All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:52
March 29, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
And your host once again under assault, ladies and gentlemen, your host is under fire once again.
Your host once again being blamed by many for their own unhappiness and dissatisfaction.
And somehow it's all my fault.
Who knew?
Anyway, great to have you here as we kick off another round of broadcast excellence, three straight hours.
Great to have you with us, as always.
A telephone number if you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882 and the email address, Lrushbow at EIB net.com.
We hear a lot, ladies and gentlemen, about how Donald Trump.
Oh, speaking of which, the New York Times is back.
What do we have the New York Times yesterday that they totally didn't understand?
What they got wrong, so they were late arriving, just didn't figure something.
I can't remember what it is, but they're back.
The New York Times has a story today how the Republican elite lost its voters to Donald Trump, and they still don't get it.
You know what they think it is?
The New York Times thinks that the Republican Party message of trickle down economics, tax cuts for the rich, uh anti-abortion, they think that is why Republican voters are abandoning the Republican Party for Donald Trump.
Now that may be it may be the fact that that's so out of touch with people today, but that that's not that's not why people are abandoning the Republican Party for anybody else.
It's not why they're abandoned, it's not why Bernie Sanders' people are abandoning the estate.
The point is the New York Times is part of the establishment, and they don't get it.
They do not understand what it is.
Even Nicholas Christoph, who is a uh columnist of the New York Times, has uh uh written uh one of the mistakes, one of the many mistakes the media has made in this campaign.
What everybody's going through now in the drive-by media, the the the entire establishment, they're all wringing their hands, and they're asking themselves, what has happened to our politics?
Why is everything so mean?
Why is there such incivility?
Why are there so many arguments?
Why is there so much anger?
They're going nuts trying to figure it out.
Because again, and do not discount this.
Where they live, everything's fine, folks.
Their schools are good, their incomes are solid and rising.
The unemployment where they live, if we're talking Washington, D.C. and its immediate surroundings is uh under 4%, a real under 4%.
I keep reading that five of the seven wealthiest counties in America now are those counties surrounding Washington, D.C. So if you if you factor in New York and the the upper crust of the New York economy, of which several establishment members uh are members and where they live, everything's fine where they live.
And it's amazing, you know, they're journalists and and other professions, of course.
The lack of curiosity has always amazed me.
I would think curiosity would be a primary requirement, an ingredient necessary to what to do the job.
But what when people reject them, when voters vote against what they believe in, they're they're perplexed.
They don't get it.
And rather than make an effort to understand it, they just put down or criticize or impugn voters as being stupid or barbaric or uncivil or inhumane or what have you.
But there is never any introspection.
And with the lack of introspection, there is the constant assumption that life in America is pretty much like it is uh in in their neighborhoods and their cities where they live.
And that's why I say the disconnect, the degree to which our betters, which is how they think of themselves, our leaders are out of touch.
It's just I mean, I think I think it would it would shock even even those of you who are aware of and agree with the premise that there's this giant disconnect.
I think you'd be shocked at how big it is.
And the lack of curiosity.
I mean, they're out there trying to figure out what Trump's all about.
They still, Trump's been in its race since June.
And they still don't get it.
And they're still struggling trying to understand it.
And they don't.
And they think they do now.
They keep coming up with uh explanations that satisfy themselves, but those explanations never involve them.
It's always somebody else's fault.
It's always somebody else's stupidity.
It's always the voters are rabid.
It's it's it's uh anything but them.
And the New York Times with this piece today, they are further away from understanding.
I don't I wouldn't even cause it, call it the cause of Trump's popularity.
It's it's bigger than Trump's popularity.
They are further away from understanding why an increasing number of people distrust, have no faith in leadership in Washington.
They just as they try, as they struggle to explain this to themselves, they get further and further away from the uh from the truth.
And I was mentioning Nicholas Christoph, he's a columnist at the New York Times, and he's uh he's one of these hand wringers.
You know, ringing their hands, trying to what did we miss?
What what what's going on?
How do we and one of the things that he concluded is, and he's right, is that journalists have not ventured out of their little cocoon, the bubble in which they live, and they've not traveled to places where all of this angst, unhappiness, anger, whatever anxiety is, they have not gone to see it, they haven't gone to report on it.
They have viewed it from afar in Washington, they comment on it, they characterize in it or characterize it, but they have they have never delved and stepped into it.
That's why I've always joked that drive-by media reporters need visas, you know, to get into Iowa and Missouri and Ohio and so forth.
Now you're saying, but Rush, but they were just there during the primary.
Yeah, they were just there during the primaries.
But but even in that circumstance, their focus is very narrow on the election horse race.
And everything happens under the biases and the premises they take with them as they travel to report on these places.
They don't go in with empty brains waiting to be filled with information based on what they find.
They they they set out with uh stories written, uh preconceptions logged, and they go out and try to find proof of what they think they believe.
And if they don't, then they chalk it up to some abnormality in the electorate.
Or some abnormality in polling data or some such thing.
But they are now seriously questioning why.
I tell you what this boils down to, they're asking themselves how did we miss this?
Why didn't we take Trump's candidacy seriously?
And then they are concluding they haven't gotten out enough, and they haven't gone and witnessed, but this New York Times story today, I mean it's just it's it's kind of uh laughable.
And then when they start handing out blame for what's going on, when when believe me, the lives they live and the places they live, everything is fine.
It's at Zazie and Harriet days for that, well, take it not Ozzy and Harriet days.
It's uh Heather has two mommies and all that, and everything's normal and just happy as everybody can be.
Uh their only problem is that Republicans live near them, but they've got them under control pretty much.
But really, life is good at the establishment.
Life is good in Washington, man.
That's where all the money is.
Go to the audio sound bites.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.
Our old buddy David Brooks.
David Brooks.
The fact that they call him a conservative is an insult to conservatism.
It is uh, but it's worse than that.
It's an insult to people.
David Brooks hasn't been a conservative since he left the weekly standard, and even then you could say that he really wasn't a conservative.
He was a moderate quasi liberal Republican, but he worked at a publication that was thought to be conservative, and he wasn't a uh both feet in the water Democrat.
But the the I the fact that he's the conservative on the McNeil Air News Hour, whatever they call it now, he's a conservative columnist at the New York Times, but he's not in any way, shape, manner, or form.
And the real question do the people of the New York Times know this?
Do the people of PBS is that what they think?
They they clearly don't think that Brooks is a conservative.
They despise conservatives.
Pick your favorite caricature of a conservative.
Gun nut, pick up truck driving, running around bombing abortion clinics, showing up on Saturday night the parking lot at church to get the front pew.
Don't speak English very well.
That's what they think and then David Brooks is the guy that they hire to write columns for them to appeal that group.
David Brooks is the guy PBS hires.
As a conservative to relate to the conservatives in the audience, that's not even what they think of conservatives.
The Brooks isn't.
When he is on with Mark Shields on PBS, they agree with each other about everything they say.
And Shields is a classical ultra-radical leftist, like they all are today in uh in moderate clothing.
But in fact, it's last night, PBS, Charlie Rose speaking with David Brooks about politics in America, and Brooks kicks it off with this.
This is like the worst thing to say in 2016.
But I've come to be a believer, and we need to fix the establishment.
I believe in establishments.
We have big problems.
You need big institutions to tackle them.
They have to be run centrally.
And so we need a really good State Department.
We really need a good question.
So on the agenda ought to be reforming establishments.
Reforming institutions.
Yeah.
Our institutions are fraying.
The Congress is the prime example of an institution that has frayed because it's just the norms of behavior, the invisible codes have been ripped away.
Okay, now imagine anybody that's actually fired up in this election in this campaign.
I don't care.
You're supporting Cruz, you're supporting Trump, you uh, well, I don't know anybody supporting Casey.
Actually, I do.
I know two people supporting Kasich.
Still.
Uh but imagine you're one of those people.
I mean, you're really into this.
Does any of this that you just heard make any sense whatsoever?
Uh well, it's like the worst thing to say in 216, but I've I've come to be a believer uh we need to fix the establishment.
I believe in establishments.
Of course he does.
He's a member.
We have a big problem.
We have big institutions that tackle them and uh where they have to run more centrally.
So this is a conservative.
He's talking about centralized command and control to fix what's wrong.
And this guy's a conservative, and today people are blaming me for selling conservatism out.
People are blaming me.
It's all over the place now that I am the one who's betraying conservatism.
I'm the one who is single-handedly causing conservatives to be watered down, misdefined, redefined, and yet here's the conservative participant on PBS.
