ANALYSIS: Exactly how Extreme and Arrogant that the Neocon GOP Activist Base is!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 27, 2007 - 4:02pm.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
There is a battle taking place in the Republican Party now between the arrogant and extreme right wing Neocon activist base versus the more moderate wing!
That battle was sort of fought by proxy between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh. Right below is the article where Limbaugh interviewed Arnold in an article titled "EIB Interview: Governor Schwarzenegger Calls Rush" and below that is another article where that interview was analyzed which is titled "The Schwarzenegger Interview and the Future of Conservatism."
That fight was brewing for a while and then it exploded when Arnold Schwarzenegger called Rush Limbaugh "irrelevant:"
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9d4cc089-4e25-4485-a2ac-989cb9a675ed&f=05&fg=rss (04:46)
Video: Schwarzenegger on Iraq, '08 elections
March 20: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger talks with TODAY's Campbell Brown about supporting the decision to send more troops to Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/arnold.rush/
Schwarzenegger: Rush Limbaugh is 'irrelevant'
POSTED: 9:24 p.m. EDT, March 20, 2007
SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- "Rush Limbaugh likes to call himself "The Most Dangerous Man in America" because critics have long worried about how his powerful radio show shapes the political landscape.
And then came California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who frankly told "The Today Show" Tuesday that "Limbaugh is irrelevant."
"I'm not his servant," Schwarzenegger said. "I am the people's servant of California." (Watch Schwarzenegger say Limbaugh is unimportant
)
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/03/20/costello.arnold.vs.rush.cnn (01:59)
It was a shot aimed at Limbaugh's loaded term for Schwarzenegger -- "closet liberal."
"I don't know what happened to Arnold," the conservative talker said on his radio show. "He obviously didn't have the leadership skills to articulate conservative principles and win over the public as Reagan did..."
The last time I saw any other Republican oppose Limbaugh on his program was Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/3217
Transcript: Sen. Larry Craig defends his Patriot Act vote and in a public exchange contradicts Rush Limbaugh!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 22, 2005 - 6:27am.
Rush Limbaugh is very fair to quote in my opinion because he is right at the top of the official RNC talk radio list for the Neocon GOP grassroots activists:
http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx
Here is an interesting article with some analysis about the battle between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=a.ozPdc44TVQ#
Arnold, Rush Battle for Republican Party's Soul: Kevin Hassett
By Kevin Hassett
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- "Last week, two titans of American popular culture had a dustup. It was Arnold versus Rush for the heavyweight championship...
The Republican Party is at a historical crossroads. If you are Republican, the odds are you're ideologically either with Rush or Arnold. Only one side can win...
Someone is going to try Schwarzenegger's approach of bipartisan governance at the federal level, and soon..."
Neoconservative foreign policy is a key issue that has separated the Neocon activist wing of the GOP from the more moderate and sane wing of the GOP:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11240
ANALYSIS: Division in the GOP over who is "conservative" based on foreign policy
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 28, 2007 - 5:46pm.
I have credibly documented that Neocons have no room in the Republican Party for moderates or for any people who are not ideologues like they are:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9424
ANALYSIS: Keeping moderate Republicans at home if they won't vote for a Democrat
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 3, 2006 - 9:26am.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7018083
Building Bipartisanship? Not Limbaugh's Problem
by David Folkenflik, January 25, 2007
Here are three key points from the transcript right below titled "EIB Interview: Governor Schwarzenegger Calls Rush" which are worth noting in my opinion:
1) Arnold and Limbaugh have two radically different ideas about what "bringing people together" really means:
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: "Well, I think that the point also is when you have a radio show or a TV show or you write papers, and you write your editorials and all this stuff, your objectives are different than mine. You know, I have to, ultimately, make decisions that are based on bringing people together, bringing Democrats and Republicans together, and to really working for the people and trying to resolve issues. If it is issues that have to do with health care or environment, if it is creating more jobs, getting more businesses to California, all of those things, I have to make tough decisions every day -- or prison reform, and so I'm building more prisons. So all of those things. So what you guys are talking about and the ideology and philosophy and, you know, the right versus the left and all of those things, I cannot deal with that as much because to me what is important is that I bring both of the parties together and make things work to serve the people. This is what I do, and this is why I pay very little attention if someone criticizes me or calls me, you know, that I'm turning left and that I'm selling out or whatever. I have to stay focused on results.
RUSH: I'm all for bringing people together but not compromising principles in the process..."
2) Arnold and Limbaugh have radically different ideas about what it means to compromise:
RUSH: "But ideology is a fundamental argument in that. I believe conservatism is the best way to provide the most opportunity and success for the vast majority of people. Government simply can't do it. You mentioned the minimum wage and compromising. You compromised on the price, but you still accepted the premise of liberalism that minimum wage is a somehow going to improve people's lot in life, and it doesn't. You mentioned health care.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Let me just say to you something, that I have had many, many -- I would say hundreds of -- hard-working people in California come up to me and say it did improve their life. So, I mean, I think it is wrong to say that it didn't improve people's lives. I think those things do improve people's lives. If you create health care for people, it does improve people's lives. If you go and create accountability in education, it does improve education. So I think I'm a results-oriented person, and I personally believed 100% that we need to raise the minimum wage that the people deserve it. So it was not like selling out or going the other way..."
3) Arnold and Limbaugh have radically different ideas about the role of ideology:
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: "-- fighting over who is right and who is wrong and nothing gets done. Imagine that for years now we are debating over immigration reform, and they can't get their act together. That is embarrassing. I think that those guys should sit down and be serious about it, forget a little bit about their ideology and get things done and represent the people of California and the people of America. I think that's what the bottom line is.
