All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 29, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
February 29, 2016, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I know, I know.
Some of the some of those uh some of the rush hating trolls out there on Twitter and Facebook, other out there, I don't care what Limbo says, he still attended the meeting, and that means he was compromised.
Compromised, really.
The whole point, if I had been compromised, that's what the New York Times story would be.
That would be the story.
That isn't a story.
Their attempts to persuade me did not work.
Their attempts to persuade Rubio did work, apparently, but not me.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Snerdley just said, you you gotta spell this out for people during the break.
Um, I'll give this one little splash here, and that's it.
I am a powerful, influential member of the media.
I do not have guests on this program.
Rare exceptions, and you know who they are.
When a president calls, vice president calls, uh sometimes you would not believe, and I'm not complaining, I'm just informing you wouldn't believe.
I hear from every author.
Every author wants to come on.
Every author wants me to plug their book.
Not complaining, it's the way the world works.
I never call anybody else and ask them to plug my book, though.
I never call anybody else and ask them to plug my show, but they're all calling here.
Even some people out there ragging on me over this.
Routinely call here every time they've got a new book, or call an ass to come in here and be on the air to talk about their new book.
And I don't do it because I do not want to give up precious time that I have with you.
I said the other day, I don't know when people have time to squeeze in their shows anyway.
But I'll just tell you I'm gonna r uh mention this way, way back 28 years ago when this program began.
When I started this program explicitly decided to do it without guests to stand out.
Every show in the world has guests, because that's just the way it is.
And when I first started doing this in Sacramento, they made me try to have guests.
They tried to make me, and I resisted after a while.
Because it didn't take me long to figure out that the guests had no real interest in my show succeeding.
My show was just the next and an endless parade of appearances for them in order to sell their books or whatever.
And I asked myself, why should I give over a half hour here and a half hour there to somebody who really is not invested in this show working, who only wants to use it.
And then I said to myself, when they're gonna be on every other station and every other show, why should I join that parade?
I wanted to find out if I could be the reason people would listen to the radio, not an endless parade of guests, because I can't get any better guests than anybody else.
And since I don't care what other people think, I'm a lousy interviewer to boot.
I don't like it, I couldn't care less about it.
I know what I think, and that's all I need on this show.
And then there were other programming aspects to it uh too, but you know, everybody else does it.
Why should I join the parade?
They don't care about the show as much as I do.
So it just got established.
I don't do it.
And I very much appreciate it, because that way I'm not obligated to anybody, I don't want anybody obligated to me.
But there are people out there, and you know who they are, who are ragging on me over this and have no idea what they're talking about, who are part of this crowd that's constantly asking me, and I have promoted their books, and I have attempted to help them with their stuff.
So it's not just Senator Schumer that calls, and it's not just these people.
I've told you Mitt Romney's been by here twice, Rand Paul's been by here, I've talked to Rubio, I've had these people on the radio now and then.
Um when I decide that it's interesting for me to have them on the radio, that's when I decide to do it.
Not because of a sense of obligation, not because I think you want to hear from them, it's if I do.
It's strictly done on that basis.
When I decide to have somebody in here.
The only exceptions are when a president or vice president calls, I automatically say yes.
But I never tell you about the people I say no to.
And it happens constantly.
And but the same, but my only point is I don't tell you about each one of these conversations I have with people, because if I did, the stick to the issues crowd would get saying, Come on, I'm talking about all you're doing is bragging about the people you know, just stick to the issues.
And that kind of thing would be said.
So that's that.
And again, just to correct, or not correct, but to illustrate one more thing.
The dinner that I had with Schumer and Lindsay Gramnesty was in March of 2011.
I had Rubio on this program two years later.
So that arm twisting they did, yeah, that the New York Times says have, it was really successful.
It took them two years.
Rubio on this program had nothing to do with that dinner.
His name never came up.
He was not part of it in any way, shape, manner, or form.
That's that.
There are other things happening in the news out there, and I want to start.
I watched the Oscars last night because nothing else was on.
And I just have a couple of no observations about Chris Rock.
Fine, I just the thing I take away from uh the Oscars every night is that these are people who have their lines written for them by other people.
I mean, that's their job.
They're actors.
And I think acting's very hard, by the way.
I think it it does take unique talents.
Not everybody can do it.
You know, the number one ingredient to being a good actor.
You have to have absolutely, and I'm this going to sound contradictory, but you have to have absolutely no self-consciousness.
Because self-consciousness is what kills anybody in front of a camera.