The conservative New York Times call columnist claiming to be a big believer in establishments.
Because we got big problems, and therefore you need big institutions to fix the big establishment.
And they have to be run centrally, meaning you've got to have a powerful, engaged executive, i.e.
president, and a coterie of supporters, and they are the smart people, the best and brightest, and only they are qualified to deal with all of these big issues and big institutions, and it's got to be done centrally.
So we need a really good State Department.
What?
We really good State Department.
We need a really good State Department, okay?
And Charlie Rose says, so on the agenda, ought to be reforming establishments.
Really, is this what these guys think is going to win an election this year?
Is this what these guys think is on the minds of people who are do they have not the slightest idea what people go through in their daily lives today trying to deal with the absolute excrement sandwich this administration has been serving for the last seven years?
They really think people out there are worried about fixing the establishment.
It's quite the opposite.
The establishment's already considered to be corrupt.
And people seeking ways around it.
If people could, they'd blow it up politically.
So Brooks says, yeah, reforming institutions, yeah, our institutions are fraying.
Congress prime example of an institution that's frayed because the norms of behavior, the invisible codes have been ripped away.
What does that mean?
Well, the next soundbite might tell us.
I'm talking about Trump as a revolution in manners.
And the reason we have manners, the reason we don't talk about each other's wives and how they look, or the reasons we don't insult people's looks or call people losers and liars, is that it enables us to be a community and be citizens together.
If you rip away those manners, it's just dog eat dog.
And to me, when he rips away the shroud of those manners, he's really reduced us to just scrambling scorpions and model.
And so uh restoring manners, restoring codes of of civility and just decency is the prerequisite for restoring institutions and your civility and your codes of uh conduct and decency are what many people have resulted in the Republican Party being smoked for the last seven years.
Not fighting back, not defending the people that voted for them, not defending the issues and the institutions that define this country's greatness.
The Republican Party in its quest to be civil and to prove they can make Washington work is getting rolled, issue after issue after issue.
And it is hurting the American people.
The American people are being harmed in their daily lives, economically, culturally, by the dominance of liberalism in this country, which as a conservative, you are supposed to be enlightening people about and opposing it.
And there hasn't, I haven't heard a word from David Brooks about opposing liberalism or stopping it.
All he wants to do is get rid of all this name-calling and stuff.
Has he paid no attention to what George W. Bush was called by these very Democrats he seeks to emulate?
He's worried about name-calling and all this other stuff from Trump.
Has he not heard the Democrats calling George W. Bush Hitler?
And did he not object to it?
Or did he say, well, we must understand their rage?
You know, we must be civil and polite in our disagreements with our friends on the left, because we all must work together at the end of the day to preserve our institutions and the established.
Are you not aware, Mr. Brooks?
That the things you seem so upset about happening with Trump or anywhere else than the right are the daily norm of today's Democrat Party that you somehow cannot stand up and speak out against?
There's one more bite here, of course, and we'll have it in a minute.
Don't go away.
I remembered what it was.
Yesterday, the New York Times had a story claiming they couldn't find anything in common with terrorists.
They they couldn't, that there was nothing that they could find that could help anybody to understand who might be a terrorist who might become a terrorist.
So that was yesterday.
Today the New York Times, how the GOP elite lost its voters to Donald Trump and they're so far off.
All they've got to do is listen to me.
I've been telling people for five months why this is happening.
Here's the last David Brooks bite, and of course, if you're thinking it has to include me, well, you're right.
I would say deeper than that, depending on the character of the people, but egotism, if you have a basic humility, or at least if you've been taught all your life to value humility, then you think, well, good chance I'm wrong about some stuff.
So I need the people who disagree with me to balance out my error.
But if you're taught you have the truth by the short hairs, then what do you need the other people for?
And that's that's a lot of what we got going on.
That's a lot of Obama.
Well, he said that.
Yeah, okay, fine.
You're trying to But it's not only Obama, it's Rush Limbaugh.
It's a lot of people.
But I mean that's a vast difference between the two, then I agree.
All right, so you hear what happened here.
So here's Brooks going on and wringing his hands about people that think they have all the answers and they have no humility, they don't realize they're wrong, so they never go to people who tell them they're wrong and try to learn from them.
And Charlie Rose says, Yeah, like Obama.
So Obama's running around saying you got truth by the short hairs.
And Brooks says, well, no, no, no, no, no, no, Rush Limbaugh.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
It's Rush Limbaugh's then.
And Rose said, no, no, no, no.
Well, yeah, but but it's it's a lot of people, but it's it's it's Obama.
And Brooks says, well, there's a vast difference between the two, I agree with that.
But this guy wouldn't know humility if it hit him in the face.
Obviously, he doesn't listen to this program.
Humility on display every day here.
And by the way, just for the record, uh, folks, I, L Rushbow, have never ever said that I have the truth by the short hairs.
Now, Obama has.
I've never said it.
Brooks, Brooks thinks I've it obviously irritates Brooks that I am so confident of myself.
It obviously's one of these guys that just nobody can be that sure of themselves, except us, except us establishment members.
We can be that true of us.
But these plebes out there, these talk radio, these surfs and things, they're not supposed to be that sure of themselves.
That's just that's just it's it's it's coarse, it's it's it's ill-mannered, it's it's un it's unsophisticated, it's poor breeding, it's all of these things that these guys think yet there is their hero, Barack Obama, actually having had said that.
And isn't that very crude, by the way, to talk about having the truth by the short hairs?
Where's the dignity in that?
That certainly wouldn't qualify as civilized discourse in the clubby confines of the world of David Brooks.
The truth by the short hairs.
Imagine if Trump had said something like that.
Obama did, and they all just Yeah, yeah, but Rush Limbaugh, he thinks it.
But oh I never said it.
I may give the impression that it's true, but I haven't said it.
I haven't used those ugly words.
The short hairs, everybody knows what you're talking about.
I wouldn't say it.
But Obama did.
Political news today, Scott Walker, the very brave and very courageous governor of Wisconsin has endorsed Ted Cruz today.
It's time that we elect uh a strong new leader, and I've chosen to endorse Ted Cruz to be the next president of the United States for three simple reasons.
One, I just fundamentally believe that he is a constitutional conservative.
Ted Cruz is the best position by far to both win the nomination of the Republican Party and to then go on and defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall this year.
And that's the key is we want people who are principled, common sense, conservatives, who are people who do what they say, who stick to their guns, but also people who can both win the nomination and go on to defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall.
So that's as a this is a major endorsement.
Uh Scott Walker is uh hugely popular in Wisconsin, and for a reason.
You talk about guts.
I mean, you know the Scott Walker story.
I've I've been one of the longest and earliest uh admirers of Scott Walker.
Scott Walker, just to remind you, did everything in defending himself and his job, his position, his state, the people that voted, he did everything we have ever asked the conservative to do.
The left threw everything they had at him.
They threw all the uncivility they can marshal.
They were mean, they were ill-mannered.
They were I'm serious, and yes, I'm goosin' Brooks here, because it's exactly what what Brooks needs to hear.
The left is who he needs to be arguing with.
The left Is who needs to be straightened out when it comes to manners and civility and being respectful of people.
Look what they did to Scott Walker.
Look what they tried to do, not just destroy him in an election.
They tried to ruin his career, destroy his career, upset his family.
They did everything they could to totally destroy the man in three different elections.
A couple of recalls in the standard uh gubernatorial elections.
And Scott Walker withstood all of it in a huge blue state.
Madison, Wisconsin is one of the uh Midwestern mechas of progressivism.
University of Wisconsin is there.
Uh, but the whole state on balance, hugely radical left.
And Scott Walker not only got elected, he instituted his reform policies.
And he created a budget surplus, and he cut taxes, and he de-emphasized the power of unions.
He was able to strip them of it was classic.
He was he was exactly the kind of Republican that Republican voters have been clamoring for.
He was a fighter.
He took no guff from them whatsoever.
He put his head down and he just kept charging.
He was unintimidated despite every effort they made to frighten him, to scare him, to intimidate him out of politics, and he hung in there.
And I remember extolling his uh his virtues for the for the longest time that he ran for president, and he had the early lead, you know, before Trump got in and before everything got upset and shaken up very uh tremendously.
Scott Walker came out in one of these early Iowa polls, and he was just dwarfing everybody.
And then uh the campaign wore on, and I guess some people thought that his uh foreign policy, what people called it lack of preparedness or awareness, knowledge, whatever.
Something did him in.
But at the at the outset, he owned it.
I mean, he had huge leads, and he's just been, I think, a role model for other Republicans under the gun, other conservatives under the gun, how not to bow to pressure.
And I've uh I've always had the greatest admiration and respect for him, and still do.
And he's uh he's thrown in now with Ted Cruz and uh makes makes perfect sense.
Here's the second part of the endorsement soundbite, by the way.
Scott Walker is a strong principled conservative.
Governor Walker, with the help of the men and women gathered here today and all across this state, won an election, and then another election, and then another election.
And when Scott stood up to the union bosses, when Scott saw death threats and attacks and protests and anger and yells, millions of men and women all across the state of Wisconsin stood with Governor Scott Walker.
And y'all's heroic stand together, inspired millions across the country.
It inspired me.
It showed that when we the people stand up together, we can beat the special interest.
Well, there's much more than special interest going on here, but but Walker did successfully beat back the unions.
Speaking of which, Supreme Court decision today, this is what happens.
We have a 4-4 decision out of the Supreme Court.
It was deadlocked.
Compulsory wage confiscation for all public sector non-union employees was upheld.
It was a 4-4 vote, which means the case stands as it was when it got to the court.
There's no change in it, which means that unions can now demand non-union workers on the job, pay union dues.
Union dues is a money laundering operation for the Democrat Party.
Here's how it works.
The Democrat Party cannot yet go to the United States Treasury and write itself checks to run campaigns and win elections.
So what it does, it uh it it throws little bones here and there to unions.
Terms of policy, protectionism, any number of things.
The unions go out and charge their members' dues, and most of that money, the majority of that money, ends up being donated back to the Democrat Party.
And the cycle continues.
This is essentially how the Democrats launder money from unions back to themselves in order to, it's all come under the guise of campaign contributions.
But what's happened is that a lot of people grew upset that nonunion members are being charged dues.
How do they do it?
How can that happen?
So a suit was brought and it deadlocked 4-4 at the U.S. Supreme Court.
So it remains now compulsory wage confiscation called dues for all public sector non-union employees.
And we've got stuff like this happening, and we still have to hear that there are Republicans, unhappy with their primary process, thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton if they don't get their way.
Yeah, we we this kind of stuff is what tears up the fabric of our culture.
This kind of ruling of the Supreme Court, this kind of behavior, requiring people who are not members of unions to pay dues.
This is what people expect leadership in Washington to protect them from.
There doesn't seem to be any interest in it.
Instead, we have to hear Republicans talking about how their noses are so out of joint, they're so unhappy and they're so dissatisfied that they're going to vote Hillary, if they have to, to protect what they've got.
But the heck with trying to protect what their voters have, or the heck with trying to improve the lot of their of their voters.
So we have the uh the Scott Walker endorsement of Ted Cruz, Wisconsin primary is a week from today.
But make no mistake, and I I touched on it yesterday, the efforts are underway to game the Republican convention in Cleveland to deny it to Trump.
Now I know, folks, that it looks like a lot of Republicans, establishment Republicans and others, are now lining up behind Ted Cruz.
And some are.
But don't doubt me on this.
There are people at the upper levels, the highest echelons of the Republican Party, who do not want either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
And when I said yesterday that the party, certain elements, particularly convention rules writers, and the people who hold sway over delegates, seating delegates, the delegate rules at a convention.
This is much more complicated than many people know.
You never really see it because most nominees are chosen during the primary process.
Most conventions are not contested.
The last one on the GOP side was 76.
People have forgotten what happened there.
But if neither candidate wins on the first ballot, then after that, it is wide open.
And the people that run that convention can determine who gets seated as a delegate.
Some delegates haven't even been chosen yet.
We have these primaries.
We hear that, like, Trump won 99 delegates in Florida.
This is 99 delegates.
He won Florida.
But those delegates may not have been chosen yet.
My point is, the delegates, the actual delegates, are going to attend the convention, be sitting there on the floor of the convention with their state, with their leaders standing up and announcing how they vote during every roll call.
Those delegates, it's a prime honor to be chosen as a delegate.
Some elected officials are automatically delegates.
Others are chosen.
And how you get to be one is every bit based on connections and who you know and otherwise as anything else in life is.
And if the people that run that convention want to make sure that on a second ballot there aren't any delegates in there for Donald Trump, they can try to set that up.
If they want to make sure there aren't any delegates seated that are going to vote for Ted Cruz, they can try to set that up.
They run this show.
So while it looks like some Republicans are reluctantly or eagerly depending, getting behind Cruz, my thought is that at the Romney level of this convention, at the, you know, whatever the upper echelon is and whoever you associate with being there, they are going to try, they may not succeed, but they're going to try to implement the following.
1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination in the primary prize.
process.
If no candidate gets to 1237, if Trump doesn't get there, even if he's just 50 short, if Cruz doesn't get there, there will be an attempt.
I don't know whether it'll succeed.
There will be an attempt to establish or write a rule or enforce a premise that neither candidate is thus qualified to be the nominee.
Because since neither candidate got the minimum number required in the primaries, this is the same as being rejected by the people.
They're going to try to set up a process whereby they can say neither neither Trump nor Cruz gets a nomination because they were both rejected by Republican primary voters.
Republican primary voters didn't want either one, because neither one got to 1237, which throws the whole thing open.
Despite these endorsements for Cruz, you know, the Cruz people, Trump people had had better be on the ball here for everything about the rules at the convention, the rules they write before the convention starts, and how these delegates are chosen and who they are, and under what uh rules of order those delegates can vote.
This is this is for all the marbles here.
This is for who is going to own the Republican Party, who is going to be the Republican Party and what it's going to be.
And that's why you got people saying, I'll vote Hillary before I lose this party and my place in it.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
The campaign manager for Donald Trump, Corey Lewandowski has been charged with misdemeanor battery for roughing up, ostensibly allegedly roughing up the reporter for Breitbart, uh Michelle Fields.
Um Trump says he's absolutely innocent, he's completely innocent, he's not guilty, didn't do it.
Was charged this morning in Jupiter.
Well uh Palm Beach County at the same bunch.
Uh misdemeanor battery after allegations of forcefully grabbing Michelle Fields at a Jupiter news conference is up at Trump's golf club up there, uh, after uh Trump uh acceptance press conference one night following the March 8th conference at Trump National Golf Club.
Michelle Fields, she's 28, she's walking out, tried to ask Trump a question, and Lewandowski supposedly grabbed her arm so hard that bruised her.
And they talked about it.
Corey Lewandowski denied it.
Trump denied it, everybody denied it.
Uh even the Breitbart uh people didn't defend her right off the bat, threw her under the bus, resulting in her resigning and Ben Shapiro also at Breitbart resigning.
But now the charges uh have have been filed, and we see where it goes uh from there.
But it's uh it's hard ball out there.
I want to grab a phone call before the hour ends.
Chuck in Milwaukee, great to have you on the program.
You're first today.
Yeah, great to talk to you, Drush.
Okay.
Uh I have an issue with you about uh talking about Scott Walker.
Scott Walker, right on.
Okay, uh last week Scott Walker uh made a statement saying that you didn't think none of the three candidates would be the nominee for the uh presidency.
And now he flip-flop and uh supporting Cruz.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
No, wait a minute, Chuck, help me out.
I didn't hear that, and I hear every I'm not I'm not disputing you.
I mean, it's it's getting to the point, even I, it's it's tough for me to hear everything.
What Scott Walker said that he didn't think either Trump or Cruz or Kasich would be the nominee.
Yeah, it was even on Bret Bart last week.
Oh, well, if it was on Breitbart.
What what exactly did he say?
He just says that you think that 93 nominees would be the nominee for uh But I mean, did he say that they they're no good?
They're not gonna get none of them are gonna win it, they're not qualified.
What why?
No, because it'll be open convention.
And none of them would get it.
It'll be someone else.
Okay.
I'm I'm look, I'm flying blind here.
We need to find out what he said, because I'm not able to.
Um it sounds like what you're saying is that Scott Walker predicted an open convention, and because of that, none of these three guys are gonna get it, and then today endorses Cruz, and you think that's a flip-flop.
Uh we'll look into this.
Uh I pre pr Chuck I appreciate the call.
I really do.
I gotta take a break though now because I'm out of time.
So just stay where you are, folks.
All right, it was uh it was as I thought.
Scott Walker said that if it goes to a contested convention, that none of these three will be chosen.
I think he happens to be right in terms of expressing the desires of GOP leadership.
But that doesn't mean he can't endorse Cruz.
I don't see a flip-flop here.
Two different things, if you ask me.
And we'll be back before you know it.
▲
Export Selection