All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 13, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
December 13, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It happened again.
I have been blamed again for what is said to be a lousy Republican field.
Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, 2000, has blamed me again for the lousy Republican field.
No, I got the salbai coming up.
We're loaded here again today.
This is, nobody's taking any time off.
There is no holiday season in politics, folks.
It is cutthroat.
It's bloody.
And it's only going to get worse.
Great to have you here, Rush Lindball, behind the golden EIB microphone, our telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address LRushball at EIBnet.com.
We got polling data out the wazoo today.
There's a Gallup poll that says the fear of big government is near an all-time high.
64% of Americans now say big government is the biggest threat to the country since March of 2009.
What happened then?
Since March of 2009, the number has shot up 16%, even among Democrats.
March of 2009, that's just two months into the Obama regime.
Well, no, Porculus was February.
March is when everybody figured out what had happened.
March is when everybody figured out what the porculus really was.
But March is the early days of the regime.
And it shot up 16 points, even among Democrats.
How is that possible?
Obama's been in the White House since March of 2009.
That's how it's possible, folks.
Also, you know, they've got their charts and graphs as part of the story, and the charts and graphs are even more graphic.
They're more indicative of the devastating result here than even the text of Gallup's story.
According to Gallup, America's fear of big government has always been dwarfed, or has always dwarfed, I'm saying, has always dwarfed our fear of big business by a huge margin, and now the gap is bigger than ever.
I know it's conflicting because we also have polling data which tell us that Obama is personally very liked.
I wonder about that, but nevertheless, it's out there.
But now, the gap is bigger than ever.
People fearing big government over those who fear big business, the gap is bigger than ever.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are having no effect.
Or maybe they're having the opposite effect.
But it's still fun to watch all that Union Obama campaign money being squandered here because it isn't working.
It's not persuading people that big government's the answer.
There's also another Gallup poll, this one with USA Today, that says that either Republican frontrunner Newt Romney would beat Obama in the swing states.
Oddly enough, this poll doesn't even show up on the Gallup site.
You have to go elsewhere to find it.
Gallup hasn't posted it on their site yet.
That information I just shared with you, by the way, is in the 14th paragraph of the USA Today article on their poll.
Either Republican frontrunner would beat Obama in the swing states, i.e., the independents, i.e., the moderates.
But you have to read 14 paragraphs in to get there.
That's what we do for you here at the EIB network.
But they do finally spell it out.
Mitt Romney among registered voters by five points over Obama, 43 to 48.
Newt Gingrich by three over Obama, 48 to 45.
So the White House has to be panicking.
And my submission is that the White House has been panicking for a long time.
The White House has been panicking.
The Democrat Party has been panicking for quite a while.
That's why they're playing all the games with the unemployment numbers.
And by the way, like Snerdley, Snerdley is all disapproached, somewhat depressed.
He sends me a note here today.
He says, you've seen the retail sales number.
I said, yeah, I've seen a whole bunch of different reports on the retail sales number.
So the one Snerdley gives me is from AAP.
Americans spent more on automobiles, furniture, and clothing at the start of the crucial holiday shopping season, boosting retail sales for a sixth straight month.
Retail sales rose 0.2% in November, said the Commerce Democrat.
Okay, fine.
Except, can I share with you some headlines?
I printed this out at 11.30.
So the times here add 30 minutes to what, well, I'll try to add the 30 minutes.
34 minutes ago, retail sales rise for a six month.
Inventories show growth, USA Today.
NPR, an hour and a half ago, retail sales rise for sixth straight month.
MSNBC, an hour and a half ago, retail sales rose less than expected in November.
An hour and a half ago, San Francisco Chronicle, retail sales in U.S. climbed less than forecast in November.
Wall Street Journal, hour and a half ago, retail sales post modest rise.
Hour and a half ago, French news agency, U.S. retail sales weaken for second straight month.
Voice of America blog, an hour and a half ago, disappointing U.S. retail sales.
ABC News, hour and a half ago, November retail sales up 0.2%.
CNN money, hour and a half ago, shoppers slow down.
Well, I've detected a pattern here.
When the news was first reported by Commerce an hour and a half ago, the original take was, this ain't so hot.
And then after the original reporting was done, here comes the fix.
Changing the reporting to make it look like hot news.
Good news, better than expected.
