All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
September 12, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That's just what Mary Landre was talking about, folks.
I had to tell Brian twice to go turn on the ditto cam.
I told him right as the last hour in it.
I said, Brian, I want the ditto cam on at 104.
And it's a sunny day out there today.
Sunny day in 86 degrees.
And at 104, I said, is the ditto cam on?
I snapped his finger and said, nope, I got to go do it.
So I now know what it's like for these mayors whose help won't show up even on a sunny day.
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We're here at the EIB network, the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am America's anchorman.
I've taken my seat here in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair.
Not only am I America's anchorman, America's Truth Detector, and America's Doctor of Democracy all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Folks, I have detected a theme.
And I haven't had a whole lot of time to watch this, but I had had the top of the hour break here checked in with the confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts.
Opening statements by all the senators are still underway.
The Democrats, every one of them that I have seen, have sought to portray these hearings as the one democratic moment in the life of a judge.
The one democratic moment.
And in fact, as Leahy said, it's the one moment in time that we the people have to find out what kind of a scumbag you are.
He didn't say scumbag.
I'm reading his mind.
But nevertheless, that's how.
So they're trying to envelop and embrace the American people by letting the American people know, we're doing this for you.
We're going to destroy this guy or try to for you.
It's the one democratic moment in the life of a judge.
How many times has this guy been before this committee?
Roberts has appeared before this committee at least in one other, two other confirmation hearings or is it one?
It's two, isn't it?
He's been up there, I know, for at least one confirmation hearing.
It was one, and he got unanimous approval coming out of the committee the last time.
So anyway, not much happening other than the opening posturing.
As I said, all the networks that I'm watching, we don't have C-SPAN 3 here, so they're doing gabble-to-gabble.
We're watching back and forth on the three cable news networks, and they're all covering this as though it's election night.
And I'm just waiting for the first network to make the call, to put their projection up there on screen, predicting that Roberts wins or loses confirmation, because it's being covered in just that way.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Mike, standby, audio soundbites 10, 11, and 12.
Tim Russert used the New Orleans evacuation plan yesterday that I had last week in querying Ray Nagan.
We have some sound bites coming up from that.
But first, Michael Kinsley in the L.A. Times yesterday wrote that, what does he say here?
He says, the TV networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of their emotional straitjackets and express outrage.
A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina was told by a producer to get angry.
Now, I have to, this is really not new.
I mean, it may be new that the anchors are being told to get angry and appear feisty.
I don't know about that.
But I mean, having guests coached by producers, come on, folks.
It's one of the artificial characteristics of appearing on television.
I've done my share of it, and I've been coached, and I've been misled in pre-interviews, all these things.
I know for a fact that Oprah has been known.
I mean, Oprah will do a, she'll go on location.
I don't know if it happened in this most recent two shows that she did from the Astrodome.
She'll go on location.
And the purpose of that day's show will be to bring up the biggest victims of some horror or tragedy.
And the producers are instructed to go out and find these victims and find the most articulate ones or the most compassionate ones or the most relatable ones.
And then they bring them up there.
They do the pre-interview and they tell them how to go out there and how to really act hurt and cry when to let loose.
And if a segment goes bone dry on Oprah, after the segment's over and they stop tape, she'll openly chew out a producer and say, this show is not going to survive if you keep finding me victims like this.
I want real victims.
Now make sure the next one has got some tears and is going to lose control.
This is common in television shows like this.
You know, you could say that the agenda is driving this, but so is the quote-unquote definition of good television.
You know, I can't tell you the number of times I've been on TV and I thought, and I've been a guest and I've sort of regretted my behavior at the end of the segment, thought maybe I had just lost my composure a little bit.
And I walked off the set and the producers, oh, that was great.
That was great.
That was great television.
It was one of my early learning curves for being on TV.
When I first started appearing on TV, I wanted to appear calm, cool, rational, intellectual, smart, gifted, bright, unique.
And that was considered boring.
You can't do that.
That's not going to reach out and grab anybody from the screen.
So, I know, Kinsley, I don't know what his axe to grind is.