RUSH: The problem with that is the liberals and the Democrats are not going to punt their ideology because it defines them, and so when we end up agreeing with them just to get compromise, even if the numbers they want are not as much as they wanted, we are still compromising our ideology, they are not -- and this is what people are upset about. It's happening in Washington..."
In the article below the interview titled "The Schwarzenegger Interview and the Future of Conservatism," Limbaugh analyzes his interview with Arnold and makes four key points:
1) Limbaugh is very worried about Arnold's "bipartisan governance" view spreading nationally:
RUSH: "If you are Republican, the odds are you're ideologically either with Rush or Arnold. Only one side can win... Someone is going to try Schwarzenegger's approach of bipartisan governance at the federal level, and soon..."
2) Limbaugh compared his battle with Arnold to "Goldwater versus Rockefeller" and considers it a "mirror image of the battle in the Republican Party:"
"A little over-stated that this battle between Arnold and me is a quintessential mirror image of the battle in the Republican Party," and Levin wrote back, "You're crazy." He's always telling me I don't have enough consciousness of my own position. He says, "It was classic. That interview between you and Schwarzenegger was Goldwater versus Rockefeller. So in that sense it was important..."
3) Limbaugh says the bottom line is that "it's about winning" and that Republicans should not try to compromise with Democrats, get along with Democrats, or move to the center:
"The bottom line is that we have too many Republicans pushing a liberal Democrat agenda in order to get along with them and they're compromising what we believe, and they're saying that unless Republicans expand entitlements and raise taxes and surrender their liberties -- i.e., global warming -- that they'll lose. This is what Republican candidates are being told, and they're always told this. "You've gotta move to the center! Conservatism can't win." You have some weak-kneed and linguini-spined Republicans who happen to believe this... This whole notion of compromising to get along? In the first place, politics is not about "getting along." It's about winning. I don't care if we've been Oprahized or Oprahified or whatever, it's not about getting along. These are core principles and beliefs that determine the future of the country and our way of life..."
4) Limbaugh says that Republicans who do not hold to his form of extreme and arrogant ideology are lacking conservative leadership skills:
"So conservatives who can't make the conservative case don't have the leadership skills to do it, and that's what's missing: conservative leadership..."
I hope everyone understands that this is the main reason why a socially liberal Rudy Giuliani is leading in the primary polls for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination, this is why he is getting loads of praise from Rush Limbaugh along with his Neocon activist base, and this is why I think that Giuliani will be very destructive to the country if he is ever elected President in 2008:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11905
ANALYSIS: Why Rudy Giuliani is leading in the 2008 GOP primary polls right now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 26, 2007 - 4:32pm.
This is also why any Republican who does not hold to this form of extreme and arrogant ideology (such as Chuck Hagel) will have no chance at all of winning the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11378
ANALYSIS: Can Hagel win the GOP Nomination or the Election as an Independent?
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 9, 2007 - 5:25pm.
I wish that Matthew Dowd turning on Bush for the right reasons had received more media coverage and was still in the news right now because there need to be many more people like him who will renounce that kind of arrogant and extreme ideology:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11664
ANALYSIS: Matthew Dowd turning on Bush and why that happened!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 3, 2007 - 3:06am.
"He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides..."
Uniting the country in my opinion is a key issue that I do not hear many people or the announced Presidential candidates talking about right now:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11629
GALLUP: Bill & Hillary Clinton Poll Numbers; Uniting the country is a key issue!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 30, 2007 - 2:54pm.
Gen. Clark has had it right about uniting the country for a long time:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9979#comment-161838
Why I think Gen. Clark is best qualified to unite the country:
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 8, 2006 - 5:27am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9979#comment-177662
Gen. Clark is the champion of trying to unite the country:
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 29, 2007 - 1:49pm.
I would definitely not rule out a serious third party candidate in the 2008 Presidential election such as Chuck Hagel or Michael Bloomberg if neither the Democrats or the Republicans are doing anything serious to try and unite the country!
Most of the people in this country ("the forgotten middle" and "new silent majority" talked about in this Reader's Digest article) want to see the country united and hunger for that to happen:
http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=28693
A Fractured America?
Red State, Blue State. So the media says. But is our country really that divided?
By William Beaman, From Reader's Digest, November 2005
"So the sexy story may be that there's an all-out war between red and blue, but the bigger news is about the forgotten middle. These centrists lack power and influence, but they've got the numbers. Put another way, America has spawned a new silent majority."
No President in my opinion, regardless of party, can EFFECTIVELY run the country if about half of the country absolutely hates their guts (just like how they do with Bush right now)!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032107/content/01125106.guest.html
EIB Interview: Governor Schwarzenegger Calls Rush
March 21, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have now with us Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from California. He just touched down in Fresno. Governor, thanks for making time for us today.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Absolutely. How are you today Rush?

RUSH: Never better, sir. It's nice to have you.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Terrific.
RUSH: It's nice to speak with you.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: It's nice to talk to you. The last time I think I saw you was at a fund-raiser for cancer research.
RUSH: Yeah, prostate cancer research.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: You were seated next to my wife.
RUSH: Right, it was Michael Milken's thing. It was at the Bellagio.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: That's right, exactly, where they raised millions of dollars for cancer research. It was just a terrific event.
RUSH: Played a lot of golf that weekend, too, out at Shadow Creek.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Right. So if we don't meet at the Smoke-Out, we meet at the cancer research fund-raiser so here we are, and here we are talking today. First of all I want to just say thank you for covering me yesterday after, you know, what I said about you. You explained exactly what I meant. I really appreciate that.
RUSH: You mean the "irrelevant" comment?
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Exactly.