But the original reporting, when the numbers first came out an hour and a half ago, no big deal.
Snerdley only saw one story.
I, as host, see them all.
And it's typical.
Retail sales, nothing to write home about here.
And even it is Christmas.
You know people are going to scrimp, scratch, claw around to find something.
Even though we had a story, was it two weeks ago that half the country was going to be unable to participate in the retail aspect of Christmas simply because the economy was such bad shape?
So we've got all this polling data.
In fact, I have more here on the USA Today Gallup poll, that same Gallup USA Today poll that shows either Republican frontrunner, Newt Romney, doing better than Obama and all the swing states.
It also points out that since 2008, the number of voters who identify themselves as Democrat or Democrat leaning in the swing states is down by four points, while the ranks of Republicans have increased by five points.
The swing states, by the way, are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin.
Are the swing states, and that's where Newt Romney is beating Obama no matter where you go in all of those states.
It's where Democrat Party identification is down 4%, Republican Party identification is up.
And then over here is a Marist poll.
And the Marist poll says, there is a secret wave of Democrat enthusiasm for 2012 that nobody has seen but us.
The Marist, I think it's Marist.
It might be, yeah, I think it's Marist.
They've got a poll out that says the Democrats are chomping at the bid out there to go vote.
They can't wait.
And nobody knows it but us.
But here we have Gallup USA Today, Gallup.
In fact, I'm not through.
The same Gallup USA Today poll found in the swing states, the number of self-identified Democrats, not including those who lean Democrat, fell from 35 to 30% since 2008.
That's since Obama.
The number of independents rose seven points, 35 to 42%.
So it would appear, ladies and gentlemen, that the conservatism, and this is the key, the conservatism of the Republican field is not scaring away Democrat crossovers and independents.
It's not.
And yet the entire Republican establishment thinking is based on this false notion that conservatism scares independents and forces them to run back to the Marxists and socialists.
Well, that's what we're up against.
We're not just up against a bunch of dull, boring Democrats.
They're up against Marxists and socialists.
And our geniuses in the Republican establish our geniuses in the Republican consultancy corps still operate on this notion that Barry Goldwater is the formative event in conservatism and that every time a conservative nominee is nominated, that's what's going to happen.
And the independents and the moderates are going to run for the hills and they're going to run for the tall grass.
They're going to try to find the Marxists and socialists and get in bed with them.
They're still look at, it's that same premise that ends up having me blamed for the weakness of the field.
What was I yesterday, a tribal leader?
And so, by the way, speaking of that, the tribes are going to get together, smoke the peace pipe if Mr. Newt has.
And Newt wants a peace offering with Mitt.
So we got to remember who we're up against here.
We're up against Obama, not each other.
I was called a tribal leader, and I have not instructed anybody to go out and smoke a peace pipe.
I've not made anybody sign a pledge.
I've not, you know, talk to Catherine Swamp.
We got our next major Two Fight T promotion coming.
It starts tomorrow, the next three days, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
And it's a huge prize.
Maybe the, well, yeah, could be the best prize we've offered.
And we've offered trips to Hawaii, but this could be the best.
We're going to announce the two new flavors tomorrow.
So Catherine's been swamped.
So I said, did you hear what Newt did?
Esther just last night.
She said, what?
He signed a pledge not to cheat on Callista.
He signed a pledge.
She said, yeah, I heard you mentioning that.
I heard, yeah, you said you were right.
That doesn't happen much when she tells me I'm right.
She said, you're right.
I thought the vows took care of that.
I had nothing to do with that pledge.
Snurley asked me if I'm asking as tribal leader, people sign pledges.
No, I don't do the pledge thing.
No, I'm not going to start making them sign pledges.
I'm not going to sign any pledges.
I think that's a joke.
I think all these pledges are just let me ask you a pledge disavowing global warming.
Hey, Mitt, look at what Canada did.
Mick, did you see this?
Canada's pulled out a Kyoto protocol.
Can the first country to pull out of it?
When they figured out it was going to cost them $13.6 billion and a bunch of other economic penalties, they just pull out of it.
Kyoto minus Canada.
Moving on.
Also, lady.
Yeah, Newt pledged to sign the pledge.
He's promised to sign the promise not to cheat on his wife.
You know, you know why that happens?
