RUSH: There's another story here, folks, not sure how this is going to be received at the Rubio camp. "Lawmakers are flocking to support Marco Rubio's White House campaign after former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush dropped out of the GOP race on Saturday. A slew of Republicans in Congress who previously backed Bush are moving to support Rubio as he battles GOP rivals Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Rubio's campaign announced ahead of Tuesday's caucus in Nevada that Sen. Dean Heller (Nev.) and Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.) would be backing his campaign."
And some representatives from Florida that were all Bush backers are now moving over to Rubio. Bob Dole says, "As much as I love John Kasich, you know, Rubio is probably a better candidate. And he's young." I guess it means Kasich isn't, so Bob Dole on ABC -- do we have this? Yeah, grab sound bite number 30. I mentioned this earlier. This is Rubio on The O'Reilly Factor last night. Answer this for yourselves, but I'm not sure that this is what on-the-fence, if there are any, conservative primary voters actually want to hear.
RUBIO: As far as the 12 million here that are, look, I don't believe the American people support some sort of militaristic roundup of individuals, and I don't think you could carry it out, the sort of tactics that would require would offend the American people. And the good news is we don't have to do it that way. If you secure our border, if you secure our border, if you put in place mandatory E-Verify, if you put in place a mandatory entry-exit tracking system, if we prove to the American people that illegal immigration is finally under control, I think the American people will respond in a very rational, reasonable, but responsible way.
RUSH: What he's saying here is if we ever get to the point where we could secure the border and prove it and announce to the American people that no more illegals are getting across, certainly not en masse, that we've got it under control, he's saying the American people I think will be very fair and understanding about the 12 million or whatever the number is that are here and would not want to deport them and would want to find a way to keep 'em here, keep 'em united with their families.
Now, over here, Trump: deport, deport, they gotta go, build a wall, no question about it. It's the signature element of his campaign. Cruz has now joined that aspect of it by acknowledging that he would support deporting all 12 million. So this is clearly the establishment line here that Rubio has taken. And we'll just have to wait and see how helpful or whatever else it ends up being.
RUSH: Here's Pam in Brentwood, Tennessee. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Fine. Thank you.
CALLER: I have been listening to you since I was in college, and I'm 48 now, and today was the first day I had to call in 'cause I was ticked off.
RUSH: Oh, no.
CALLER: I'm sorry, Rush, I was. I just felt like you had an opportunity to share Marco Rubio's true, true stance on immigration, and that one snippet from O'Reilly, and I realize you can't play it all, but you could have expanded upon it and shared exactly what he was saying.
RUSH: Okay, Pam, hang on, I want to find the sound bite, I want to play it for you, and I want you to -- oh, look, I found it. It's number 30. We've obviously got two number 30's here, so I don't know what number this is for you, but it's "Rubio tells the base what it doesn't want to hear" is what it titled and it's from Fox News last night. So Pam, I'm gonna play this, and then you and I will talk about it, and if you're ticked off at me -- and you're not the only one -- for not telling the full story, you'll have your opportunity to do so. O'Reilly's question is of Rubio, "Your vision is to deal with illegal aliens here who have broken our laws, how? What will you try to sell the voters?" And here's what Senator Rubio said.
RUBIO: As far as the 12 million that are here, look, I don't believe the American people support some sort of militaristic roundup of individuals, and I don't think you could carry it out. The sort of tactics it would require would offend the American people. And the good news is we don't have to do it that way. If you secure our border, if you secure our border, if you put in place mandatory E-Verify, if you put in place the mandatory entry-exit tracking system, if we prove to the American people that illegal immigration is finally under control, I think the American people will respond in a very rational, reasonable, but responsible way.
RUSH: And that's the end of our bite, and my comment was that I'm not sure that that's what Republican primary voters want to hear because what it means is that once we get the border secure, we are not going to do anything about the 12 million here illegally except find a way to make them legal.
CALLER: And that's simply not his stance, and I have to admire Marco Rubio for not exploiting the anger of the American people on this immigration situation. I look at myself as a realistic conservative. And the people I talk to and my friends who are of different political viewpoints all feel the same way. And it is unrealistic for anyone to think that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are going to deport 12 million people. And so Marco Rubio went on and discussed his E-Verify, and again, it may be the uninformed electorate, but if you read what that means, it means you come out of the shadows, you have to register. If you don't, you're deported. You also deport criminal illegals. And I don't get the fact that people aren't sharing his stance on immigration. And we know you know that.
