All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:36
December 27, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know exactly when the last time I was here to do Russia's program was.
I know this because when I got into the studio and I plugged my what do you call these now?
Laptops or notebooks?
I know it's not a tablet.
When I plugged this into the printer, there must have been something in the memory from the last it started printing out a document from August the 24th, so that had to be the last time that I was here, the 23rd or something like that.
When I was here that time, an unnamed high-ranking member of the EIB staff was trying to goad me into saying that Ron Paul is a nut.
And I didn't do it.
So look, it's not worth it.
It's not worth saying that Ron Paul is a nut, because then you get all the Ron Paul people all over you, and everything else that you say about Ron Paul is obscured, and I'm not going to do it.
Plus, Ron Paul had, and this is again August, had a lot to offer and was saying some important things on many issues, and I didn't want to do it.
And I didn't call him a nut.
I instead said the dilemma that many of us have with Ron Paul is that he's right on a lot of issues and terribly wrong on others.
Well, I'm back now.
It's almost exactly four months later.
And I'm still not going to say Ron Paul is a nut, although I called him a wing nut, which is a variation of that earlier on the program.
What I am going to say, though, is that Ron Paul is trying to appeal to people who are nuts.
The Ron Paul coalition includes some people who are legitimately libertarian in their thinking.
They are simply fed up with how large the government is and how it's in every element of our lives.
He also appeals to people who think the reason we're in the mess that we're in in this country is because we have strayed away from the Constitution.
The Constitution was set up to put limits on government.
And it has been misinterpreted to allow government to expand and become the monster that it is.
Ron Paul appeals to people because he's the one guy who's on that issue.
And he talks about it eloquently.
That's the good part of Ron Paul, and it's the good part of his base, and it's the part of his base that often gets hacked off when people like myself suggest that there's something wrong with Ron Paul.
But then there's the other part of his support group out there.
They are people who have points of view that are nutty, that aren't within the mainstream of anything, that are beyond distasteful, that they're wrong.
Do you really think that that newsletter he was putting out in the 90s that he now says he disavows, I don't agree with this, I didn't write it, and I don't I didn't even read it.
Why was he why was that stuff in the newsletter then?
I'll tell you why.
Because he wanted to sell newsletters.
Ron Paul was appealing to the people who believed the stuff that was in the newsletters.
It's always been part of his base.
Just as now, he throws out in one of his other publications, this notion that maybe the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, might have had something to do with 9-11.
There are people who want to believe that.
There's always a desire to believe in nuttiness when a world's reality is difficult, rather than actually confronting reality, it can be comforting to instead embrace nuttiness.
Thinking that 9-11 was an inside job, like way too many liberals, or the Israelis did it, like some other people out there, that's easier than confronting the reality that there is an Islamist, not Islamic, Islamist movement in the world that wants jihad.
It's easier to accept than the reality that in a world in which mess weapons of mass destruction are there and will become more prevalent every month that goes by, that there are dangerous people who may want to use them because they hate the rest of us.
So we embrace nut theories rather than dealing with that reality, which is frankly very, very terrifying.
It's hard to know what to do about it.
Ron Paul plays to that group.
It's why he's able to get up and do as he did in the last Republican debate.
Poo-poo the notion of the very real threat of the Iranians getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
He talked about not overreacting to that.
How do you underreact to that?
He's appealing to the people who think that this isn't a problem.
He said that the reason why 9 11 occurred is because Muslims are upset because we've been over there bombing them.
That's not it.
And even he probably knows it over the Christmas weekend.
A group called Boko Harem, or whatever it is, blew up a Catholic church in Nigeria.
Nigeria is almost equally divided between Muslims and Christians.
By and large, they coexist.
There's a large Roman Catholic population in Nigeria, along with a fair number of other mainstream Protestant religions and some fundamentalist Christians.
They're about half and half with the Muslims in Nigeria.
And by and large, they get along just fine.
But there are the extremists in the Islamic movement who can't abide the notion that there are Christians in that country.
They're now upping the ante.
Blew up a Catholic church, killed what, 35, 40 people.
That's real.
That happened.
That ideology is not.
All that uncommon is in the Muslim world.
If they're willing to blow up people for the sin of going to church, a Catholic church on Christmas Day, don't think for a minute we don't have a problem if they get their hands on real weapons of mass destruction.
This is a real problem.
President Obama has done nothing on this for three years.