When you can't stop thinking about how you look, when you can't stop thinking about what people think of the way you look, uh, you forget, and you cannot actors have to lose themselves.
They have to get outside themselves.
They have to good ones have to literally become somebody entirely different.
And most people can't do it.
You can tell somebody nervous as hell on TV, their eyes are shifty and looking around, and if there's a monitor they can see themselves on there constantly taking glances at that.
Um it shows up real quick.
But at the same time, their lines are written for them.
So when the Oscars run around, roll around, and it's time for the award winners to stand up there and start speaking without lines having been.
Sometimes they write and try to memorize what they say.
But it's amazing the transformations that take place.
Now the movie that won Best Picture last night was Spotlight.
You know what Spotlight was about.
Well, Spotlight was the investigative journalism arm of the Boston Globe.
That's what the section of the paper was called, I gather.
And they did a huge expose on the Catholic Church.
And uncovered the fact that priests were abusing young boys primarily, but young children, for years and years.
It was pedophilia, it was uh rape, it was any number of things.
And so what this was about was was the you know, the the uh I mean who who's doing this stuff?
And this this was about the gay infiltration of the Catholic Church and had all these priests preying on I mean, it had to be a very contradictory moment or conflicting moment, I would think, to expose something like this, because that's you know, we're we're that's that we're told that that really doesn't happen.
But yet the movie of the year, or the yeah, is that what they best picture highlighted that very thing.
I was also shocked that Mad Max won so much.
I thought Mad Max was 30 years old.
I didn't even know they'd made a new one.
Did you know they made a new Mad Max movie?
Snerdly uh snurly, didn't he?
Anyway, the ratings came in, it's lower than um in eight years.
Hillary Clinton wins big in South Carolina, 50-point landslide victory over Crazy Bernie.
The story is that Crazy Bernie really didn't contest in South Carolina, but that's not true.
He went in there and he tried to have a little bit of an effect on the African American vote, but it didn't work.
The takeaway in South Carolina.
Voter turnout.
Voter turnout in every Democrat primary so far is microscopic.
It's near record lows.
Bottom line, there isn't any enthusiasm whatsoever out there on the Democrat side.
Say what you want about what's going on on the Republican side.
There is enthusiasm out the wazoo for it.
And voter turnout is through the roof.
Tomorrow is Super Tuesday.
And it's on the Republican side, it's I mean, people are saying they've never seen a political year like this in their lives.
And they're into it and they're excited about it.
Some are just into it and excited from a pure spectator point of view.
Others are interested and into it because they have deeply held beliefs and desires from one candidate to the next.
Everybody is stunned over Trump.
Nobody understands how Trump is still breathing.
Nobody understands how Trump's still pulling this off.
So now I've got you wouldn't believe the theories that I receive from people sending me notes telling me what they think is really going on.
And I guess the latest brouhaha with Trump is, he was on CNN with Jake Tap yesterday, and he tried to act like he didn't know who David Duke was, and he would not denounce David Duke, nor would he denounce the Ku Klux Klan.
Yet he had done so on previously.
He used to be in the reform party.
Now the reform party was the offshoot of Ross Perot's 1992 presidential effort.
Although Perot wasn't part of it, Buchanan became the titular head, and Trump's out there insulting Buchanan.
He said he left the Reform Party because Buchanan's a neo-Nazi and had David Duke and the KKK at it.
He said that's not the company he wanted to keep.
So he was on record as having denounced Duke and having denounced the Klan and wanting nothing to do with him.
And so the Jacob Tapper CNN Sunday show comes and trump hems and haws.
What's going on?
Why won't you?
Now I just have to tell you anybody else that would have done them in.
No matter what they had said before, no matter how many times they had denounced Duke or the Klan, if you go on seeing it Sunday, can you imagine?
Forget that it's Trump and make it Romney.
Romney's on Jake Tapper's show yesterday, and they said, understand that uh David Duke's endorsed you, uh uh Governor Romney, and uh he's a Klan member and so forth.
And imagine Romney hemming and hawing and says, Well, I really don't know who that is.
Romney'd be gone.
I mean, that that would be it.
On top of all the other stuff they had about Romney, you know, not dot not caring when uh female, the wife of a male employee of his had passed away or didn't care enough about the dog and put it on the roof of the station wagon, a family vacation, whatever.
But Trump survives it, and then they go to the previous episodes where he has denounced Duke and the KKK and they're scratching their heads.
Why wouldn't he do it on Jake Tapper show?
