All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
August 3, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With talent on loan from God.
This is Rush Limbaugh.
This is the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we come to you from the EIB Southern Command today, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's thrilled to have you with us.
The telephone number, if you'd like to join us today, 800-282-2882.
If you'd rather send an email, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, the Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts, submitted his Senate Committee questionnaire response yesterday.
It's over about 100 pages long.
It was released by the Judiciary Committee late yesterday to provides his responses to a broad array of questions, including his work, Histoire, political ties, and his views on judicial activism.
And this guy is brilliant.
He said, a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges, equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.
He said that judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited.
Judges do not have a commission to solve society's problems as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.
Now, Hope Yen is the AP reporter who put this story together.
And the big news out of this report that he submitted, his responses to the questionnaire, the big news to the Libs is, hey, Roberts, Roberts says he'll respect precedent.
Did you see that?
He says it in there.
He says I respect precedent, which means to the Libs, he won't overturn Roe versus Wade.
He says it right there.
He says he won't overturn Roe versus Wade.
Do you see it?
That's not what he's saying, but that's what they think he's saying.
That's all that matters to them.
And as Hope Yen writes at about the midpoint of her story, Robert's views on the subject are considered critical to gauging his position on overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision, a stance supported by conservative members on the court.
So that's all that matters to them.
Right in front of their faces is one of the most penetrating statements he could make about his judicial philosophy, and they don't even get it, apparently.
Judges do not have a commission to solve society's problems as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.
I'm going to tell you right now, Teddy Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and Leahy are going to zero in on that because that's exactly what they think judges are to do.
Judges are specifically to solve society's problems as they see them as liberals.
Judges are to be liberal and they are to use courts to solve society's problems according to the way liberals want them solved.
And Roberts has just said that's not what we do as judges.
So this is going to be interesting.
He's rolling them here, folks.
He's simply rolling them.
While he at one point says that he's all in favor of precedent and so forth and so on.
And by the way, he doesn't say that precedent always stands, but the Libs have just zeroed in on that.
So it's going to be fun to watch.
I think based on, and I just say it now, subject to change, obviously, it's early to say this.
But I think what's going to happen is that Judge Roberts really is going to run intellectual rings around these guys.
I don't even think it's going to be a contest.
I think that he's been through this once before.
Confirmation hearing has been before this committee for his current position on the DC Court of Appeals.
I just think he's going to run rings around him.
So much so that they're not even going to know it.
And they're going to look like fools.
They're going to keep penetrating.
He's going to have answered perfectly.
We'll just wait and see the hearing start on September 6th.
And I've got a great piece here.
A columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette named Reg Henry has written a piece entitled This Niceness of Roberts.
is unnerving.
I pick up the column in progress.
Another problem in opposing Judge Roberts is that from all reports, he's a genuinely nice guy.
Affable, cheerful, cheerful, sunny, and smart.
Did I say he was nice?
Whenever he goes for a walk in the park, puppy dogs stray in their leashes, wanting to rush up and nuzzle him.
Of course, he walks in a shaft of sunlight even on rainy days.
Bluebirds seek to land on his head.
Why, he's so darn nice that bums in the park stop to give him money.
So touched are they by his modesty and cheerful demeanor.
I would humbly submit, writes Reg Henry, that we should take a closer look at this preternatural niceness.
It seems a little too nice to be nice.
His behavior raises serious questions about whether he is a sly conservative.
Because you see, to dunces like Reg Henry, a conservative can't be nice.
Conservative is mean, spirited, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
And all of these things lump together.
This is a genuinely nice guy, so nice, this columnist is unnerved by it.
And Mr. Henry says, yeah, it seems a little too nice to be nice.
His behavior raises serious questions about whether he is a sly conservative.
And I say this, he writes, because I'm regularly in touch with true believers on the right.
Oh, Reg Henry, regularly in touch with true believers on the right.
They like to send me emails brimming with disgust and bile, but delivered with a happy, sanctimonious air.
This talent for vileness has led me to form the impression, maybe erroneous, that to be a conservative is to be a bag of resentments held together by a feeble string.
Mr. Henry, are you blind?
Do you not see the kind of hateful, spiteful, childish rhetoric coming out of members of your party aimed at George W. Bush now for five years?
Or at Tom DeLay or at James Dobbs, or any of them?
If you look at many prominent right-wingers, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Rick Santorum, you will find people who have raised snarling to a high art and seem to take pride in resembling the nether quarters of a horse.
Did he just call me a horse's ass?
He did.
I thought I was being rather nice in this column.
I'm quoting him accurately.
Yes, here we have this happy, nice fellow nominated for the Supreme Court.
Go figure.
Another thing that is mysterious is why Judge Roberts doesn't have more of a record.
Say what you like about most conservatives, but they never shut up.
Yes, I know he hasn't been on the bench very long, but that doesn't explain it.
Obviously, when he was a boy reading some book of moral instruction when the rest of us were reading Superman comics, he came across a proverb.
Still waters run deep.
The ancient wisdom suggests to us the virtue of keeping our big mouths shut.
If you're a quiet idiot, people will think you are wise.
If you're a quiet judge, the president will think you should be on the Supreme Court.
Judge Roberts is kept nice and silent, and those concerned about the direction of the court should not tolerate behavior that raises such questions.
If he gets on the court, he may bid all sorts of protections adieu in a very nice and polite way, not just for toads, but for workers and women.
As any gal will tell you, it's the nice ones who break your heart.
Now, we've got problems here.
This man has problems.
I've never heard of him.
This is the first time I've heard of him.
The first time I've ever read anything that he's written.
So I can't.
I don't know.
I don't know how to snarl.
That's the whole thing.
He says I snarl and I've made snarling a high art.
You ever see me snarl?
I mean, I'm in the ditto cam here.
A lot of you ever, you people ever seen me snarl.
I don't know.
If I had to snarl, I wouldn't know what to do.
Now, I'm not making this up.
I wouldn't know what, how would I snarl?
Put up a mean face or something like that?
Or mean like Howard Dean?
A quick timeout back after this.
Oh, yeah, some good times.
This is Sheik.
You know Niall Rogers, don't you?
Was he like me, Mr. Sterling?
I love Niall Rogers' music.
Well, back Rush Lindbaugh, the EIB network.
Yeah, it was Ed Shao.
Ed Shao was the candidate, the Republican candidate for Senate, 86, California, that had a chance of beating Cranston.
It was 50.8, 49.2% because a bunch of Republicans stayed home because Shao was pro-choice.
And it's, you know, stay home.
I mean, Shao would have been infinitely better than Cranston.
I don't care what other opinion you have of pro-choice.
It was a sad day.
I had a chance to oust that guy, send him back home to Morgan Franch Fairchild, who he was dating at the time, I believe.
I had a line about that back then.
I can't remember what it was.
At any rate, it'll come to me.
Let's go to Tony in Dayton.
Tony, welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush.
How's it going?
Fine, sir.
Never better.
Hey, didn't you tell us a few years back not to gloat after winning the elections?
You know, like you told us not to gloat after George Bush won, and now it seems like you're calling Democrats a bunch of losers and stuff.
Is this a bad strategy, you think?
I'm laughing because I don't think I've been gloating.
I have been warning the Republicans that have been going to get their acts straight that they're going to start losing these elections pretty soon here.
If they keep running as conservatives, governing as moderates, they're going to slit their own throats.
I was not gloating about anything.
I was simply pointing out how I was right, that the libs cannot tell you the truth about who they are, and they can't win as frauds.
They can't win being honest who they are.
One of the things I think we successfully did yesterday, folks, if we had not taken this issue up, and I don't say this kind of thing about myself much, I never very rarely, rarely talk about my own power here because I'm not really even cognizant of it.
I really am not.
I don't do things for the simple exercise of power, but I do think this, that had we not made a big deal yesterday about how they were going to make this a bellwether, that there would have been a whole lot more gloating today from the Democrats today about how they had won and about how this is bad news.
But we positioned it in such a way yesterday so that no matter what happened, the Republicans win because you had two Republicans on the ticket.
I mean, the way Hackett was running the race, he was running as a hawk on Iraq, a friend of George W. Bush's.
He was running not as a Liberal Democrat.
So, you know, I'm, no, this is not gloating.
This is accurate analysis of what happened.
You are referring to 2002 when I was on NBC's election night coverage.
And this was the big, big midterm elections after the Wellstone Memorial that the Democrats totally tanked.
And Brokaw, and Russert were the hosts of the election night coverage.
And they were all stunned at what had happened because they all believed that the 2000 election was a fraud and that the Democrats are going to get it all back in 2002 and they lost even more.
And the first thing Brokaw said, what was your reaction?
Is don't gloat about this.
Let's go ahead and get up tomorrow and start governing.
You know, because that's the thing to do.
You know, it's like when you score a touchdown, don't act like you've never been in the end zone before.
Just give the ball back to the referee and go back and get ready to score again.
Don't act like it's some new thing.
And that's all I meant by don't gloat.
Don't act like, whoa, whoa, look at what we did.
Well, we can't believe we did this.
Well, look at us.
No, I don't want to act that way.
I want to act like we're used to winning.
We expect to win and then we go govern.
Just that simple.
Josh in Iowa.
Is it Algona, Iowa?
Is that how you pronounce it?
Yeah.
Thank you for the call, sir.
Hey, thanks, Rosh.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to talk about the vacation that Bush has taken.
I think he needs to stay more focused on warranty.
He doesn't need to be taking 15 vacations since he's been last elected.
And I respect you with everything.
I don't think he needs to be taking another vacation.
I'm going to surprise you a little bit on this, I think.
Okay.
I have two thoughts about this.
The first thought is that whenever Republicans in the White House, whenever he goes on vacation, the Democrats make a big deal of it and the media, and they talk about how he's taking all this time off.
And the fact is the president's on call 24 hours a day, no matter where he is.
And, you know, Reagan took some time off.
Clinton took some time off, but they always make a big deal of it when Republicans take time off.
However, that having been said, we're in the midst of a war in Iraq.
There are a number of other things going on.
We've got the Supreme Court nomination coming up.
This is, to me, I don't begrudge the president going on vacation, but I do think being out of Washington for a month is not a good appearance.
I do think it's a little excessive.
Not that he's on vacation, but to stay away from Washington and all that for a month, even though the Congress isn't there, fine.
Let the Congress not be there.
I understand the reality of the situation is that nothing happens in that town in August and nothing's going to get going until September when normalcy resumes, the Labor Day break is over and the football season starts and that sort of thing.
But there is, I think, a sensitivity to appearances here that might be aided with some public appearances during this month.
And I can see across the glass that Mr. Snerdley disagrees with me.
I'm not capitulating to what I see in the press, and I'm not capitulating to our friendly liberal here from Algona, Iowa.
I'm just, you know, and I don't care how often he goes on vacation, because they never do go on vacation.
They're never on, but presidents are 24-7, folks.
There's no such thing.
I just happen to know the president's not a big fan of Washington.
And if you were a Republican, would you want to be there?
I don't go there.
You know, I can totally, and he loves his ranch, and he loves Texas, and he loves home.
He loves being at home.
And so I understand all this, but I think a month straight just opens him up for this kind of stuff.
I don't think it's going to have a major effect on anybody.
It's not going to have an effect on elections.
It's not going to have an effect on anything down the road.
But, you know, it is, it does make it a big target for guys like Josh from Algona, Iowa.
Josh, it doesn't mean anything.
And It's not going to help the left to make up stories here to talk about how Bush doesn't take his job seriously and goes on vacation because I defy you to find Ted Kennedy in town this month.
And I defy you to find Chuck Schumer or any of these other leaders of the Democrats in town this month.
But that also, to me, represents a bit of an opportunity.
I want to go back to Judge Roberts here for just a second because this column I just read by Judge, was it?
Reg Henry referred to toads.
I had these two stories the last couple days and didn't get to them.
One is for the AP.
Toad case may reveal Roberts' philosophy.
Appeals court vote may show inclination towards states' rights.
And then there's another story here.
This is from the Raleigh News Observer.
A headline, Hapless Toads.
It's an editorial.
Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts' legal views could spell trouble for protection of the nation's rare animals and plants.
So we know what Reg Henry does.
He reads his prescribed list of liberal publications and then goes and inserts little references to them.
This AP story, a toad, may offer insight into John Roberts' legal philosophy.
The Supreme Court nominee voted against the toad in a 2003 case testing the powers of the federal government.
The vote suggests that he may be inclined to support state or local interests on issues from civil rights to pollution control if confirmed to the high court.
So?
So what?
How could he voted against a frog, folks, and the libs are going to try to hold that against him?
He voted.
Can I tell you people something about frogs and related animals?
I woke up this morning, time to feed the cat.
I'm walking into where I feed the cat, and you know what I noticed on the floor dead?
A lizard.
And I love little lizards.
They're my buddies.
They eat insects.
But my cat, in the middle of night, found this lizard.
It was history.
What am I supposed to do?
Punish the cat?
So now we're going to punish a judge because he votes against a frog?
The libs are desperate and will grasp anything to show this man is anti-government in his truth.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.
We are back.
Rushlinbos serving humanity simply by showing up.
The EIB network.
This is somewhat surprising.
Well, it may be surprising to you.
It's not surprising to me.
The Board of American Society of Journalists and Authors, the ASJA, has voted unanimously to reverse their earlier decision to give its annual Conscience in Media award to the jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
The group's First Amendment committee had narrowly voted to give her the prize for her dedication to protecting sources, but the full board has now voted to overturn that decision based on its opinion that her entire career and even her current actions in the plain CIA leak case cast doubt on her credentials for this award.
The media turning on Judy Miller.
What does this mean?
I think I know.
I think I know.
Arianna Huffington, whose name I strive not to mention on this program, has a hapless little blog out there called The Huff Post or some such thing.
And over the weekend, Ariana unloaded on Judy Miller.
Now, I'll tell you, though, the Libs don't like Judy Miller because she was the reporter at the New York Times who made the case for the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
That's probably what's at the root of this.
She made the case for weapons of mass destruction.
That embarrassed the old gray lady, the New York Times, because she relied on a source that apparently was a fraud.
And so they've really never gotten over for that.
And some people think she actually took the jail sentence to try to regain her stature within the media world.
And so it looked like it had worked.
They gave her out this award to her, but no, nope, nope, nope, not going to do that.
The reason is I think there's some people now beginning to wonder just what who is her source?
Who is she protecting?
It's not Rove.
And is she in there to protect herself rather than a source?
And if, and there's some people, not me, well, I'm one of them, obviously, but some people on the left and in the media are now beginning to that.
Maybe she's not in there to protect just a source, but herself and her paper from something embarrassing.
So bam, they yank the award away from him.
Well, and did you, did you hear this?
While she's in jail, her husband goes on some celebrity cruise.
Did you hear about that?
Yeah, it was last week when I was gone.
This guy's on some cruise that celebrities go on just with themselves.
Some silver arrow boat goes somewhere was in the Mediterranean or something like that and uh, big story came out about how well his wife's sitting away rots in jail.
His guy's name is Epstein Jason Epstein, I think and he's a reputed editor um, never heard of him until all this, but reputed editor in Lib circles and he was out there cruising on this boat and is living it up and having a grand time.
There were eyewitnesses to his having a grand time while his wife rots away in jail and uh, uh.
So then they had to do uh, a dance, a pr dance.
Oh no no no Jason, he didn't want to go on a trip, but he went and talked to Judy and Judy said, no, we've had this trip plan.
I want you to go.
Oh, he said, okay honey, it's a honeydew.
The cruise was a honeydew.
So he, he honeydewed right out into the boat and went on the cruise while Judy rots in jail.
Just a little side uh, note.
Uh, let me give me, give me line five.
We've got a liberal on the phone.
We always put them up first.
Hello Eric, in Columbus Ohio, nice to have you.
Hey Rush, you need uh, you need to apologize, man.
I, I can't believe you did what you did to hack it yesterday.
Um, it's just reprehensible.
Calling him a staff puke and spending an hour on on the show clearly indicates that the Republicans are in trouble and they are in trouble in Ohio and I, I was on the ground and saw it.
Um, all right, i'm having a little trouble here.
You say they're in trouble and trouble in.
Oh, you were on the ground and saw it.
Yeah, sure enough.
I talked to Republicans that voted for Hackett and uh, you know absolutely not that Hackett didn't hide behind any false pretenses.
He called the president of the United States an sob and a chicken hawk, much like yourself.
Um, and to call him a staff puke.
You just really need to apologize.
But now wait a second.
Wait a second.
I'm not.
Did you call him a staff puke?
Yeah, I called him a staff puke and i'll call him a staff.
I'll call him a staff ground today.
You had better go talk to people in the military if you want to know what staff puke means.
They call each other that.
Do you know what?
Do you know what marines call each other?
They call them grunts.
What if i'd have called him a grunt yesterday?
You clueless liberals would have thought I was assuming uh, a lot of things and insulting him.
Staff puke is a.
The term has been used by other military people.
To me sister, it means person.
He's a staff puke because that's what a NAVY officer was telling me on the phone.
Yes, we got the seminar.
Callers are out there reading all this off the websites because I saw this last night.
They're trying.
So now this?
What's this guy doing?
Is he blaming me?
I I ought to apologize because because of me yesterday Hackett lost.
Is that what he's trying to say?
Republicans were in trouble and then they brought me in to squash Hacket.
It's nice to know that despite all the things they write about how I am a loser, how I've lost it, how I'm fading away, they still blame me for their losses.
I'll be glad to take the credit.
You know what?
You know what, Eric?
It was my intention to defeat this guy yesterday.
And you know why, Eric?
Because he's a fraud.
I haven't lied about one thing in my life, about my history, my past.
This guy was a fraud throughout this campaign.
He's an ultra-liberal.
He is a man who thinks the president is the most dangerous guy in the world.
He's called him an SOB, and he runs a campaign ad trying to make himself out to be Bush's best buddy and one of Bush's biggest supporters.
The guy couldn't run as an honest liberal.
That guy couldn't run on his real platform raising taxes and weakening this country, growing the government.
He wouldn't dare run on that.
The lesson you need to take away from this, Eric, is you guys can't win as frauds, and you cannot win being honest about who you are.
And if, I'll tell you something else, if a radio talk show host, and this is, I love this, can beat you guys, you are in deep doo-doo.
But you're going to have to get your story straight.
I'm either fading away, I'm on decline, and I don't matter anymore, or I'm responsible for your defeats.
Which is it?
Here's Manny in Orange County, California.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, mega, mega dittos, and quite an honor.
First-time caller, but long-time listener.
I am just fired up over the way the president sent Bolton to the UN.
He scored not only a touchdown, but he spiked the ball right in the damn face and showed them what true leadership is all about.
Yesterday was another example, and we're going to do the same thing with Roberts.
I think that's the case.
I'm glad to hear you're fired up out there.
I like to hear confidence in people.
I don't like to hear people on defensive, on the defensive.
I don't like to hear people reacting.
And so I want people to be aggressive.
I want people to be fired up and optimistic about things.
Everybody in my orb, I want them to be that way.
I don't like this.
What do you think is going to happen next?
What do you think they're going to say next?
What are we going to do if they say that?
I don't want to hear it.
I don't even want to deal with it in any facet.
Speaking of Bolton, interesting story from the Associated Press by our old buddy Edith Lederer.
We love Edith here at the EIB network.
John Bolton presented his credentials Tuesday as ambassador to the UN, a job which will challenge him to work with diplomats from 190 nations at a place he's called irrelevant.
That's a nice objective lead.
Glad to be here, the controversial diplomat told Kof.
You libs don't get it.
You sit out there and you call this guy a bully and you call him controversial and you call him confrontational.
You are endorsing him at this organization.
This is an organization of thugs and dictators.
Half of the members of this place hate this country.
And we're sending up a guy who's not going to bend over and grab the ankles for him anymore.
And the Democrats, by the very way they're describing this guy, are making that very case for John Bolton.
This is a huge ropodope, but the best parts of this story are found later on.
Here's a quote from Germany's UN ambassador, Gunther Pluger.
He will be one of the key players because the United States is the largest contributor and a great power in the Security Council.
There are conflicting views on nearly every issue that's in our plate for the reform, and the largest player in the UN, of course, plays a key role.
Chile's UN Ambassador Geraldo Muñoz said no one should make prejudgments on reputation.
One must do it on the merit of the facts.
We'll do that when we see what happens here.
Denmark's U.N. Ambassador Ellen Marguerite Loge said he's a colleague like any other.
He will be received as such.
It doesn't sound to me like Bolton was snubbed on his first day, folks.
Does it to you?
The libs and the Democrats and the media all said that he'd go up there and be snubbed because he didn't have the approval of Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin.
I'll guarantee you those guys are looked at as pawns, laughing stocks, and useful idiots by our enemies at the United Nations, and they know that Bolton is not one of them.
He was far from snubbed up there, even by Kofi Annan.
Nobody snubbed Bolton up there yesterday.
So all this hyperbole and all this rigamarole leading up to this was just a bunch of hot gas, as much of what's coming from the left today is.
A quick timeout, my friends.
Be patient.
We'll be back with much more.
Wait till you hear this story out of Cleveland.
This is, it's about the space repair today, a complex repair mission on the space shuttle.
Wait till you hear.
Just wait till you hear this story.
It is so believable coming from today's left.
Back after this.
Okay, what have we learned here today, folks?
We've learned a lot of things by reading what liberals write and by listening to what they've said on the phone today.
We've learned, according to Reg Henry, who, by the way, called homeless people bums in that column.
Reg Henry in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, John Roberts is too nice.
The liberals all think John Bolton is too mean.
Who are we supposed to get?
If Bolton's too mean and Roberts is too nice.
We've also heard from liberals today.
We have learned that I, America's anchorman, should apologize for calling a Democrat congressional candidate a staff puke.
While at the same time, the same liberals say that the Democrat congressional candidate, who is the staff puke, should win election for calling the President of the United States Of America an SOB chicken hawk, who makes the stupidest remarks of any president he's ever heard and is the most dangerous person in the world.
Do you liberals understand why we are just laughing our asses off at you?
Uh, Chuck and Dayton, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Russ, it is a privilege to talk to you.
I was cracking up with that guy from Columbus complaining and saying that you need to apologize.
I couldn't believe it.
Let me tell you, but let me give you, let me before.
I know you're going to explain this because you're in the AIR Force right yes, but but I I I, I want to explain how this happened, just because it's out there on these Dem websites.
We're getting seminar callers.
They've been given their marching orders, so to speak.
It started yesterday afternoon on a couple of their blogs that spread to the, to their, to their whatever they their their uh well, their chat rooms.
I had this naval officer on the phone from from Houston yesterday.
The naval officer was was uh, was all upset about some of the things that that Paul Hackett has said since coming back from Iraq and leaving the Marines.
And I pointed out to the naval officer, he's not in the Marines anymore.
He can say whatever he wants to say.
And the guy said, yeah, but you just don't.
Once you've been in the Marines, once you've been in the military, you have respect and so forth and so on.
And I had noticed in a Washington Post story that the Washington Post referred to him as a civilian officer.
So I asked the naval officer on the phone from Houston, what's a civilian officer?
And he explained it to me.
And is it a combat role?
He said, he said, no, it's not a combat role.
They work with combat, but it's all integral, but he's not a combat officer.
I said, oh, I remembered a call I had had from a military gun army man at Fort Bragg who had called somebody who works in the office.
They're a staff puke on the phone here.
So I said, oh, it's a staff puke.
And he said, yeah.
And that is what launched all of this, Chuck.
Yeah, well, I'm a staff puke.
I'm a senior enlisted member of my commander's staff, and we're also called staff weenies.
One of my colleagues is called a manservant.
So, you know, we just get called all kinds of things.
And we just take a new stride.
You call each other all kinds of things.
The military jargon is its own lexicon.
Yes.
I mean, I'm getting notes from guys who are in Vietnam who were known as REMFs, and I can't tell you what it's I can't translate that for you.
That's right.
My brother's a Marine.
I call him a jarhead, you know, and he calls me a flyboy.
You know, we just, those are just terms of endearment we use.
So this guy, obviously, in Columbus, he has no clue about the military life.
I've been in 25 years, and these are things that, you know, we've had these kind of terms throughout my whole career, depending on what your position is.
Well, not only are Marines called jarheads, they're called grunts.
Uh-huh.
If I'd have called a guy a grunt, can you?
Yeah.
Imagine what the guys on the Democrat websites would have thought of that.
I appreciate the call out there, Chuck.
Thanks so much.
Do I have time to do this?
No, I don't have time to do this to do this justice.
I'm sorry for teasing you with this.
I've got this story out of Cleveland regarding this amazing repair mission that took place today at the Space Shuttle.
You got to hear this, folks.
It's just delicious.
And I don't know if you've heard this, but America Coming Together has disbanded.
This is the George Soros group, $200 million they spent in the election of 2004.
They had so many donors of a million dollars or more.
They had George Soros at 20 million, Stephen Bing at $12 million.
They spent $200 million.
They still lost the election.
And the reason is that they didn't get any new votes.
They didn't persuade any non-Democrat voters to vote Democrat.
And they've disbanded.
This is Harold Dickey's group.
And it was a group that had, because of Ickies being there, it had Hillary's imprimatur all over it, but it's gone south.
And one of the reasons is that some of these big donors say, okay, fine, we gave you all this money, but where are the results?
And there aren't any.
And they just aren't willing to give any more money to this group.
So the George Soros Americans Coming Together group officially disbanded.
You couple this with the AFL-CIO union implosion with the Teamsters taking a hike.
You liberals understand why we are laughing our asses off at you.
Hey, let's go to Louisville, Kentucky.
And Bobby, hi, sir.
Welcome to the program.
How you doing, Rush?
Good young white overtaxed conservative dittos.
Thank you.
I just heard the new Soros commercial snare in Judge Roberts.
And apparently, he has taken away a 12-year-old girl's civil rights by not letting her eat french fries on the subway.
And he is also from Germany, just like the Pope.
And basically, what I got out of it was insinuation that he was a Nazi of some type and that President Bush needed to nominate a more mainstream judge such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Yeah, this is a Soros ad, you said.
I thought his group just broke up.
We're going to have to look into this.
And it was sponsored by Soros and the Hollywood Friends of Nancy Pelosi.
And I'm so sorry.
But the Soros group, the Americans coming together, just disbanded.
I'll look into it.
▲
Export Selection