All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
October 4, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I've been thinking about the drive-by media polls.
And I got to thinking about it.
I don't think, and I stand to be corrected on this, and there might be a couple of exceptions to this, but I think it's pretty safe to say that in most of the presidential elections in our time.
The Republican candidate never leads.
It's always the Democrat candidate leads.
Sometimes they're tied.
There might be an exception like Reagan in 1984.
But even Reagan in 1980, the last poll had Carter winning by eight or nine points or five points or some such thing, and Reagan ends up winning in a landslide.
In uh in 2004, the real clear politics average had John Kerry, who served in Vietnam leading Bush until the very end.
And I I mention this because the polling that's done, the reporting of polling particularly, is part of the effort to depress you, to dispirit you, to think there's no chance, to cave in, to give up, to think that it's over, to think that you have no prayer.
That's all part of the multi-faceted agenda that the left brings to all of this.
Greetings, my friends, it's great to have you.
We are here monitoring Hurricane Matthew, even as we speak.
Not only am I the resident tech expert, not only in my home and in my family and uh here at the studio, but when it comes to hurricanes, I'm the guy everybody comes to a a uh an opinion on where it's going and who it's gonna hit, what it's gonna hit, how bad it's gonna be.
And that's because I take the time to study in depth.
And I also know how to read the politics.
And don't think there isn't any politics in hurricane forecasting.
Do not believe there's there's politics in everything.
Now I will say, in the case of Hurricane Matthew, I have not detected any politics in this particular hurricane, in the forecasting, in the in the uh the plotting of the the forecast track.
And what do I mean by this?
Well, in um the vast majority of cases, the hurricane center will include heavily populated areas in forecasts for a number of reasons.
A, they're still stung by what happened to Katrina.
They don't, you know, people blame the hurricane center for not giving them enough lead time as to where it was headed and how bad it was.
But there's also the global warming component, and you can't you cannot ignore the fact that throughout our government, leftist activists exist.
Just like in Hollywood.
I've had I've run into a couple of of uh independent columns, independent columns written by people, just opinion pieces, who are finally, after so long a time, finally noting all of the liberalism in primetime television shows.
And I look at it and say, you just now noticing this?
And they say, yeah, they're just now noticing it, and they're noticing how pervasive it is.
And one of the greatest examples is this new Kiefer Keefe, what's his name?
Keefer Kiefer uh Kiefer Sutherland show.
Uh I'm having a mental block on the name of the darn thing.
Anyway, I didn't intend to talk about this right now anyway, so I'm gonna shelve this and get back to it.
The point is, there's politics in everything, and so they will change a forecast tracker they'll include in the forecast cone a heavily populated area to get people to pay attention to it.
Uh but the global warming component is this, that with global warming and climate change, there are more hurricanes, and they're more vicious than ever before.
Well, there haven't been any hurricanes strike the United States in something like seven or eight years, and it may even be more.
Right after Hurricane Katrina, Al Gordon again came out and they said, This is it, folks, this is the end.
Every hurricane is gonna be 15 Katrinas every summer and fall now, because of global warming, and the moment Al Gore said it, we began a seven to eleven year period of no hurricanes striking the major, major hurricanes striking the United States.
This is the first one in a long time, and they're all excited.
Because once again, you're gonna hear climate change, climate change, global warming, see.
But in this track, I must tell you, they they haven't I haven't detected any politics in the forecasting and the tracking of uh of this particular story.
Fact, uh just the opposite.
I thought that Florida would be under hurricane watch last night.
I thought the 11 p.m. update last night they had to put if they didn't do it, they didn't do it at 5 a.m.
They only did it an hour ago, put Florida north of Deerfield Beach under a hurricane watch, and of course now you know what that means.
There isn't a public in our immediate area that has any bottled water left.
Oh, they create this panic and they create hoarding and runs on stuff and people head out there and stock up, you know, on the on the canned goods, the canned good, the baked goods and the the water and so forth.
So that's something we're keeping our eye on here because it will affect us later in the week.
Um decision time, whether to leave or not.
Normally I would stay, because we have generators and bunkers and so forth, but the problem is we can handle the electricity if we lose that.
We can't handle a lost or down telephone lines.
We do have backup ways of getting the program out of here, satellite and so forth, but it's if if that's likely it's simpler just to go someplace else.
But I just don't go someplace else alone.
My cochlear implant requires a traveling party.
And the traveling party can't go with me.