Everybody's everybody's busting their head trying to figure out why wouldn't he denounce?
Oh, no, no, it had a bad earpiece, wasn't sure what he was being asked because when the Jake Tapper, this is key.
When the Jake Tapper show ended, then Trump went out there and started denouncing.
He denounced on Twitter, he denounced everywhere else.
By the way, you know Trump doesn't use email.
He has never used email.
And it's it's good, people are curious.
Why don't you use email?
You tweet all the time, you post on Facebook, Instagram, why not email?
And Trump sets a different ball of wax.
He said, half the people I know have been indicted because of what they wrote in emails.
They put down stuff in these emails, they send it back and forth, law enforcer gets hold of it, and that's it.
That's his answer for not emailing.
It's not that he doesn't like it technologically, it's not that he doesn't know how.
He just says that he's had friends that have been indicted for what they've uh trafficked in, content-wise in emails.
But there has to be a reason that Trump on the actual show with Jake Tapper, hems and haws and acts like he doesn't know who Duke is and the Klan and uh well, you need I haven't I need to investigate.
I never heard of the group.
You need to send me a list and check, okay, I'll send you the list, but I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.
Well, uh, you know, there's a lot of different people in these groups, and I gotta research it.
I got me throw a theory out there to you.
The Sunday shows have amazingly still their own separate and distinct stature.
What is said on a Sunday show is treated differently and may be different in terms of its weight than what is said in a little sound bite that's part of the nightly news, for example.
Or part of a guest appearance on a cable news show during the evening.
The Sunday show.
That's stature by reputation.
The Sunday show is serious, no fooling around.
That's this this is it's like for the record what you say on the Sunday show.
And it could well be that Trump thinks of it that way and just didn't want the quote, did not want any soundbite from the Sunday show one way or the other, because maybe Trump's nervous.
Maybe he's nervous after that debate, maybe he's worried on the polls don't indicate it.
Maybe he's worried that crew isn't Ruby or gaining on him, and he doesn't want to tick off anybody that might vote for him.
Hey, my speculation's as good as anybody else's, because I can think of no reason that he would purposely dodge when he's not dodged it before.
Something I think about it being on a Sunday show, and had having more weight, more statue uh statures, something about it being these Sunday shows are TV shows of record, as opposed to your average table news show, which happens every day or every night.
Now there's a CNN poll out that shows Trump at 49%, and everybody is heralding and shouting about this poll and concluding that's it.
I mean, forgot that's a 40th.
Oh, do you know what the sample size of this poll is?
306.
306 registered Republicans and a hundred some odd people at Leon Republic.
You've got a sample of a fewer than five hundred, I think.
That's I I didn't say what the margin of error is, but that's an awfully small sample here compared to other polls.
Yeah, the margin of error in that CNN poll is five percent.
Five percent in the CNN poll that shows Trump at 49.
You know, you got these establishment Republican types, and they're out there saying, Don't don't worry, Trump's got a ceiling.
He's never gonna get above 35 percent.
That's why he's destined to lose everything.
He's never gonna get above 30.
Look at his negatives, disapprovals are sky high.
The rest of the country hates Trump.
You know, that's never made sense to me.
Can somebody explain to me how the guy with the biggest negatives is winning everything?
And if it's true, then there's still an explanation for it.
Which I think I could come up with if I dug deeply enough into it.
In the meantime, though, it's time to go back to the phones.
Patty in Naugatuck, Connecticut.
Great to have you on the program.
You're up first today.
Thank you so much, sir, for having me on.
I just wanted to shed a little light onto this uh Senator Schumer's story.
Uh Rush, I've listened to you for years.
And first off, I would really like to commend you and both Senator Cruz for really trying to be truthful, consistent, and honest and explaining to the people this complicated issue and simplifying it that keeps coming up and at times can be very misleading to the American public, even the language.
So I have to thank you, and I would test to the fact that I have heard you on the radio.
I've listened to your explanations regarding it.
I've listened to Senator Cruz, and both again have been principled, honest, and consistent in your examination of this bill and presenting it to the American people.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
I appreciate the truth, sir.
I've heard you over and over, even this year talking about this on the radio.
And it does keep coming up.
It can be mis very misleading.
And you will to great extent trying to simplify this first.
Well, thank you.
You know what you know why it's misleading?
It's because the the promoters always shroud the thing in compassion and emotion.
Yes.
And they make it look like we mistreated them.
How can we do this to people?
We've got to bring them out of the shadows.
They've been working, they've been paying taxes, they've been doing jobs that nobody else in America wants to do, and they want to improve their lives.