RUSH: Well, because --
CALLER: I felt --
RUSH: -- now you're gonna really hate me. You don't know, it's not your problem, Pam, but I'm being beat up these past two weeks like you can't imagine. For every one of you, there's 10 Cruz people calling and there's 15 Trump people calling, and then there's four Kasich people calling. I can't win. This is what happens, and if I'd endorsed one of them, it'd be even worse. What you just described comes right out of the Gang of Eight bill. The E-Verify. I've had it explained to me by no less than Senator Schumer. And that's my point here.
CALLER: I guess I'm concerned that people listen to you and they cling to your words, because you 99-point-whatever percent of the time are usually right.
CALLER: Eight, okay. Eight percent of the time you're usually right. And when you make it seem like it's a realistic option for Donald Trump -- I'm just giving you my interpretation --
RUSH: No. No, no. You're not clinging on my words. You now are interpreting them. I'm just talking about what people are saying and how the base might respond to it.
RUSH: Pam, I want you to hang on. No, this is important and I need you to hold on for a while. If you can't, maybe you can give us your number, we'll call you back when it's time to get back on it. I've gotta take a break here. Mr. Snerdley will explain it to you. But I will expand on it.
RUSH: Let me close the loop on something here 'cause I want to move on. I've got whole Democrat Stack here of things I want to get to. And I'm gonna do it. Not gonna get sidetracked here by a bunch of stuff I've already covered. Greetings. Welcome back. 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
There's a Breitbart News story, August 6th of 2015. "Marco Rubio says he wants border fence, visa tracking system, but voted against both to pass the Gang of Eight bill." And then from the article it says this: "When the Schumer-Rubio bill hit the Senate floor, Sen. John Thune offered an amendment to required the completion of a border fence. Sen. Rubio joined all members of the Gang in voting against Thune’s amendment, which failed.
"Likewise, with respect to the implementation exit-entry tracking system, Sen. Rubio voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Vitter (R-LA), which would require the implementation of exit-entry tracking system in order to prevent foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas." This is all about this E-Verify system and the E-Verify card that would be handed out. "Similarly, the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill did not require the immediate implementation e-verify."
Now, what Rubio said to Bill O'Reilly is that these illegal aliens will pay a fine and pay back taxes. Now, Rubio's not the only one who said that. People who have -- (sigh) this is very hard. I can't win. I tell people what they don't know and they don't want to hear it. But this business of leaving the country, getting back in line, paying fines and back taxes and so forth, it sounds good, but when the time comes it's never gonna happen.
Let me draw you an analogy. It's like Schumer. Whenever they talk about amnesty, they always say, "Don't worry, it's not going to include citizenship." Right. It won't. I believe that, until the next day. After Schumer gets his bill passed that grants amnesty, it won't be long before he finds a camera and microphone and starts talking about the mistake they just made. And it'll be along the lines of compassion. "How could we have overlooked this," he will say, or something like it.
"We have just voted a system whereby the 12 million who are here can stay. But we're not gonna let them vote? It's outrageous. It's simply outrageous. How could we have forgotten it? These people have been here for who knows how many years, and they have been paying their taxes and they've been working in America, they have joined the military, they've become full-fledged citizens every way except legally, and now we're not gonna let them vote," and that's how that'll happen, and it will be bleeding heart again. Because at the end of the day what this is -- and this is the crux of the issue, and this is why it has been universally opposed by everybody in the Republican Party except for elected Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce.
Whatever you want to call it, some people now say don't use the word "amnesty" because it's lost its oompff and it actually has a negative connotation because it's a tired, worn-out word. Whatever works, the objective of the Democrat Party is to take whatever people are in this country illegally and allow them to vote. That's all this is about. Everything else is a smoke screen. It's not about uniting families or keeping them united. It's not about compassion. It's not about economics. It's not about any of it. It's about expanding the Democrat Party voter rolls. All it is is a Democrat Party voter regulation program. And everybody talks all around it.
I have proven it. I have offered to support every aspect of what they call the Gang of Eight bill or whatever else they call it, amnesty, whatever. I've offered to support it. I've done this in person, not just on the air. I've said, "I will support it if you put in a provision they can't vote for 10 years, 15, 25, 30, a number of years out, but they do not get the right to vote, they can't register to vote for a long time." And nobody's interested. Anybody facing this issue head on knows exactly what this is all about. It's about Democrats voting. The Republicans -- here we are hashing out old ground -- the Republicans who join this have bought this notion that they can't win without Hispanic votes, can't win the White House without Hispanic votes, and the only way they can get Hispanic votes is to prove that they don't hate Hispanics.