Their families are all here, so they have to stay and monitor their homes and stay with their families, so it's a major decision where to go.
So what we're planning here, we've got a potential guest host lined up for Friday.
And Thursday, too.
Buck Sexton of the CIA for both days.
Okay, so yeah, oh, okay, so those two, though, but who's scheduled for Friday, Buck?
I thought you said Buck Sexton was in him.
Okay.
So Chris Plant standing by on Friday, Buck Sexton at CIA also standing by.
So it's either be that or me from somewhere else on Friday.
I want to stay.
I want to be out there on the deck watching this thing go by.
I've had to leave every time one of these things come up because of the radio program, and I want to stay.
But I you know responsibility says can't.
So those are the options.
And and the guestos in case something happens, just can't do the program on Friday or can't get out of here in time.
Uh, it's a lot of, it's a big logistics effort to undertake on the flashburn of the moment.
Mandatory evacuation, you don't have to leave.
I mean, they they can come, they can honk at you.
No, but we're not gonna be mandatory evacuated under a watch.
No, no, no, no, no.
What do you mean?
What are you pointing at me for?
There won't.
That's right, but there will not be a mandatory evacuation.
And if look, how are they gonna know whether I'm there or not?
Uh the the they can't they can't come in and get you.
They can do mandatory evacuation.
Don't put me in a position you're having to openly break the law like the Democrats do here in public.
We can't get away with it.
Have you heard it?
Do you do you realize the FBI let Cheryl Mills in this and this bunch destroy their computers?
As part of the I looked at that, I can't believe the lack of outrage in media stories about not only did they give immunity to these people, and they had no Cheryl Mills is not Hillary's lawyer.
She's a consigliary.
She's a capo de capo de tutti or whatever.
She is an advisor.
She's not Hillary's lawyer, but they let her call herself a lawyer so she could sit in on Hillary's FBI interview.
They granted all these people immunity, and then they destroyed the computers.
It's unreal.
The FBI let them destroy the this is like Al Capone being granted permission to erase his tax returns.
This is it's it it folks, it is beyond comprehension.
The lawlessness, the carelessness, the rigged nature of this game, the absolute lopsided one-sidedness of all of this.
And meanwhile, Donald Trump is being accused of scandal here and scandal there.
Donald Trump never kept a secret that he lost 900 million dollars.
He wrote about it prominently in his book, The Art of the Comeback.
You get these media people out there, even last night on TV suggesting that Trump could have spared himself a lot of trouble.
If he would have just admitted this, if he would have just broken the news rather than wait for his tax returns to be leaked, he did.
It's in his book that he lost 900 million dollars.
Anyway, why should Trump announce something that could only be made public if the law is broken?
So they released three pages of a Trump.
You know who they think leaked it?
Have you heard this?
You know who the smart money, and I don't know if it's smart, but you know that I'm looking around, I'm looking at the speculating.
Marla Maples might have done it.
She was his wife at the time.
She would have signed tax forms.
She would thus maybe have a copy.
She might be ticked off.
You know, Tiffany Trump is her daughter.
I don't know.
I have no idea.
But why should Trump be forced to publicize something like a tax return?
Because he's got to figure that it's going to leak illegally, and that the New York Times are going to break the law and publish it illegally.
When in fact, Trump's already admitted he lost $900 million.
He's not kept anything a secret.
And yet he's being reported on as the guy running around the edges of the law.
He's not even close to the edge of the law compared to the Democrat Party in consort with other government agencies, which is outside the law on a daily basis.
Their standard operating procedure is outside the law, as is their president with his executive orders and other lawlessness.
I mean, it's it's mind-boggling here to watch this.
And then I've got a story here from the Hill.com.
You wonder why Trump's a nominee, they're still a bunch of elitist Republicans proudly running around beating their chest, saying they'd no way vote for Trump.
And the headline here, GOP senators, we could work with Hillary Clinton.
And that's exactly why nobody wants you to be elected.
Story about Senator Johnny Isaacson of Georgia predicting that Congressional Republicans would be more willing to work with Hillary Clinton than they have been with President Obama.
For crying out loud.
You know what, folks?
These Republicans are so self-defeating that they deserve to lose these elections that they lose.
What possible what possible advantage or gain is there in being quoted, oh yeah, we can work with Hillary Clinton.
Look, I know, I know, inside the Republican Party establishment at the upper levels of elite, they still can't believe that Trump is a nominee.
They still can't, and they still have a sour taste in their mouths, and they just can't.
They can't abide it.
This is why I got to thinking about the polls and how it seems like the Republican presidential candidate is never reported to be in the lead nationally, maybe a state here or there.
Even when Republicans are elected, they are seldom reported as being in the lead until very late in the cycle, where the polls have to get it right for the sake of their reputations.
Yeah, the name of that Kiefer Sutherland show, designated survivor.
What a great premise this show is.
Have you seen it?
Well, all right, let me tell you a little bit about it.
Keeper Sutherland is some member of the U.S. cabinet, and every time there's a State of the Union show, there is a designated member to government who doesn't go.
He goes into a private bunker somewhere, nobody knows where he is in case of a massive attack killing everybody at the State of the Union address.
Everybody in the Senate, everybody in Congress, everybody in the cabinet supreme court, the designated survivor.
They pick somebody for every State of the Union show.
Well, if that's the show's about Kiefer Sutherland as a lowly cabinet member, and he's chosen the designated survivor.
And the first episode was kick-ass.
First episode's really great.
Episode two, they blow it.
The people on the left cannot keep their liberalism out of...
And it's always been there.
Don't misunderstand.
What's happening now is they are in our face.
They are using primetime television entertainment shows to preach to us, to belittle us, to mock us, to make fun of us to advance their agenda or what have you.
And there's no reason, no wonder why ratings are down.
Primetime TV numbers are not.
The NFL is even down dramatically, particularly on their Sunday night and Thursday night shows.
And this is one of the reasons.
Anyway, the second episode.
So here we have a massive terror attack that wipes out everybody in government.
And what do you think the new president does, Keefer Southern?
His first objective is to try to make peace with Islam and Muslims.
And they end up being the heroes.
They end up being the unfairly attacked, discriminated against, blah, but you can you can write the rest of the scene yourself.
I can't tell you that a number of people sent me emails after episode one.
Man, what's a great show?
Great show.
Second episode aired.
The emails came in.
They've blown it.
I can't watch it anymore.
I've had it fed up.
So I said, what happened?
And then what I just told you.
They can't stop preaching to us, whether it's cultural things, with gay marriage, gay this, gay that, where it's feminism this, feminism that.
They just don't let up.
And they think they're in a war for survival now.
And so they're using everything they have in their arsenal, the pop culture, entertainment media, sitcoms, dramatic shows, uh, procedural detective and crime shows, every damn one of them.
You can't escape.
And some people want to.
So it's we're we're surrounded here and being inundated.
And it I don't know why they're in such panic.
If Trump's such a horrible candidate and Hillary's such a great candidate, and the election's in the bag, why are they so desperate?
Why are they so panicked?
Why are they pulling out all the snobs here?
As I say, uh nothing's etched in stone, nothing's in the can yet.
They want you to think it is so that you give up.
So that you think there's no chance, so that you think that there's and they want you emailing your friends.
They want you to say, oh, that's it, it's over, it's over.
Have you seen the later?
We don't have a prayer.
Oh my God, this is terrible.
They want emails like that, flying back and forth between all of you.
So they try to create these things.
Okay.
Um, we just set the table there.
There's other things, of course, on the program that'll unfold.
We've got latest in polling data.
Uh the Trump IRS story has some interesting aspects that I want to revisit.
And one of the things I want to revisit, I'm going to take occasion here of a couple of sound bites and bounce off of them to do so.
And that is this whole business.
I touched on this yesterday, this whole business of political candidates releasing their tax returns.
You realize that this is a game stacked against all and any outsiders.
As I so eloquently, brilliantly and uniquely pointed out yesterday, the political class does many things to ensure that they remain the political class and that the outsiders don't get in.
And one of the one of the prime things that the income tax returns, all candidates have to do it.
They they live their lives.
They structure their lives for the public release of their tax returns.
Tax returns have to show a certain thing, have to be structured a certain way, have certain dollar amounts to enable no red flags, to enable the candidate to smooth sailing with the public.
But a private businessman with different kinds of lives and numbers than a politician has releasing his tax returns going to look like it's oh my God, it's chaining out rate, whatever it's designed to be unfair and uh unbalanced toward an outsider.
Anyway, more on that and everything else when we get back.
Don't go away.
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention.
Every caller, every caller that we take on the air is going to be offered a brand new iPhone 7 Plus today.
Why are you, what in the world are you doing?
Uh well, here's there's some caveats here.
You will not get your color choice.
These are extremely hard to get, folks.
It's amazing I've gotten the supply I have.