RUSH: Well, I know you, and I knew... See, I think you just probably get a little flustered. Every time you go on these shows they throw my name up at you, and my interpretation was that you're governing California. I don't live there, and you're going to do what you're going to do regardless what anybody says.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I think that the point also is when you have a radio show or a TV show or you write papers, and you write your editorials and all this stuff, your objectives are different than mine. You know, I have to, ultimately, make decisions that are based on bringing people together, bringing Democrats and Republicans together, and to really working for the people and trying to resolve issues. If it is issues that have to do with health care or environment, if it is creating more jobs, getting more businesses to California, all of those things, I have to make tough decisions every day -- or prison reform, and so I'm building more prisons. So all of those things. So what you guys are talking about and the ideology and philosophy and, you know, the right versus the left and all of those things, I cannot deal with that as much because to me what is important is that I bring both of the parties together and make things work to serve the people. This is what I do, and this is why I pay very little attention if someone criticizes me or calls me, you know, that I'm turning left and that I'm selling out or whatever. I have to stay focused on results.
RUSH: Well, we're doing the same thing. I react the same way to criticism as you do. I ignore it because there's too much of it. It's part of the territory. I'm all for bringing people together but not compromising principles in the process -- and, you know, one of the reasons they keep throwing my name at you is because I have said that your compromise looks more like agreeing with liberals than maintaining your natural conservative beliefs.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I mean, you know, like I said: this is your interpretation, but the fact of the matter is that we are moving as a state forward exactly what my plan is. You know, when we last year -- you know, you maybe disagree with that but -- we increased the minimum wage by $1.25 and I think the people of California, the hard-working people of California, deserved that because for years they didn't have a minimum wage increase. So we did it in a way that it is doable for businesses but we also did it in a way where we did not go as far as the Democrats wanted to go where they asked for a $2.50 increase and to have an automatic escalator in there and so on. So we didn't go there. So we compromised, and did something that I felt very comfortable with and thought that it was important. But the same thing again is with health care. You know, some people want to go and have health care and reform the system, so we have a government-run health care system. Well, I disagree with that. I think that the private sector can take care of it, that we just need to create some guidelines of what it ought to be so that everyone is ensured, that insurance companies cover everyone, and to create a pool -- a risk pool, a risk pool for insurance companies and to make it a partnership within the private sector, hospitals, doctors, the state and the federal government. And I was very happy that the federal government agreed to come in with $3.7 billion and help us with our health care reform. So those are the bottom lines. So it's not "selling out." It is just doing the work for the people because 72% of the people in the last poll said that our health care system is broken and yes, we need to fix it, and 82% of the people said that it needs to be fixed in the way where there's a shared responsibility, where everyone comes in and works. So those, I don't see them as selling out but I can understand from where you're coming from, where you look at it just the ideology or maybe in just a more conservative way. We are a state that is in a majority of Democrats, and I have always said during the election process -- during the I was running for governor three years ago -- I said, "When I become governor I will be the people's governor and I will represent everybody, Democrats and Republicans."
RUSH: Well, look I'm not looking at it ideologically. You and I both want the same things: we want what's best for people.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Right.
RUSH: But ideology is a fundamental argument in that. I believe conservatism is the best way to provide the most opportunity and success for the vast majority of people. Government simply can't do it. You mentioned the minimum wage and compromising. You compromised on the price, but you still accepted the premise of liberalism that minimum wage is a somehow going to improve people's lot in life, and it doesn't. You mentioned health care.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Let me just say to you something, that I have had many, many -- I would say hundreds of -- hard-working people in California come up to me and say it did improve their life. So, I mean, I think it is wrong to say that it didn't improve people's lives. I think those things do improve people's lives. If you create health care for people, it does improve people's lives. If you go and create accountability in education, it does improve education. So I think I'm a results-oriented person, and I personally believed 100% that we need to raise the minimum wage that the people deserve it. So it was not like selling out or going the other way. It is something that I believe in, but, I stuck to my principles of not doing it to chase the businesses out of the state because I'm very proud of the fact that since I came into office --
RUSH: Have you reversed that trend of businesses and people leaving California?
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Yes.
RUSH: They were leaving that state in droves, and that was one of your campaign promises, or premises, after the Gray Davis recall, that there were way too many businesses fleeing the state.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Rush, I just give you an example. I give you an example.
RUSH: High taxation, a number of things, regulation forcing people out.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: (Chuckles.) I give you an example that made me, actually, very happy. The other day we were at an event where a drywalling company -- a manufacturing company that produces drywalls -- has moved their operation to California, and it is the biggest one in the world, and they came here because they said, "This is a great business environment." They can do business here. They can be part of the great growth and the success of California, and said they're moving their workers and creating this huge business right here in California. That's just one out of many, many examples where businesses are feeling now, again very, very happy about coming to California. That doesn't mean that other businesses don't think about going to another state, but I would say a huge amount of businesses are coming back here because we are creating a much better business atmosphere -- and remember one thing, and I know this is something that you love, and that is giving money back to our private sector, to people. When we reformed workers' compensation, that has created now an additional increase in money for the private sector of $13 billion a year. Now, think about how much money this is. Now, when we go into health care reform, as you know right now -- and this is the important thing for the conservatives to think about, that right now -- everyone that is insured here in California, they are paying for the uninsured. That means there's a hidden tax there, a huge hidden tax -- so much that the private sector businesses in California are paying $14.billion right now in the hidden tax. What I want to do is get rid of that hidden tax; reduce the cost of health care through prevention and through insuring everyone and make sure that everyone carries insurance and that everyone is insured by the insurance companies. So this is the kinds of things that we are doing.