Who are we to say no?
And the average ordinary American that pays scant attention to things is going to glom onto that like white on rice.
It's going to make perfect sense of the and you are trying to explain it in a consistent, simple manner so as to not confuse the public and point out the truth.
I thank you for that.
Well, I appreciate your your observation.
Thank you for getting it.
And I'm I folks, by the way, I mean that.
Um there are frustrating things about having a job like this, especially in TV.
I can't one of the reasons I don't do TV anymore is because seems like all the positive feedback I got had nothing to do with what I'd said, because most people never heard what I said.
But I do spend a lot of time trying to be as explicit and simple and clear as I can, and sometimes it gets real frustrating when people don't understand it.
I'm not some of the people that don't hear it.
I mean people who do.
So I appreciate Patty very much there.
And we be back before you know it.
And back to the phones we go.
This is Albert in San Francisco.
Great to have you on the program, Albert, hi.
Hi, Rush.
Um, I was calling about the New York Times story that was in yesterday's paper that you started your show off with today.
Yeah.
Um I I think anyone I think your first analysis might be a little off, because I clearly did not read that article to indicate that you supported uh immigration reform or amnesty.
Clearly, I know you don't.
But the second part of that, or what I got out of that article, which you kind of hit on during the kind of the second segment of your show was how easy you you went on Rubio, and clearly, I think at least, because I did listen to your show pretty consistently um throughout those few months in 2013, and you clearly did not go after Rubio like you would have against a Lindsay Graham or John McCain.
So I think the part of your analysis is that the part of your analysis is that I think a lot of people, at least myself, think that you were soft on Rubio on that.
You didn't hit him hard on him going out going being part of the uh gang of eight bills.
Uh at the time, this is two thousand thirteen, two thousand first half of two thousand thirteen.
Uh all I can tell you is when when people come on the program, I'm polite to them.
At the same time, uh I am not part of the group of people that tries to eat up, chew up, and spit out members of my own team.
So I looked at the interviews with Rubio as an opportunity to have him explain this to me.
Um I knew what I thought about it.
I was pretty confident that I was right about it, but I wanted to hear what his explanation was.
And because of your interpretation of this, and I I d I figured many people would have the same interpretation.
I spent a lot of time reviewing transcripts of my program in the same show that I interviewed Rubio after it was over, the next day, and even into the next month.
And you know, a little side note, I'm always amazed when I go back and read transcripts of this program, how damn good it is.
I'm really have a different perception going back and reading it versus at the moment doing it.
But what I found was that at no time did I ever give the impression that Rubio had converted me.
At no time did I give the impression that Rubio was even making ground with me, gaining ground with me.
At every at every uh stage, even after the interview was over, I would review it for people, which is uh often what I do here.
And expressed problems I had with certain things that, in this case, Rubio had said in the course of the interviews, and then even a month later, I was again detailing where I thought Senator Rubio was wrong and the whole gang of eight thing was wrong, and it was all centered around one premise.
And it actually, the premise that was consistent throughout, was embodied in the very first question I asked him in the interview.
Why are we doing this?
And the point that I made when I went back and looked at these transcripts, the point that I kept making was why is it that we are always reacting to what the Democrats do?
I don't care if it's this bill or anything else.
They propose something and we stop everything and immediately start debating it as though it's gonna happen.
We're just gonna try to change it, uh, moderate it a little bit, modify it a little bit, maybe make it not as big as they want it, but we're gonna do it as though they decide they want something, and that's what's next on the agenda.
And I asked Rubio a number of times in these interviews, why don't you just say no?
Why don't you just say no?
We're not gonna do this right now, and we're not gonna do it the way they want to do.
Why do we have to take their premise and use that as the foundation for the way we go in the future?
That was my point throughout all of this.
And I still maintain that that's how things operate uh in Congress and what people are fed up with, one of the many things people are fed up with.
I have been for the longest time.
Is even talking about this last week.
All we do, it seems, we on the right, is stand up and say stop.
We're never advancing our own agenda.
Whether it be our think tanks, whether it be our elected officials.
Turns out that standing up and saying stop is not something that happens enough anymore.
But I'm talking about as a i in in philosophical terms.
The way people on our side raise money is say, help us stop the left, help us stop the Democrats.
Well, I'm sorry, that's not enough for me.
But they are constantly coming at us on so many fronts in so many ways that at times that is all it seems we have time to do is stop them rather than advance an agenda.
And I'll tell you, I think one of the reasons that one of the many reasons why Donald Trump is proving to be so attractive to people is that there's nothing defensive about the guy.
Every day is on offense.
Now, some people say bully, uh he's crude, he's uh rude, all of these things, but he's on offense.
He's not adopting defensive uh postures on anything.
And I think there are a number of Republicans, conservatives, and even independents and moderates who are fed up with the defensive posture and and not being on offense.
So my questions for Rubio were twofold.
Asking him to explain in detail what he was talking about, what it meant, how it was gonna work, how it wasn't going to be amnesty.
And I think where people ended up getting confused was I was just polite at the end of the interviews and even during them.
I was I praised him as being a good conservative, a thorough conservative and so forth, and I'm sure a lot of how can you say that the guy said they're trying to promote amnesty.
Well, all I can tell you is he got elected on the basis that he was a thoroughbred conservative, he was a brand new young firebrand, he was a new Reagan.
You look at, I live in Florida, that's where he came from, and Marco Rubio captivated this whole state during his campaign, going up against Chris and these guys.
Uh memories or memories are short on that, but at no time did I ever agree with him, at no time did I ever join him in promoting what he wanted to get done.
If you want to say I gave him airtime to promote his version of things, yeah, guilty.
But when those interviews were over, I made clear my disagreement with it over and over, just as I did last week.
Thanks for the call.
Albert, appreciate it.
This is uh is that Levi?
Uh Levi in BRIC, New Jersey.
Levi, you're you're next.
How are you?
Good, how are you, Russ?
Very fine, sir.
I just want to make uh before I make uh some points, just uh you just referenced about think tanks going on the offensive and what you referenced last week about America being the greatest country in terms of caring for its people.
Um I was by a conference in the summer, a conservative think tank conference, and there was a British philosopher there, I don't know if you heard of him, uh Roger Scruton, and he was saying he's an English philosopher, and he was saying how he was in America going hunting a few years back,
I don't remember where it was, and there was some hurricane or t tornado, whatever it was, and he saw you know, volunteers, buses of people helping, he said that's that's what America stands for.
Um he said in England the government would have set up roadblocks and make them turn around, you know, the government's in charge.
The spirit of family and tradition is is something that's wonderful about America.
So, you know, in terms of promoting the conservative agenda, you know, there are still a few people doing that.
Oh, I know, but but the point is it's not in Washington.
The point is it's out where you had to go hunting to find it.
That's true.
You had to go hunting in the midst of a disaster to see it on display, but those people have been thinking they've been voting for people just like themselves to do things just like that in Washington and they haven't been seeing it.
Um now can I get to my point?
Um, yeah, I thought that was it.
But if you've got another one, just uh that was before my point is two point, two quick points.
Um very interesting.
The establishment um does not like Ted Cruz, and amazingly so, you haven't been hearing calls from the establishment for him to drop out.
They're just saying that Kasich should drop out.
And I think, tell me what you think.
I think the reason is Kasich is not getting too many delegates.
They want Cruz to be in the race to get enough delegates that Trump doesn't get the necessary delegates to win, then there could be a contested convention, and they the establishment can push Rubio.
Well, you're halfway there, but but the establishment is uh joined with Rubio in that effort, not Cruz.
No, no, that's what I'm saying, but they they they want Cruz to be in the race to take away delegates from from Trump, and that way Trump won't hit the threshold twelve hundred or so, and then they can push Rubio.
It's just a theory.
Well the well, wait a minute now.
Well, you get to the second point here in just a second.
We d we discussed things theory by theory here.
Now the the pot the the the contra to that is that the establishment wishes everybody would get out and it would become a two-man race because the anti-Trump vote's being split.
And the establishment believes that if Kasich would get out, Carson would get out, Cruz would get out, and then it's just Rubio and the establishment and its money that they can finally start making inroads against Trump.
They look at as many candidates in the race dividing the anti-Trump vote, and they wish it weren't the case.
That's the contra theory to yours.
What is your second point?
Um the second point is that you mentioned last week, um, I believe it was on Fri Thursday or Friday, you mentioned how um you you know it's not because you know the the candidates were scared to take on Trump.
They just wanted to inherit his vote when he imploded.
Um now, if you watch the campaigns, I believe Cruz in the beginning saw it that way, but steadily, even before South Carolina, he was leveling up his attacks on Trump, and Rubio was so busy trying to, you know, team up with Trump and call call uh um call Cruz liar liar, and meanwhile, why wasn't he doing anything about Trump?
Now it's almost too late.
