All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
August 3, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, sir, Bob.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
El Rushbo, the all-knowing, the all-caring, the all-feeling, the all-sensing, the all-empathizing, the all-everything Maha Rushi, otherwise known as America's real anchorman.
Broadcast excellence the next three hours.
Great to have you here, as always.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Well, we have now learned, ladies and gentlemen, of what I'm calling the Affordable Ransom Act.
The Affordable Ransom Act from Barack Hussein Obama, a smashing success.
If you like your kidnapped victim, we will buy your kidnapped victim.
If you need money fast and you are a foreign government trying to ramp up a nuclear weapons program and further alienate the Middle East and your neighbors, and if you are attempting to snooker the United States in the process,
then simply call Washington and tell them you want the Affordable Ransom Act headquarters, that you have a kidnapped victim, and that you're willing to sell it because our president is into single-payer kidnapping.
The federal government now the central clearinghouse for all kidnappings.
No more private ransom payments are necessary.
The government's even taken over ransom payments.
Can you believe that?
Who would have ever believed eight years ago when we talked about Barack Hussein Obama and wanting to grow the federal government that it would include ransom payments?
Of course, it helps to be a Democrat if you're kidnapped.
It's almost a guarantee that the ransom will be paid.
Could somebody explain to me why Obama is under Iran's thumb?
Seriously now.
Why do we give them what they want?
Why does everything Iran want get, do they get?
We even, I think it was Howard Dean.
I meant to mention this yesterday, and it didn't cross my mind in time.
But I think I had the story yesterday, maybe the day before that.
Howard Dean's out there saying that Iran's not really a Muslim country.
Not in the sense that we understand Islam in Muslim country.
You can't categorize Iran that.
Well, we can't.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic, the People's Republic, whatever they call themselves, it's the Islamic Republic.
But it's not really a Muslim country.
Oh.
Well, then that must be why we are so eager to do business with them.
You remember when Obama said, this is back in 2008, in July, then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama, presidential candidate, said, we cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives, we said.
We got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Little did we know that Obama was going to employ the Affordable Ransom Act featuring single-payer kidnapping.
Little did we know the federal government was going to increase in size because it was going to assume all ransom payments.
Now, where do we leave off on this program yesterday?
Oh, I remember.
We were talking about Barack Hussein Obama's excoriating Donald Trump for being unfit for office, for being unsuitable, for maybe even being mentally unfit to hold the office of President of the United States.
What have we learned since yesterday?
We have learned that Barack Hussein Obama secretly paid $400 million to the Iranians for the release of four American Iranian hostages.
And if you want, we can go through the list of all the questionable aspects of the life and times of Barack Hussein Obama, and we can have a plus and minus column, qualified or not, fit or not.
I know the guy's approval nailing is in the 50 to 56 percentage point, but that's largely due to the media not being critical of Obama at all.
And you wonder this story, somebody sent me a note this morning.
I get a note like this from this guy at least two or three times a week.
Can you believe nobody cares about this?
Can you believe that nobody cares that Obama is paying ransom now?
The official policy of the U.S. government, we don't negotiate with terrorists.
We don't pay ransom.
We don't do it.
No, not with Obama.
We do all of that and more.
But he was saying, can you believe it doesn't get a rise out of anybody?
This is outrageous.
This is demeaning and diminishing the United States of America on public display.
And I wrote back and I said, you realize that CNN's not even covering this story?
And the response is, yeah, but nobody watches CNN.
Well, the others aren't covering it much either.
And if they are, they're using the administration line that this was not ransom.
Come on, folks.
Is that the regime is saying, here's John Kirby, Grab Audio Soundbite number one on America's newsroom, Bill Hemmer, who had an interesting comment today about politics, the presidential campaign unrelated to this.
I see if I can remember it here.
Well, I remember it now.
I don't want to forget it in the next 10 minutes.
But Bill Hemmer spoke to the State Department spokesman, John Kirby, about Obama and the Affordable Ransom Act.
$400 million in cash in various currencies.
It was in Euros, Swiss francs, and this is a number of different currencies in exchange for American hostages.
And Hemmer said, you know, the series of events last January, it looks like it's ransom.
It looks like Tehran said you have to give us the money and you have to do it in cash.
We don't pay ransom.
We just don't pay ransom.
It is our policy.
This was not ransom.