And the only way, they are told, the only way they can prove they don't hate Hispanics is to sign on to amnesty or whatever we're gonna call it now so that the 12 million who are here can all of a sudden become legal and can vote. And after that magic's supposed to happen. Hispanics are supposed say, "You know, these Republicans are pretty nice. You know what, I like these guys now. You know what, I'm gonna abandon the Democrat Party, I'm voting Republican now." That's what we're told is going to happen. Except we know that it won't. I'm sorry to sigh, but it's frustrating.
And now we've closed the circle. And now we're back at why Donald Trump is in the race and why Donald Trump is running away with it. You can get as deep or as shallow in the analysis as you want. But it's about a last chance, a last-gasp effort at preserving the culture that developed after the founding of this country. It's no more complicated than that, folks. The country's under siege from all quarters, and recently the Democrat Party has joined those who have put the country under siege.
Now, in this instance I'm not even talking about anything other than perception right now. Candidates go out and say or do anything, the perception that people have of what they say or do is going to largely determine the reaction. They're not gonna spend time going deep and deep into, "Well, what they really meant was..." They're gonna knee-jerk react because that's how important the issue is. They're not going to take any chances with it.
So if somebody comes along and says, "I'm gonna deport 12 million."
"Fine. I hear you, and I hope to hell you're telling me the truth, because I support you."
"I'm gonna deport 'em. They gotta go." Donald Trump. "They gotta go. I'm gonna build a wall. Who's gonna pay for the wall? Mexico." Right. They're not taking the time to ask if he really means it. They've already decided that he does. It's that important to a lot of people. It's about preserving a distinct American culture which is under assault, which is under siege. And it's being brought to us by the Democrat Party, which is trying to register all kinds of new voters all the time 'cause they need a permanent underclass of people incapable of taking care of themselves, incapable of providing for themselves who will always be counted on to vote Democrat to be taken care of.
And under these circumstances, people scratch their heads to this day and cannot understand why a single Republican would ever sign on to this. And if you want to know what happens to Republicans that do, the name is Jeb Bush. A hundred million dollars, and it may actually be $115 million could not erase the baggage that Jeb Bush was carrying around, that people assumed he was for amnesty. It's that simple. That's what happens. That's where we are.
And we're also back reminding everybody that the establishments of both parties continue to be in denial, and maybe they're not. Maybe they know by now how fully opposed they are and they just got their backs up and they're going, "Well, screw you. We're still gonna get what we want. You're the serfs. We're the elites. We run the show. Screw you. You may have some temporary victories here, but we're gonna get this done no matter how and no matter where, whether you're looking or not, we're gonna get it done." That's their attitude.
Their attitude is not, "You know what? The American people really don't want this. We better modify this." That's not it at all. That doesn't permeate the establishment mind. If you don't support what they want, you have to be taken care of, you have to be defeated, you have to be rendered irrelevant, you have to be cast aside, whatever. It's that polarizing an issue and nothing's changed on it.
I have a little headline for you here. New York Post. The New York Post is reporting new legislation is being pushed that would give illegal aliens the right to vote in certain New York City elections. "The proposal -- which is winning support from the city’s black and Hispanic activists -- was recently discussed at a Black and Latino Legislative Caucus event in Albany."
New York conservatives oppose this attempt to boost the Democrat Party enrollment. New York State Conservative Party Chairman, Mike Long, threw cold water on the idea. But if this thing were to succeed, here are the numbers. This proposal to grant illegal aliens in New York City the right to vote would result in 1.3 million new voters, noncitizens voting, undocumented.
In the 2017 elections, they'd be able to vote for mayor, comptroller, public advocate, borough president, and city council. Just city elections. That's 1.3 million noncitizen residents -- about 500,000 of whom are "undocumented" -- would be able to vote. That has been proposed in New York City. It's not federal elections, just New York City elections. But it's already underway, you see, folks. So discussions of, "Well, if we make the border secure and then..." No, no. No. We don't have time for any of that. We're on the cusp of losing the country.
That's why the anger.
That's why the fear.
It's not just immigration, but it's the biggie. There's all kinds of other associated, ancillary issues that comprise this. There's some other things to add to it, just adds a couple exclamation points.
Daily Caller: "Almost 60% of Democrats Think Socialism Is Great for America." Remember what this is about, now. It's about preserving the original American culture -- and make no mistake: It's under siege, and has been for a while, and it's losing. "A clear majority of Democrats believe socialism has a 'positive impact on society,' according to a poll by the American Action Network (AAN).
"The political and economic system that wreaks havoc across the world from Venezuela to North Korea is enjoying widespread support in the modern Democratic Party." Socialism is a fraud. It's never worked. But it's seductive. "A telephone poll of 1,000 likely Democratic primary voters found that when capitalism and socialism were polled head to head, socialism won by percentage points, with just 25% of respondents saying they favored capitalism."
This is not a poll of college students, folks. These were likely Democrat primary voters. In other words: The Democrat base. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are not the radical fringe the Democrat Party. They represent rank-and-file mainstream Democrats now. That's just one poll. There is yet another poll. This one is a poll fielded by a Republican firm called OnMessage Inc., and it basically has the same results. It starts out, "Maybe Newsweek was right some time ago, 'We are all socialists now.'"
Democrat voters -- every age-group, every gender, every race -- view socialism favorably, according to the poll. This is within the Democrat Party. I saw on television the other day a woman, a Democrat being interviewed about this very thing. And the reporter expressed shock. And the Democrat woman (she was in her forties), said, "Why? We have socialism now," and she listed off the things. "We got Medicaid. We have Obamacare," and she listed off all kinds of federal programs that, to her, "We have socialism now, and I like it.
"It's taking care of my family. Why would I answer a poll question, 'No, I don't like socialism'? We're living under it." That's a Democrat voter, just an average woman on the street. But that's not even the worst. There's another question in the poll. "Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. Most of the media in our country is controlled by corporations who are more interested in profits than telling the truth. Before a corporate owned media entity covers a campus rally for racial equality, they should first prove that they are not biased against the content of the rally."
A majority voted "yes."
Before the media can be allowed to cover an event, they must be educated on it and agree with the premise of the protesters, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to cover it. A majority of Democrats support that, and I imagine if you find a Democrat on the street and say, "Do you really believe that?" they'd say, "Well, yeah. That's the situation we got now. Everybody knows the media's on our side. Why should we change that? Why would we give up the media being on our side? Why should I give up my Medicare? Why should I give up my Obamacare? We got socialism now."
RUSH: Pam in Brentwood. Okay, Pam. Now, you want to get your 2¢ in on this.
RUSH: Go ahead.
CALLER: Well, you said a lot, and if I'm going to be completely honest -- because I think that's what we all need to be at this stage of the game -- I was not aware of the entire Gang of Eight bill. I did not know details and how you explained them and the votes that Mario (sic) and the Gang took. But I will say this, Rush. We are on a precipice, and we have got to face reality. And as you've mentioned and said on your program many times, there is no perfect candidate. In this election, we need somebody who can bring this country together and not divide it like the current candidates are. And I'm speaking of Donald Trump. I feel like he's exploiting the American people and their anger. I'm angry, too, but --
RUSH: May I interrupt you here for a second? And don't worry, you'll have your time. But I've gotta stop you on something.
RUSH: This whole notion of working together, bringing the country together? We're way past that. We're never... We're not gonna unify with the liberal Democrats. We're not. There's no candidate out there that can forge a kumbaya. These people have to be defeated, Pam.
CALLER: Do you not...?
RUSH: They have to be defeated. There's no unity here. There never, really, has been in this country, anyway. It's always been a contest for leadership.
CALLER: Well, let me ask you this question. Do you truly believe -- truly (giggles), with every ounce, every fiber in your being -- that we can truly defeat the mind-set that is now occurring in our country? Do you not think that we have kind of crossed a line now where we're going to have to find a candidate that...? I'm as conservative as you're going to get, and I understand now that I have to be realistic with who I think can actually win and defeat Hillary Clinton in November.
CALLER: You even shared a while back the candidates now, if you would get Kasich out, if you would get Carson out, if you would get one of those out, those votes most likely, they're negatives of Donald Trump, surpass his... his --
RUSH: No, other people are saying that. I haven't.
CALLER: But you were reciting polls or whatever.
RUSH: Right. Right. Nobody knows. We do have a preliminary indication that some Jeb Bush voters are going to Trump. But there's not enough days that have gone by for that to be known. I've gotta ask you to hold on. We'll continue the conversation here, Pam, after the bottom-of-the-hour break here, 'cause this is important. This whole business of... There's two things I want to tackle with you here. Don't go away.
RUSH; Now back to Pam in Brentwood, Tennessee.
CALLER: Hi there.
RUSH: Now, two things. I want to be understood on this. You said that we need to have somebody bring the country together, and a lot of people talk about bringing the country together, unifying us, making factions of people who disagree somehow come together. I don't think that that's gonna happen. We're too divided. And they are not interested in it, Pam. The people on the left, they don't want to reach common ground with us. We are gnats to them, or worse. We are the Gestapo to them. We're Nazis to them. We are standing in the way of whatever they want.
These people have to be defeated. They have to be overwhelmed. And then after they're defeated they cannot be allowed to bully whoever wins into cowardice and caving in. It's going to be tough. Winning an election is just a tiny first step. After we win the election, it's gonna take perseverance to prevail over all the attempts to subvert the winners of the election and to corrupt what's going on, knowing they still own a lot of the bureaucracy.
But if you believe in a certain cultural America, it's under siege. There's nothing to join with on the other side in preserving it. They want to tear it down, transform it, and rebuild it. They have to be defeated. This is why the Republican Party's worthless. They don't even think this way.
The Republican Party's thinking about showing they can work together, they can cooperate, make Washington work. Sorry; we're so past that, we're so far past that, it's irrelevant. We're talking about holding on and preserving the country as founded. And it's gonna be really, really hard.
The second thing is, "Rush," -- and this is not just you -- "Rush, we can't deport 12 million people. We're never gonna --" Who says? All that is is a conversation stopper. We are the United States of America. Who says we can't get rid of people who are here illegally? It's not a question of we can't. It's a question of do we have the resolve to? Do we have the desire to? Does it makes sense to do it? Are we gonna do it -- and, believe me, even if we win on this, the people opposing it are gonna be firing ammo at whoever wins like you can't believe.
But if we're serious about stopping this transformation of America, it isn't gonna be easy, and winning an election is not gonna send a signal to the other side to stand down, you lost. They don't look at it that way. This is a fight between socialism and capitalism, freedom versus tyranny, however you want to categorize. There isn't any overlap. The only things that we may have in common with them are what people want for their families. But we can't even agree on the definition of a family with half of these people. So I don't think all the putting our hands together and coming together and unifying and working and making the country come together and common ground, we're so far past that, if we're serious about what we want.
CALLER: And I didn't mean to be touchy-feely when I was referring to that. I think there's a way you can unify people. Well, we know there is, because his name was Ronald Reagan. And I feel like we have been given a gift, the Republican, the conservative movement, whatever you want to call it, we've been given two gifts, and they are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. And if this is not the time where we can bring a candidate who has those qualities as much as we can look for them in a candidate on our side right now to win this election, I believe we will start seeing a shift in tone and we will start converting minds. Listen, I was at Mario's rally in Franklin, Tennessee, this past weekend.
CALLER: And there were supposedly going to just be a thousand people, and they had to open it into the parking lot. There was around five to six thousand people. That was their estimate. He was the closest thing that I have ever experienced to Ronald Reagan in my entire adult life. I just feel like that argument that we can't start bringing people to our side, in quotation marks, is not valid right now because we are now in a great position because there are so --
RUSH: Look, I'm not even making this about Rubio or any candidate right now, but you're making my point. You're citing the eighties and Reagan, and you mean his landslide victories as bringing people together. Well, then why aren't we still together? What the hell happened? Two landslides. We had the greatest economy the country's known in our lifetimes. We had low unemployment. We had burgeoning job growth. We had individual and personal wealth that was going like crazy. We brought down the Soviet Union. Why are we still not unified? How did the left tear that down? 'Cause they sure did.
Because even when Reagan was bringing everybody together, they didn't stop. The Democrats in Congress were aligning with Soviet communist client states in central America and Grenada and wherever else they could find to undermine Ronald Reagan. Teddy Kennedy was going to the Soviet Union and telling Soviet leaders: do not fall for anything Reagan does for you, Reagan is a trick, Reagan is a bad actor, whatever.
They were doing everything they could to undermine Reagan during his entire eight years. They hated Reagan as much, if not more so, than they hated George Bush, because Reagan was more successful than George W. Bush. It was brutal. It was vicious. And if the country had been brought together, and if the country during those eight years had actually learned that it was conservatism and Reaganism that led to all of that bounty and the end of the Soviet Union, the Democrats would have never stood a chance. They would have been ended.
But it was just four short years later and here comes Bill and Hillary Clinton. And why? Because the next president got rid of Reaganism. The next president started making deals with the Democrats to show that we can do deals, to show that we're nice guys, to show that we can get along. My point is, we had the greatest economic circumstances in our lifetimes and the Democrats were not interested, Pam. They didn't want to participate, because it left them out of power.
It's not about a great country to them. It's not about the American people doing the best they can do for themselves. That's actually bad news for the Democrat Party, because all that means is people don't need government, people don't need the Democrats, people don't want them, they're not dependent. Bad, bad news. Can't have that. Why do you think Ted Kennedy decided to reinstitute amnesty and illegal immigration during Reagan's second term? They had to undermine it somehow. And we went along with it because we accepted a promise that we would secure the border and those three million in 1986 would be it. And here we are talking 12 million, which I think is probably closer to 15 or 20 million.
In the midst of abundance, in the midst of economic prosperity like we hadn't known since the postwar boom, the Democrat Party was trying to tear it down and succeeded. There isn't a Jesus Christ running that's gonna unify everybody. And I hate to say it, Jesus Christ didn't, either. Unity is one of these things that sounds wonderful, sororities love it, fraternities pretend to love it so they can get inside the sororities, but it's nothing more than a dream. This is a world governed by the aggressive use of power, the aggressive use of force, and if you want to maintain both, you have to fight for it each and every day. It's never permanently won. You never permanently convert people.
Even average, ordinary Americans who ended up having economic prosperity they'd never known in the 1980s, were talked out of it. In four short years, they were convinced it was phony. They were convinced it was a party that we didn't deserve, and we ran up all these deficits (which was a lie), and we had to now start paying it back. Sam Donaldson at ABC News said, "We've got a big credit card bill, folks, because of the Reagan eighties and we gotta pay it back." BS! That's what we've got now! The deficit was coming down with Reagan!
The national debt was stagnant. It wasn't growing under Reagan. Well, it was, but the deficits eventually were brought under control. And in 1994 we actually balanced a budget for the first time in my lifetime. All that's gone, because we have not had a Republican Party that accepts conservatism and fights for it and preserves victories when we get them! So every day... Do you ever notice what we talk about? We talk about stopping things. Every Republican think tank, every conservative media whatever, organization -- including this show -- every day is devoted to how do we stop them?
We don't have time to get around to what we want to advance. We're too busy stopping. They're not talking about stopping anything. They're on the march! They're on the march and succeeding with things that ten years ago you would have never thought would ever happen. Gay marriage? Today in a lot of cities, you can walk into any bathroom you want claiming you're a "transgender" and you decide to present female that day, so you walk into the ladies' restroom. That's becoming a matter of law.
Ten years ago you'd have been laughed out of this country if you'd have thought that would ever happen. They are not stopping anything, except us. But they're on the march advancing each and every day. We talk about stopping things. Now, you can correlate all this to the current presidential race, and maybe answer some questions you have about why and how people are doing, not doing well, doing poorly or what have you.
Because the American people, I've just described how they feel about all this. Mine is the most common view. Everything I just said is what a majority of conservative-oriented, cultural Americans believe. They're scared to death over this! They're frustrated; they're ticked off; they're angry. They want to do more than just stop something every day. They're tired of being overrun. They're tired of not having allies in the centers of power where this stuff can be stopped. It's not hard to understand.
But it is.
Because once you accept the task at hand and what has to happen, winning the election, that's equivalent being born, and we're an infant, and we've got people coming at us that are gonna try to wipe us out and eliminate everything and pretend it didn't happen, corrupt, sabotage, undermine. Whoever the next president is, and whoever's running the next Congress, and whoever nominates the Supreme Court justice, if it's a conservative, you have no idea what's gonna be brought to bear!
We're gonna need people with such backbone and guts and steel and iron to hold up and to withstand what's gonna come at 'em, you can't even imagine it. But it's what's gonna happen. So it's all of that that informs me each and every day here, folks, as to what happens on this program, analyzing what's going on out there. This is for keeps! This isn't about unifying, getting along. They're not interested in it -- and what do you want to get along with 'em over? What about their agenda do you want to embrace?