All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:15
August 4, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With talent on loan from God, you are tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program, the most listened to radio talk show in America.
Happy to have you along for the ride each and every day.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Now just to, oh, you know one thing I've got to, I've got to straighten something out from yesterday, folks.
Let me do that right now before I get too far into the program today, because I don't want this to end up being the last thing I do.
Yesterday, we commented on the primary defeat in Kansas of incumbent Republican Senator Tim Hulskamp, Hulskamp.
And there was a, I don't even remember the source for what I had yesterday.
I remember it had a graphic that depicted election results.
And the story that was accompanying this was that Tim Hulskamp, an incumbent Republican, lost his primary challenge because of his never Trump status.
That he was a never-Trumper.
This was the story going around.
He was a never-Trumper.
And because of that, the fervor for Trump was so big that anybody who's a never-Trumper out there on the Republican side was going to get shellacked.
And I heard from a lot of people that this is actually not what happened.
And the story that is being circulated, it's incorrect, actually comes from sources deep inside the Republican establishment.
There are other reasons why Tim Hulskamp lost.
And it looks like the primary reason is that he was one of the early critics of John Boehner.
He was and is a died-in-the-wool conservative.
And I guess he was a member of the Freedom Caucus.
But one of the things that set him apart early on was his willingness to take on the Republican leadership.
Now, he's from Kansas.
And he had a seat on the Agriculture Committee.
And after he went publicly after the leadership, Boehner and some of the others, they removed him from the Agriculture Committee in the House, which is a huge deal if you represent a district in Kansas.
And his district is number one.
And it's a highly reputed, very important district in Kansas.
His constituents are very conservative.
Obama only won 28% of the vote there in 2012.
The big first is what they call Hulskamp's district.
And in National Review, they have a theory, an explanation of why he lost.
I got a note from Louis Gomert also explaining that this is really nothing to do with Trump so much as it is the establishment taking a guy out because he dared oppose them.
First, they took him off the committee, and then the establishment funded his primary opponent and made it look like the whole campaign was over Hulskamp being a never-Trumper.
He was pro-Cruz.
He was a Cruz supporter, ardently so, but apparently has never been and never said that he was a died-in-the-wool never Trumper.
The district in Kansas that we're talking about, which is known as the Big First, is by reputation one of America's premier farming districts.
90% of this district is rural, according to the Almanac of American Politics.
The people that live there are overwhelmingly dependent.
And I'm sorry to use that word, but it works in this case.
They're dependent on the agriculture industry, much like auto workers are dependent on the automobile business and they need it thriving.
Same thing here with the residents of this district.
Well, Hulskamp voted against the farm bill in 2013.
And the reason he said that he did was principled opposition to food stamp spending in the farm bill.
He took what he thought, what he said, was a very conservative position against the expansion of federal government, against the expansion of the welfare state.
The food stamp program is run by the agriculture department.
A lot of people don't know that, but it is.
And so, because, and this is it, it's what the Democrats do.
They load up the farm bill, it's one of these things that seem like every year, if you know what you're doing, you'd never vote against.
It's like voting against a civil rights bill, it's like voting against the flag.
You just don't do it.
And he did.
And he did because it was larded up with all kinds of Obama welfare state expansions.
And he thought his constituents would understand.
But it didn't go over well back home.
And then after that, because he no longer was on the House Agriculture Committee, he had been thrown off the committee the previous December by Boehner as punishment for voting repeatedly against the leadership during the first term in the majority after having won back the House in 2010.
So, as it's written here at National Review, Hulskamp couldn't even tell his constituents that he had battled inside the committee for a stronger bill to better represent their interests because he no longer served on the committee.
So, all of this triggered a Trump so far is not a factor.
And that was the misleading thing that was attached to this story yesterday.
All of this triggered a primary challenge in 2014 that Hulzkamp successfully fought off.
He had the assistance of allied conservative groups, some outside.
He won closer than expected over somebody named Alan Lepolis or La Police, who was a former education officially won by 10 points.
So he was feeling validated by the victory.
He pursued no course correction upon his return to Congress.
His first vote in January 2015 was against Boehner's re-election as Speaker, which signaled that he would continue to buck the party's leadership whenever possible.
But his enemies in Washington and his enemies in the district smell blood because he's no longer on the committee.
He's continuing to vote against the leadership.
So he went to Ryan and he pleaded with Paul Ryan to put him back on the agriculture committee.
He desperately wanted back that would help his reelection effort every year.
But he had been on the warpath against Boehner.
Ryan was non-committal, which did not sit well with some of Holzkamp's conservative friends who believed that the leadership was undermining its own members.
So despite representing a very conservative district, Holzkamp's political purity, 100% rating with Freedom Works, 100% rating Club for Growth, 92% with the Heritage Action in 2014, none of that could save him.
And that's likely because his constituents and Republican voters in general are less ideological and more results-oriented than once assumed.
And I have to agree with that.
And I say it regrettably.
So he's in an agriculture committee.
He's no longer on agriculture district.
He's no longer on the agriculture committee.
He's being primaried by agents of the Republican leadership who he has publicly opposed.
Asked to be put back on the agriculture committee.
Paul Ryan waffled and eventually said no.
So this all happened to coincide with Trump.
And it came to a head in this primary season, came to ahead with the Trump election.
And this is not an ideological election, much to my chagrin.
But it's not just this one.
As the story points out, elections in America have become less about liberal versus conservative than about results.
And that, to me, is reason number one why Obama gets away with the Limbaugh theorem.
Obama escapes any accountability.
He's not attached to any of the bad results.
George W. Bush still is when you're talking about the economy.
When you're talking about health care, Obama does not suffer from health care because people see him as trying to bring insurance to everybody.
And the media has succeeded in portraying the Republicans as the people who don't want there to be any improvements, i.e., reform in American healthcare.
So, Obama, because people don't see liberalism as a bad thing anymore, not as many people don't, because elections are not ideological anymore, not as nearly as much as they used to be, Obama's been able to escape any accountability because he's had a willingly well, the media has just been doing his bidding.
So, I wanted to straighten this out.
I never like being wrong and misreading something.
And I wish I could remember it, but whatever my source yesterday was trustworthy, or I trusted it.
But a number of people have written me about this.
And then some people, what does it matter, Rush?
The guy lost.
What does it matter?
Why?
Well, we're talking about his reputation and his legacy.
And he doesn't want to be portrayed as having lost because he was an ever-Trumper.
When he wasn't, there are other reasons for it.
And I wanted to make sure we got those in the record.
Let me take a brief timeout.
We will come back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, we're going to get back to your phones here in just a second.
There's just a couple more things that I want you to hear before we do.
Walid Ferris is an advisor to the Trump campaign.
And he's a brilliant analyst when it comes to Middle East politics, the war on terror, militant Sharia.
I think we ought to change, by the way, no longer militant Islam.
We need to go militant Sharia.
We need to talk about Sharia supremacy.
Sharia replaced every time we talk about Islamic terrorism, Islamic extremism, Muslimism.
Just say Sharia.
Because the one thing you can't, nobody can deny that Sharia is those things.
Now, Obama, there's no terrorism in Islam.
It's a religion of peace.
Well, can't say that about Sharia by definition.
Just a little communication idea on my part.
Anyway, Waleed Ferris on Fox happening now this morning, Jenna Lee said to him, Why do you have confidence in Trump?
Look, folks, this is important.
I know you all are really smart and connected, and you're capable of asking penetrating questions.
I mean, while you're listening, even you don't have to call here and ask me, I know what you're thinking.
And I want to assure you that I'm not engaging in false optimism here.
And I'm not trying to keep people psyched up for no reason.
And I'm not trying to play psychological games.
When I talk about the size of Trump's crowds being as big as ever, when I talk about the events being as raucous and as exciting and as fun for people who were there as ever, when I talk about the overflow crowds being as big as ever, I'm telling you that that's the truth.
And I know some of you are saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, but Romney's crowds were big in 2012 and it ended up not mattering.
Romney's crowds were only big the last week.
Romney was not known for drawing anywhere near the kind of crowds with anywhere near the kind of excitement Trump has been drawing since he got into this.
It's a false comparison.
But at the same token, I'm not suggesting that because of what's happening in these auditoriums or Trump speaking, that he's leading here by double digits.
Nothing of the sort.
What I am telling you is that there is a concerted and a coordinated effort between the Democrat Party and the media and others in the establishment to create a whole lot of false narratives about Trump and his campaign.
They want you to think that Trump is on the verge of imploding.
They want you to think Trump's on the verge of quitting.
How many of you have seen stories once?
If you've seen it once, you've seen it five times, that Trump may get to the point where if he sees he's going to lose, he'll just quit.
