All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
February 17, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, we finally got lots of polling data in, and it's official Trump has not been harmed by the Saturday night debate.
And in fact, you might be able to say that he helped himself in the Saturday night debate.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now you know, ladies and gentlemen, I posited that there might have been political strategy involved in Trump going after 9-11, WMD, George W. Bush.
I don't know how many ways I observed and commented on what Trump's comments on that Saturday night debate were and what they sounded like, and you've probably heard them all from other people by now anyway.
That never in my life would I believe that a Republican frontrunner would advocate for planned parenthood.
Never in my life would I believe that a Republican front runner would go after the veneered former Republican president revered in South Carolina at least, 83% approval rating, George W. Bush.
Never did I believe a Republican front runner would sound exactly like Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, what have you, in going after a former Republican president.
And this was theorized by many people's Trump losing control, out of control, uh becoming unhinged, emotional incontinence.
Any number of things were used, that was mine, of course, quite clever of me, to explain what had happened.
And then the stories uh populated all over the place that the the hall, the uh the arena was populated by donors.
The crowd was mostly donors.
That has been dispelled, by the way.
The uh the Trump camp, and a lot of people wanted you to believe it Trump was being booed because they had stacked the audience in there with establishment types opposed to him.
But Sean Spicer of the RNC is out saying, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I mean, the the the the candidates got the lion share the tickets.
We didn't stack anything.
So I said, maybe well, maybe he didn't lose control.
Maybe there wasn't uh any emotional incontinence here, and maybe it didn't Trump wasn't unhinged, maybe there's an active philosophy or theory, political strategy, and I explained what it was.
And that was, and I'm just rehashing this because I'm gonna add something to it, so stick with me here.
My point was that South Carolina is an open state, and there are internal polls from the Bush campaign that show Ted Cruz really, really, really gaining it.
By the way, speaking of that, uh one of my most um revered and admired figures, Dr. Thomas Sowell has written a column endorsing Ted Cruz, and it's a it's a really powerful good column, and in it he is essentially asking some of the low-tier candidates that have no prayer of winning to get out so that there can be a unification of all of these non-Trump Republican voters,
unification behind he wants it to be Ted Cruz.
Now, Kasich's not gonna get out, and Jeb's not gonna get out, and Carson probably not gonna get out.
Uh at least, well, no time soon.
Uh, who might forget?
Casey, K6's not gonna get out, carves Carson's not gonna get out, uh, Jeb's not gonna, and Rubio is not gonna get out.
So, what Sowell wants, a unification.
His theory is that there are many more Republican votes against Trump than there are for Trump.
And the only hope, the only prayer of stopping Trump is if they unify behind one candidate opposed to Trump, and he's suggesting and and uh saying it should be Ted Cruz, that's who he's endorsed.
Um, and I wanted to point that out in case you had missed it, uh Saul is a highly respected figure on the right.
Uh back back to the additional Trump theory, right?
Because he's surrounded by political pros.
He's surrounded by cadre of conservatives which tell him the boundaries.
Because he's not, as I have said, I don't know how many times I've said it, I'll say it again.
Donald Trump is not a natural-born conservative.
He's not a natural-born liberal.
He's he's not an ideological person in the sense that you and I are.
Uh he doesn't my example.
He doesn't look at Chuck Schumer and see a raving, raging liberal hypocrite who poses a threat to the country is found.
He doesn't see Schumer that He sees him as a fellow New Yorker and a Democrat and that's it.
And some days he might like what he's doing, and other days he might not.
And that's not to say that Trump is not actively conservative or not actively liberal.
Some people are not ideological.
This bothers me.
I wish more people were, as you know, I wish more people were able to spot liberalism and identify and attach liberalism to the failures and the messes that exist in this country because the Democrat Party is the most destructive force and it is dominated by left wing radicals.
It's the most destructive force in this country.
So Trump was making a move for some of those voters.
Either because Cruz was gaining ground in the internal polling, or because Trump and his people figure, you know what?
If we slam dunk it here, we can effectively end this.
We can dispirit everybody, we can depress everybody, and we can just pretty much wrap this up if we win big in South Carolina.
So it was either that or trying to stave off and hold off Cruz because Cruz is gaining ground, Trump makes a move on the left wing, the independents, the Democrats, the far left wing radicals, with all that stuff that he said about Bush.
But there's one other possibility, and let's acknowledge here that there might be people playing this game thinking months and months ahead of time, while everybody else is focused on today, this week, and the next primary.
It could well be that there are a lot of people in the Trump camp who are already planning their national campaign under the belief that they have already won this.
And if so, just want to throw something out there to you.
If so, what is the number one issue that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is going to attack the Republican nominee on?
What are they going to do in the presidential general election?
What is, if not the top thing, it's certainly going to be in the top three.
Are they not going to go after the Iraq War?
Because they have not stopped going after the Iraq War.
Are they going to go after the recession?
They have not stopped going after the recession.
Are they going to go after Bush as responsible for all of it?
Yes, they have not stopped going after Bush.
To this day, they blame Bush for everything still going wrong in the country today.
They blame Bush for the economy, not Obama.
They blame Bush for ISIS, not Obama.
Obama gets blamed for none of what has happened the last seven years.
All of that in the minds of these left-wing radicals is the fault of George W. Bush and the Republicans.
And that, without question, is going to be a major part of their campaign against whoever the Republican nominee is.
It has to be.
They have to protect Obama's legacy.
And in the process of trying to keep the White House, they can't acknowledge that, I mean, Hillary and Bertie are running around ripping the economy.
They're running around ripping everything, ripping health care, and we're all sitting here kind of stymied.
So wait a minute.
Isn't this kind of crazy?
Who's been running the show the last seven years?
But the reason that Hillary and Bernie get away with it is that their own loony-tune voters do not blame Obama for this.
So when Hillary and Obama run around criticize health care in America as not enough, it's not Obama's fault.
Obama's doing the best he could.
Obama's doing the best he can.
He's a good first step, but we still have all of these legacies.
And all of these pock marks from Bush that continue to gum up the works.
The hatred for George W. Bush in the far left radical sectors of this country is unknowable to you.
It is so intense and so deeply held it's going to last lifetimes.
They succeeded in creating this with the help of the media and a relentless attack on Bush that went unanswered for five years.
So, point being, and I'm throwing this out there as a possibility.
What if the reason Trump was doing all of that on Saturday night was, as I have stated, trying to attract left-wing votes to build up his majority victory that he thinks he's going to have in South Carolina.
But he just also, by going there, took that entire series of issues out of the ammo arsenal of Hillary Clinton in a general election.
Possibly.
Just speculating here, folks.
I know nothing for sure, because I'm just calling educated guessing.
But everybody is still trying to figure out what happened to Trump.
Why did he do it?
I've maintained all along he's not an idiot and he's not insane, unhinged, out of control, all that.
There has to be a reason he did that.
There has to be a reason.
I think it was studied, researched, and thoroughly vetted, strategical maneuver.
And I think it has to do more has to do with more than just getting Democrat votes Saturday in South Carolina.
I think it's all about changing the electoral map, making traditional blue states possible.
Because when you start echoing what the radical left thinks, and when you put that together with the negatives that Hillary Clinton has, and they are profound.
I mean, a Democrats.
Do you hear the there was a rapper?
I for I never got the rapper's name.
Just saw this right before the programs, and the rapper was uh doing some rap or some speech somewhere and talking about Hillary Clinton.
He said, a uterist does not entitle you to the presidency.
A black African American rapper.
I mean, ramming at home on Hillary.
Our uterist doesn't mean you automatically get our votes.
Folks, look at her negatives.
They are high.
The only demographic group that doesn't have a problem with Hillary is 65 and older women.
You go to any other group, and her negatives are sky high.
Which means that if there is in any way a credible alternative to her out there, that's why Bernie's doing so well.
He's a credible alternative.
In fact, not even an alternative.
He's a credible preferred candidate in many sectors.
So there could be a really big, big, big long game being played here.
And I could be all wet.
This could be all wrong, too.
They may not be this smart the Trump campaign.
They may not have people thinking this far forward.
Who knows?
But I'm just joining the chorus of people trying to figure it out and make it understandable, come up with plausible theories for it.
The Scalia family is asking everybody to please put away any thought of a conspiracy involving the death of their father, Antonin Scalia.
The ranch owner out there in Texas had an unfortunate slip of the tongue when he said he's found the justice with a pillow over his head.
That immediately became, and I knew it was going to happen.
Pillow on his face.
And then here here came here all the conspiracy theorists.
It didn't take much, never does, start talking about murder and uh other kinds of foul play.
And the Scalia family is distressed by it because they it didn't happen.
Their husband father died natural causes, 79 years of age.
They're asking for prayers, and they're asking for people to let this go from that standpoint.
They don't believe there's anything to it.
And uh I understand their their position totally on this.
Uh they everybody that knew Anton and Scalia just have the greatest respect for him, and the legacy that people wish for him is not one that would be clouded with some conspiracy theory that survives on television for 50 years with oddball shows here and oddball shows there.
The ranch owner has clarified I did not say the pillow was on his face.
I said the pillow was on the headboard above his head, like all pillows are on beds.
And of course, the conspiracy conspiracy theorists, well, well, why did you say it in the first place?
You're the one you're and of course everybody's now trying to backtrack, but the Scalia family has asked for prayers and for people to drop the notion that there was some sort of foul play involved here.
This situation with the iPhone 5C that was in possession of one of the San Bernardino II, and the FBI desperately wanting to get into that phone to find out what was on that phone, and Apple saying, sorry, we can't.
We that our system's so encrypted we can't get in there.
And so the FBI went to a judge, and the judge told Apple, you gotta do it, you gotta get in there.
And uh Tim Cook sends a letter out to their customers, sorry, we don't do it.
We we prize customer privacy and security security.
You know, I've had more people today tell me.
I I find this fascinating.
Um I know a lot of people who don't trust, they think the NSA is monitoring every conversation that they have.
They think the NSA is following them into the bathroom, following them into the bedroom, following them into their car, when the S NSA doesn't even know they exist.
And they're convinced that all these major smartphone companies and high-tech companies are in bed with the NSA and in bed with the government.
And today they're pleasantly shocked and surprised when they learn the government can't break the encryption of an iPhone.
And that at the end of the day is totally true.
Those iPhones are so well made, and the security systems are so encrypted, the data is so encrypted that not even the government can blast through.
Now there are ways.
But I'm going to explain to you what the FBI is asking Apple to do, and I'm going to explain to you in detail why it is that the FBI and government officials cannot get past the four-digit security code.
Now, if it's a four-digit security code, if that's all it is, then there is a way in.
But Apple would have to make some adjustments on that phone, which they don't want to do.
They would basically have to rewrite the firmware version and install it on that phone alone, which would eliminate all of the security measures involved with logging into the phone.
If the San Bernardino II, if they used a six-digit instead of a four-digit sign-in code, then it's going to be practically impossible to get into it.
But if they only did the standard default four-digit alphanumeric, just it's just numbers, then that can be broken.
It's it takes.
It can't be broken unless Apple does something.
And what I'm going to try to do is explain what has to happen for the FBI to be able to get into it.
I told you this hypocrisy on all the Democrats, what they said back in 2007 versus what they're saying today about Supreme Court nominees during presidential last terms.
I told you we're never going to nail a Democrats in any hypocrisy.
People are still trying.
Schumer, Obama himself.
We've got a full plate today, folks, and you sit tight, we'll come back with all of it.
Remember, folks, this is also suitable for an undeniable truth of life.
It's very simple.
People do not remember what you say, but they never forget how you make them feel.
If you want to try to understand why some people are loved and adored and you don't understand it, you think they're brilliant, and nobody gives a shout.
People don't remember what you say.
Too many words flying around, but they never forget how you make them feel.
That's a singular thing.
You never forget that.
You know, the situation Obama out there blasting the Republicans for threatening to block his Supreme Court nominees as it goes against the Constitution.
I can't, I can't go through a day without just blowing up and at the same time laughing at the You talk about hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy of Obama, Chuck Schumer, all these guys on Supreme Court nominees, blatant in your face.
They know it's not going to come back and buy them.
They know that hypocrisy, the charge, even if it sticks, is never going to harm them.
But with what Obama saying, opposing his nominee goes against the Constitution, which of course it doesn't.
But the real question is why should Obama be so concerned about what the Constitution says about appointing someone to the Supreme Court when he doesn't want whoever he appoints to follow the Constitution anyway.
He's going to find somebody who's going to rewrite the Constitution.
That's his criteria.
He's going to find somebody who will make law from the bench, like John Roberts has been doing, not somebody who's going to interpret the Constitution.
So what does he care what the Constitution says?
As far as that is concerned, he doesn't care what the Constitution says anyway when it comes to things that he wants.
Ever heard of executive orders, executive actions?
Hang in their funks, hang in there be tough.
Be coming right back right after this.
Ted Cruz right now has a presser going on.
Mike, are our microphones at this cruise press conference?
He's really hammering Trump pretty good here and uh in Rubio as as well.
We we spent a couple minutes here to we have our I'm just springing this on our broadcast engineer.
He didn't even know this was coming.
Do we have a way of jipping this?
I don't.
Oh, you do.
Let's listen a little bit.
It's been going on for a while, so I don't know where we are in this, but here's just a flavor of it.
But let's be clear.
That's what they said on television.
Their national anchors said it was highly significant and highly unusual.
Now, their defense, the news network's defense is they point to a tweet from an individual reporter that day, which was to the contrary.
Well, no offense to the many good reporters here, but on election day, our campaign was not sitting with bated breath following every tweet coming from every reporter.
We did have a lot of people.
I just want to explain where we just got finished hammering Trump on the belief that Trump will in no way nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court, and he was explaining why.
Now, obviously he got a question about the Ben Carson uh tweet, the CNN tweet following Iowa K back up.
And here's the important piece.
What that network reported was true and accurate.
In fact, Mr. Carson did not go on to South Carolina, he did not go on to New Hampshire, he went home to Florida.
The first public event he did in either South Carolina or New Hampshire was the day before the New Hampshire event.
So what they reported was true and accurate, and passing on a public news report that is true and accurate is not remotely unethical.
And I would note it is particularly rich that the Rubio campaign is attacking us on this, given that there have been public reports that the Rubio campaign was doing the exact same.
Now, you know what?
It wasn't unethical of the Rubio campaign to pass on the public news reports any more than it was for staffers on my campaign.
All of this is the product of candidates who don't want to talk about their own records.
If you are a Republican candidate and you have a liberal record, it if your record does not match the platform you were running on for president, then the last thing you want to talk about is your own record.
So what you do instead is you try to change the topic.
You try to engage in insults and attacks.
You try to go to the mud, you try to make it personal because actually talking about the record is precisely what you don't want to do.
For example, you know, one of Mr. Rubio's supporters was asked on a TV news program, name anything Marco has accomplished.
He couldn't do so.
Now, part of the reason he couldn't do so is the campaign didn't want to answer truthfully.
The biggest accomplishment Marco Rubio has had in his time in the Senate is passing the Rubio Schumer Amnesty Bill through the U.S. Senate.
It's not even close.
Dwarfs everything else he's done.
I would note, in many ways, the biggest accomplishment I've had in the Senate is defeating the Rubio Schumer Amnesty Bill in the House and preventing it from passing into law.
Now I understand why Mr. Rubio's surrogates don't want to talk about that.
Because his record of joining with Barack Obama and pushing for amnesty is inconsistent with what they're saying on the record and on the campaign.
But campaigns ought to be about issues and substance and record.
And that's what our campaign has been about, and it's what it will continue to be about.
Ted Cruz press conference in South Carolina.
So we're gypping for a minute here.
...
potential appointees.
You've called him a friend.
You've clerked with him.
Would you vote to confirm him as President Obama?
I would not.
I have I had been very clear that the Senate should not confirm any nominee in a lame duck session.
The last it's been 80 years since the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee who was nominated during an election year.
And particularly when the court hangs in the balance.
It makes no sense whatsoever to give Barack Obama the power to jam through a judge in the final election year.
We need to make the judge that you voted for and unanimously confirmed.
Voting for a candidate for the D.C. circuit is quo is very different from confirming someone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And I believe we should make 2016 a referendum on the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Democrats want to jam in a liberal judicial activist to undermine the First Amendment, to undermine the Second Amendment, to take away our religious liberty.
We should make that an issue for the American people.
In just a few months, the American people are going to get to vote.
And I'll tell you, Katie, I cannot wait to stand on that debate stage with Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
and make the case that their vision of the Supreme Court, their vision of the Constitution, is fundamentally inconsistent with the vision of the American people.
If they want to put...
Sir, when did the Constitution start 11 months before the new president takes office?
Those are the President's talking points.
But it is in fact the case that when the Democrats were there, Chuck Schumer said they shouldn't confirm Supreme Court justices for 18 months.
Now I understand their standard.
No, no, no, that's only Republican nomination.
What would your cutoff be?
We should not confirm a justice nominated during an election year.
Particularly with a lawless president who has undermined the Constitution at every stage.
There you have it.
And we have an election.
Let the people decide.
That ought to be something folks in the press would stand for, is letting the people decide.
But the people also decided in 2014 they wanted a Republican Senate in large part because of the lawlessness of President Obama.
And elections have consequences.
We have a Republican Senate, and any Republican Senate would be foolish to confirm a left-wing Democratic nominee in an election year which has not happened for a nomination made in an election year in eighty years, and now is no time to start.
I was saying they won't comply with a court order to open up the San Bernardino series phone.
Just a second.
I don't do anymore.
What a gaggle of pressure.
We've been listening to Senator Ted.
There you have it.
That's Ted Cruz, and he was uh doing a press conference in Seneca, South Carolina.
Uh we jipped it coming right out of the commercial break in the bottom of the hour.
During the commercial break in the bottom of the hour, he was hammering Trump.
He was just hammering Trump on Trump not being a conservative, not oriented toward conservatism, and uh specifically related it to Supreme Court nominations.
He said there is literally no way that Trump would ever actively nominate a conservative to the uh Supreme Court.
His his theory was that the Republicans won't either.
Is that the mindset of the Republican Party right now is they don't want the fight.
They don't want to roll up the sleeves, they don't want to invest the energy or the time.
So what happens with Republican nominees to the court, they try to go out and find people with no record because that means they can't be attacked on the record by the Democrats, and it makes it easier.
And his point was Republicans are looking for the easy way out, contrasted with the Democrats who try to find the most radical leftist they can find, and then search and destroy anybody who opposes him to get The guy or the woman confirmed.
And we he related this to Trump.
He said, now Donald's gonna say I'm lying, because that's what Donald does.
When you nail Donald on the truth of his record, he comes out and calls you a liar.
But he said, I've looked at Trump and the people that he says he likes and supports in terms of judges to the court, and they're all liberal.
So you have to believe Cruz said that Trump's nominations to the court would be along the lines of the four libs that we have on the on the court now.
That's what we missed.
And I am uh recapping it for you.
That uh portion of the press conference that took place during the bottom of the hour break here.
And it was it just happened, folks.
It was uh uh Fox didn't carry that CNN.
I don't know if MSNBC did, but we uh our microphones are wherever action is there, and we were able to join it in progress for the uh portion that you heard.
Now I remember I was it was it was uh shortly after we learned of the death of Justice Scalia.
It didn't take but minutes for the politics of his replacement discussion to get going.
And Mitch McConnell put out this statement said that the president should not make an appointment and should not have the right opportunity, whatever to end a lame duck year like this.
And I had uh a lot of people say, Gee, what Mitch did, man, that was great.
Mitch came out there, Mitch really hammered him and on a golf course Sunday, for anyway.
Yeah, Mitch, you see what Mitch did, Mitch really hammered him.
And I said, wait a minute, Mitch didn't hammer anybody.
Mitch said should.
He didn't say would not.
He said should not.
There's wiggle room there.
No, no, Rush.
Yeah, yeah, both my friends on Saturday and Sunday golf court.
You're misinterpreting this.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm reading it the way you are, Rush.
You see, folks, in my world, I'm never right.
In my personal world, I am never right.
It's a badge of honor to show me to be wrong.
My life is a perpetual, never-ending competition.
My personal life.
Anyway, I'm telling these guys, you're you you're you're you are replacing your intelligence with hope.
You hope that Mitch are gonna hammer him.
You hope the Republicans are gonna hang in there.
But what is the experience we've got over the last seven years?
Well, it didn't take long.
We now have Chuck Grassley.
Whoa, I'm rethinking this.
Maybe we will conduct hearings.
And then Mel Tillis.
Nope, take it back.
That's the country said, Tom Tillis, North Carolina.
Oh, I think we don't want to look like obstructionists, and there it is, folks.
There it is.
We don't want to look like obstructionists.
That's translated.
We have to cross the aisle on this.
We have to show the people we can help make Washington work.
It will harm us if we are the agents of gridluck and the government not working.
So when Tillis said we can't appear to be obstructionist, that means this firm there's no way lasted about a day.
And now we're to the possibility of hearings.
And now it's all if Obama nominates a mob.
Even Obama said he's not gonna nominate a moderate.
Somebody, somebody in the drive-by has went and asked Obama.
The Republicans say they might be willing to work with you if you're nominated moderate.
He said, Moderate, he laughed.
He said, I don't know what that means.
I'm gonna nominate somebody qualified.
Translation, I'm gonna find the nearest socialist I can.
I'm gonna ram it down their throats.
Get your popcorn ready.
Moderate, are you kidding me?
I don't do moderate.
But here are the Republicans.
So I've just I I I tried to warn everybody not not to not to confuse your hope with what you think you heard.
I even had to got an argument with Snerdley thinks that Mitch McConnell, he was dead, you know, this is different, Rush, the Supreme Court.
Really, what's different about it?
I asked him a question.
What is Mitch McConnell want more than anything in the world?
And Sturdley got it.
He wants to stay a majority leader.
That's true.
And whatever has to happen to make that happen, Bank up.
Bank it.
I can run through a scenario where they conduct hearings and an Obama nominee gets confirmed before the election.
I can run through the scenario.
You already run through the scenario for the program.
I can go.
Yeah, part of you wants me to do it, the other part of you doesn't want to hear it, right?
Because you all right.
So we've got that.
We've we've we've got uh uh Hillary Clinton.
We gotta add now this this this coughing spasm fit to the dog barking montage.
We've done that audio soundbite number two, and then to the obscene profit timeout right now.
I don't feel no ways tired.
I come too far.
We are America's.
And we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
We are America's.
Somebody needs to hit up Robert Tussin for a donation or something.
You know, I watched uh a little bit last night cable news, I watched a little bit of Megan Kelly, and I watched a little bit of Hannity, and they both uh I've had them the past couple days, and I haven't I honestly I have not called on them because I mean they're entertaining all the the hip the uh illustrations of hypocrisy.
Chuck Schumer back in 2007, Obama uh praising Alito praising Robertson voting against him and enjoying the filibuster, and then these two guys out saying that uh uh Republicans cannot avoid this.
You know contradicting directly, shamelessly, what both have said years ago.
You couldn't have greater illustrations of hypocrisy.
And I I I mentioned a couple days ago, it never works.
It has never convinced one Democrat to switch their vote.
It's a frustrating reality.
But you can point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats day in and day out.
It doesn't seem to matter.
Uh it's just one of the many things that that they are untouched by.
And there's a host of reasons, probably to explain it, but it's blatant.
It's I'm gonna grab a phone call here before we end the hour.
This is Jim in uh Corydon, Indiana.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How do you what is the name of your town?
How do you sp how do you pronounce where you're from?
Corden.
Corridon.
Okay, great.
Rush, my c I was told to get right to the point.
Um you have spent a month or so talking nothing but exclusively Trump.
I was just wondering maybe if you could maybe cut half the time and talk about Cruz and his five points of becoming uh the president of the United States.
Well, I'm not sure your estimate of the time there is accurate.
Uh I have spent, you know, I've after after yesterday's program, I went back and looked at the quantity of things I've said about Ted Cruz and the quality of things I've said about Ted Cruz.
And I'm wondering, what are the complaints?
If i it the only thing that explains it is that some people must not have heard.
I uh if you I guess uh it's a mystery.
But yesterday's program created this illusion, and I don't talk about anybody but Trump, and I went back and I looked, and not only at how much I've mentioned Cruz and Rubio, but what I have said about them.
And it is why, by the way, I I've remembered something that I had heard long ago.
In in trying to explain the way people react to various things.
And I mentioned it just a moment ago.
People don't remember what you say.
They remember how you make them feel.
Especially in a universe where words are being launched from all kinds of different places, so many words, impossible to Hear them all.
Impossible to remember anywhere near all of them.
But you do remember how you feel when somebody says something, uh, either once or a multiplicity of times.
Uh, it's frankly one of the uh most frustrating things about this this job, and I'm not complaining, I'm simply illustrating.
But I have Jim, I'm sorry, I have to take a break here.
I'm up against it on a break that can't float.
We don't do quotas here, folks.
We don't have quotas on candidates or people in the news.
We do not assign specific amounts of time.
We follow the news, folks.
▲
Export Selection