All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
May 18, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Anybody in the audience watch Mad Men?
Do you watch Mad Men in there?
You watch it, but you didn't see the finale.
Well, heck, that means I can't talk about it because if I do be a spoiler alert for you.
Oh, well, in that big a deal anyway.
You haven't seen the finale either, Mamon?
And you watch it?
Well, geez.
I see.
Okay.
Well, anyway, it was, and it reminds me that I had a story last week that I didn't really spend enough time on, so I saved it.
And it turns out there's a companion story that goes right along with it.
It's the story why New York women wish they lived in the madmen era.
Remember that story?
I teased it a little bit last week.
Didn't really get into it in too much detail.
And it turns out it was a good thing that I didn't and waited because there's a story in the New York Times, poor little rich women.
It's about some leftist babe that lives in the village.
And for some reason, she and her family picked up and moved to the Upper East Side.
And what she found there, i.e. the wives of rich Wall Street types and the way they deal with their family and kids, just it was culture shock for her.
And she's written about it.
She cannot believe.
It is, in terms of feminism, she can't believe what she found in the Upper East Side.
So it'll go, it'll dovetail nicely when we get to it, but don't worry, not going to do that first.
And I don't know how many of you in the audience have, you know, watched Mad Men and not seen the finale.
The only thing I will tell you, I've read all of the reviews and I've read, you know, all the TV critics think it was brilliant and it was just the best thing ever and why it was the best TV series ever and the best TV drama.
Every critic thinks that, which should tell you that that's not the correct assessment when they're all in lockstep on it.
And for their analysis of this series finale to be the absolute best show ever, there's a bunch of stuff you have to know about the real life McCann Erickson and a Coca-Cola commercial that I don't think 95% of the audience watching that show knows.
Therefore, the brilliance, the so-called brilliance in the finale was going to be way over everybody's head.
As I say, we'll get to that down the road.
We got George Stephanopoulos in bigger trouble at ABC than anybody knows.
ABC is more worried about this than anybody knows.
That's the story on page six in the New York Post today.
And I tend to think that it's probably true.
I really do think Stephanopoulos was to be, for lack of a better term, the anchor of their entire 2016 presidential campaign coverage.
And he has just rendered himself, well, in the game of pretense, where we all pretend the media is objective and we all pretend the media is all journalists and so forth.
Under that umbrella of pretense, Stephanopoulos has blown himself out of the deal.
Now, I don't believe that's really going to be the case.
I think ABC is going to try to find any number of which ways to get this guy, Stephanopoulos, back involved in the 2016 campaign.
And I think the real test is going to be just how cooperative the Republicans end up being with whatever plan ABC has.
Because really, he was it.
He was the guy that was going to do the debates.
He was the guy that was going to anchor all the coverage, Democrat and Republican.
He was the guy that was going to anchor all of the election night, all the campaign.
He was it.
And now he's jaundiced.
Now he's tainted.
But they're going to find a way.
Mark my words.
They're going to let time pass.
They're going to let things go.
Hope people forget.
Try various ways to rehab Stephanopoulos.
But it turns out Peter Schweitzer has a new column in USA Today.
It turns out that Stephanopoulos has only told half the story about his real involvement with the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
It wasn't just that he donated 75 large.
He was an employee, for all intents and purposes.
He was moderating seminars.
He was acting as an employee of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative when they were running around doing seminars and panel discussions at various places.
He was right up there as an advocate, not just a donor.
I mean, that's bad enough that he donated and didn't tell ABC and didn't, well, it didn't come clean about its totality.
And there are other aspects of this that apparently have not come out that are effervescing behind the scenes, underneath the surface, that might bubble over, which is going to give ABC an even greater challenge in rehabbing Stephanopoulos between now and when it really picks up.
As far as the 2016 campaign, Jeff Greenfield, I just have to mention this, John Nolte, as a note in Breitbart, that Jeff Greenfield, who worked at ABC for many, many moons, Jeff Greenfield, noted liberal media specialist.
He worked at ABC 14 years as an analyst.
And he was a speechwriter for John Delindzi, Senator Robert Kennedy.
And he says, what I said last, what Stephanopoulos was doing was buying access.
Like everybody has to do with the Clintons.
You want access, you pay for it.
And he was buying access.
And he wrote a memoir, autobiography of sorts.
And in it, he was kind of cutting to the Clintons in several places.
And he was hard on the Clintons and Bill when it came to Monica Lewinsky.
And it's now thought that much of this money that he was spending was to re-ingratiate himself with his former bosses.
And I think all of that is just a bunch of muckety muck for public consumption.
I don't think that in times like this, I don't think the Clintons are ever going to doubt Stephanopoulos' loyalty.
I mean, nobody knows who he is, if it weren't for the fact they had hired him way back when to work with Carville in the forehead, running the Clinton campaign in 92 in the war room and so forth.
But it still has execs at ABC a little troubled.
We also have Mrs. Clinton continuing to be in the news.
Not only problems involving her emails and questions that she will not answer.
By the way, all these emails, you know, Hillary claims that she got rid of all those emails, 30,000 emails on her server that she got rid of that she told us that we didn't need to see.
Just like Tom Brady and the Patriots said, there's nothing here on my phone for you to see.
Trust me, there's nothing here.
You don't need to see it, and I'm not surrendering.
Hillary said, nothing on my server.
The 30,000 emails that I've given you is all you need to see.
It's all that's relevant.
I looked at the other 30,000.
There's nothing there.
Well, those emails were sent to somewhere.
And some of those emails were received from somewhere.
The point is, Hillary ditching her server did not get rid of those emails.
There are heads of state.
There are foreign officials, foreign government officials, people all over the world to whom she sent email, and they all have them.
Now, imagine that you are world enemy number one bad guy, and Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State has had an email relationship with you during the time she was Secretary of State.
Contents don't matter for this example.
You're world number one bad guy, and Mrs. Clinton's been emailing back and forth.
Now, obviously, in her original email dump, the emails back and forth, Mrs. Clinton and the world number one bad guy, are not released.
But the world number one bad guy has them, and he knows he has them, and he knows that Hillary's not releasing them, and he knows that Hillary's running around saying that they don't exist anymore, and he knows that Hillary's running around saying that there's nothing in there to see anyway.
But world number one bad guy knows the exact opposite.
World number one bad guy, and world number two bad guy, world number 15 bad guy, all of the world number one 5, 10, 15, 20 bad guys have something on Hillary.
They have her emails.
Can you imagine what she might, quote unquote, pay in order for all of these world number one bad guys to not release the emails that she has deleted?
She has to be thinking that.
And since the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and the Clinton family anyway sells access to itself and sells favors and will willingly be bribed, can you imagine the vulnerability she faces and what she would do in order to keep all of that, particularly before the election, from ever seeing public eyes?
It's just another in a long line of reasons to just run as fast as you can away from Hillary Clinton.
And that would be good advice for the Democrats as well.
And I don't mind offering it to them.
Now, there's something else happening out there.
And this is, in and of itself, it's multifaceted.
It is fascinating on a number of levels.
And it contains a whole bunch of teachable moments.
And that is the question that every Republican presidential candidate has either gotten or will get.
And it is a variation on the theme of knowing what you know now, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you have gone to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?
The second part of the question is, knowing what he knows now, would George W. Bush have gone to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?
Or should George W. Not one question, not one reporter has called up Hillary Clinton's and knowing what you know now, would you again vote for and support George W. Bush in the invasion of Iraq?
Not one reporter has called the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, the current Secretary of State, and said, Mr. Secretary, knowing what you know now, would you vote once again with George W. Bush to authorize the use of force and the invasion of Iraq in 2002, 2003, whenever it was.
The point is that, and there's something else to everybody is saying it's inevitable that Republicans are going to get this question.
Why is it inevitable?
Well, it's inevitable, Rush, because Iraq is the biggest mistake Bush made, and these guys want to be president, and it's perfectly legitimate to know how they think about it.
That's not why they're the question's a gotcha question.
This is a classic example of what I learned early on in my interactions with the drive-by media.
When they ask you these questions, they don't want to know what you really think.
They're not out to learn anything.
These are entrapment questions.
These are questions that are designed to expose a Todd Aiken-like incompetence.
These are questions designed to destroy said Republican candidate who's being asked the questions.
Now, conventional wisdom is the Republicans should know these questions are coming, whether they're valid or not, and they should have an answer for them.
And particularly, Jeb.
Jeb should have known this is going to be the first question, and he should have had an answer for this.
It was inevitable.
And the fact that he didn't have an answer right off the bat, not a good sign.
What happened to Jeb Bush is exactly what they want to happen to every Republican here.
And in the middle of it is this assumption the press is making that everybody in this country now opposes what we did in Iraq, never really supported it, including the Democrats that voted for it.
There's a conventional wisdom that everybody thinks it was a mistake now, and therefore that makes it a mistake.
Hindsight is foresight, and it was a mistake, and everybody knows it.
And that's the basis on which you'd better answer.
If you want to get rid of it and get rid of the media.
Now, we just got news that the Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen to ISIS.
That's not because of George W. Bush.
And that's not because of the Republicans.
There's a real salient question that needs to be asked of Hillary Clinton and even Barack Obama.
Because we had, at the conclusion of operations in Iraq, we had a success story in the making.
It wasn't the best in the world, and it wasn't exactly how Bush envisioned it, but there was a possibility there.
Obama came in and totally blew it, and Iraq has now fallen.
And the left, well, Ramadi has, and ISIS is growing.
And the left believes that this is all the fault of George W. Bush by creating ISIS, by going into Iraq and ticking off all the al-Qaeda people.
And that's the conventional wisdom.
Conventional wisdom is nowhere near the truth.
And that is reality is what it is.
When Barack Obama assumed office, we had been to war in Iraq.
There had been a number of American lives lost and a number of injuries.
And it was still something worth protecting.
The country had engaged in it.
All politics ends at the water's edge, so forth and so on.
Obama came in, and everything he could do to literally wipe Iraq off the map, including lose it, he's done.
And yet he doesn't get one single question, nor does Hillary get one single.
It's all being asked of the Republicans.
And it's intensive.
It's oppressive.
No answer is good enough.
No answer is the final answer.
Every answer leads to another question.
The same question gets asked five or six different ways.
Same question, different variations.
Rubio faced it yesterday with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.
We have audio soundbites of that coming up.
But the whole notion of that question being legitimate and defining for a Republican presidential candidate, I think, is horse hockey.
But it is what it is.
And the Republican candidates are dealing with it in their own ways.
And some are good.
Some are really sharp.
Some are not so good.
But the Republicans are not the problem here.
Look at this story.
This is from Yahoo Finance.
This is Yahoo Finance, folks.
This means the low information crowd's going to see this.
The low information crowd's going to see this.
It's going to be all over Twitter.
It'll be all over the Facebook news digest that people send around.
And the headline, Economist Tyler Cowan, says the economy might be a disappointment for years to come.
We'll just have to get used to it.
The opening line is, the economy might stink for a while.
Yeah, why?
Why is that?
Why might the economies?
Why might this be the new norm?
Why in the world do we have to put up with this?
Why is that the case?
Another question Obama won't get.
The mess this country is in domestically and around the world is traceable to the Oval Office since being occupied by Barack Obama.
It has nothing to do with Marco Rubio, nothing to do with Jeb Bush, nothing to do with any of these Republicans.
They've got nothing to answer for.
Got to take a break back after this.
Don't go away.
I got a note from a friend of mine, Jeffrey Lord, writes at Newsbusters, The American Spectator.
And he was watching, what was this?
He was watching Britt Hume and Howard Kurtz on Fox.
I forget the show.
It might have been, it might have been yesterday, Fox News Sunday.
And he said, oh, that was, it was Kurtz's TV show on Media Buzz, this media analysis show where the media sits in judgment of itself.
Anyway, it says, on Kurtz's Media Buzz, Britt Hume and how we discuss Obama at Georgetown, the poverty discussion.
You are not mentioned, but what catches my attention is that in discussing between the two, they talk about the media business and how something like Baltimore happens and the media just parachutes in and then leaves.
And without reference to you, what they were describing, obviously, is your drive-by media description.
Parachuting in, that's it, creating all the hassles, creating all kinds of problems, ginning up problems where none existed, and then back in the cars and on down the road to the next crisis.
Parachuting in.
So the old notion that the drive-by media is the drive-by media is now being seen by the drive-by media.
People that are involved in it.
Speaking of Kurtz, where is it?
No, it's not Kurtz.
Yes, it was.
It was Kurtz on a show Sunday, same show, Media Buzz, speaking with former Bush White House spokesperson Mercedes Schlapp about Stephanopoulos and 75 large to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and not disclosing it.
Kurtz says, oops, oops, I misread the clock.
I give you a hint, by the way, on this Hillary, or the Hillary stack.
The top story I have in the Hillary stack is not the Crime Family Foundation stuff.
It is a piece that the Washington Post, Clinton banking on the Obama coalition to win.
The story is about.
Hillary believes that the only way to win is to move even further left than Obama.
Hillary believes the country has already gone there.
Hillary believes the country has reached its tipping point and has officially become European socialist.
And in order to win, this story says she has Move in that direction to let the majority of Americans know that she is with them.
And I find that obviously fascinating, very interesting, that Hillary and her campaign strategists believe that the vast majority of people that vote in this country are all in for everything Obama's done, but he hasn't done enough.
They're all in and want even more of this.
That's what she believes.
That's an interesting question, is it not?
You know, these people live in.
I'll tell you a little story.
A friend of mine recently had jury duty.
And the friend of mine was prepared to admit that I was a friend, which would mean immediate disqualification.
Well, that didn't work.
Took five days for my friend to be excused from jury duty.
But when it was made known that my friend had association with me, a defense attorney, plaintiff's attorney, sorry, plaintiff's attorney, started asking questions of my friend.
So let me guess.
Limbaugh only watches Fox News, right?
And the friend said, well, meaning everybody at the studio, we only watch Fox News.
Conservatives only watch Fox News.
The point was that, oh, you know Limbaugh, you're conservative.
So you guys, all you watch is Fox News.
The plaintiff's attorney's asking during the jury selection process.
No, in fact, we are a news program.
We watch everything.
I couldn't believe it.
Folks, they believe.
My point is, you hear these leftists talk about Fox News being the evil entity in the world and talk radio being the evil entity of the world and all of their beliefs that people like you in this audience, all you do, the only thing you do is listen to this program and watch Fox News.
They believe it's not just, they don't just say this stuff.
They literally believe it.
And it's right here in this story on Hillary.
They believe because of everything that's happened in the last six and a half, seven years with Obama.
They believe because Obama's numbers have stayed printed, they believe this country is now officially and unchangeably European socialist.
They think they have won that argument.
They don't think that there is anything other than a small, isolated pocket of people who are conservatives, that they are a minority that by themselves can't win anything, can't change anything, can't persuade anybody of anything.
Hillary believes it.
Her campaign team believes it.
This is what they believe.
And I think they live in a cocoon and in a bubble.
And I don't think if they live in Washington, of course they would think that.
If they live in New York, they might think they live in San Francisco, they might think they're in Boston.
They might think that.
They have no idea what is really going on in this country.
And whenever there are any objections to Obama, they just ignore them as coming from kooks, fringe people, very small groups of people, the bitter clingers and what have you.
So it's going to be fascinating because if I think Hillary's setting herself up, they're ignoring the midterms, for example.
They just ignore the results that everybody saw in the midterms because they say, well, that's not a presidential turnout.
You wait for the presidential turnout and you put one of us liberals on a ticket and you watch what happens.
They really believe it's over.
They believe they've won.
And it's so precarious, but it's not slam dunk.
In order to win, they have to go acknowledge it.
They have to move the country even further left because they believe leftists in this country are still not satisfied, which, by the way, is true, but they never are, no matter how much of what they get.
Now, I don't happen to think that the strategerists or Hillary are anywhere near right.
I don't think we've reached the tipping point yet.
I don't think we're, I don't think 55, 60 percent of the country is all in with Obama.
I don't believe 55, 60 percent want amnesty.
I don't, I don't believe any of this, but they do.
They think they've won.
They think it's over.
Doesn't mean they think their victory is automatic.
They have to serve it.
They have to serve this liberalism by continuing to be and maybe move even further left.
It's once again, if this pans out, it's another great opportunity for whoever the Republican nominee is to draw a distinct contrast between Hillary and the Democrats and the opposition.
It's going to be a great opportunity.
And I will just have to see the great unknown is the Republican consultant class and what they think.
And that matters because they're the ones that advise Republican candidates on their campaigns.
So we'll get into more detail and specifics from that story as the program unfolds.
Back to this little soundbite here from Howard Kurtz on Sunday, his media buzz show.
And again, he's speaking with the former Bush White House spokesman, Mercedes Schlepp, about Stephanopoulos and giving 75 grand to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and not disclosing it.
Kurtz says, can the Republicans trust George Stephanopoulos to be fair?
Now, she's here to assess whether or not Stephanopoulos, despite this, could still say moderate a debate or report fairly on a Republican campaign.
Kurtz wants to know: can the Republicans trust Stephanopoulos to be fair?
The question itself is.
It's, you know, the question is, it's so filled with hope.
It's got so much hope in it.
But look, despite all of it, can George still do it?
Can the Republicans still trust George?
You worry about the fact that will he be able to even give Hillary Clinton a fair interview, an objective interview?
You know, it makes everyone very concerned on the right.
You're starting to see these stories pop up on National Review.
Rush Limbaugh even talked about it, about him that he was never a journalist in the first place.
So it does impact, I think, George, especially for this particular presidential cycle where Hillary Clinton is running.
I don't think it's fair to say he's never been a journalist in the first place.
I think he's worked hard in 18 years to put his partisan past behind it.
This brings it up again.
He just was discovered giving 75 grand to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
He's worked hard to put his partisan past behind him.
He's worked so hard, maybe he should have given $150,000 to prove that he's putting his partisan past behind him.
He's worked.
He hasn't worked hard to put it behind him.
He's worked hard to cover it up.
He started out as a political hack, if you don't like the term campaign consultant and advisor, one of the troika that ran the Clinton war room, the purpose of which was to destroy anybody that got in Clinton's way, be it a bimbo, be it Ken Staw, be it a Republican.
That's what Stephanopoulos did.
He was never a journalist.
And then one day he's hired by ABC and immediately, by virtue of that alone, became a journalist.
And then for 18 years, he started working really hard on putting his hackery behind him.
But somewhere in the midst of working real hard for 18 years, he saw it necessary to donate 75 large to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
I guess that was a temporary setback in working hard to put his partisan past behind.
My point is, he never was a journalist.
He never became a journalist.
He's not a journalist now.
I wonder what they would say.
Let's say, ladies and gentlemen, hypothetical, on Friday of this week, I open the program by announcing to you that I am leaving the EIB network, that I have been offered Brian Williams job.
And starting in September, I'm going to be the lead anchor for the NBC Nightly News.
Do you think Howard Kurtz would say, no, let's give him a chance to put his partisanship behind him and see if he could become a journalist here?
Do you think Drive by Media would be open to the idea of me anchoring the NBC Nightly News when NBC announces that Brian Williams is not coming back?
How do you think that would work?
Of course, it's preposterous.
They wouldn't accept it.
They wouldn't put up with it.
And somebody would bomb NBC.
But when Stephanopoulos comes out of Clinton War Room, hired by ABC to be a journalist, oh, yeah, it's just a natural next step, which it is in their world.
It is a natural next step.
You come from partisan political hackery, war rooms, purposes of which destroy political opponents of the Clintons.
The next thing you know, you're doing Good Morning America as a journalist.
Hell yes.
It's a natural progression in one's leftist career.
Yeah, it's not fair.
It's not fair to say he's never been a journalist.
He's worked hard in 18 years, but he's passed behind us.
I guess if that's, then ABC shouldn't be worried.
ABC shouldn't, ABC should be telling us, what do you mean, pull him off the debates?
Hell no, we're not going to put, I don't care if he said he's not going to moderate the debate.
He's going to put him in the debates.
He's a journalist.
He's worked hard for the past 18 years.
75 grand?
Hell, he didn't know.
He's just trying to be nice to him.
I mean, they gave him his first shot in politics.
He'd just be nice.
That's all it was.
Maybe buying a little access, but he wasn't partisan.
That's the way they look at this.
Anyway, a brief time.
We'll come back.
I'll see what we got on the phones, but I do want to get into these audio soundbites of Marco Rubio.
He's just one of many, being peppered with this question about knowing what you know now.
Would you have gone into Iraq?
Would you have voted for Bush going to Iraq?
Should Bush have gone into Iraq?
Should we have gone into Iraq at all?
This question will not end after this.
Don't go away.
Yeah, it just struck me.
I never did intro the show.
I just got into it.
Well, that's right.
They know who I am.
It doesn't matter.
I mean, the sound of my voice tells everybody everything they need to know.
It is, nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, brand new week of broadcast excellence, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, let me grab Jeff in Monroe, Connecticut here first, and I'm going to get to the Rubio soundbites.
Jeff, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, Mr. Limbaugh, what an honor this is.
I tell you, it's not many times in your life you get to talk to a legend.
I've been listening to you for 20 years.
I've tried to call so many times and never gotten through.
I heard this story you were talking about.
Actually, I read it myself this morning about the Washington Post with this Hillary's this big lefty and she's going to run lefty.
The country's ready to go lefty.
I had never heard a bunch of boulder dash in my life.
You talk about wanting to run interference for the Clintons like Stephanopoulos.
Boy, the Washington Post is really taking it a step further.
There's no way she believes the country's gone left.
What they're doing is running interference.
She's running her campaign.
She's out there talking to the common man.
She's not answering any questions.
So the Washington Post, oh, she's this big lefty.
When the regular election comes along, you watch this.
I never sent any of that.
That's not me.
I never said that.
I'm a moderate.
It's as plain as the nose on your face, Rush.
It's right there.
So you don't believe the Washington Post story.
You believe that it's cover for Hillary to keep, like, maybe keep Elizabeth Warren at bay.
Exactly.
That's the biggest.
Elizabeth Warren's her biggest threat, and she knows it.
The only thing is she doesn't really believe the country's going there, and she can't come out and say it.
That's why she's not answering any questions.
She's just running around.
Oh, I'm just like you.
She's not answering any questions because she's incapable of it.
Now, I'm not arguing with you about that.
I mean, there's clearly a strategy behind her not answering questions, but she's proven the more she talks, the worse her numbers get.
We observed this many, many moons ago.
Little Loretta Sanchez lingo there.
She just, her poll numbers just plummet.
I didn't say a thing.
It was Loretta Sanchez start imitating Native Americans.
I didn't do anything.
I didn't do anything.
Anyway, here's the story.
Let me just give you the basic top nut of this thing.
Clinton banking on the Obama coalition to win.
Hillary Clinton running, is running as the most liberal Democrat presidential frontrunner in decades with positions on issues from gay marriage to immigration that would in past elections have put her at her party's precarious left edge.
The moves are part of a strategic conclusion by Clinton's emerging campaign that it can harness the same kind of young and diverse coalition Obama got in 2008 and 2012, bolstered by even stronger repeal among women.
Not so fast on that, though.
Hang on.
Her approach, outlined in interviews with aides and advisors, is a bet that social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton takes now is likely to hurt her when she makes her case to moderate and independent voters in the general election next year.
So this is clearly saying she's out there on the left-wing fringe because that's where they think the country is.
But they don't want to frighten the moderates and independent 20% that the elections fought over.
They don't want to frighten them.
So the story says that Hillary's moved left and is going to stay there, but is doing it in a way that will not hurt her when she has to come back and make her case to moderate independent voters.
The Strategy Re relies on calculations about the 2016 landscape, including that up to 31% of the electorate will be Americans of color, a projection that may be overly optimistic for her campaign.
So factors in the majority of independent voters already support gay marriage and the pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that Clinton endorsed.
They think this is a slam dunk.
They think the country's all in for gay marriage.
They think it's all in for amnesty and that Hillary has to get there and she has gotten there.
Now, Jeff has an interesting theory.
This is all bohunk that she's not going to answer any questions.
This story just exists since Hillary's not talking to satisfy the kook fringe base of the Democrat Party that that's where she is when in fact she isn't.
That's his theory.
This is just cover.
Maybe that could be right, but I'm going to tell you this.
Even if old Jeff here is right, and by the way, he was pretty composed, don't you think, for talking to a legend?
I mean, the first time I spoke to a legend, I was nervous.
No, I don't talk to myself.
I didn't mean that.
I mean, when I met Mr. Buckley, I mean, I drove around the block a couple times.
We're actually going in.
This guy, Jeff here, he just jumped right in.
It didn't bother him at all that he was talking to a legacy.
He didn't sound nervous at all.
And he could be right.
But even if he is, I still think, I do believe that the basic reporting in this story is true.
I believe that a number of Democrat strategists actually do believe that it's over.
Gay marriage, amnesty, vast majority of American people support it.
It's over.
Mission accomplished.
Quick timeout.
Don't go away, folks.
Much more straight ahead.
Knowing what we know now, should we have opened a consulate in Benghazi?
Knowing what we know now.
Should we have passed Obamacare?
Knowing what we know now.
Should we have opened the southern border to uninterrupted flows and levels of illegals?
Knowing what we know?
That's a question or a series of every damn Democrat candidate needs to get.
▲
Export Selection