All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
March 19, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, I don't know.
I it's it's either.
Well, I just don't know.
I mean this the sounds by the sound bites that I have indicate that the people didn't get what I was talking.
You know, there's nothing more frustrating than that.
Well, I how I don't think I could have been more crystal clear yesterday in what in my analysis of what these Republicans were saying about what they need to do.
Whether it was Ari Fleischer or Rance Prebus, but I look at the soundbite roster that we've got today, and I listen to people talking about what I said, and I don't recognize what I said by listening to these people talk about what I said.
So I'm wondering what's the point.
Well, partly, anyway, greetings, folks.
I mean, you you happen to the show happened to start here right in the middle of um me talking to myself.
And I thought, well, if I'm doing that, may as well turn on the microphone and let you listen.
Happy to have you here, telephone number 800-2882.
If you want to be on the program, if you want to email us, I do check the emails.
It's L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Boy, the media's still buzzing over Hillary Clinton coming out for same-sex marriage is a big 180, a huge reversal.
And the me I just Fox just played another tape or had another go at playing the video of Hillary making this announcement.
And I I guess when you look at all that she's been through, who can really blame her on this?
What took her so long is a logical question to ask.
So Mrs. Clinton's there.
This this issue, this gay marriage issue.
I mean, it's it's it's just if you didn't know better, you would think that it is the only thing anybody cares about.
You know the thing about this issue is anytime it's been on the ballot, anywhere, it loses big.
Gay marriage, homosexual marriage loses big every time it's voted on by the general public, and yet you would think that it's all anybody cares about if you uh pay just even scant attention.
Did you happen to uh watch any of Pope Francis's inauguration ceremony this morning?
You didn't see any that third.
You got three monitors back in your office.
It had to be on one of them.
I I thought I thought Pope Francis's uh inauguration ceremony was far more modest than Obama's.
Which I guess is fitting.
The Pope is not not nearly as much of a religious figure as Obama is, but I still would have liked to have seen a Vatican fly over, and I didn't do that, you know, like the the blue angel or something, but it is what it is.
He's now in in office officially here, and he's he's captivated, taking people by uh by storm.
You remember last week, folks, we had the shocking news at the National Institutes for Health or the Centers for Disease Control, one of the two was spending a million and a half dollars to find out why 75% of lesbians are obese and male homosexuals are not.
Well, they're not through.
Now guess what?
The National Institutes of Health has awarded 2.7 million dollars to study why lesbians are at a higher risk for hazardous drinking.
University of Illinois has received grants for this project cumulative stress and hazardous drinking in a community of adult lesbians is the title of the study.
It aims to discover culturally sensitive strategies to prevent lesbians from being drunks.
Man, what a and they're talking about marriage?
On the one hand, you've got to study why are they obese, 75% of them now why are they drunks?
Who knew?
Anyway, I just want to keep you up to date on this because uh what's happening in the homosexual community almost qualifies here for a gay community update.
Okay, let me go let me just get I'm gonna do the Easter egg stuff in a minute.
I want to get to this Republican analysis sound by stuff.
I just want to start with this.
First up, we're gonna start with CNN.
This was this morning with Carol Costello on her program called CNN's newsroom.
And she had um Amy Kramer from the Tea Party Express as the conservative strategist and uh Maria Cardona, uh the Democrat strategist, and they were talking about yesterday's release of the RNC report looking at the loss of the 2012 election, how they can change things for the future.
The most important thing about what was said yesterday, and I uh I think it'd be maybe be hard to synthesize one thing.
My primary point yesterday, before we get to these sound bites, I heard Ari Fleischer say that conservatives don't have to change their core principles, they have to change the way they talk about it.
I I don't think I think if the Republicans misunderstand something crucial, they're never gonna fix this.
Use myself as an example.
Now I'm not politics here, we're not getting votes, and I acknowledge that it's not the same business, but it we're still attracting people.
And I haven't done one dimes worth of advertising over 25 years, the most listened to show for 23 to 25 years.
I haven't done a dimes or the advertising on any PR people.
I have never analyzed what I say and how to say it and change it.
I've never moderated, I'm just who I am.
And I have not, I have not tailored what I say to try to attract this group or that group.
I just show up every day and do what I do, follow my heart, be honest, and it attracts an audience.
Now, I understand that there's specific different needs, but the point that I was making yesterday was the Republican Party's gonna make a mistake if they think that it is the substance of what they say that's causing the problem.
It's not, it's what people say about them that is the problem.
For example, you who listen to this program every day, or even just some days, you know that I am not at all as I am characterized by people that don't listen to this program.
This is not a program of hate, for example.
This is not a program of extremism.
This is not anything that it is said to be by its critics and people that don't listen to it.
You know this.
And my point is that for me to change the way I approach this program because of what is said about me, it would be would be folly.
The way to approach expanding the audience would be to deal with it from that standpoint, but not to change me.
Now, the Republican Party's overall problem is it's got a problem with expressing conservatism.
The mainstream of the Republican Party doesn't like it, they're a little bit nervous about it.
If they could just come to grips with that, there's nothing wrong with conservatism, the people love conservatives.
I've got a story in the stack today, and it's a it's a fascinating headline, paraphrase the headline, but it illustrates the problem, illustrates the point.
People are given a list of issues and solutions, and they love the conservative solution to every problem until they find out that they are Republican ideas.
Then they reject them.
And not because of the ideas.
So why are they rejecting Republicans?
It's not because of who the Republicans are, it's because of what's being said about Republicans to them.
The Republicans have a brand or whatever, image problem.
And what they're gonna have to do is change the way they are talked about.
They don't have to change who they are.
This is the biggest point I was trying to make yesterday.
Now, I'm there's an assumption I'm making here.
I'm assuming, just for the sake of this discussion, I know that it's not actually totally true, but I'm assuming in the political spectrum, the Republican Party's conservative, I know that the establishment isn't, but the Democrat Party's liberal far left extremist, the Republican Party's by comparison conservative.
Without getting into the the the bowels of the arguments within the Republican Party, it's it's not conservatism that's being rejected by people, is my point.
The Republicans think it is.
The Republicans in the establishment think that conservatism is what makes people nervous.
If you give people in a focus group or a poll a conservative solution to a list of problems, they go for it.
They love it.
Then they find out that their Republican ideas, quote unquote, they reject them.
So they're not rejecting ideas.
The voters are not rejecting they are rejecting who they think Republicans are.
That's the problem the Republican Party has.
And I started yesterday as an illustration.
There's a real-world example of this taking place right now.
As I know, many people get nervous and get crazy when I start talking about Apple.
It's like people used to get nervous when I talked about golf a lot.
But there's a real world example with what's taking place.
Apple and the Republican Party are not completely analogous because Apple still is the giant number one runaway, no question.
But what's being said about them is the exact opposite.
And who it's affecting is people who are not yet Apple customers.
Now the existing Apple customer has got profound loyalty and is not going to be talked out of it.
But their ability to grow is what's being attacked, and the and what's being said about them is being said as a by design is the nature of capitalism.
It's highly competitive, not complaining about anything here.
Apple's got to figure this out.
Their big problem is how they are being characterized in the tech media and in the mainstream media with their falling stock price.
The image is being created that it's over for Apple.
They're finished, they're done.
They're yesterday's news.
They may not survive.
Don't doubt me.
This is the news about Apple in the tech community.
Samsung is running advertisers making f uh uh spots, making fun of Apple customers.
Apple doesn't know what to do.
They've never been in this position.
They that they're used to being up on the pedestal, everybody loving them.
And the criticism never working, never sticking, never amounting to anything.
Now their stock prices fall, and I'm I'm convinced they don't know how to deal with it.
And in that sense, it's a Republican Party.
They do not know how to deal with what's happening to them.
And my point is I don't think they really understand what's they think they're losing elections because Hispanics don't like them.
They think they're losing elections because they're not open-minded enough on amnesty or abortion.
So what are they about to do?
They're about to agree to amnesty that will forever secure their defeat.
It will automatically give the Democrats nine million minimum new Democrat voters overnight for doing nothing.
And the Republicans are being manipulated and tricked into doing this under the guise, and who's manipulating them?
Democrats, other Democrats, the media.
And they're being tricked into agreeing to this under the guise that they're mean, they're seen as uh extremist.
Uh the people on talk radio are giving them a bad image.
And as long as the people on talk radio keep doing what they do, nobody's gonna like the Republicans, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Republicans have to reach out to women, women don't like them going to reach out to Hispanics.
Who's telling them to do this?
The Democrats, who obviously want to share their voters with them, right?
Democrats want to give away some voters.
I can't tell you what a big mistake they're about to make.
And it's because, like every political party that loses an election, they're in a funk, they've lost their confidence, but more than that.
Well, tough say more than that, but one of the one of the factors here, they're just hell-bent right now on doing things to be liked rather than sticking to principles.
I mean, if you show them the data, look it.
People overwhelmingly oppose what Obama's doing and support conservative solutions until they find out it's a Republican idea.
Now, what would you do to change that?
Well, the first thing you'd have to do is assess why is that the case.
And is it because of who they are, or is it because of what's being said about them that they haven't successfully refuted?
And I would suggest to you it's the latter.
Now, there are some Republicans who are wishy, washy uh moderates who are their own worst enemy, and they think that they're the answer.
The Republican Party thinks the answer is abandoning social issues, abandoning Christian conservatives, abandoning conservatism, and that is their solution.
But they don't see that as a solution because the Christian conservatives, the social issue crowd, talk radio people are the ones attacked, ridiculed, and made fun of, and accused of being the problem.
So the Republicans think that what they have to do in order to stop being criticized or mischaracterized is to get rid of what people are criticizing.
They don't understand that they're being suckered into participating in their own official demise.
It's a tough thing.
Because it boils down to some basic human nature.
Everybody wants to be loved, nobody wants to be criticized.
You respond to the criticism, you make the critics love you, particularly a town like Washington.
But the good news for the Republicans is it's it's it's it's not conservatism that's turning people off.
It's the word Republican.
And what people have been made to believe that means.
It's been going on for a while.
I I gotta take a brief time out here.
That probably was much more interesting than any Carol Costello soundbite, but still we're gonna get to the sound bites.
Because I wanted to, this is basically what I said yesterday in the third hour.
This is basically what I said.
Now I'm going to go listen to these sound bites.
I want to listen to people characterize what you just heard.
It'll be an interesting exercise.
Don't go away.
Can anybody out there name for me?
One time, a Republican effort to rebrand something is worked ever.
Let's see, we've tried kinder, gentler uh uh kinder, gentler party.
That was uh George H.W. Bush.
He did not win re-election.
Plus, he also agreed to raise it.
Kinder, gentler nation.
Then we're there was compassionate conservative.
That would George W. Bush.
And of course, these rebranding efforts are all made from a posture of defense or embarrassment, if you will.
I remember George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign, actually used the phrase, I'm not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor so.
Whoa, what is that?
Why are we talking like Democrats?
Because everybody was accepting the branding issue that conservatives are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, and all that.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
But every time you try to rebrand yourself, you are accepting that accusation about yourself.
And that's what the Republican Party has been doing.
I don't.
I don't know any other rock ribbed conservative who does.
But these rebranding efforts never work.
They never fool anybody.
And you know why?
Because they're unnecessary.
The party supporters do not think of the party that way.
The party's supporters are upset that it's not conservative enough.
That's the solution for the Republican Party.
It really isn't complicated.
Here's that story I was referencing.
I have it right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, but PJ Media.
And it is a poll in the hill.com.
And here's the headline of the story: majority back Republican ideas until they hear that the ideas come from Republicans.
Conservative ideas, conservative solutions are always in favor when people hear about them.
When people have it explained to them.
But the Republican Party isn't conservative.
It's afraid to be.
Because it is responding to all of the criticism from people who do not have its best interests at heart.
I refuse to believe that the Democrats of the media telling the Republicans, hey, you know what, you need to be more accepting of Hispanic.
They're not doing that for our benefit.
They're not trying to help us.
And yet the party big wigs act like, you know what?
They're right.
We need to reach out more.
We need to be more for amnesty.
For what?
It's a trap.
It's a trick.
Just like the don't criticize Obama.
You're gonna send people running to the arms, the independence right back to the Democrats.
It's a trick.
So the reason there's a disconnect with the voters in the Republican Party is that the party isn't conservative.
Every time the Republicans win an election, they stop teaching conservative principles.
Now that's my take of the author of the story, and it's not his take here.
It's Brian Preston, PJ Media.
As a poll, respondents were asked to choose which of two approaches they would prefer on the budget.
Questions phrasing included no cues as to which party advocated for which option.
Presented in that way, 55% of likely voters opted for a plan that would slash five trillion dollars in government spending, provide for no additional taxes, balance the budget within ten years.
People said, yep, that's what we're for.
They found out it was a Republican idea and they ran away from it.
They did not run away from the principle, the idea, or the solution to the problem.
They ran away from a name.
Okay, we're back.
I want to grab a quick phone call here before we get to the audio sound bites, and it is Patricia in Hopewell Junction in New York.
Yes, there is a junction in New York.
This is not New Mexico.
Hopewell Junction, New York.
Hi, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet, Patricia.
How goes it?
How are you?
What's happening?
It's going great.
We're getting some snow here, Rush, but uh we're muddling through.
Well, you know, be careful.
You know, you can slip on that if you go outside.
That's right.
And you could also have a heart attack if you shovel it.
Well, your husband could, or your boyfriend or your your your whatever.
Uh my husband's out there now, so uh hopefully he'll be okay.
Did he turn on the media first to learn what he should and shouldn't do before he went out there?
Uh no, he did not.
Well, then uh all bets are off.
He could die.
Oh gosh.
Anyway, hey, Russ, I just put the radio on and I heard you talking about amnesty.
Yeah and uh the uh illegal immigration.
And I just wanted to mention and get your thoughts.
Just finished reading a book by Ralph Peters, endless war.
Not sure if you've uh are familiar with that, but he touches on amnesty, and he mentions that if he he comes up with a really great idea, I thought, uh, if we did that, um not giving the illegals a pathway to voting, then.
So I just wanted to get your thoughts on that one.
Well, I myself um suggested a similar proposal about six months ago, and I have repeated it over the course of the past six months.
Very simply, it's this.
I've told anybody in this audience, I told the Democrats, I've told the media, you know what?
I've told the Republicans, I too will support amnesty if the newly made citizens cannot vote for 25 years.
Great, yep.
And of course, there's not one person who supports it because the whole point of amnesty is registering them as voters.
Wow.
That's the whole point of it, Patricia.
Yes.
You don't think it's big-hearted compassion that's behind all this, do you?
Oh, absolutely not.
Well, good.
It's about whatever number of people we're talking about, and it's anywhere from twelve to twenty million, both parties see them as potential voters.
Yeah.
That's all it is.
And and that the reason why it's a death sentence for the Republicans, Patricia, is that The Democrats already get 70% of the Hispanic vote.
And they do because 70% of Hispanics living in this country by this but polling data here.
This is not my wild guess.
They say that they believe that government should be the primary source of prosperity.
They believe in it.
They believe in big activist government involved in everybody's life.
70% of the Hispanic vote.
So essentially it's two-thirds.
So if you have say you have uh 10 million illegals, seven million of them automatically going to vote Democrat.
Republican Party's finished.
It's a mathematics conclusion.
It's that there's it's it's not any more complicated than that.
And there's not there's nothing that the Republicans can do.
And here's I'll give you another contradiction.
I mentioned this yesterday.
If you listen to the Republican proponents for immigration reform amnesty, what have you, whatever you're gonna call it?
They always say that Hispanics are Republicans in waiting.
That these are big family value, church-going, largely Catholic.
I mean, they are Republicans in waiting.
Okay, accept that.
Then why are you making a move for gay marriage?
Because obviously somebody who's devoutly religious is not going to support homosexual marriage.
So I think I uh this is a disaster here for the Republicans to support amnesty.
They are signing their own death sentence.
And it's mathematics.
It's nothing more than mathematics, it's not even ideology.
And if amnesty ever does happen with full citizenship and the right to vote, then the country becomes California politically, where the Republicans don't ever have a prayer.
That's that's what's at stake.
So the the idea, Patricia, is to illustrate that by suggesting, okay, hey, you know what?
I'll go for amnesty, but they can't vote for 25 years.
How many of you support it then?
And there's not one Democrat that will.
Nobody will.
It's simply a way to call them out.
It is a way, and it's not, by the way, with with with the Hispanics being Republicans in waiting, just waiting.
I mean, they're they're conservatives at heart.
Okay, so why the Republicans want to moderate on abortion?
And why do the Republicans want to, you know, it's gonna get squishy on gun control.
I mean, conservatives are not supportive of any of that.
So I just don't think that they're being honest with themselves.
And I'm still stuck on this, you know what?
This this fat and drunk lesbian question.
I can't get over this.
I mean, is it are they drunk because they're fat, are they fat because they're drunks?
I'm not if it's the National Institutes for Health doing the study.
It isn't me.
I'm just reporting what's going on.
Patricia, thanks.
Here is the sound, but let's just get started.
I don't want too far away from repeating in the first half hour here what I said yesterday.
Now we're gonna go listen to cable news yesterday and last night, analyze what I said and see if they get it.
Up first, Carol Costello.
This is uh she's got uh Amy Kramer and Maria Cordona.
Uh, and they are reviewing my take on Republican rebranding.
After the Republicans release their much anticipated autopsy, at least one prominent Republican has a problem with the findings.
His name would be Rush Limbaugh.
Rush seems to be putting the blame on Mitt Romney, who suddenly became a severe conservative after being a moderate Republican.
Still, let's take a look at some of the true conservatives who were in the running for president in 2012.
Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry, all three made an appearance at CPAC, the influential conservative gathering, so we believe these are true conservatives.
Would any of those true conservatives really have beaten Barack Obama, Amy?
Now, okay, we'll get we'll get to the answers here in just a second, but I want to just go back to the way they're characterizing me.
Did I put the blame on Romney?
My putting the blame, if you want to put it that way, I did say that the party nominated somebody who didn't get the conservative base out.
Things I've said about Romney are ultimately positive.
Character assessment and all of that.
Anyway, let's get on to the answer here from uh from from Amy Kramer and Maria Cardona.
Um Santorum Gingrich Perry.
All three are at CPAC.
They're good conservatives.
Could any of them have beaten Obama?
Carroll, I don't think anybody was going to beat Barack Obama.
He's a pop culture icon, and he's tapped into that generation that all they care about is pop culture.
But you know, when Rush is talking about people being conservative, he's actually not talking about the social issues, I don't think.
I think he's talking about somebody that's physically conservative.
And while I come from a red state, and I didn't think Mitt Romney's conservative for me, he was for his state.
So it's all relative, but that's really what he's talking about.
And here's Maria Cardona.
I do agree with Rush that I think the reason, one of the reasons why conservatives didn't come out is because Mitt Romney was not a principled conservative.
He wasn't a principled politician, period.
I hope to God that the Republican Party listens to Rush Limbaugh's advice and they go even more to the right, because the problem was that they were so out of the mainstream, and Mitt Romney was not convincing anybody.
Now this woman's trying to be too smart by half.
What she's saying is, oh my God, I hope they listen to Limbaugh, because he's such an extreme right wing kook that if the party emulates him, we can't lose.
And it's just the exact opposite, folks.
And this is exactly what I am talking.
This is how we all, the Republican Party conservatives are characterized.
And said to be things that we are not.
To people that do not listen or are not paying attention, don't vote, what have you.
Uh it's classic the way the way uh this works.
But I don't even know if she realizes how she contradicts herself here.
Yeah, I think Rush was right.
Romney was not a principled conservative.
Then she goes on to say that a principled conservative is not what the Republican Party needs, if by making some sort of a joke.
Bottom line is, folks, conservatism does resonate with people when it's explained.
People overwhelmingly, even now, the polling data, every Obama agenda item the American people disagree with.
And every proposed solution to it that is rooted in conservative, they support.
There just isn't a single person articulating those policies that they support.
It's not conservative.
the principles.
It's not conservatism.
It's not the ideas.
That's not the problem.
But too many Republicans think that it is.
A brief time out.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
And we are back.
Great to have you, folks.
The five at five, Fox News Channel.
Here is co-host Eric Bowling setting up their segment on the GOP and its navel gazing.
My man Rush Limbaugh had a few thoughts on the state of the GOP.
Listen.
The Republicans are just totally bamboozled right now, and they are entirely lacking in confidence, which is what happens to every political party after an election in which they think they got shellacked.
The Republican Party lost because it's not conservative.
It didn't get its base out in the 2012 election.
That's it.
Four million Republicans that did vote against Obama in 08 sat home in 2012.
Do you realize if those four million had shown up, Romney would have won.
Question, why didn't those four million show up?
Is it because of amnesty or because of abortion, immigration, contraception?
No way.
might be the fear the Republican Party was going to go in that direction, those four million said the hell with it.
More likely that party wasn't conservative enough in its messaging.
Here's now Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld reacting.
I agree on the point about every party goes through this.
What Rush was saying, I remember talking to President Bush 41 and asking him, is he worried about the future of the Republican Party?
He said, look, in 1992, after he lost, said it took a while for the Republicans to get their footing, but then they did after like two or three years, and they come back in 1994, win big time.
Same thing happened in 2010, and it was a little bit shaky.
Clinton wins again in 96, come back, and then the Republicans come back at the have the White House for eight years.
Yeah.
But in that period of time, we didn't have the assault on the country going on that we have now.
I mean, they were trying.
The Clintons are the Obama's light to a certain I mean, Hillary tried for this health care business.
They they gave it their shot, but Clinton had to, in uh because of Lewinsky to much stuff, Clinton had to appear as a conservative to get re-elected.
Or he had to abandon extreme liberalism in order to get re-elected.
So now Beckel, Bob Beckle weighs in after Dana Perino agreed with me about the state of the party.
Here's Beckle weighing in on Hispanics and the Republicans.
I suggest to you that the Republicans, a long-term reform immigration, is not only good policy, it's good politics for the Republicans.
Your assumption that more Democrats come in if you allow these Hispanics in is blind the fact that there are a lot of Republicans.
If you took away the issue of immigration, George Bush has proved this point in Texas and is running for president.
The angst in the Hispanic community goes back down to the Republicans' refusal to deal with immigration.
And when you have people like with whether it was Bush or others who see the light on this stuff, their policies are in match with an awful lot of Hispanics.
Then why do 70% of Hispanics vote Democrat?
And is Bob Beckle, God love him, everybody loves Beckle.
But is Bob Beckle really trying to help the Republican Party win elections?
That's not what Beckel's alive to do.
That's not Beckel's job.
Beckle's not interested in Republicans getting the Hispanic vote.
This is this is part of the uh the trickery taking place.
You know, you Republicans.
The reason why you lost?
Because the Hispanics don't like you.
And you know why they don't like you?
It's not just because you're a bunch of racist pigs, it's because you're against amnesty.
If you come out for amnesty, they'll support you.
Why does nobody ask why are the Democrats so eager to let us have their voters?
Why does nobody see that what the Democrats are doing is taking advantage of the insecurity and the I don't know what's the word, defeatist.
Um attitude the Republicans have about themselves right now, and playing to their fears, and the Republicans are reacting to it.
I just it boggles my mind.
Especially when the solution to all this is just so simple.
It works every time it's tried.
I know why they don't want to go conservative.
I know that they like big government.
They just want to be in charge of it.
Here's uh where are we going next?
Let me just say Barry in Key West Florida.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh uh, good to talk to you.
Um the reason why I called today was I'm a member of the Tea Party, and uh the Tea Party had uh uh maybe over fifty percent approval rate at one time, then it started dropping.
And it's very similar to what you're saying about the Republicans.
And uh we have allowed ourselves to be defined by the left, okay, in terms of uh uh the Hollywood, uh the news media, the Democrats, etc.
And I've made the statement that what we need to do is create a super back rather than going on any more travels to uh to Washington and spend that money in a super fact and start reintroducing ourselves with ads on TV.
It could be just generic ads.
Well, we just you know, where we start to get people to be able to do that.
Well, I think you I think you're on this.
So there's no question that the Tea Party came out of nowhere and shocked everybody.
It's real people.
There was not a leader that they could demonize.
It's just average ordinary people who, for the first time in their lives in most cases, were showing up at town hall meetings.
And political establishment types did not know how to deal with this.
The Republicans were uh at times a shame to embrace them because they're such amateurs.
The Democrats were scared to death of them and start demonizing them.
So you're right.
You had a pretty high approval number, starts plummeting exactly because your enemies started ripping you and mischaracterizing you as racist, sexist, bigots, homophobes, mean spirited.
You know all the stuff they said about you.
Right.
But not on your policies.
They never attack your policies or mine because they can't.
They always assassinate your character and everybody else that's in a Tea Party.
So what is missing, the one thing you are right about is we never take it to them.
We never run ads telling everybody who they are.
For real, we do not have to lie about who those people are.
We just don't do it, and it's partly because we're afraid of angering the independents.
And I'm not making that up.
That's still a big fear.
In the consultant class of the establishment in the Republican Party.
But to this day, we're into the fifth year of Obama, and there are people who do not yet know who this guy is.
The press hasn't done their job, and the Republicans haven't done their job in telling American people who he is, so it's up to the media to craft his immature people, and that's what's happened.
▲
Export Selection