All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 23, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:33
November 23, 2012, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, welcome back to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
Doug Ransky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
It is the day after Thanksgiving 2012, and you know that that day is also called Friday.
That is true from the Beverly Hills Penthouse.
We are broadcasting the Rush Limbaugh Show today.
The phone number if you'd like to be part of the broadcast is 1-800-28288-2, 1-800-282-2882.
Open line Friday.
I need to get to your calls.
I promise you I will.
This is the day when Rush lets amateurs call in, take direction of the show.
Today he's letting an amateur sit here and control the direction of the show.
There are two books that if you're going to run for president, there are two must read books.
One is Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals.
I have never ever done a broadcast without this book sitting on the table in front of me.
I have memorized this book.
Many years ago, I carry this dog-eared copy, highlighted copy, with me on my various travels and places.
I had a very friendly internet email debate with someone I admire enormously.
And I'm not going to say his name because he's a very, very famous conservative, a genuine conservative and a big thinking important conservative.
Who is who really is a friend of mine.
And I've been urging for years that we needed to look at rules for radicals.
We needed to adopt the things from it that worked.
Rules for Radicals is a brilliant book, ladies and gentlemen.
Look, it is a demented book.
You can be brilliant and demented at the same time.
And it is both of those.
I'm not saying that you that you absorb and um take on Alinsky's social views and agenda.
Although, when you read the book, it's hard to know that he really does have a social view or an agenda other than chaos.
And as you look all around us, you can see chaos is exactly what they're giving us here at home, around the world, financially, they love chaos.
But here's the point.
If you read and absorb rules for radicals, not only will you know what the other side is thinking as far as their agenda goes, and not only will you learn their tactics, you will learn tactics of the left that you had better learn to employ.
Don't absorb their dogma, their ideology, their belief, their moral relativism.
But there's good stuff in that book.
It's a demented book by a man who is dangerously insane.
But it's an activist book, and in the modern media age, we live in a world where we need to be activists.
The other book I allude to, I mentioned his name earlier.
There's a brilliant man, a really brilliant man named Roger Ailes.
And he summarized in a book called You Are the Message.
You should not run for political office, any office, let alone presidency of the United States, if you haven't read and absorbed this book also.
It is a textbook written by a brilliant man.
He brought us Fox News Network.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's a success story.
He understands how to come into your home, into your living room, into your mind, into your heart.
And keep you captivated with what they're with with the message of what they're selling over there.
You gotta absorb these two books.
Now why should you absorb these books?
You've got to run for president.
Look, you're not trying to be the head of IBM or ATT.
You're not even running to be the head of Apple or some corporation.
This is this is the big one, being president of the United States.
If you run without understanding Alinsky tactics, if you run without even using some of them, as I said, not absorbing his belief system, but his tactics.
If you run to govern and not to win, then you have no business being in the race.
If you run without taking on the measure of your opponent, as Mrs. Thatcher did, as I explained in the first hour as Gandhi did.
You deserve not to be in the race.
I was always fascinated with the idea of how was Romney going to.
How was he Going to call Obama a liar.
But she never did.
He alluded to it once.
He said, I have five grown sons of six and whatever he said about having sons.
It's cute.
We're in jujitsu politics.
There's nothing polite about this battlefield.
There's nothing gentlemanly about it.
They're fighting not to take over a corporation.
They're fighting to take over a country.
They're fighting to take over the world.
Do not doubt that the leftist world movement is active.
This is the great mistake Tony Blair always misunderstood.
Which is the global left is a movement.
Now you've got people out there.
Look, if you go back to the days of the Nazis, the days of fascists.
The people who who supported them, who created them, these were these were academics.
They were degreed people, even doctors.
This is the end result of central government.
This is the very thing that our founders despised, the thing they feared.
They were political activists.
They were revolutionaries in every sense of the word.
They used the medium and the message of the day to win the battle.
The difference between a central state government, of course, and a monarchy, if you're king, is that the leadership elites in central government don't achieve it by birth.
The irony here.
The irony here is that they have labeled they seem to believe that the extreme right, which is currently being defined as the Tea Party types, who believe in individual liberty responsibility, minimal central government that does as little as possible, lower taxation.
They have labeled us as the ones who are fascist.
So what you find if you don't push back at this is that you're living in a sort of alternate universe.
This is not merely about pandering.
Because if you think this is merely about pandering, you're gonna lose the next election, too.
And there may we look, we may be in an age.
Conservatives, please hear me.
We may be in an age when people expect their government to address problems like health care, the economy, and when they expect you to offer some new solutions.
It is no good to tinker around the margins.
It is no good.
It is not pandering, by the way, to explain to people that there's a choice, but you've got to make a paycheck as attractive as a welfare check.
You need to take it right to the voters you think you can't win.
You gotta take it to the ghetto.
You gotta take it to the minorities with dignity, with choices, and you gotta keep at it.
And you gotta talk about school choice and talk about the money that will come with jobs.
Talk about education that really educates, that really educates.
Talk about homes with fathers, by the way.
Tell them that there are very real choices to help themselves.
Ask them if they want further destruction of their communities.
Be tough, be hard, be frank, be controversial.
That's how you win.
That's how you win.
You must not be afraid if you want to win an election, you must not be afraid of offending somebody along the way.
People who are on the dole ultimately lose their own self-respect as well.
You know, we think back, Rush was talking about the convention.
We think back to the convention, all the wonderful people there.
The Republican convention, the non-white speakers, the conservative females, but Condoleez Rice, Suzanne Martinez, what a great talk she gave.
Marco Rubio, Mia Love.
The Republicans believe that the Republican Convention was a way of reaching out to minorities and women.
It is not.
You've got to be cleverer.
You've got to speak over the heads of the media.
You can't just rely upon the Republican convention where all of us who are in the choir are already there.
We're already with you.
We're watching it.
Talking about balancing the budget is not enough.
It's not bold.
It's not enough to say, how did we build a modern nation here on what was a very wild continent?
Well, we did it with hard work.
It is not enough to say, how'd we enough food to feed ourselves and people all over the world?
Hard work.
How did we win our wars?
It's hard work.
How'd we put men on the moon?
Hard work.
How do we build the best standard of living for any civilization in the history of the universe?
Hard work.
Do you think that hard work is a winning message?
It's it's it's it's it's it look, you and I understand the reality of how it works, but it's not even it it's it's it the message must be more beautiful, more motivating, more exciting.
That's all.
That's all.
Obama offers free stuff, okay.
Republicans are even afraid to mention that nothing is free.
We just say, well, you should work for what we get, and we wonder why Obama wins.
Fifty years we have the great society, affirmative action, tolerance, diversity.
It's for the children.
We've got corrupted educational institutions, we got lawyers in every nook and cranny.
We had a professional ruling class.
And we're analyzing the reasons the Republic has fallen.
We gotta take the entire argument back.
Sure, Obama ran a horrendous campaign, a dirty campaign.
We complain that they run the schools, they've got the media on their side.
What are we doing about that?
To take over the schools, to speak over the heads of the media.
I'm going to come more to this in a little while, speaking over the heads of the media.
The GOP looks too white, too old, too rich, too suburban.
Remember when Obama said that comment in the debates, he said, Well, Governor Romney wants to take us back to the days of uh the 50s and the Cold War and the economics of the 50s and 80s, and the made all this.
Look, Obama didn't pull that line out merely because he's smart.
They knew it would be a good line.
They knew that they had already painted him as rich, out of touch, bane.
Killed that woman, dog on the roof of the car.
They knew there was no pushback.
They knew that what they were throwing there, because they did it for a year repeatedly, down to the last second of the election cycle.
They knew that it was sticking and that there would be no pushback.
They knew that what you and I responded to about this decent man, he looked presidential, he appeared presidential, he seemed like a good man, he would have been a better manager than Obama for sure.
The things that were appealing to you and I were not appealing to a lot of other people.
And we've got to get we've got to get this through our heads.
That um well, look, freedom means letting other people do things that you don't like.
I'm gonna have to get more to into this in a moment, and I promise I see you holding.
I'm gonna get to your calls as soon as we get back.
It's Doug Rabansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be right back.
It's Dugarbansky filling in for Marshall Limbaugh.
We're gonna go straight to the phones.
You've been holding a long time.
We're gonna go straight to Don in Clinton Township, New Jersey, my old hometown area.
Don, how are you today, sir?
Good good.
It's actually Clinton Township mission, but uh, hey Doug, wow.
I apologize.
