All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
March 31, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Not at all.
I don't have any doubt that all this is based on the fact that Chris Matthews chosen candidates bombing.
And that's Hillary Clinton.
Folks, you can say what you want, but on the Republican side, there is excitement.
There's massive turnout.
There's, I mean, emotion all over the place.
People are engaged no matter what they think.
They're angry.
They're happy.
They got every emotion going.
People are invested on the Republican side.
And I am here to tell you they're looking at that on the Democrat side, and it scares them because they see on the Democrat side nothing.
There's no excitement.
There's no pizzazz.
Neither of the two Democrat candidates can light up a room.
Neither of two Democrat candidates can light up a light bulb even when they throw the switch.
They are dull and they're boring.
If it weren't for their varicose veins, they'd be totally colorless, including Crazy Bernie.
And the Democrats are looking at this.
And yeah, they know they've got the Electoral College in their favor and they know they've got the media in their favor.
But they're losing Obama.
They know that Obama's not all that popular.
They know liberalism isn't working.
Obama's policies are not working.
The country is not happy.
The country is not satisfied.
The country's not willing to give a stamp of approval to anything Obama's done.
People want to get rid of Obamacare.
They're not happy with what Obama's doing foreign policy.
On the Democrat side, there is literally nothing that's got them excited.
There is nothing that has them enthused.
What is animating them is the fear of what's going on on the Republican side.
So I have no doubt that Matthew is bringing Trump in and going after abortion.
It's either that or the race card.
It's what they always do.
They've got two or three go-to things when they are in trouble, when they can't fire up their own voters, which is very rarely, by the way.
Obama's one of the few to come along in a while that actually fired up their voters.
What they have to do is demonize and villainize the Republicans.
That's one of two things they do.
They either rely on their own enthusiasm and what they perceive to be affection for their campaign.
There's none of that here.
So as far as they're concerned, they got one hope, and that is to demonize the Republican frontrunner and then demonize anybody after that and make them unacceptable and unpalatable.
And that's exactly what's going on.
There's no question that's what happened.
You can see in the exit polls.
If you look at exit polling data from the Democrat side, you will find out there's no excitement.
You will see that there's no thrill.
People supporting Hillary are not jazzed about it.
And another thing, do not, do not fall into the trap and not thinking they're worried about this FBI thing.
They are.
Even though they control it.
Obama's the president.
He runs a DOJ.
They're still worried about it.
Folks, the liberal Democrats in this country know that they're a minority in terms of numbers.
They know that they have to be able to pull strings and play games and run scams in order to win.
They cannot win in the arena of ideas.
Liberalism up against somebody that can explain it, conservatism or Republicanism, usually cannot win by itself.
It needs a super extraordinary personality like an Obama.
But even Obama couldn't be honest about what he was going to do.
And in their hearts, the left knows this.
The liberals know that in numerical terms, they're a minority.
They know that in order to implement what they believe, they have to use intimidation and bullying, and they have to monkey around with legislative techniques and so forth because they know they're governing against the will of the people.
They're happy to do that.
But when it comes to maybe losing because of this, well, they're not going to tolerate that.
Just like the GOP is not going to let somebody come in and take over their party.
The establishment's not going to let somebody come in and take over the establishment.
The Democrats are not going to sit idly by and lose.
And Matthews is a Democrat Party operative, just like Stephanopoulos was.
They have jobs where they're disguised as journalists and impartial analysts and critics and so forth.
But make no mistake what's going on here.
And again, this is not a defense of anybody.
It's not supporting anybody.
I'm just telling you what's going on.
And here's the thing that you do have to think about.
Do you want them choosing your nominee?
Do you want people like Chris Matthews determining what you think of people that you want to support?
Do you want the Democrat Party and their media buddies determining the Republican electoral process?
And if you do, then you'll sit here and you'll react to what they do and you'll react the way they want you to.
And they will try this stuff with Ted Cruz.
They already have.
The only guy they won't try this stuff with is Kasich because he'll step into it on his own, but he's not enough of a factor yet.
And Kasich's out there sounding enough like them on the Democrat side that he's already an ally, essentially.
And I'm, no, no, no, I'm not, I'm dead serious about that.
This is what they have to do.
They do not have any enthusiasm behind their policies, behind their candidates.
All they can do is demonize, villainize the opposition, and they're doing it.
It's up to you whether or not you want to let them get away with it.
My experience has been that far too many Republicans let them get away with it every election cycle.
I've seen it happen.
rush we can't choose candidates the media just destroyed them i mean if we can't how many times have i heard this Once a gazillion.
Rush, we need a candidate that the media can't destroy.
We need a candidate that the media can't make fun of and make look foolish.
Well, okay.
Name one.
Reagan.
Well, really, they did their best to make Reagan look like an amiable dunce who fell asleep during cabinet meetings and so forth.
It's never going to change.
They're always going to have this modus operandi.
And that's what's happening here.
Listen to more soundbites.
I got one more.
Chris Matthews going.
I mean, this is so classic when you hear this.
It's so obvious what's going on.
And it's also obvious Trump is woefully unprepared for this.
He has done absolutely no preparation.
It's obvious that he hasn't done any preparation.
I don't know if he's got people who have tried to prep him and he's rejected the help on the basis that he can handle anything they throw at him or what.
But there's obviously no preparation here.
And so when there isn't any preparation and when you have no idea something like this is coming, then you're vamping.
And that's why Trump has had three different reactions to this in three hours.
He's walked it back one way.
He's walked it back another way.
That's why I think I know what happened here, but that doesn't change any of it.
It just satisfies my own curiosity for an explanation.
But again, keep in mind, when I say that this has never been an issue, it's come up in debates.
I mean, candidates have said we're pro-life or not.
But this has not been a decision, not an issue on which people's vote hinges on the Republican side.
Abortion and the social issues in that regard, social issues, immigration, social issues, jobs, economic issues, yeah, they mattered.
But abortion's not a topic.
Abortion's not a factor in this Republican primary.
And it wasn't going to be.
But now it is.
And why that happened?
Trump wasn't out there bragging or saying anything about it other than when he's asked if he's pro-life.
Yeah, I'm pro-life.
He had not encountered somebody.
Oh, well, then you think I'm a murderer, right?
You think women who have abortion are murderers, right?
Is that what you think?
No, no.
Well, you're for pro-life.
You think it's killing?
You think it's murder?
No, no, no, no, no.
What are you saying?
I don't know.
You're pro-life.
You're pro-life.
That means you think anybody kills a steely.
This is a murderer.
This is the way it works.
And if you are not ideologically schooled, if you're not ideologically oriented, and if you do not understand how the left operates, then you have no prayer.
You have no hope in a circumstance or situation like this.
Another reason why, as I repeat again and again and again, it is crucial that as many people as possible be educated and informed on how to spot a liberal and what that means.
Here's the final bite of the exchange between Matthews and Trump.
You want to be president.
You tell me what the law should be.
Just tell me what the law should be.
You said you're pro-life.
I am pro-life.
What's that?
I am pro-life.
I have not determined what the punishment would be.
Why not?
Because I haven't determined to decide to be pro-life.
You could ask anybody.
Here's the problem, David.
Here's my problem with this.
If you don't have a punishment for abortion, I don't believe in it, of course.
People are going to find a way to have an abortion.
You don't believe in what?
I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.
Okay, fine, okay.
And I think it's a woman's choice.
So you're against the teachings of your church.
I have a view and a moral view, but I believe we live in a free country, and I don't want to live in a country so fascistic that it can stop a person from making that decision.
But Trump even had it right there.
So you don't believe in the teachings of your church.
You're against teaching.
And Matthews says, hey, hey, my church is a bush of fascists.
I'm not going to sit here.
I'm going to live in a country that alone has got to be so fascistic that it can stop people from making a decision to have an abortion and kill a baby.
I'm not going to limit it.
But your church says, I don't care what the church says.
I'm not going to live in a country.
Anyway, if you're not ready for this, and this is literal insanity here from Matthews, these people on the left, they're obsessed with this.
And I'll tell you why on that, too, because they know what they're doing.
They know they're on the wrong side, and they don't want to be reminded of it, and they don't want to have to deal with it, and they don't want to think of it.
So they transfer what I am convinced they know feel as guilt over to the other side and make them out to be the real enemy, the real villains, or what have you.
But anyway, now that matters in the sense that, you know, McCain got caught by these guys the same way.
A little different.
McCain was led to believe by Matthews that Matthews loved him and that the media was McCain's base.
Remember all that back in 2000?
And then McCain, in 2004, eight, I'm sorry, 2008.
And then when McCain gets the nomination, all of a sudden they turn on his knees totally unprepared for it, even though we had warned him that he was being set up all this time.
They secretly hated his guts because he was a Republican.
They were just softening it up, and it happened.
And so if you're not equipped, if you're not informed, if you're not prepared to deal with this kind of stuff, they're going to roll you each and every time, just by virtue of the questions they ask.
Here's how it happened, just so you remember.
This is back on January 7th, 2012.
It's a Manchester, New Hampshire, Republican debate.
Another Democrat hack, George Stephanopoulos, had a debate with Mitt Romney.
George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising.
States have a right to ban contraception.
I can't imagine a state banning contraception.
I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so.
And if I were a governor of a state or a legal state or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception.
So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so, you're asking, could it constitutionally be done?
I don't know whether the state has a right to ban contraception.
No state wants to.
I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.
Right, okay, but he still answered the question.
That's where the war on women was born.
From that, it sprang.
That Mitt Romney said states should have a right to ban contraception.
And the whole thing was a giant setup, and it's happened again.
And we will be back.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
People have been waiting patiently.
This is Gene in Philadelphia.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking that call.
Yes, sir.
I've been a big fan of yours since 1990.
I'm very conservative.
Yep.
And I believe that most of the time you stimulate my intelligence, but today I feel like you're insulting my intelligence and many other people by having on your show, first of all, two mental midgets conversation of a hypothetical question.
And first of all, it's not the content of the question that I'm upset about.
It's just that Mr. Trump cannot sink on his feet to answer quickly enough to give an answer because he's a New York salesman and he's an entertainer who's after ratings and to tell the person who's buying his product whatever he needs to tell them at the time until his handlers get a hold of him.
Why does it wait a minute?
Why does it insult your intelligence when I explain to you?
Well, first of all, I wouldn't tell you why it is that Trump blows the answer to this question.
He blew it sky high.
Why does it mean that?
Rush, listen.
You heard Mitt Romney give an intelligent answer to a hypothetical, ridiculous question, and that was an intelligent answer.
And he had intelligence behind him.
Now, people want to say that Trump is so smart, they're so smart, that he's geared towards selling a product and telling the person whatever he needs to tell him to get it done.
And he keeps on bragging about his polls.
I call them ratings.
He's after ratings.
This is what he was, an entertainer and after ratings, and he's after, and that's what we call it.
You're making a mistake.
Everybody's making it.
You interpret what I'm offering as an explanation as defense and support.
And I'm doing neither.
I'm doing neither.
Look at everybody's trying to, wait a second.
Everybody's trying to understand why is this guy so stupid on it?
Why is he so dumb?
How does he get so fooled on this?
Please listen to me.
Please, please.
So I'm explaining it.
I'm explaining it to people, pure and simple.
You're free to disagree with it, but it's not insulting your intelligence.
It's adding another perspective, perhaps, to it.
You may not be interested in it, but that's what I was trying to do.
I'm going to all go.
I have so much to say.
So let me say it, and then I'll let you say it.
I guess that's the best way of doing it.
Okay, I'm not blaming you.
I heard your show yesterday where you took eight oaths not to give your opinion.
I don't blame you.
I know why you did that.
But we all listened to you for an opinion, and I've quoted you many times over the years.
I've been a major friend.
As a matter of fact, I feel almost like you're a friend of mine.
I have lost my ability to understand what he's saying.
I cannot understand the phone lines deteriorate.
I literally.
I heard something about some oath I took, which I did not take an oath.
Anyway, that's a classic.
Look, I know you're for Trump.
I mean, I know you're for Cruz, but you insult our intelligence.
I'm not trying to insult anybody's intelligence.
trying to broaden your understanding of things.
I'm not...
This is...
You know what?
It is what it is.
And you can try to manufacture it to be something that it isn't all you want, but you're not going to raise my hackle.
It isn't going to work.
It'll work elsewhere if you want to try it.
But this is not complicated.
In fact, if you want to know the truth, my analysis of this is pretty damn brilliant if you want to know the truth.
And if you don't want to accept it because you are so blocked by your own bias and prejudice, it's your problem, not mine.
Who's next?
Ron in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
I appreciate it, sir.
Thank you very much.
And I want you to know my intelligence is intact.
But I am calling to let you know that I think your opinion accuracy may have to go down a level.
And here's why.
Your explanation of why Trump answered the way he did is off a little bit because at the fundamental level, he's not pro-life because a true pro-lifer would instinctively not go after the would-be mother.
It's an instinct.
It's part of how you think.
He having, for lack of a better word, wait, who does the pro-lifer go after?
The doctor or anybody that would help perform an illegal abortion.
Why?
The doctor didn't do the abortion.
I mean, the doctor's just following up on a woman's decision to do it.
How come the woman gets because it's not unlike assisted suicide in that it's the doctor or any individual that would help a woman perform an illegal abortion?
They are the ones going into the woman's body to cause death.
Oh.
So it's just, and again, I think it's an instinct that if you asked, you know, somebody who, you know, truly embraces pro-life relative to abortion, they would naturally fall to that.
That, no, you wouldn't go after the woman in that situation.
You go after whomever is abortion itself.
And the reason Trump did, I tried to explain to you why he did.
Now, your assumption is that he's a phony pro-lifer, that he's really not pro-life, but he has to be in his mind because he's running for the Republican nomination, and it's one of these identifiers.
I mean, if you're a Republican, you better be pro-life or you don't have a prayer.
So Trump's got to go out there and fake it.
That's your theory, right?
Right.
And he can't fake it well because he doesn't believe it.
And so I endeavored to explain to you today how he ends up doing that given his environment and so forth.
In fact, I have to tell you something.
I got a call from the people at the Sullivan group last night, the Sullivan, the opinion auditing firm.
They wanted to up my opinion last night simply based on the way I dealt with all of this yesterday.
And I said, no, I can't let you do it.
We're not going to have any abrupt changes in the process.
It'd be nice.
I would appreciate the bump in the opinion accuracy rating, but I'm not going to do one of these spontaneous things like this, no matter how impressed you were.
And I refused it.
And we're back.
Rushlin Boy here in the Cutting Edge Societal Evolution.
This is Mike in Columbia, South Carolina.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you.
Hey, Rush.
I've been listening to you for a long time, and you've always said you would just be objective, not endorse candidates, not take sides.
Well, this latest Trump comment on abortion to me is just the latest thing that shows he's just out of his league here.
He's not ready for this.
Look back.
He didn't even know what the nuclear triad was.
He thinks Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia need to all nuke up and take care of it themselves.
I mean, to me, it's just very simple.
I mean, the fact that he had to retract it so fast, I mean, like you said, and I agree with you with the Chris Matthews and the gotcha and the George Stephanopoulos, and I get that.
But, Rush, come on, being objective here.
I look to you as a source of common sense, and it just seems to me you just make him, Rush, you practically spent the last hour and a half just trying to explain this thing and slice it and dice it 87 ways to Sunday.
I don't care who he hangs out with.
I don't care if he's not political.
I mean, it's almost, and Rush, I love your show.
Wait a second.
Just recently, it's almost like you're going so far out of your way and almost doing backslips and cartwheels to defend Trump.
It's just, it's a turnoff at this point.
I'm not defending Trump.
I'm trying to answer.
You just said some things.
Let me ask you some questions.
You just remind everybody that Trump doesn't know what the nuclear triad is.
And you went through a whole bunch of things that you are convinced that Trump is a total ignoramazon, doesn't know.
Not total, not totally out of his life.
Trump is an ignoramus or just doesn't know.
Whatever.
The point is, my question to you, why?
Are you not at all curious why he's not losing any supporters because of this?
Well, I go back to one of the previous callers.
He was kind of hitting on the salesman thing.
My humble opinion, I think he's just a big loudmouth.
And you've always talked at such length about how Obama's an empty suit.
That's my opinion of Trump to a certain extent.
He's just out of his league.
I mean, and yes, you're right.
Snurdy.
I look at you.
And I do.
I'm sorry.
Would you try to answer my question?
Because this question I'm asking you is a big explanation for what I'm doing in this whole, not just today's program, but this whole campaign.
Okay.
Now, throughout this entire campaign, everybody has tried every which way they know to separate Trump from his supporters.
Nothing has worked.
Yet I have people calling here and emailing me telling me, Rush, you have got to tell people what a fraud Trump is.
You've got to.
It's too important.
You've got to tell them they're screwing up.
You've got to tell them they've got to abandon Trump.
Everybody and their uncle has tried that.
And all that happens is those people glue themselves tighter to Trump.
No matter what flaw, no matter what ignorant remark, no matter what apparent sign of incompetence, inexperience, no matter what you mention, his support base either grows or stays the same.
Does that not fascinate you?
Does that not make you curious?
I mean, or I know it ticks you off.
I know it makes you curious.
But does it not make you curious at all?
Yes, it does.
Okay.
Then how would you do it?
How would you tell people that they are making a grave error?
How would you tell people that they are putting the country in their hands and they're about to destroy the whole thing because they're supporting a know-nothing?
They're supporting an empty, vacuous salesman who really doesn't care about them and can't do 90% of what he's promising to do.
What would you do to separate them from him?
Well, Rush, you have explained it very well, and today's not the first time about how no matter what he does or what he says, I thought you just accused me of making excuses for him and supporting him and whatever.
Now you're telling me I'm doing it the right way.
No, you explained Trump's voters.
You said you didn't want to hear about that, though.
I had to listen to an hour and a half of you two.
I don't care about he's a salesman.
Okay, so I'm asking you.
This is what I deal with every day.
You want me to destroy Trump, essentially.
You want me to destroy his candidacy.
You want me, Rush, we've counted on you.
We've depended on you.
And you're not telling people the truth about they know.
They can hear just like you can hear.
They see he doesn't know what the triad is.
Doesn't matter.
Do you think how many of Trump's supporters do you think know that there is no way on earth that he can make Apple transfer manufacturing the iPhone to the United States?
How many of his supporters do you think know that?
I think his supporters, and kind of for different reasons, are kind of like Obama's, what do you call them, well-information people to a certain extent.
And it's just those people, listen, now that we've narrowed it down, it just seems that people are starting to wake up.
And the non-Trump vote, the more it's not getting split, you know, 16 people.
Now it's down to one, I guess, two if you count Kasich.
But I just think, listen, I didn't call here today.
Snardly, what he said I was about to say in the positions I have, I said, well, that's not really right.
That's kind of how he read me.
And I was a little worked up when I called in.
But, Rush, the frustrating thing to me is how much time you spent today.
Okay, so you say you weren't defending him.
Okay, I'm not going to argue with that.
But to try to look at this from so many different angles and psychoanalyze this and Trump's coming from this, that's what gets old to me.
Do you understand that this man might end up being the nominee of the Republicans?
Okay.
Do you not have, I guess you're just not as curious as I am.
These things are endlessly fascinating to me.
I have spent however many years doing this radio, I have been unable in mass numbers to separate Democrat voters from their stupid support of their candidates.
I can't separate a mind-numb robot that loves Obama from Obama.
I've tried.
It happens.
I mean, over the course of years, you'll hear people call here and say, I was a liberal until I heard your show, but that doesn't happen en masse.
And I have been studying this the entire time I've been doing this program.
What is it that gloms people to other candidates?
What is it that makes them loyal to an ideology, to a party?
Is it personal?
What is it?
I've explored it because, like you, I wish everybody who supported Democrats would abandon them.
My objective, and I've said, I don't know how many times, the objective here throughout this whole campaign, wherever we end up, is to beat Hillary Clinton.
And that's what motivates me, animates me, informs me, and energizes me.
That's where this is all headed.
Everything else is a distraction.
It's all got to be about beating Hillary Clinton.
Whoever the nominee is, you don't have any control over it.
I don't have any control over it.
Nobody else does.
Yet we all try to do what we can to bend and shape things to end up the way we want them.
So we have a circuit.
This is what happened.
You may not look at it this way, but I'm telling you, in terms of the presidential election in November, what happened last night on MSNBC is huge.
It is huge.
And if you don't recognize it because you're so opposed to Trump and you're so dissuaded by Trump and you're so angry or whatever, what happened last night is major in a damaging way.
In a hugely damaging way.
Because what happened last night was, you know, if any crossovers, Democrats thinking of crossing over, here comes this war on women thing.
Last night, this was, and it needn't have happened.
It's all based on a phony premise, a phony hypothetical question based on a reality that will never be reality.
But the ammunition that gave Democrats last night, I can't tell you how it's rejuvenated them.
And I also can't tell you what it's done to the Republican leadership.
They're running around quaking in their boots now.
These people are already sitting there in a total defensive posture as their natural existence anyway.
They're afraid of the media.
They're afraid of this issue.
They're afraid of social issues.
They're afraid of racism.
They're afraid of all of this stuff.
And now here it's reared their heads, and they're no more equipped to deal with it than Trump is.
And it's a major, major problem.
And so I'm simply trying to explain to people what it was and how it happened in a small way to try to diminish the effectiveness of it for the Democrats.
You think I'm defending Trump.
You think I'm not helping Cruz.
What I'm trying to do is limit the damage it's done to us and to prevent the Democrats getting a big score out of it.
Because my whole point here is to defeat Democrats, defeat liberalism.
That's the destructive force.
This thing in a half-life, you may not want to hear an hour and a half about it, but I'm telling you what happened last night was huge in terms of rejuvenating the Democrats.
They were moribund.
They were falling asleep.
They were depressed.
They don't have a candidate they could give a damn about.
They're excited.
Not at all.
Their turnout is nothing.
Now they're energized.
I'm simply trying to do what little I can to limit the damage of what happened last night.
Now, if you want to sit there and keep defending Trump, could you expand the way you're looking at this a little bit?
You've got 27 years experience with me behind the golden EIB microphone.
Why do you think I would sell out in six months?
What evidence is there that that would ever happen?
I'll be back a little long in this segment.
Don't go away.
EIB Network and the Lindborne Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
No matter how you analyze that, it's true, by the way.
Here's Derek in Alexandria, Virginia.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
A strong Republican, lifelong conservative.
And I guess I come from a typical Republican family this election cycle where my brother supports Trump, my sister supports Cruz, and I support Kasich.
And I guess I'm wanting to upset you from the master school meet today on where I'm wrong concerning Kasich because I agree with what you said to the previous caller that the sole mission is defeating Hillary Clinton.
100%.
And I come from the standpoint that I understand the support for Trump, and I understand why people are behind him, but he talks about making deals and doing good deals for America and being what's right for America.
And I get all that.
I understand why all the Cruz supporters support him because of the true conservative.
I guess what I don't understand, and hope that you'll help me understand, is how is Kasich not a conservative?
And he seems to be discounted, and I realize he's only won his state, and he's certainly a long shot.
But my question is: if you look at his record and his accomplishments, both working on defense while he was in Congress, helping to get a balanced budget for the country, and then what he's done in Ohio, how is he not qualified as a conservative?
And how is he not well positioned to beat Hillary Clinton, which I totally agree with you, is our sole mission come November.
Well, the last question first: John Kasich has been running for the Republican presidential nomination since when did Kasich get it?
He's been in this since June, July.
Has he been in it since the beginning?
Yeah, he was late getting in.
When did he get in?
September, October.
When did he get what?
He didn't get in just three weeks ago.
When did he get in this thing?
The fact that I can't even remember ought to tell you something.
When did he get into this?
I'm not sure.
Kasich gets in an opening.
Do you know when he got into it?
When did he get into it?
I don't know.
Okay.
But he was late.
Nobody.
It was so uneventful when he announced it.
Nobody can remember when it was.
That's number one.
Number two, since whenever it was he got in, nobody's voted for him.
He hasn't, in order to win, you have to get votes.
You've got to get more votes than anybody else.
He hasn't.
He has barely, he hadn't been able to raise anywhere near the amount of money that other candidates have.
I mean, I mean, the bare basic ingredients and definition of political success, he hasn't even gotten close.
See, he got July 21st, he announced.
July 21st.
And he was in this for so long, and you didn't even know it.
Number two, yeah, he was part of the Republican freshman class in 1994 that went in there, and they did great things.
They balanced the budget, and they, for a year and a half, two years, they were smoking.
But most of them are gone now.
Most of that freshman class is gone.
They stopped teaching and espousing conservatism when they got into office.
They made a mistake of thinking the country had become conservative, and that's why they won.
And so they just assumed that everything they were for, people were going to unanimously or close to unanimously support.
Wasn't the case.
Much of what got them elected was a protest vote against corrupt Democrats and a desire for just change.
Democrats had run the place for 40 years.
The point I'm leading to is Kasich's not the same guy that he was when he chaired the budget committee to balance the budget.
He's not the same conservative.
He used to come to my office with Frank Launch.
They talk about messaging and all kinds of stuff.
Kasich is now He's doing the best impression of a sensitive soul, do-good or liberal, of anybody in the Republican primaries.
I don't know about the Ohio economy outside of fracking, discovering oil, what else there is.
I don't dislike Kasich.
I just think he is a guy who got there and was one of us kind of conservative.
And over the course of years, he, well, I don't know how he turned.
He relaxed.
He moderated.
He became more moderate.
And now he refers to himself as a conservative and what he does as somehow representing conservative values, but he doesn't talk conservatism.
He used to be able to match witch with Newt Gingrich.
I mean, he and Newton, the boys, I mean, they were, that was a, Boehner too.
I mean, if you want to know what happened to Kasich, look at Boehner.
It's the same thing.
Same state, by the way.
He's not, he hasn't demonstrated that he can appeal to a mass national electorate.
I don't want to go too much farther because he's not going to, well, I'll tell you what he's banking on.
He's banking on this thing going to a contested convention, and he's banking on the Republican establishment choosing him.
And that's conservatism and the Republican establishment, they don't overlap.
It's about the best I can tell you.
Look, folks, John Kasich epitomizes the, I'm the guy to cross the aisle and work with the Democrats, Republican.
He said that he would happily serve as the Democrats' vice president, or he might even choose a Democrat as his running mate if we were to get the nomination.
The Democrat Party is not the opposition to him.
And they are to me.
The Democrat Party defeating a Democrat's all this is about to me.
And John Kasich doesn't sound like that big a deal to him.
Rather get along with him.
That's a mistake.
▲
Export Selection