Because some family values group offers it up.
And so the family values group offers it.
How do you say, I'm not signing a pledge?
Oh, so you are going to cheat on Callista?
See, that's the problem with this.
Some group offers up the pledge.
No, Snerdly.
That's that's a call screener can tell the social group to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Canada can't very well do that.
Stick your pledge where the sun doesn't shine.
So anyway, that's how you get to a pledge not to cheat on Callista.
So next thing, will Romney sign a pledge not to cheat on Callista?
We're back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, and this is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year's Eve to everybody out there from all of us here at the EIB network.
Robert Davi is a well-known Hollywood actor.
He's a bad guy actor.
He looks like a bad guy.
He looks like a mean SOB.
He looks the part.
He's played a bond villain before, ran a drug cartel, and had as a front Wayne Newton.
Wayne Newton singing songs and collecting, doing a telethon was his front for how much his cocaine dealers owed him.
And how much cocaine there were anyway?
Davi is a huge conservative, and he's got a new album out entitled Davi Sings Sinatra.
Sinatra's close friends and idols, and Sinatra supposedly meant it a guy.
But Sinatra wrote his own Christmas song entitled Mistletoe and Holly.
And Davi, Robert Davi, has recorded it, and everybody that buys this song downloads it from iTunes or Amazon.com.
Money, what is it?
I think, yeah, the proceeds of the sale of the song, the whole proceeds of the sale of this song, ladies and gentlemen, you download it from iTunes or Amazon.
The money goes to the Salvation Army annual Christmas collections for the poor.
Here's a sample of the tune.
Oh, by gosh, by golly, it's time for mistletoe and holly.
Tasty pheasants, Christmas presents, countrysides covered with snow.
Robert Davi doing Sinatra, Mistletoe and Holly.
If you download the tune, it is good.
Proceeds go to the Salvation Army.
And well, they asked me to do this.
And we get into the sharing and the giving spirit here at the Christmas time.
Ladies and gentlemen, yes, yes, I'm going to do it right now.
Everybody can't wait for me to talk about what interests them.
So I got people in my ear.
Are you going to talk about X?
It's already 1225.
Yes, it's next.
To start, let's go back to June 2nd, 2003.
June 2nd, 2003.
This is me on this program.
These hurricane forecast guys who don't know what they're talking about.
I mean, there is literally, my friends, there's no way you can know how many hurricanes are going to have.
There's no way you can know other than seasonal averages, how many big ones, and there's no way you can know where they're going to hit and all that.
But yet they've come out with their forecast.
And this is going to be the worst hurricane season in many decades.
Every year.
Every year.
First, it's University of Colorado William Gray.
And then NASA comes out with their forecast.
And then AccuWeather comes up.
I mean, they all do.
And you know what?
These are taken seriously.
I remember one year, and this is not that long ago.
One year, it was not a hurricane forecast.
It was an El Niño forecast.
Some bunch put out a forecast that the Florida winter was going to be 20 degrees below normal.
And people from Europe and northern climates began canceling their seasonal hotel reservations because of this forecast.
And the forecast was made in September, October, that El Nino was going to cause a bitterly cold South Florida winter.
And it was all bogus.
Well, two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in deep South Hurricane Country, are quitting the practice because it doesn't work.
William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back at their own work shows that the past 20 years of forecasts had no value.
The two scientists from Colorado State University will discuss, they're still going to discuss different probabilities as hurricane seasons approach.
It says here it's a much more cautious approach, but the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.
Forecasts had no value.
Now, I first saw this reported in the Ottawa Citizen in Canada.
These two scientists, William Gray and Phil Klotzbach, released this statement six days ago.
And we just hear about it today.
They released their statement on December 7th.
So far, not one United States mainstream news outlet has bothered to pick up the story.
Apparently, the public doesn't have the need or the right to know about such things.
Folks, do you know how many people went out and bought insurance policies based on these forecasts?
Do you know how much money was spent to protect from upcoming hurricanes or to prepare for or to insure against or what and by the way?
I like Bill Gray.
I don't want to be misunderstanding.
I think this takes guts to do this.
I would expect next somebody in the global warming community is going to say the same thing, that their research over the last 20 years has shown that it has no value, that it is worthless, that we don't know what we're talking about.
