All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
February 10, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right, Owen.
I think we're up to audio sound by number one, number four.
But keep one and two standing by as well.
Now, actually, not number four.
Well, I don't know now.
Let me just, I thought it was in order.
Just a second here.
The pages are sticking together.
Well, I'll figure it out and just say, maybe number 10.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
You're tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America.
You are tuned to the most talked-about radio talk show in America and the most talked-about host.
Happily here at 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Now, this business on the narrative is just something that I learned.
I'm like everybody else.
I was naive about, well, practically everything.
Everybody's naive about things growing up until they learn the truth of things.
And my understanding of journalism was that it was biased.
I knew that it was biased in favor of the Democrat Party growing up and then of liberalism as I got older.
And I knew that they tried to make a point of convincing everybody they were objective.
And then when the lid got blown on that, and they would admit that, okay, objectivity, that's kind of hard for any human being to be.
Then they said, no, no, no, but we're fair.
Now, I've always thought that being objective in any business as an adult is a really difficult thing to do if you are informed.
If you are informed, and if you care about things, if you're a caring person, and if you have an interest in the outcome of events, like we all do, then objectivity is a really, really tough thing because what it really means is you must act totally divorced from whatever it is as a journalist that you're talking about.
And I've always thought that was impossible.
I couldn't do it.
I could not do it.
I have too much interest in the outcome of events.
I'll tell you a little story.
When I left the baseball team, Kansas City Royals back in 1983 and decided to go back into radio because that's what I loved and it's also what I thought I did best.
So I therefore thought that's what would make me the happiest.
I decided also to go back radio in spoken word formats rather than as a DJ playing music because I wanted to find out once and for all if I could be the reason people would listen to the radio, not the music, and not promotions and contests and whatever else.
And the only way to do that was in spoken word.
So there happened to be an all-news station that I was lucky enough to be hired at or by.
And I was working in the afternoon supposedly doing the news.
And, you know, I would throw little comments.
I just couldn't help it.
I throw little comments in the not local news.
That was left somebody else.
And they'd call me and say, you can't do that.
As a reporter, you must keep your opinions out of the news.
I said, why?
Peter Jennings puts his in every night.
And the program director said, no, he doesn't.
I said, yes, he does.
Have you ever seen him raise an eyebrow?
What do you think that is?
You ever seen him put a scowl on his face when he was talking about any Republican?
What do you think that is?
But opinionated journalism.
Well, I don't care, Peter Jennings, you can't do it.
I said, I'll try, but it's hard not to.
And it really was hard not to.
So anyway, I couldn't.
And so they gave me a commentary.
They took me off the news and gave me a 90-second commentary that would run throughout the day that I would write and record.
And I loved that.
I really, really got into that.
Ended up being fired because of it.
It was too controversial.
And the controversy was my opinion.
It wasn't controversial because of what the opinion was.
It was just that I had one.
And this is 1984, very uncomfortable.
83.
They're very uncomfortable with it.
A long time ago in these terms.
But the point is, I didn't know anything about narratives.
I didn't know about how journalism was actually taught in journalism school.
I knew there were J schools, but I thought most people wanted to be journalists because of Woodward and Bernstein or because of 60 Minutes.
And at that time, most of them did, and maybe still do in some sense.
It was only later that, you know, when we blew the lid off the fact that there is no objectivity, I don't care the pretense.
The Drive-By Media has always been liberal.
It's back in the days of their monopoly.
There wasn't anything else.
And so the liberalism really didn't stand out.
The only reason it was liberal is if you happened to not be one.
If as a citizen, as a person, you were a conservative Republican, you knew the news was slanted to the left.
But there wasn't any right-wing news.
There wasn't any conservative news to bounce off of.
And so when journalists in that era were accused of bias, they tried first to hide behind the cloak of objectivity.
When that got blown up, then they admitted that that was not possible.
Then they would say, but we're fair.
We're fair.
And I said, oh, well, you're admitting then.
You are admitting that you're flavoring the news and that you have to employ fairness in order to get it balanced, right?
What does being fair mean?
It means you'll equally criticize people.
What is it possible?
And that was just smoke as well.
Because they are who they are.
It was only later, and it was not until this show started, it was not until the early 90s that I first learned of the existence as a teachable fact or a teachable aspect journalism of the narrative in a story or the template in a story.
It used to be a very closely guarded secret among journalists, much like baseline budgeting used to be a very closely guarded secret on Capitol Hill.
They didn't really want you to know how the federal budget got put together.
And baseline budgeting, you had to learn that and ferret that out yourself.
Which, once I had that explained to me, it was Larry Kudlow that explained it to me.
I said, the lights went off, and my view of the federal budget has never been the same.
Now I know exactly how it's done and the tricks that are employed in the verbiage used to sell it.
Well, consequently, the narrative of a story is the agenda, is the reason they're doing the story.
The narrative is why certain stories are ignored and certain stories are very, very, well, people get, journalists get very excited about them.
So journalism is not some guy standing around where you aren't and telling you what happened there.
Journalism is a series of narratives.
I now refer to it as the daily soap opera.
It's a series of narratives or templates.
And if anything in that story doesn't advance the narrative, it doesn't get reported.
So if your story, if your narrative is that Republicans are starving kids with the school lunch program, then there is nothing that you can learn that disproves it that will be included in the story because the narrative is Republicans are starving kids.
Republicans are cutting the school lunch program.
You can tell the journalist doing that story, you can cite 15 different things to disprove what she or he believes, and they would disregard them all because they don't advance the narrative.
And the narrative, and there are many definitions, but this is pretty much close to encompassing all of them.
The narrative is the agenda.
The narrative is the desired end result.
Sorry, there's no objectivity in that.
And for the people we're talking about, there's no conservatism in the desired end result.
All that is desired about conservatism in the narrative is that it be defeated or is that it be seen to be extreme or racist or what have you in every story.
And anything that would come to light that would counter the narrative is ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.
And that's how a journalist will tell you that what you think about something doesn't matter when it doesn't fit the narrative.
What do you mean, narrative?
Well, the narrative here is that we're trying to establish beyond any doubt that Republicans are trying to cut the school lunch program, which is going to make kids hungrier.
Yeah, but they're not.
I don't care.
That's not the narrative.
The narrative is that they are.
And that's all that matters.
Well, my point is the narrative is now starting to show up everywhere.
Journalists are talking about it.
Non-journalists are talking about the narrative in a news story.
It's now common knowledge.
This is a big, big secret.
They used to hold this really close to the vest, the idea that there even was a narrative or a template that was being followed.
Now they openly talk about the narrative.
And so it's a dramatic, dramatic change.
And the narrative in the Brian Williams story, depending on who's doing the reporting, it could vary, but they're trying to establish a bunch of different narratives here.
They haven't settled on one, which is why all the confusion.
So it's this whole business of news and media bias.
That's why I say it isn't news anymore.
And that's why I've started calling these people narrative readers rather than newsreaders and presenters.
Because journalism is nothing like what people have been led to believe that it is.
But that doesn't mean people don't fall for it anymore.
Millions and millions of people do each and every day.
And they're totally unaware of the existence of any narrative or template.
They really do believe that the news is the news.
One of the first giveaways for me, when I actually started studying, it didn't matter what I watched.
It was all the same.
NBC, CBS, ABC, same stories in almost the same order every night.
It didn't matter.
Then we had that brilliant montage where we must have had 35 different journalists using the same word gravitas to explain George Bush choosing Dick Cheney to be his vice president.
So there's a single-mindedness born of all of these people in that business thinking alike, living similar lives and so forth.
I mean, they are, it's no trick to hire them.
I mean, there's no questionnaire.
You either know somebody as a liberal or they're not if you're in the business of hiring them.
And that then takes us to, okay, saving Brian Williams or not.
And I just, like a caller said the other day, I'm sitting here.
It is indicative of significant change that there's even a chance he could be kept in the nightly news anchor chair.
The fact that that remains a possibility indicates just how dramatically the whole concept of news has changed and what and its place in our culture.
Because after all, the nightly news anchor has to be able to sell things better than anybody else.
You wonder about the qualifications for a nightly news anchor.
It has nothing to do with where they've traveled and worn the trench coat.
It has nothing to do with the suffering they've seen.
It has nothing to do with the stories they've covered for the 30 previous years.
It has nothing to do with seeing war-torn strife.
And nothing to do with seeing poverty.
That's all part of the smoke and mirrors myth that creates the larger-than-life image of the anchor.
All that matters is: can they affect the proper facial expression with the proper tone in voice, given what it is that is being reported or narrated, as it were.
And that's why you either have that talent or you don't.
It can't be taught.
Well, I suppose it can, but the investment would be expensive and timely.
There are people that have this ability naturally and find, and that's why they earn the big bucks.
It's not because of any journalistic history they have or resume.
It's because the requirements of the job don't depend on that.
That's just a myth.
And so here we are, the highest-rated evening newscast we have learned recently, been hosted by a guy who's been making it up.
And he still has a chance to hold on to the job.
That should tell you everything you need to know about what these newscasts really are.
And newscasts, they aren't.
There is the selling of the agenda.
There is the selling of the narrative.
There is the required ability to cast the opposition in negative terms, effectively, and with very little verbiage being used.
There is the it's basically reading and getting the words on the prompter right with the proper facial expressions.
And I'm not diminishing this at all.
Now, the latest out of New Orleans, you know, Brian Williams said a number of things.
He was, I stayed the Ritz Carlton down there.
And one of the things he said was that he couldn't find a room.
So he had to sleep on a mattress in the fifth floor stairwell with any number of people he didn't know.
And that story was told in order to affect the image of roughing it.
And then the story that, hey, we didn't have any specified food and water drops.
No, no, no, no.
If the population was starving, so were we.
If the population couldn't get fresh water, neither could we.
If nobody had air conditioning to sleep at night, neither did we.
I mean, it's all part of the image creation of suffering, of roughing it, which is supposed to enhance the credibility and qualifications.
One of the things that Brian said is he looked out the window of his hotel room.
We found he didn't have one.
He was in the stairwell.
So he looked out the window of the stairwell, I guess, and he sees a dead body floating face down down a street, flooded street in the French quarter.
Well, the French quarter is the one area that didn't flood.
It was not possible for somebody to be floating in water face down in the French quarter.
Maybe other liquid substances, but not water.
Myra de Giersdorf, the then manager of the French Quarter, Ritz Carlton, says, I can tell you that at no time did any of my people report any sightings of any bodies.
It's in the Washington Post.
Brian Williams may have simply misremembered, but I can tell you no one broke out in the hotel with dysentery.
We didn't have anybody that got dysentery.
De Gersdorf now lives in Scottsdale, Arizona.
She was so well prepared for Hurricane Katrina, she won an award from the Ritz-Carlton corporate headquarters.
Anyway, brief timeout.
We're going to start on the phones when we get back.
Sit tight, my friends.
Do not go away.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, well-known Hall of Fame broadcaster.
Been doing this a long time, my friends.
Takes a lot to get anything past me.
We start on the phones of Randy in Bakersfield, California.
Hi, great to have you, Randy.
Welcome.
Good morning, Rich.
Thanks for my class.
I believe we came as a nation of victims or predators at the hands of the liberals.
Either one or the other.
And at case in point, I believe that Brian Williams wants to be a victim.
And he came out from underneath.
I mean, see, I'm having trouble hearing you.
Liberals are trying to make all of us victims or predators.
That's what your theory is?
That's what all this is about.
We're either victims or predators.
One or the other, yes.
Nobody just trucking along, minding their own business, living their lives.
Everybody's either a victim or a predator.
I mean, I know what you mean.
I know what you mean.
To the extent that you're right, it's all being done for political purposes.
The victims obviously need help and need our compassion.
The predators need punishment.
The predators need to be stigmatized.
So your theory is in that construction that Brian Williams would be one of the victims in our society and not a predator.
I don't know.
Victim of what?
Pressure?
Victim of the Republicans.
See, everybody, to the extent that he's got a point here, it's the Republicans that make everybody victims because of their cold-heartedness and their extremism and their mean-spiritedness and so forth.
Todd in Norman, Oklahoma, welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
Just fine.
Thanks much.
I'm sorry for your loss of kit.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Well, I've been listening since 1989.
I was a charter subscriber to the Limbaugh Letter, and hopefully I can make the host look good.
Well, that's you have been here a long time, if you remember that.
Well, I wanted to point out the never-ending hypocrisy of the left, and going back to the president's PSA about domestic violence, all the people that were in the audience at the Grammys, they're all buzzing about this 50 Shades of Gray movie that's coming out.
And it's about a rich guy who seduces a young woman and subjects her to his sado-masochistic, twisted, whatever you want to call it.
And they think that's great entertainment.
Well, they can't complain about domestic violence while they glorify these movies.
Interesting point.
So you think it's a little hypocritical?
Oh, yeah.
But see, the difference is they don't do it.
That's why the PSA was aimed at the audience and not at the attendees at the Grammys.
Same thing with the NFL.
Back in just a second.
Speaking of 50 Shades of Gray, Wendy, are you looking forward to that movie?
50 Shades.
You're not?
Holy smokes, I'm stunned.
Well, 50 Shades of Gray, I read where there is a total of 20 minutes of sex in the movie.
Sex scenes total 20 minutes.
And I got to thinking, I had to ask myself, is that a lot?
I guess the movie is the requisite two hours.
Is that a lot or is it, so I got to thinking, sex scenes in movies, sometimes less than a minute goes by.
That probably is a lot.
But the guy's got an interesting point about hypocrisy.
I mean, here's Obama talking to a bunch of people whose lyrics, listeners, the Grammys.
And here's Obama's PSA running to an audience with a bunch of people whose lyrics glorify cop killing, glorify insulting women as bitches and hoes and this kind of thing, and glorify misogynistic treatment of women.
And Obama's PSA is aimed at the viewers.
I don't think anybody at the Grammys thought he was talking to them.
He couldn't be.
They're in bed with Barack.
I mean, they're on the same team as Barack.
So he's talking to everybody in the viewing audience, not people who were in the Staples Center actually watching this thing.
Now, folks, 50 Shades of Gray, I started to read it.
I'll be openly upfront and honest.
I started to read it, and I gave it up after a while when I saw how big it is, and that there were two others.
I am never going to finish this first one, much less the other two.
And I had read enough to get the idea to where if the subject came up, I could say, yeah, I read it and have some informed comment about it.
If you want to, the actor that's playing, what's his name, Gray?
I forget the first name.
The actor playing the guy in this movie, the billionaire from Seattle, is named Jamie Dornan.
If you want to see, you want to see this guy in a really good crime show.
It's called The Fall.
It stars Jillian Anderson of X-Files fame.
And it's from the UK.
There are two seasons.
They just finished the second season.
The first season's up on iTunes.
Netflix has both seasons.
Five episodes for the first season, six episodes in the second season.
I don't think the second season's up yet.
Maybe on Netflix it is.
But it's about a serial killer of women in, I think, Northern Ireland.
And Dornan is the serial killer.
Same guy playing the male lead in the 50 Shades of Gray.
And it's captivating.
It's slow at times.
It's plodding.
It's deliberate, but it's dramatic as it can be.
And it's really, I just, I get an episode a week, obviously, when it was broadcast live.
I have my ways of getting these shows in the UK.
So I have seen both seasons.
And it's really good.
He plays the exact opposite.
Well, not, yeah, I guess the exact opposite kind of character in the fall as he does in 50 Shades of Gray.
But it's a well-done cop show with all kinds of different characters.
It'll rope you in.
What can I tell you about Fifty Shades of Grey?
Well, it's, it's, it's, it's, oh, the porno for women.
I don't know if I'm going to describe it that way, but women were the primary audience for this.
It was fantasy world.
It was fantasy, fantasy island for because this guy just zeroed in on this woman and made her feel like the most important woman ever in the world and roped her in and totally had his way with her in ways that people would describe it as abuse that she had loved.
And went back and forth, love, hate.
I didn't finish the thing because it was just, it was, I didn't need to finish it to get what it was about.
I'm not putting it down.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not criticizing.
I just need to, it's a huge book.
And then I saw there were two others.
Well, I know I'm not going to read those.
So, but I have no desire to see the movie.
If that's where you're going, having read the book, I have no desire to see the movie.
I'm just telling you, the guy that plays it is going to become a big star.
And if you want to find other work he's done, find that series called The Fall.
As I say, first season's up.
I know it's up on iTunes.
And I think both seasons are on Netflix now.
Here's Jackie in Earlysville, Virginia.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thanks a lot for taking my call.
Yes, ma'am, you bet.
And I think Snerdley's great.
Snerdley has the best laugh I've heard in a long, well, next to yours.
You know, his laugh is somewhat like Justice Thomas's laugh.
Clarence Thomas has one of the most infectious.
Infectious belly laughs that you have ever heard.
And Snerdley's is similar.
So you're right about that.
Yep, he's terrific.
Anyway, should I get right to the point?
I've got a couple.
Sure.
Okay.
My first thing is I was going to call about this on Open Line Friday and never got through.
And I thought that maybe I could broach this subject with you today.
Well, now, wait a minute.
Since you say that, you know, I'm glad you said that because I've been mentioning the means, meaning to say something.
Open Line Friday last Friday was done in honor of Brian Williams.
And in that vein, I offered callers the opportunity to call here and lie and make up anything they want.
They could just make anything up, put themselves in any story and see if they could sell it.
See if they could make people believe their lie.
And we had a couple of takers.
So you've reminded, I wanted to extend that to callers this week, too.
And I forgot to mention it.
It's Tuesday, so it's not late enough in the week to have missed the opportunity.
That's correct.
So I want to extend to you the opportunity now.
Not that you will, but if you want to just make something up here in your call, in addition to the other two points you want to make.
Well, I could, one of the points is something that I have absolutely, I have no idea whether it's true or not.
I would just kind of off the top of my head.
We love calls like that.
Okay.
Okay.
In my very best news voice.
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton has undergone spatial reconstructive surgery, better known as a facelift.
And this is the reason that she has not been around to counter comments to the contrary.
Really?
And I've heard those stories.
Have you?
Yes, I've been privy to them.
There are countless reasons being advanced for Mrs. Clinton having gone on hiatus.
Yep.
Now, there's another reason, by the way, and it's just as valid, and maybe not more so.
There's something about Hillary Clinton's undeniable.
The less she is seen and heard, the higher her approval numbers go.
No, seriously.
I'm not trying to be funny or insulting her.
More she's seen and the more she speaks, the worse her numbers get.
And there's there's a new fundraising scandal has reared its head in the Washington POST and NEW YORK Times about, about Hillary.
It's almost it looks like a replay of what happened in 2008 and did Hillary in then.
Not even operation chaos could save her.
And it's all about controversy in the fundraising groups.
You've have you seen the stories about all the money that Hillary's raised, that she's got so much money it's going to scare every other Democrat off yep.
Well, that story was also the same story as 2008, and Hillary had so much money in such an organization that it wasn't going to make any sense for anybody to try to compete with her.
And then here came Obama and all that got blown up.
The same thing is happening, except there's a new twist.
And that is that one of the fundraisers is David Brock.
And it has been discovered that David Brock is paying commissions on the money that he is getting people to donate.
So he's going out to people, X, Y, and Z, and they're donating money.
And he is paying a commission to people who are pitching these people to donate the money of 12.5%.
And the donors have found out about this.
And they don't like the fact that 12.5% of what they pledged to Hillary is going to somebody they don't even know.
So Brock is in the middle of a firestorm here, and it is raising a focus on some of the chicanery going on in the Hillary and their fundraising apparatus.
And it is revealed that there is an internal competition going on amongst all the different fundraisers.
They're trying to get closer to Hillary.
They want positions in her regime.
They want ambassadorial appointments.
And so people are engaging in all kinds of chicanery in their fundraising.
They end up closer.
You know, the old butt-kissing thing that's going on.
All the while, Mrs. Clinton is unseen.
She's nowhere.
Nobody knows where she is.
She's not responding to any of this.
Ergo, some of the rumors going around, such as the one that you've heard, that she's out getting work done.
Well, I believe it because she's looking, she doesn't look as good as she should, I think, for the kind of competition that she's going to be facing.
Who?
Biden?
No, from if she should get the nomination.
Elizabeth Warren?
What do you mean, competition?
Well, I'm talking about competition from the Republican side.
Oh, from the Republican side.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, there's no way.
Right, right.
But she's, see, everybody is making the same mistake.
They're thinking that the primaries are a fait accompli.
Yeah.
It's just a matter of time has to pass.
She's going to win it.
Elizabeth Warren, the prayer.
John Kerry said he may think about getting back in.
Yeah, I had heard that.
And he's already, he's been the Botox route.
We already know that.
He's already done this.
But it doesn't matter if a man does it, only if a woman does it.
Right.
But now, you, what was it you just said?
You said that she, she said, you said it's a good thing she's doing this because she doesn't look as good as she should.
Or could.
Let's put it that way.
Or could.
Yeah.
Well, that's.
She looks like she's getting, well, we're all getting older, but she looks like she's really, you know, been rode hard and put up wet.
Well, you know, the caller's name here, folks, is Jackie from Earlysville, Virginia.
And all callers are independent and are not instructed to say anything by the post.
I still find it you think she doesn't look as good as she should or could.
Right.
Isn't that kind of a triumph of emotion over common sense?
I mean, what?
Yeah, it is, but that's what they're pandering to.
Who is pandering to who?
What?
Okay.
The Hillary campaign apparatus is trying to get the kind of voter that doesn't have a brain anyway.
Wait a second, though.
Why isn't this necessary?
I thought she was a lock.
See, this doesn't, the problem with this rumor is that it doesn't fit with the narrative of Hillary Clinton, which is she's a lock.
The nomination's hers.
The presidency is hers.
She can't lose.
The Republicans are scared to death of her.
The Democrats are afraid to death of her.
It's finally her turn.
She's owed this.
So it doesn't matter what she looks like.
But if it does matter what she looks like, then all the rest of this isn't true.
I don't know.
I think it could be both.
I think it could be both.
I think one is insurance against the other.
Well, you would be more informed than I on matters.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Now, I have.
I don't think there's any hope is my point.
I think it's a waste of money and time myself.
Rush, I had worked at a TV station in the Norfolk, Virginia area.
TV station, did you say?
Yes.
And that was in the 1970s and 80s.
And back in the day, we were told by the owner of the television station that we needed to find a hook to put the story on.
Oh, yeah.
The hook.
That's just the narrative.
It's just another term for the narrative.
Exactly.
That's what I was.
So this isn't anything new.
No, no.
Nope.
No, no.
No.
What's new is the journalism industry acknowledging that there is such a thing as the hook to the consumer or acknowledging that there is such a thing as the narrative to the consumer.
This is one of the deep, dark secrets that they taught in Jay school that the news consumer was never to be told and never to know.
Anyway, Jackie, I got to run.
I'm a little long.
I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
No, no, no.
What David Brock was doing, Brock is raising money for Hillary under some pack.
I forget the name of the pack.
I don't care what the name is.
And the Washington Post revealed that he was paying commissions.
He went out and hired somebody named Mary Bonner, Mary Pat Bonner, who is what's called a donor advisor.
She works closely with Brock.
And she was out doing the fundraising for Brock.
And Brock gave her what amounts to a 12.5% commission on the money she brought in.
So she's raising the money for Brock's group.
And Brock is paying her.
He paid her $3.5 million on $28 million that she raised.
And the donors that donated that money got a little upset because they thought all the money was going to Hillary, number one.
And number two, they don't know who Mary Pat Donner is, or they might, but they don't know what she's doing with the money.
You know, I'm giving the money to Hillary.
I want Hillary to be proud.
I'm not giving them, who's getting that 3.5 million?
They got ticked off.
So Brock is now going to have to leave that pack.
And he's sort of the dangling participle out there and may have to join some other pack to get this.
What Brock's trying to do is raise the most money so that he can get closer to Hillary if she's elected and be in line for some plum position.
They're all doing that.
But the fundraising apparatus has been revealed here as a bunch of egomaniacs driven for their own personal aggrandizement, not so much the election of Hillary.
It's a kind of close race.
But this is close to what was happening in 2008, and it all blew up on them because they, just like now, back in 2008, they all believed it was a slam dunk, that it was going to be a coronation.
That Hillary is going to win the primary, she's going to win the general, and that was it.
And it's the same damn thing.
History is repeating itself now.
And I'm, look, I've made no bones about this.
I am to this day.
I mean, I'm as smart as anybody else.
I watch this stuff as closely as anybody else.
I understand it all.
But the one thing I cannot grasp is the supposed inevitability of Hillary Clinton.
I just don't get it.
I don't understand why so many people think that her election to the White House is inevitable.
I don't know why she instills such fear in the Republicans.
I don't, and the reason is that I've got to be careful how I say this.
No, it's just I want to be right about it.
I just, I don't, I don't see Hillary Clinton as smarter, more clever, more adept.
I don't see her as in fact, I see Hillary as kind of nowhere near being able to match the reputation.
I've always been curious about this.
I've never understood.
I got people to this day who have already given up.
If Hillary's a nominee, we're toast.
They believe it.
They live in New York or Boston or Washington.
That's what's common about them.
Not that that's the only place.
I just saw the clock.
I've got to take a break.
And I really hate having to interrupt myself right in the middle of this.
And I'll be back.
No, I'm going to explain this in greater detail.
I've tried on previous occasions.
I may as well try again when we get back from the top of the hour.
And the White House just said that global warming is a far greater threat than ISIS and terrorism.
▲
Export Selection