you with us.
El Rushbo at 800-282-2882.
The email address El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
Okay, a couple of stories here.
We're going to get to your phone calls right after the break here.
Get this monologue segment over with.
Snerdly says, we're loaded for bear today on the phones.
Loaded.
Oh, and by the way, folks, because I got an email about this.
I really should mention this.
You might remember a few weeks ago, we ran a YouTube commercial contest for Two If by T.
And we asked people to come up with creative 30-second YouTube commercials that showcased our brand of tea.
We did it as a contest, and we're going to get prizes and so forth.
And people have been submitting these things.
And I've forgotten to mention this over the course of this.
And we've posted a couple of them at rushlimbog.com.
These are not winners.
We're going to announce the winners of this contest on Wednesday.
But we haven't done that yet.
And we've put two videos up just to show you an example of what we got.
They're all good.
Some of them are just out of sight amazing.
Some of them, we're actually thinking of running a television commercial.
I'm not committing to it.
I say we're thinking about it.
They are that good.
So we've put a couple up at rushlimbog.com and on our Facebook page.
And so many of you people that did this met and surpassed our expectations and our challenge.
These video YouTube entries are incredible.
They vary from hysterical to serious to musical to electronic cartoons, animation, even a little odd.
I mean, you have to see these.
And we've just, we're going to put a lot of them up at some point.
I've just got two of them up there right now.
But they all showcase American exceptionalism.
So the president of the United States out there saying everybody's getting lazy.
The American worker is getting lazy.
I say just the opposite.
People who submitted these commercials on YouTube type 30-second commercials for 2F by T put in some of the most incredible time and effort.
They have to have to do this.
Actors, actresses, musical score people went out in the woods and filmed themselves as Paul Revere riding through the woods.
It's just, it's amazing.
And we're having a devil of a time picking the top three.
They're all that good.
So we're going to announce the winner on Wednesday.
And we've got, here's what I asked the broadcast engineer to get the audio of one of the entries.
We don't have the means to play the video on the diddle cam.
And even if we did, I wouldn't do it because this is a radio show.
That's what we have the website for.
But we are going to play the audio for this.
It's an example of one of the videos that we received.
Most of the videos need to be watched.
But this one's good for radio because it's lyrical.
And it's inspired by Longfellow's poem, Paul Revere's Ride.
Listen, my patriots, and you shall hear of the brand new product from Rush Revere.
The Doctor of Democracy has the cure.
It's liberty in a bottle, that is for sure.
Spreading the word from sea to sea.
It's freedom for all.
It's 2FIT.
Original Raspberry Comes Even in Diet.
Now heed the call.
Go out and buy it.
Soon the people will waken and listen to hear of the brand new products from Rush Revere.
A historic taste from tea to shiny tea.
Try the new beverage of choice for the 21st century.
Two it by tea.
Two if by tea.
Now you've got to see these things.
You really do.
I mean, some of the people in this, some of you in this audience are just amazing at some of these things put together.
And I can't wait to show you a whole bunch of them.
As I say, we've just got two of them up there.
And as you'll see, when you go to rushlinbug.com or 2fbytea.com, go to our Facebook page.
You'll see a reminder if you're looking for a great patriotic gift.
We're doing a special here on the gift.
The gift is normally 30 bucks.
We're reducing it to 24.76 with an offer code.
Rush Gift today, valid through tomorrow at 11.59 p.m. Pacific.
That's December 6th.
This is the 5th.
So Rush Gift is the offer code.
2476 for this special patriotic gift, which is the two mugs and the Rinalda's Magnus jelly beans.
See it at rushlinbug.com or 2fbyt.com.
Now, in the two videos of the two commercials with the winners to come on Wednesday, now a couple of stories here.
One is from the Boston Globe by Megan Woodhouse, and the other is from the New Republic.
The headline of the Boston Globe piece, poll finds deepening economic pessimism.
The headline from the New Republic piece is, slice the demographics any way you want, but Obama is in trouble.
Let's go to the Boston Globe piece first here.
Despite improvements in the economy is how it begins, which is the first problem right there.
The drive-bys keep telling us that there is an improvement in the economy.
But like the Russians, we ain't buying it.
And it's in every poll.
The Russians aren't buying Putin.
And we aren't buying this business.
It's in every poll.
We're not buying this business.
The economy is rebounding.
