Rush Limbaugh Program - October 13, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 13, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:35

October 13, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	No, no, no.
	I didn't even know about it.
	I didn't even know about this David Brooks piece because it's in the New York Times and I do not read the New York Times.
	I honestly don't.
	I have people that do.
	I can't deal with it.
	So I have people that do and anything in it.
	These are people that know.
	They are the show prep little helpers, if you will.
	And they fire me stuff in for the New York Times and I throw away 90% of it.
	And I didn't know about this.
	Nobody told me about this even.
	Snerdley came in about a half hour before the program to me.
	Greetings and welcome back.
	Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, behind the Golden EIB microphone at the Distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, 800-282-2882, if you're going to be on the program.
	So Snerdley walks in here and he says, you've been called out again, David Brooks, New York Times, all this is your fault.
	And I said, you're kidding.
	I haven't heard it out.
	So he showed it to me.
	Right, there it is.
	And I said, you know, I'm not even going to mention this.
	How many times has this been said about me?
	You can't let this go by.
	This is Brooks.
	This is Brooks.
	He calls himself a conservative, and here he is lambasting you.
	And I said, all he wants is clickbait, Snerdley.
	These people all know that all I have to do is mention them, and they're going to get droves more traffic than otherwise.
	That's half the reason they write about me.
	And Snerdley says, I don't know.
	Even so, you just can't let this stand.
	I said, why not?
	And lo and behold, so I mentioned this as a tease in the end of the previous hour, and I got a bunch of emails.
	Why'd you do that?
	All you're doing is driving traffic to the New York Times.
	I knew it.
	I knew it.
	Because nobody believes this.
	But since I've mentioned it, and by the way, Ben Shapiro, who is writing here at DailyWire.com, I should mention him because he writes a piece totally refuting it.
	I'm one of these people.
	Folks, do not misunderstand this because this is not whining.
	It isn't complaining.
	It is, all I'm doing is observing here.
	Whenever I am under assault or under attack, I am rarely defended out there, even by people supposedly quasi on my team.
	And the reason for it is very understandable.
	They all think I can handle it myself.
	They don't think I need any help.
	They don't think I need any defending because it's not right what is being said and so forth.
	So it doesn't happen much.
	It does happen, but it doesn't happen much.
	In fact, sometimes it happens, and in some so-called conservatives, then jump on the bandwagon.
	Yeah, yeah, you know, Limbaugh has been a problem for a few years.
	It's all just career and professional envy and jealousy in most cases, which is also very normal.
	It's standard human nature.
	So Shapiro has written this piece refuting David Brooks, which doesn't happen much in my case.
	So I wanted to mention Shapiro as well as Brooks.
	Now, what's amazing to me, David Brooks is the guy, and I totally understand him striking back at me.
	I mean, I made fun of this guy ever since he told everybody that he was convinced Obama was going to be a great president because of the crease in his slacks at dinner at George Wills' house.
	That was David Brooks.
	And David Brooks is the so-called conservative with Mark Maxie Shields on whatever that is.
	I haven't seen that in so long.
	What's the name of that show?
	PBS.
	The News Hour.
	That's right.
	The News Hour with Jim Lara.
	Well, he's not there anymore.
	Somebody else, I guess Gwen Eiffel does it.
	I don't even know that.
	But Brooks is supposedly the conservative columnist at the New York Times.
	You know what I'm really curious about is how come it is the media loves to question the authenticity of conservative politics?
	Like, they'll go out and demand that Ted Cruz prove he's Hispanic by asking him, well, what's your favorite Cuban meal?
	Or, do you know how to hit a piñata?
	Have you ever been a piña?
	You know, stupid stuff like that.
	They're always demanding that these conservatives defend or proclaim their authenticity.
	But they never question the authenticity of so-called conservative pundits like Brooks here.
	He's not a conservative anymore.
	If anything, the guy's no labels.
	But that's the best that can be said.
	The fact of the matter is, he's a New York Times columnist, and he's, if anything, a moderate rhino.
	But there's not much authentic conservatism in Brooks anymore.
	But he is the guy that wrote about Obama.
	His crease and his slacks dazzled him and convinced him he's going to be a good president.
	Because I guess it meant that he was fastidious and cared so much in enough about his appearance that somebody who was that concerned about their appearance would have to be a brilliant, brilliant president.
	Anyway, here's the piece's headline, the Republicans' Incompetence Caucus.
	The House Republican caucus is close to ungovernable these days.
	How did this situation come about?
	This was not just the work of the Freedom Caucus or Ted Cruz or one month's activity.
	The Republican Party's capacity for effective self-governance degraded slowly over the course of a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions, and philosophical betrayals.
	Basically, the party abandoned the traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism.
	And of course, you and I know that that's not what's happened.
	Traditional conservatism has been abandoned for squishy, linguinie-spined, rhino-moderate beliefs.
	And that has led them to now call what is mainstream conservatism radical.
	Mainstream conservatism is focused on liberty.
	Anyway, I don't need it.
	You people all get it.
	Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries.
	And every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own.
	Anarchy.
	Revolution.
	Anarchy.
	By traditional definitions, writes Mr. Brooks, conservatism stands for intellectual humility.
	Intellectual humility is, I am smarter than you or anybody else, but I'm not going to tell you.
	I'm only going to act like it.
	But to proclaim intellectual humility is to me to proclaim intellectual braggadocio.
	If you are so damn smart that you need to act dumb, you must really think you are hot excrement.
	By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility.
	Well, I have that.
	I tell people all the time I'm not as smart as they think I am.
	I'm the most humble person in media.
	Well, anyway, traditional conservatism is a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution.
	Really?
	That's how the country was founded?
	Reformers?
	Reformers?
	Wrote the founding documents?
	A respect for hierarchy, meaning you must respect the establishment in the various levels, and you must understand where you are on the ladder.
	And that's going to be at the bottom.
	Traditional conservatism requires respect for precedence, balance, and order, which means don't make the Democrats mad.
	And a tone of voice that is prudent, measured, and responsible.
	Well, that obviously disqualifies me.
	Certainly I'm not prudent or measured or responsible in their view.
	And I certainly lack grace.
	I'm sure they would add that in.
	That's another favorite word of these people.
	Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, like Brooks is, but they know how to nurture and run institutions.
	Really?
	Show me one.
	Show me one you're running that's winning and triumphing over anything.
	They also see the nation as one organic whole.
	Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they're all joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love, like illegal immigrants, acts of individual love.
	All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene.
	I wish my parents were alive To read this?
	My grandfather, the New York Times, this would just blow their minds.
	Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic, and imbalanced.
	Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles.
	And Republicans from Newtgenritz through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality.
	Civilization was always on the brink of collapse.
	Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became a ruination of the Republic.
	Comparisons in Nazi Germany became a staple.
	So you see, Brooks is a perfect illustration of that part of our country which does not think that anything that's happened in the last seven years is abnormal or even particularly threatening or dangerous.
	And we who do see it that way, we are the problem, you see.
	Because we are crisis mongers and we've become addicted.
	Mr. Brooks, do you read the paper you're in or the Washington Post?
	Have you somehow missed that the standard operating procedure of the American left today is crisis after crisis after crisis?
	And Mr. Brooks, have you forgotten what conservatism is?
	Somebody has to try to stop this onslaught of the left.
	They are responsible for this crisis mentality because they promote crisis after crisis after crisis.
	And those of us with the gonads to stand up and try to stop it end up being accused of causing the crisis?
	You think it's perfectly normal if the federal government and you're a conservative would simply subsume one sixth of the U.S. economy?
	That's conservatism?
	Well, he thinks that.
	Then he went on.
	He said, this produced a radical mindset.
	Conservatives started talking about the Reagan revolution and the Gingrich revolution among people too ill-educated to understand the different spheres.
	In other words, you people who are too stupid and too dumb, you mind-numbed robots who listen to Svengalis like me, adopted these same mental habits of the entrepreneur, i.e.
	me.
	Everything had to be transformational and disruptive.
	Hierarchy and authority were equated with injustice.
	Self-expression became more valued than self-restraint and coalition building.
	Self-restraint?
	You mean like our rules of engagement in Afghanistan where we can't fire?
	A contempt for politics infested the Republican mind.
	No, Mr. Brooks, a contempt for liberalism, which thanks to you is winning every damn day because of you and people like you.
	Your liberal friends are literally winning the day.
	And the fact that you don't even see a competition with them?
	Big problem, sir.
	Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions.
	No, politics is the art of winning about your cherished principled beliefs.
	Politics is the art of persuasion.
	It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline.
	Right, like we see on the Democrat side every day when they're out there lying about Romney and his taxes or Romney and the guy's wife who died with cancer.
	Romney didn't care, maybe even causes it.
	You sit idly by why people on your side are ruined and defamed and call for calm deliberation, self-discipline, and the capacity to listen to the liars.
	But this new Republican faction, i.e.
	Rush Limbaugh, regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure.
	Compromise is corruption.
	Inconvenient facts are ignored.
	Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens.
	Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity.
	And any compromise regarded as a blood betrayal.
	Yeah, well, I don't know what there is to compromise with liberals on.
	When's the last time they compromised with you, Dave?
	Well, you're not a good one to ask because you agree with them on everything.
	When's the last time the liberals compromised?
	They don't.
	We're the ones that have to change our attitude on immigration.
	We're the ones who got to change our attitude on abortion.
	We're the ones that have to always do the things that really add up to us just kissing away our principles.
	At least we still have some.
	But this is classic ruling class drivel that passes for high intellect and brilliant reason and so forth.
	Now, Shapiro just rips this to pieces in his piece at DailyWire.com.
	Brooks writes, over the past 30 years or at least since El Rushbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, blah, blah, blah.
	Shapiro writes, one wonders whether Brooks has ever listened to five minutes of Rush Limbaugh or whether Limbaugh is too gauche for his cheechy sensibilities.
	Blaming Rush Limbaugh for conservative radicalism while ignoring Limbaugh's role in returning Congress to Republican control in 1994 seems odd.
	Blasting Newt Gingrich, the architect of that victory, seems equally odd when you're talking about successful Republican movements.
	And there's more.
	He even calls Brooks horse excrement, except he doesn't say excrement.
	Greetings, my friends.
	Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, troublemaker number one, all across the fruited plant.
	You know, there's one thing that Brooks is right about, but he doesn't know it.
	And I've even said this on the air.
	I think, you know what, let me go to the phones because there's not enough time to fully develop this and say it the way I want to say it.
	But I think the arrival of this program and the giant conservative army that it built with all other talk shows and the conservative bloggers, I think that is what awoke the drive-by media from their phony objectivity and turned them into the partisans they are.
	It blew up their monopoly.
	Back in 1988, they had a monopoly on everything.
	The CNN was the only cable news network, and that was it.
	The three networks, the newspapers, magazines, they owned everything.
	In 88, this program starts, and that began the end of their monopoly.
	And that is when they freaked out.
	And that's when they began to stop hiding what they really are, extreme radical leftists.
	And they became competitors.
	And they threw off this objectivity yoke.
	And they just, I mean, they tried to maintain that they were fair and balanced and all this other stuff that they always have, but the truth was displayed.
	It was exposed.
	And they were forced to adopt public positions, portrayals of exactly who they've always been.
	Like Ronka was the biggest arch leftist that you would ever find, but nobody ever would think that.
	He never had to come out and be it.
	But in 1988, they all had to come to the surface because there was competition for their audience, which they have lost.
	So now they are constantly trying to prove that they can still move people, that shape and make public opinion rather than reflect it.
	And that has created competition.
	A, on the surface, not beneath the surface, competition.
	In the news business, where there supposedly isn't supposed to be objective, they're not supposed to be known ideologically, party-wise, one way or another.
	But now there's no pretense whatsoever.
	Anyway, now I have, in explaining that, I chatted all the way through what was going to be the first call of the day.
	So that won't happen until after this break coming up.
	Another obscene profit break here on the EIB network.
	And we'll come back and get started with phone call portion of today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
	Stay right where you are.
	Okay, to the phones, we go to Palm Bay, Florida.
	Up first is Keith.
	It's great to have you with us today, sir, and hello.
	Thanks, Bros.
	I haven't heard anybody compare the location that the Democrat Socialist Party's having their debate tonight to the Republicans.
	The last Republican debate was in the prestigious Ronald Reagan Library.
	Their debate is in Sin City in the middle of a casino where they should feel very comfortable lying at Sin City.
	And it's okay for them to lie.
	Where was the first Republican debate?
	I believe it was in a Fox Studio, something like a community center or something.
	It was in Cleveland, and it was the home of the Republican Convention.
	Right.
	And the upcoming Republican.
	Now, the reason the Democrats in Vegas, I love your comparison.
	I mean, the Democrats are in Sin City having their convention basically in a casino.
	But it's also a union capital of the country.
	Las Vegas has unionized employees in practically every work endeavor in Las Vegas.
	And they have a lot of powerful union bosses in Las Vegas.
	And that is why they are there.
	I mean, in addition to whatever else, you know, while the DNC wanted to go there, I mean, it's a week-long party at the wind and throughout the strip.
	I mean, I'm sure that there's a lot going on out there this week just besides this debate and all that.
	But it's an interesting observation, nevertheless.
	The only thing that would have made it better is if they would have got Brian Williams from MSNBC to moderate it.
	Don't make me.
	If you start making me laugh, see, I'm going to start this congested cough routine.
	By the way, Drudge just posted something up here from the Weekly Standard.
	And I just had a chance to click on it right as the spot segment was ending.
	And it is that Anderson Cooper is a member of the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a subset of the villain Hillary Clinton Foundation.
	Actually, it says here that he is listed as a notable past member of the Clinton Global Initiative, along with Christiana Munpour of CNN, Greta Van Sustran of Fox, a former Matt Wauer and Tom Brokaw of NBC,
	Thomas Lupe Friedman of the New York Times, Nicholas Christoph of the New York Times, the money honey, Maria Barcheromo, is also a former notable past member.
	And then Katie Couric, see, that's it for the names.
	But even if you're a notable past member of the Clinton Global Initiative, which you know that is, the Clinton Global Initiative takes place in New York at the same time the United Nations General Assembly meets every October.
	And that's because there's women from all over the world in town for that two-week stretch there.
	So the Clinton Global Initiative takes place in different venues than the UN, of course, but it takes place at the same time.
	And all of these journalists have been members.
	So Anderson Cooper is one of the debate moderators tonight.
	And the reason the Weekly Standard's running a story is, okay, here's a notable past member, but he was a member in good standing of the Clinton Global Initiative.
	And here he is, supposedly lined up to ask tough questions of Mrs. Clinton, who is half of the Clinton Global Initiative.
	Interesting point.
	Keith, I appreciate the call.
	Mace, Arizona, next.
	Jeremy, hello, sir.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rox.
	Thanks for letting me on.
	My question for you has to do with Donald Trump's foreign policy.
	With a couple things that he's said and with articles that have been out there, it seems like he's going to be a little weaker on foreign policy and not be the police of the world, as he said, and maybe be more libertarian.
	What do you think about that?
	Well, the problem with trying to make these kinds of assessments is that all we've got to go on is what Trump says.
	And not that you can't rely on it.
	It's just that there is no real world test in a foreign policy question that Trump's faced yet.
	It's not a disqualification by any stretch.
	Don't misunderstand me.
	My assessment is that Trump's theme is America is going to kick ass again.
	And I take that to mean, I mean, he's been very blunt.
	He's not going to let the Mexicans run rings around us.
	He's not going to let the ChICOMs run rings around us.
	The Iranian deal is a bad deal.
	But I think in direct relations with these companies, I don't think there's going to be anything libertarian about him at all.
	I think he's going to be full-blown, American national.
	When it comes to little hot spots and skirmishes all over the world and whether or not we're going to send a little force here, a little force there.
	That's what I think he means he's not going to get involved in.
	But he's also said he's going to have the best minds he can find to advise him on these kinds of things.
	Look, folks, you're going to have to find ways.
	If you're a Trump supporter, you're going to have to find ways to comfort yourself.
	I mean, look at what he said to the woman who was the Jeb Bush plant at the No Labels Problems Solvers or Problem Solvers meeting in New Hampshire yesterday.
	Here's this Jeb Bush worker, campaign worker, shows up in there and tries to trip Trump up on a question about women.
	And one of her last points was, and the woman, am I going to have the right to do with my body when I want to do my body?
	And Trump says, I'm pro-life.
	You should note I'm pro-life.
	That's probably going to come as a surprise to a lot of Trump supporters.
	Same thing happened during the Perot campaign.
	I mean, Perot took positions that were at variance with some of his most ardent supporters, and they had to find a way to either rationalize it or subordinate those things that they disagreed with Trump on and say, okay, fine and dandy.
	Not the most important thing happening in the country right now and look the other way.
	This is something people are going to have to come to grips.
	Trump made the point.
	He says here, let me give you a headline.
	This is from thehill.com.
	Trump, I will be much less divisive as field narrows.
	Donald Trump said yesterday at a bipartisan convention, this is this no labels thing.
	He said he defended his harsh jabs at opponents as mainly defensive and necessary given the crowded field.
	He said, look, I'm running against a lot of people.
	Many are going to be dropping out.
	I think very soon, if they're smart, they're going to be dropping out.
	There are too many people in this thing.
	And he promised to reign in his punches once the field narrows.
	He said, when it becomes a different kind of situation out there, we'll see that I'm going to be much less divisive, he told the crowd at no labels.
	Now, right before saying this, he had really torn into Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as puppets.
	He said, believe me, they're puppets, talking about the fact that they are subordinate to all the donors that are giving them money.
	He's not taking any money at all.
	And when the donors give you money, they're demanding results.
	You're going to have satisfied.
	He says, I'm not going to have that problem.
	I'm taking any of their money.
	What do you think of this?
	Trump's saying I'm going to be much less divisive.
	Is that an admission that he's being divisive now?
	Is that what he meant to say?
	I'm going to be much less divisive.
	Or did he mean to say, I'm going to be much less combative because there aren't going to be as many combatants?
	He makes, look, I don't go after anybody.
	I don't say a thing about anybody till they come after me.
	And when they come after me, I punch back.
	That's what I do.
	But I don't get up every day and say, who can I attack today?
	Who am I going to attack today?
	I wait till I'm attacked.
	And he says, since there are going to be fewer people, there will be fewer attacks, and I will be less divisive.
	And I think what he meant to say was less combative.
	And if that means he's going to mellow out, what portion of his support base likes the upfront, nothing hidden in your face, here's who I am?
	and here's what I'm going to do.
	If that gets moderated, are people going to end up being disappointed?
	We won't know this until any of it happens.
	So, and your question, is he going to be more libertarian in foreign policy based on things that he said?
	Some of this is going to require a roll of the dice, like it does with any candidate, by the way.
	Here's the thing, folks, about Trump, and I think this is where most people do come down on Trump, and I think where most people are going to come down on Trump, and that is this.
	The thing about Trump is that he is on the right side, and I mean the correct side of the most important issue of our times, and that is illegal alienship.
	He is right about that, and that is what's carrying him.
	That's what's sustaining him.
	That's what propelled him.
	This is where people like David Brooks, for example, have totally abandoned not only the conservative reservation, but in some sense the American reservation.
	And it's crucial.
	It is the issue of our times.
	And by comparison, everything else is secondary.
	By comparison, you can take individual issues and you make a case for them being number one and the most like a pro-life.
	You could easily say that's the most important thing of all because without sanctity of life and the accompanying notions of freedom and liberty, then all the rest of it's worthless.
	You do that with every issue, but in terms of contemporary, the contemporary political and cultural scene, illegal alienship is it.
	And Trump is on the correct side of that.
	If we don't do something about that, we're not going to have a country to save.
	If these borders are not closed, if we do not impose the law once again, we don't, you know, this whole idea of immigration and illegal immigration is being conflated with immigration, legal immigration.
	Nobody's opposed to legal immigration.
	It's illegal immigration, and the efforts of the people in support of that to try to conflate it and equate it with legal immigration is offensive because that's not what we're talking about here.
	In no other instance in our culture do we have people advocating openly for the wanton violation of law.
	You don't have a people that are in favor of murder.
	You don't have a group of people in favor of theft.
	You don't have groups of political people.
	Well, theft, welfare.
	I'm talking about ordinary everyday human behavior.
	You do not have political movements in favor of theft, in favor of murder, bank robbery, you name it.
	You don't have political movement.
	But we do have a huge political movement in favor of illegal immigration.
	And frankly, it blows the minds of everybody who happens to respect law and order, number one.
	Then you talk about the cultural ramifications and the overrunning of what it is to be America and an American, and that issue trumps everything else.
	If we don't do something about that, then there's no country to save.
	And this is exactly what the proponents of it realize.
	The proponents of illegal immigration know exactly what's going to happen if they continue to succeed.
	And they know what their objective is.
	It is to erase America.
	As I said last week, the objective is to erase Western civilization.
	It's happening all over Europe.
	And they've made no bones about it.
	The multicultural crowd, which now controls American public education, has been point-blank honest that Western civilization is the rot that's causing all this pain and suffering throughout the world and needs to go.
	Even Obama has joined this chorus of people ripping into Columbus with all of these phony, baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and roller bromides against essentially Western Europeans who came and quote unquote discovered this country.
	They are now the enemy.
	And Obama joined that rant.
	Obama's Columbus Day or what it represents ushered in disease, devastation, and violence.
	Well, the multicultural rant is that Columbus brought with him syphilis, horses, which means horse manure, environmental destruction, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia.
	That's what was brought in by Western Europeans who came in.
	It's Western civilization.
	That's being blamed, destroying the Indians and the Mexicans and everything else.
	Illegal immigration is a way to get it all back.
	You can't name, maybe I'm wrong.
	Is there a political group in favor of murder that has the support of a political party?
	Any other illegal behavior that has the support of a major American political party?
	Can you think of it?
	Well, you can't say abortion, some think abortion is murder, but there is a Supreme Court ruling on that.
	So you can't throw that in here.
	But any other illegal activity, there isn't a vast and widespread political movement that's been embraced by an American political party like the breaking of immigration law has been embraced.
	I don't know what's wrong with being divisive, by the way.
	You have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
	And divisive is only a pejorative in the sense that we have people who think we need to cooperate and be bipartisan and work together.
	All of that other, you know, just pablum puke That denies the hard, cold realities, political realities that we face today.
	You have to be divisive.
	You have to be in opposition.
	You have to be combative.
	That's what the Republican Party no longer is.
	It hasn't been for a while.
	But folks, if this amnesty, this illegal amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform, if this stuff isn't stopped, you realize that people on our side of the aisle will never win another election, just on the numbers alone, the demographics alone.
	California is exhibit A. It's why that issue is far and away, numero uno.
	And that's reason in Exhibit A, why Donald Trump maintains his position in the polls.
	Must take another brief obscene profit time out.
	Fastest three hours in media.
	Just keep rolling on here.
	Be back before you know it.
	Yeah, here's what Ben Carson said.
	This is in the Daily Caller.
	Ben Carson used a Sunday campaign stop in Georgia to accuse politicians of using poverty to bolster their voting constituencies.
	In his eyes, open-ended welfare has not only perpetuated poverty, it's sustained a loyal voting block for certain politicians.
	False compassion is patting them on the head and saying, you can't take care of yourself.
	And I'm going to give you food stamps, a housing subsidy, and free health care, Carson said, and all the things you need to do so you can stay dependent and vote for me.
	And they are having cows out there in the media.
	How dare he?
	And they're saying, what a neophyte.
	This proves he's underqualified.
	This proves he doesn't fit for politics.
	He doesn't even know about welfare.
	And he's nailed it.
	And he's number two to Trump.
	And he is not losing ground.

▲