Bill Gray, to his credit, has constantly said global warming has nothing to do with hurricanes.
It has nothing to do with their formation.
It has nothing to do with their intensity.
It has nothing to do with their volume.
It has nothing to do with anything.
But now 20 years, 20 years, they went back and looked.
20 years of forecasting has been found to have zilch value.
Hi, and we are back.
Ladies and gentlemen, Bill Gray at the University of Colorado basically throwing in the towel.
This is a major, major thing.
They announced this on December 7th.
It still hasn't shown up in the American media.
And there's a reason.
Obviously, it hasn't shown up.
It might undercut the popular idea that computer models can predict the weather decades from now.
The whole global warming hoax is based on computer models and fraudulently faked data like tree cores, ice cores, whatever else they make up.
And what Bill Gray has basically said is, we're going back and we've examined our work for the last two decades, the last 20 years, and it's of no value.
Our computers were worthless in predicting any aspect of hurricane activity year to year.
So I went back to the archives of my own program and I found this November 26, 2007, about four years ago.
I said this, if they can't tell us in March, which is when the first real seasonal forecast is always issued, if they can't tell us in March how many hurricanes we're going to have between June 1st and November 30th in a single year,
then the question must be asked, since they believe hurricanes are part of global warming, part of the whole carbon emissions greenhouse gases meme, why in the world are we to accept any prediction they make for 50 years out, 30 years out, or even 10 years out, particularly when those forecasts involve man-made activities.
And yet in March, we don't know how many hurricanes we're going to have.
On that same day, November 26th of 2007, there was also a story in the UK Telegraph which claimed mankind shortening the universe's life.
And that story was based on all of these similar kinds of models that Bill Gray and Phil Klotzbach were using to predict their hurricanes.
This is major.
And the fact that the American media has ignored it is tantamount evidence that global warming is nothing more than a political issue, part of an agenda of socialism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it, that's to be advanced.
It's a huge, huge thing.
Bill Gray is a hero here.
He is really a hero.
You have to commend these guys, Gray and Klotzbeck, for having the courage to admit the truth.
You know what?
They're putting their reputations at risk here.
Perhaps a lot of grant money for Colorado, University of Colorado.
I mean, they've just come out and said their whole department's work had no value.
December 7th.
Ladies and gentlemen, this all came out December 7th.
And not a word has been said about it in the U.S. media.
More polling data.
Rasmussen, a poll of likely voters, shows that by the whopping margin of 20 percentage points, 55 to 35 Americans support the repeal of Obamacare.
This marks the continuation of a striking trend since Memorial Day, just over six months ago.
Rasmussen has taken 21 polls on Obamacare's repeal.
In all 21 of those polls, repeal has won by double digits.
So when a sitting president's signature legislation is this wildly unpopular, you can bet the economy is not going to be the only issue in his re-election campaign.
Of course, the economy and Obamacare are, I don't know how you delink them.
The economy and Obamacare aren't linked.
They're tied together.
So here you have, and meanwhile, we're told that none of these guys, and there are some people.
John Podoritz in the New York Post today, I don't have his open in his column, I don't have his lead right in front of me, but he described, I forget which one, Romney or Romney and Gingrich.
One of them can't get elected.
The other can't get nominated.
So the Republican establishment view is that the two Republican frontrunners don't have a prayer.
One can't get the nomination and the other one, if he does, can't be elected.
This is absurd that what these guys are saying, the only guy in our field who can get elected president is Romney, but he can't be nominated.
And they say that because the polling data shows that 70% of Republicans want somebody other than Romney.
So this is all that, folks, that couldn't be more wrong.
Look at all the polling.
We know the gap between people who fear big government and fear big business is wider than ever, up 16 points who fear big government since Obama was inaugurated.
We got 21 straight polls, double digits, 55 to 35 people oppose Obamacare, want it repealed.
What do you mean we don't have anybody can get elected?
We have a lot of people who can be elected.
This is absurd to have this kind of shackle around ourselves to be thinking this way.
Here's Podoritz's column.
Two Republican presidential candidates, one who increasingly appears unnominatable, Romney, and one who's probably unelectable, that's Newt, have begun firing political and rhetorical cruise missiles at each other that could destroy them both.
I swear, I would love just one day of this kind of analysis of Obama and the Democrats, of Harry Reid, of Pelosi, of Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, who said on Fox yesterday, what do you mean?
