All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
January 6, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
I am your host, Rush Limbaugh, in all four corners of the world, a household name.
Here executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
So the vote has begun, and we're eagle-eyeing it, keeping a sharp eye on it.
The candidates are Boehner, Louis Gomert, Yoho, Daniel Webster of Florida, and Pelosi, who was nominated by the Democrats, and she doesn't have a prayer.
But nevertheless, the voting has begun.
Again, the magic number is 29.
The conventional wisdom is that they had 25 going in, only needed four.
Then the conventional wisdom changed.
They had 18 and only needed 11.
And then the conventional wisdom was all over the place.
And what's happening now is that there were a lot of people thinking of throwing their hat in the ring just to dilute the vote for Boehner as a technique.
So the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway with the mainstream media, the drive-bys is that Boehner's a lock.
They're a little surprised by all this opposition, but it ain't going to amount to anything.
And the drive-bys now, ladies, and by the way, if you're on the hold, we're going to get the phone calls quickly in this hour.
I didn't get to any in the first, but hang in, there'd be tough.
So now the drive-bys, thinking Boehner is a lock, are already now they're talking about the voting taking place and these recalcitrant backbench oddball people like YOLO or Yoho and Gomert.
But they don't think that's really, they think now, you can watch it, turn on any network you want, and you'll see accredited endless of the drive-by news media networks now saying the focus is really on the Senate.
Yes, because here's the conventional wisdom on the Senate.
For the last four years, the Democrats have run the Senate.
And therefore, the Republicans have been bellyaching and complaining and whining and moaning that Harry Reid buried everything that the House passed.
Run by Republicans, of course.
And it wasn't fear.
Republicans kept complaining and kept whining.
And as such, Reed succeeded in making it look like the Republicans were a bunch of extremists.
The House Republicans were passing a bunch of extreme stuff that Reed was killing because it only made sense.
But it also meant that the perception of gridlock, where Washington doesn't pass any bills, which allowed Obama to do everything by executive action, which was a strategy.
Conventional wisdom is that gridlock was the fault of the Republicans because Reed just didn't approve.
Reed's a normal guy.
Reid worked with him and he looked at the legislation coming from the House and it was outrageous and he buried it.
And so the conventional wisdom was Republican legislation was extreme.
Harry Reid had to bury it.
It didn't go anywhere.
And that meant if anything had to get done, Obama had to do it by executive order.
See how this works.
So Obama really didn't want to do the executive action stuff.
He really didn't want to do the executive orders.
No, no, no, no.
He had to because the Republicans were so weird and so extreme that Harry Reid, to save the country, had to just basically kill every bill that came from the House.
Now, that's not what really happened.
What really happened was that Harry Reid was killing any and all anti-Obama legislation the House passed.
And then it got to the point the House stopped passing anything because it was clear that nothing was ever going to happen in the Senate, that Reid had effectively shut it down.
There were no amendments permitted to any bills.
There were precious few votes.
There were nuclear options enacted and all kinds of things.
And all it did was clear the decks for Obama to pretend that there's no Constitution.
Well, now that's all changed, see, because the Republicans now run the Senate.
And so now the take from the drive-by media is the pressure is on the Republicans because they can't hide anymore behind the fact that Harry Reid's burying everything.
Now, the pressure's on the Republicans.
If anything is to get done in Washington, the Senate Republicans have to step up now, and they can't fall back on this luxury of complaining about Reed.
Now, there's another way of looking at that, however.
All of this time, I think even the whole six years of the regime, not just the last four, but let's focus on the last four.
The last four years, the drive-bys and the Democrats have succeeded in portraying the Republicans as the reason nothing's getting done.
Now, low-information people, that matters to them.
Low-information people think the definition of success is all kinds of stuff happening in Washington and bills being passed and new benefits accruing and whatever it is.
And if the low-information crowd or the liberal base thinks that everything in the country revolves around Washington, that Washington is the axis, that Washington's the sun, and that everything happens in Washington, and if nothing happens in Washington, we're all in trouble.
This is what a lot of people believe.
Drive-bys, Democrat-based voters, and the low-information crowd.
And if nothing's coming out of Washington, then it's broken, see?
That's how they define it.
It's broken.
And since nothing was coming out of Washington, it was broken because the Republicans, those mean SOBs, were just driving to stop Obama and they were engaging in gridlocking.
So now, Republicans have a chance.
Can't believe I'm even saying this.
The Republicans have a chance now to expose for the drive-bys, not that it'll matter, to the Democrat base, not that it'll matter, and the low-information crowd, that they haven't been the ones stopping things.
What happens if the Republicans in the House send some legislation over to the Senate and the Senate passes it?
Voila.
And then it goes to Obama.
And let's say it's something Obama detests and hates, and he has to veto it.
Now who's gridlocking Washington?
Now who is the obstructionist?
Now, who is it?
And so there is some thinking inside the beltway that the Republicans have.
Here's the bad thing about this.
The Republicans have an opportunity now to demonstrate to America that it's not been them shutting Washington down.
It's been Obama and Harry Reid and Democrats.
And the way they can do it is by passing all kinds of bills.
Oh yeah, isn't that cool?
So the Republicans now think that they can start passing a lot of bills from the House to the Senate and send them up to Obama.
He'll veto them.
And voila, the American people will finally, after six years, realize it's been Obama and the Democrats all along who've been gridlocking Washington and not the Republicans.
Does anybody have a problem with that besides me?
I mean, look at, isn't that whole way of thinking somewhat defensive?
Why even worry about all of that?
As Eric Kantor said, we got to stop relitigating the last six years.
By the way, did the left ever stop re-litigating gay marriage?
Did the left ever stop litigating amnesty?
Did the left ever stop litigating Obamacare?
No.
The left never stops litigating their agenda.
Why do we always have to be the ones that do that?
Anyway, this thinking says, okay, and now Harry Reid can't stop all these House bills that come to the Senate.
So McConnell and the boys can pass them, and then it's a pressure going to be in Obama to veto.
What if, God forbid, what if the Republicans pass legislation Obama likes?
Not out of the realm of possibility, given everything else.
But even besides that, the whole idea that it's just defensive in nature, and it's rooted in this obsessive idea or obsessive thing where you get caught up in what people think of you.
I understand perception is important.
I really understand image is important.
I understand all that.
But for crying out loud, at some point, you have to just move forward.
There are things that we really need to do here.
We need to stop this agenda of Obama's.
We need to stop the destruction of this country and its transformation.
And if that means nothing continues to get done in Washington, then that's what it means.
If the only way to stop Obama's agenda is to shut it down and make sure nothing happens, then that ought to be what the agenda is.
Not passing a bunch of bills just to show that Obama's the one gridlocking Washington all this time and not the Republicans.
That's the defensive nature.
See, see, it hasn't been us.
It hasn't been us.
The media have been lying to you.
It's always been the Democrats and Harry Reid that was gridlocking Washington.
Why waste time proving that?
Time is too precious here.
There's precious little of it to go here.
Two years where Obama now thinks there's nothing in the world that can stop him.
He'd have to run for election ever again, doesn't matter.
And he's relying on the fact that Republicans have said they're not going to impeach.
They're not going to do anything to stop him.
So why should he stop?
The only thing the Republicans can do, it seems to me, is take action to stop this.
That's what they were elected to do.
It's what this election November was all about.
It wasn't so that the town can start functioning and working, i.e., passing legislation Obama likes.
That's the exact opposite of what this election was about.
All right, let me take a break.
That's that.
We come back here.
We're going to get to the phones.
And the next thing I discuss is going to be two things.
The email requesting that I comment on the things I mentioned yesterday I didn't get to.
There's a tie.
One story people want to hear the details on is white wine responsible for driving women crazy.
And the other one is the Wall Street Journal story from December 30th on Christianity being the root of American exceptionalism.
Sit tight.
We're coming right back.
Don't go away.
Well, well, well, well, the opposition had 23 votes.
23 votes.
The magic number is 29.
This 23 votes has already surpassed the expectations of the conventional wisdom wizards inside the beltway, mainly the drive-by media.
There will be 18 or 19.
We're up now to 23 votes in opposition.
And remember the magic numbers 29.
Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has called this vote for the House Speaker a Republican freak show.
Dana Milbank's The Washington Post.
Now, that is pretty amazing given the people who run for House Speaker when the Democrats control.
I mean, you got Pelosi, but a freak show.
Pelosi is an entire three-ring circus freak show.
Of course, the drive-bys would never characterize a Democrat vote as a freak show.
But Dana Milbank, right in there now, the Republican vote is a freak show.
Now, this Obama's going to veto the Keystone Pipeline.
That is going to be a piece of legislation the House and Senate Republicans are going to pass.
And that will demonstrate their desire that people see Obama as the responsible party for gridlock.
But I'll tell you what worries me about this strategy here of finally passing bills out of the Senate to show all these nincum poops out there that it's not been the Republicans gridlocking.
How do you do that?
You have to pass things Obama will sign.
Why in the world would you do it to be well?
Not necessarily.
No, you don't.
You can pass things he would veto, but the scary thing is that the Republicans might pass laws that Obama will sign in order to prove they can govern.
That's what scares me about this whole line of thinking.
And I'm telling you that inside the Beltway, this line of thinking, I just detailed it before the break, is fast becoming conventional wisdom as brilliant.
Yeah, let's pass some legislation here and let's send it up.
They've been telling the people for six years that the Republicans can't govern.
They can't work together.
Well, let's show them we can and pass a bunch of stuff that Obama will sign just to show that we can.
This business.
The problem with this is all of these allegations against Republicans are lies.
Why engage, or better asked, how in the world do you engage in behavior to counter lies?
There's no positive end to this.
Do they really think, let's look at this, play this out, do they really think the American people, the low information crowd, Democrat voters, whatever, are going to wake up wondering, oh my God, wow, we've been wrong about these Republicans for six years.
Why, we believed everything the media said about them.
And now we know the media has been lying.
It hasn't been the Republicans stopping this.
It's been the Democrats.
Wow, were we dumb?
Is that what they think they're going to create?
People are never going to admit they've been fooled by anybody.
The Republicans are always going to be a bunch of boobs.
They're always going to be a freak show with the drive-by media.
Nothing's going to change that.
Why not just do what's right?
I've never understood this.
Fear.
And I'm going to tell you something.
There's a great piece in today's stack from The Economist, which is a UK magazine along the lines of Time.
And it's all about one of the great pitfalls that has descended on this country, and it's called fear.
And they look at things like the news.
The news reporting that it's getting cold in Chicago.
Have you heard that they're not going to allow sleigh riding in Chicago in the snow, no sledding?
Well, liability, but it's dangerous too.
The kids might get hurt.
They might sled too far down the hill and go into the street and get hit by a car.
Opposition up 25 votes, far exceeding the conventional wisdom of the drive-bys, four votes to go.
And Boehner's vetoed, we're on to the second vote.
Now, The Economist is saying that this new characteristic in America, this fearfulness, is resulting in less entrepreneurism, less risk-taking, and that we're raising a bunch of kids afraid to do anything.
And leading the pack is the modern-day Republican Party illustrating what it's like to live in fear every day, in their case, of the media, or the bogeyman of low-information voters or whatever.
I don't understand it as one who's not fearful.
I don't, it's, I mean, I'm still here.
I get up every day.
I come to work.
My job's still here, still prospering, still growing the audience.
The business is not, what is there to be afraid of?
Okay, so some people may call you names.
Big whoop.
Now, I know getting votes is different than getting an audience.
But doing things people like will trump all of that.
I just don't understand it.
I really don't.
I mean, I do.
It's those dichotomy things.
I do understand it, but it's frustrating because it's so unnecessary.
Anyway, let me go to the phones.
I'm never going to start this because I'm always going to be interesting to myself.
And if I don't, the only way to get bored with me is for me to shut up.
Because I'm fascinated by me.
And if I keep talking, I'm never going to go to the phone.
So let me just be disciplined here and shut up and start.
Lynchburg, Virginia.
George, welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Tea Party greetings from Lynchburg, Virginia.
Thanks for taking my call.
You just reminded me of a Charles Dickens quote from the novel Great Expectations.
He said, We often stoop the lowest on behalf of those who esteem us the least.
And you know, the GOP has reminded me lately of pathetic kids who have to pay other kids to be their friends, and in this case, the liberal media.
Yeah, exactly.
It's just sickening.
I got yelled at this morning by a good friend about the Tea Party's destroying America.
And it's like the poet Robert Frost, if he were labeled the racist, violent Robert Frost.
People wouldn't read The Road Not Taken or Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening.
Why?
Because Robert Frost was labeled a violent racist.
You know, I think they're trying to stop the message.
Can I talk about the 6th Congressional District?
Well, wait a minute.
I'm still confused when I say you, you have a friend, a friend who told you that the Tea Party's destroying America?
Yes.
Does the friend vote the way you do?
I don't know.
I don't ask him how he votes.
He's a nice guy.
I want to talk about another nice guy, Bob Goodlatt, our congressman.
The Tea Party members, and I believe the vast majority of the 6th Congressional District are alarmed and disappointed in our Representative Bob Goodlatt's votes.
And I haven't heard from anyone who wanted Bob to vote for the spending bill last December, but he did.
Or for John Boehner today.
But he said he would.
May I quote him on why he's going to vote for John Boehner today?
I don't think I've got time.
Can you do it in 10 seconds?
Yeah, well, he said we voted the Republican conference back in November, voted for him, and so he has to stick with that.
Okay, that's good enough.
Thanks much.
Okay, so I made a prediction to Mr. Snerdley while the House vote was underway.
And it's turned on exactly as I've predicted or forecast.
And he's sitting in there, cannot believe it.
Snerdley is very invested in this vote.
Snerdley is very tight with many of the people in the opposition.
And like many of us, would love to see a leadership change in the House of Representatives.
And as such, Snerdley has been glued to C-SPAN.
That's why I don't have any calls up there.
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
He's been doing it all.
They've been glued to the vote on glued to the vote on C-SPAN.
And with each new vote in the opposition column, he's been breathlessly, excitingly passing it on to me.
We're up to 20 votes.
We're up to 21 votes in the opposite.
He kept counting up.
And when he got 23, I said, you know what's going to happen?
You're going to get 28.
Moehner's fixed it.
He said it.
You're going to get 28 votes.
You need 29.
You're going to get close as a Natsides.
You're going to get 28 votes and you're going to lose.
And this is Boehner's way of teasing you and making you think you had a chance.
And at the end of the day, all you end up with is a moral victory.
And lo and behold, that's where it's ended up.
28 votes.
Not yet over, because there's some people that didn't vote.
They're now trying to find those people, round them up, and get a vote of them.
I don't know how many that is.
There was also one member of the House that voted present.
And I thought Obama was the only guy who did that.
So I don't know who it is.
But right now we stand at 28 votes with an unknown number of members who didn't vote, didn't answer the roll call.
They're trying to find them now.
And so the opposition is breathlessly hanging on here by a thread, just one vote to go.
And I predicted to Snerdley that you would get to 28.
You'd get so close, so close.
It'd be a moral victory.
But at the end of the day, no cigar.
Where does it stand now?
What's the they still rounding these?
Well, they're still trying to find the people that passed the roll call the first time, right?
We don't know how many people that is.
I said, yeah, yeah, it's going to be over soon.
You want another prediction?
Okay, that the people that they're trying to round up now are also in Boehner's camp and they didn't vote so as to be held out to see if their votes are needed.
The old Clinton Marjorie Margoli's Ms. Vinski trick, if you will.
I'm afraid you're going to end up stuck at 28.
But I hope not.
I hope they get...
So what happens if you get to 29?
That constitutes a veto.
I guess that's the best word for it.
Boehner's speakership vote has been vetoed.
It doesn't elect a new speaker.
It just thwarts Boehner on the first ballot.
That means you go to a second ballot, and that's where it would get really, really interesting.
Now, Mr. Snerdley, just so you know, Gloria Borger just reported on CNN that Boehner won in a landslide.
Gloria Borger just reported on CNN that there was never any doubt.
She said that Boehner had a huge cushion because of all the newly elected Republicans that owed their election to him.
It's a continuation of this folly that was in theHill.com this morning, and I mentioned right at the top of the program.
The Hill.com has a story.
They can't understand why all this opposition to Boehner, why Boehner is the guy that led the Republicans to this massive victory in November.
And these people ought to be bowing down to Boehner in gratitude for getting them elected and so forth.
That is how pig ignorant these people in the drive-by media are about the way Congress works.
Because what's going to happen now, Boehner, this hasn't changed since Henry VIII would eat five turkey drumsticks at dinner.
If you don't take the king out, you're gone.
Because the king is going to take you out, first chance he gets.
And what's going to happen here is that Boehner will surely try to punish members, these 28 that voted against him.
It's the standard operating procedure in any organization.
So anyway, it looks like it's going to have 28.
They needed 29.
Moral victory.
And of course, there really aren't any of those.
Jake, Clarksville, Georgia, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Newman, and thank you for taking my call today.
You bet.
I'm like Mr. Snurdly, I'm still holding out hope for that 29th vote.
We all are.
I wanted to comment on a soundbite that you played earlier today from former senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett.
Yeah.
He made a comment that I believe he said that if they followed the Tea Party, that the Republican Party would lose five out of the next six presidential elections.
That's exactly right.
Let's listen to that soundbite.
We played it about an hour ago.
Let's play it so you know what Jake here is talking about.
This was a former senator from Utah, Robert Bennett, who was speaking at the Washington Center Bipartisan Policy Center yesterday, talking about the Republican Party.
Just as people under McGovern went too far in that direction, in the Tea Party thing, they have gone too far, slipped off the edge of the menu completely into Alice in Limbaugh Land.
And as a result, they've made themselves irrelevant to the governing process.
And I've said to some of my Democratic friends, if we Republicans can't contain that, the Democrats are going to win five out of the next six presidential elections just the way the Republicans did.
So you're right.
That's exactly what he is.
He's talking to a Democrat.
He's running down his own base to a Democrat, and he said Democrats are going to win five of the next six presidential elections if the Tea Party doesn't show up and go away.
Go ahead, Jake.
Are you there?
Yes, sir.
All right, Tyler.
I would like to point out to Mr. Bennett that without the Tea Party, the Republicans have successfully lost four out of the six last presidential elections.
Precisely.
Exactly.
It's not as though the Republicans are out there winning presidential elections.
By the way, the two presidential elections, they've won four out of the last six, two out of the last six.
How did they do it?
George W. Bush ran as a conservative.
George H.W. Bush ran as the third term of Ronald Reagan.
They did not run like Romney did.
They didn't run as Northeastern moderates or liberals.
They ran as conservatives.
They won.
The Republicans, when they nominate, let's say they nominated Dole Sinar.
They nominated McCain, disaster, and they nominated Romney.
And they want to do it again.
There is conventional wisdom out there, ladies and gentlemen.
There's conventional wisdom out there.
I should tell you this, that Mitt Romney is the only Republican who can beat Hillary.
No, no.
And this wisdom, this conventional wisdom comes from the upper echelon of the Republican consultant class and the Republican donor class.
I'm not talking about media.
It may be some of the conservative media think it too.
But it is the area of the Republican Party where serious effort is made to nominate candidates for president, and this would be the Northeastern liberal or moderate Republican.
They really think Mitt Romney is the only guy who has a prayer against Hillary because Romney's the only guy that can expose her.
Ted Cruz couldn't come close.
Nobody else could.
Jeb couldn't do it.
Only Romney.
One of the reasons I think Jeb couldn't do it is because the Clintons and Bushes have become too close that Jeb wouldn't go after her.
So the thinking at the upper echelon level of the Republican Party, stop and think of this, and I don't mean this to be mean.
I really, I'm just speaking here in historical common sense.
The Republican upper echelon believes that the only guy they have who can beat Hillary is a guy who has already lost a presidential election.
And that would be Mittens Romney.
Now, there's news on the Clinton front.
The National Inquirer has picked up this UK Daily Mail story on Clinton and the pedophile and Prince Andrew and the sex slaves at the home of the pedophile.
And the National Inquirer has added to it.
They've reported that Clinton had 20 different phone numbers, that this is all in the documents that have been suppressed as part of the plea deal the pedophile got.
But somehow the inquirer has found out.
Now, the Democrats are a little petrified because it was the inquirer that proved to be the end of John Edwards.
All the other drive-bys were ignoring the Edwards story with Riley or Ryell, whatever her name was, Hunter, and a child that Edwards fathered with her while his beloved betrothed is suffering from cancer.
And their little inquirer is what it is, but the inquirer was right.
Inquirer's been right, but John Edwards, a couple other things.
And so they're worried about it.
And the conventional wisdom on this is that Hillary's a little worried about it because Bill had promised her that he had stopped all this stuff.
And now here it is rearing its head, so to call, so to speak, once again, right on the verge of a potential Hillary presidential run.
So that's a little unsettled, and it certainly isn't helpful for Clinton's name to be mentioned prominently in a story about a pedophile with sex slaves involving Prince Andrew and who the hell else knows was involved.
But I'm going to tell you, I think Hillary, you know, I study Hillary.
It isn't any fun, but it's part of the job.
And I think, you know, Hillary, her hair and the outfit, she's becoming more and more like Angela Merkel in appearance.
I don't know if it's by design or if it's just something I'm noticing, but I tell you what's going to happen with Hillary.
Snerdley, you ever heard of Google Analytics?
Okay, you've seen it in action.
I guarantee you.
I guarantee you that every single thing that will come out of Hillary Clinton's mouth will be Google Analytics polled, that she will not utter a single thing ever that the majority does not agree with.
We'll see.
Don't doubt me on this, folks, if she's serious about this.
And we have to assume That she is.
But there are times that Hillary, we've had the sound bites.
She is a different person from Dana.
Some days she's all hopped up.
Well, I don't know.
I'm not hopped up.
Some days, you know, you get this raging, you can't tell me that we can't eject the babies just off the charts.
And then another day you'll get her down there, I ain't no ways tired.
And then another day you'll get her ram.
She's a study in totally programmed politics and personality.
I don't think anybody knows who the real Hillary is other than us.
We do.
But she does a great job, and the Democrats do a great job of hiding it and having it all focus group polled or some such thing.
Anyway, I'll take another time out.
Sit there, folks.
Be cool.
We're coming right back with much more after this.
It turns out that at least a couple of hardline anti-Boehner votes who promised to vote anti-Boehner ended up voting for him.
I don't have the names in front of me.
Grothman is one.
I think Mia Love voted for Boehner.
But Pete Sessions voted.
Well, that stands to reason.
Pete Sessions voted for Boehner.
Now, there's one other thing, though.
I don't know.
Last I saw that was only 401 people that voted.
Now, who?
Yeah, they can't find Trey Gowdy.
But here's the thing.
It may be that they need more than 29 now.
Remember, this 29 votes needed was based on 435 and 218.
If 401, say, is the number, or 410 and not the 435, I don't know.
I'm just openly speculative.
I have to look at it, but they might have ended up meeting more than 29 if they had a significant number of no-shows.
Don't know if that's right.
But regardless, if they end up with 28, it's going to be hard to convince me that the whole thing wasn't designed to tease.
It's so close, so close, and then blow the chip shop field goal in the last second.
Here, Jimmy in Spring, Texas.
Great to have.
Speaking of Texas, Jerry Jones just said that we got the soundbite coming up that Chris Christie gives a mojo.
Jerry Jones, he can't imagine going the rest of the way without Chris Christie being there.
Okay?
Jimmy, welcome to the program.
Great.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, happy 2015.
And live here in Texas, but not the biggest Cowboy fan, but that's okay.
That's all right, yeah.
You know, Rush, your comments just a minute ago were exactly what I was calling about.
I'm sitting here watching C-SPAN, watching the vote take place.
And I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, Rush, but getting to 28 votes and being so close to me almost seems like it was a contrived event just to throw the base, you know, weed the base, some red meat to make us feel good.
You know, we gave it the good fight, but we just came one short, one vote short.
Throw your bone choke.
It might be.
It could have been possible.
It could have been.
Don't give up, guys.
Don't give up.
It could have been.
But it was all staged to go in.
I told Stergley in about 23 votes.
I said, you know, it's going to end up 28, don't you?
Rush, and seeing Trey Gowdy, who I totally respect, not even show up to vote.
You know, we've got a phrase down here in Texas, and that's big hat, no ranch.
And that's kind of how I feel today about Trey Gowdy.
Yeah, we interviewed him for the Limball Letter, and I remember really liking it.
I still do.
Don't misunderstand.
But look, Boehner put him on the committee.
Boehner gave him the Benghazi or whatever committee he's got.
Yeah, I don't think it was realistic that Trey was going to vote against Boehner.
Yeah, Trey Gowdy nominated Boehner in November.
I think there's a lot of expectations that people had here that weren't really realistic.
Look, the Speaker of the House is a powerful person, folks.
It's not like we're trying to take out Aunt Agnes and get her committed to the home.
It's a serious position with a lot of power, and people are going to buck it at their own peril.
And with as much fear as permeating the people of this country, this ought not surprise a lot of people, actually.
I tell you, folks, you have to respect those that manned up for that vote against Boehner.
That took a lot of guts to vote against me because they know there's going to be a price to pay.
Courage.
Remember that courage is never wasted.
And we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection