All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:56
December 9, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's 82 degrees out there, Brian.
It's just fabulous.
82 degrees out of humidity's up.
Hubba, hubba.
Again, you got to play golf tomorrow for the first time in a couple of weeks.
That's been swamped city here lately.
Greetings.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
The award-winning Rush Limbaugh Program of America's Anchorman is back.
It's Friday.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Looking forward to it, folks.
Open Line Friday.
Basically, whatever we talk about on the phones is what you want to talk about today.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
It doesn't have to be something that's in the news.
It can be.
It could be something you think that hasn't been discussed enough.
Question, comment, whatever it is.
I know that you are a curious, curious lot.
So if they've had a burning question about things, now this is the time to go for it.
You can also go to the email route, rush at eibnet.com.
I remember when I went to San Francisco back in 1984, it was to cover the Democratic National Convention.
I was working for a radio station in Kansas City, KMBZ.
And this is before they were afraid of what I might say.
They sent me to this convention to do commentary from the convention.
And you get there, this is my first one, particularly as a member of the media.
And you find out that all of these groups that plan protests, parties, whoever they are, for whatever purpose, there's this giant listing of them and where they're going to be doing what.
All this is handed out to the media so the media can show up and hopefully cover this stuff.
And there was this thing that said dykes on bikes.
And I guess it's 1984.
It's 21 years ago.
And I said, well, this is cool.
Where is this happening?
And it was dikes on bikes, and they were going to be, of course, they were not protesting anything.
This is the Democrats were in town.
They were having a big rally.
And now the lesbian motorcycle enthusiasts in San Francisco have won their fight to trademark the name Dykes on Bikes.
It's taken 21 years, but the lawyer for their group made the announcement yesterday.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied applications by the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent to trademark dykes on bikes, arguing the phrase would be perceived as disparaging to lesbians.
But the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Brooke Oliver Law Group said the word dike is no longer viewed as derogatory.
Well, we could test that on this program.
I'll bet you the word dike coming out of the wrong person's mouth at the wrong time would be viewed as derogatory.
I'll bet that we can prove this.
We can back up the patent office on it.
Not that I'm going to try.
I'm just making a point.
Shannon Minter, a lawyer for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that within the lesbian community, that term has been reclaimed as a very positive term.
It denotes strength and pride and empowerment.
All right.
Remember the now deposed female president of the University of Colorado during the football scandal?
During her testimony before somebody, they were investigating a football coach, the whole football program, because they were bringing in these new recruits.
They were trying to recruit these high school kids to come play at Colorado and have sex parties and all this.
And I forget this woman's name, the president of the university at the time, but she said that the C-word in many circumstances is taken as a compliment.
Remember that?
I've never forgotten that.
I said, well, we put that to the test too and see how that holds up.
I forget the context.
It was even more absurd than that that this woman was trying to defend somebody.
Oh, no, no, that's not a derogatory term anymore, she said.
So now we're being told that the word dyke denotes strength and pride and empowerment.
Dykes on bikes.
It's trademark, and they'll probably franchise this, folks, and there'll probably be offices and clubs and so forth in a town near you down the road.
The San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent, that's all capitalized, sought the trademark after a woman in Wisconsin not affiliated with the group attempted to use the phrase for a clothing line.
So they had to get into big legal argument about it.
U.S. life expectancy has hit an all-time high despite global warming, despite the bird flu, despite all of these maladies that are causing pain and suffering around the world.
U.S. life expectancy is now 77.6 years.
Deaths from heart disease, cancer and stroke continue to drop, the government reported yesterday.
Still, the march of medical progress has taken a worrisome turn.
See, you can't, you just can't report any good news.
It just can't be allowed to stand.
No, there has to be a critic in everything, the modern journalistic formula.
Life expectancy, 77.6 years, all-time high.
Deaths from heart disease, cancer and stroke continue to drop, but don't start feeling good.
The march of medical progress has taken a worrisome turn.
Half of Americans in the 55 to 64 age group, including the oldest of the baby boomers, have high blood pressure.
Two in five are obese.
That means they're in worse shape in some respects than Americans born a decade earlier were when they were at that age.
So no matter what the news, no matter how good it is, we still have to put the news out there that there's some people have high blood pressure, and there's some people that are fat slobs.
Some people are really obese.
So you have to go get a, you have to go get a conflicting opinion, no matter what the news, even if it's a fact.
You know how they're doing this in this story on the air marshals?
This is really, this is giant see I told you so.
This is from the Christian Science Monitor Day.
Air Marshal Program is training adequate.
Wednesday shooting of an unarmed airline passenger in Miami is casting fresh scrutiny on the Federal Air Marshal Service.
I told you it wouldn't take long for this to pop up.
You know, before everybody was looking at this with hindsight, had no choice.
They had to do that.
There was no question about it.
Guy's shouting, he's got a bomb.
He's agitated.
He's uncontrolled.
He's not responsive.
It can't take the chance, not after 9-11.
And now we've got the benefit of hindsight.
Now the word's coming out.
He was a missionary and he was helping the poor in the week before this happened.
And now, despite the fact that few security experts question the actions of the air marshals, who fired on Rigoberto Alpizar after he behaved erratically and reportedly said he had a bomb in his backpack, within the context of their training, they say the marshals acted appropriately, but many now question the training itself.
Hot damn.
Why are we not surprised?
Yes, many question the training itself as well as the way the federal government has handled the air marshal service since 9-11.
When the small security agency with fewer than three dozen marshals was ramped up to several thousand in just a matter of months, why everybody knows that a bureaucracy is not supposed to grow that fast.
All of this was created under tremendous pressure, fast as they could.
The fact is that there are holes all over it, said Rich Grita, an aviation expert at the University of Portland.
There's a lot of stuff that they really never had the time to think through, so they're always trying to tweak it.
When you do that, it can cause confusion around problems.
Some people lose faith in the system.
Look at where we've got in one day.
The system's falling apart.
Lousy training.
They did it too fast.
Nobody knows what they're doing in there.
Morale is for the birds at the Federal Air Marshal Service in just one day.
And it's only going to get worse.
And this story continued.
We've got another university expert, this one from the University of Akron.
The federal air marshals have been trained to deal with terrorists and how to fire their weapons, obviously effectively, given what happened.
But the question needs to be asked: has that training been upgraded to deal with this rise again in air rage and the introduction of these new items on December 22nd?
If somebody shows up with a knife and is going to stab a flight attendant or start stabbing themselves, do we shoot them?
These are questions we need the answers to.
And we're giving the pointy-headed academics from the university.
The question is, we're now allowing knives back on planes.
You need to take a knife back at a plane.
The new rule.
You can't take a box cutter yet.
That'll happen next year.
But you can get a knife on theirs.
Well, scissors, whatever.
Something can be used.
Okay, no knives.
Something could be used as a knife, a knife substitute, if you will.
So this university guy, this is Andrew Thomas, aviation security expert, University of Akron in Ohio.
A question needs to be asked: has that training been upgraded to deal with the rise in air rage and the introduction of these new items like scissors on December 22nd?
If somebody has a pair of scissors, has threatened to stab a flight attendant or themselves, do we shoot them?
We need to know this.
Well, but no, we have to re-exempt.
Look at this is it.
This is liberals and this is the bureaucracy.
Everything worked as it was supposed to, meaning we have to find out what's wrong with it.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
We are back.
We go to the phones now.
It's Open Line Friday.
Leon, Hagerstown, Maryland.
I'm glad you waited, Leon.
Welcome to the show.
Thanks very much.
Old-fashioned liberal from Hagerstown.
We're the catnip capital of the world.
And a Merry Christmas to you, too.
It's just wonderful.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
I'm so happy you're playing the political satires again and parodies.
I think it's a wonderful thing.
I'll never forget the Gulf War, the mini-series.
I think it was brilliant.
But I want to get back.
But I realized I was calling was about in the beginning when you opened up your show.
You were talking about Clinton and about how the Democrats were always cavers and guys who cut and run.
And I just want to remind you that if this is a national issue, that both parties have done this.
And it goes back to Eisenhower, at least when he ran from Lebanon and Reagan ran and Carter ran.
And I think that the issue is that we have to look and figure out why we did that and we ought to come together as opposed to constantly bashing each other.
Because I don't think our country's going to be able to do that.
Let me tell you something.
No, that's, you know something?
I would be more than happy to do that.
The problem, and that's absolutely a great, great point.
We are at war.
It'd be fabulous if we were all unified in our objective.
But the thing that I was reacting to today, remember, as I've always said, I don't get up every day and start pouring through the news looking for people to attack.
I look at things I believe in and people I believe in being attacked, and I then go out and defend them.
And this story in the New York Times today was another typical cheap shot attempting in one story to say Bush lied about pre-war intelligence, and he got the lies that he wanted because he tortured somebody who ended up lying to Bush.
Bush didn't care that he was lying.
This guy was tortured via rendition in Egypt.
He said what Bush wanted to hear, and my only point is that everything that they claim Bush is lying about was said by Democrats from Bill Clinton on down in 1998.
Absolutely.
Now, at this point, it's the Democrats that you need to be talking to about being unified.
My whole point here on this program every day, it may sound strange.
My whole point is to try to persuade as many people as possible, including the left, that they're wrong.
This is a serious, this is not, this is not a disagreement about social security reform or some domestic issue.
This is national security.
And we've got the mainstream press lying through their teeth, publishing drivel, publishing garbage, because it echoes what their party, the Democratic Party, is saying.
And I'm telling you, it's a psyops operation.
It is a propaganda operation.
And it's based on lies.
And I'm going to call it that when I see it.
Can I tell you a quick 9-11 story to tell you how much I absolutely know for a fact what you say is true?
I was in England two days after 9-11 and saw the Palestinian guy who was Osama bin Laden's spiritual advisor on BBC giving interviews, telling the world their purpose is to rule the world.
There's no doubt in my mind that that's the issue, and there should be no other issue.
Well, I know.
But you have some people, and they're Democrats and liberals, whether they're elected or not, who don't want to face that reality, who don't believe that's true.
And even if they were ever to believe it, they think they can prevent that from happening because they're better people.
They can sit down and talk to these people.
They can appease them.
Or they can just close their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist and that'll make it go away.
They're a bunch of children, a bunch of spoiled, rotten little children.
And they can't be counted.
They're immature.
They're childish.
And it takes the form this childish immaturity now has found a place for daily existence in the New York Times, the DNC Times.
CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS.
It's a bunch of kids.
There are no adults running around.
Bush is the one adult here.
And it's just amazing to watch this play out.
But I agree with you.
Both parties have had their chances to deal with terrorism and didn't do it.
You can talk about Reagan and Lebanon back then.
We've reached a point, though, where somebody's finally doing something about it.
All right.
Maybe we waited too long.
9-11 was it.
I think we had our fill.
Some of us did.
Now we're trying to do something about it.
And even that's being politicized.
And even that is being used by the Democrats here.
And to me, it's unforgivable.
These people need to really, really pay a price for what they're doing.
Let me illustrate this.
I'm going to go to the audio soundbites.
Last night's hard-boiled with Chris Matthews, always amazing, was maybe even more so.
Last night, Chaka Fatah, a congressman from Philadelphia, a frequent guest on Hardball.
And Matthews was just beside himself because the Democrats are losing ground.
Bush is still in office.
He hasn't pulled the troops out.
Nobody's listening to Murthy.
Alito's been nominated.
The economy is roaring.
Bush's approval numbers are coming back.
And Matthews is starting to beat up on Democrats.
So he says, when you look back at a Vietnam War, Chucka, they used to have votes all the time in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.
They'd have the Cooper Church Amendment.
There'd be another amendment being offered at different times.
Always had an amendment to try to return the troops.
How come we're not seeing these test votes?
Where are you guys?
I don't understand it.
If there's a dispute over whether to come relatively soon, like Mirtha said, and the president says, stay until the job gets done, how come we don't see this coming to a vote ever?
Because the voices in the Republican Party, like Senator Chuck Hagel, who I think has been very responsible on this matter, and Walter Jones in the House and others, they really, the party has decided that for party discipline purposes, they need to stay together and stay behind their president.
And I think at some point we will get to, and probably sometime next year, I think Jack Bertha's right, at some point, they will change course because the Pentagon says there is no military victory to be won.
So the Democrats can't call for a test vote because the last time they did, only three of them voted for it.
What do you mean, Chris?
Test vote?
They just had one.
Three Democrats voted for it.
There's no, that was practically suicide then.
You want to go do it again?
And there's Chuck Afata saying, well, we can't really do anything until we get a Republican defector.
Chuck Hagel.
We can count on Chuck to defect Chuck.
Probably next year, Chuck will join us.
But until Chuck does it, we can't do anything because we need Chuck Hagel.
We're talking about these people winning the House and the Senate back.
Move on to cut seven here.
So Matthew says, well, most of the public is still looking for the Democrats to get organized, to have a clear alternative to the president.
Nobody's seen that yet, Congressman.
Why don't you guys get off your duffs and do something?
You keep talking about it, you keep talking about it.
You don't do anything.
We're in the test votes.
Why aren't you going to get us out of a rock?
That's what we want to all get out.
Why aren't you going to do it?
The party in charge has to be held accountable for their actions.
We want to hold the minority party responsible for the money.
As long as Joe Lieberman is making more noise than Mirtha, nobody knows what the Democrats stand for.
And until we give Chuck Hagel and his views a decent airing, you would see that there's even people on their side.
We've got serious dementia and delusion in one package with both these guys on this show.
In the first place, who among us believes that Lieberman is getting more attention than Mirtha?
On what?
Chris, I know you're out there.
If you're not listening at the moment, you'll hear about this.
You know, I love you.
You know, I think you're a great guy.
You know, I think you've got a pretty good brain.
But what are you watching or eating or smoking?
Mertha is smoking McCain on media attention by a factor of 100 to 1.
And Chuck Afata, you can't do anything until Hagel shows up?
You can't do anything until Maverick Chuck Hagel defects from the Republicans.
It's not up to you guys to have your own plan.
All you have to do is criticize.
Folks, it's even better than I thought.
This is fabulous stuff.
You need to be smiling about this as I am.
And we're back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
All right, I want to put some thoughts together here during the break.
I want to go back to the guy from Hagerstown, Maryland, who talked about Eisenhower running from Lebanon and Reagan running from Lebanon and so forth.
Let's take a look at who these people are.
Eisenhower ran from Lebanon, right?
He also led us to victory in World War II over Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini, right?
Reagan ran from Lebanon, right?
Yeah.
He won the Cold War and destroyed the Soviet empire and its puppet states in Eastern Europe.
How in the world do you compare this to Bill Clinton?
How in the world do you compare these two guys to any Democrat president since Truman?
How many have there been?
JFK?
Who's the other one?
Car.
Oh, yeah.
Well, no, yeah, LBJ, Jimmy Carter.
Where do you get off comparing these people?
Show me a Democrat in recent history has done one-tenth what Ike did or what Reagan did.
Yeah, Reagan pulled the Marines from that base in Lebanon.
What should he have done?
We didn't know who these people were or where they were, as we did by the time they hit us in 1993 at the World Trade Center.
I'm not making any excuses here.
I just, what should Reagan have done?
Unleashed our armed forces on who and what and where.
As for Chris Matthews, I got a couple more bites here.
It gets even better.
His next guest is Thomas DeFranc of the New York Daily News.
And listen to this question.
Get this question.
I kid you not.
Chris Matthews quote to his guest, I wonder where this word victory keeps being used over and over again, as if it means something.
Where is this word victory coming from?
I think that's coming from somebody on the NSC who studied this, a former professor from Duke.
The Washington Post has done a terrific story.
Just say the word victory over and over and over.
Get it.
People think of victory.
Well, because people need to feel like there's a chance that victory is around the corner in Iraq.
It's better for the president.
I mean, a month ago or during his August vacation, he made a speech on the war in Idaho.
He mentioned the word victory three times.
At Annapolis, he mentioned the word victory 15 times.
Is this not fabulous?
No, it's a conspiracy.
It's a conspiracy.
It's a marketing plan.
Where does this word victory come from?
What the hell is that all about?
It's what we're attempting to achieve and what the Democrats are hoping to undermine.
Now, Chris, I know I can tell by just the sound bites from today's show that you're long and you're sitting out there dreaming of the glory days of Vietnam when our brave armed forces were being undermined here at home by radical nutcases.
They were burning buildings on college campaign, burning the American flag in the streets, visiting the communists in North Vietnam and the Soviets and the Red Chinese were on the march around the world.
But those good old days are gone, Chris.
You can go back and you can try to recreate the glory days, but you can't get there from here.
You can't turn Iraq into Vietnam.
You can't turn victory into defeat.
You've given it your best shot out there, you and your guest pals, but it's backfiring on you as it always was going to backfire because the American people know what's at stake here.
They do want us to win.
They're not hoping that we lose.
They do support the troops.
And try as you might, they're not going to get behind the loser bandwagon.
What in the world makes people think people want to do that anyway?
Okay, losers over here.
Winners over here.
Who thinks the loser side's going to be bigger when you get to choose?
Yeah, okay, I want to lose.
I'll join the losers.
What would that pack of people look like?
Okay, we're going to choose upsides here in America.
The American media is going to choose upsides here.
We're going to have the winners and the losers, and you go to the side you want to go to.
They actually think people are going to join the loser side.
What do you mean by being too hard on Democrats?
Snurdley says I'm being too hard on Democrats because they don't really know victory.
It's been so long since they've had one.
I know what you're saying.
It's sort of like, why should they care about democracy in Iraq?
It hasn't been treating them well in recent years.
So what good is democracy?
I can understand that too.
I know they haven't had a lot of victory, but absence makes a heart grow fonder.
A lot of people want to win.
It's true, but liberals are interested in life's losers.
Life's losers are the victims of world, of the world, of life, and as such need liberals to help guide them through the morass that the victors cause, mainly the rich, ExxonMobil and Walmart.
And those suspects change every month or so, depending on who the liberals want to target.
No, I mean, the idea that the American people are going to actively choose the losing side and get on.
Well, I don't know what some of your liberals say, they did it in Vietnam.
They did it in Vietnam.
No.
No, they weren't choosing to lose.
That's not what was at stake.
Guys are trying to drum up support for defeat here and the American people don't want.
They know what's at stake here.
9-11 happened but we're not through with the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen, because last night, yesterday afternoon, on the FOX NEWS Channel with my old buddy, Neil Cavuto.
He interviewed uh representative Sheila Jackson Lee from Houston.
Uh, now Sheila Jackson Lee?
Uh replaced the late Mickey Leland uh who was unfortunately killed in a plane crash in a somewhere in the mountains of Ethiopia on a on a on a goodwill mission.
So she's the new and she'd been there for a while.
But she, her claim to fame is that she went to NASA or the JET Propulsion LAB somewhere and the Mars rover you know was.
Was uh doing its number out there on the surface of Mars?
It was.
It was trucking around and making new discoveries and she looked at it and she said, is it going to go over to where the astronauts planted the flag?
Of course everybody in the room could go.
What do we say to this?
Because the microphones and cameras were on.
That's how we all know it.
Uh, sort of like when Gore went into Mount Vernon, looked at a statue of Ben Franklin, said, who's that?
Uh, or might have been Thomas Jefferson.
He didn't know.
This is the same thing, of course.
The astronauts haven't been to Mars yet.
Unless there's a conspiracy we don't know about, they were in the moon and planted the flag on the moon.
So here's Sheila Jackson Lee with Neil Cavuto.
The question is, there's you, there's Nancy Pelosi and Mirtha, and then there's John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and some of the others who have a very different view.
Is this, is this this about?
This is about Iraq.
Is this a battle for you guys?
No, and as you well know and I, my plan includes, uh diplomacy uh, Arab coalition uh, a Iraqi memorial, so that we can stop talking about whether these are heroes, focus on the 15,000 injured.
But, but no, I don't think the divide in our party is going to be a divisive one.
The voices are being raised for reasonable response to the failures going on.
Now some of us want redeployment in the next couple of weeks.
Voices are being raised for reasonable response to the failures going on.
They can't help themselves.
But now she's talking about an Arab coalition and an Iraqi memorial, so we can stop talking about whether these are heroes and focus on the 15,000 injured.
She wants, she wants, she wants a, an Iraqi memorial like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
And this is only because they're in damage control mode now.
They know.
They've got Dean out there surrendering the flag.
They're swaving the right flag.
They've got.
They've got Kerry out there calling troops terrorists.
For all practical purposes, let's go back to FOX.
That's this morning with their morning show.
Brian Kilmead's talking to Martin Frost, a former Texas congressman, who hates delay, by the way.
And the question is Martin, from what you know and I know you've been following this is, is Howard Dean being taken out of context?
Well, I think what Chairman Dean was trying to say was that the administration has made a lot of mistakes.
Look, this thing should not Be politicized.
That's what the Republicans want.
They want to make this into a big political issue.
All the Republicans want to do is say, oh, gotcha.
You know, someone's made a political statement that they ought to be being constructive.
Let's work together on a bipartisan basis.
Let's figure out how we turn this over to the Iraqis.
I think what Chairman Dean was trying to say was the administration has made a lot of mistakes.
Well, why didn't he say that?
Now, as to this business that gotcha, let me define this for you because some of you think, what is this gotcha?
The Democrats are the ones playing gotcha.
They don't really think so.
The other day, whenever it was, must have been Tuesday when Kerry's spokesman sent that statement over to Wolf Blitzer.
And he said, Ken Melman is nothing more than a Republican hack, and Rush Limbaugh is a donut eating draft dodger.
And neither would know about security of the troops.
I'm a decorated veteran and blah, So, you know, I have a lot of liberal friends out there and I like to tweak them.
So, and this is five o'clock in the afternoon when I got the transcript, so I sent it over to them.
And a couple of them wrote back, said, I really, I hope you don't get caught up in this game of gotcha.
Don't start that.
Gotcha.
I wrote, what do you mean?
Gotcha.
Who called who something?
All I did was play what Kerry said.
I simply repeated the soundbite.
All I did was say what he said.
He said, American troops have no business going into the homes of Iraqis at night and terrorizing women and children.
And so the Democrat point of view is they should be allowed to say whatever they want.
Kerry, especially, this elitist snobbery of his, he doesn't think anybody has the right to question him.
Nobody has the right sometimes to even look at him, such as his countenance.
How dare anybody question one of them?
Well, I'm John Kerry.
I don't know that nobody can question me.
That's his attitude.
Rambles on as though he's demented.
Don't know what he's going to say, sentence to sentence.
Neither does he.
But when it's over with, he thinks it's been brilliant, and he doesn't think anybody has the right to criticize it.
And before I even criticized it, I simply repeated it.
I played the tape.
And then liberals think doing that is gotcha.
Liberals think accurately quoting them is attack politics.
Accurately quoting them is mean-spirited.
So these people responded to me and said, ah, this is gotcha.
This is horrible.
This is not going to advance.
It's not gotcha.
This is pointing out huge flaws in your argument and on your side of the aisle among your supposed leaders.
But see, we're not supposed to do that, folks.
We're not supposed to question the left.
We don't have what it takes to question them.
They're smarter than the rest of us, and we are just too dense to be able to understand them.
So when Martin Frost says, look, it's just a Republicans politicizing things.
He's even saying that about Dean.
Hey, you know, this is just gotcha.
This is just politicizing statements.
They have no clue that the chairman of the party running around advocating defeat, saying we can't win is not something that people are going to have a truly visceral reaction to.
So this is arrogance and condescension on their part.
And I'm telling you, those two characteristics set them up for failure each and every time in the area of substance because they're not prepared to deal with that.
Quick timeout, all they want to do is run away.
All they want to do, no, no, no, you can't say that.
You're conservative.
You don't have the right to question me.
You're just playing gotcha.
They don't want to engage in the arena of ideas, folks, because they can't win there.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
To the phones, Justin in Brookfield, Ohio.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Next up, you are.
Welcome to the show.
Hey, I'm really excited about this new GOP ad rush.
The white flag of surrender to Howard Dean.
It is a great ad.
It's awesome.
I mean, I spend a lot of time on the internet because I don't trust the mainstream media.
So most of the reliable news I get from talk radio and the internet.
And when I'm online, I checked this morning.
I watched it.
And I just have to say I'm excited.
I sense that the right is starting to fight back.
I mean, between this, the Alito nomination, that vote that we called for, you know, the only three Democrats would actually stick to their talking points.
Yep.
I'm excited.
I just.
You ought to be.
Ever since the conservative crackdown began, as I talked about a moment ago, all of these things have started happening for the good.
And it's fascinating because at the time, everybody was worried that there was a conservative crack up, that we're all falling apart during the Harriet Myers nomination.
And I told you it's just the exact opposite.
I want to thank thanks for the call, Justin.
In case you don't know what he's talking about, Mike, grab audio soundbite number four.
We don't have the video, obviously.
You can see the video if you go to the Drudge Report.
His link to this will take you to GOP, and you can watch the video of the ad.
We can play the audio for you and set it up.
It's about 30 seconds.
The first five seconds of the ad is just music, and there's a white screen with text on the screen.
There's no announcer.
You read the text on the white screen.
It says, Democrats have a plan for Iraq.
Retreat and defeat.
Then a white flag waves and Howard Dean appears.
All that takes place in the first five seconds.
All you'll hear of that is the music, but here's the rest of the ad.
The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
So there's no specific timeframe, but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th.
There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women.
That's the ad.
And all through it, the white flag is flashing across the screen when Kerry is speaking, when Barbara Boxer is speaking, when Dean is speaking, the white flag of surrender.
And it is, it's a powerful ad.
So I'm glad you feel goosed up by this.
You should, because this is the kind of thing that will attract others.
And it's all predicated on the president.
I have to tell you, since the president got engaged on this, nominated Alito, started making speeches on Iraq and the economy, that makes everybody else confident to get behind him.
It's just the way it is.
Most people are not leaders.
He's the elected leader of the country, not just of his party.
This provides this leadership, and it's, to me, not a surprise to see how quickly people want to get on board and join the party.
Here's Pat in Lincoln, Nebraska.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Merry Christmas.
Same to you.
Normally, I agree with your assessment of the Democrats, but this time I think you're misunderestimating them.
I think they know we're close to victory and our drawdown, and they want to claim the troops are coming home because of their outcry.
And the bite that you just played about victory shows my point.
The fight that I just played about victory.
You mean the bite about what is victory?
Chris Matthews, where's this victory coming from?
Yes.
How does that be building up to claim that it's the outcry?
It has nothing to do with victory that's going to bring these guys home.
That's their mantra.
Let them say that.
That's not going to be the case.
If they want to say that, let them stay invested in defeat.
If they want the American people to think, if you're right, if all this is, and we've talked about the possibility that the only reason they're calling for these troop withdrawals, 20,000, there is an interesting reason why Murtha is saying 20,000 need to come home.
He's not saying 30, he's not saying 10, he's saying 20, because that's the original Bush plan.
So they do want to make it look like they made it happen.
Okay, I'll grant that.
That may be part of their policy.
But if they then want to say that the troops coming home represents defeat, I say let them.
Let them take all the credit for that they want.
If they want to be the party of losers and if they want to try to collect as many people who want to lose in this country so that they can return themselves to power, I say let them make that play.
Quick time out back after this.
Okay, the Ninth Circus has said that jurors are free to use biblical texts in reaching their decision on the death penalty.
And also this effort to have the oath recited in Islam or has been defeated in a state.
▲
Export Selection