All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
August 15, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha!
How are you?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's the EIB Network and the Rush Limbaugh program, fun, frolic, and frivolity for all.
Along with serious discussion of the issues, I am America's anchorman.
Remember, folks, anybody can tell you the news.
Anybody can tell you what's going on out there.
It's what you do with it that counts.
And what we do with it is what counts here.
And what we do with it is what's not done anywhere else.
That's where we are often envied, often copied, often imitated, but never equaled.
The telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
It's VJ Day, right?
60th anniversary of the Allies, the Japanese surrender to the Allies.
Yeah, it was today, or it was today, or I think it's today.
It's somewhere nearby.
This is it.
Another reason the libs are upset, because this is a victorious day for the United States and its allies over the Japanese.
And of course, this is also a big anniversary, something else.
You know what this is the anniversary of, folks?
This is happy anniversary to Social Security.
70 years ago, Social Security became law.
And apparently, it's too sacred to change or improve.
But let's take a look at some of the other things that have happened in the 70 years that Social Security became law.
You look at the automobile 70 years ago.
What choice of color did you have?
You had one.
You could get it in black.
Before GPS, before OnStar, before power seats, before power windows, before automatic transmission, before air conditioning, before heating, before adjustable seats, even before radios.
Yes, even before side mirrors.
There was a time when you had to get out front of your car and crank the damn thing to start it.
Rain or shine, snow or sleet.
And you had to drive that car around without anything but a roof.
Sometimes there weren't even windows that closed.
The car has come a long way in 70 years, but Social Security still languishes the same way it was invented in the 1930s.
Imagine if the automobile lobby had keep your damned hands off our Model T. You are not going to change this Model T. Imagine if somebody had said to the Wright brother, you keep your hands off our airplane.
Nobody's going to improve on this.
Imagine if Alexander Graham Bell had said, you keep your hands off that phone.
What do you mean you're going to make it wireless?
You can't do that.
And of course, 70 years ago, we didn't even have television, folks.
70 years ago, we didn't even have television news.
Do you know that?
70 years ago, look at all these things again.
Well, we got the 24-7 news cycle.
We got all kinds of changes everywhere.
We have modernized.
We have moved forward.
We've advanced.
But with Social Security, keep your damn hands off of it.
It's going to remain an antique.
It's going to remain antiquated.
It's going to remain out of date.
Imagine if everything were as unmodernized as Social Security.
Your television set would be a puppet show.
Happy anniversary, you old geezer.
Social Security.
Can't touch it.
How about this?
Rosemary Goodrow, the editorial page editor of the Tampa Tribune, has received the same email message a dozen times over the last year.
That email message reads, did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
Do you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated in Iraq?
Of course you didn't know because our media doesn't tell us.
Rosemary Goodrow's newspaper, like most dailies in America, relies largely on the Associated Press for its coverage of the Iraq war.
So she finally forwarded the email message to Mike Silverman, the managing editor of the AP, asking if there was a way to check these assertions and to put them into context.
Like many other journalists, Mr. Silverman had also received a copy of the message.
Her query prompted an unusual discussion last month in New York at a regular meeting of editors whose newspapers are members of the Associated Press.
Some editors expressed concern that a kind of bunker mentality was preventing reporters in Iraq from getting out and explaining the bigger picture beyond the daily death tolls.
The bottom-line question was people wanted to know if we're making progress in Iraq, she said, and the AP articles were not helping to answer the question.
I was uncomfortable questioning the AP knowing that Iraq is such a dangerous place, she said, but there's a perception that we're not telling the whole story.
It's not a perception, Rosemary.
It's the truth.
You're not telling the whole story.
Mr. Silverman said in an interview that he was aware of that perception.
Other editors said that they get calls from readers who are hearing stories from returning troops of the good things they've accomplished while there.
And readers find that at odds with the generally gloomy portrayal in the papers of what's going on in Iraq.
Mr. Silverman said the editors were asking for help in making sense of the situation.
I was glad to have that discussion with the editors because they have to deal with the perception that the media is emphasizing the negative.
Well, that's because of what you feed them.
It's amazing that not to pick on Rosemary Goudreau here.
She's just the one who happens to be mentioned in this.
This is a New York Times story, but I really don't mean to pick on her, but is it not absurd that the editor of a newspaper has to call the guy that runs the AP to says, is this true?
Have they really, the 3,100 schools have been opened?