And they're not comped.
I buy them.
Uh but every caller today is going to get an iPhone 7 Plus.
They are for today ATT and T-Mobile only.
They will not work on Verizon or Sprint.
As I say, uh I've had to get these things in spurts.
And it's it's complicated, but because Apple is allowing Intel to make some of the LTE chips, Intel chips don't work on Verizon or Sprint.
So ATT models normally are the ones that are world phones, will work on any network around the world, including a ChICOM networks, but not this year.
So anyway, that's uh that's what's on tap for today.
I'll out of time here, as is usual case.
I will explain the rest of this when we come back, get started with the rest of the program.
Ha, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Okay, every caller that makes it on the air today will be offered a brand new iPhone 7 Plus.
These uh phones today will only work on ATT and T-Mobile or other GSM networks.
Uh let me briefly explain to you why this is.
Apple every year makes a phone that will work if it's unlocked on any network around the world.
This year, that model happens to be the Verizon model.
The reason for this is that Apple spreading their supply chain around to handle shortages and other problems, is allowing Intel to make a certain number of LTE chips for the iPhone.
Intel's I uh LTE chips only work on T-Mobile or ATT.
So those are the models that I have at the moment.
My stock will increase.
As I say, I buy these for gifts, business, and a number of things.
And rather than I've been thinking about giving these things away randomly past couple of weeks, it just kind of sounds odd if I pick a caller in the two o'clock hour to give a phone to.
How did I choose that one and not somebody else?
Unfair.
So I decided today every caller gets one.
They are going to be rose gold or gold.
They are probably going to be 256 gigabytes of storage.
There might be some 128s thrown in there.
Uh but they are the top of the line, iPhone 7 Plus, with the brand new dual camera system that includes a genuine telephoto lens that is optical telephoto, not digital, not the result of software tricks.
It's amazing.
It is a it's the finest camera on a mobile device in the world.
The phone itself is the finest phone, the finest mobile device anywhere in the world, and I am thrilled.
I love these things, and I am thrilled to be able to share them with as many people as I can.
So again, no Verizon, no Sprint models today.
Just ATT.
They're unlocked.
So all you have to do is swap your SIM card in them.
If you have a phone now, take your SIM card out, as long as it's a 5S or newer, iPhone 5 or newer, and you're good to go.
If not, take it to your phone store, T-Mobile, ATT, get it moved.
It's easy.
The phone's unlocked.
It's ready to use.
And that's that.
Now, to the audio soundbites, I want to get started here because bouncing off of some of this is a good way to get started up.
Up first from yesterday's fresh air on NPR.
The host Terry Gross was speaking with New York Times reporter Robert Draper about a recent article Draper has written.
That article was titled How Donald Trump Set Off a Civil War within the right wing media.
And so the host says, do you think that the impact of talk radio and cable news is changing in terms of politics in America?
The numbers show that talk radio is still a very healthy phenomenon, though it does not own a monopoly on conservative activism the way it did in the 1990s when Rush Limbaugh ruled the roost because of social media, because of Breitbart, because of Drudge.
They are not the only voices that count.
I don't think any of Them quite predicted the rise of Donald Trump.
Almost none of them took him seriously.
Almost all of them saw a Marco Rubio as a better choice for the party, a more plausible choice for the party.
They jumped aboard the Trump train.
They weren't the drivers of the train.
Well, now so much in this.
In the first place, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the conservative media busted up the left-wing media monopoly, and that's the story of conservative media.
And this program was it from 1998 through 1997 when Fox News started.
There were other talk shows that started, and the internet came up of age, blogs and websites and so forth.
But it is a massive media, as we sit here now.
And it's there is no monopoly anything in the conservative movement.
There's not even any unity in the conservative movement, as evidenced by the news every day.
There is unity.
Have you seen anybody break ranks in the drive-by media?
They don't.
And what it is, what is it that they unify around?
What's the organizing principle of anything in the left wing?
Defeating us.
Keep us from increasing our power, keeping us from winning elections.
That's what unifies all the varied and fractious coalitions that make up the Democrat Party.
Our side loves to cannibalize itself.
Our side loves to divide and conquer within the movement.
Our side is in the middle of having arguments over who's prominent, who's the smartest, who's the most powerful.
And all kinds of different factions in the conservative movement want to be known for a number of different things.
None of it beating the left.
We do not have a unifying, organizing principle on the right.
Some say it's a good thing.
It promotes the independence of thought, uh, the lack of um lockstep behavior and this kind of thing.
I can make arguments with both sides, but I really do wish that there were a much greater focus on our side toward beating the left, because I think that's what this is all about.
But to some on our side, it's not really about that.
That's secondary or even tertiary.
First is make sure the fundraising dollars come in.
Others make sure that this and that happens.
Some say that the objective is to make sure they continue to be thought of as the smartest in the movement.
There's all kinds of different reasons of people on our side doing what they do.
The left subordinates all of that to one thing, unifying to debeat to defeat us.
They're in the midst of doing it now, and they do it in every election cycle.
Now, this guy said that most of the so-called conservative media aligned behind Rubio in the primaries.
I I uh uh I don't think that's the case.
As far as conservative media wasn't driving the Trump train, they jumped aboard.
You know what I think this whole soundbite really indicates that even the people on the left who study me and study conservatism still don't understand it, still don't get it, because it is so foreign to them.
The only way they think they can understand it is to apply certain stereotypes to us.
And those stereotypes become the starting point.
The stereotypes are the equivalent of the story being written before they interview anybody.
Then they go out and interview people or listen to this program or whatever, hoping to confirm whatever the stereotypes they have of us happen to be.
As such, they miss.
I know in the case of this show, they miss what this show's really all about.
They miss its purpose, they miss why I exist, they miss why I do it, how I do it, what the objectives are, and they have for 28 years.
It's stunning.
And this is among the people who study it, like this guy from the New York Times, Robert Draper.
I don't think this guy's ever called me.
Now, normally when the drive-by media start doing stories on people, they call them.
I don't know that I would have talked to him anyway, I don't misunderstand.
And it may well be that he did call and nobody told me, because they know I'm not going to talk to him anyway, but I don't, but they never do.
Very seldom do I get a call.
All I see is what they write after having studied.
Now here's the next bite.
The host of the program then says, Well, d do you see the establishment being split in the same way, meaning the conservative establishment, split the same way as the conservative media is.
In conservative media throughout the 1990s, in the advent of Rush Limbaugh and of Matt Drudge and of Fox News.
They were sort of like rowdy cousins to William F. Buckley and then later to George Will.
But they didn't challenge conservative principles.
This has caused a rethinking of conservative ideology that and it's been rather remarkable.
I I uh I have been at the forefront of all this, and I'm not sure what this guy's talking about.
Rowdy cousins to William F. Buckley.
I mean, I know what that sounds like it means.
We're less sophisticated, shouting uncouth, you know, all the usual bromides.
They didn't challenge conservative principles.
No, we were conservative principles.
We are conservative.
This is the one place where conservative principles have not changed.
I have not changed and not redefined myself.
I have not altered in any way, shape, matter, or form.
A rethinking of conservative ideology?
That's not what's going on.
A rethinking of conservative ideology is not what's happening.
Whatever is fractious in the conservative movement, I can tell you that the definition of conservatism is not being rethought.
There's a whole lot of things that are, but not that.
Back with more in a second.
Don't go away.
Someday, when all this is over, I am going to.
I'm going to take the time to explain what I think is going on in conservatism and what has happened to it.
Um the soundbites we just played, these NPR guys and the New York Times guys.
I actually think Trump is the agent here that has disrupted and uh ripped conservatism apart.
And I don't I clearly Trump has had an impact, as I can't deny that, but I think this was going on long before Trump showed up.
There hasn't been any unity in conservatism in terms of what it is, in terms of strategically how to use it.
Uh definition of principles.
There hasn't been any unity.
They haven't even been any unity of purpose.
Depends on what conservative group you're talking to.
You'll get an entirely different reason for their existence.
You'll get an entirely different objective that they have in terms of going forward.
Not true on the left.
The left has an organizing principle called defeating us.
We don't, and certainly the Republican Party doesn't.
I mean, you can't when you have stories like this in the Hill.com, GOP senators, we can work with Hillary Clinton.
Do you ever see Chuck Schumer or Claire McCaskill or pick your, take a Harry Reed?
You ever hear a Democrat senator, you know what?
We could work with uh we could work with Ronald Reagan.
We could work with uh George Bush.
Hell's bells.
They are out to destroy them during the campaign, and if they happen to get elected, then they try to destroy them, destroy them while they are serving.
And we run around saying, oh, we can work with them, we can cross the aisle, we can show people we can govern, all for some misguided aim to try to show some people in America, voters that we're not the reprobates they say we are.
It's a it's a losing proposition.
It's everything being done on defense.
And I think that's one of the biggest dividing lines in conservatism today.
You have people who want to constantly be reactionary and stay on defense.
They're afraid of going on offense because afraid of what the media's gonna say or whatever stereotypes they're afraid of being fulfilled.
Going on offense, it seemed as attacking.
Conservatives are not supposed to attack, because people don't like attacks and they don't like uh confrontation and all this.
It's the same ruse that we always get with the independents.
You better not Criticize Obama, they tell us.
You better not criticize the Democrats.
You better not criticize him.
The independents don't like that.
The independents don't like all this confrontation.
And you start you start getting political with Obama, you're just going to drive the independence right into the Democrats' arms.
You can't get more political, confrontational, mean spirited extremists than today's Democratic Party.
Why are independents never said to dislike the Democrats brand of confrontation, mean spirited extremism?
Why is it never said that the Democrats have better be careful?
If they're not careful, they're going to send these independents running right home to the Republican Party.
Why is it never said?
Why does hardly any poll ever show the Republican presidential candidate winning during the campaign?
Meanwhile, while they have this reason for existing, this organizing unifying principle.
We're still trapped in these internecine battles over and deep in the weeds stuff that average Americans don't care about and don't understand.
But that is for after the election.
But I wanted to be able to set the table now for this.
And back to the sound bites, our buddy Jeffrey Lord from the American Spectator was on Anderson Cooper.
219 last night on CNN.
Question from Cooper.
Wouldn't it have been better for Trump to be the one to have broken the fact he lost $900 million, break it a while ago, saying it was an unfair tax code, I took full advantage of it, but I'm going to fix it for you.
Why did he do that?
Couldn't he have done much greater help for himself if he'd have just been the one to leak it?
Anderson, that is, I grant you the conventional political wisdom in this town without doubt.
I've said for months you shouldn't release any of it because I think the whole thing is a game and a scam here to get people to do this.
People who are outsiders, again, as Rush Lindbaugh pointed out today, who've never been elected to public office.
This is a game to get them.
Amen.
It's exact this whole tax return ruse is designed to expose outsiders as not being qualified to be insiders.
The whole thing, if you're in politics your whole life, you structure your life to get elected and re-elected, and you structure your tax return to do the same thing.
You structure it so there's no apparent wild loss, no wild gain, there's no wild this, you pay a certain amount to charity, you pay any what 15 to 25% of your income to taxes, and you're good to go.
But an outsider doesn't live his life like a politician does, doesn't structure everything in life for public consumption.
A politician does.
A politician dresses a certain way every day for public consumption.
Outsiders don't.
So when an outsider wants to become president, you better release your tax returns.
And he does or doesn't, and they leak it, whatever the case may be, and we find out that the tax return doesn't look anything like a politician's.
And then we're supposed to say, oh, that's not good.
That's not qualified.
Look at all that $900 million loss.
There were half million people that reported losses in the same year Trump did.
Of varying degrees.
It's been in the tax code since the early 1900s.
If it weren't in there, companies would go belly up and we would lose jobs and jobs and jobs year after year after year.
The whole thing is a but Trump did announce it.
It was in his book, The Art of the Comeback.
He has not kept it a secret that he lost 900 million dollars.
So Cooper then says, Well, do you think this story has resonance among people who are undecided or on the fence?
I really do think that the intended effect of this story with the New York Times, and by the way, the New York Times, Rush Limbaugh pointed this out today, wouldn't publish those leaked and hacked emails from East Anglia about climate science.
They refused to publish them because it was illegal, but yet it's okay to publish Donald Trump's uh tax returns, which brings up the question of media agenda.
But I really do think that this is gonna backfire here because so many people, I just got an email right now from a private music teacher whom I know talking all about this, and she says your losses are proportionate to your income.
And she says, of course he's doing this.
And her concluding sentence is I think he's a pretty smart businessman.
I really think that this can backfire.
Why, as I said yesterday, are there not stories of recovery and rebound, and Trump turning it around and going from a year of losing that much money to now being such a huge success in real estate.
Why are those stories not?
I'll tell you why.
There are cultural and societal reasons why those stories don't exist.
But I'm sadly out of time.
If you want to know the angle of this closest to the truth of all this analysis, Donald Trump is the result of a failed and fractured conservatism.
Donald Trump didn't cause this to the extent that people think there's a problem with conservatism.
Trump fills a vacuum created by the fractious nature of conservatism at present.
▲
Export Selection