I apologize, Don, for being misinformed.
What you said wow, what does wow mean?
Well, it means wow that I just can't uh I mean I agree with you 100%, and I'm a person on the inside of federal elections, and to hear what you're saying right now is uh very refreshing.
Um, you know, the Republican Party is running elections like it's still 1980.
Um, you know, the Reagan era is 32 years away, and what you have is a new uh electoral that is uh very advanced as far as communicating, whether it's TV, smartphones, social media, and um because of that, uh this contest is not a business anymore.
It's a popularity contest.
And the reason why Mitt Romney could not call out Barack Obama and call him a liar is because he wasn't cool enough to do it.
And, you know, unfortunately, you know, This is a new age, and we need to realize that if we want to market um what conservative values bring to the table, then we need to market it in a simple way that Santa Claus in a good economy has a lot more gifts than Santa Claus in a bad economy.
Yes, I agree.
I agree with you 100%.
And what when you say Reagan and you use the word marketing in the same sentence, I think what people often uh forget about Ronald Reagan is he was an expert marketeer of his product.
And and and he came from a Hollywood background.
That doesn't mean he was fake or phony or or or or not more than skin deep, he was much more than that.
But he certainly understood from his years of training, and he was surrounded by very good people who also understood this, that you use the techniques of the age with which to communicate your ideas.
We're way past the idea that Winston Churchill with a dazzling speech can sway public opinion.
And nowadays, Don, you know, we've got abilities to research phrases, nuances, to know how they play, how they are responded to.
If we're not doing that, and the other side is, then why are we bothering it anything?
Well, we need a new kind of candidate that can take like a Ronald Reagan message, but bring it into the 21st century.
You mentioned a word a moment ago, Don.
You mentioned the word cool, by the way.
Uh-huh.
You know, you're on to something here.
You see, there is this element.
If if we if we buy into the idea that voters are stressed and they're not paying as close attention, perhaps as you are or as I am.
I'm going to give them that.
And the media is working real hard to make sure they don't pay close attention, and if they do, it's only one guy.
All of the imagery around Barack Obama is contrary to my logic about what plays with an audience.
Because I'm still stuck in the in in another era.
Obama is appearing cool, hip.
He has a sort of in-your-face style that you and I find repugnant, but it comes off as cool.
He's around Hollywood movie stars, and they see that as cool.
He goes on the late night shows, and I hear conservatives saying, What is he wasting his time doing that?
He jaunts down the steps of Air Force One, he rolls up his sleeves, he swaggers around like he's a basketball player.
You know what I'm talking about, Don?
I mean, look, this guy technically, based on all statistics, there shouldn't even have been a close contest.
But that coolness, and like I said, the new way that people are engaged, um, there's more people now voting between the age of 18 and 35 than have ever voted in their lifetime.
Right.
So we have to understand that we have to get out there and realize that just like you said earlier, you can't go with the same old game plan.
You need to adjust.
And the Democrats did one thing and one thing very well.
They identified and they got out to vote.
And um, especially here in Michigan.
I mean, here in Michigan, Mitt Romney didn't even win his own hometown.
Well, I would take it a step further.
I would say that you you said they did one thing very well.
They actually did everything very well in terms of how you win.
Not in how you govern, but in how you win.
And and governing is irrelevant if you can't win.
Well, this is this is this is a good idea.
Because Don, but Don, Obama, think of this.
He doesn't run on an agenda.
He doesn't defend Obamacare.
He doesn't even talk about his his attorney general or fast and furious.
He doesn't do anything.
And of course Romney, on our side, candidate Romney, doesn't put his feet to the fire and says what a he doesn't say what about fast and furious.
He doesn't go into Obamacare.
Obama doesn't defend his failed par foreign policy in Iran and the Israeli Arab question, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
He doesn't run on any of it.
Oh, Don, we've lost you.
Oh, well, ladies and gentlemen, that's happens when you're on a cell phone sometimes.
There's no there's no way around it.
Too bad.
Don, uh good talk.
Thank you for calling the show, by the way, Don.
This is exactly right.
There is a cool factor, a hit factor, a scrapper factor that we're going to have to take into account as we pick these people.
Oh, I'm not buying in the idea that that people are stupid.
I believe they're stressed, they're uninformed, they're naive.
Conservatism, when well articulated, works every time it's tried.
But first you gotta win it to try it.
You had to win it first.
Consider the manner in which the Romney campaign was run, ladies and gentlemen.
There were a lot of faults.
But they did not viciously attack Barack Obama, and yet they sat there and were viciously attacked by Barack Obama.
They allowed the Obama campaign through its understanding of the medium, the message and messaging, they let the Obama campaign define Romney early, which had no rebuttal, no rebuttal.
The assets were poorly managed in battleground states.
You got to do the legwork.
And Obama, the sad part is Obama had absolutely nothing, nothing to run on.
Nothing whatsoever.
Nothing whatsoever.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, Doug Rabansky back filling in here for Rush.
I want to get to the to one of the very big things I'm constantly asked.
And I hear other very fine conservative pundits talking about this idea of being tougher, being negative, facing our opponents on the battlefield of ideas in a more appropriately different demonstrative way.
But it always comes up in again and again where people say, well, the education system is against you and the media's against you and all this stuff.
We got to understand, and then they say, Well, the problem is we don't know how to frame the message.
And you hear this from very good opinion makers on the conservative side, from even from some radio conservative fundamentalists.
The answer to how is to be bold.
The answer to how, how do you speak over the heads of the media?
How do you speak over the heads of the media?
I'm going to share something with you folks.
I'm going to tell you, in very recent months, who successfully spoke over the heads of the media.
And this was the Republican.
This is one of the people running for the Republican nomination.
Now, I'm going to tell you, this person is who the media and the left feared more than anyone on that stage.
And I'm talking about Herman Cain.
Yes, yes, yes.
I'm telling you that the left feared Herman Cain's ascent more than anyone on that stage.
And if you doubt me, read the New York Times stories.
Go back and look at the amount of stories about how unacceptably inappropriate it was that this man was in the race.
And he was gaining popularity.
Now, another reason, a big reason why the left feared Herman Cain was this, very simply.
The left themselves had already experienced an accidental presidency by the election of Barack Obama in the first place.
Yes, they were terrified that this man Cain was gathering steam.
Now, Cain did the thing that no other candidate out there did.
He did it instinctually.
I can prove I prove it to you.
He understood how to owe how to speak over the heads of the media.
Very simply, he had this whole country talking for I don't know, six, eight, nine weeks.
About nine, nine, nine.
You start talking about something that is not tinkering with the on the margins of the paper, on the margins of the status quo.
You start talking about something that is not tinkering with what already exists.
You're gonna make headlines.
And before you know it, the whole country is debating and making fun of it, sure, but they're debating it.
Is it a good idea?
Isn't it a good idea?
Is it not a good idea?
Would there be enough money?
Is it fair?
You you speak right over the heads of the New York Times, the LA Times, and they hate you for it because they start to fear you.
And they fear you because they know that you can speak over their heads.
And therefore they must clobber you.
I'm not even offering opinion as to whether I think Herman Cain would have been a good president or not.
By the way, in the world where Barack Obama is president, you can't even make the statement that Herman Cain would have not been good because he would have been better.
And just about anyone would have been better than Barack Obama.
But Herman Cain had the whole country talking about this revolutionary concept.
Now imagine this, ladies and gentlemen.
If you're running to win, and you want to speak over the heads of the media, you've got to speak in what I call bold colors, purples, oranges, dramatic ideas.
You cannot speak with a 59-point plan, as good as it may be.
You can't simply say let's drill for oil, as as smart as that may be.
You've got to say the thing that goes over the heads of the media.
I'll give you an example.
I'm not going to tell you if I think that term limits for senators and congressmen are is a good idea.
Although I am coming around to the point where I'm considering it.
I'm looking at this very closely.
And if I have the privilege to speak to you again, we'll perhaps talk about that.
But can you imagine a candidate, candidate Romney, for example?
A Republican candidate who comes out and says part of our problem is that we have too many entrenched politicians who are there too long, and we must have fresh blood here.
We must have people who are not motivated by their power by writing taxation laws that favor their friends, who are not intoxicated by being in Washington, who bring some outside logic into the beltway.
And therefore, I candidate Romney or X. I am running on a campaign of cleaning out Washington, and therefore I'm running on the institution of term limits.
Now, I'm giving you a fantasy scenario.
The entire debate, no matter what the left wanted to do, no matter how they portrayed you, they could portray you as an insane nut at that point.
The entire debate would be kidnapped because a lot of people in the country would be sitting up saying, you know what?
No, I want experienced politicians.
Oh, maybe I don't.
I've seen where they've got us.
Well, who would we be rid of if we had term limits?
Be rid of Barney Frank, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid.
I don't know.
It starts to look awfully attractive.
Because then you have to go to the voters and remake the case again and again and again without the levers of favoritism back to your district.
That's one way of speaking over the heads of the American of the press too directly to the American.
What if you what if someone running for president said, I'm running on a campaign like 999 or campaign that says fair tax or flat tax.
I'm giving you examples.
There's many more examples you can use, many ways to speak over the heads of the media.
But until we start to do it, the media bias will always kill you.
They're against the conservatives.
You're not going to launch a number of new networks.
I mean, it would be good to have journalists of our way of thinking infiltrate the media and get those jobs just like we should be infiltrating schools and other things as well.
But that's not going to happen by Tuesday, and that's not going to happen by the next election either.
So speaking over the heads of the media is going to be a crucial, crucial part of it.
Message training, dealing with the media bias in an aggressive way, accepting the fact that negative campaigning is part of the deal.
That's, you know, negative campaigning we run from.
Yet all the research says, well, we we consciously dislike negative campaign ads, but of course they work.
And yet our side runs away from them.
We we run away from them.
And yet Obama blasted Romney over and over and over with negative ads and swing states.
I think something like 85% of the president's ads were negative.
It is not beneath us to respond on that playing field.
It's suicidal to not do it.
Obama calls Romney a tax cheat.
He hates the poor.
He can't wait to destroy Medicare.
He only cares about the rich, and we don't respond with so much to respond to.
Look, ladies and gentlemen, Romney lost by 400,000 votes in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado.
The likelihood that he could have won had his side merely used an aggressive campaign that included negative ads and other aggressive methods in those swing states is very high.
I think about time to squeeze in a call.
Chris in Columbus, Ohio.
You've been holding there a long time, Chris, so welcome to the show.
It's guest host Doug Ransky here.
How are you, sir?
Hey, God's say the Republic Clamas Io Diddles.
Working on it, sir.
I don't get dittoes.
I'm just a guest host.
Uh I like to go ahead and just throw out something here.
I started looking at Mr. Reagan's.
Now, bear with me, because I know a lot of people don't like where I'm going to go with this.
All right.
I started looking at Mr. Reagan's speeches.
Mr. Reagan's radio commentaries from the 70s.
The 64 speech.
All these things that we hold as hallmarks.
I started seeing a pattern there.
Another president had said Americans never learn by experience.
Only catastrophe.
That was Theodore Roosevelt.
I went back and I started checking Theodore Roosevelt's works.
I didn't take what people said as face value, liberal or republican.
By the way, another book I would add to your uh list, make it a threesome there, would be framing the debate where liberals go back and cherry pick excellent leaders of the past and then twist what they're saying into you know to serve them.
That's a great point.
Go ahead.
Chris, where are you from?
Are you Irish?
Uh I'm an American school Irish by heritage.
Some accuse it of being fake, but they can ask some other.
Well, listen, I'm glad I'm I'm glad you're making the point, but you're agreeing with me essentially that we've got to take the battle to the playing field of modern media messaging and marketing.
And until we do that, we might as well not even be in the game.
Exactly.
And the thing that really gets me is that when I when you know I watched the media distort Reagan and TR.
And what really really gets me, and you know, uh bike.
Well, they did it very much.
Now, Chris, I'm up against the clock.
I'm sorry to tell you.
I thank you very much for calling.
Please call again when I'm here.
I'd love to speak with you again.
Love the Irish accent.
Doug Rabansky filling in for Rush.
You got to go.
Be right back.
Ladies and gentlemen, Doug Rabanski here from Rush.
We are only gonna beat these people at their own game.
We've got to study the demographics.
We've got a message, we've got to understand the numbers game.
We've got to beat them at their own game.
It's that simple.
And Linsky's rules, many of them are highly effective.
And you know you've got to sometimes well the it's time for the GOP to throw out the IDF swing voters and swing states.
It's time for us to throw out the idea of uh being the nice guys.
There's a battlefield here, and as I've said already today, it doesn't matter if you know how to govern, doesn't matter if you're better at governing and you have all the best ideas in the world.
None of it's gonna matter a hilla beans.
If you don't first win it.
Gotta win it first.
Let's go recall in Fanwood, New Jersey.
Monica's been holding Monica.
Welcome to the Russian Limbaugh Show.
It's the guest host or Bansky.
How are you today?
Enlightenment.
I was going to do some work on the outside, and I decided to say inside when I first heard you.
I thought, oh, I'm just going to listen a little bit.
But then as I listened to you, I wanted to, you know, listen more and more.
I think what you're saying should be listened to by the GOP.
I mean, they should absolutely be listening to this program now.
They should, they, meaning Boehner, should read Rules for Radicals.
I I totally agree with that.
Also, when Mitt Romney had the opportunity uh at the microphone, you know, or the bully pulse, but he should have explained things more to people like the 250,000 dollars tax hike on the rich wasn't really um the rich, it was small business people.
No matter how much you would have raised those people, 250,000 and up, you never have had would have had enough to bring down the debt.
Monica, I'm glad you're raising this point.
This is a particular particular interest to me.
When I tell you, Monica, that somebody's rich, do you think about how much they earn in their paycheck, or do you think about what their net worth is.
Monica, you've gone.
This is the second caller today, uh, HR, that we've lost today.
The gremlins, the gremlins, well, it doesn't matter.
I'm gonna make the point anyhow.
Monica, I hope you're hearing this.
Because when we talk about the rich, we're not talking about whether you've had a good year.
Obama talks about the millionaires and billionaires.
What he's really talking about, of course, is the thousand heir who's had a good year.
When we talk about the rich, we're talking every definition other than governmental taxation definitions.
Every definition of the rich.
Every.
Your credit line, your mortgage, your net worth, your assets, your net worth is what defines you as rich, not how much you've earned in a given year.
The given year thing is a little bit of a red herring here.
It's part of the progressive taxation system.
You've had a good year, sir.
We're going to come get it.
You may not have had a good year for the five previous years.
You may not ever have a good year again, but by golly, if you've had a good year now, we're going to come get our share.
We're going to come grab it.
Net worth is how you decide someone's wealth.
Net worth is how you decide who's a millionaire or billionaire.
Net worth, your assets, the total value of everything you own is what we have used for years to decide what you what your worth was.
Now there's a lot of people who will disagree with much I've said here today.
Well, negative attacks.
They divide the nation.
This is an argument that only comes from the left, and it's usually used to try and silence people like Rush.
Usually used to try and silence people who want to run a good strong campaign.
The battlefield, my friends, has Democrats personally running personalized negative campaigns that almost always portray the evil guy.
That's us, from the evil party, that's us.
Taking away something from you, the citizens who are taking away your social rights, your benefits, what you deserve, what you want from the government.
None of it's true.
The Democrats have perfected nasty negative campaigning.
And more than that, that's part of messaging and marketing, my friends.
They have perfected national division.
They have perfected the art of corrupting social programs, which you and I know, which Rush always explains to you, are used to leverage votes.
Romney ran not to win, but to govern.
He had a desire to unite the country, to solve problems, and Clearly, inside the candidate Romney's campaign, they felt that vilifying the opponent would not help when it came to governing a country that had in large part already voted for that opponent.
I'm I'm saying to you as a media person, as someone who understands messaging, the days of taking the high road is to lose.
The days of taking the high road for being too nice is to lose.
The electorate does not want to think you're weak.
The swing voters are irrelevant.
They do not want to think you're weak.
They want to see an adult.
And if you're not prepared to put on and suit up and get on that battlefield and that playing field, you ought not be in it.
Dugarbanske filling in for rush.
We're going to scoot.
Be right back.
You know, folks, Ronald Reagan was so smart.
He said that libertarianism, he described it as the heart and soul of conservatism.
I could I could do three hours on what he meant by that.
No, it does not mean I'm going to become a libertarian, but it does mean that recognizing the freedoms we discuss is one of the ways that you win this.
Selling freedom is a very, very beautiful idea.
Individual liberty, individual freedom.
People who believe differently than you.
This is a good idea.
Negative ads, negative ads.
We've been talking about those.
They work because there's a basic subconscious level at which they function, and our human instinct for survival.
▲
Export Selection