All these M, and this is the first time she's done it after all these years?
So the people in the news admitting they don't know?
And yet they freely report?
Well, I guess that's the level of trust they have with the Associated Press.
Silverman said the editors were asking for help in making sense of the situation.
I was glad to have that discussion.
Yes, I was.
We're there to report the good and the bad.
We try to give due weight to everything going on.
He said, it's unfortunate that the explosions and shootings and fatalities and injuries on some days seem to dominate the news.
Yeah, it's terribly sad.
I wonder how that happens.
It's really unfortunate.
I wonder how that happened.
Why does that happen?
Wonder why that is.
This guy seems to be clueless.
It's a really unfortunate thing that happens out there.
It's like Colonel Sanderson.
It's a damn shame all those chickens die.
Kiki Dardarian, deputy managing editor of the Seattle Times and VP of the board of the Associated Press managing editors, said the discussion was a pretty healthy one.
One of the things the editors felt was that as much context as you can bring, the better.
They wanted him to get beyond the breaking news to what does this mean?
Okay.
I'm just, these are professional journalists.
I mean, they wanted, the editors wanted to get beyond the breaking news to what does this mean?
That's not what's, that's not what they want.
They don't want what does this mean.
That's all they're getting.
And what it means is we're losing and that we shouldn't be there and that we're ignoble and all.
They want to know the good news.
They want to see the good news reported because people coming back, eyewitnesses with anecdotal stories, tell us something, a story totally different.
You've heard it on this program from what they're getting from the Associated Press.
And it's even worse with Reuters because Reuters is not even allowed to use the word terrorist in describing terrorists and terrorist activity.
You know, I will handle, those of you at the Associated Press, like Ms. Goodreow, you're journalists.
Just tell the AP you want to know what's happening.
I will take care of explaining what it means to people.
That's my job.
I will translate your work.
I will tell people what it means.
Just tell people what's happening.
So simple.
And here are these people.
No, I'm not talking about Ms. Goodrow.
Journalism in general, so high and mighty.
The world comes and goes on the basis of what they do.
They're single-handedly the protectors and guarantors of our democracy and our Constitution, blah, It's actually, it's a good sign.
Don't misunderstand.
I mean, the editors of these newspapers, hey, hey, AP, are we getting the straight skinny here?
And the AP guys, well, maybe not.
Don't know how that happens.
We'll look into it.
It's great to hear from these people.
See you later.
Just tell us what happens, and I will do my job.
What my job's been now for almost going on over 17 years now.
I will tell people what it means.
It's my job back in the morning.
You know, folks, I am reminded of something that I have been meaning to tell you since last Friday, and it just slipped my mind.
I saw an advanced copy of this movie, The Great Raid, and it dovetails with something I was talking about last hour.
You want to find out about the greatness of this country if you want to feel it.
And it's bloody, it's violent, it's not for kids.
It's rated R. There's strong war violence in this, and there's some language in it that's not suitable for kids.
But the Great Raid depicts the most successful rescue mission ever to take place in American history.
Took place in the Philippines, January 1945.
Liberated more than 500 U.S. prisoners of war just before they were to be executed.
And the odds that they faced were overwhelming.
This one of those rare movies that gets it right.
And the courage, the heroism that allowed just a small bunch of World War II soldiers to attempt what everybody said was impossible in the hopes of freeing their captured brothers is just amazing.
And I think it opened.
It opened this weekend.
It's called The Great Raid.
And it's a Miramax movie, which is, I must admit, it's surprising to me that it's a Miramax movie.
But nevertheless, if you haven't seen it and you want to see a movie that depicts American greatness without any excuses, without any paons to the left or peons to the left, then give that a check.
And I don't recommend movies much, as you know.
Pat in Cincinnati, nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
I got to take a little issue with your analogy of the automobile and the history of Social Security.
And that really is this, that the changes in the automobile have all come from consumer demand for an improved and better product.
The sad commentary is that the consumers in this country haven't demanded more out of their government and the Social Security system.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure that every improvement in the automobile is a result of demand.
I know what you're trying to say, but it can't be that in a blanket, in a blanket.
You can't say it in a blanket statement.
There's been plenty of innovation.
The automobile industry has been locked in an innovative competition for years and years and years.
I once had a conversation with a woman way back.
Where was it?
It was in New York at, I'm having a mental block.
It was a restaurant near Columbus Circle.
And, hmm, patches.
No, no, no, what Patsy's Patsy's.