I think Cruz steadily did step up his attacks on Trump, and Rubio, I don't know if he was in Cahoots.
It was planned with Trump to take down Cruz and call him liar liar.
Um and now if Rubio loses this thing, he really only has himself to blame because it's too late.
You know, Cruz didn't start attacking Trump.
I can't tell from listening.
Who are you supporting?
Um Cruz.
Cruz, okay.
So you're you're trying to tell us how Rubio has screwed up.
Okay, I needed to figure that out for it to put the rest of this in in uh in in context.
Now, what he's referencing last week, after the debate, a whole bunch of people said, Where's that been?
How come these guys haven't been going after Trump all this time?
Where's that been?
They could have taken Trump out if Rubio and Cruz.
And the answer to the question was, all this time, they still think that something's gonna happen to Trump, and he's not gonna be there.
He's either going to implode, he's either gonna quit, something's gonna happen, and he's gonna go.
And if that happens, they do not want to have alienated his voters.
And that's why it was kid gloves and hands off on Trump.
Um until the last two or three.
I'm talking about last fall and into January of this year.
It was hands off on Trump, and it was a it was purposeful, it was strategic, and it was designed not to irritate Trump's voters, because they're highly irritable.
It doesn't take much to get on their bad side, and once you're on your on their bad side, you cannot be redeemed.
This is known about about Trumpists.
And so it was kid gloves.
But now they don't have time to wait for whatever implosion might come.
They don't have time to wait for Trump to decide, you know what, I've made my point, I'm out.
So they had to launch.
And that's what people think too little too late.
They made a calculated, calculated strategic decision that to go after Trump would irritate his voters, and they wouldn't get them if Trump did drop out.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Hi.
How are you?
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh on the cutting edge of societal evolution, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Okay, one more Rubio thing, because I just got another reminder.
Hey, Rush.
I don't want you to get caught short.
It was in the last two or three weeks that you were telling people what a great conservative Rubio was.
And that's true.
And I remember a lot of blogs picking up on that.
Let me explain that to you.
There's folks, there's much, as you might imagine, there's much that goes on here in my life that I don't tell you about uh for a whole host of reasons.
But this this comments that I had made about Rubio, whatever they were, two, three weeks ago, about him being a solid conservative and a good guy, nothing to do with immigration and nothing to do with a gang of eight.
The reason I did that is because I got irritated.
I read a lot of things, and I get a lot of stuff sent to me.
And I got tired of all the people ragging on Marco Rubio.
I thought it was irrational.
I had people, and when people send me things, they're always trying to get me to repeat them.
People send me things hoping that I will adopt their thinking on something.
Even friends of mine.
And it the the criticism Ruby, I don't even remember what it was about.
Obviously, it was the presidential campaign, something going on, and it might have been some Cruz supporters, but they were just really ragging on Rubio in a way I never would.
And they were trying to co-op me into ragging on Rubio, like I never would.
And so the next day, I I remember making a comment on Rubio that he was a, I thought, a solid conservative, had nothing to do with immigration, it had nothing to do with a gang of eight.
I don't remember the specifics.
I just don't remember what what was going on at the time that people were emailing all this rotten stuff about Rubio, but it infuriated me.
And even before that had happened, Rubio had called here, which I also mentioned.
Because there were people, why are you going on about Rubio?
Don't you understand?
It should be Cruz, cruise.
And I'd mentioned that Rubio had called me, and we'd had a good conversation about things, and he'd explained to me some of his campaign strategy.
I've also talked to Ted Cruz.
I've had lunch with Ted Cruz twice.
You know that I do not endorse people in in these circumstances.
So it's unavoidable that you're going to hear things out of context, even though the context would be impossible unless I would tell you everything that was responsible for me saying something.
But none of that.
And this episode three weeks ago could, I guess, continue to give the trolls out there fodder to say that I am secretly trying to push amnesty, which they're still trying to say.
And it's patently absurd.
But I'm just mentioning this to you because I am not denying anything.
It's just it's uh it's crazy.
This is all documented now, and I wanted to mention this just to make sure nobody could say I'm covering something up or hiding something because nothing of the sort is going on.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
I just looked it up.
It was February 3rd on this program, and I remember what ticked me off.
I was reading people accusing Marco Rubio of being part of the group that wanted to say the era of Reagan is over.
And that Rubio's a reprobate.
And I just don't believe any of that, so I said so.
And nothing to do with immigration, and nothing to do with the gang of eight.
And that's that.
▲
Export Selection