All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:05
March 16, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program.
Documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time.
Don't argue.
Just accept it.
It's Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Happy to have you with us open line Friday, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on a program, email address L Rushbow EIB net.com.
We try to take more calls on Friday.
Because on Friday, anybody can talk about whatever they want.
That's pretty much it.
Doesn't happen Monday through Thursday, but we let it happen on Friday.
I am a benevolent dictator.
That's the best way to understand how this happens here.
Again, 800-282-2882.
Okay, we just uh in the last hour sent out another tweet.
A great story.
It's at Commentary, the commentary blog.
It's uh it's a it's a great website.
It was started by Norman Pedoritz.
It's uh it's a highbrow place, and there's a great piece on the contentions blog portion of commentary by Alana Goodman entitled The Anti-Rush Campaign Was in the Works.
We've tweeted that out.
We want you to follow me on Twitter.
All you have to do is go to Twitter and open an account.
It's easy, it doesn't cost you anything, and you're not gonna be hit upon by a bunch of solicitations.
And then you just follow me.
Our handle is at Limbaugh or Rushlinbaugh, no space between the two names.
And then simply retweet.
Click a button, retweet what we post for you to see there.
And that piece we just sent it out.
Budgets being discussed.
Paul Ryan is the, for all intents and purposes, the budget leader for the Republicans in the House.
He released a video previewing the release next week of the Republicans' proposed fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
It was about a minute and a half long.
We have 33 seconds of it.
It's awesome.
It is people if people have watched the whole video who've said, Why isn't this guy running for president?
There's our candidate, Paul Ryan.
Listen to this.
You know, I was here in Congress in 2008 when we had the economic crisis.
It was a terrible time.
Millions of people lost their jobs, trillions of dollars of wealth gone.
This coming debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we've ever had in this country.
And look what's happening.
This is why we're acting.
This is why we're leading.
This is why we're proposing and passing out of the House a budget to fix this problem.
So we can save our country for ourselves and for our children's future.
Paul Ryan, he's in Wisconsin, and the full budget will be presented next week, but he's got this video out in uh whole thing.
The whole thing is fabulous.
Since we're audio sound bites, hit the top.
Want to go back to me on this program and a prediction that I made yesterday.
He's going to release oil from the strategic reserves.
Because this is supposed and the media will be right in here, folks.
The media gonna be jumping for joy with this and doing exactly what they're supposed to do.
The news is going to be Obama cares.
He's he's not waiting for the oil companies.
Somebody has to act.
Somebody has to care about the American people.
Somebody has to care about the price of gasoline.
They say that presidents can't do anything about it.
Have you heard that all week, by the way?
Well, guess what?
The one has found a way to do something.
That's what's gonna get reported here.
And let's go to ABC's World News Tonight.
Fill in anchored David Muir opened the broadcast.
Welcome to World News.
Tonight, pumped up.
Could gas prices finally be coming down?
Tonight is there a secret plan.
Is the president on the verge of action?
Do I know these people or do I know these people?
I predicted yesterday.
The media would pick this ball up and run with it.
There's one guy who can bring gasoline prices down.
One man who cares.
Only one man who cares about gas prices.
The one.
Barack Obama.
And there's ABC's World News Tonight setting it all up.
Now, what did we learn about this yesterday?
Well, first there was a report that Cameron, Prime Minister Britton Obama, had agreed to a joint release of all from a strategic reserves of both countries.
Markets reacted to this, so did we.
About 45 minutes after that, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, that's false.
There's there's no agreement.
Nobody's agreed to release oil.
I mean, yeah, they talked about energy.
What would you expect?
But there's no agreement.
Well, Reuters had an exclusive detailing the agreement.
National Journal had a story on it.
The Hill.com have a story, and Reuters is back today.
Exclusive U.S. Britain set to agree on emergency oil stocks release.
They posted this about six hours ago now.
They've not pulled it.
And all this is is a tweaked version of their original story from yesterday with a few updates on the White House denials.
Now I have no doubt that Obama and Cameron discussed this or that Obama's plan is to do it this summer, closer to the elections.
I have no doubt.
In fact, yesterday when we heard that they were going to release all from a strategic reserve, why now?
There's no electoral benefit, and it's there's no interruption in our oil supply, and there's no shortage.
There's no emergency, there's no crisis in terms of supply.
You don't release oil from the strategic reserves, which are about a 36-day supply just because prices go up, unless you're doing it for political reasons, and of course Obama is.
So Kearney didn't deny that they had discussed using the strategic reserves.
He just denied that a deal had been reached on the release or the timeline.
So I I th I think this Reuters story was uh an embarrassing leak of Obama's strategic plans for his reelection.
I don't because Reuters hasn't pulled it.
I I don't have any doubt that they have a deal and a timeline to release all from a strategic reserves, but they're not going to do it until there's some political benefit to it.
Speaking of political benefit, let me put something else out there.
I was talking to a good friend the other day about this.
And we were discussing possibilities of something happening on a scale of one to ten.
Let's say it's October.
And no, no, not October surprise, not going there.
Not not because this wouldn't be a surprise.
But let's go to October, under our hypothetical here.
And let's say Obama's still a 41%, and let's say the gas prices are higher.
Let's say it's looking bad.
What do you think on a scale of one to ten, the possibilities of Obama attacking the United States attacking Iran to shut down its nuclear program in October?
Where would you put that possibility on a scale of one to ten?
And let's add something else to it.
The president announces that we're taking military action.
We have conclusive proof now.
It's all hypothetical.
And he said this is October.
We've got conclusive proof, they're building a nuclear weapon.
We're not going to let it stand.
I've said all along, President says we're not going to let it stand.
Launch the attack, whatever, and then say we can't, in the midst of this important move regarding American foreign policy.
We can't change horses in the middle of the stream.
We can't pass this on to another administration.
What are the odds?
What would you put that on a scale of 1 to 10 being possible?
If gasoline prices are still this high or higher by October, then inflation will have gone through the roof.
So some kind of distraction will be needed.
And a distraction That theoretically would unite the nation.
I mean, I'm just asking.
Bloomberg News consumer prices in U.S. rose in February as gasoline jumped.
The cost of living in the U.S., this is inflation.
In fact, let me say that instead of costly.
It's the same thing.
Inflation in the U.S. rose in February by more by the most in ten months, reflecting a jump in gasoline that failed to spread to other goods and services.
The consumer price index climbed 0.4%, matching the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
The biggest jump in gasoline more than a year accounted for about 80% of the increase in prices last month, leaving households with less money to spend on other goods and services, including contraception, which is why women emerging from the voting booths on Tuesday night said the economy is the thing that matters to me most.
And the economy is the second most important thing to me, and the economy is the third most important thing.
And this caused Democrat women's strategists to pull their hair out.
How can these women be concerned about the economy?
Don't they know if they lose their health?
What goes on in the economy doesn't matter?
Why aren't they buying into our war on women theory?
It's because of the economy.
Rising gas prices.
Consumer confidence is falling as inflation rises.
So there will be a political component to the release of oil from these strategic reserves.
One other quick note here before we go to the um break.
Well, yeah, I think it's possible.
I was just asked if I thought the price of birth control might go up.
With inflation.
I don't know.
Brian, what do you think?
You you think uh the price of birth control might go up?
You know it's between five and nine dollars a month now.
I think it's a month at Walmart.
It may be fifteen.
At Georgetown, it's $3,000 a thousand dollars a year.
At Georgetown, it's six hundred uh a year or less at Walmart or CVS or whatever.
Um if inflation hits big, what do you think would happen to the price of contraception?
I don't know.
I'm being asked, I'm I'd some things are immune to price increases.
Some things aren't.
We just have to wait and see.
The percentage, this from the Los Angeles Daily News, the percentage of Californians who smoke has dropped to an all-time low.
The numbers now 11.9%.
That's the second lowest in the nation behind Utah, which is at 9.1% of the population there who smoke.
That's good news.
That is great news for the health of Californians, it says here.
But it's bad news for the state's budget and the first five program.
The first five programs local services for children up to age five.
The decline in smoking was anticipated, but it has descended at a much sharper rate than predicted, and as a result, California will face difficulty in funding $16 billion in bonds the state has issued since 2001.
Unlike many other states, California made the mistake of deciding not to take the annual payments from tobacco firms, but instead borrowed money against the expected receipts.
And now that the payments are less because people are smoking less, California faces another fiscal problem.
Now, once again, ladies and gentlemen, I must say you in this audience were told to expect this, not just in California, but everywhere.
