Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rushland Baugh, great to be with you.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I just got audio soundbite here from Michael McCasey, who is the former Attorney General.
He was an AG during the George W. Bush administration.
He was on Costa Coast with Cavuto on the Cavuto Fox Business Network talking about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and her private email server.
And of course, I mean, you recall everything that we have been told about this.
We've been told there are 150 FBI agents tracking this down.
The latest, by the way, that we have on this is that Clinton aides, and if this is true, this is just, this is, I don't know why there hasn't been an indictment yet, if this is true, that her aides were cutting and pasting from classified documents and attaching that to emails sent to her private server.
Cutting and pasting.
I mean, that's you could argue that that knowingly is worse than strictly passing on the emails or stripping the markings off.
Some of that you could claim you didn't see in advertising, but to cut and paste classified intel would mean that you have to know you're looking at classified intel.
Gone is the excuse that it was inadvertent.
Gone was, well, I didn't notice it.
Gone was, well, the markings were taken off of it.
Gone is the excuse, well, it's an innocent mistake.
This is purposely sought out.
And to have it identified and cut and pasted into other emails, and don't forget, Mrs. Clinton's email server is being mirrored to an email server over at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, further clouding or blowing up this whole notion of security and giving greater indications of what the real purpose for this was.
So here's McCasey, who was being interviewed by Cavuto, and he said, let's say the FBI recommends taking action against Secretary Clinton.
This is the thing that we heard over the weekend, that the FBI is getting close to recommending that the Department of Justice make a move on Mrs. Clinton.
So Cavuto says, let's say the FBI recommends taking action against Secretary Clinton, and the Department of Justice does not follow suit.
Then what?
Then I think you get the kinds of dramatics we got at the time of Watergate with resignations.
And I don't think it's going to come to that.
It's huge.
I don't think that this is going to end happily for Mrs. Clinton, given the kind of evidence and the amount of evidence that we've already seen.
Being top secret data, being her clear knowledge of what was there, and her instruction to people to send classified material in an unclassified setting.
Right.
That's part of the whole cut and paste story.
Take it out of the secure emails and paste it into emails that she's sending.
It was an willful desire to send classified data over unsecured so she can send it to people not qualified.
That's what that means.
She's got donors, big donors.
They could be from any corporation.
They could be from any entity around the world.
It could be from, say, the government of San Cordoba.
Pick a country.
I made that one up.
There actually isn't a San Cordoba.
The Mission Impossible crew saved it back in the 60s on one episode.
I've never gotten the country of San Cordoba.
They produced rich Corinthian leather there.
Anyway, somebody from San Cordoba would love to see some secret, top-secret intel.
Mrs. Clinton can send it to them because they want to see it and they've donated.
So she goes to people, said, find it, cut and paste it, take it out of there.
In a way, something like that would be done to hide the fact If she sends classified emails from her server over her own network and it's ever discovered, I mean, that's direct violence.
But so to avoid doing that, that's an effort to remain undetected.
Oh, no, I never sent classified email to the president of San Cordoba, not once.
And technically, that's true, until somebody cut and pasted whatever would have been of interest to the president of San Cordoba.
And Mrs. Clinton pasted it in just a standard, ordinary, how you doing today, Mr. President, email.
Oh, by the way, you might be interested in knowing that, and then they paste in the intel.
She's passing it on.
This is deadly serious.
It just keeps getting worse.
New Casey is right.
But here's the thing.
My friend Andy McCarthy wrote extensively of this on Saturday at National Review Online.
And that is the FBI can do nothing but investigate.
The FBI cannot charge you.
The FBI cannot indict you.
The FBI cannot arrest you.
The Department of Justice has to issue warrants for all of that.
The grand jury indicts.
So what will have to happen?
This is what he was being asked by Cavuto.
So what's going to happen?
Well, what has to happen here is that the FBI has to convince Loretta Lynch, which means convincing Barack Hussein, oh, that what they've got in terms of evidence is such that they can't let it slide.
They can't just sweep it away.
This is really, really serious stuff.
And if Loretta Lynch, you know what?
We're not indicting.
The FBI is paralyzed.
There's nothing they can do.
Now, they could call the media and surreptitiously leak stuff, but in terms if they wanted to, but then in terms of actual law enforcement, they say in New York, not law, but law enforcement, they can't do a thing.
They collect the evidence, they turn it over, they recommend, they cajole.
In most cases, the FBI is investigating at the request of a United States attorney or somebody else at a DOJ, or maybe they're investigating independently based on tips they've got, but they can't indict.
They cannot arrest and they cannot charge.
And it's an important point.
Only, it's not big news to anybody, but there's some people thinking, what's the FBI waiting on here if they've got all this evidence?
Not up to them.
That's why there are grand juries, grand juries indict.
Now, sometimes a prosecutor can charge without a grand jury.
But in many cases, a prosecutor who doesn't want to charge, there's public pressure, mounting pressure to charge a suspect with something, and the prosecutor, for whatever reason, doesn't want to.
Okay, off to the grand jury.
And we'll present evidence in such a way.
I mean, they get what they want out of the grand jury as the standard operating.
You've heard the old saw that you can indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor wants, that the grand jury is just a rubber stamp.
But at the same token, if a prosecutor doesn't want to indict, they can present the case to the grand jury, make it look like there's really nothing here.
I know you're seeing things in the news and this, but this is all we've got.
I'm going to leave it up to you.
It's a true bill or no true bill.
That's an indictment or no indictment.
Oftentimes, a prosecutor, when he wants no fingerprints on it, will go to the grand jury one way or the other for an indictment or not for one.
Sometimes you don't have to get an indictment, but in many cases, it'd be something like this.
You'd have to have a grand jury involved.
And I don't know that there is yet.
Could be.
You know, they're shrouded in secrecy until they're not, until somebody leaks, like they told us when Bill Clinton lost it when asked by that sex pervert, Ken Starr, how he used the cigar on Monica.
So we all watched that testimony, and there wasn't anything.
There was nothing to it.
We're totally set up by a bunch of phony leaks.
So we all know those things happen.
But Mukasey here, if he says that there's overwhelming, then he's eminently credible here.
You'd throw him in there, put him, even rank him higher on the credibility chart than you would Joe DeGenova, who has also said this.
So apparently, this cut and paste information, It is really, really serious.
And it's all going to come down to Obama.
I guarantee you what?
I hate to oversimplify it or to simplify it, period.
But if Obama doesn't want her indicted or charged, then that's what's going to happen.
Now, how they get their whatever public relations and marketing, whatever they take into account so that they don't slime themselves in the process.
Who knows?
But we know that there is a double standard.
All these IRS people, Lois Lerner, not a thing happened to them.
Not a single thing.
And I guarantee you, the day ever comes that a Republican president has an IRS that's denying Democrats tax-exempt status, and that's ever discovered, there is going to be hell to pay, and whoever at the IRS runs that operation is going to be strung up in public, fingernails ripped out in public, and then maybe an arm or leg cut off in public.
The Democrats will see to it that it happens.
Just another evidence of how the GOP, another bit of evidence about how they didn't fight back or try to stop any of that.
JFK, American Airlines, New York Daily News, this story over the weekend, not a lot of people saw it because of the blizzard.
Passengers arriving at Kennedy Airport on an international flight were allowed to exit the terminal without going through customs for at least the second time in recent months.
Bumbling airline security officials let travelers on an American Airlines flight from Cancun Mayco let them out of the airport Monday morning without having their passports or bags checked.
According to sources who told the New York Daily News, the security lapse mirrored a similar incident involving another American Airlines flight in November.
A 34-year-old man who had been in Cancun to attend three Phish concerts, PH, ISH, told the Daily News that he was able to glide from the plane to the baggage claim area without having to endure the usual customs and border protection security checks.
You think this is accidental?
I mean, given everything else, is it really incompetent?
Are they so overwhelmed with so many passengers arriving that, yeah, a flight or two gets by them now and then?
And the flights just happen to be from Mexico.
Hey, look at this, folks.
I'm not predicting it, but you never know.
Could well be that we will have another installment of Operation Chaos before the Democrat primaries are all said and done from a blog site called First Read.
And I don't know if this part of Hotline or not.
Printed out, there is no source on this, although I'm familiar with First Read.
It could be Politico, could be theHill.com with one of their, here's what's going on today, little summaries of the news.
But the story is this: get ready for a longer than expected Democrat race.
Oh, here it is.
It's from Meet the Press.
It's the NBC.
Yep, it's the daily here's what's happening summary from us, NBC political unit.
Get ready for a longer than expected Democrat race.
On Friday afternoon, a Clinton campaign made two arguments why Bernie Sanders isn't Barack Obama 2.0, meaning why he's not a continuation of the Obama administration, why he's not an automatic winner.
He doesn't have the same ability to galvanize black voters, and they're not going to let him dominate the caucus events.
But NBC says there's a bigger takeaway here.
Clinton campaigns acknowledging that it is preparing for a long race where it'll have to grind out a win against Crazy Bernie, even under a best case scenario for Clinton, that is winning the delegates proportionally by a 60-40 margin.
That means we won't see a true Democrat winner until April or May.
Well, now, doesn't that sound familiar?
So I'm going to tell you: if we have a Republican nominee, say in February or March, and you heard what the Trumpster said, the Trumpster said that if he wins Iowa, that's it.
He's going to run the table because nobody's close to him anywhere else.
So if he wins Iowa, he can see running a table.
And then you hear what he said.
He said, my supporters are so loyal, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, and they still wouldn't abandon me.
And of course, the media and the Democrats got all worked up about that and took him literally, thinking that he actually meant it and started, and even criticized him for making a gun with his hands and his finger, pretending to shoot a gun, just like they throw kids out of school for doing.
So if Hillary and the Democrats are preparing for an elongated primary, well, it would be in the interest of this program if the Republicans already have theirs for that Democrat fight to go on and on and on beyond March and April.
And if we can figure out a way of doing that, here comes Operation Chaos 2.
So we'll keep a sharp eye on that.
In the meantime, back to the audio soundbites, just to continue this with all of these people reacting to me.
Up next is Dana Perino.
Friday night on the five on the Fox News channel.
Eric Bowling sets it up.
Many establishment Republicans have warmed up to the idea of a Trump presidency.
Rush Limbaugh knows why.
They are beside themselves with hatred for Ted Cruz.
That goes beyond the rational.
Some of them are actually saying that they would actively publicly support and vote for Hillary Clinton over Ted Cruz.
If there is an establishment shift here to Trump, it is to cut Cruz off at the pass.
That's not news.
I mean, I'm not saying something there that nobody else has said.
This has become conventional wisdom.
And of course, the RNC is getting closer and closer.
Well, we can deal with Trump.
He's the kind of guy who's malleable.
We'll be able to come to common ground with him, negotiate.
But Cruz, he is so principled.
He's so committed.
He's such a staunch conservative.
We can't weaken Cruz.
We can't get Cruz talked off his game.
We don't want to mess with Cruz.
Trump, they think they could have an easier time with.
So here's Dana Perino.
They played that clip you just heard.
Here's her reaction.
You talk to people at the NRCC, the Congressional Race Committee.
They're planning ahead.
They're thinking, if Donald Trump is the nominee, could he bring enough new voters to help us increase our majority?
The thing about Rush Limbaugh, though, we kind of talked about this yesterday, is that you could be anti-establishment for the last five months if you were for Donald Trump.
But now, if there were attacks against Cruz, now the establishment is for Trump or Cruz.
I mean, it's become so diluted.
What do you think she means?
I think what that is, there is, you heard Dr. Krauthammer refer to it, too.
He doesn't like this term, the establishment.
What did he say it is?
Mainstream Republicans.
I'd rather call them mainstream.
I think the establishment is getting a little tired of being called the establishment.
And they are angry at those of us who are pigeonholing them into one candidate or another.
We all know what the establishment is, the Republican Party.
I mean, it's the party that hasn't tried to stop Obama, that part of the party that has not done anything to try to stop Obama.
That's the establishment.
The ones who want to preserve the status quo of Washington as it is as the central focus of life in America.
And so I think Dana Perino, God bless her, I like Dana Perino and all these others are trying to diminish this talk of the establishment by basically saying nobody knows who it is.
It changes from one candidate to the next.
But we know.
We know who it is.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
So Trump goes out there and basically says, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and I could shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?
It's like incredible.
He was at a rally at a Christian college in Northern Iowa.
So everybody has the requisite cow.
It was, it's history repeating itself.
That's going to be it.
I can't believe he's running around talking about shooting people.
That's going to be it.
It's one thing to say you think McCain should have been captured and you don't like him because of that.
It's another thing to say what it's about to Mexicans.
But now to say you can actually shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, he's going to implode.
Literally, this is what people are thinking.
Governor Christie said that he was, he couldn't believe Trump would say this.
He was astonished when he heard that Trump had gone out and said he could shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters.
He was at a town hall in Portsmouth.
He said, look, I don't know whether it's true or not, but it's pretty amazing to say it.
And then Christie said, look, I want to burn down Washington, too, because it's so ineffective.
But who's going to?
So here's Trump says, Yeah, I can shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't hurt me.
And Christie's, I can't believe he said that.
look, I want to burn down Washington, too.
And then the Fox News poll.
Donald Trump has taken back the Iowa lead, an 11-point surge.
In the last two weeks, according to the poll, Trump has gained 11 points.
Cruz has lost four.
Marco Rubio remains a distant third with 12%, but he's lost three points since the earlier days, earliest days of January.
No mention of Jeb Bush in the latest Fox poll.
You want to really irritate people?
You want to really, you tell them, what did Trump do?
Why?
I mean, Cruz was gaining ground.
What did Trump do?
If you want to really tick them off to say, must be the Palin endorsement, you will drive them crazy.
They will go insane.
We have any more here before we get back to the.
Yeah, but let's go to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
We'll mix it up here.
We'll go back to Pittsburgh.
Jack, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush, very nice to speak to you.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks very much.
Yeah, listen, full disclosure, I'm a Trump supporter.
I haven't always been, but I am now.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
When were you not?
Well, I originally liked Scott Walker.
I thought he was such a tough guy over there in Wisconsin and what he did with the unions and all their money that they brought in.
And this is from a retired union guy.
And I thought what he did was fantastic.
It was.
It was amazing.
Yeah.
He was an early on favorite of the first Iowa vote taken way, way, way back.
I mean, he was killing it.
He was in the 70s.
I know.
I wish he hadn't dropped out.
I don't know what happened, but.
And I'll tell you what happened.
I'll tell you, just since you asked it, what happened?
At least according to people that I knew who were for him and then changed their mind, it was because his answers on foreign policy to them seemed unprepared.
Is the only thing I heard.
There may be other reasons, and I don't know, but that's anecdotal things I heard from people who were eager for him.
But got to foreign policy, they began to question the well-roundedness.
I don't know how else to say it.
Okay.
Anyway, so you're with Walker, then you gravitate to Trump now, and that's where you are now.
No, Cruz.
Cruz, I mean, Cruz, right?
Yes.
You know, maybe it's just me.
When I look at Donald Trump, especially during the baits, the debates, he's up there, and I just don't get it, Rush.
I've heard you explain it over and over and over again why he is where he is.
And I still don't get it because all I see is a grown man who acts like a 13-year-old up on the stage when he's standing there making all the stupid faces and all the mudslinging and the name-calling.
You know, he just sounds like a 13-year-old to me.
Okay, let me see if I can actually describe this.
So here he is.
Here's Trump on the very first day he's announcing.
And he says what he says about Mexicans.
And you're thinking, did you see that, by the way, that first day?
Yes.
Okay, you saw Trump's announcement.
You're probably laughing yourself silly.
You're thinking, this is hilarious.
This guy can't be serious.
There's no way.
He's telling jokes.
He's saying this stuff about Mexicans.
And then you find out a couple days later that everybody ate it up.
And you can't believe it.
And then the first debate comes.
The Megan Kelly stuff happens.
And you think, he's finished.
You just don't talk that way.
And he wasn't finished.
He started gaining support.
And you're saying, how can the hell this happen?
And then he starts with these, like you say, childish name-calling insults of people.
And with each instance of it, you think, you know what?
At some point, people are going to wake up.
This is all they're going to abandon him.
And they don't.
In fact, according to polling data, his support increases.
And you don't understand it.
It doesn't make any sense to you because it just doesn't in a polite sense, in an adult sense, like you said.
It just doesn't make sense to you.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And, you know, and one thing he always brags about is how he's a deal maker.
Yeah.
Well, where has that gotten us in the past few election cycles?
I mean, I've heard you say it again and again that Republicans are always caving.
You know, we don't need somebody to make deals right now.
You know, we don't need somebody to go in their phone either.
And I think Donald Trump would be the dictator that Obama always dreamt of being.
Yeah.
I've heard people say that.
I've heard people express that.
You know, I think Obama would be nothing compared to what Trump will be.
Because if somebody, if he thinks he's getting criticized now.
Wait a minute.
Wait till he's in office.
Let me ask you a question, Jack.
What if Obama is a dictator implementing things you support?
No, no, I still don't like it.
Well, Obama's supporters do.
Well, once it turns around, and if we get a dictator like a Republican dictator, the other side isn't going to.
I want a real constitutionalist like Fred Cruz.
Right.
I know.
I'm just, I'm playing a learning exercise for me.
I understand.
I just don't want a dictator on either side.
Well, one thing, when Trump starts talking about making deals, he's not talking about making deals with the Democrats in Congress.
That's not the kind of deal making that he's talking about.
Well, at least I can be wrong.
The kind of deal making I think he's talking about is like with the Iranians and with the CHICOMs and basically foreign policy and economic-related trade deals, that kind of thing, where he thinks that we're getting beat and getting creamed and losing because we've got stupid and competent people making the deals.
But then when you see him criticizing Cruz for not willing to make deals with the Democrats in Washington, because you can't get anything done that way, you know, then I say, wait a minute, that's the kind of criticism that the Republican establishment's offering up of Cruz.
And you probably think he would make deals with the Democrats.
If he's criticizing Cruz for not doing it, it means he wants to, and that's what you're fed up with, right?
Exactly.
I mean, he's already made deals with too many people.
I mean, I don't want to bore your audience.
You've already gone over all this.
You know, the interview with Tim Russert that all is going around right now and how he said in the past that Hillary would make a great president and she'd get smart people around her, which brings me to another point is I've never once heard Donald Trump say anything about government being too big.
All he ever says is we have stupid people in there.
Okay, so what I'm going to do is bring the right people in.
Jack, a question for you.
Yes.
You are not by any means the only one who thinks these things.
Right.
So tell me, in your own opinion, your own words, why do you think people supporting Trump who agree with you are still supporting Trump?
Why does it not matter?
I have no idea.
I don't get it.
I just don't get it.
You know, and I hear a lot of smart people on TV, they're not endorsing Trump, which I know you're not either.
But every time he says something stupid or makes another ridiculous, everybody just laughs it off and dismisses it and say, oh, well, that's just Trump being Trump.
You know, it's like Joe Biden on the other side.
That's just Joe being Joe.
And I don't want somebody that's, I mean, the man certainly is not presidential.
Well, Clinton was lying with every other sentence.
People would say, man, doesn't he do it so well?
Man, we mark.
And I think there's a bit of that with Trump.
My God, this guy gets away with this stuff and it never comes back to bite him.
It's incredible.
The media always marveled at how Clinton got away with lying.
I mean, blatantly, openly, right to your face.
They just ate it up because he got away with lying to conservatives.
And so it's not unprecedented that this kind of reaction to people in politics, it's always frustrated us.
Obama.
I mean, it's clear as a bell who Obama is and what he's doing.
You can't get the drive-bys to report on it.
You can't get the Republican Party to even say it.
Yeah.
Well, I guess my last point would be then, and I'm not like you tell your callers, I'm not looking for a fight or a debate because I certainly can't debate you.
But since you are the one thing I've wondered is since you are the CEO of the Lingbaugh Institute for Conservative Studies and conservatism is the only way to bring this country back, why are you not pushing back a little more on Trump since it's clear, and you've said he's not even running as a conservative.
I have made that observation.
Yes, I know, and you've been very fair to Cruz as well.
I think you've been fair to all the candidates.
I have.
But I'm just afraid that the country is going to be not any better off with Donald Trump as president than we have with Barack Obama.
That is interesting because I don't think there could be anybody as bad.
Well, you may.
I mean, I'm being, I'm not just putting some words together to make a sentence here.
I don't, what I mean by this is I would take anybody on the Republican stage over Obama or any Democrat running.
And I don't think it's a contest.
There's not a single one of those Republicans I wouldn't vote for if they became a nominee against Hillary Clinton.
Not a single one of them.
I think the Democrat Party has got to be sent packing.
I'm not that hard to understand.
I've said it over and over and over again.
You can interpret it however you wish, but it doesn't require a lot of interpretation.
What has to happen, and not just in one election, we've got a huge task ahead of us.
The Democrat Party and liberalism has got to be stopped.
It has to be cut short.
It has to be rendered minority irrelevant.
And I'll tell you how deep the task is.
Even if take your, if you like Cruz, if Cruz wins this election, I don't have to tell you the long knives that are going to be out for him from within his own party.
But beyond that, Jack, the left has election insurance.
They own a majority of the judges who write their own law.
When you want to talk about the bureaucracies and the cabinet-level agencies, the bureaucracy, the EPA, the IRS, you name it, there are career leftists and liberals there that even when they lose the presidential election, their influence over regulation and any other thing that comes out of the bureaucracy doesn't take a hit.
It's going to require a deep-seated, concerted effort to stop liberalism in its tracks wherever it is found.
It's a long project here, and it has to have a long view.
And there are many elements of making this happen that go beyond just winning elections.
But that, to me, I mean, they're the ones who've gotten us where we are.
They're the ones who are destroying the traditions, the institutions.
They're destroying the economy.
They're destroying the health.
They're destroying everything they touch.
They're destroying the U.S. military.
They're destroying American.
They're destroying this country on purpose in order to change it into something they think it should be and should never have been as founded.
That's got to stop.
That comes before anything else to me.
Back after this.
And we stay on the phones to Arcade of Florida.
This is Larry.
Larry, hello, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next.
Hello.
Thanks so much, Russ.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I'd like to submit something to you.
I'm a little nervous.
I'm an ordained minister.
And I think I know what the underlying core is that moves people towards Trump.
I supported Trump before he even announced he was running.
How could you do that?
Because I saw the man.
Well, but he wasn't running.
How could you support him before he was running?
He had talked about it.
He had talked about running.
Oh, okay, okay.
And I'm so conservative, I jokingly say at times you're liberal.
I love your show.
I love you.
I appreciate it.
What brought us to Trump, what brought me to him, and other pastors don't understand why I'm supporting this effect, are the Puritans settled in America and they tried socialism, and they nearly starved to death.
And so they searched the New Testament and found an economic system based on 30, 60, 100-fold return on investment and invented a new system called capitalism.
Free market economics.
Exactly right.
William Bradford, right there in a journal.
Absolutely right.
100% right socialism.
Swift of the colonies.
We became the first Christian capitalist nation in the history of the world.
And in less than 200 years, became the most powerful nation in the world.
And the first racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic nation in the world.
No.
Not really.
Not at all.
Well, I mean, according to the critics, I'm just playing devils.
But it's so intrinsic into our belief structure that we don't, I think, a lot of people don't even think about the fact that deep down they're capitalist.
And they move toward, gravitate towards Trump because we see this not as this is beyond conservatism.
It's not just conservative against liberal, it's capitalism against socialism.
And you're right.
The Democratic Party is the socialist party of America.
And they've got to be stopped.
We can't abandon capitalism like Europe has done, or we'll wind up in the same shape they're in.
Right.
But isn't the church.
Isn't conservatism vis-a-vis?
Isn't it the same thing as capitalism?
I'm sorry.
Isn't conservatism pretty much with capitalism?
Aren't they inexorably tied?
They ought to be, but I think there's a confusion in who they really are.
But they do know that there's something they don't like.
I don't like giving my money away.
I don't want somebody.
The truth is, it's all been corrupted with crony something or a crony.
Capitalism, crony socialism, cronyism has corrupted it.
See, the left thinks that capitalism is by itself corrupt.
It's not.
Cronyism is what corrupts.
Anyway, Larry, I get your point.
It's not, conservatism should not be the defining element of the opposition.
Here's what he's saying.
The New Yorker, an interesting cover on Donald Trump and a curious analysis of it.