He'll just quit.
He won't not want to suffer the humiliation of actually losing.
Have you seen those stories?
How many have seen stories that the Republican Party is examining rule books and tradition and history to find out if there's any way they can get rid of Trump even now?
How many of you have seen those stories?
How many of you have seen stories that there is an intervention planned, that Republicans within the Trump orbit are so worried and so concerned that they need to sit down right now to stop Trump from going off the cliff?
I mean, these stories are everywhere.
And from everything I've been able to gather, a lot of this is being completely manufactured or partially manufactured.
And it's designed to depress and dispirit Trump supporters.
And that's why whenever there is a Republican, and this isn't new that Republicans are going to vote for Hillary.
They've been saying this since last year.
But every time a new Republican pops up and says so, look at this, look at this.
Oh, my God, Trump just took another hit, they say.
And it's all designed to separate those of you supporting Trump from him.
Want you to get depressed.
They do it every campaign.
They do it every election.
They can't promote Hillary Clinton, and they don't even try.
They can't bally who Hillary.
So I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
I'm not cheerleading here.
I am not falsely optimistic about it.
You know me.
I'm the mayor of Realville.
So in light of that, that's why I wanted you to hear the comments of the Washington Post reporter, who doesn't buy any of this, by the way, that Trump's on the verge of total collapse.
He's looking at ways he thinks Trump can win this that he doesn't think anybody else is seeing.
And that's Waleed Ferris, who's a Trump advisor in the Middle East and militant Sharia.
And Jenna Lee said to him, why do you have confidence in Donald Trump to think that he, unlike this current administration, would be able to handle these sort of relationships in the Middle East that are quite tenuous at best?
Because I heard him, I met him, we looked at maps, I heard what the partners are saying.
He can mobilize public opinion.
Remember, one of the problems that President Obama had, and even the last two years of the presidency of Mr. Bush, they could not mobilize anymore the American public to confront the threat.
We have been demobilized.
He can mobilize them.
As long as he has the right direction and the right experts, of course, in the future, then he could do it better than others.
All right, this guy's not abandoning the campaign.
This guy's not part of any intervention.
He's talking about how Trump could do it right in the Middle East.
He's talked to him.
I've heard him.
I've met him.
We've looked at region.
We've looked at maps.
We've discussed strategy.
I know the guy could.
But more importantly, he can mobilize public opinion.
We haven't been able to get anything done because nobody's even trying to motivate public opinion.
Whenever there is any effort to mobilize public opinion, anti-Sharia, guess what?
The regime steps up to stop it.
Now, I mentioned, there's two more, and we're going to go to the phones in the next.
I mentioned that I saw a couple of babes on Fox reacting to Clint Eastwood, referring to their generation as a generation of Pusai.
Well, apparently a couple other women at Fox found that don't have a problem with it.
Sarah Flores, being asked here by, who is it?
Bill Hemmer, said the reason Eastwood's a Trump guy is he's not PC.
What he said is everybody's walking on eggshells in America.
We see people accusing of being racist, all kinds of stuff.
He said, when I grew up, those things were not racist.
That's what Eastwood's saying.
Here's this young millennial woman reacting.
We have college campuses, a bunch of liberal academics creating safe spaces, students refusing to let conservatives come speak on campus because it will hurt their feelings or challenge their worldview.
I think that's incredibly harmful to these students.
I think it's dangerous for the future citizenry of America.
On the other hand, this idea that Clint Eastwood gets to call this generation of Americans not tough enough, not brave enough, that's incredibly silly.
I know single moms who are a lot tougher than Clint Eastwood.
My best friend's a captain in the Marine Corps.
She's a lot tougher than Clint Education.
Can he say that?
He did.
He used a different term that starts with a P and refers to cats sometimes.
Yeah, okay, so I thought that was right.
This babe not happy that Eastwood referring to her generation of that of the Pusai.
That she knows people that are tougher than Trump.
What is this?
Yeah, yeah, I have a friend.
She's tougher than Eastwood.
He did.
He used a different term that starts with a P and refers to cats.
Oh, that was Hemmer describing what Eastwood had said.
Right.
Oh, well, so she agrees that there are some Pusai in the generation, but that Eastwood's wrong about the whole generation.
There's a lot of people out there tougher than Eastwood is.
And there's one more to go, but we're going to come back.
I'm going to get your calls in.
I know you've been waiting patiently.
Some of you are chomping it a bit, itching to go, ready to race.
So it'll be yours when we get back.
I am America's real anchor man.
I am America's truth detector.
Also popularly known as America's Doctor of Democracy.
Rush Limbaugh here at the EIB Network.
And as promised, back to the phones, Jacksonville, Florida.
It's Brian.
Great to have you, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Great to finally talk to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Appreciate that.
I went to a rally here last night.
They had 16,000 people in our rally, and 5,000 were kept out because there wasn't any room.
It was standing room only, and it was just electric inside.
And the paper this morning printed a story about, said there was only 10,000 people, and then they interviewed a bunch of the protesters.
There weren't very many protesters.
It was awesome.
Let me ask you a question.
Well, first place, that's not unusual.
I remember when I did the Rush to Excellence tour.
Whatever you see in America, I've done it.
Whoever out there doing things now, I've done it.
And I did this back in 88, all the way through, well, for two years.
I traveled every weekend to a different city as we got stations in these cities to affiliate with the program.
I went out and I did the Rush to Excellence tour.
Every weekend, except for holiday weekends, I didn't go for two straight years.
And I remember in a lot of places, there were protesters.
Like in Baton Rouge, there was a mother and her daughter.
There were 5,000 people inside, Brian.
It was capacity for this venue.
There was a mother and daughter carrying signs outside.
And what do you think?
On the front page of the paper Sunday morning in Baton Rouge.
That's who they interviewed.
It was the mother and her daughter protesting.
Two people protesting, 5,000 people inside, having a time of their lives, having a great time.
Limbaugh stirs up controversy in Baton Rouge was the theme.
Controversy.
You got two malcontents out front.
So the fact that that happened in Jacksonville, that's par for the course.
Well, it's just a created narrative that they're trying to portray, you know, after the last few weeks Trump's, you know, falling apart.
So I have to ask you a question.
You went to the thing, and I need to, I'm serious.
Now, do not infer a tone of sarcasm or attack or anything.
I'm genuinely curious.
You, like anybody else, you consume media every day.
And I'm sure you've seen these stories.
The Trump campaign's imploding.
People are planning an intervention.
Trump may even be thinking of quitting.
He's down by 10 to Hillary.
There's no way Trump can win on and on.
Why did you even go?
Well, because, you know, it's time for a change in Washington, D.C. We've been doing the politically correct stuff for so long, people are tired of it.
And all those, you know, Senate and Congress, congressional leaders, we're tired of them, too.
So, you know, this is where we're starting.
I think that it's a movement, like you say.
And I think the media, you know, they didn't make him and they can't break him.
Exactly.
But, I mean, have you seen all the media talking about his campaigns almost over, that he doesn't have a chance?
Have you seen all that?
Well, he addressed it last night.
He said they were in good shape.
Said they're raising money.
All the venues are sold out or, you know, filled up.
And he said.
No, no, I understand.
What I'm trying to get at is you obviously don't believe any of that.
I'm suggesting that if people really believe the Trump campaign was on its last legs, why go to a rally?
What's the point if all this is practically over?
But you were there and the place is overflowing.
Fall for it.
Yeah, okay.
You don't fall for it, and the people inside the arena don't fall for it.
No, it was packed, and everybody was energized.
People were chanting.
It was great.
I mean, it was awesome.
Was Trump in a good mood?
Yeah, he was telling jokes.
He's funny.
I mean, I never listened to him talk.
He talked for an hour and a half without notes.
All right, you know, and he's just off the cover.
He kind of rambles a little bit.
Okay, I was going to get this.
Another question for you.
Since you were our on-the-scene reporter, well, nobody likes everything that somebody does.
If you had any constructive criticism after having seen that last night, what would you tell Trump to do differently?
I'm not going to put any thoughts in your mind.
I want to know off the top of your head, if anything, what would you advise him to do differently?
Well, he started saying like CNN did 200, you know, negative pieces about him.
Before he could finish, he started talking about something else.
So he kind of, you know, he kind of gets off track a little bit.
Did he get back to CNN in the 200 stories or did it land?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
He got back to it.
And then he finished his point.
But, you know, he talks without notes.
He didn't even have notes or, you know, nothing.
How about you said it was an hour and a half?
Do you think an hour and a half?
Is that long enough?
Is it too long?
Should it shorten up?
You know, I didn't want to leave, but, you know, it was over.
So, I mean, it was great.
Okay, no problem there.
Did he talk about too many things to keep track of?
Should he?
He went over like his whole kind of platform.
You know, he talked about the wall.
He talked about keeping these jihadists out of the country and keeping us safe.
He talked about education.
He talked about repealing and replacing health care.
This guy remembers everything, folks.
Keep tracking.
This guy was there, and I'm trying to get him to complain, and he won't.
No, I'm not going to complain.
The only thing I had to complain about was the parking and the traffic.
But other inside the rally room.
Yeah, I mean, that's with any event that you go to, except for the Ray's game.
So you don't think that he can improve it by reducing the number of issues he talks about?
Say, focus on four or five for the appearance rather than this improvisational rant and go wherever his stream of consciousness takes him.
I think that he needs to detail some of the messages he's trying to get out.
You know, he needs to be more specific.
You mean policy-wise?
Right.
What he's going to do, actually, not just how, but what the.
And just kind of, you know, tell you.
He tells you, and then he says, you know, he's going to make America great.
You want to hear exactly how he's going to whoop their ass.
I know that.
A little more, yes.
Yes, exactly right.
You want to hear the deep, dark details of it.
You want to.
I totally, totally understand it.
Well, the reason I peppered you with these questions is because another person that I know watched it via streaming video and had pretty much the same assessment that you did.
It was energetic.
It was go, go, go, go, go.
It was Trump's stream of consciousness.
He'll be thinking of something in the middle of a sentence.
He'll stop himself, start talking about what thought he just had.
Sometimes he doubled back and got back and found his place.
Other times he didn't.
But the person that reviewed Trump for me last night said it's just too many issues.
He needs to pare it down.
He just talked about whatever came to his mind.
He brought it up.
And he needs to pare it down and maybe go no longer than an hour.
Everybody has their opinions on these things.
And he's got to do it the way he feels it.
He's got to do it.
One thing I advised him here is that there's going to be all kinds of people trying to change it.
By the way, that's happening too.
All of this criticism is aimed at getting Trump to change what he's doing.
Why would they want that?
The people that want Trump to lose are convinced that he is.
They are convinced that he has now finally imploded.
This is it.
By going on and on about Kazir Khan, that's it.
He's jumped a shark now.
Well, all these people that wanted this to happen, why are they in panic?
Why are they mad?
Why are they worried about anything?
They wanted it to happen.
Many of them expected it to happen.
The thing is, it may not actually be happening other than on the pages and the TV screens of media reports.
Appreciate the call, Brian.
This is Joe in Gap, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Thank you very much.
It's an honor.
I think you just hit the nail on the head when you're asking about the establishment people, why they're running scared.
When you just mentioned just now that it may actually not be happening.
You see, Rush, I think these people really are running scared in the fact that they are afraid and they see evidence that Trump could actually win this thing.
And they see their cushion leaving.
They see their future leaving.
They see their retirement leaving.
And they are running scared.
You know, even all the polls cannot be conducted as to the reality because your busy farmer that's out there, your busy construction guy, the guy playing blocks, clearing country.
These guys do not take the time to respond to polls.
But there is one poll that they will take the time to respond to.
And it's not a poll, but it's Election Day.
And they realize that there are millions of these people out there that will possibly come out on Election Day and take their gravy train away from them.
Okay, now I think that's what they're scared of.
All right.
Look, you're right.
But I'm going to react to that.
I'm not trying to throw cold water on it, but I hear that every election.
I hear that for as long as I've been alive.
The people on the losing side of the polls, one of the ways that they react to it, to try to keep everybody bucked up is to say what you just say, you know what?
There's a lot of people don't tell the truth pollsters.
There's a lot of people don't even talk to those pollsters.
There's a lot of people out there to not even being counted.
You can't count on these polls.
And yet, pretty much every election, the polls end up being right.
Not always, but this year is different.
This year, it may be.
It may be, because this is not a traditional election.
It's not a liberal versus conservative election, sadly.
It's not, I guess it's Republican versus Democrat, but there's much more.
And there are a lot of people out there who don't vote traditionally.
And because of Robert Costa's comments to Charlie Rose last night, I'm telling you, he works at the Washington Post.
I'm telling you, if he's out there saying that there is this group that never votes, but that if they do this time, if they're energized and polling is not going to find them, then all bets are off.
When you understand that half of the registered voters didn't vote in 2012, a little less than half, and then you put that together with 70% of the American people who will tell you in a poll, they think the country's head in the wrong direction.
And then you add to that that this supposed Trump implosion is not creating joy.
If you put all of this together, and then you find you don't see Hillary Clinton in the midst of any of this.
She's not out there trying to take advantage of it because that's the media's job.
So, and we're not even at Labor Day.
They tried to tell us elections were won in June.
Remember that?
Even before conventions.
Now the rule of thumb, oh yeah, the election is always won, Mr. Limboy.
You can, after the two elections, you take a look at the polling data to 10 days after both elections, and that'll pretty much tell you what's going to happen, Rush.
You can pretty much count it.
I said, wait a minute, you told me in June it was over.
Hillary had an 11-point lead in the polls in June.
And then the Republican convention came, and that lead vanished in some polls.
It was three points in others.
What happened to your theory that the election is over in June?
Well, conventions came a little earlier this year, Rush, and sometimes that can upset the formula.
But I guarantee you, Rush, now that both conventions are over, you look at the polling data 10 days after, that's pretty much tell you where it's going to end up.
So what they do, whenever Hillary has a significant lead in the polls, they come out and say, well, this is traditionally the time where you look at polling results and you can find out how the election is going to turn out.
It's a stat deck.
And we will be back.
Let's go ahead.
Okay, we're going to stick with the phones here.
I get to the monologue section of the next hour.
Go to Leland to Grove, Illinois.
This is Arnett.
It's great to have you.
I'm glad you called.
Hi.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
Yes, ma'am.
I have noticed something about the last week.
It seems like the Republicans have now began this scorched earth policy against Trump.
And this is Republican-driven.
And I believe it's because of what I call Operation Saving Private Ryan.
I believe this is about Paul Ryan.
When this all started happening, and I noticed nobody on the Republican side was even laying a hand on Hillary Clinton, I kind of tried to see what was going on, what Trump had done that may have precipitated this.
And it seemed to follow him not endorsing Paul Ryan.
And Paul Ryan, he's a congressman, but this is a man who's Speaker of the House.
He's third and lag for the presidency.
And he's an establishment guy.
No one can deny that he has been complicit with President Obama in doing some things that have really harmed America.
And so this is an establishment guy.
I think the Republicans have disdain for the American people.
They're angry.
The establishment Republicans are angry that Donald Trump is the candidate.
And I think this is just a scorched earth policy against Donald Trump in order to try to save Paul Ryan.
Okay, wait, let me ask you a question.
You think, I'm going to turn this around and go at it through the back door.
If Trump had endorsed Ryan, do you think most of what we have seen the past 10 days in the media about Republican panic about Trump would not have happened?
I do.
I do, and on the heels of that.
So do you think Trump made a mistake in not endorsing Ryan?
No, I don't.
And I think he also didn't endorse John McCain.
And I think that added fuel to the fire.
I think they, I guess, armed up a couple more nukes towards Trump because of that.
Because when you see absolutely not one hit piece or one comment negative about Hillary Clinton, who has betrayed the American people, who has compromised classified information.
Well, you mean from the Republican side, not the Republican Party.
Yes, I mean from the Republican side.
That's a good point.
Good point.
And we haven't seen one thing going after Hillary Clinton.
I mean, we have, there is so much ammunition against that administration, and not one Republican.
Yeah, that's right.
The Republican Party is not firing at Hillary at all.
But we had a story yesterday that I found preposterous.
It was an AP story blaming Trump for the lack of unity in the Republican Party for not endorsing Ryan.
And McCain, when, in fact, wasn't it Ryan that withheld his endorsement of Trump at first?
Right.
Right.
And I think, and I don't think it's, I don't think it's revenge on Trump's part.
I really don't.
I think that they have very serious differences, Paul Ryan and Trump, on the direction of this country and what's best for this country, particularly immigration policies, from immigration all the way to TPP.
I mean, I think they're very different.
And I think what the Republican Party, I really feel they have disdain for the conservative voters.
And I think that they are angry at the Republican voters who put Donald Trump in that situation.
And I think they are going no hold barred as Report.
They perceive we've got to.
I have to stop because of time.
I'm sorry, but that's brilliantly stated.
That's very provocative, and we'll provoke it and think about it.
Be back.
Don't go away, folks.
Thank you very much, Arnett.
This is, as Angelo Codeville wrote some time ago, this is country class versus ruling class.
It's exactly what it is.
▲
Export Selection