Unemployment's gone down during Obama's presidency.
Brian Kilmey said, wave, you've got to be mistaken.
Unemployment's gone up every year.
No, no, no.
Unemployment's coming down.
It's now below 9%.
Obama has brought down unemployment.
That's their story, and they're sticking to it.
Because the Obama presidency began last month.
That's Obama's story in the campaign trail.
His presidency began last month.
Here's Steve Schmidt blaming me for the lousy Republican field.
And it happened where?
MSNBC.
Morning Joe.
A discussion of the Republican primary.
Scarborough said, why is it that we have been forced to watch a reality show when there are so many qualified people like Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan out there?
Why are they standing on the sidelines?
As President Kennedy pointed out, sometimes when you try to ride the tiger, you wind up inside of it.
And you've seen this over the last couple of years.
Any insult to Rush Limbaugh is greeted with an immediate apology from whatever offending Republican, no matter their rank or stature.
You have someone yells, you lie in the middle of the State of the Union.
The donations flood into the website.
So there has been a reward system based on the intemperance of the rhetoric, not on the substance of the ideas, not on the strength of conservatism.
I translate that for you.
I forget Joe Wilson, who shouted you lie at Obama during San.
We're not substantive.
We are just intemperate.
We're just filled with hot rhetoric.
And that's why we're popular.
But policy and ideas and substance, we don't have any of that.
There's nothing conservative about Limbaugh.
Limbaugh is just, he's really good at revving people up in temperate rhetoric.
This guy that ran McCain's campaign, Steve Schmidt.
He brought about the McCain landslide.
Yeah.
Some say that.
I've never characterized him.
Some say he's the Bob Schrum of the Republican Party.
I remember during the 2008 campaign, well, never mind.
Yeah, they're calling me in.
Well, by the way, this is something really to be carrying this grievance around this long.
When's the last time anybody apologized to me for ripping me?
It was Michael Steele, right?
That's two years ago.
There was a three-month period where some Republicans would have said some stuff, and I didn't make them apologize.
The audience got hold of them.
Their voters got hold of them.
And then they went on to apologize.
That's two years old now, or a year and a half, but this Schmidt guy is still carrying that.
He's still bothered by that.
Well, no, I don't know if Schmidt was the one that said, don't use Hussein.
I don't know that McCain needed any guidance on that one.
No, since the whole thing was over, he's ripped Palin.
I know he was very unhappy with Palin as the VP choice and so forth.
But Schmidt is the same guy, folks, who said that religion could kill the McCain campaign.
That if they spent any time on McCain's religion or anybody, stay away from Jeremiah Wright.
Don't go there.
So this is why I tell you, and I know many of you people don't believe me when I tell you this.
I tell you, the Republican establishment, they don't like me.
They don't like conservatives.
They think that we really, Schmidt believes that people like me drive independence back to Obama.
That's what they believe.
But Scarborough's question, Mitch Daniels tried, Joe.
He was out there.
Jeb Bush said it's too soon for a guy with my last name.
Paul Ryan looked at it, said, don't want to do it.
Nobody kept him out.
Nobody said, don't do anything.
Nobody ripped well.
Mitch Daniels, no.
In fact, if anybody, it was his family that told him they didn't want him to do it right.
And I don't know his family.
Anyway, that's what it's like to be me.
Now we move one more soundbite.
Matthew Dowd.
How come I didn't stop Huntsman from coming in?
Well, let me tell you, Huntsman snuck in.
If I'd have known that Huntsman's coming in, I'd have stopped that.
But somehow he got in there under my radar.
Well, you know, one of my regrets is not stopping Ron Paul.
It's a sentimental thing.
He's in every campaign.
It's like, you know, Perot talked about your crazy ant in the basement.
Every campaign needs one of those.
And I've got a radio show to do snurly.
I can't stop them all.
Well, the reason I let Santorum stay in is because I like the guy.
And I think Santorum would be a great friend.
Same reason I let Bachman stay in.
It's the same reason I'm leaving a door open for Trump to get back in.
Let me take a break.
This is getting deep here.
All right.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than human beings should be allowed to have.
At a briefing for reporters, David Axelrod was asked about Newt Gingrich.