This is before I discovered Patsy's.
This is before I knew I would be allowed in Patsy's.
I thought you had to have a permit to get into Patsy's.
So I didn't know anybody that knew that went to Patsy's.
I'd read about Patsy's, but I didn't think you would get in there just by walking.
I thought you had to pass a test, which is, of course, silly.
It's what I thought.
No, this was, it was a great little place, but she was talking about me.
Do you realize these old cars, you go back to the 1930s and 40s, how old-fashioned they looked?
They said, well, you got to understand.
Back then, they thought that was cutting edge.
They thought that was just, and it's true with anything that's old and ancient.
That was cutting edge to them today.
That's old.
Looks like who could have ever come up with that?
But that is just a track record of human progress, innovation, invention.
There were all kinds of things that went into improving cars, including the people who produced them seeking a competitive edge and the natural desire on the part of Americans to improve them.
Now, granted, it probably didn't take somebody too long to figure out in the wintertime in your Model T, you know, it'd be great if we had a heater in this car.
But they weren't all developed because of that.
Social Security, regardless, I may be wrong about Model T's and colors of cars being black in the 30s, but my overall point still holds.
And that is that there hasn't been little tiny improvements in Social Security, generally designed to keep it afloat as it is for years and years and years, hoping that people will forget about it and delay the disaster that's destined to happen to this program at some point down the road.
But a drastic overhaul and modernization of this program has never, ever taken place.
I will admit the public is somewhat to blame for this.
There hadn't been a whole lot of demand for improvement in this program.
But boy, there have been a lot of complaints.
I don't get enough to live on this program.
I need more money.
Well, of course, anybody can say I need more money.
And now finally, we got a program.
You want more money?
Here's a way we can do it.
Oh, I can't do that.
I heard Howard Dean on television over the weekend saying the Republicans want to turn Social Security over to the same people who brought us Enron.
Now, here's Howard Dean, a relative of the Dean Witter.
Where does Howard Dean put his money to invest?
Where do all these liberal Democrats like Bob Rubin, Goldman Sachs, where do these people put all of their money?
They put it, they put it in, they do not put it in passport savings, passbook savings, HR.
They put it in the stock market.
They use all kinds of investment tools and portfolios.
But boy, when it comes to you, the average American, and even your 401ks are there.
But somehow, 4% of your Social Security will destroy it and destroy the system and somehow enable a bunch of Enron crooks.
There's so much patent absurdity out there.
Since we're talking, let's go ahead and get started with Howard Dean.
You want to hear some absurdity?
He was on Slay the Nation yesterday with Bob Schieffer.
And Schieffer said, polls are showing that people are losing confidence in the president's handling of the war in Iraq.
A majority now believe it's left us more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable to the terrorists.
What are Democrats supposed to do about it?
The first thing we need to do is have a plan for leaving.
And the second thing we need to do is to make sure that to the best of our ability we can influence the writing of the Constitution.
It looks like today, and this could change, as of today, it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq.
That's a pretty sad commentary on this administration's ability to do anything right.
I'll tell you what's sad about it is that the Democrats think this guy's capable of leading them back to glory.
This is the most absurd thing.
And he said a lot of absurd things, but this may be the most absurd thing yet.
And that's a tough contest.
The dirty little secret in both Afghanistan and Iraq is the emergence of women as power figures.
The emergence of women to run for office, the emergence of women to be governors of provinces, women to drive cars to vote.
You see the women that voted in Iraq and the same thing in Afghanistan?
It's absurd.
Oh, we have to have a plan for leaving.
I also want to know that this polling data makes us more vulnerable.
Where is the vulnerability here?
Now, seriously, folks, I know everybody talks about the next attack and that it's going to happen, but there hasn't been one for four years.
We're coming up on four years.
There hasn't been one here.
I can understand if we've had a couple of attacks since then.
I can understand people say we're more vulnerable now.
But I don't get it.
This is a huge disconnect with me.
Even Schieffer, though, after hearing this answer over and over, said, if I may say so, Mr. Dean, saying we need a plan.
I mean, sure, you need a plan, but do you have one?
What would you propose?
The president of the United States is his commander-in-chief.
It is up to him to come up for a plan.
You can't expect a congressman and senators who don't have the same access to intelligence as the president does to come up with a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
Well, you know, this is, I can't come up with an analogy for this.
This is so beneath my intellect.
I'm afraid if I went to where he is, I would lose intelligence and I'd lose some brain cells.
If I try to deal with this on the level at which he said it, I'm afraid I would end up afterwards being less smart than I am.
And I'm not going to do that, folks.
I'm just it's up to the president to come up with a plan.
The president's got a plan.
Have you not been listening?
The president has a plan, and he articulates it frequently, and he has articulated it consistently.
It's just that his plan doesn't do what you want.
You want to get out.
You want to cut and run.
Just admit it, Governor Dean.
You and the Democrats want to cut and run.
And I'd like to know why.
What will be the benefit of this?
What good will accrue to us after we cut and run like we did out of Mogadishu?
I want to hear you tell us the benefits we all will face when that happens.
America's anchorman surf firmly ensconced here behind the golden EIB microphone.
In more further evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that socialism is unsustainable.
A tax-funded NAH, a national health society, free at the point of use, is unsustainable, one of Britain's most senior doctors has said.
Bernie Ribeiro, the new president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said that patients should be forced to pay part of the cost of treatment.
They would take out insurance to cover that, he told the Daily Telegraph.
But UNISON, the U.K.'s largest health union, said the public was rightly proud of the existing national health service structure and would object to such changes.
The social insurance system suggested by Mr. Ribeiro would be similar to those in France and Germany.
We'll have to look hard at an alternative system.
If we're able to provide health care free at the point of need all the time for patients, then I don't think that's achievable in the present structure.
It's never been achievable.
There's no such thing as free anything.
And now some doctor over there has finally figured it out.
It's just more evidence socialism, no matter what it's called, is unsustainable.
Here's Jim in Indiana, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
I just call and you talk.
I just played that the McCannik bit there.
And I just got out of the military, and you're talking about having a plan, needing a plan, having a plan.
There is a plan.
What we're doing is, and I'm telling you information that's public knowledge, so I'm not divulging any military secrets here.
There's troops over there.
They're finishing out their tours.
They're also starting to make a duty station in Kuwait and lower Iraq that if the military police, the Iraqi police, are supposed to take care of their problems.
And if the stuff gets too bad, we come in and take care of it.
But it's all up to them.
And now we're setting up like we are in South Korea.
We're right there staring at the North Koreans, but the Koreans are taking care of the Korean problems.
And we're just kind of there as the muscle.
That's what's happening.
That's our plan, and that's what we're doing.
You're not, you're right.
I've heard the president say it.
I don't know how many times.
He said it standing the other day with Rumsfeld and Rice down there across the ditch from Sheehan down at Crawford.
We've seen videotape of the training that's going on for the Iraqi police, military, and security forces.
The point is that no matter what the president does, Dean and the Democrats are going to complain about it and say it's not working.
It's not a plan.
And they've said this about every phase.
The elections wouldn't work.
When we gave sovereignty to Iraq on that June 30th, that wouldn't work.
Now they're saying the Constitution is not going to work.
They're just a bunch of we can'ts and it won't.
They're nothing but negative upon negative upon negative upon negative.
And it's all about electoral politics and it's all about positioning themselves for the future if they ever win something.
They're not concerned with having Iraq go right.
It's the last thing they're concerned about.
The worst thing could happen is if Iraq goes right.
They want to do everything they can to undermine it because that's been their position ever since we went.
If Iraq turns out to, just like the economy, you realize the media is not talking about the economy.
They're talking about Cindy Sheehan.
Cindy Sheehan gives them an excuse to avoid the economy.
How many months did we have to listen to all these horror stories about the deficit?
How high it was.
It was going to destroy us.
Once again, the same old story repeated from the same old media playbook that I've been studying since at least the 1980s.
Deficit monster going to wipe us out.
Well, guess what?
Bush's tax cuts have caused a flood of new revenue because a bunch of new people have jobs.
There are more taxpayers.
The revenue is pouring into Washington.
We don't hear about it.
We don't hear about it.
They don't want a successful economy.
So now why do we hear about gas prices?
Because despite the fact that the economy is roiling and doing great things, we have got to convince people that it sucks because Bush is no good.
Because Rumsfeld is no good.
Because Rice is no good.
Because Ashcroft was no good.
Because Roberts is no good.
Because Scalia is no good.
Because nobody's any good.
And we're going to keep this drumbeat up.
It's the last thing we do.
And if you keep it up, it will be the last thing you do because you're not building a base on it, you people who are filled with this pessimism and negativism.
It is not going to work.
The good news is right there for people to experience.
They are the ones making it happen.
So all of these sideshows are designed to do nothing but mask the genuine good news that's taking place out there.
And it's to me, it's such a, it's such a transparent effort.
I was reading the Washington Post today, just to give you, there's no plan, read the Washington Post.
I forget who wrote this story today.
It's an analysis piece, but it talks about what we're actually going to be doing troop level-wise.
We're going to increase a couple of brigades between now and the time we start the withdrawal.
Brigades of 10,000 troops, I think.
You military people, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's pretty close to what it is.
We're going to be increasing by a couple brigades between now and the time we pull out to further affect the training and so forth.
Now, the Post writes about this, well, the president's saying one thing and doing another.
He keeps talking about our drawdown, and we're going to be bringing people home and looking at the Pentagon's got plans in a couple more brigades over there.
Maybe 10 or 20,000.
I thought that's what you liberals wanted.
I thought that you said we didn't have enough boots on the ground.
Yada, yada, yada, yada.
The point is, no matter what Bush does, it ain't going to matter.
It isn't going to make any difference.
It's never, ever going to be supported or agreed with by anybody on the left.
And if you're sitting around waiting for that to happen, you are going to be eternally disappointed.
Meanwhile, we get examples like Jim just back from Iraq.
And this is the kind of guy and call, by the way, that finally forced action by the Associated Press member newspapers to tell the editors in the, hey, we keep hearing good news coming out of Iraq, except from you.
What's going on?
So there's a huge disconnect.
But I take great pride in this fact.
And I react to this somewhat optimistically, folks.
This would have never happened 20 years ago.
These kinds of things.
If it were 20 years ago, they would have destroyed Bush by now.
It would be over.
The Bill Burkett thing would have worked 20 years ago.
That would have been it.
We had it at Watergate, which is what they were trying.
This is comforting.
This next story, Harvard University.
And by the way, standby audio soundbite number 13.
Harvard University is joining the long-running debate over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how life began.
The team of researchers will get $1 million in funding annually from Harvard over the next few years.
The project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.
Really?
And that, I don't think, cost anybody a dime, did it?
How anybody, how anybody can simply go outside and look at anything and assume that coincidence and an accident?
Do you know, folks, that the understanding of the origins of life, forget that.
The understanding of how everything on earth works is a giant math problem.
For all intents and purposes, understanding how this works is mathematics that no human mind can comprehend.
Never will be able to.
By design, we're not going to be able to.
Oh, we can continue to quest and we may get closer to we are now.
We probably will, but understanding it's not for us.
But nevertheless, how anybody, how anybody can just look around outside at anything and think, man, what a brilliant accident.
What a brilliant, brilliant coincidence is somebody I intellectually don't understand.
It's just, and I guess where they fall down is that, well, there's no super intelligence smart enough to create all this the way it works.
Oh, that might explain the problem they have.
They think they're the smartest people in the room, and since they can't figure it out, it had to be a coincidence or an accident.
David Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard, says, my expectation is that we'll be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.
The origin of life in the universe initiative is still in its early stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe.
Harvard has told the research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of multi-million dollar facilities.
Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the university's vast resources could change that perception.
It's quite gratifying to see Harvard's going for a solution to a problem that'll be remembered 100 years from now, said Stephen Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is one of the world's top chemists in origins of life research.
Howard Dean weighed in on this.
It was with FaceTime named John Harris, the political editor of the Washington Post, asked him a question and said, were you troubled, Governor Dean, by President Bush's endorsement that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution to school kids?
The president has been anti-science for a long time.
This is the most anti-scientific regime that I've seen in America in my lifetime.
I'm a trained physician, as you're aware.
I'm insulted by that.
It's going to harm America.
What serious business is going to invest in America if the scientific education is influenced by politics?
You mean like global warming?
Science.
If you want to teach religion, that's a separate debate.
But science should be taught as science.
And herein lies the basic problem.
Scientists, or guys like Dean anyway, think that science will never intersect with the truth of the origins of life or the universe.
How can anybody with a half a brain think that?
That science will not intersect?
How can you take science out of it?
How can you go outside and look around and not see the scientific evidence and the evidence that it is all science, a science we're incapable of comprehending?
All it takes is little humility to understand this.
At any rate, of course, yeah, if we start putting politics in science, folks, and we are screwed.
And I think he's right about that, as in global warming.