But anyway, despite improvements in the economy, Massachusetts residents hold deeply pessimistic views about the future, including a stark lack of confidence in real estate and stock markets.
The survey found more than a continued bleak outlook.
It found a disheartened population.
This is Massachusetts, folks.
This is Obama country.
This is Kennedy country.
As he said once.
Survey found more than a continued bleak outlook.
It found a disheartened population that says it's saving less, giving less to charity, and planning to work longer, generally for one reason, lack of money.
And that's it.
Cut to the chase.
Lack of money.
The real estate and stock markets offer little hope, these people in the poll said.
Nearly two out of three surveyed said they're unsure about stocks, or they currently consider them a bad investment.
More than half think housing prices are going to remain stagnant or continue to drop in the year ahead.
Things have been really bad, but it's reached another level now.
People have lost hope, said David Palaeologus, the director of Suffolk's Political Research Center, which conducted the poll.
The American dream of owning a home and owning stocks are the pillars that have held up hope throughout our history.
This is signaling to us that those pillars are shaking.
Things have been really bad, but it's reached another level now.
People have lost hope.
But see, I thought all of these wonderful liberals in Massachusetts found hope and change with Obama.
That's not working out.
Now, this was a poll of 400 Massachusetts residents conducted early last week.
Margin of error, plus or 95 percentage points.
Remarkably, optimism was easier to find in the same poll taken two years ago.
Jeffrey Bolger, a Halifax resident, said too many manufacturing companies have moved their operations outside the country, eliminating good jobs, leaving a new generation of workers in positions that pay less or offer few benefits.
He said his son, for example, has a college degree and a job, but remains on his, his parents' health insurance plan.
Now, Mr. Mr. Bolger, if I might, why have the companies moved?
Why is your adult son on your insurance?
Why?
Why can't you people make the connection here?
Who are you blaming for this?
George Bush?
Are you blaming Newt Gingrich?
Are you blaming Mitt Romney?
Are you blaming the Republican nominee?
Who are you blaming for this?
We are three years into the Obama regime.
Who are you blaming?
See, this is ultimately a Republican problem.
You read this, and it's depressing on a number of levels.
It's depressing as an American citizen to hear these stories.
It's another thing I was talking about with my friends I hadn't seen in a while last night.
It's depressing to look out and see what's happening to the country.
And then you read this story, and this is a poll of Boston residents, Massachusetts residents in the Boston Globe.
They're equivalent of the New York Times.
It's also depressing because the reporter and everybody she talked to don't get it.
And I have to ask, where's the Republican Party?
The Republican Party is a wall.
The Republican Party has to find a way to help these people make the connection between their dilapidated lives and losing hope and Obama.
You know damn well, if we had a Republican president for three years and this was happening to the country, and the Boston Globe went out and did a poll, is there any doubt in your mind that the incumbent Republican president would be cited by everybody as the problem?
Okay, we know that's not going to happen here.
The Boston Globe's interested in Obama winning re-election, the Democrats, but these people, these are American citizens.
Their lives are being slowly destroyed.
Somebody has to make the connection for them.
There's a reason.
Specific government policies authored by Obama are the reason.
You just can't sit there and assume people are going to figure it out.
You can't assume that the president always gets blamed in a recession, which is what the Republicans are doing if they even think Obama can be beaten.
And I'm, so we've said in the first hour, I'm not convinced that a whole lot of the Republican establishment even believe Obama can be defeated.
So there's one story.
People in Boston, and I have a scratch surface.
This story goes on and on and on for a couple more pages.
More people describing how depressed they are, how their lives are falling apart.
They are Massachusetts liberals.
And there's not one mention of Obama in the story, other than how hard he's trying to help them.
Now we move to the new Republic piece.
Sense or slice of demographics any way you want, but Obama's in trouble.
By William Galston.
To what extent is demography destiny in politics?
That's the question that Rai Tashira and John Halpin's much, blah, blah, didn't copy well, book on the 2012 presidential race puts front and center.
We talked about this survey last week and these two guys.
But I'm bringing it up again because it appears in a liberal publication.
Obama's numbers are pretty bad.
Support for Obama among young voters 18 to 29 has plunged only 48%.
What was it in 2008?
Do you remember?
Try in the 70s.
Remember all the idealism and the messiah and the lowering?
48% among voters 18, 29.
His approval among Hispanics is at only 51%, down from 80.
With the exception of voters with postgraduate degrees, Obama is underwater with every educational cohort.
42% among those with a half-screw diploma or less, 41% among those with some college, and 41% for voters with BAs.
And while his approval among Democrats and liberals remains robust, 79, 71% respectively, he stands at only 39% among independents and 51% among moderates.
All of this while the Republican establishment is worried that Newt Gingrich is going to drive these people back to Obama.
I'll tell you, it's enough to cause me to pull my hair out over the asoninity that is happening on the Republican side, the absolute absurd stupidity that is on display on the Republican side.
Here's a guy with under 50% seriously, who's lost 30%.
In fact, every Demographic, the only place he's above water is with the elites in academia, actors and artistes and that bunch.
Everybody else is thrown in the towel.
We got a story in the Boston Globe, a poll of 400 people.
They're depressed.
They're dilapidated.
Their lives are deteriorating.
Their home values and style.
Every tradition that they have trusted, they don't believe in anymore.
And the Republican establishment.
Gosh, I don't think.
I just hope we can hold the Senate.
It's enough to get me to start cursing.
One more little ditty here before we get to your phone calls.
It's about the 1% and a poll.
More of the country's wealthiest 1% are independents than are Republicans or Democrats.
And the majority of them say their political views are moderate or liberal, according to a new Gallup poll today.
Of the country's top 1%, those in households that earn half a million dollars or more annually, who the Occupy Wall Street movement's been protesting against, 41% identify themselves as independents.
33% say they are Republican.
26% say they are Democrat.
99% of the population is also mostly independents, according to Gallup.
39% Independents, 28% Republican, 33% Democrat.
That's who make up the 99%.
A plurality of the population's wealthiest 1%, 41% say they are moderate.
The wealthiest 1% is also more educated than the rest.
So according to Gallup, everybody, no matter where you go, the 99% are moderate, the 1% are moderate or independent.
Everybody's a moderate or independent.
You know who guess who will read this and believe it?
The Republican establishment and every Republican political consultant.
Okay, where we start.
We're starting at Atlanta.
Dean, you're up first on the phones of the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Oh, hey, Rush Dudo.
This is awesome.
Thank you.
My dad listened to you for years, and he tried and tried to get through and could never get through.
And he'd be so excited if he was alive today.
No, I was talking to you.
Excuse me.
So this is great.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Well, my point was, as you were talking about the media saying that Newt couldn't win, and it was his fear.
But I think there's a concerted effort by the media and the rhinos to make us not want to pick a candidate like Newt, to pick somebody like Bob Dole or John McCain, so that they're guaranteed a win.
So that who is guaranteed to win?
So the liberals, so we're getting another Obama president.
So the wait a minute, no.
You think the Republicans also want the Liberals to win?
Well, I think the Rhinos do, and not conservatives, because this way they've got somebody to complain about.
You know, it wasn't their fault.
The guy didn't get in.
And, you know, they still stay in power.
Tell me, how is a rhino, a Republican in name, how is a rhino, at the end of the day, still calls himself a Republican?
How's he helped?
How's he helped by liberals winning every election?
Well, I think it goes back to what you say: is that the Republicans, a lot of them, don't know what it's like to be winners.
And they're confident being in that loser segment because there's always going to be some rhinos or Republicans in.
Okay, all right.
That's not exactly what I've said.
What I've said is that when you've been a loser for 40 years and then you win, it's often difficult to make the mental transition to have the attitude of a winner.
Just like the fat guy who loses a lot of weight still thinks fat.
Right.
And I think that they're not comfortable with being winners, and it's a lot easier being in the minority in a loser party and they spend power.
If you're right, if you're there's only one reason why.
If Dean is right here, if the rhinos don't care that liberals win, if the rhinos' only objective is to make sure a conservative Republican doesn't win, it's because the rhinos want big government too.
It's because the rhinos don't want government cut.
It's because the rhinos don't want to lose power as government is shrunk.
That would be the only reason.
Now, they're Republican in name only, but they are still Republicans and they are still losers at the ballot box.
If old Dean here is right, so what old Dean here is saying here is you got a bunch of rhinos who would just soon nominate somebody who's going to lose to Obama because they want government to stay big because they somehow profit from big government, a lot of government spending.
Who was the last person to actually cut government?
Who was the last person who actually led a movement that balanced the federal budget?
Who was the person that did that?
You're not going to take a guess?
Okay, that's right.
It was Mr. Newt.
The last guy who gave us a balanced budget.
Now, there were a lot of other Republicans.
Valkasich was key.
But Gingrich was speaker.
The last time this budget was, the last time there was true welfare reform, the last time government was cut, Gingrich did it, who is number one enemy of everybody today.
And we stay with the phones, even though I got lots of good stuff here.
Moving on to Cave Junction, Oregon.
This is Diane.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Hi.
I want to tell you that Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.
I'm an ultra-conservative, and Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.
He supports illegal immigration, and he supports global warming, and he took TARP money, and it was maybe while he was lobbying, but none of those are conservative issues.
What do you mean, he took TARP money?
You're talking about when he worked at Fannie Mae Freddie Mac?
Yes.
Yeah.
And he was lobbying, and a conservative...
He says he was a historian there, not lobbying.
Well, at any rate, he still supports all of those things, and you cannot be conservative and support those things.
And he may have balanced the budget, but balancing the budget is a thing of the past.
And now all of these issues that he has are things that still pertain to the budget, big time.
By the way, since you mentioned that, we have a story here from thehill.com.
You might find this interesting, Diane.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is holding back some information on Newt Gingrich that could detract from his presidential campaign, according to a report published today.
She told a blog called A Talking Points memo: one of these days, we're going to have a conversation about Newt Gingrich.
When the time is right, I know a lot about him.
I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us, locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year, a thousand pages of his stuff.
So Pelosi plans to reveal the goods on Gingrich when the time is right.
Just posted it the Hills blog called The Briefing Room.
What do you think of that?
That may be that she has more information on him, but I also know he came out and did a commercial in support, and you don't come out with a commercial if you're not in support of something.
If that's the case and he's on one side and the other, then he's a turn code, isn't he?
Well, he says, and by the way, I'm not defending.
I don't want you to mister.
I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just telling you, he says that was one of the biggest political mistakes he's ever made.
He's tried to walk that back.
Well, that's nice, but how about the illegal immigration?
He's not walking that back.
He's still, with his thing of, well, 25 years, well, that's like being, you know, you can't do a little bit of immigration and then have the rest of his policies.
You can't be a little bit pregnant.
You're either for immigration or you're against it.
Well, I don't know.
I think the feminazis have done a lot on that score.
I think you can be a little bit pregnant.
Depends on when you end it.
At any rate, I get your point.
But I think it's, I think it's funny.
Pelosi, okay, so Pelosi apparently threatening to expose privileged information here.
That's what she's threatening to do.
This is not public stuff.
And she's threatening to expose privileged information.
So much for ethics.
But some people, Diane, look, everybody knows what you say is true.
Everybody knows it.
And right now, Newt's leading in the polls.
What are you shaking your head at?
Everybody knows it.
Everybody knows it.
I'm going to tell you something.
Everybody knows everything you said about Newt is true.
And a lot of these people think that Newt is salvageable.
A lot of people supporting Newt think that he's salvageable, that once you embarrass him on this stuff, he'll walk it back.
The problem is he still comes up with it.
The problem with Newt is, is that he has a gazillion thoughts every day, and he verbalizes every one of them.
It's a disciplined thing.
But on the other side of this is Obama.
On the other side of it's Obama, who is not salvageable.
From our point of view, Obama isn't salvageable.
Who's that?
Jay Infargo, North Dakota.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Russ.
You just made me so angry today I had to call.
Oh, no.
You keep saying it's going to be easy to defeat Obama.
It doesn't matter who we elect.
The bar only has to be higher than Obama.
And I'm telling you, Russ, if you set the bar that low, you're going to get a candidate that low.
And look at the field we've got.
We've got the philanderer.
What's he on?
His fourth wife, this Newt Gingrich.
You got Mitt Romney.
I call him Rosie Palm Romney because he's in love with himself.
He's never met a position that he isn't willing to get elected.
Wait a second.
I use a cochlear implant.
I just want to make sure I heard.
You call him Rosie Palm Romney because he's in love with himself.
Absolutely.
He hasn't taken a stand on any issue that he hasn't changed to win the next election.
What does that mean?
Rosie Palm.
Okay.
I thought that's what I meant.
All right.
Go on.
You got Santorum, who you can't even Google.
You got Michelle Bachman, who's mentally ill.
I mean, we don't have any good candidates.
And it's honestly, you're the most influential person on the right.
A long time ago, you could have kept the media from deciding who our candidates are.
No, I couldn't have.
No, I couldn't.
I'm not responsible for any of these candidates.
And Michelle Bachman's not insane.
Who is your preference?
You're trying to make me believe you're a big conservative.
Who is your preferred candidate?
Who's out there that you want to run?
Actually, Russ, I just want to let you know I'm one of the seminar callers that you're always paranoid about.
Here we are again.
You know, nobody can be truly upset about this field.
Yeah, you can be upset all you want.
I did not call you a seminar caller.
I said, who is your preferred candidate?
And I said, Michelle Bachman's not mentally ill.
He isn't one.
I mean, there used to be like George W. Bush, a serious person who led the CIA, who was competent and could get things done, who had a consistent record throughout his life.
We just don't have that.
Well, the last I looked, he lost when he ran for re-election in 1992 when he abandoned Reaganism.
Well, he raised taxes, too.
Same difference.
He's 10 times better than any candidate we've got.
But he's not running.
And George W. didn't lead the CIA.
George H.W. did.
Which one are you talking about?
Which one are you talking about?
You remember the father?
George H.W. Bush.
Yeah, the father who ran the CIA.
You're right.
I mean, he had a legitimate resume.
Who has a resume on that stage down there?
Who can put three sentences together without committing some huge?
Do you know that Ross?
Well, Bachman can.
Bachman can.
Romney can.
Gingrich can.
A lot of them can.
Well, and none of them.
What about Huntsman?
You sound like you're a Huntsman guy.
What is it about Huntsman you don't like?
You know what?
Huntsman might work.
I mean, I don't know enough about him.
I guess that's what I don't like about him is I don't know enough about him.
Nobody talks about him.
He hasn't had his turn in the spotlight.
He might be okay.
But I mean, Nixon traveled to like 50 different countries.
He could tell you the capital of every country.
He could tell you what diplomatic problems we had with every country.
He also gave us OSHA.
He gave us half of the liberal welfare state.
He gave us half of the liberal bureaucracy.
Oh, it was a different time, wasn't it?
Trying to make the liberals like him.
And we've evolved a lot since then, but so how have we gotten worse games?
Jay, I don't know that you're a seminar caller.
If you are fine and dandy, I'm not paranoid of seminar callers, other than they waste time.
But I don't think you're a conservative.
There's nobody except people who've lost.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Okay, now let me explain this, folks.
The implied argument that we had from the previous caller is the same argument that we get from the Republican elite.
The GOP base is a bunch of whack jobs who vote in the primaries.
They're just out of touch.
They're too far to the right.
And all these candidates are a bunch of flaming, wacko, stupid idiots.
That is the implied argument from the Republican base.
And of course, it is a big lie.
And we saw that it was a big lie in the November 2010 midterm elections.
The Tea Party is America.
But the elites, as typified by not saying that guy was an elite, but he voices their implied argument, the elites are trying to say that the Republican primary voters are going to make it impossible for us to win in the general because they're too conservative.
And we never hear this said about the Democrat base.
We never hear it said that the Democrat base is going to nominate a communist, is going to nominate a socialist.
We never hear about what a bunch of wacko kook freaks the Democrat base is.
All we ever hear about is what a bunch of wacko kooks our base is.
And we hear that from our own people.
Plus the Democrats.
We never hear, we never hear about the problems posed to the Democrat Party by their fringe kooks, by their lunatics, by their Occupy Wall Street crowds.
Never.
It's only you people who are castigated and characterized and portrayed as a bunch of kook, idiot, extreme lunatics.
I'll tell you, there's another reason why the Republican establishment all ticked off at Newt.
They thought they had him buried.
I'll tell you what, if Sarah Palin at some point down the road reservices, runs for office against, you are going to see such ticked off people in the establishment because they think they've killed her.
They think they've taken her out.
Same thing with Kane.
I think they've taken him out.
Then they thought they had taken Newt out.
And now here's Newt leading in the polls.
And they're panicking, beside themselves, know what to do.
He's not supposed to have resurrected like this.
Now, I'll tell you something else that's coming.
Tom Colburn, a senator from Oklahoma, was in the House of Representatives when Newt was speaker.
Colburn was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday.
I don't know that I've got the bite.
Let me look at the.
I don't think I do.
It didn't matter.
Just want to.
No, no.
Okay, so Coburn basically said, look, Newt was a lousy leader.
Chris Wallace said, well, why?
How?
Well, I'm not going to go there.
I'm just going to tell you it was a lousy leader.
It did a horrible leader, but I'm not going to go.
Oh, come on.
You can't just leave it there.
I'm not going to.
He's a lousy leader.
And Wallace said, okay, well, that's it.
We're out of time.
That's how the show ended or the interview.
And there are apparently, so goes the story, a lot of other Republicans who served in the House at the same time who, we are told, feel the same way about Newt, that he is a lousy leader, and that they are waiting in the wings to come out and say so.
What Colburn said, this is Senator Tom Colbert from Oklahoma.
What he said was, there's all types of leaders, leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people that they're leading and a different standard for themselves.
I just found his leadership lacking, and he wouldn't explain further.
And Chris Wallace is like pulling pork.
He tried to get it all out of Coburn.
Coburn wouldn't go any further.
Which he really didn't have to.
That said enough.
By the way, they.
Well, yes, people change.
Yeah, change is hard because it's uncomfortable.
Change is hard because 94 was big change.
People can change.
Newt's saying he's changed.
That's Snerdley's asking me, can people change?
Newt's saying that he has matured.
He's seen the error of his ways back then and so forth.
Amen.
He can't deny his past.
He has to acknowledge, explain it somehow.
Look, folks, I'm not recommending endorsing.
I don't want you to misunderstand.
I'm just telling you what's going on.
This, in one sense, I never thought I'd hear myself saying this.
In one sense, all this chaos is kind of entertaining.
And it is serving a purpose.
It really is serving a purpose.
The sad thing is we're not getting this, and we never get this on the left.
We have had circuses, and I take that back.
We have had.
We haven't had it with Obama.
If there is a walking circus, it is Obama in this regime.
But it's not being explored.
All right, who's next?
Chris in Camus, Washington.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you today?
Yeah, okay.
How are you?
Well, we got sun up here up in a canvas, which is just on the good side of Portland, Oregon.
So things are fantastic.
Good, good, good.
Hey, the question I have is, a while back, Newt said some disparaging things about the Tea Party, and here he is rising up in the ranks on the polls.
I know.
He said some disparaging things about the beloved Paul Ryan.
He said Ryan's Medicare plan was nothing but right-wing social engineering.
You know what that was, by the way?
Can I be honest?
They're going to hate me for this.
That was pure jealousy.
Ryan was getting accolades for that.
And I think that's why Newt disparaged it a bit.
Well, the question I have is, you know, does Newt have to recognize at some point the influence of the Tea Party?
Yeah.
And if he does, you know, will that compel him to move to the right, you know, in the same way that Bill Clinton did back in 94 and 95 with the balanced budget?
Does it disturb you at all that be it we're talking about Romney or Newt, that we have to push them to the right?
Does that bother you at all?
Does it bother you that they're just not there on their own?
Well, if I'm waiting for the perfect candidate, it's not going to happen.
That's right.
But you always.
Except for Obama.
Obama's Mr. Perfect Everything.
And he's not doing me any good either.
But the question I always have is if you look to the person, now, are they able to move the ball forward with your agenda?
And is Newt capable of that?
And if he's not, then this process will eliminate him.
And if he is, then he may stay up on top.
Well, one thing that I think we all need to acknowledge here, that this is nowhere near over.
Not one vote has been cast yet.
All we're going on is polling data, pure and simple.
And I'll never forget this, folks.
2000, if you recall, Howard Dean had it wrapped up six months before the Hawkeye caucus.
All the polling data gave it to Howard Dean.
There weren't a whole lot of other named Democrats even running.
Howard Dean was it.
And then the Hawkeye cauckey happened.
And Howard Dean came in fourth or third or whatever.
He lost it sizably.
There was abject panic in the Democrat Party.
This is when Howard Dean went out there and screamed, as you'll recall, at some appearance after the Hawkeye cauckey went, and they knew it was over.
And then who did they, 2004, I'm saying it's 2004, and who did they choose?
They chose Kerry.
And for one reason, because of those left, they all, the Democrats, they all said, well, that's the only guy that can win.
They went the electability route, which is the mistake our side is also.
Well, I can't support X can't win.
We don't know that.
Last time, Huckabee.
Huckabee was among the top tier.
And what happened to that?
So it's really kind of futile to start proclaiming things over with here when not a single vote's been cast yet.
Okay, we got a brief pause here at the top of the hour at a Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
But we'll be back and resume before you know it.
Don't go anywhere, folks.
▲
Export Selection