And Axelrod said, quote, the higher a monkey climbs on the pole, the more you can see his butt.
David Axelrod, chief campaign strategist for Barack Hussein Obama, asked about Newt.
I'm intemperate, folks.
I'm the one that's going to drive independents racing back the Democrat Party, according to the brainiacs in the Republican consultancy corps like Steve Schmidt.
I'm the one, I'm intemperate.
I'm the guy who hadn't endorsed anybody.
I'm the guy who has said, we have a lot of electable people.
I'm the guy who has said, I'm going to vote for whoever the nominee is.
And I'm called intemperate.
Meanwhile, David Axelrod asked about Newt, the higher a monkey climbs on the pole, the more you can see his butt.
You know, what is that to you about Axelrod?
What in the world is he thinking?
Who thinks about monkeys climbing poles?
Who thinks about that?
And who thinks about what you see when a monkey climbs a pole?
No, Snerdley, you want me to go into the racial aspect.
You remember I remember Howard Kosell, look at that little monkey run.
Look at that.
And they dragged Kosell over the coals for a month.
If I know, that's the difference.
If I know, if Steve Schmidt had said this about Obama, what would be happening to Steve Schmidt?
He would blame it on me.
He would say he heard me say it and he was intemperate and he screwed up.
He shouldn't have said he'd blame it on me.
If anybody on the Republican side said that about Obama, well, it'd be over.
Well, you can say it about Newt.
The higher a monkey climbs on the pole, the more you can see his butt.
And yes, he had a tweak for Romney.
Generally, his practice has been to bet other people's money, not his own.
How do you say other people's money?
A Marxist socialist claims that Romney bets other people's money.
To the phones, I want to get a phone in here before our call and before the hour ends.
It's A.J. in Jackson, New Jersey.
Hi, AJ.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Great to be on the show.
You know, if there was an actual Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, I would be on the Dean's list.
So it's good to be with you.
Well, I'm honored to hear there aren't any graduates in degrees here because the learning never stops.
But I'm happy to hear your self-assessment.
Thank you.
I wanted to make a point about the election.
Before I do, I wanted to ask you a question.
My HP recently died, and I was wondering if I could possibly have a MacBook.
I'm running short on MacBooks.
How about if I do a really great Obama impression for you?
No.
No.
No, the problem, if I say yes to a request, that's all I'm going to get.
Then everybody who calls is going to ask for something, and then the whole fund's taken out of it.
And so you forced me to say no.
You don't really want to know what was in store for you, but if you hadn't said anything.
Oh, oh.
I was going to send you an iPad.
You know, I've got to get going there.
I've got a prize closet back there, and I've got to get rid of some of this stuff for Christmas.
I want to do it.
And I was just going to, I wasn't even going to ask you.
I was going to say by the end of the call, by the way, hang on, I'm going to get your address, send you an iPad.
But I can now, because you asked for a MacBook.
Don't ask.
Don't ask.
It's not a gift then, and plus it opens the floodgates for everybody else to be doing the same thing.
And then it becomes a trip to Santa Claus, not a talk show.
Okay, if I make a good point, will you possibly reconsider?
Well, we'll see.
Okay.
My point is that conservatives cannot divide their votes.
We have a lot of candidates still in the field right now.
And I've been listening to what you're saying.
And I think we all need to get behind someone like Michelle Bachman.
She's been a principled conservative, and there hasn't been a single issue she's wavered on.
I think all conservatives need to get together, say, let's put our votes beyond one candidate.
We can't afford to split it like before because we're going to have a situation like we had with McCain last time.
And if people don't realize this ahead of time, the result is going to be extremely bad for all of us.
We have to pick the best possible candidate we can.
And by dividing our votes, you know, a House divided against itself cannot stand.
And so it's important we rally together.
That's the nature of a primary is the votes are divided.
That's the nature of a primary.
But I'm going to tell you something.
If you combine, just in a polling day, right, if you combine Bachmann and Santorum, you still don't get to where Newt is right now.
People vote their hearts.
They don't vote what I tell them to vote.
But I just tell you, and I've said it before, I think Michelle Bachman would be great.
I think she would fight for this country consistently, predictably, every day she was in the Oval Office.
There's a political story today about Romney admitting that Newt is the frontrunner.
There's a paragraph in this story that screams Rush is right.
▲
Export Selection