He used to work at CNN, and I was a victim of a Kinsley setup in a pre-interview on a segment on Talk Radio and Crossfire, which is why I've never gone back to that show.
And if they want people getting mad, why'd they get rid of Novak?
You know, Novak gets mad as well as anybody I've ever seen get mad on TV.
So maybe he just wouldn't get mad at the right things.
Let me touch on this piece by Jack Kelly, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, because it's been all over the blogs.
But I made a mistake, and I made a big mistake when I was out in Los Angeles last weekend over the Labor Day weekend.
All of these New Orleans evacuation reports, annexes, transcripts, minutes of meetings and so forth were all over the internet.
So I assume when I got back on the Tuesday after Labor Day that everybody would have heard about.
And the first hour, I didn't talk about it, and I had some time to kill to vamp in the closing minutes of the first hour.
I read a little bit of it, and I was shocked by how many people had not heard anything about it until I had said it.
So I made a little bit of a miscalculation as just how widespread the internet is in reaching mass numbers of people.
So I'm not going to make that mistake again.
There's a piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette yesterday by Jack Kelly.
Jack Kelly is just one of their columnists.
And he says the federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed.
He says it's settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.
Bob Herbert, The New York Times, Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency.
But the conventional wisdom of Herbert and the rest is the opposite of the truth.
Jason Van Steenwick is a Florida National Guardsman, Army National Guardsman, who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief.
He notes the following.
The federal government pretty much met its standard timelines, but the volume of support provided during the 72 to 96 hour was unprecedented.
The federal response here, meaning in Katrina, federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine, faster than Gene.
That is one, two, three, four, five hurricanes.
That the federal government's response was faster in Hurricane Katrina than these five hurricanes.
For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Florida, after Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002.
After Katrina, there was a significant guard presence in the afflicted region in three days.
Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what's involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline's available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris and apparently have little interest in finding out.
So they libel as a national disgrace the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.
I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached.
In the course of that week, more than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.
The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.
Shelter, food, and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.
Journalists complain it took a whole week to do this.
A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Molten Thought.
He said, we do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw in Star Trek in college between the hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort we're studying engineering.
The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain, which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.
You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by pre-positioning assets in the affected areas since the assets are engendered by the very storm which destroyed the region.
In other words, you can't get the fire trucks ready to roll.
They'll be destroyed.
You can't put the food out there in the water out there.
It'll get washed away.
You can't put the troops ready to go in and rescue people standing by waiting in the hurricane with umbrellas for it to pass so they can go rescue people because they will be harmed, damaged, killed, injured themselves.
You just can't snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere.
So it's a great piece.
We'll post a link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
One other closing item here before we go to the break, and it's this.
What's the total Americans have now donated?
Last I heard it was over $700 million.
Is that right?
All right, $700 million.
I want to know, I have a question.
How many of those millions were specified for whites only?
Best I can tell, not one donor has said, and my money can only go to rich white people down there.
How many of those millions specified for the rich and for the upper middle class only?
How many people who donated money said, you are only going to give it to the upper middle class and the rich.
I haven't heard of one.
Now, as inspired as I am by the heroic efforts of the rescuers and as awed as I am by the monumental cleanup task, I am disgusted by the looters, not just the looters of food and water, and not even the looters of television sets and DVD players.
I'm disgusted by the looters of the tragedy.
The low-life politicians picking at the bones of the tragedy for political gain.
The low-life Bush haters looking for their pound of flesh.
Do I have to list the Nancy Pelosi's and the Harry Reids and the Jesse Jacksons and the Howard Deans and the moveon.orgs and the New York Times?
Do I have to name them?
Not really, because the same buzzards that circle every setback, that pick at every issue, are using an act of God to smear the president.
And the same buzzards are in the air over New Orleans and Mississippi now.
Same people with the same plan, same modus operandi.
These people on the left have such a great plan.
Maybe if they started planning hurricane evacuations and maybe if they started planning helping this country rather than destroying a president, maybe they would be of some use.
Anybody can sit around and circle as a buzzard.
Anybody can sit around and criticize, whine, moan, and complain.
By the way, as far as the rescue efforts go, have you heard of one rescuer refusing to rescue a black person on a roof?
I haven't.
So where then does this charge of racism enter the scene, ladies and gentlemen?
It enters the scene because it's not real.
It's merely part of the template through which the Bush critics look at him and his party and conservatism.
Is there anything more patently absurd than listening to Mary Landrew try to deflect responsibility from the Democrat mayor and a Democrat governor by saying, well, mayors can't get their people to work even on a sunny day, much less come to work in a hurricane?
I don't know if you have a chance to watch Mary Landrew.
We can't show you this on audio only, but she was with Chris Wallace yesterday.
Every time he dared to challenge her, the corner of her mouth started to snarl a little bit, and then her safety valve reminded her to smile each time.
It went to snarl and smile.
Schnarl?
Smile.
Schnarl?
Smile.
I'm going to kill you, Chris.
Smile.
How dare you ask me that question?
Smile.
But my friends, you know, I don't have the wisdom to know if her line of attack on the president's orders from the Harry Reid crowd or if she's just, you know, CYA of her own A or it's for the Democrat establishment, Louisiana.
I suspect that what really might be going on here is to make sure that these local officials are not criticized so that they can get control of the billions of dollars in aid.
If it ever is firmly established by an investigation anywhere that this mayor and his governor blew it, then they're going to be out of the loop in handling the aid money.
And I think that's what Mary Landrew is trying to protect, among other things.
Back with more after this.
Judge John Roberts, still doing a fabulous job.
It's been an hour and a half so far.
Still doing a fabulous job.
Hasn't said a word, but looks more concerned and interested than any nominee I can recall in my life, folks, as he listens to these blowhards tell him what he's got to do and what they think.
I'm a little down on Congress.
I really am.
Pass buck artists extraordinaire.
Take responsibility for nothing.
Act as grand inquisitors.
Get the power and the right to go destroy other people's lives.
I'm just down on Congress.
By the way, as far as New Orleans is concerned, I have a prediction for you.
I don't think the media will ever leave there.
I think the media, New Orleans, they're not going to go.
It's too great an opportunity.
New Orleans will be a featured location.
I bet the Democrats even have their convention there.
I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats try to have their convention in the superdome before it is repaired to show solidarity and have their convention have a pre-convention in 06 going into the 06 elections.
I wouldn't put anything past this is, folks, this is it.
This is it.
Richard Clark was no good.
The 9-11 Commission was no good.
Bill Burkett was no good.
Dan rather bombed out on him.
Even if even Cindy Sheehan, it just wasn't a long lifespan there.
But this, Katrina Van den Hoovel, Hurricane Katrina Van den Hoovel.
Oh, yes, I can, we're going to have permanent anchors.
You're going to have permanent studios.
New Orleans is going to become the media capital of this country.
Here's Tom in Houston, Texas.
Tom, welcome to the program.
Great to have you on with us.
Thank you, Russ.
Ditto's from Houston.
Yeah.
Yeah, I just wanted to point out that I'm no fan of Mary Landers, and I watched that interview yesterday, and she said many stupid things, not the least of which that she said they didn't use the buses because they were underwater.
But the quote about the getting the people to work is being misinterpreted.
I think it's just the quirk of the English language that when she says to work, she means, and it ties in with something else she said, she means transporting the people to their workplace.
She means getting the people to work.
If you emphasize the word to, you might see what I mean.
If you get the people to work.
Wait, I have, hold on.
I just, I don't know how you get there from what she said.
I have what she said.
She said, Mayor Nagan and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting their people to work on a sunny day.
Exactly.
Let alone getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane.
You're saying it's a mass transit problem?
Exactly.
She says later in the interview, she blames the entire thing on the Bush administration or the federal government or somebody not supporting mass transit.
You've got to get that statement.
That's the whole bottom line to her is that.
So you don't think that she would be stupid enough to actually admit, if it were the truth, that the city workers were slackers anywhere?
She wouldn't be stupid enough to admit that.
So she actually means something else.
But you yourself earlier in this call admitted that she said many stupid things in this interview.
And so, according to the great philosopher Pascal, much easier to believe that something that has been can be again than to believe that something that never has been can be.
And so if she was stupid multiple times earlier in the interview, then she was probably stupid at that point in the interview.
And I think you're giving her the benefit of the doubt.
She was on a roll of stupidity, and you want to cover making the complex understandable, serving humanity.
Rushland bought talent on loan from God here on the EIB network.
Brief departure here, folks, from what we've been talking about.
There's a news story out there today.
I have it in the stack about a local radio station owner in Northern California who owns two stations.
One station is led by me, programmed by me, and one station is led by Air ERR America.
And the station owner has put out a call, and he's a nice guy.
I know the guy.
He has put out a call to advertisers in the market to support the Air America.
He hasn't sold one ad in three months.
Not one business is willing to, yet this program is sold out on this station.
What was that, HR?
He said, no, no, it's a liberal market.
That's what's a liberal, very, very, it's Santa Cruz.
It's a very liberal market.
This program has sold out, and the Air America program can't sell a dime.
And I want to help this man because he was, you know, he took a great risk in taking this program early on and putting it in that market.
And I don't want to mention his name.
He knows who he is.
But you have, I guess, a misunderstanding about how liberalism works.
You think capitalism is what's driving this.
It isn't.
What you need to do, if you want financial support, you need to go get funding.
You need to ask for donations from people.
And probably the best way to support Air America in this market since advertisers won't is to find a local boys and girls club and tell that boys and girls club that you need an operating loan for some unrelated purpose.
You want to tell the boys normally people give money to the boys and girls club, but liberal radio has found a way to extract money from the boys and girls clubs.
It was a Gloria Wise club up in New York.
And I think this is the lesson for all of you who wish to show some sort of financial revenue income by carrying liberal radio.
You have to orient yourself toward fundraising, not commerce.
Commerce has never been part of the recipe here.
Donations, fundraising.
And it's been shown that boys and girls clubs will willingly give to liberal radio until they learn they're not going to get the money back.
And then, of course, you have a problem.
But that would be my suggestion.
So I don't want this guy to suffer out there for making a decision like this.
He was only trying to balance his market.
It's just a small example of how I am trying to help everybody.
Yes, it's exactly the way I tried to help Carl McCall, who was running for the Democratic primary for governor in New York.
And the punk, Terry McCauliff, stiffed him.
The Democratic National Committee promised him campaign help in the form of donations.
And none was forthcoming.
And I said, this is strange.
This is a party that supports blacks and minorities.
And they left Carl McCall just to hung him out to dry.
So we actually began a fundraising effort on this program.
And people listening to this program, I just asked him to send a dollar because Democrats, they don't like money from the rich, other than Hollywood rich people.
Just send a dollar to Carl McCall's campaign.
And apparently enough of you did because it was written about by a columnist in the New York Daily News who was upset with the Democrats that it was left in my audience to fund the Carl McCall campaign in New York.
And so I'm just trying to help this.
This guy has made a terrible blunder.
He thought liberal radio was about commerce and dollars and business and selling advertising, and that's not what it's about.
You are supposed to see with liberal radio, those of you radio station owners that take it, you're not supposed to be thinking of making money here.
You're donating.
You're contributing to fundraising.
You are doing something good for the cause.
They never said that you were going to make money, Carol.
That's not the point.
Yeah, you would think that Carl McCall was from New Orleans the way he's being treated or had been treated by the Democrats.
All right.
Let's go back.
previous caller Tom in Houston said that we misunderstood Mary Landrew that Mary Landrew is simply blaming lack of good mass transit okay who runs the city I mean if you've if you're if you're Democrat mayor and you're Democrat governor and you can't get your people to work in the city because it's a bad mass transit system who's in charge of that is it is that Bush's fault too Mary Landrew says so Bush didn't fund mass transit enough well come on
Is it obvious to you this is all falling apart on these people as it is to me?
It's clear that this is not about mass transit.
Mary Landrew simply, you put a bag of cow manure in front of her these days and she will step in it.
So let's listen to Tim Russert who grilled the mayor yesterday, Ray Nagan, and Tim had a copy of the New Orleans evacuation order, which clearly stipulates that the mayor is in charge of everything.
Now get this, Russert's question.
We've all seen this photograph of the submerged school buses.
Why didn't you declare, order a mandatory evacuation on Friday when the president declared an emergency and have utilized those buses to get people out of the city?
We did the things that we thought were best based upon the information that we had.
Sure, there was lots of buses out there, but guess what?
You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a Category 5 hurricane pending down on New Orleans.
We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday on Sunday, Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the superdome.
We barely had enough drivers for that.
So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available.
So you just can't get people to show up.
You can't get people to show up on work.
What if you said, Mayor, what if you said to the drivers whose job it is to drive the buses, look, this will get you out of here, too.
If you're driving the bus, you will succeed in evacuating.
And we'll even let you bring your family.
If you don't have a car, we'll let you bring your family, put your family on the bus as you're evacuating those who need help to get out.
And we will kill two birds with one stone.
We'll save you.
We'll save you and your family and the school bus and the people who are being transported out.
Now, my friends, I'm not even an elected city official, and I could think of this.
Couldn't get the drivers.
So the buses were...
So no matter where you turn in this state, whether it's Senator Landrieu or Mayor Nagin, you just can't find good people.
They just won't hang out, hang around, and show up to work.
Next question from Russert is kind of long.
He said, Mr. Mayor, if you read the City of New Orleans comprehensive, and I've read it, and I'll show it to you and our viewers, it says very clearly, conduct of an actual evacuation will be the responsibility of the mayor of New Orleans.
The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas.
Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific life-saving assistance.
Additional personnel will be recruited to assist in evacuating procedures as needed.
Approximately 10,000 or 100,000 citizens of New Orleans do not have the means of personal transportation.
So, Mayor, it was your responsibility.
Where was the planning?
Where was the preparation?
Where was the execution?
Why couldn't you find people to drive those buses?
The planning was always in getting people to higher ground, getting them to safety.
That's what we meant by evacuation.
Get them out of their homes, which most people are under sea level.
Get them to a higher ground and then depend upon our state and our federal officials to move them out of harm's way after the storm has hit.
Oh, have you heard this one before yesterday?
No, I hadn't heard this before yesterday.
So all the city had to do is get them above sea level, get them above sea level, and then the state and the feds are supposed to come in and get them to hell arrest out.
So notice the governor does not escape here in any sense of responsibility on the part of the governor.
By the way, folks, interesting question raised on the internet last Thursday.
Do you remember the Chicago heat wave of 1995?
The Chicago heat wave of 1995.
1995 is when Bill Clinton was president.
1,000 people died in the Chicago heat wave.
Hillary Clinton has called for a Katrina commission, but I don't think anybody ever called for a commission to investigate why at least 1,000 Americans died in the 1995 heat wave when she and Bill Clinton were president.
The Chicago heat wave killed more people than Hurricane Andrew, TWA Flight 800, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Northridge, California earthquake combined.
Victims of the Chicago heat wave were buried in mass graves.
There's a picture of it in slate.com.
And then the actor Donald Sutherland, the father of Kiefer Sutherland, made a remark in the Sunday Times in the UK.
He said, is preening in a petticoat at all relevant today?
My God, it is, particularly in the United States, where they talk about family values but leave people to drown.
Sutherland enjoys rhetorical flourishes and soon he's off.
Quote, in France, they might not earn as much as in America, but they work a 35-hour week and they spend time with their families.
Isn't that real family values?
Does anybody remember anybody last August, 13 months ago, does anybody remember the 15,000 French people who died during a heat wave in Paris?
Family.
The kids, kids went ahead in August and took their vacations and left their parents and the elderly to suffer in the heat.
They went to the seaside.
They went down to the south of France and whatever it is, wherever it is they go to vacation.
15,000 people dead in a heat wave last August in Paris and other areas of France.
And Donald Sutherland dares to say that family values are alive and well in France because of the 35-hour work week.
He forgets, I guess, or didn't know about all of these young people that basically left their parents and grandparents to wilt and die during the heat wave.
But there's 15,000 dead in Paris or France, 1,000 dead in Chicago.
And so far, the death toll in New Orleans is under 200.
But don't forget, George Bush stinks.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Hey, folks, I just have a quick little question here about Senator Leahy and the Roberts hearings still underway, by the way.
Jeff Sessions is now in his opening remarks.
All the senators get 10 minutes, and it'll give me Roberts' turn to finally speak.
You would think the senators were campaigning for it, and they are, actually, but it's Roberts who's actually the nominee, and he may yet get to speak today.
My question is, how can Patrick Leahy be permitted to vote on a Supreme Court nomination?
I ask this simply because I've read what the mainstream press has said about Roberts.
They said that John Roberts came from an all-white neighborhood.
No blacks, no Jews.
No Jews.
They also said that his father was upper middle class, well-to-do, and that John Roberts had never known any hardships in life.
And then Richard Cohen last Friday wrote a piece in the Washington Post saying, I see an appalling lack of failure in his life.
He's just too perfect.
The guy's not failed enough.
So if that represents the series of disqualifications for Judge Roberts, then shouldn't the same thing apply to one of his interrogators as in Senator Leahy?
Senator Leahy is from a white state.
Senator Leahy is white himself.
There's no evidence that Senator Leahy has ever suffered, although there are countless examples of failure on the part of Senator Leahy.
It was the only difference between himself and Judge Roberts that I can notice.
And as I'm watching the hearings, and I don't see everything, only what the cameras are showing me, but I can't help but notice that all or at least most of the Senate staffers on this committee are white.
Why is that?
Let me play a piece of audio for you, folks.
Cookie tells me this is from Wednesday, August 31st.
And this is between network interviews.
Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, was going from one network to another to do interviews.
But between interviews, she was overheard speaking to her press secretary, Denise Butcher.
And she admits that she should have asked for military assistance much earlier, but that she didn't want that because she didn't want the military to put good people in jeopardy.
Here's what she had to say.
Again, talking to her press secretary between interviews on various cable networks.
I said, we're not tolerating you.
We're asking for more military presence.
But I mean, and I'm saying, Jeff.
I really need to call for the military.
I should have started happening in the first call.
Okay, so she's feeling remorse that she didn't call the military out sooner.
She should have done that in the first call, but she just didn't feel right calling the military out because that would put good people in jeopardy, potentially.
Now, what underlying worldview must you have to think that the military will put good people in jeopardy?
I have the answer.
A liberal worldview will help you with that.
If you have a liberal worldview, then you know that the military puts good people in jeopardy.
So she was resisting because of an apparent ingrained ideological bias against the military.
Michael and Lafayette, Louisiana, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I was driving through Houston last week coming back from a run, and I was listening to the local radio stations, and they were interviewing evacuees at the Astrodome.
And time after time, I'd hear one of them say, well, I have no plans of returning to New Orleans.
What's to go back to?
And as I kept hearing this, this optimism started rising in me.
And then I realized that this is the best thing I've ever heard.
Because if the Democratic base thins out and moves out, we might have a chance to turn this state into what it deserves to be.
You know something?
We talked about this on Friday, Michael.
This is happening in the Northeast and the Rust Belt states, the Democrats.
People are leaving those regions for other parts of the country for more economic opportunity, better climates, and so forth.
And already you can, there are a couple of stories.
I've got them here in the stacks.
Your instinct is right on the money.
The Democrats are starting to worry that a huge number of citizens from New Orleans may not go back.
And that's going to upset the balance down there, which gives New Orleans in statewide elections all this power and prominence because that's where Landrew's base is.
That's where margin of victory is in these statewide Senate race.
Quick timeout.
We'll be right back and continue in mere moments.
This is too good.
Diane Feinstein no sooner completes her opening statement than she leaves the building, runs out, and is at this moment doing an interview on CNN about the hearings.
And there's Robert still listening in the hearing to Russ Feingold now.
So she makes her statement, runs out to CNN to give an interview.
You really can't blame her, folks.
She has to do this to outshine Chuck Schumer.
▲
Export Selection