Any suggestion that it had anything to do with ransom is absolutely and utterly false.
These were two separate processes run by two separate teams.
Now, yes, they were done simultaneously.
And so I understand the coincidental nature here of the timing, but absolutely had nothing to do with ransom.
It's just a coincidence.
Why didn't we see this ourselves?
Why?
How did we miss this?
It was just coincidence that the Iranians released four American hostages on the same day they get $400 million in cash or must.
Hot damn.
Why?
How did we?
I know the Iranians called it a ransom payment.
You can't trust the Iranians.
Don't, well, because they're the Iranians.
You can't trust anybody but Obama.
Look, Hillary said that she didn't hear James Comey say that she had lied.
She didn't hear that at all.
I'm sorry, Chris, Chris Wallace.
I'm sorry, Chris.
I just didn't hear it that way.
What I heard James Comey say was that the only thing I should have done was had two email addresses.
Other than that, there was nothing to see there.
This guy, Kirby, there's no ransom, but the Iranians are calling it ransom.
Well, you can't trust the Iranians.
Why?
You do.
You trust the Iranians with nuclear material.
You trust the Iranians to help you fulfill whatever policy you have in the Middle East.
You trust the Iranians more than you trust B.B. Nethanyau.
Can anybody doubt about that?
So the Iranians are calling it a ransom.
Kirby said, no, no, no, no.
You people don't know how to watch what you're watching.
You don't know how to understand what you're seeing.
It was just coincidence.
Two totally different teams here.
It's kind of like the video that caused the four American deaths at Benghazi.
Sure, it was the video, except that it wasn't, but they kept insisting.
And the media dutifully played right along.
And right here, there's not, I don't know if you sense in the country people being agitated or getting a rise out of this, but the media is still talking about Kazir Khan and Donald Trump.
You know, if I didn't know better, speaking of that, if I didn't know better, I would think that Tim Kaine's been thrown off the ticket and Kazir Khan has become Hillary's new running mate.
This guy is getting more coverage even than Hillary is getting, which makes sense, because the more Hillary shows up, the worse her numbers get.
And that's the real reason they're spending so much time focusing on Trump is to not have to focus on Hillary.
Believe me, don't doubt me on this.
Now, what Bill Hemmer said, he was talking to the talking to Karl Rove.
And like this, let's see, was it here?
This headline is a good illustration of subject matter.
It's from theHill.com Priebus.
That would be Rince Priebus of the GOP, the RNC.
Rinse Priebus, Giuliani, Gingrich plot Trump intervention.
Top Republicans of political allies of Donald Trump are planning an intervention following a disastrous two days and political firestorm encircling the nominee.
This, according to a report today, the RNC chairman, Rince Priebus, Rudolph Rudy Giuliani, and Newton Newtgingrich are among those looking to talk with the businessman.
Now, didn't we assume they were talking to him every day anyway?
I mean, I thought Newt was an advisor.
I thought Rudy was an advisor.
I certainly thought that the Germany RNC was.
Anyway, they want to do an intervention because it just isn't working.
I mean, he's imploding.
He won't listen to anybody.
This is what they're saying.
He won't listen to anybody.
He's taking everything way too personally.
He's asking people to feel sorry for him.
You don't go anywhere in politics doing that.
So, what this group hopes to do is enlist Trump's children who have proven pivotal in advising the businessman's candidacy in their effort to get Trump to get back on track after days of feuding on Trump's part.
By the way, Chris Christie, this is why he was not named the VP.
Chris Christie is letting it known that he believes the way Trump is dealing with Kazir Khan is inappropriate.
So that's why, that's not a cut on Christie.
Don't misunderstand it.
The role of vice president, you've got to defend the nominee no matter what.
And here Christie is illustrating that he would not have been able to follow through.
Bill Hammer was talking to Karl Rove.
And Rove is probably, like many people, thinking, what in the world is going on?
This guy owned it.
Trump was on top of the world and is now just imploding.
None of what Trump's doing is making any sense.
People are coming up with theories.
Bill Hammer asked Rove a question because Carl was quoting from polling data and basically analyzing this from the standard Inside the Beltway Washington establishment political handbook.
So Hemmer said, Carl, what if we're all wrong about this?
What if the way you see everything that's happening is not the way the people of this country see it?
There's evidence.
There's abundant evidence.
This is Hemmer talking to Rove.
And he wasn't trying to entrap Rove.
It was just a legitimate question.
He's saying, Carl, what if the people in this country are so divorced now from standard, ordinary, everyday politics?
They have such a distaste for it that they have nothing in common with it anymore.
That the way you're looking at this is not at all the way a majority of people in the country are looking at it, and certainly not the way Trump supporters see it.
What are the odds, Carl, that everything in politics is done at 180, has been turned totally upside down, and all of this traditional understanding of politics has to be thrown out the window.
And I didn't get all of Carl's answer.
He, of course, rejected the premise.
Well, there's Khan again.
Gold star father slams Trump for taking metal.
I'm telling you, this guy's out there more than Tim Kaine is out there.
Yeah, a Purple Heart winner gave Trump the medal, and Kazir Khan is profoundly offended by this.
And despite telling everybody he wanted to back out and leave the media, there he is out there.
By the way, shut down his website.
That was our morning update today.
We had a little bit of that before the end of the program yesterday.
He shut down his website and he's denying that he ever had anything to do with selling visas or green cards as a way of getting people immigrated into the country.
So never anything.
In fact, he said, I tried, but I failed.
I didn't succeed at that, so I stepped out of it.
But he's now bashing Trump for accepting this Purple Heart that was offered by the Purple Heart winner as a gift.
So what are the premise?
What do you think of the premise that Hemmer put forth?
That everything's so upside down that the manifestation of that is this.
It looks to standard, ordinary, everyday political operatives like Trump is imploding.
It looks like, oh my God, it's a disaster.
Oh, gee, this guy is just all over the map, doesn't have a message anymore.
But out there, Trump is the vessel for the gazillions of people who are fed up with politics as usual and want no part of it.
And they don't care.
None of this traditional analysis of Trump imploding, Trump blowing it, Trump going off message.
That was the premise behind Hemmer's question.
Because I don't know how he feels about it.
Of course, he's an objective journalist, but you wonder, you know that people in traditional politics are scratching their heads and they have been.
And they are trying.
There's another story here in the stack that another group of Republicans Has launched a brand new effort to find a way to get Trump off the presidential ballot.
And there's a story with a list of new Republicans publicly saying they're voting for Hillary.
And you go through the list, it's not a bunch of big names.
Most of the names you wouldn't know, but they are big in the bowels of the GOP.
There's one elected official, and he's a congressman from New York.
I think his last name is Hannah.
The name added to the list today is Meg Whitman, who was on McCain's shortlist to be vice president.
Always been a rhino or a moderate Republican.
He never has been a conservative.
It's not at all shocking that Meg Whitman would vote for Hillary.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out.
My friends, we're on a roll here, revved up and ready to go, and we'll be right back.
So I checked the email, and I get this question a lot.
Rush, do you have any input in the Trump campaign?
Or Rush, is there anybody you can call?
Or Rush, do you talk to Trump?
The answer is no to all of those three.
I've not reached out to do that.
I do everything I do here, right here behind the golden EIB microphone.
I would, but it hasn't happened.
But look, it's simple what needs to happen here, folks.
I mean, I don't care how you answer the Hemmer question.
I mean, some people would answer the Bill Hemmer question: is politics upside down?
And are we looking at this all wrong?
And are people who are supporting Trump not bothered by this at all?
Who knows?
I do think politics have been turned upside down.
And I do think a lot of the traditional way of analyzing and looking at things is outmoded in this campaign because you can't plug Trump into any of these formulas and blueprints that people use to analyze politics and to succeed in the politics business.
But I think, and again, this is advice that's worth exactly what it's costing Trump, which is nothing.
But I do believe that he's taking way too much of this personally.
And I think the reason he's taking it personally, A, it's his nature.
His whole life has been built on not accepting attacks, not ignoring them.
He answers them.
If somebody goes after him, if somebody tries to take him out, somebody tries to damage him or his business or his family, he doesn't just look the other way and bide his time and come back for him later.
He hits them at that moment.
It's his nature.
Now he's in presidential politics.
His nature is triumphant and dominant, and that's the way he's doing it.
But what he doesn't get is that throwing Kazir Khan and his wife on stage at the Democrat National Committee and any of these other attacks are not personal.
They really aren't.
I mean, Donald Trump is how old?
70 some odd?
60?
I don't know.
His whole life, nobody ever called him a racist.
Nobody ever thought he was.
But now that he's running for president opposite a Democrat, guess what he is?
He's a racist.
But I believe the reason that he takes everything so personally beyond his nature is, and I think I said this Monday, he doesn't have an ideological grounding.
It's just not how he looks at the world or people.
And so when the Democrats trot out people like Khazir Khan and his wife, and they go after Trump, Trump takes it personally and wants to go out and destroy Kazir Khan and so forth.
And it's Hillary.
And Kazir Khan is there as part of a left-wing liberal strategy that has to be beaten back, not the guy personally.
I have a taker.
I have Donald in Ocean City, Maryland, who wants to tackle the Bill Hammer question.
Have at it.
Donald, how are you?
I'm doing fine.
How are you, Rush?
Very well, sir.
Thank you, El Mucho, a little Spanish lingo.
I just want to say that it's very frustrating as a Trump supporter to see what the media does, but I expected that and I continue to expect it.
I think Mr. Trump connects with the average person in America, and I don't at all see any problem with what he's done here.
I just see this as one of the many situations that he's faced going all the way back to the primary campaign in early February.
And I think it'll all blow over.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
What will blow over?
The conn situation with the things that the Democrats are trying to pull here.
She doesn't, Mrs. Clinton doesn't have any issues to run on.
The economy is terrible.
Our foreign policy is in a shambles.
And what they're trying to do is run a campaign of distraction that just won't work with the American on the street.
Well, if you're right, the professional political analysts in Washington are missing it big time because what they see is Mr. Trump imploding.
They see Trump actually losing the election this week.
They see him almost purposely self-destructing.
We've heard that.
They don't understand it.
They can't make sense of it.
They don't know why he's not attacking Hillary.
They don't know why he's not saying what you just said.
I listen to your show regularly, all the time, and I think that you, more than any other personality in the media, has understood Mr. Trump going all the way back when he announced his candidacy.
I do.
No question about it.
I understand this backwards, forwards, upwards, downwards, upside down, inside out.
I know Trump like the back of my hand.
And there's been a lot of situations where the media elite have thought that his campaign was going to blow up.
And within a matter of days or a couple of weeks, it seems to be forgotten about.
Look, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here, but in every one of those instances, Trump's poll numbers remained high, and he was skunking everybody in the Republican primaries.
In this instance, Hillary has got to bounce out of her convention.
She's back on top by a significant number.
Trump is not.
And these people will tell you that he's continuing to lose ground, not closing the gap.
Can I make one final observation with you?
Sure, by all means.
Clinton has always over-polled.
If you go back and look at the 1992 race with President Bush, even though he lost, and in 1996, there was a huge under-poll with...
But he still won.
Look, we've got to face reality here.
Yeah, maybe the Clintons overpolled, but they win.
Bill Clinton's won every ballot he's been on.
So's Hillary.
Did Hillary lose anything?
Well, 08.
She lost nomination in 08.
Might be interesting to study that.
I mean, we think we know why.
But they may underpoll, over-poll or whatever, but they win.
As I say, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket.
And by the way, arguing in your favor, tell me if you think this is relevant, folks, if this meaningful or not.
Hillary and Tim Kaine are not drawing crowds at all, wherever they go.
They literally are not.
I mean, they're showing up in high school gymnasiums, and they're one-third full.
That's why you're not hearing about these rallies.
Hillary and Kaine went on a bus tour at Democrat convention.
You didn't hear about it over the weekends.
Nobody showed up.
And to this day, every Trump rally is overflowing.
And the energy at every Trump rally is hardly containable.
It's electric.
It's you don't see, you know why you don't see it?
You know why the media is not covering those Trump rallies as much as they did?
Besides the fact that they've now thrown in with Hillary.
Hillary's now the opponent, so they've made their choice.
But there's another reason I think, this is my personal opinion, I think because Trump's not saying anything marginally different.
He still does his improv, and he still does his shoot from the hip.
But now they're calling it for what it is.
You know, I was analyzing a Trump political appearance from day one.
I recognized it immediately.
I knew exactly the technique.
I know exactly what he's doing.
It's stream of consciousness.
He doesn't go out with prepared remarks.
And his only risk is that his brain shuts down and he forgets everything.
And of course, that's not going to happen.
So whatever pops into his mind, he talks about it, interrupts himself, and eventually gets back to the point that he was making.
Well, I think it's the political today.
I'll find has a story on exactly what Trump is doing.
Now they're reporting it.
And now they're reporting that there isn't anything new in it.
It's the same stuff.
There's no reason for the media to back out of their normal programming and go to a Trump rally and cover it because it's the same stuff that he was saying.
This is what they're saying.
But to your point, or actually my point, Trump rallies are still overflowing.
There are still more people that want to get in than there is room for.
The energy inside is still off the charts, and it is such that it is not at all representative of the way Trump is being reported on in the media.
And yet, all of this stuff that's happening is real.
But the fact that the Clintons over poll is they still end up winning, and we've got perhaps in this election, you know, a third party, and maybe four choices will be there instead of just two, which monkeys with polling results anyway, makes them less reliable.
Anyway, the frustrating thing is that you just said it.
Hillary does not have a record to run on.
There's no way under the sun that a Democrat can run for reelection touting the last eight years as some of the greatest years in America because they're not.
This is the slowest economic recovery since 1949.
This is going to be the first presidency to never achieve a growth rate of at least 3% in any year, the first one.
And it's not by accident.
It's not happenstance.
Obama has policies that have been put in place that have acted like giant breaks on the U.S. economy.
And I believe it's purposeful.
But you can't, you can't, as the government, just swallow large chunks of the economy like Obama has done and expect the economy to keep producing jobs and to keep growing with wages increasing.
It's not possible.
It can't happen.
And Obama and the Democrats are not through.
But Hillary does not have.
The whole Democrat primary campaign was astounding because it was both Bernie Sanders and Hillary running on how much change there was needed, how much improvement needed to be made.
They really had to walk a tightrope, but because they know they've got media coverage on the downside, they were relatively free to go ahead and attack the status quo so as to position themselves as being the one to fix it and improve it and make it better.
And there would be the occasional mention of what a great job Obama's done, but nobody could have brought us back from the depths of where George Bush left us.
But she's got nothing to offer.
She doesn't have one policy that'll change anything for the better.
She doesn't, she's incompetent herself.
She has no business being president.
The only reason she's going to be president or has been nominated is because the Democrats owe her big time and because of a reputation established by these very same Northeastern elites way back in her college days that she was some brilliant babe come along, undeniably smarter than everybody else.
And they get these images and these reputations burdished and they live their lives and no matter how stupid they are, no matter what dumb mistakes and moves they make, they are still heralded as better and brighter than all the rest of us.
She isn't.
She cannot hold an audience.
She doesn't connect with an audience.
She does not have deep personal loyalty.
The people voting for her are not rooting for her.
They're rooting for the Democrat Party.
The people voting for Hillary are maybe not even rooting for the Democrat Party.
They're rooting against us.
She doesn't have any personal loyalty above and beyond her tight, close circle of friends and supporters and donors.
She wrote this book for which she got $14 million.
She couldn't draw flies to a book signing.
She couldn't sell enough copies of the book to get anywhere near making back the advance that she got.
She didn't care.
This is a woman who has sold access to her presidency.
Have you heard the term country club Republican?
The country clubs have all become Democrat in the sense that the people that join country clubs usually, particularly in the Northeast, are a bunch of Wall Street titans, hedge fund people, investment bankers and so forth, and they are in bed with the Democrat Party.
There is no such thing as a country club Republican anymore.
They're country club Democrats, but it's not even that.
They're country club cronies.
There are so many powerful people, so many influential people who don't care anymore about the future of the country as founded.
That's not their concern.
Now that cronyism has been established and has firmly become something that you can aspire to as a human being, as a businessman, that people that run the government now are willing to sell it to you.
The people that run the government are willing to sell you access.
You donate to them or you fund them or you employ their family or whatever, and they'll get you favorable treatment from the Oval Office, from the Senate, to the House of Representatives.
It doesn't matter.
Hello, cronyism.
Cronyism can help you as a CEO put your competition out of business without you having to innovate a single day, without you having to compete, out-compete your opposition.
And that's why the country club Republican doesn't exist and have become country club Democrats or country club liberals, but for the most part, they're just cronyists.
They're all salivating.
They are all hyperventilating at the thought of being close to power.
They don't care if that power has a destructive aspect to it.
They don't care.
They seemingly don't care if the power, meaning the president, meaning Obama, is going to implement policies that are going to damage people and hurt the country and damage its future.
They don't care.
As long as they're close to power and being close to power protects them and their interests and their business, that's all that matters.
So the Patriots, where are they?
This is another thing that bugs everybody.
It's not so much just the trade deal.
The trade deals, yes.
But it's how the trade deals happened and why and what it represents.
And what it really represents is there's no reality and there doesn't seem to be any patriotism anywhere in the highest positions of power in this country.
Seems like it's self-interest and selfishness everywhere.
And people are angling to get even closer to this power.
And now Mrs. Clinton's come along and she has signaled the world that she's willing to sell.
She will sell herself.
She will sell her government.
She will sell her policies.
She will sell whatever for personal enrichment.
She and her husband are obsessed with getting rich.
They have been since their Arkansas days and what they've done in politics.
Dinesh D'Souza on the program last week, he said the Clintons are misunderstood.
They're actually Bonnie and Clyde.
The United States is the bank.
They're just a bunch of thugs running around trying to get rich as they can.
They happen to be liberals at the same time.
So when they are in power, it's a double whammy against the rest of us.
So everything I've just said to you, there are people clamoring for Trump to say it.
They're longing for Trump to go after her this way.
And it wouldn't even be an attack.
I didn't just attack Hillary.
I just described her for you.
All I did was say she can't draw a crowd.
She has no personal connection.
There are not people rooting for her.
And I mean average ordinary Americans.
Yeah, Drudge has this story, but Barbara Streisand thinks the election's over and she's already out there singing happy days are here again.
That's the kind of stuff that comes back and bites you in the Malibu ass.
You don't start doing this kind of stuff.
People notice it.
And our caller here, first caller from Ocean City, Maryland, he didn't get to the point that he was going to get to, but I, you know, sometimes I have to, callers get so nervous when they get on the air here.
They become so stunned in awe.
They're actually speaking with me that they sometimes forget their primary point.
This guy's primary point was that Obama attacking Trump, you people don't get it.
That helped Trump.
That enraged people what Obama did.
The media doesn't report it that way, but his point was going to be, you wait.
People were outraged at Obama for that.
I got to take a break.
I wish I didn't have to, but I do.
Now back to Bill Hemmer's question earlier today on Fox.
He was talking to Carl Rove and he said, Carl, what if everything we think we know and understand about politics is wrong this year?
What if every way we look at it is not at all correct?
What if what's going on out there, meaning in America, is so foreign and so different and so unique that the ways we, and he really meant Rove and the whole Washington establishment political apparatus, the way you look and analyze things, you can't possibly predict or poll it because you don't know what is animating people.
You don't know what's driving them.
You don't know.
In other words, the normal things that you would think would make a candidate stronger don't even apply.
That was the essence of the question.
Well, look at this.
There were a couple of primary election days yesterday.
There was one in Missouri and there was one in Kansas.
And a never Trump, an ardent never-Trumpist, Tim Hulskamp, who was rabidly anti-Trump, incumbent.
Many thought of him as a Tea Party Republican, got skunked in the primary.
He was defeated by somebody named Roger Marshall.
And it wasn't even close.
It was a 12-point landslide defeat for an incumbent Republican who went big on being a never-Trumper.
Tim Hulskamp, Republican incumbent, got 44% of the vote.
Roger Marshall, and this is with all the votes counted, 100% of the precincts reported, got 56% of the vote.
Now, I wouldn't say that this is along the lines of Eric Cantor losing, but I will venture to say that this has stunned and shocked a lot of people in the Republican Party in Washington.
Now, nothing against Hulskamp here.
That's not my point here.
I'm just pointing out that a relative unknown in a Republican primary ran against somebody on the basis that he loved Trump.
He liked Trump.
He wants Trump.
And he's running against an incumbent who's making a big deal out of being a never-Trumper.
And the Never Trumper lost in a landslide.
It's just one state.
Could be an outlier.
We don't know.
There haven't been enough of these primaries to know that we can't draw any conclusions from it.
But it does raise eyebrows out there within the elite circles of the elite.
Back at a moment.
Now, folks, don't be offended by this, but it's rare that I promote upcoming moments in the program based on the callers coming up.
Don't be offended by that.
But I'm looking at the call roster, and we've got some people that on paper up there, it looks like they've got some really fascinating things to say.
Some of them even disagreeing with me, which that doesn't happen very much.
That excites me.
So we'll get to it.
▲
Export Selection