Here we've got one of the biggest hoaxes being perpetrated on the people of the world, all because the environment is a political issue.
It is not scientific.
We'll be back in just a second.
Hey, looky here, folks.
Why we're back to the same subject we discussed moments ago.
Everybody's all excited about gasoline prices being so high.
Near a record.
Well, I can't get along this way, Rush.
This is too much.
It's putting too big a crimp.
A federal government plan to extend offshore leases is put on hold pending a wider environmental study that could take years.
This is from the New York Times.
A federal judge, affected, sorry, maybe it's the LA Times.
federal judge actively and effectively blocked new oil drilling off the California coast, ordering federal officials not to allow exploratory wells or other activity until they conduct a more extensive study of the environmental risks, a process that could take years.
The federal government wants to extend leases on 36 offshore tracks between Oxnard and San Luis Obispo so that big oil can turn them into working oil fields.
We can't do that.
What do you mean?
Working oil fields off the coast of California?
You're nuts.
We can't do that.
The environment, pollution, oil spills.
We can't do that.
That's right.
We can't do it.
And so stop complaining about the gasoline price.
I don't want to hear it.
I don't want to hear one bit of complaint about the gasoline price.
I don't want to hear it, folks.
I'm not going to have any sympathy for it.
It's absurd to think anything else about it.
We've got to expect these prices to go up.
We're not going to do what it takes to give ourselves an entry into the market, produce our own supply.
So why complain?
It's just silly to complain if you're at the same time going to oppose drilling in our country for our own supply of oil, at least to increase our own supply of oil.
A couple of John McCain sound bites before we have to go.
He was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
And the first question was about Rumsfeld.
You said last December that you had no confidence in Rumsfeld.
How do you feel now?
I don't have confidence, but it's up to the president.
The important thing is that he has the president's confidence.
And that's the important thing.
Have I disagreed with the Secretary of Defense?
Yes, but my job is not to have an open confrontation with the Secretary of Defense.
My job is to try to work with him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the president to try and get this job completed.
It doesn't help if I get in some kind of fight with him.
I guess.
Whatever.
I don't know what that is, if it's not an open expression of, well, whatever.
Then Wallace said, why do you think, Senator McCain, that some conservatives have a problem with you, John McCain?
I think there are certain conservatives that will never forgive me for running against President Bush, and that there are some people who just simply will not agree with me on certain issues.
And that's fine.
That's what our Republican Party should be about.
I would also note that when you look at polls of all Republicans, as well as Independents and Democrats, but particularly Republicans, I stand very, very high in approval of the majority of Republicans.
There are those out there, in my view, on the extreme, that will never accept me.
And as much as that might pain me, I understand it.
But I'm very pleased that candidates for office always seek for me to campaign for them.
I was privileged to speak at the Republican convention in New York.
Well, there's not a whole lot of time to get into this now, but maybe in the next coming days, if any of you have any thoughts here on why it is that or whatever your problems are with Senator McCain, maybe you can call and tell us so we can hear from you.
I frankly don't think it has to do much with the fact that he ran against Bush.
It's how that happened and some of the things that were said during the campaign.
And, well, I don't want to, look, if I say something, there won't be anything left to be said.
So I'll leave this to you all.
If you want to comment on this as the program unfolds during the other days of the week, feel free.
In the meantime, a quick timeout.
We'll be back in here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Chad, I have about 45 seconds, but I want to get you on here.
San Jose, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you.
Hey, Rush, good to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey, the Democrats politicize science all the time when this Christopher Eve stem cell thing.
If John Kerry were president, he'd be tap dancing at the next DNC convention.
I mean, they do it all the time, and then they turn around and say how wrong it is for Republicans to even try.
Politicize science.
I know.
Well, you know, that's a great point, Chad, because everything to the Democrats is politics.
Science, politics.
Global warming is politics.
War, national security, everything is politics to them.
Pure and simple.
At any rate, sadly, ladies and gentlemen, we are out of busy broadcast moments here.
Been a busy broadcast day, but I, as a highly trained broadcast specialist, am used to it.
And I look forward to it each and every day as I will tomorrow.
And remember, if you get a chance, and especially if you're a World War II vet, or if you've ever read anybody who is, take your World War II vet to this movie.
And you just watch what happens when a World War II vet or somebody close to it watches the Great Raid.
It's a great movie, but if you watch it with somebody who can relate to it, you'll learn a lot about what this country was like and still is in some sectors.
Back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection