All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:41
May 17, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your official EIB anchor baby.
Honoured to be here from Ice Station EIB in far northern New Hampshire.
The piece of wet string goes all the way down to the Connecticut River and comes out in New York City where Mike and Mr. Snerdley are running the show.
But we're up here in the last bit of America before it bleeds into the province of Quebec.
If you're fleeing the country, do swing by and say hi.
You can't miss us.
We've got a big sign on the highway saying last Rush guest host before the border.
Rush is at a charity golf tournament and he will be back tomorrow.
1-800-282-2882.
I'd love to hear from anyone, regardless of who they support.
So you're pro-Trump, you're pro-Hillary, you're pro-Bernie, you're pro-the mysterious third-party candidate, General Mattis, Condi Rice, Ben Sasse, whoever it is.
What's his name?
Mark Cuban, because the best way to beat Trump is with a businessman who's to the left of Trump, whatever it is.
1-800-282-2882.
I'm happy to.
And the pundit class on the right, it's all dividing into hatred.
So let's take it as red that we all hate each other and go there.
Yeah, well, that's true, Mr. Surley.
A pundit doesn't have to run anything.
A pundit can make a living from kind of philosophical purity.
But it's tougher if you have to live out there in the real world.
And that's why I don't think this third-party thing is going to go anywhere, because I think these fellas are generals without armies.
I don't think Mike Murphy, the big consultant, represents anybody except his donors.
And that isn't enough to turn the vote in one single zip code in a swing county in Ohio.
It doesn't really make any difference.
There's not enough to get this third-party thing going.
But I will say this, because I saw that Marco Rubio had this sort of strange late-night Twitter storm yesterday.
He'd been reported in the Washington Post as a guy who'd said he was never going to be Donald Trump's vice president.
And it was one of these stories where sources close to Rubio said this, and friends of Rubio said that, and an unnamed person close to the Rubio campaign said this.
And the upshot of it was that all these unknown people had said that Rubio was not going to be Trump's vice president.
And Rubio went into a strange mocking rant on Twitter, mocking all these unnamed people close to Rubio who claim to know what Rubio is thinking.
And he was doing all these parody tweets of this kind of reporting.
A source close to Rubio says he was tired after a long day and has decided to sleep for a few hours.
A longtime friend says Rubio is betwixt and between when it comes to whether to do chest or legs tomorrow at the gym.
According to a source who knows Rubio's cousin's wife's dentist, Rubio might do cardio instead.
He was doing this whole little teasing thing hinting that the real Rubio has not ruled out becoming Trump's vice president.
As I said, just here among the guest hosts, we've got all kinds of views on this.
Eric Erickson is one of the leaders of this Never Trump movement.
He's one of the people trying to find a third-party candidate.
Mark Belling is slightly more precariously on the anti-Trump fence and at least to my ears gave the indication he may be willing to fall off the fence and into the manure Menure of the mainstream Republican support before the day is done.
And Rush, and I might as well do this because I'm going to disagree slightly with Rush here.
And so I might not even get an invite to the next EIB guest host Christmas party.
But, you know, here's my problem.
I talked about how beyond ideology, beyond philosophy, beyond their positions on the issues, a candidate has to be a human being and connect with voters in a real, meaningful way.
And Trump clearly does that, whatever you feel, whatever you feel about him.
And his issue, one of the criticisms of him, in fact, is that he's such a strong personality that you don't really know how committed he is to these issues, because he could take one position one day and another position the next, and he connects to enough people that they're with him anyway.
But the fact is, he had a real issue.
He had a real issue with this Mexican wall thing and then with his ban on Muslim immigration.
For example, the ban on Muslim immigration, the exit polls on the night of the New Hampshire primary showed that 70% of voters agreed with him on the Muslim ban.
In other words, a big bunch of people who voted for Jeb Bush and John Kasich and Marco Rubio and all these other fellas agreed with him.
Nevertheless, agreed with Trump on the Muslim ban.
Yet the view of the establishment was that this is cloud cuckoo land.
He's crazy.
He's so out of it.
This is nuts.
In other words, a position held by 70% of the Republican voting base is nuts.
So there are issues, but whatever the issue is, you need to be able to connect with people in order to sell it.
What's dangerous about Bernie Sanders is not that he's a socialist, but that he's a socialist who connects with people, with huge numbers of people.
Otherwise, he'd just be like a goofy, fringy guy like that Dennis Kucinich guy.
But in fact, he's a huge inspiration to people.
He connects with them.
And that's what makes him dangerous, not just to Hillary, but to the rest of us who don't want America to be a supersized Venezuela, because that's where Bernie Sanders leads.
Burlington College, run by Bernie's wife, is going out of business next week.
It's closing down because it's as broke as Venezuela.
It's the Venezuela of American colleges.
And the Bernie Sanders, Mrs. Bernard Sanders, did that to Burlington College, all but single-handed.
She was the Hugo Chavez of Burlington College.
And that's why Burlington College is going out of business next week.
So that's what makes him dangerous.
Not that he's a socialist, but that he's a socialist who connects with people.
And I'm going to say something here.
And I'm just going to, I was reading a piece by Amanda Carpenter, who writes at conservativereview.com.
And Amanda Carpenter used to be Ted Cruz's speechwriter.
She knows Ted Cruz very well, knows Ted Cruz very, very well.
If you read the National Enquirer, she knows him extremely well.
But that's apparently all nonsense.
And so we just know that she is a speechwriter for Ted Cruz.
And she's writing at conservativereview.com.
And she's talking.
I read this piece a couple of days ago, and it resonated.
It fit my own experience of Ted Cruz.
He's a very sharp mind.
He's an extremely sharp mind.
I've quoted him favorably on this show before when he did his pushback against the Sierra Club guy who didn't know anything.
And Ted Cruz did that merciless prosecutorial thing where he made the Sierra Club guy look like a complete boob in this Senate committee.
And it was brilliant, merciless, forensic cross-examination.
He's extremely sharp like that.
That's Ted Cruz at his best.
Another example of Ted Cruz at his best was when he pushed back on the CNB against the CNBC guys in that debate.
And he did this brilliant recapitulation of all the idiotic questions that the candidates had had to waste their time with.
And it was absolutely brilliant.
It was a brilliant 45 seconds of television.
It was the takeaway of that debate.
It was Ted Cruz's finest moment in that debate.
But Amanda Carpenter, who was his speechwriter, says that Ted Cruz's problem is that he's a very good speaker, but he doesn't give good speeches.
And she said, let me explain.
And then she went on to explain.
Now, she wrote this just a few days ago, a day or two before the Indiana primary.
And she gave as her example his introduction of Carly Fiorina.
This was his supposed Hail Mary pass.
He was going to do something that nobody does, which he was going to announce his vice president before he'd got the nomination.
And all he needed to do was get there and fuse the crowd.
whip them up about Carly Fiorina, get off the stage and let her take it from there.
He took 33 minutes to introduce Carly Fiorina, as Amanda Carpenter notes.
And she says the words that came out of his mouth were good, but there were so many of them with no clear beginning, point and conclusion.
Rather, it was a rambling list of arguments Cruz felt he should make.
There was no story for listeners to follow at all.
And that rang a bell with me because I saw Ted Cruz on the night of the Iowa caucus.
He won.
He denied, Donald Trump had been telling us he was going to roll the board.
He was going to run the board.
He was going to win everything.
He was going to be unstoppable.
He was going to win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and it's over.
And Ted Cruz denied him that.
On the first vote in the primary season, Ted Cruz won.
And what did he do?
He gave an utterly terrible, rambling speech.
The first glimpse that real voters had had of him on nationwide television in the formal beginning of the campaign.
And he gave a terrible speech.
And I've heard him give a good speech.
There was a big, big conservative conference in Washington, and Cruz spoke and he walked around the stage.
He didn't use prompters.
He didn't use notes.
He had good lines and an important line, too.
He said, he quoted Mrs. Thatcher's line, first you win the argument, then you win the election.
And what he was doing on that Iowa night, he wasn't making the argument.
He wasn't even going anywhere near the argument.
He talked about it in process terms as how he was bringing together a coalition of Reagan Democrats and evangelicals and independents.
And he was talking about it as if he was in the back room with his campaign guys putting together a focus group.
It was as if for a speech introducing Ted Cruz on the national stage as a presidential candidate, it was ridiculous.
He needed a speech that, as Amanda Carpenter says, with an arc, with a story.
It's like building a beautiful home and then putting all the studs and the plumbing and the insulation on the outside.
Because that's what you're doing.
When you're explaining about how you're putting together a coalition of Reagan Democrats and evangelicals and independents, that's the equivalent of the studs and the plumbing and the insulation.
And on top of that is supposed to be this beautiful story about where you're going to take the nation.
And that's what he never did.
And if you go back and look at the speeches that Ronald Reagan gave, Reagan didn't talk in process terms like that.
He didn't talk, he didn't even actually talk about, quote, conservatism, unquote, that much.
When he was in election mode, he talked about the government and the people, the people's relation to the government, the people's relation to economic opportunity.
He talked about where you live and your life.
And I'm sorry, but that was that last major speech of his, taking 33 minutes to introduce Carly Fiorina.
Rush complained about one of Cruz's speeches after whatever primary it was.
And that's the thing.
In the end, he had these opportunities.
He was a guy who was on message in terms that he rarely, I interviewed him on Fox.
He never, even with a friendly interview, he didn't want to move off his talking points.
Only at the end when we did a little bit of joking about his girls being in a campaign ad with him.
But even with a friendly interviewer, he didn't want to move off his talking points.
With Trump, you never know what he's going to say.
Trump will, one moment, you put him on air on Tuesday and he attacks John Kasich as the ugliest eater of pizza in the history of the Republic.
And then you put him on air on Wednesday and he's going on about Ted Cruz's father being on the grassy knoll in Dallas.
You have no idea what he's going to say.
Cruz stuck to his talking points and yet never constructed those talking points into a great narrative connecting with people where they live.
And I'm sorry, but that's part of the reality of it.
That's part of the reality.
In the end, what matters is whether the candidate connects with the people as a human being.
Mark Stein for Rush, however you feel.
Cruz, Trump, Hillary Barney, we take your calls, and we'll have more straight ahead.
Hey, Mark Stein, in for us on the EIB network.
Let us go to Robert in Raleigh, North Carolina, the song of the Bathroom Wars.
Good to be with you, Robert.
What's on your mind today?
Yes, sir.
I know you're up against the hard breaks, but I'll be quick.
The third party started with Bill Cristo, Eric Erickson, Nick Romney, and Ben Sasse.
I made a phone call to the GOP headquarters in Nebraska.
And, you know, of course, you know, Saturday they voted like 400 to 8 to reprimand Senator Sash for his collusion on this third-party nonsense.
Well, also, they said that they are getting some calls now for people interesting in getting Senator Sass recalled.
People are inquiring about that.
Now, I don't want to start rumors about it, but I made the call myself to confirm that.
And they say they are starting to get some calls about that.
And I just wanted to know your thoughts on that.
Yeah, it's interesting.
Essentially, we've had Bernie Sanders, who isn't a Democrat, running in the Democratic Party.
And then we have Donald Trump doing a similar thing in the Republican Party to the point where, again, I said this as a joke, I think, last August.
In the end, the Republican Party will be going third party.
Ben Sasse is a Republican.
I think he's 44 years old.
And he looks, he's a young 44, like Marco Rubio.
He's got this boyish mean.
And there's nothing for him, even if he opposes.
He's opposed to Donald Trump, and that's an issue between him and his party.
But if he takes it to the next level, if he were to respond to Bill Crystal, Robert, and to Eric Erickson and actually run as a third-party candidate, the Nebraska GOP has pretty much told him the way they feel about it.
He's elected on a Republican ticket to represent the state of Nebraska.
And Republicans in the state of Nebraska at this convention do not want him flirting with third-party things.
And this is, for a start, nobody knows who.
We're having a slightly faintly surreal conversation here.
It's interesting to me that you in Raleigh, North Carolina got so interested in this, you called the Nebraska GOP.
And good for you, getting your facts from the ground.
But most people don't know, have no idea who Ben Sasse is.
He's a first-term senator.
He's just been in office two years.
Yeah, yeah.
And the idea that you're saying that suddenly you're saying, no, no, this guy, this guy who's never run for president, we don't know anything about him, but his tweets show that he's the right stuff.
He's written seven or eight really robust tweets that are terrific.
Let's get him.
He's going to be the president.
He's our candidate for president.
Mike Murphy, we can get $100 million.
We can get attack ads demonizing Ben Sasse's opponents, and we're going to make this guy president.
Ben Sasse isn't good.
Unless Ben Sasse is totally out of his tree, he's not going to entertain this for a moment.
He's 44 years old, and he's a senator.
So if he's like most senators, he's going to be there like Robert C. Byrd and Strom Thurmond until he's 108, because that's the way it is in the United States Senate.
So he's at the beginning of a 70-year career in the United States Senate and beyond.
And he knows that somewhere down the line, 15, 20 years, it might be time to run for president.
But he would be destroying his career completely, Robert, if he were to go along with this.
And his party has told, that's why they have to keep going to Condi Rice.
You know, Condi Rice is a delightful, charming woman, but she's never run for school board.
She's never run for cemetery commissioner.
She's never run for dog catcher.
The idea that you can suddenly anoint Condi Rice as a presidential candidate or General Mattis, nobody knows what his views on domestic policy are.
And the only thing we know about the last 15 years is that waging war with a bunch of crazy jihadist guys is a lot more complicated than it seemed in the year 2001.
But somehow that guy will be the candidate that everybody wants.
This isn't going anywhere.
And that's the message that the Nebraska Republican Party wanted to send to the GOP.
Robert got it from the source.
He's in Raleigh, North Carolina, but he went and called the Nebraska GOP to find out about Ben Sas for himself.
Yes, in my book, After America, which came out a couple of years ago, I had a line in there that said, you don't need a president for life if you've got a bureaucracy for life.
And that is the situation in which the United States, like a lot of other Western countries, finds itself, where regardless of who you nominally elect to the legislature, the bureaucracy goes ahead and, in effect, legislates in the shadows.
And you see examples of that everywhere.
For example, the big transgendered bathroom message that Obama sent to every schoolhouse in the country.
You know, nice little elementary school you got here.
Shame if anything were to happen to it.
Nobody passed, there were supposed to be 14,000 school districts in this country, and they should theoretically have the right to set their own rules and codes and all budgets and all the rest of it.
But the centralized government in Washington is telling them how to behave.
And here's a good example of that to tell us about it: Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government.
You can't argue with a name like that.
If you're going to represent an organization, that's a hell of a brand to have.
Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government.
And this example of the overbearing bureaucracy effectively legislating beyond the grasp of the voters comes from HUD, Housing and Urban Development, Rick.
Hi, Rick.
Are you there?
John.
The Housing Urban Development has a regulation that would effectively allow the federal government to overturn local zoning rules to allow for them to place government-subsidized high-rise low-income apartments in the middle of single-family neighborhoods, paying no attention to local zoning, paying no attention to the infrastructure.
None of those decisions that are made at local level simply because they look at a census map, simply because they say, listen, we don't believe that there's enough racial mixed disparity here.
We think there's too many white people, too many Asians, too many African Americans, too many Hispanics in this neighborhood.
So consequently, we are going to place low-income housing in the middle of your neighborhood.
In fact, in Westchester County, they've even gone so far as to say that single-family homes with quarter-acre lots may in fact be discriminatory.
That's how far they are going with this regulation.
The good news, Mark, is Mike Lee, Senator Mike Lee, has got an amendment on the Senate floor this week that would in fact defund the implementation of this amendment.
And that's the first time we've got it on the Senate floor, and we have a chance to stop Obama in his tracks on this attempt to take over our local zoning.
But just to be clear on what's at stake, as you said, in Westchester County, New York State, the edge of New York City, they have a zoning ordinance about minimum lot size, which is common in a lot of parts of the country.
In my corner of New Hampshire, there are some towns where you have things like 50-acre minimum lot size because it's like rural zoning out in the middle of the hills and things.
And you're saying that some guy nobody knows in HUD in Washington is basically looking at the demographic makeup and saying, well, your town is insufficiently Hispanic or insufficiently African American.
And so what we want to do, and so the zoning, the lot size, the size of the homes, single-family homes, they have discriminatory impacts.
And so on a civil rights basis, we're now assuming the right to tell you that in a residential cul-de-sac of single-unit homes, you have to have some low-income housing projects at the end of the cul-de-sac.
That's basically the scheme as they're laying it out in Washington.
That is exactly, that's well stated.
You know, there's a doctrine that's prevalent in the Obama administration.
It's a disparate impact doctrine.
And what it says is that you don't have to show that there was actually any racial discrimination at all.
Instead, all you have to show is that if you look at a map or you look at the impact, that in fact, based simply on where people choose to live, that racism exists because not enough people of a different ethnicity happen to live in that neighborhood.
Mark, zoning laws, building houses, all those kinds of things, those are neutral acts.
Those are not racial acts.
People make independent choices as to whether or not to live in those units and where they want to live.
We recognize there's income disparity, there's income differences.
But to try to say that a zoning ordinance itself is, in fact, racist simply because it ends up where people who are white happen to live in a neighborhood and people who are black happen to live in another area.
It doesn't mean that people who are African American don't have the ability to live in the area with white neighborhoods.
It simply means that those are choices made.
And by trying to make this change through a census map and a vision of a racially of using race as a means for fundamental transformation, they are effectively usurping the most basic local controls.
And the people need to stand up and tell the Senate that they won't stand for it.
And this regulation needs to be defunded.
And the Senate needs to support the Mike Lee bill.
One place they can go to learn more is at Obamazone.org, which has a lot of the details on it so they can read and find out what's going on.
Obamazone.org.
Yes, sir.
I want to ask you where other senators are on this, because this isn't a fringe thing where you can argue about whether it should be done at the municipal or the county or the state or the federal level, like a lot of these topics.
This is actually the bedrock of what towns do, which is the zoning ordinance in their neighborhood.
They live there.
They know what is best for the neighborhoods.
They decide.
It's often a contentious issue.
People go to zoning committee meetings and they argue these things to get an exemption for this or that or whatever.
But it's all done in Smallville or wherever it happens to be, and they're doing it right there in town.
In other words, this is the bedrock municipal responsibility.
And if this is taken away, then there really is no federalism anymore.
There's just a centralized national authority, surely.
You hit the nail on the head.
I was a town councilman in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, which is a small town on the western shore of Maryland.
And that was the single most contentious issue we ever dealt with was zoning.
And people would come and would have different ideas on how things should be zoned and what should be placed where, whether a development should be allowed in a different area, and all those kind of compromises and talking it through and working it out to try to make, and that's how the character of a neighborhood, character of a community evolves.
It's a long-term process, making sure that you have infrastructure.
You know, are the schools overcrowded?
What do you do about roads and stoplights and all those kinds of things?
And those are all decisions that are made at the most local level where the person who's your neighbor is coming up to you and saying, hey, wait a second, guy, we need this done.
There's no distance in this.
And yet, this is the thing that we want to now, that Obama now wants to take and say, well, you know, we really think somebody looking at a census map and HUD in D.C. knows better what should happen in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland than the people who are getting elected by their neighbors to make those decisions.
And that's just, it goes fundamentally to what our vote means.
It goes fundamentally to what we're supposed to be as a country.
And if you allow President Obama to get away with this, there will be no reason for there to be local government because in fact, everything will be tied to the federal strings of the money that flows to local governments and the capacity of the federal government to tell that local government what to do.
Well, you're absolutely right about that because it has a knock-on impact on everything else that local government does.
Because if you've got single-unit housing and then you put an apartment block housing 100 low-income people at the end of the street, you've got to suddenly you've got to upgrade the road for the increased traffic and you've got to lay on buses if they don't have any means of transportation.
It affects everything.
But it's what it is, Richard, is it's a denial of the basic principle of a federal society that power should be exercised at its lowest viable level.
That's what Tocqueville admired when he saw the he thought the town government that he saw in New England two centuries ago in Jacksonian American was the best system of government ever devised by man.
And Obama is saying we can't afford that now because of disparate impact.
It's all got to be done by the Commissar of Housing in Washington.
Where are the other senators?
I mean, Mike Lee's, is Mike Lee's bill going to pass?
Well, it's really up in the air.
We've been fighting to get a vote on this in the House or in the Senate for years.
It has passed the House twice and with support from its people as broad as Paul Gosar is pretty conservative to Peter King, who's less so.
So we have a broad consensus across the House and across the Republican side on the Senate side.
You have Marco Rubio, you have Ted Cruz, who are both supporting Mike Lee's position.
The challenge is there's a pervasive idea in the Senate that if President Obama might veto something because a Lee amendment is on it, then the Senate shouldn't do it.
And we have to tell those senators that do the right thing.
This is good policy.
And let's force President Obama to defend that policy.
Because if you just give in because you're afraid he might veto an appropriations bill, then you might as well just go home and pack up the bags because just let him write the appropriations bill because you have usurped your basic Article I authority.
And by taking away your Article rights to fund the things in governments that you want to fund and not fund those things you don't want to fund because you're afraid of President Obama, that's no way to represent the American people and the voters should have their say.
So it's a tough vote.
I'm not going to lie to you, Mark.
It is a tough vote.
A lot of people are concerned about an Obama veto.
Truth be told, I don't know if he has issued a veto threat on it.
But right now, what those senators need to do is they need to do the right thing for their constituents, the right thing for the Constitution, and let Obama let this game play out.
We can pass this in the House.
We can put it on Obama's desk.
And let's see if he's going to veto a housing bill because he doesn't like his dispurred impact theory being blown up and being sent back and defunded for a year.
Let's see if he does it.
Let's challenge him and force him to do that, and then we can go and reconsider.
But let's force him to make that move as opposed to surrendering right now.
Yeah, thanks for putting it that way, Richard.
That's absolutely right.
Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government, and Mike Lee is pushing back against what is in effect an attempt by the central government of the United States to determine the character of homes in every municipality in the country by saying, oh, if you've only got single-family units, that's not good enough.
You've got to put low-income housing units in it.
That's absolutely ridiculous in a nation of 300 million.
And as Rick said, if the Senate doesn't want to take a stand on this, then they might as well all go home.
You know how the New York Times tweeted the news of the transgendered bathroom instruction?
They said the Obama administration will issue a decree on transgender access to restrooms.
That's how the New York Times, the paper of record, put it.
The Obama administration will issue a decree.
King Barack in Barackingham Palace issues a decree on transgendered bathrooms, a decree on lot size in zoning administrations across the country.
You don't need a Senate.
You don't need a House of Representatives if you've got King Barak just issuing decrees.
So get on your senators and your congressmen on this thing and make sure that Mike Lee has some support to allow local government still to do its core function here.
Mark Stein for us, more to come.
Hey, it's the season of proms across America.
I love this heartwarming story.
This is Sam Steingard of Washington, D.C. He couldn't get a date for the prom, so he took his cat Ruby to the prom.
And there's pictures of Ruby dressed up for the prom in a bow tie.
I don't know why Ruby isn't in a prom dress, but apparently Ruby favors a bow tie.
So this guy took his cat Ruby to the prom.
If you're taking a cat to your prom, they're happening right now in the next couple of weeks, and you can't get a date, you're taking your cat, then make sure that the band or the disc jockey plays selections.
I'm the only EIB guest host who has made a cat album.
It's called Feline Groovy.
And make sure if you're taking your cat to the prom, because it's embarrassing for the cat if the cat gets there and they're just playing Katy Perry and Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus.
The cat won't dig that.
The cat wants to hear my cat album.
It's called Feline Groovy.
And if you're taking your cat to the prom, make sure that the disc jockey knows to play feline groovy.
And the cat will dance great and you will win the prom king, prom queen thing.
And you'll have a terrific night.
And when you're having dinner afterwards and she's saying, well, can you splash out for the wet food rather than these dry pellets?
Be in a great mood, and you'll be happy to do that as long as they're playing My Cat album when you take your cat to the prom.
Mr. Snadley made another point about this attempt to control zoning ordinances across the entire country.
That as far as the Obama administration is concerned, it's a way of importing Democrats into Republican areas.
So they're basically saying, you know, we're going to move Democrat voters into your block.
It's the equivalent of the great migrations that Angela Merkel has brought into Germany.
You know, you've got a nice little Republican cul-de-sac here, and they're going to bring in 200 Democrats and put them at the end of the street.
And that's their object: to turn red suburbs into blue suburbs.
Because one of the features of the American map is that if you look at so-called red states, blue states, a lot of these so-called blue states are basically red states with a couple of big blue cities in them.
And the Democrats are figuring out ways that they can use these zoning ordinances to, in effect, blue some of these red suburbs.
There's always method to what these guys are thinking about.
They never stop thinking about it.
They work 24/7.
They're beavering away, and we have to be as good as them and we have to be alert to them and we have to match them.
We have to be alert to every little crummy, nothing little regulation that they're proposing to change coming out of some corner of the vast federal bureaucracy because there's method to all this stuff.
And the method is what Obama promised us: fundamental transformation.
Mark's time for Rush.
More to come.
Well, that three hours flew by, at least from my end of things.
Hope it wasn't too bad for you.
But if you are sick of listening to sinister, unassimilated foreign guest hosts, worry not, because the man himself will return.
▲
Export Selection