He sought to engage the Iranians as it worked.
He's given lip service to the pro-democracy protesters in the Arab world.
All that's done is empowered the Muslim Brotherhood.
At some point we're going to have to confront it.
For a Republican candidate for president to go out there and try to tell people that this is nothing to worry about and that we don't need to have our national defenses ready, and that the Islamist problem, that the terror problem isn't a real thing, is beyond simply uttering a political point of view.
He's trying to appeal to people who are nutty.
And that's the problem with Ron Paul.
When you criticize Paul, his backers, who are very strident, very passionate, and often very humorless about the whole thing, attack you for daring to criticize Dr. Paul.
Well, now he's got to be criticized.
Because he's out there trying to hijack the Republican presidential nomination from a party that doesn't agree with half of his message.
True, Paul is right on a lot of economic issues.
True, he is right that we have simply abandoned the Constitution.
He is right about the fact that the Federal Reserve is involved in way too much of American life.
The Federal Reserve shouldn't be buying up bonds and buying AIG and the Federal Reserve shouldn't be intervening in all of these areas of the economy, and it shouldn't be as extreme and manipulating the money supply to the point that it is trashing the dollar.
Paul's right about all of that stuff.
But the fact that he's right about those things doesn't mean that we can ignore the rest of it.
And the rest of it is nutty.
And it is dangerous.
And if his supporters don't like hearing that, tough.
When Paul was out there getting two or three percent in some of the opinion polls and he was a fringe Player, it was easier to ignore him.
But when he's out there threatening to win states like the Iowa caucuses because a bunch of Democrats and a bunch of people who don't have anything in common with mainstream conservatism go and show up and vote for him.
His positions are fair game.
All I'm doing here is taking Ron Paul at face value.
Let's go to the phones.
1 800 282 2882 is the phone number at the Rush Limbaugh program to Gillette Wyoming and Will.
Will it's your turn on EIB.
Mark, uh, let me let me start by wishing you uh hope you had a Merry Christmas and a blessed new year to you.
Thank you.
Um give you a quick bit of my resume.
I have a 20-year law enforcement vet.
I'm a GOP precinct committee man, I've been a state delegate several times, hope to be so again.
And I am a Ron Paul supporter.
Um I'll start by saying something about Mitt Romney.
I think before you do that, and before you do it, talk about Ron Paul and talk about the reasons you support him.
Well, uh I will just give you this line.
Mid is probably the best to run the current system.
The problem is the current system is flawed terribly.
It's broken, and I don't want a really well-run broken system.
Okay, we need massive change.
Okay, but you called about you called about Ron Paul.
Right.
And you just got done talking about how he's right on the economy, he's right on the Constitution, he's right on the Federal Reserve, he's right at the trashing our dollar.
And yet the foreign policy that we're we're trying to up to uh uphold, which has been unraveling before our very eyes over the last several decades, isustainable.
We're spending one point five ish trillion a year, holding nine hundred bases in a hundred and twenty countries.
How can we afford that?
The the picture in my head is you know when you get on an airplane and they go through the little spiel and say, hey, this is a different thing.
Well, let me answer your point.
Let me answer your point, Will, about how do we sustain that with the defense budget.
What you just laid out is a fine point of view.
I may disagree with it, but certainly debating how we can continue to spend money on a defense budget when we have the sort of national debt that we have is a legitimate issue.
My problem with Paul is that he doesn't stop at that.
He implies that we don't face any threats.
He implies he implies things about the world that aren't true.
He voted for the the the action against the terrorists in 911.
He has said if we need to go to war, you go to Congress, you get a declaration of war, you de go to war, you win it, and you you finish it.
We haven't declared war since December 8th, 1941, Mark.
How is that constitutional?
I didn't say that it was.
What I said is that the what I said is that the comments that Ron Paul has made about the terror threat and the Islamist threat are nutty and they are not within the mainstream of American society.
He talked at the most recent debate about not overreacting to Iran getting a nuclear bomb.
He has said, he has said the reason that 9-11 occurred.
These are his words, is not because Muslims hate us, but because we're dropping bombs on them.
He's said those things.
As for the other stuff, the newsletter thing that he's put in there, why do you think that racist stuff sh showed up in a newsletter that is called the Ron Paul newsletter?
It's because he's appealing to people who wanted to read things like that.
I don't disagree with your right to throw out the opinions that you had on those issues, and I don't think there's anything extreme about your positions.
What I'm saying is that Paul takes it way beyond what you did, and that's why it's telling that you're not echoing what Paul had to say, because even you don't believe some of the stuff that he's thrown out there.
It's been a little commercial that Rush puts on the line before you get on to talk with He says he needs six weeks of continuous listening to get everything in context.
You need that with Ron Paul as well.
Well, and the problem I have as a guest host is that I'm only on here for a couple of days, and I'm struggling to get everything in.
Thanks for the call, Will.
I appreciate it.
My name is Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Here's something to stew about.
Is America nuttier now than it used to be?
That's really a deeper question than you think.
We've always been somewhat nutty.
I mean, we were a country that allowed half the states to rationalize into themselves the notion that blacks weren't human beings that they could be owned like property.
I mean, talk about nutty.
You say, well, we have all of that behind us.
Well, look at some of the beliefs that we have right now, the refusal to accept that 9 11 occurred.
Major candidate running for president of the United States, throwing out conspiracy theories that are off the charts.
Just go on the internet for four minutes.
Type in nine type in nine never nine 911.
Type in anything and look at the stuff that you find out there.
I do think that the internet is becoming a form of communication for the people that are willing to embrace nuttiness.
Are we nuttier now than we used to be?
I think in some respects the answer is probably yes.
We are nutty enough to think that you can have a sixteen trillion dollar national debt in a country of 300 million people and not think that it's going to be a problem.
We're nutty enough to think that we don't have to do anything about Social Security and Medicare and things are going to be just fine.
We're nutty enough to have elected Barack Obama president of the United States.
Let's go to Gray Tennessee and Joel.
Joel, it's your turn on the Russian Limbaugh program.
Well, thank you very much.
And uh Mark, I've been enjoying your program very much today.
Thank you.
Uh, what I wanted to mention, you covered it a little bit uh last hour is that uh the Republican leadership, and hopefully they're listening to this, that they do need to get a high ahead of the ball game right now and uh kick down, kick the uh can down the road like Democrats usually do.
And and the way I look at it is this if there is a tax cut, whether it be payroll or otherwise, get ahead of it and go ahead and accept it and uh and get with the media and on the congressional floors and everything else and uh and accept another tax cut at the end of two months.
Don't care, don't worry about it, just go ahead and do it.
Well, do understand, do understand that the Democrats don't want them to do what you just described.
So increasingly, you know, and in two months, this thing's going to come back, and they're going to put the thing out there and apply terms that the Republicans find noxious, that they can't accept, and then when there's a failure to reach an agreement, they'll say again, see the Republicans don't care about $40 a month for lower income and middle income people.
See, the Republicans only care about tax cuts for their rich people.
The Democrats will make this harder and harder and harder.
But understand why they're doing it.
They have a need to change the subject.
They run the presidency, their appointees are on the Federal Reserve, they have the Senate, yet our economy isn't improving much at all.
Under their management, we are running a preposterous annual deficit.
We're spending 40% more than we're taking in.
That's a ridiculous number.
That's why they need to change the subject and go on to this payroll tax thing because they're deliberately trying to create this message that the Republicans don't care about the little guy.
So they they're going to make this thing more and more unattractive every two months that could that goes down.
And I'm just suggesting that the Republicans can't take that trap.
They can't bite out of the cheese that's in there because then you were allowing them to change the subject.
The thing is totally unfair.
It's completely ridiculous that if they pass a one-year extension of this tax cut, the Democrats pass it two months.
There isn't an agreement that the Republicans got what we're going to get the blame if the tax would go up, but that's the way it always works.
And I'm just saying that they can't fall into this trap of allowing this to become the dominant economic issue of 2012 because we all know it has to be the issue.
We have terrible unemployment, we have almost no growth, we have a struggling manufacturing sector, we have a trade deficit, and we have a monstrous national debt.
We have no way of paying for our entitlements.
Those need to be the subjects.
Those are all the issues that Barack Obama doesn't want anybody to talk about this year.
Yeah, that's right.
And that's the reason Republicans are going to just have to kick the can down the road, so to speak, and uh and put their minds and their hearts on on the more important issues, I believe.
Yeah, and what happened in the House, thanks for the call.
What happened in the House was there were a lot of House Republican freshmen who didn't want to accept the deal that passed the Senate for all the right reasons.
These are impatient people, impatient in a good way.
They were elected to deal with the problems that we have.
They represent constituencies that are sick to death about the sad state of our economy and terrified about our federal budget deficit.
And they didn't want to accept as public policy this ridiculous two month extension that isn't even paid for.
And they told Speaker Boehner this.
The problem is that the things that they were concerned about was not what got any attention the way the thing was being played out for the public.
Instead, it was all the Republicans are trying to make you take more money out of your paycheck right around Christmas time.
And you can't let that become the story.
I'm Mark Belling.
This is EIB.
EIB.
EIB.
you you This whole Occupy movement.
This was created.
It was invented.
It was the backdrop that President Obama wanted this whole 99% versus 1%.
The Republicans only care about rich people.
The economic problems that we have certainly isn't the administration's fault.
It's because some vague Wall Street bankers are manipulating the economy, and that's what the Republicans are in cahoots with.
That's the storyline that they want to offer.
The reality, of course.
More than half the Wall Street bankers are Democrats.
The reality, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae, Democratic dominated entities pushed around by Democratic social policy, created the economic collapse in the first place.
The reality, MF Global, the latest massive Wall Street firm, to somehow lose tens of millions, hundreds of millions of investor money, run by John Corzine, who was a Democrat United States Senator and a Democrat New Jersey governor, and a close friend of Democrat President Barack Obama.
That's all the reality.
My point was that the movement was invented for the purpose of allowing the administration to somehow claim that it's somebody else's fault that we're in the economic mess that we're in.
They run things.
Our history's pretty clear on this.
Presidents don't get re-elected when the economy is lousy.
People overlook everything when the economy is fine.
Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996 because the economy was in pretty good shape.
The American public re-elected Richard Nixon in 1972 because the economy at the time was doing very, very well.
The Watergate story was out for six, seven months prior to that.
The American people, though, were happy with the economy and didn't want to turn the country over to George McGovern.
Likewise now.
President Obama is in trouble politically because what he put in place failed.
He came in with total power.
He had the White House, Harry Reid ran the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi ran the House.
They came in with this massive stimulus.
Nearly a trillion dollars.
Keynesianism on steroids.
Let's prime the pump.
Let's start the money from Washington and get it into America and the economy will turn around.
The economy didn't turn around.
Jobs weren't created.
Three years later, the unemployment rate is about what it was then.
But we've buried ourselves in massive debt.
President Bush's worst federal budget deficit is about 33% of what we're running right now.
He's created a national debt long-term problem that makes us sincerely worry that we're going to end up like Grace.
That's his record.
There weren't any Republicans to block anything that he wanted to do.
And then on top of all of it, he passed the largest entitlement of all.
Terrifying American employers, killing job creation, with Obamacare out there, every employer is afraid to expand.
They're afraid to hire new workers because they know the costs that are going to be coming when Obamacare fully kicks in.
That's his record.
He doesn't want to run on his record.
When is a president of the United States ever run for reelection not running on his record?
That's the whole point if you're the Incumbent to point to the things that you have done.
He isn't bragging about anything that he's done.
When's the last time you saw a political ad saying I created nationalized health care?
He doesn't even bring up the subject anymore.
He's embarrassed by what he's done.
When's the last time you heard him talk about how we need to try to pass Cap and Trade again?
He doesn't want to talk about that.
He'd certainly love to go to all of the places in America where the economy has turned around.
He can't find any.
Normally, when there are protests in the in a country, it's because people are objecting to the government in power.
Go anywhere in the world right now.
They're actually protesting against Putin and Russia.
They're protesting in Yemen.
They're still dissatisfied in Egypt.
Wherever people are protesting, it's because they are upset with the ruling government.
Here he invents a protest, protesting against home.
He's got to invent a spraw man.
He wants people to embrace a protest about the economy as if he, as president, has nothing to do with the economy.
If he can't fix the economy, if he can't make things better, if he can't put in place policies that would lead to more growth, what's the point of being of re-electing him?
This is a very odd political strategy.
But it's the one that they're left with.
You know how John Fox, the uh head coach of Denver.
He's created all of these plays where they have Tim Tebow rolling out and Tim Tebow running and running the option and all of that stuff.
John Fox, I think, is a great coach.
I think what he's done out there in Denver, particularly with their defense and making the whole Tebow thing work, their one went away from making the playoffs.
He did it because he had to.
He knew he didn't have a traditional classic quarterback.
Barack Obama's coming up with this, running against the rich guys, inventing this payroll tax cut and trotting it out every two months.
He's bringing this out because he has to change the subject away from the fact that his administration hasn't done anything to improve our economy, and every single economic policy that they have tried has been an absolute failure.
Let's go to the phones.
Charleston, South Carolina, Christopher, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Thank you, Mr. Belling.
Um, first and foremost, I'd I'd like to say um the only reason why Russia's accuracy uh rating has not gone up in the past several years is because he constantly refers to his staff as overrated.
I think if he turned that around, I think his accuracy rate would rise.
Uh otherwise I think.
That's very, very convoluted for me.
I'm a simple guy from Milwaukee.
Are you saying that the staff is or the staff is indeed overrated, or are you saying the staff is underrated?
It's underrated.
It's underrated.
Yes, I think that's why Russia's accuracy rating is uh is not quite where he wants it to be.
So anyway, that being said, I feel like one does one does need a foil, and this staff here certainly fulfills that purpose.
Although I gotta tell you, doing the program this week between Christmas and New Year's, you would get the impression that New York City is a go all I see in the entire city are children running around who live everywhere but New York.
I don't see anybody walking to work in New York here at the EIV offices.
I mean, there's like nobody here.
I've got Bo Snerdley here.
He's uh he's telling me what to say.
Uh anyway, the the praise for the staff I'm sure is appreciated.
What's on your mind?
Um well, I wanted to say, being uh a Charlestonian, uh since 1980, South Carolina has been um a true bellwether uh in regards to the um Republican nominee.
Yeah, you're right.
And um I feel whoever wins South Carolina, then Florida follows shortly.
Um, whoever takes those two states, I feel like is gonna be our nominee.
Yeah, Michael Barone has a really interesting column out today, and I don't even know where he wrote it.
Uh Barone says that Iowa is not a bellwether, that the winner of the Iowa caucuses usually doesn't go on to be the Republican nominee for president.
New Hampshire's kind of a 50-50, but what happens is Iowa and New Hampshire both kind of weed candidates out, and then they go to South Carolina and the candidate who wins the South Carolina almost always finishes it off.
It certainly did the de did the trick for McCain in 08 and for Bush in 0.
Now this time around, you've got competition with Florida, which is voting right around the same time as you.
Those are states in which the Republican Party, I think, is probably pretty typical of most American Republicans.
So you're probably right.
Whoever whoever does win South Carolina, he's going to be in strong shape.
So you're down there.
Who do you think is going to do well?
Uh right now, um, because of the way uh the gentleman speaks, he's very eloquent.
He knows a little about everything, and I think right now people are scared to death because of Acorn and what have you, and and our own voter ID law being interrupted by uh the Department of Justice.
By a maniacally political attorney general who is trying to use the Justice Department literally to run interference for the Democratic Party.
I mean, we're I think you know, I'm going to be here tomorrow.
I'm gonna try to get to that story on a program.
I don't know if everybody's familiar with what the Attorney General with Eric Holder and the Justice Department are doing on the South Carolina voter ID Law, but it's something anyway.
You were driving at something.
Who do you think is best positioned to win in South Carolina?
Uh I don't think he's the best man, but I'd be I feel like he will take it, and I think that's Newt Gingrich, and the reason why is because I feel like people are scared to death of the incumbent now, and I feel like they everyone wants someone who can debate, speak, and know something about everything.
And when it comes to Lincoln Douglas debates, uh you know, Newt's the guy.
Um my guy's not in the race.
Um button.
All right, that's a depressing answer.
I appreciate I appreciate the insight, Christopher.
That's a depressing answer from hearing that it's everybody says that Newt's gonna debate Obama well, and he'll be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama.
Here's the problem, and I think a lot of Republicans aren't aware of it.
There are a lot of Americans who just don't like him, Gingrich.
And they're gonna tune him out.
Particularly when you start bringing up the scandals in the nineties.
How well do you think that's going to work when that in these debates and they're talking about the economy and Barack Obama turns to Newt Gingrich and starts talking about the money that Newt took from Freddie Mack.
I mean, th th for most Republicans, that's that's a difficult issue to begin with.
For the American public, I think it's going to be a tough one to swallow.
He says it looks like Gingrich in South Carolina now.
I my own sense is that Newt's moment has passed.
And I don't want to tell you that I have any expertise here because I've been wrong about all of this stuff.
My sense is that his moment has passed, that the story out today that shows that all of the commentary he's offered about Romney care has been a fraud, that he endorsed it back in 2006 and said it was a wonderful thing.
I think it's all kind of taking a toll on him.
Then you got the whole thing where he can't even get on the ballot in Virginia.
If you can't get enough signatures to get on the ballot in Virginia, which is where he now lives, how do you make the case that you can run the country more competently than Barack Obama?
I'm Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush.
Rush.
E. I.com.
Rush is off this week.
The week that most Americans are off, the week that fill-ins like me show up and talk to you.
Uh Rush will be back uh I think next Tuesday.
Here's a story for you.
On in the New York Times today.
The people who work at the electronic stores and work on commission are getting crushed because of the price of televisions crashing.
Used to be a big markup item, now the competition is so stiff.
Think about this one for a minute.
You can right now buy a 42-inch, high death, LCD TV for less than an iPad.
Think about that.
The tablets are more expensive than the big screen TVs.
And I guess it's because the tablets actually can do more.
Still, that's kind of an amazing story.
Let's go to Seattle, Washington, and Jay.
Jay, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hey, thanks for taking the call.
Um little nervous.
I'm sitting here for a long time thinking about what I was going to say.
You don't have to be nervous because Rush isn't here, it's just me.
Well, you know, here comes along a guy who speaks 100% the truth.
He's nothing like the other politicians.
He tells it exactly how it is, and you even said so.
Everything he he says, you agree with.
No, I don't.
Don't understand.
When did I say everything I say he agrees with?
I said divide mechanism to by the media and the establishment.
Jay.
Hang on a minute here.
When did I say I agree with everything that Ron Paul has to say he said except for his policy is foreign policy?
You agreed with his stance on the Constitution.
That's half of it.
Okay.
So that's the problem on half of the things that he says.
What's the problem with that?
Why do we feel like we should police the world?
I don't know that we should.
You asked the question.
You asked the question.
I'm trying to trying to answer it.
You said that you were nervous here.
Well, calm down and you make your comment and I'll make mine.
You said why should we have to police the world?
That is far different from saying that we don't face a threat.
That is far different from saying that we that we are better that we are overreacting to the notion of Iran getting a nuclear bomb.
And that is far different from implying as he did in a publication that 9-11 was not committed by Islamic terrorists.
That's the point that I'm making.
All of those positions are dangerous and they're extreme.
I understand why you're willing to embrace the parts of Paul that you agree with, but to suggest that the other stuff isn't there is wrong.
One of the big problems of President Obama's administration is that he has been utterly incompetent when it comes to foreign policy.
We have made no progress anywhere in the world.
He was the guy who thought that he could reason with the Iranians.
He's the guy that instead of coming in like the cowboy elect Bush felt that he could deal with Ahmadinejad and the Molahs and talk them off this cliff of nuclear weapons.
He's gotten nowhere.
He's gotten absolutely nowhere on the sp on the on the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.
He's gotten nowhere in his foreign policy with Afghanistan.
The situation in Afghanistan is worse now than it was before.
We are absolutely nowhere in terms of having any way of engaging the North Koreans.
It's because he's taken a foreign policy team led by Hillary that was in over its head.
To say that dealing with the kind of world that we're in right now means that we can't be the policeman implies that we have no role at all in a world that is more dangerous than ever.
To say that Ron Paul is merely wrong on foreign policy and merely wrong on the terror threat is to trivialize the importance of those issues.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling.
You know, this whole debate about who the Republican candidate for president should be.
It's going to get interesting because of all the debates this year and the exaggerated importance of Iowa and New Hampshire.
We've had all of this going on before anybody in America has had a chance to vote.
Iowa, how many people do they say will participate in the caucus?
110,000.
Then New Hampshire.
The storyline may change after those two, and then South Carolina and Florida.
I don't think anybody knows where it's going to go, which allows us to, for one minute, take a fond look at the past.
This story out today.
Former President Bill Clinton says he will put up two dollar match for every one dollar donated to his foundation this week.
Now, first of all.
You know that's not true.
You know he's not really going to do it.
You know he's not going to pony up anything out of his own pocket.
So the challenge is, and we're out of practice because he's been gone for a while.
Where is the catch in that statement?
Former President Bill Clinton says he will put up a $2 match for every $1 donated to his foundation this week.
Somewhere in there is a catch.
I'll be back tomorrow.
Thanks for listening.
▲
Export Selection