RUSH: Now, wait a second. You want to extend health care coverage to every child even the children of illegal aliens, immigrants in the country, and you want to raise taxes to do this, and you call them "loans."
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, Rush, I just said that we're reducing the hidden tax of $14.7 billion. We want to get rid of this hidden tax that is being made right now.
RUSH: But a tax is a tax.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Billions -- every single --
RUSH: But if you replace the hidden tax with visible tax, it's still a tax.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: No. Hold on a second. Every single person that is insured right now, is paying extra money. If it's the premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, copays, all of those things is more money because of the hidden tax because every time you get insurance, you pay for those that are uninsured -- and that is unfair to those people that are insured. So what we want to do is insure everybody, and make it mandatory that each person has to carry insurance so we get rid of that hidden tax that is existing right now, and this is why when we talk about the 4% increase, it's not really a tax. It is a fee, because actually in the end those companies and individuals will profit by the lowering of our health care costs and getting rid of the hidden tax. So it's a wash, or it actually they come out much more ahead than they are now.
RUSH: Governor, you were so good during your first campaign, and you had the whole country inspired. You were so good at the 2004 Republican Convention, and you had people in California particularly, inspired and motivated.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, thank you.
RUSH: But they see a lot -- (Laughing.)
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: (Laughing.) Thank you.
RUSH: But they see a lot of about-faces.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: What?
RUSH: For example, in 2005, you vetoed a Democrat bill that would have expanded the state's health care coverage to children because the $300 million price tag was too high. Now you've turned around and your health care plan is being applauded by the state's Democrats.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: No. You're absolutely wrong, Rush. Because I vetoed the bill to cover every child because they did not set up a revenue stream that shows where the money will come from. We are a state that is still paying off our debt. Anyone that sends me a bill that costs more money, I will veto it because it is not right until we pay off our debt. This is why I want to have a comprehensive health care reform where we know where the money comes from, that we create a pool of $12 billion where the state and the federal government comes in and helps us with that, and it is a shared responsibility, and that will cover everyone. Now, let me go back to your question that you had earlier about undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants right now get health care and get coverage. They can go to any emergency in the United States.
RUSH: I know.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Any emergency room in California, because that's the federal law.
RUSH: Right, and many of them in Southern California --
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Rush --
RUSH: -- closed down because they're not being paid for the visits by these people.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: But listen, Rush. It is not a question should we cover them or not. They are covered. It is illegal to turn anyone away from any emergency room.
RUSH: That's for emergency health care, though, governor.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: -- and therefore in my health care reform, we are debating not, "Should they be covered or not?" but it is a debate, "How it can be done cheaper and more cost effectively?" That's what we are going to work out. It's one-fifth of the cost that we are paying right now, which is a great benefit to the taxpayer.
RUSH: But emergency room coverage is emergency coverage. What you are proposing is universal, all over the place all the time.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: You know when you don't go to an emergency room, do you know that 90% of the time there's no emergency? If they would have a health clinic or some kind of a medical clinic they can go get those things done for $50 rather than paying a thousand dollars -- what they're doing right now --
RUSH: Well, they're not paying the thousand.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: -- in the emergency rooms, and it crowds up the emergency rooms, and therefore people has to wait five to seven hours. So, I mean, believe me: we are moving forward. The important thing you need to know is, that 91% of the votes from Republicans in the last election, which was just two months or three months ago: 91%. I won with a 17% lead over my opponent. So I have a lot of Republicans on my side, and they understand that I want to get the job done rather than fighting like they do in Washington over nothing --
RUSH: Well, I don't --
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: -- fighting over who is right and who is wrong and nothing gets done. Imagine that for years now we are debating over immigration reform, and they can't get their act together. That is embarrassing. I think that those guys should sit down and be serious about it, forget a little bit about their ideology and get things done and represent the people of California and the people of America. I think that's what the bottom line is.
RUSH: The problem with that is the liberals and the Democrats are not going to punt their ideology because it defines them, and so when we end up agreeing with them just to get compromise, even if the numbers they want are not as much as they wanted, we are still compromising our ideology, they are not -- and this is what people are upset about. It's happening in Washington.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Rush? Rush?
RUSH: It's happening in California.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I happen to disagree with that, Rush, because I think that they should not get stuck --
RUSH: You know liberals, governor. You've been around them your whole career! You know who they are. You know that they don't waive --
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: I understand it, but I'm just saying that in the end, we have to represent the people and do the job for the people, and that sometimes takes compromise and there's nothing wrong with that, and you still can speak to your ideology, and stay with that, but you still have to compromise in order to get things done, and that's their job in Washington -- to get things done and to represent the people and to do a great job and to fix things, to fix health care, to fix immigration reform -- not to argue year after year after year and to make promises that they can't keep. So anyway, so you and I, we're going to have a good time again on our next smoke out that we're going to have?
RUSH: (Laughing.)
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: We'll smoke a stogie together and we'll be talking about this from here to eternity. The key thing is that people should know that you and I, we don't have a fight. We don't argue over those things. We just have different opinions, and, you know, and I am enjoying that because I think the Republican Party has a big tent.
RUSH: Governor, look, I've always liked you, and I've always admired you. The first time I met you at that Planet Hollywood opening in Dallas, I had a great time. We've all got so much hope for you. Everybody wants you to be who you are. I know there are a lot of Republicans -- and it was in the paper today -- hoping you wake up one day and become a conservative again.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Right, right. (Laughing.)
RUSH: I'm sure you saw that. Look it, I appreciate your calling.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you!
RUSH: I appreciated the time and I'll see you at the Grand Havana Club next time.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: You got it!
RUSH: All right. Take care.
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Bye-bye. Thank you.
RUSH: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
RushLimbaugh.com, March 20, 2007: Arnold Schwarzenegger Sold Out
RushLimbaugh.com, March 20, 2007: Is Arnold Tired of Hearing My Name?
RushLimbaugh.com, March 20, 2007: The GOP "Big Tent" Doesn't Include Democrats!
RushLimbaugh.com, January 19, 2007: Something Has Happened to Arnold
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032607/content/01125110.guest.html
The Schwarzenegger Interview
and the Future of Conservatism
March 26, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: My buddy F. Lee Levin sent me a story today. I don't know that I would have caught this on my own. It's from the Bloomberg Newswire (Bloomberg.com, their website) and it's a column posted on Bloomberg by a man named Kevin Hassett. Kevin Hassett is a director of economic-policy studies at AIE, the American Enterprise Institute. He was "chief economic advisor to Republican Senator McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries." His column is all about my interview and kerfuffle with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The headline: "Arnold, Rush Battle for Republican Party's Soul -- Last week, two titans of American popular culture had a dustup. It was Arnold versus Rush for the heavyweight championship. Much of the news coverage focused on the outsized personalities of the two, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. But the content of their exchange was surprisingly important. Indeed, this squabble may well receive extensive treatment in the history books. The Republican Party is at a historical crossroads. If you are Republican, the odds are you're ideologically either with Rush or Arnold. Only one side can win. And as is so often the case, California is the canary in the political coal mine of America. Republicans seeking to run the federal government are bedeviled by the opposition of Democrats. In California, it's much worse. Someone is going to try Schwarzenegger's approach of bipartisan governance at the federal level, and soon. If you are a conservative governing California, you face an almost impossible challenge. A large proportion of the political might in the state is held by those whose views are closer to those of a typical labor union representative than those of, say, a scholar at Palo Alto's conservative Hoover Institution. So you have to choose between approaches."
We have this link, by the way, in the big orange banner for current content at RushLimbaugh.com. Let me just move forward here to the end of the piece. "But popularity might come at the expense of principle. Limbaugh said as much, stating provocatively that Schwarzenegger was a traitor: 'Now, here's the truth of the matter,' he said. 'Arnold Schwarzenegger has done the typical sellout move. He has sold out, and there are too many conservatives selling out these days.' Limbaugh Irrelevant? Those words brought out the Terminator in Schwarzenegger. 'Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant,'' he replied. 'I'm not his servant.' Later, Schwarzenegger appeared on Limbaugh's radio show, and the exchange was lively and telling. Limbaugh railed against the $1.25 increase in the minimum wage. Schwarzenegger defended himself, saying the Democrats wanted $2.50.
"The exchange continued in that vein, until Rush closed with this telling summary: 'The problem with that is the liberals and the Democrats aren't going to punt their ideology, because it defines them. And so when we end up agreeing with them just to get compromise, even if the numbers they want aren't as much as they wanted, we are still compromising our ideology. They are not.' If you could find a workable crystal ball and tune it forward to the first major debate of the Republican presidential primaries, my guess is that the main point of contention would be the same. Some candidates will refrain from laying out strong policies and will argue that the country urgently needs to come together to address long-run problems such as the entitlement programs that are headed for financial ruin. That can only be done, it will be argued, if Republicans are willing to compromise with Democrats.
"Others will describe explicit conservative policies -- a flat tax and Social Security privatization, for example -- and will passionately argue the merits of those reforms. The compromisers will call the traditional conservatives unrealistic and ideological obstacles. The traditional conservatives will call the compromisers sellouts. The voters will have the difficult job of choosing between them. How will they choose? Schwarzenegger's might seems to suggest that the compromisers will win, but I am not so sure. Republican policy in the past six years, especially the burgeoning size of government, has been so far from mainline conservative theory, that many in the party must hunger for a candidate who returns the party to its roots." Boy, is Mr. Hassett ever right about that. That's why when you look at the current Republican field, it's like the buffet at Denny's. There's a little something on there that you like about everything, but you don't want the whole thing.

That's why somebody like Fred Thompson can throw his name in there and all hell breaks loose. All these guys are likable but there's not one genuine conservative that lights everybody's fire, every conservatives' fire. Anyway, the conclusion: "If you read Rush's exchange with Arnold, there was a clear victor. Rush won by a knockout. It is hard to imagine that a presidential debate covering the same territory would go differently." That is, if there is somebody like me in the presidential debates and right now. I don't know that there is somebody like me in the presidential debates. This is Kevin Hassett, who is director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute -- and, you know, Levin sent this to me today and I said, "This is a little over the top, isn't it? A little over-stated that this battle between Arnold and me is a quintessential mirror image of the battle in the Republican Party," and Levin wrote back, "You're crazy." He's always telling me I don't have enough consciousness of my own position. He says, "It was classic. That interview between you and Schwarzenegger was Goldwater versus Rockefeller. So in that sense it was important."
The bottom line is that we have too many Republicans pushing a liberal Democrat agenda in order to get along with them and they're compromising what we believe, and they're saying that unless Republicans expand entitlements and raise taxes and surrender their liberties -- i.e., global warming -- that they'll lose. This is what Republican candidates are being told, and they're always told this. "You've gotta move to the center! Conservatism can't win." You have some weak-kneed and linguini-spined Republicans who happen to believe this. The problem is, folks, that the liberals don't compromise. This whole notion of compromising to get along? In the first place, politics is not about "getting along." It's about winning. I don't care if we've been Oprahized or Oprahified or whatever, it's not about getting along. These are core principles and beliefs that determine the future of the country and our way of life.
It's like my point that I made to Schwarzenegger on the minimum wage. He still accepted the premise. He's all happy that he only gave them the buck and a quarter that he gave them, rather than two and a half, but they still got the increase. He said we've already got the minimum wage and said that people told me it's "made a difference in their lives." I'll bet it has. Some people have been fired. Some businesses have had to do some horrible things because they had to cut back jobs and workers because they had to raise the minimum wage. There's not an endless pile of money sitting in the bank accounts of all these small businesses and so forth. It boils down to this, folks. It's not just that there may not be an actual pedal-to-the-metal conservative out there in the race right now or very many places in elected office. It's that even if there are, they're not very good at articulating it. That was the real strength of Ronald Reagan. So conservatives who can't make the conservative case don't have the leadership skills to do it, and that's what's missing: conservative leadership.
It's plain and simple. It's right out there.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
Arnold, Rush Battle for Republican Party's Soul: Kevin Hassett
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=a.ozPdc44TVQ#
RushLimbaugh.com:
EIB Interview: Governor Schwarzenegger Calls Rush
CNN Goes Wall-to-Wall with the Arnold & "Irrelevant" Rush Story
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
(and other moderate Republicans beside Arnold) stand up to this bully, stop taking his crap, and wipe the stupid smile off of his face?
Limbaugh is arrogantly attacking Republicans in this brief article!
There are more Democrats and moderate Republicans in this country than there are Neocon Republicans. The time to seriously organize nationally to do something to try and take down this idiot is right now before he and his pals can carry water for Neocon GOP candidates in 2008!
He helped to negatively define and defeat John Kerry in 2004. This country cannot afford to let him do that again in 2008 by helping to elect another Neocon nut like Rudy Giuliani who will "stay the course" for another 4 years after Bush leaves office!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042307/content/01125104.guest.html
Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page
April 23, 2007
Story #1: In Your Face: Bush Says Gonzales Stays
RUSH: Arlen Specter was on television yesterday, "Gonzales botched the justice department! Gonzales has to go! He's making the administration look bad!" Bush said, "I loved the guy. I thought the testimony was great. He's staying." It was just an in-your-face -- not just to Senator Specter, but to all these wannabes out there who are trying to tell the administration what to do so it will make their campaigns in 2008 a little easier.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/23/national/w070317D90.DTL
Bush Renews Backing for Gonzales
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
Monday, April 23, 2007
who they claim to be following when Reagan got along well with and was personally friendly with Democrats who he had political disagreements with such as "Tip" O'Neill.
Reagan was also very well liked by most world leaders when he was President compared to George W. Bush who is hated by most world leaders because of his Neocon foreign policy and also because of his very arrogant "my way or the highway" & "you are either with us or against us" attitude toward them!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701429.html
When Partisan Venom Didn't Rule
By David S. Broder
Sunday, January 29, 2006; Page B07
The stench of partisanship is so strong in Washington these days that it is difficult to remember that it was not always the case that Republicans and Democrats were at each other's throats. But, in truth, there was a time when friendship and simple human compassion were far more powerful than any political differences.
A wonderful reminder of that fact can be found among the oral histories compiled by two dozen of Ronald Reagan's main associates that are being released Sunday by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The transcripts are available at http://www.millercenter.org .
![]()

House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill with President Ronald Reagan at a bill signing in 1983. (Barry Thumma - AP)
One of the tapes was furnished by Max Friedersdorf, who ran the White House congressional liaison staff for Reagan. Friedersdorf recounts in the interview what happened while the president was recovering at George Washington University Hospital after the assassination attempt outside the Washington Hilton hotel on March 30, 1981.
Reagan was seriously wounded by John Hinckley, and the day after the shooting, Friedersdorf got a call in the White House from James Baker, Reagan's chief of staff, who was at the hospital. "Get over here," Baker commanded.
"I went over to GW Hospital and went up to the president's room," Friedersdorf said, "and Jim was outside the room with Mrs. Reagan and her Secret Service agent. Baker said, 'I want you to stay here until I tell you to leave.' "
What had happened, Friedersdorf learned, was that Nancy Reagan "was all upset," because Sen. Strom Thurmond had come over to the hospital a few hours earlier and somehow had talked his way through the lobby, up the elevator and into Reagan's room, where he attempted to chat with the gravely wounded president.
"Mrs. Reagan was outraged, distraught," Friedersdorf said. So Baker directed him to take up the watch, and "if any congressman or senator comes around here, make sure the Secret Service doesn't let anybody up, even on this floor."
Friedersdorf said he remained on duty during daylight hours for the next three or four days, and then word came from Baker that the president had recovered enough to start to see people.
The first person to be admitted, Friedersdorf said, was Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, the speaker of the House.
When the Massachusetts Democrat arrived, Nancy Reagan slipped out of the room and Friedersdorf retreated to a corner of the suite where he could remain unobtrusive. "Tip got down on his knees next to the bed, and said a prayer for the president, and he held his hand and kissed him and they said a prayer together . . . the 23rd Psalm.
"The speaker stayed there quite a while. They never talked too much. I just heard him say the prayer, then I heard him say, 'God bless you, Mr. President, we're all praying for you.'
"The Speaker was crying. The president still, I think was a little, he was obviously sedated, but I think he knew it was the speaker because he said, 'I appreciate your coming down, Tip.' He held his hand, sat there by the bed, and held his hand for a long [time]."
When I reached Friedersdorf last week at his retirement home in Florida, I asked him how it happened that Reagan's first guest was the leading Democrat on Capitol Hill. "Well," he said, "Tip was third in line of succession [after the vice president] and the fact he was a Democrat didn't bother anybody. We didn't even think about it. Tip had been calling constantly to see how the president was doing. And there was a bond there.
"I remember," Friedersdorf continued, "the first dinner the Reagans had in the private residence was for Tip and his wife, and my wife and I were there. Tip and the president had a drink or two and started swapping Irish stories.
"Often, after that, Tip would say pretty harsh things about some of our legislative proposals, and the staff would want Reagan to answer him. But they trusted each other, and the president would say, 'That's just Tip,' and let it go."
I asked Friedersdorf if he could imagine that sort of relationship flourishing now between the Republican president and the top Democrats in Congress.
"Absolutely not," he said. Sadly, I think he is right.
Yes and No. I voted for Reagan in '80, that was my first presidential election. I liked Reagan, I enjoyed listening to him speak. I watched him break capaign promise after promiise and did not vote for home in '84.
Just like Reagan, Bush and his pack of neocons are not fiscally conservative. Reagans tax cuts resulted in deficit budgets for his two term, into George Sr's term and Clinton's first term. The national debt that was at $980 billion when Reagan took office had quadrupled by the time he left office and was at $5.5 trillion by the time George Bush Sr left office. Reagan did make some spending cut's and his tax cut's did spur some job growth and capital improvments by US comapanies but the growth lagged the lost revenue from the cuts which favored the wealthy and regressively taxed the poor and middle class.
Dubya's tax cuts have resulted in the countries largest budget deficits that have added around $3.3 trillion to the national debt since he took office. His policies have shifted the burdon for the lost revnue downhill.
Reagan deregulated the banks and the Saving and Loan scandal that happened under his and and Bush Sr's watch resulted in the taxpayers picking up the tab for 100's of billions in bail-outs. Under Dubya's watch predatory lenders have preyed on the middle-class indescriminantly giving credit to to people who have borrowed well beyond their means while Dubya and hs republican congress passed a law preventing people from filing bankruptcy.
Regan had his secret war with Iran-Contra that began this downward spiral in the mideast. He also pumped $100's of millions of dollars and weapons through Pakistan into Afghanistan during the Soviet Afgan war and let Pakistan become nuclear during his tenure. When that war ended the resulting power vaccum set the stage for the Talban to take over in Afganistan. Dubya will go after terorists anywhere unless they are on Pakistani soil and is so enamored with country harboring Bin-Laden that he sold them F16's
I'd say Bush and company have modeled themselve closely after Reagan with a deficit economy, regressive taxation of the poor and middle class and a downward spiral of a caldestine middleast policy/war plan that is a continuation of the policy that Reagan started. Unfortuantely he lacks the class and dignity Reagan had.
I am not talking about Reagan's actual policies, I am only talking about his attitude on an overall basis regarding how he treated people who disagreed with him politically (such as "Tip" O'Neill) and how he was viewed by the majority of leaders of other countries!
Reagan did not have this extremist Neocon attitude of arrogance toward people who disagreed with him politically and he was not arrogant toward other world leaders like how Bush is!
Modern Neocon GOP activists try and set up Reagan as their patron saint who they claim they are trying hard to follow. While Reagan was certainly not perfect, he was not arrogant like how Bush and his Neocon allies are today!
That has nothing to do with Reagan's actual policies which people will always agree and disagree with!
Reagan certainly was a likeable man but he and his team had the more dangerous type of arrogance. One that empowered them to circumvent Congress and U.S. Law to secretly sell banned weapons and parts to a terrorist state while using the proceeds to fund another secret war in Central America.
I agree with you on the scandals like Iran Contra.
At least Reagan could publicly admit to making a mistake about that unlike Bush who could not think of one back in April of 2004!
How many Neocons do you see admitting to mistakes outside of thinking that "the war wasn’t neoconservative enough:"
Guest Columnist
The Neocon Paradox
By ROBERT WRIGHT
Published: April 24, 2007
Neoconservatives have been airing an explanation for the failure of the Iraq war that’s so obvious you’ll wonder why you didn’t think of it yourself: the war wasn’t neoconservative enough.
Last week Richard Perle, on “The Charlie Rose Show,” echoed what his fellow neocon John Bolton told the BBC last month: We should have turned Iraq over to the Iraqis much sooner. Then, presumably, the power of democracy to blossom pronto in even nutrient-depleted soil — the neocon élan vital — would have kicked in.
Nice try, but they’re just digging themselves in deeper...
More tough questions like these need to be asked to Republicans like Karen Hanretty in this transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16385321/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Dec. 28
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
Updated: 6:45 p.m. CT Dec 28, 2006
Guests: Barry Werth, David Gergen, John McCaslin, Karen Hanretty, John Harwood
MATTHEWS: I don‘t think it‘s left/right anymore. I think when you hear people like President Ford, as you‘ve pointed, chime in posthumously, and people like Bill Buckley—William F. Buckley and George Will, I don‘t hear a lot of traditional conservative support for the war.
HANRETTY: Chris, I totally agree that Republicans are starting...
MATTHEWS: No, traditional Republicans would never have brought us into this war. This a neoconservative war.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Karen, this is a neoconservative war fought by strange ideologues with their own strange objectives. This is not a party, a Republican Party that would have supported this war traditionally. Ronald Reagan would not have taken us over there. Gerry Ford would not have taken us over there. I don‘t know which Republican president would have led us into the desert, put the American Army stuck in Iraq. Only one president did that with the help of Dick Cheney and the neocons.
We‘ll be right back with Ron Regan—Ron Reagan and Karen Hanretty.
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14514007/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 24
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
Updated: 10:55 a.m. CT Aug 25, 2006
MATTHEWS: When are the traditional—I want to get back to this, my one last question, Bob. I know you‘ll have a role in this, Pat when are the traditional conservatives of this country who believe in less government, and less role in the world, like yourself—although you might be more extreme than some—George Will, Bill Buckley—when are you guys going to retake your party from the neoconservatives and stop these overseas campaigns?
BUCHANAN: I will tell you, when you get a president in the United States that does not listen to them, and frankly you have got a president and a country that have been horribly burned by following this foolish ideology. And I think in the future, Chris, quite frankly, if (INAUDIBLE) had happened, but I think after Iraq, you are not going to get a lot of adventures, although they are pushing for this Iranian thing as the last great cause.
MATTHEWS: OK...
---------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/node/7166
Buchanan-Matthews 2008? Chris Pleads With Pat to Take Back GOP From Neo-Cons
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 25, 2006 - 00:56.
Don't laugh. If Lenora Fulani could flirt with Pat Buchanan in 2000, why not a Buchanan-Matthews ticket in 2008? After all, the pair have an important point in common: contempt for neo-cons.
On this evening's Hardball, Matthews pleaded with Buchanan to take back the Republican party from neo-conservatives. In closing an earlier segment with guest Joe Biden, Matthews had taken a shot at neo-cons: "Unfortunately we have been carried into Iraq by the dreams of the ideologues."
When Buchanan came on, Matthews took that same notion one step further:
"Pat, when are the traditional conservatives in this country who believe in less government, less role in the world, like yourself, though you might be more extreme than some, George Will, Bill Buckley, when are you guys going to retake your party from the neo-conservatives and stop these overseas campaigns?"
Buchanan: "I'll tell you, when you get a president of the United States who doesn't listen to them. And frankly you've got a president and a country that have been horribly burned by following this foolish ideology and I think in the future, Chris, quite frankly, it needn't to have happened - I think after Iraq you're not going to get a lot of adventures, although they are pushing for the Iranian thing as the last great cause."
Perhaps the two could convince Ralph Nader to accept an anticipatory appointment as Secretary of State, with Ned Lamont at Defense. Can you say 'unstoppable juggernaut'?
Mark Finkelstein's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories: Hardball | 2008 Presidential | Campaigns & Elections | Chris Matthews | Conservative/Republican Groups | Foreign Policy | Iran | Iraq | MSNBC
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_504197.html
DeLay says top Dems close to treason
By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war, and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
"We have people dying," he said. "Not just our soldiers, but innocent citizens dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of these evil people, and you have your elected leaders making these kinds of statements that embolden the enemy. It's unbelievable."
Reid said yesterday the Democratic-controlled Congress would push legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later. He said Bush is in "a state of denial" over the war.
On Thursday, Reid angered the administration and congressional Republicans when he said that the war in Iraq is "lost."
"I believe myself that the secretary of State, secretary of Defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost," Reid said.
The withdrawal timetable would be attached to a funding bill needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has threatened to veto legislation that includes a withdrawal date.
Bush cannot afford to lose this fight, DeLay said. The president must demand a "clean bill" that does not set a withdrawal date or include so-called pork barrel spending on unrelated projects, he said.
"(Bush) comes back and says, 'I want a clean bill, and unless I get a clean bill with no pork in it, I'm going to veto it,' " Delay said. "See who blinks."
DeLay, who resigned from the House in June, is promoting his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender."
He remains under indictment in his home state of Texas on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Because he gave up his leadership post in September 2005 after a first indictment, and then decided not to seek re-election after winning the Republican primary last year, DeLay said he has contributed to conservatives' political soul-searching.
"I have to take some responsibility for this," DeLay said.
His resignation and subsequent scandals that roiled the GOP leadership helped Democrats seize control of Congress last year, DeLay said. He faulted Republicans for not coming up with a new agenda.
"What are you going to present to the voters in '08 as a reason to vote for you? You've got to come together, and you've got to have an agenda."
Delay praised the president, but had harsh words for his handlers: "If they let George W. be George W., he'd be just fine."
The administration, DeLay said, needs to stand up to Democrats. He criticized the administration for replacing former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the November election.
"It's lack of backbone," DeLay said. "The Rumsfeld thing was reaching out, and we're all going to get along, and we're all going to sit around the campfire and sing 'Kumbaya.'"
Bush met yesterday in the Oval Office with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who is in Washington this week to try to build congressional support for Bush's Iraq policy.
Senate and House members also planned to meet to resolve differences between their war funding bills, which both include timetables for a troop withdrawal.
"I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said. "And I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake."
As for his indictments, DeLay said he was set up by the Democrats as a "poster boy" for political corruption, and insisted that his prosecution has been "dragged out" for political reasons.
After an appeals court threw out one charge of conspiring to violate Texas election law, the district attorney appealed. The other charges have not been brought to trial.
"It's not good enough to defeat somebody politically or vilify him publicly," DeLay said. "They've got to carpet-bomb you and drive you out of office, disgraced, bankrupt, your family busted up, headed to jail."
But DeLay quickly added that he's not complaining or whining.
"I'm still fighting," he said.
http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=3
Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard, Editor
Mr. Kristol, Weekly Standard, Editor discusses the war in Iraq, Sen. McCain’s presidential announcement, and other issues in the news.
4/26/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 50 min.
Washington Journal Entire Program
Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard, Editor
4/26/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 3 hr. (Bill Kristol is the first person interviewed; he radiates arrogance in my opinion!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/Site_032007/content/032007.guest.html
Schwarzenegger Sold Out
March 20, 2007
Read the Background Material...
LA Times Political Muscle Blog: Schwarzenegger Calls Rush Limbaugh Irrelevant
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/politicalmuscle/2007/03/schwarzenegger__5.html
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.