I have often illustrating absurdity to be absurd or being absurd to illustrate absurd, I have said that we need to give smokers medals.
We need to make them citizens with great honor, because they are the ones paying for children health care programs.
The taxes, the vast majority of taxes, the sale of tobacco products goes to fund children health care programs.
All of this was done by the Democrat Party while demanding that fewer and fewer people smoke, making it harder and harder for people to smoke.
Oh, you can go buy the cigarettes.
The cost was through the roof because of the tax increases.
And we heard all about how smoking kills.
And we had all these people trying to ban it everywhere.
It became harder and harder to use the product, but you could buy it anywhere you wanted to.
And the taxes were going to be used to pay for children's health care programs, so something had to give here.
If you are urging people to stop smoking, if you were guilting them into stop smoking, if you're telling them you can't continue to smoke, why you're going to get cancer, you're going to have lung cancer, you're going to cause all kinds of rising expenses in a national health care program.
You are you're going to pay higher taxes.
In the meantime, we're paying for children's health care programs with the tax receipts from the sale of this product, which is becoming harder and harder to use.
Now this had to happen.
At some point, the success in the anti-smoking programs is going to be such that it was going to cause a reduction in tax revenue to fund these children's health programs, and California is now unable to come up with 16 billion dollars for their first five programs.
So once again, the Democrat Party doing it for the children has now left them in the lurch.
Children's health programs in California now will be unfunded or underfunded because the taxes from declining sales of cigarettes are falling short in terms of paying for the programs.
What are we to do now?
Now what do we do?
Taxes from tobacco products pay for children's health care programs.
And while all that's going on, we're demanding people stop smoking.
We're making it harder and harder for them to smoke.
They got to stand outside bars and restaurants.
They can't smoke in public stadiums, and you can't smoke in a park, can't smoke anywhere.
Some places you try smoking in your house and a neighbor will turn you in to the local authorities.
And yet these are the people paying for children's health care programs.
What do we do now?
Now, of course, I asked the question rhetorically, what can we do?
I'll tell you what we can do.
And again, I as the mayor of Realville, I live in Litterville, I'll tell you what to do.
No, no, no.
The joking thing would be to say, okay, have Obama mandate that everybody buy cigarettes.
If he's going to mandate that everybody have health insurance, mandate that everybody buy tobacco products.
Whether you smoke or not, buy it, mandate that you buy.
Don't laugh, folks.
I know it sounds funny, but if they succeed in this mandate of making sure everybody buys health insurance, then there's nothing to stop them from demanding that we buy anything.
And Obama and his people are oriented toward this kind of totalitarian regime, authoritarianism, they wouldn't think twice about it.
So if there's a shortage in sales tax revenue from tobacco products, just mandate everybody go up.
Buy something, whether you use it or not.
Children's health depends on it.
It was the original intent, just like he supports infanticide.
He supported legislation of state senator in Illinois that if a child survived an abortion, a third doctor could come in and finish the job.
Baby intended to be aborted, survives the abortion.
Obama supported legislation to allow a third doctor to come in, and I know it sounds grotesque and brutal, but he did.
Look, children's health depends on the sale of these products.
You sh buy it, whether you use it or not.
But what do we do?
What do we really do?
Yeah, I know if if if it would be a problem if if if if, say, poor students at Georgetown couldn't afford to buy tobacco products after the mandate that they go buy them, Then of course, what would happen?
You and I will buy tobacco products for the people that can't afford them.
Now the simple answer is if you're not going to ban the product, if you're going to make it easy to buy cigarettes, then make it easy to smoke them.
If you are going to fund children's health care programs with the sales tax revenue of cigarettes and tobacco products, then lower the taxes and increase people's incentive to buy them and stop all of these anti-smoking programs.
Nother limb, that is absolutely silly.
We are interested in the health of the people of this.
No, you're not.
You're not interested in the health of the people of this country.
You're using tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes to fund children's health care programs, and you've succeeded in driving down the number of people who smoke, so your tax revenues down, so children's health care programs are underfunded.
It's all about the children.
So if you're gonna not ban the product, you let people smoke them when they buy them.
It's just that simple.
It's absurd to fund a program with the revenue of a product that you don't let people use.
It's patently absurd.
Back to the phones open line Friday, Dayton in Birmingham, Alabama.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, Rush, it is so wonderful to talk to you, dittoes, dittoes, ditdos.
Thank you very much.
I am a member of the angry conservative working women party.
It's a new voting block.
It is, it's a new voting block.
It is, it is.
And we probably started here in the South, as you know, I'm from Birmingham.
And you're a proud member?
I am a proud member, and I just want to thank you.
I thank you daily, and you make me feel so much better.
I um I I really want to thank you for your championing of the cause for individual liberty, and we appreciate everything you do.
Well, you've made my day.
I I really appreciate that, Dayton.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
It is a new voting block.
Angry, and by the way, it's not white, because there are a lot of Hispanic and African American women are ticked off at the economy, too.
It's angry conservative women.
That's the new voting block.
And they've been created by this mythical Democrat Republican war on women.
Speaking of which, a fascinating audio soundbite here.
Don, you're gonna like this.
You look distracted in there.
Are you okay today?
Is something wrong?
She's fine.
She looks distracted in there.
Are you worried?
Have I said some stuff that you're worried in there today about?
All right.
This afternoon on MSNBC, Luke Russert was the fill-in host.
And the guest is the founder of the Priorities USA Super PAC, Bill Burton.
That's Obama's super PAC, to which Bill Maher donated a million dollars.
Bill Burton used to be in the White House, he still technically is, but he runs Obama's super PAC.
During the interview, they had a guest panelist, the former governor of Pennsylvania, fast Eddie Ed Rendell, who said this to Bill Burton, who runs Obama's super PAC.
Bill, it's Ed Randell.
It's not just conservatives who are calling for us to give it back.
It's Democratic women.
I was on the phone just a half hour ago with a very active Democratic woman, and she said, we've got to give it back.
We we've got to make this slate absolutely crystal clear.
We stand for everything that's good about women's participation in politics, and we've got to have a no-grade area where it's got to be our good record against their terrible record.
And the fallout continues.
The unintended consequences of piling on me and talk radio is now causing.
And see what's you know what's become clear to people is that, and this was Kirsten Powers' point In her two columns about this that she wrote.
You mean it's okay to say these horrible things about women if you're a Democrat.
Because everybody knows as a Democrat, you are for abortion and birth control, and you're and you're for liberalism, and you're basically you're on the right team.
And so it makes it okay to utter these things about women, because you know, wink wink nod nod, we all know.
And what Fast Eddy is discovering here is that Democrat works, no, it's not okay.
Just because they're on our side, it doesn't, because the women are standing up and saying, we don't like being denigrated in this way by anybody.
Remember now, this is their rigor on the Democrat side.
This is everyday.
They've got Peggy Noonan has a great column on this today, the Wall Street Journal, where she chronicles some of the everyday stuff uttered by left-wing bloggers and comedians, and it is utter filth.
But they've never been called on it because they support abortion, and they vote Democrat, and they're on the right side of things, and so Democrat women are supposed to look the other way and just laugh about it when all these derogatory.
Plus, when you say it about Sarah Palin, why okay, that's got to be cool.
And what Ed Rendell here told Bill Burton, nope, um, it's not just conservatives who are calling for us to give it back, Bill.
It's Democrat women, and Burton said, hmm, you heard him say, hmm.
In there.
So another unintended consequence here.
It's it's it's like um same thing that uh blacks can never be guilty of uh of of racism or hate crimes.
Uh liberals can never be guilty of sexism.
Why they're all for women's rights, which is abortion and planned parenthood and all that.
So what what what Democrat women are standing up and say, wait a minute, you guys can't have a circumstance here or situation where there are no standards for you, and yet you demand standards for everybody else, but you have no standards for you, and your no standards allows you to say all these derogatory things about women in general.
What care whether they're Republican women or us?
And they're finally standing up and saying, you can't have no standards for yourself, and then at the same time create impossible standards for everybody else.
Who's next?
Susie in Mobile, Alabama.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's good to talk to you.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
You bet.
Um, I've been listening to you for well, probably about four or five years now.
Uh and but I still consider myself a new listener because I can't listen to you every day, because I'm a capitalist and I have to go to work.
But uh I have a question for you.
Whenever you say, for those of you in real Linda, I don't know what that means.
I'm thinking that you're maybe making fun of them, and you have to translate it a little bit easier for them.
And then also, Mr. New Castrati, I don't understand that either.
Can you explain those things to me?
Oh, uh happily.
Uh Rio Linda w is uh is a small town outside Sacramento.
Uh-huh.
And I moved to Sacramento in 1984, and one of the things that I did was drive around town uh for a week before I was to go on the air to just try to learn the community what was where and what it looked like.
So that would what I was talking about the community, I had a mental picture of it.
And one of the places I saw driving around was this called Rio Linda, and the and the sign that that signified city limits did not have a population number on it.
And I said, Well, that's strange.
Does anybody admit to living here?
So I drove through, and the main drag, there were concrete blocks with cars on top of them.
There were washing machines and stuff on the front porch.
And so I said, wow, this is so it just I offered to move there on the air to uh to elevate property values if they would rename the place Limbaugh, California.
They rejected it.
But I I and I also tried that with a place called West Sacramento.
I offered to move there if if they would call it Limboss California.
But both places rejected it.
But it was it was an effort.
So now it's just a it's a little private pet joke between me and the people of Rio Linda who love it.
Property values have gone up as a result of all the attention.
So it's just an ongoing little joke.
Now the new Castrati.
When I started imitating uh that that's basically men with no guts who have just been bullied by women and the power structure and liberalism in general.
And so in in uh when uh when I do the imitation of of those guys is the new castrati, basically these are people that just have been have been bullied into total acquiescence with the liberal agenda.
They don't stand up for themselves.
They never stand up for what's right for themselves.
They're just total appeasers.
They just totally go along to avoid any resistance or confrontation whatsoever.
So is Castrati a play on words for castrate?
Yeah, yeah.
D bald, uh if you will.
Okay, well, great.
Or you might you you might what you want to say, gelding.
So whatever you want to however you wish to visualize it, new castrati is simply the creative term employed by me, the de facto head of the Republican Party with my entertainer hat on to describe them.
Well, it's very entertaining.
Especially now that I know what what it you're actually uh meaning by it, uh I'll get a good laugh out of it every time.
Well, a lot of people, a lot of people uh assume that new castrati meant meant gay.
No, no, no.
That's why I came up with the term new cast.
It's nothing to do with sexual orientation.
It has to do with lack of manhood.
It it has to do with uh men with no circular orbs.
However, you wish to visualize it.
Or not visualize it.
I mean, you you know well, you you've heard the uh I I don't want to you you I'm it's it's common parlance in in our culture now to describe somebody with fortitude as having begins with a B. Having none of them.
Uh new Castrati no.
No.
However, you wish not actually visualize it, but that the term it it's uh just I wanted to come up with a term nobody else uses.
That's an excellent term.
I appreciate it.
I'm glad you're instincts, your instincts are right.
You knew I I wasn't quite sure, and I didn't want to read more into it than there was, but now I understand it fully.
Um you know, uh uh unfortunately it seems as though we have a lot of Democrats that are uh could be considered new Castrati.
Oh, there's there's no question.
I mean, the another way of saying it, uh these these these are the people who willingly uh uh allow their testicles in a lockbox somewhere.
It's however you wish to.
You've got it.
I mean you understand it.
Yes, I do.
All right.
What is your blog again?
Oh, the the uh the the Twitter handle is at uh Yeah, Twitter.
Uh see, I'm so computer illiterate, it's not even.
I'm gonna try to get on there, but I don't really know how yet.
You here's what my daughters to show me.
Okay.
That that'd be the simplest way, but you just go to Twitter.com and open an account.
And uh and that just you give yourself your own identity and a and a password that you make and then you have an account.
Then you simply enter the uh the handle of people that you want to follow.
And you'll be given a list there of people that are famous and non-famous that you can follow if you want.
Uh and you can set up a whole bunch of different groups of people that you follow.
You can group them however you wish.
To follow me, you simply use the handle at Limbaugh or rush limbaugh with no space between the uh the names and whatever we tweet, you'll get it.
You'll see it if you follow me.
You don't have to do anything, it just shows up.
You just refresh.
And then once you get it, there's a button that says retweet or send back out, and that's all we're asking you to do.
And then it'll go to everybody else that you're following.
Oh, okay.
So whatever you say I could send to someone else that I You can send to a hundred thousand people if you're following that many.
That's the whole thing.
Hey, I just got a new iPhone about six months ago, and I'm still trying to figure it out.
I'm not very computer literate, so I will figure this out somehow.
You will.
Here's the one the best piece of advice that I could give you with your iPhone or with Twitter or an iPad or a new computer is this.
Whatever you do won't break anything, so try it.
If something goes wrong, you back up and do it again.
But you won't break anything.
Well, I think that's my problem is I'm a little nervous.
I'm gonna go somewhere do something that I shouldn't be doing.
Yeah, it's everybody thinks they're gonna break the computer or they're gonna break the browser.
You won't break anything.
It's just uh uh a matter of retracing your steps and starting again.
Well, thank you for the little lesson.
I appreciate it.
All right.
Remember the key now is you end up following, I'm sure uh follow your daughter and all of her friends, and for example, if you how old is your daughter?
Um I have two, one's fifteen and one's fourteen.
Okay.
Now, I don't know where they are in politics.
But but let's say hypothetically that you want them to be interested in what matters to you because generally that's going to affect them.
You're you're concerned with the country for their future.
So they are aware of that.
They know who I'm gonna do.
Okay, so then you retweet to your daughters what we put on at limbaugh, and they will see it, and that's a way for you to share with them something you really care about.
You don't have to talk to them about it, you don't have to explain.
It just shows up, they read it on their own, and then they, if they're impressed with it or like it or even don't like it, they send it out to their friends, and this is how it ends up being massively distributed to people.
That is a great idea.
I never would have thought of that.
That's why we're doing it.
Well, yeah, that's why you are who you are.
Well, had to wait for this is that we were late to Facebook.
Not late.
We had to wait till Facebook actually establish itself and it made sense for us to join, and we did that.
And we've been waiting on Twitter uh make sure that it was uh gonna last uh and survive.
And now we've assured that uh by validating it by uh by joining it.
So I'm I'm uh it's really easy, and it can end up being fun, too.
You're in the following a lot of people that uh like you can they're all kind of although I don't know if you watch Fox News, all those people are using Twitter, they all have handles, you can follow them.
Uh they'll tell you what they had for dinner.
People put some of the craziest things up there, but you can choose to follow it or ignore it or what have you, but it's there if you want to use it.
I gotta run.
Look, Susie, thanks much.
I'm way long.
We'll be back.
Open line Friday, and we continue on the phones to Edison, New Jersey.
Hi, Phil, you're next.
Phil, are you there?
Is this Phil?
Yes.
Hi, Phil, you're on the air.
Your big showbiz break here.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
My wife and I are Abbas fans and listeners.
Uh we're confused about something.
Yeah.
You quite frequently use the term Republican establishment, and we think we've kind of figured out what that is and the fact that they represent pretty much the moderate wing of the party that for some reason or other seems to be doing harm to the conservative wing.
But we think we might be able to understand this better if you can identify for us who represents who are the individuals.
Yeah, this is a nice trick.
I knew this was coming.
Phil, you're a smart guy.
You're a crafty guy.
Phil knows, let me just tell you folks, Phil knows exactly who the Republican establishment is.
He wants me to name names because he wants them called out.
Am I not right?
Well, yes, because I think when you can identify specifically, for instance, let's say Reverend Wright.
It helped me to understand and my wife's understand the dangers of Obama because we were able to specifically hear the message.
I'll give you a name.
I'll give you I'll give you a name.
I'll give you the uh Republican.
You were thinking McCain and others like that, but I think it's important enough to know who is this establishment.
Who are these people?
But wait a second.
I I understand what you're doing.
I think it's I think it's really important to define it uh correctly, too.
Um Republican establishment member uh in the media would be David Brooks of the New York Times, the so-called conservative columnist.
He's he's he's basically a moderate.
He favors big government if run by the people he thinks are smart.
He's not crazy about conservatives.
The Republican establishment cringe at the very discussion of social issues.
They are in favor of big government for the most part.
They think campaigns on smaller government are losers, and they worry that if they succeed, there's going to be less of an opportunity for them to have jobs in government.
They're basically people who don't think we have a spending problem that's that great.
If they get in charge, they'll do some things to reduce it, but they really don't believe that government is the big problem like conservatives do.
They're establishment, the government establishment types.
They're DC established.
That's the center of the universe.
Fastest three hours in media, it is.
Two of them are already in the can, but one big, exciting, busy broadcast hour remains.
Hang in there, B tough folks.
▲
Export Selection