All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 26, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
December 26, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh meeting and surpassing all audience expectations daily from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's a pure delight to be with you.
Sheer joy, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that you and I know, something that you and I welcome, something that you and I enjoy in and of itself, something foreign to most American liberals today, which is a shame in one way.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Try this from our old buddy, Mohamed AlBaradai of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
International community starting to lose patience with Iran over its nuclear plans, but military action is not the solution, said Mohammed AlBaradai.
This window for finding a solution is not present forever.
The international community has begun to lose its patience with Iran.
Mr. AlBaradai, how come Iran's not worried about world opinion?
I said recently, might have been last week or the week before, we've got a great side-by-side juxtaposition.
You got Iraq.
They had nuclear desires, and we know they did.
How far along, we don't know.
But Saddam is talking about it.
Weapons of mass destruction.
We know the kind of guy was.
Right next door is Iran.
We've got two ways of dealing with it.
One thing's for sure, Iraq is not going to pose a threat to the world.
Because of what we've done, Iraq no longer poses a threat to the world.
We're dealing with it seriously.
On the other side, you've got Iran, and we're letting the Mohamed AlBaradais and the Dominique de Villippins and the Shiraks and the Schroeders and the rest of the Europeans deal with it the way they think we should do it.
And now we've got AlBaradai, and you know what's going to happen?
Iran's just going to continue to go to the international community right in their face.
If you don't like that, take.
And eventually we're going to have to go in and clean up whatever mess is made, just like was the case in Kosovo.
It never, ever fails.
Somebody tell me, what is the sense in saying the international community is starting to lose patience with Iran over its nuclear plans?
And then you say military action is not the solution.
And what the hell is?
I'm not advocating military solutions right now, but what the hell is this guy talking about?
Screw it.
Diplomacy?
That's what's failing.
Diplomacy is the answer?
Yeah, let the State Department do that.
The CIA renegades do it.
And let all these smarter than everybody, pointy-headed elitist diplomats try it.
Well, the problem is that's where we are today because of that's the reason who, those are the people who have been doing it.
It has been a diplomatic process.
I just want to point this out to you because here's AlBaradai.
Who is afraid of him?
Who is afraid of AlBarada?
Nobody.
Not a single person in the world is afraid of Mohamed AlBaradai.
There's not a single person in the world afraid of anybody from the United Nations, folks.
The United Nations does not instill authority.
It does not instill fear.
It does not promote any kind of unity or harmony at all.
So AlBaradai can flap his gums all he wants.
We're losing patience with you, you mullahs.
The mullahs, you know, sit back behind closed curtains and go, woohoo, laugh at AlBaradai.
Just like they laugh at every other person like him, every other diplomat.
I mentioned earlier, Hillary Clinton has been abandoned to deal alone with the kooks of the Democratic Party.
Her triangulation strategery not working.
The Democratic strategy is undermining her presidential campaign because Reed and Kerry and Pelosi and Murtha have lurched so far to the left, they've left her alone to deal with the kooks.
And this story from the New York Daily News from yesterday, anti-war activists, furious with Senator Hillary Clinton, are vowing to birddog her everywhere she goes, starting with a swanky Manhattan fundraiser last night.
Clinton's letter last week clarifying her position on Iraq, which included rejecting a timetable for withdrawal, fanned the anger of some war opponents, i.e. liberal kooks, who decided to launch a campaign against her.
We're calling it Bird Dog Hillary, said Medea Benjamin of the peace group Code Pink.
I'm so mad at her, said Nancy Krikorian, a code pink New York City coordinator.
We will dog her wherever she goes.
Krikorian's group and several others plan to show up at Crowbar, plan to show up at Crowbar in Manhattan last night, where former President Clinton is the top draw at a fundraiser for his wife.
Democratic consultant Hank Scheinkoff said that Clinton has little to fear from these anti-war activists as long as she looks deliberative.
The right wing and the left wing both want to move her to the left.
She can't let them do that, Shinekoff said.
Let's see, anti-war activists, anti-war activists are trying, as long as she's deliberative.
Okay, that's who's advising her.
Folks, the PS, their resistance to all of this.
Let me take you back to the 90s.
You may have forgotten some of this, but this will revive your memory.
I don't forget these things, of course, because of my fertile brain with abundant gray matter, deep, dark crevices, lots lurking there.
Doesn't take much to recall things for me.
Back in the mid-90s, early 90s, mid-90s, all the way through the 90s, Bill Clinton was telling one lie after another.
This never stopped.
It got to the point where several enlightened thinkers and writers treated us two long pieces in the Sunday Washington Post Outlook section, Sunday New York Times Week and Review, on the value of lying.
Oh, yes, lying was good.
Lying spared people hurt feelings.
The people who could do this well were actually ahead of the game.
They weren't lying to deceive.
They were lying to protect.
Oh, there were constant stories of this nature.
And the whole point of it was to dilute and water down the impact of Bill Clinton's character and personality flaws.
Well, Ann Applebaum takes a stab at this, only in a different venue, same venue, Washington Post, but different way.
Her column today is entitled, It's Not Whether You Win or Lose.
And it's about Iraq.
It's not whether you win or lose.
Let's redefine victory and defeat.
And let's look to the Korean war as the model.
That's her idea.
In recent months, she begins, it has become common practice to talk about what it'll take to win or what it would mean to lose the war in Iraq.
Recently, the pace of that talk has accelerated.
Just last week, President Bush published a national strategy for victory in Iraq, presumably a follow-up to the speech in which he talked of defeating the enemy.
By the way, defeating the enemy is in quotes, as though it's somehow a foreign term.
And what is presumable about the national strategy for victory in Iraq following the speech?
They're one and the same.
What is this presumably?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has also assured Congress that we are not losing this war.
Both were responding to politicians such as Republican Chuck Hagel, who worried out loud a few months ago that we're losing in Iraq, as well as the experts who voiced the opinion, as one did in Foreign Affairs, that the ongoing war in Iraq is not one the United States can win.
Now, Foreign Affairs is the publication of Council on Foreign Relations, made up of total libs and a couple token conservatives in there.
I think they have to buy their way in.
The Libs are invited to join this place.
You have Howard Dean out there saying this.
So now we've got this neat little setup here in the premise.
Some people are saying that it's victory, and others are saying that we're losing, and maybe that's the wrong way to look at it.
The next paragraph is this.
But what if all of this vocabulary, winning, losing, victory, defeat, what if it's simply misplaced?
There are, after all, wars that are not actually won or lost.
There are wars that achieve some of their goals that result only in partial solutions and that leave much business unfinished.
There are wars that do not end with helicopters evacuating Americans from the embassy roof, but that do not produce a victorious march into Berlin either.
There are wars that end ambivalently.
Wars, for example, such as the one we fought in Korea.
How about Vietnam?
There's a war we didn't lose that the Libs want to proclaim that we lost, and they do so happily.
I hasten to explain that the comparison between Iraq and Korea does not come from nowhere.
It has been suggested implicitly and explicitly by the Bush administration.
In a speech last year, Vice President Cheney spoke of Harry Truman, the president who took us into Korea, as a model of the kind of leadership required to defend freedom in our time.
Rumsfeld has also pointed out that Truman, like Bush, suffered from low popular approval because of the Korean War.
Back then, a great many people questioned whether young Americans should face death and injury in Korea, thousands of miles from home, for a result that seemed uncertain at best.
Today, the answer is the Korean Peninsula.
Well, here we go again.
We want to compare the Korean Peninsula and the Korean War to the World War on Terror.
For all that Kim Jong-il is, he's still, where is he?
Pyongyang.
He's still in Pyongyang.
His people are still eating dogs and cats.
And we're still dealing with it instead of having it resolved.
And this, of course, is good.
Oh, yes, this shows that some wars don't end in victory and some wars don't end in defeat.
This is so simple.
It is inconceivable.
That's the Korean War is exactly what you get when you don't win one.
Well, yes, but actually it isn't all that clear that the Korean Peninsula really represents a slam duck victory to use Bush administration terminology.
Iraq is not Korea, of course, and the Middle East is not Asia, but it is perfectly possible that the two conflicts might eventually resemble one another in the ambivalence of their conclusions.
As long as the liberals have their way, there will be an ambivalence of conclusion.
We can win this war outright, the liberals will call it a defeat.
The problem, Ms. Applebaum, is I understand you're employing the great, great teachings here of some ancient philosopher who waxed eloquent on conflict resolution.
There are no winners.
We're all winners.
There are no losers.
If we do it the right way, we can all sing kumbaya and get along and love one another.
And then, and then we can all eat tofu.
Well, the bottom line with all this is that we have an attempt here to redefine victory and defeat, to take victory out of the equation and redefine winning.
It's no different than when liberals want to penalize a kid's sports team for being better than another kid's sports team by making them start 21 points in a hole at the outset of the game.
It's just not fair.
So we might want to redefine, because all this talk of winning and losing, of course, that means there will be losers.
And we can't have losers.
Nobody wins when somebody loses.
Yes, they do.
But this is an exercise in good old liberal moral equivalence.
There's no difference between that side and our side.
We all have our different views.
Everybody just wants to get along.
They have their points.
He has his points.
We have our points.
They have their points.
Who is it for any of us to say that somebody's wrong?
Thank you, Ms. Applebaum.
Thank you, liberal establishment.
They keep stepping in it.
They keep telling us where they are, who they are, and what they want.
While trying to sound smarter than everybody in the room.
Back in a moment.
I've barely scratched the surface here today, folks, but people have been waiting patiently.
I've only taken one phone call today.
It was from a liberal.
I got to spread the wealth around here.
We'll go to P.N. in Lubbock, Texas.
Hi, P.N., welcome to the program.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
You're really a genius.
You've got this God-given talent and the intelligence to be successful.
Best wishes for now and for the future.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that, and you're quite perceptive.
I have a comment for you on the opponents of the liberation of Iraq.
There are 48 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference.
And if democracy fails in Iraq, the only option that they will have will be either the despots that rule countries like Saudi Arabia right now or the theocracies represented by bin Laden.
So for no reason can the world afford to see democracy fail in Iraq.
That was my brief comment.
That's a question.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think the Democrats, where are you from, by the way?
You're from there?
I'm a foreigner, actually, from India.
Okay, from India.
So why, and how long have you been in the United States?
A few years now, about six years.
Okay, six years.
You've been paying a lot of attention to this.
What do you think?
Do you think the Democrats in Washington, the elected Democrats, do you think that they agree that if democracy fails in Iraq, that that country will be subsumed by either Iran or Saudi Arabia and will become just another festering terrorist hellhole?
Do you think they understand that?
No, I'm afraid they don't.
See, I think they do.
Oh.
I think they do.
If democracy fails there, if democracy fails by definition, something has to replace it.
They don't have, this is one of the things.
The reason I ask you this is because this is one of the things that is really puzzling to me.
They come out.
You know, when we defeated the Soviet Union when the Cold War was over and market economics and freedom was introduced to the Soviet Union, the American left, and this is before you got here, but this is the late 80s, the American left said freedom's not for everybody.
They didn't expect it to work.
They were chastened that the Soviets had lost the Cold War.
They had placed all their hope in a balancing superpower.
They believe that socialism and communism promise the best chance for prosperity for the greatest number of people.
They still believe it to this day.
They're right about that.
And I've seen personally firsthand what socialism has done to a country.
India was socialist for a large part of its history, and we are still recovering from the ravages of socialism.
Exactly.
You've lived it, so you know it.
They think that they will not live under it.
They will lead it.
They will not be subjected to socialism.
They're going to be in charge of it.
There'll be two sets of rules for them and us.
They'll have the exemptions from all the rules they make from us.
That's why I call them elitists.
But they look at Iraq.
They don't think that freedom is for democracy will work in Arab countries or in the Middle East.
They're openly disdainful of it.
And I say to myself, there's got to be a reason for this.
And maybe if you look at their results, democracy in the United States, they can't win into democracy.
No wonder they don't like it.
I'm making a joke there.
The bottom line is that it's always amazed me that they are, whenever you talk about having a foreign policy that seeks to expand freedom for as many human beings as possible in the world, the biggest critics and the biggest naysayers are the American left and the American Democrats who, oh, yeah, yeah, easy for you to say, spread democracy in the middle.
And they laugh about it as though it's not possible.
And yet they claim to be the great guarantors of human rights and civil rights and so forth.
Yeah, they're not even interested in it.
And I also find something odd, really, about the way people are turning against this war.
I mean, the very people who voted for this war are turning against it.
And I find it funny because, I mean, if you're going to vote for a war, then you should have the guts to follow up with it until it's over, irrespective of short-term setbacks and bombings.
The consequences of long-term defeat are something that are too serious for us to even contemplate.
Well, you're right on the money.
But what your point illustrates is that they have never wanted the war.
They have never been behind it.
That's why they don't have the desire to see it through.
They've never ever been for it.
You know, this positioning that they did back in 2002 to demand another debate so they could personally get their names signed to a resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq if necessary.
That was poll-driven, too.
That was not what they really believe.
The dirty little secret is when they voted for the war in 2002, those that did really weren't for it, the vast majority of them.
They thought they had to.
Polling data was what it was.
They couldn't afford to be seen on the wrong side of this so close after 9-11.
But now look at them.
Now the polls are switching.
They think, we were never for this.
We were lied to.
That's why I can't count on these people.
They're not dependable.
They don't believe in the U.S. military.
They're not invested in victory.
The dirty little secret is they never have been.
Because you're so right.
You're so right.
If they had been, they would want to see this through.
If they really, really, really believed their votes in 2002, if they really thought that this was all important, they wouldn't cut and run.
But they're liberals and they're Democrats.
And they don't believe in American exceptionalism.
They don't even think there should be American exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism is unfair.
It derives from us stealing the resources and value and treasure, as they say, from other lesser nations in the world.
Our riches, our prosperity, as far as they're concerned, are ill-gotten, as all corporations' profits are ill-gotten.
If you take a look at the enemies list of the Democratic Party, the top is Walmart, then you got ExxonMobil, then you've got any other number of corporate entities, and then George W. Bush, throw him in the mix there, throw capitalism in the mix.
It's quite honest and obvious who they are.
The main effort here is to try to mask themselves and camouflage it, which they don't get away with doing anymore.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
I'm assuming there's a place in Connecticut called Manchester.
I know there's a Manchester, New Hampshire, but I'm assuming there's also a Manchester, Connecticut.
I could be wrong.
Maybe they are upset with him in New Hampshire.
Several members upset with Senator Joseph Lieberman's stance on the war in Iraq.
With that situation existing, the Democratic Town Committee plans to hold a special meeting to discuss the issue.
The dateline here is Manchester, but I don't know Manchester where.
That's why I'm assuming it's Connecticut because he's a senator from there.
At the meeting, which will likely be held this month, the committee will decide whether to send Lieberman's office a formal letter stating its displeasure and opposition to the senator's stance.
Complaints about Lieberman and his public support for the war were brought up by Joseph Rafala at the end of Thursday's town meeting last week.
He said he wanted to send a letter from the committee stating that as Democrats, we don't like what he's doing and we want him to know it.
The OK is in Manchester, Connecticut.
Instead of maintaining a Democratic anti-war position, Joseph Rafala said, Lieberman was becoming an example for Republicans as a Democrat for the war.
It's discouraging as a Democrat.
If you want to be a Republican, switch over your affiliation or run as one, he said.
Rafala is 79, said he's worked for the Democratic Party since he was 16.
Others were quick to chime in their disappointment with Lieberman.
Committee Vice Chairwoman Betty Kramer said she's never been a fan of Lieberman.
Newly elected Board of Education member John Rose said maybe we should meet on this sooner and be a leader on this.
This was their vice presidential nominee.
In 2000, town chairman Ted Cummings said the committee is widely split over Lieberman.
He said ever since the senator kissed the president, his stock has been going downhill.
No one spoke in Lieberman's defense at the meeting.
Even so, Cummings said a special meeting should be held so a fuller house of the committee could decide if a letter was the right action to take.
Lieberman's office will be informed of the meeting and invited to attend.
Well, how big of a Connecticut, they are going to chastise Joe Lieberman.
He stands alone in that party.
They're not about doing the right thing.
They're pure anti-war.
It's all about what Dingy Harry's plan is.
They want flexibility.
Whatever happens in Iraq, they want to be able to react to it day to day and make that day's reaction their policy.
It's all about manipulating things so that it benefits them.
The country's national security doesn't register on their importance meter at all.
It's all about them, folks, and it always has been about them and their power.
Here's John in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Welcome.
It's nice to have you on the program, sir.
How are you doing today, Rush?
I'm great.
Never better.
Thank you.
Well, I'm kind of concerned with our troops still in Iraq.
We've achieved victory.
You know, you were talking about the definition of victory.
Yeah.
And we've achieved victory.
We've got an ousted leader.
We've had elections.
More elections scheduled on the 15th.
What more do we need to do?
We are in the midst of achieving the peace, and we need to stay there and prepare these people so they can defend themselves after we leave, which has been the policy from day one.
The Democrats are trying to take credit for this so-called policy shift on part of the Bush administration, but the fact is it's been the policy from day one, and it is still the policy, and that's what will happen.
But you don't want to pull out of there too soon.
Otherwise, you just, and you certainly don't want to specify when you're going to pull out, or you just let the terrorists bide their time, let us leave, and then run and take over the country.
That's not, it makes no sense to do that.
Well, in the same sense, the longer we're there, the more terrorists we create.
It's an unending paradox.
Let me ask you a question about something.
You live in Battle Creek, Michigan.
That's correct.
There was a street gang in your neighborhood that was terrorizing your kids on the way to and from school and running drugs and having drug sales all over the neighborhood at night.
What would your plan to deal with that be?
Fighting them.
How would you do that?
Well, street gangs are pretty obvious people, you know.
Wait a minute, but aren't you just going to create more of them by making them mad?
Using your philosophy, we're doing the same thing in Iraq.
Just a bunch of terrorist street gangs.
They've got a little bit more amped up, if you will, ammo-wise.
But we're just trying to do the same thing.
But your theory is taking on the bad guy is only going to make them mad.
We're going to create more of them.
Aren't you going to create more gang members by daring to tell these people to get out of your neighborhood?
No, see, that's different.
You're talking about homegrown as opposed to somewhere else.
See, the lawyers.
But we're talking about human behavior.
We're talking about human nature.
You said to me that attempting to get bad guys to stop doing what they're doing is only creating more bad guys.
That's true.
Well, then, you've got to live with your street gang in your neighborhood in Battle Creek if one ever shows up, because if you're going to be true to your own belief and philosophy, what have you got a neighborhood rapist running in and running around?
You're going to try to catch the guy?
Are you going to make him mad and get more rapists to come in to join forces with him just to show you people who's boss?
That's not necessarily true.
We're a foreign power.
It's different.
So are they.
These people are coming in from all over the place.
That's what's going on.
They're coming in from Syria.
They're coming in from Saudi Arabia.
They're coming in from Iraq.
And at stake here is the nation of Iraq as a terrorist-led country.
That is what is at stake.
They had it in Afghanistan.
We kicked them out.
We went into Iraq to make sure that they didn't pose a continuing threat.
They are there fighting for their very existence, and they're bringing terrorists in from all over the place to do it.
We're not fighting indigenous Iraqis other than the remaining Saddamists, those BAF party members who are still hoping one day for a glorious return to power by Saddam.
And he may yet have that happen to him if the Democratic Party and you people get your way.
Saddam may yet run that country again.
If you get your way and we pull out, that may indeed be what happens.
Well, that's, see, they're not just foreign, they're homegrown terrorists as well.
There are a lot of Iraqis out there who are becoming very angry.
Every time you're in the middle of the day, who told you that?
You can see it.
Where?
Have you been there?
No, I have not.
What are you watching?
The news.
I mean, not just the right-wing or the left-wing media, excuse me.
It's everywhere.
No, it's not.
Fox News just did a great documentary Sunday night with a great alternative view of Iraq and how much success there is.
It featured a reporter who a year ago thought all was lost.
We had no hope.
He was very pessimistic.
His name is Greg Polcott.
A year has passed, and this chronicled all the progress that's taken place.
You must have missed that.
I must have.
It was on the right-wing news.
Did Donald Rumsfeld pay for that?
Now, you know, I don't know.
What if he had?
Well, that's propaganda.
What if it's true?
Does real empirical truth mean anything to you?
Or are you just arguing because you like the way you sound when you say something?
The truth.
You know, I'm sure it sounds very erudite when you call here and you say, you know, Rush, we've got to bring the troops home.
We're supposed to infer from that you love the troops.
We've got to bring the troops home.
We've got to bring them home.
We've already won.
You're trying to be on the side of victory.
But we're just creating more terrorists.
So you want to be erudite and smart.
But then all of a sudden, the concept that good news coming out of Iraq might be propaganda.
Did you ever stop and think?
You practically admitted that you couldn't watch left-wing news without getting a negative impression.
You ever think that's propaganda?
What about Al Jazeera?
What about the propaganda we get in the mainstream press in this country about how rotten the war is going that you do watch and you do agree with?
What if it takes propaganda?
And this is just an argumentative point.
What if it takes paying people to get the truth in the news?
Is the truth not worth that?
Well, if it's the truth, the truth should be out there.
Absolutely.
No, no, the truth doesn't always survive.
Truth does not will out.
Ultimately, it will.
But in battles like this, when you've got people trying to rewrite the truth, redefine it, now we've even got the Washington Post trying to redefine loss, defeat, and victory.
I'll tell you something.
You know, the bottom line here is that your way of dealing with your problems in your neighborhood is very clear-cut, but for some reason, the U.S. military is not allowed to do that, and we're not allowed to do that as a country.
We had people blow us up.
3,000 of us were killed on September 11th.
You seem to forget that.
Somehow it's our fault.
Somehow, well, it's just a little one-time occurrence.
We can live with these things, you think.
So we're trying to finally do something about it after the decade of the 90s where a self-focused, self-absorbed, baby boomer president didn't have the guts and the courage to take on hard issues because he was afraid of falling poll numbers because all he was concerned about was his legacy.
His party has now been inherited by a bunch of people who want to take the issue of U.S. national security, be allowed to manipulate it every day to their benefit without ever defending the country once, without ever taking a step to defend the country.
Now you worry that the truth might be in the news because it's bought and paid for.
I know what you're referring to.
The stories in the Iraq newspapers supposedly bought and paid for by the Pentagon.
I just saw some interesting numbers.
The New York Times has reported advertising revenue is so bad that they cannot make predictions for 2006 on what their advertising circulation income is going to be.
The LA Times just announced yesterday that they're shutting down a production plant.
They say they're consolidating it, but they're shutting it down because there's no need for it.
They're firing another 110 people.
Their circulation is down.
Their advertising revenue is down.
I would suggest that the New York Times and the LA Times and any other newspaper in trouble start worrying about what's in your own pages instead of worrying about what's in the Iraqi newspapers.
Start worrying about what it is you're publishing.
Same thing goes for you liberals.
If you want to have a political future, stop worrying about how this is all going to affect you and what it may mean to you and your feelings about George W. Bush.
And just maybe five minutes a day, it takes a little while to get up and running.
Just try, maybe 30 seconds a day.
It may be hard at first.
30 seconds a day, think about what it might mean to the country.
It will be hard.
I know it's hard to change old habits.
But if you can do 30 seconds, eventually you'll be able to think about the country for a minute.
And then after a minute, you'll maybe be able to get up to five minutes of thinking about the country.
And you'll be amazed at how much more you'll enjoy life the less you're thinking about yourself.
And maybe someday you'll be able to think about the country for 10 minutes.
And maybe if you can get to 10 minutes, you might be able to think about the country for half an hour.
Maybe not all at once.
Maybe in five-minute batches.
But try it.
Try thinking of your country once in a positive way.
John Murtha's on TV or was responding, and he's moving even further to the left.
We can't win.
The Iraqis have turned against us.
Keep saying the terrorists will control Iraq.
No way.
Al-Qaeda is only 1%, 7% of the insurgency.
We are the occupier.
We are no business being there.
Thank you, Congressman Murtha.
The Democrats and their closed-door meeting today.
Obviously, we're not able to come to a consensus on how to stem the flow here of blood from their party's position.
Now, Merthyr will be the star on cable TV tonight and tomorrow night, and probably this Sunday as well.
But they'll be well advised to read the Washington Post story today on how this is not playing well, even within elected Democrats, some of them out across the country.
You know, it used to be ask not what your country can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your country.
Democrats don't go there.
JFK wouldn't be allowed to be a Democrat today, not a current Democrat.
The question now is ask not what you can do to win the red states.
It's ask what you can do to hold the blue states, because you Democrats are in danger of losing even your own blue states because you're in the process of creating more and more Reagan Democrats each and every day, especially with the president out there once or twice a week making the case for this, as he is now.
Be back right after this and continue.
In his trial, this time refusing to show up.
I'll have all the details and sound bites coming up then.
But first, Atlanta, Linda, you're next.
Great to have you on the program today.
Thank you, Rosh, and Christmas did as to you.
Thank you.
When you played Kerry's comments at the beginning of the show, I just got so upset.
Was that the first time you'd heard them?
And then I called you.
Was that the first time you'd heard them?
Well, now, I had heard them, and so at, like, I guess, well, I listen to your show almost every day.
So I had heard them earlier, but just residual anger here has built up to the point.
I'm in a women's group, and we've been spending the last couple of weeks putting together items for soldiers' boxes to send.
Instead of doing a gift swap with each other this year, we said, you know, we're at war.
We have young soldiers overseas.
Let's do something for them.
So we're going to be able to do that.
Wait, Especially I was spending time this time.
Wait, wait, wait just a second.
Bottom line here, you're assembling Christmas gift packages for soldiers?
Correct.
And you're upset that Kerry would make this comment about soldiers terrorizing women and children at Christmas time?
Yes.
I mean, here it is.
It's Christmas, for goodness sakes.
Well, now, wait a minute.
John Kerry is a member of a political party that's trying to get Christmas out of the public consciousness.
Why should this surprise you?
Well, don't Snerdley's in there laughing.
You think I'm making this up?
I'm not.
There's a movement against public displays at Christmas.
Christmas trees got to go, nativity scenes got to go.
You live in a place that banned a nativity scene this year.
Sir Snerdley lives.
Look at it.
It ain't Republicans doing this.
I know.
It's a bunch of liberals, and most of them are Democrats.
They're the ones trying to stamp Christmas out.
A bunch of secularists and atheists and so forth.
What bugs them about it?
What offends them about Christmas?
I'll give you one word.
G-O-D.
So here we have, I mean, I think Kerry doing this at Christmas time.
He didn't even stop to think of it.
I know.
It should be a time of reflection and being thankful.
Well, it is.
John Kerry reflects on himself every moment of the day.
He never stops thinking about himself.
That's what this is all about.
He's not thinking about the troops.
He's not thinking about Christmas.
He's not thinking about the effect on his troops.
He wants everybody to think of how brilliant and forward-thinking he is.
And you don't dare question this man as I did.
Otherwise, you're called a donut-eating draft dodger.
Which, as I said earlier, I eat Boston cream puffs.
I spit most of them out.
You know, somewhat on the side of, you know, are troops a little tiny?
You know, if you're a senator?
Well, he supports the troops.
He said so.
He supports.
That's what this is about.
A little bit troop safety.
He doesn't want troops to ever have to go to war because that puts them in danger.
We must have to John Kerry, the troops, or one of two things.
They're either a bunch of murdering, marauding terrorists, or they're nothing more than those little grade school playground patrol boys, you know, who walk out in the street.
Well, I was one when I was a kid.
School's out.
You go out there.
I was a patrol boy because you got out of school early, go put the uniform on, stand in a corner, and go out there with a little pole and a flag on it, stop traffic while little six-year-olds and seven-year-olds walked across the street.
That's what he thinks of the military.
They're there for their safety.
We're not supposed to endanger them, but when we put them in danger, of course, then they turn into these marauding atrocity-creating people that we can't.
It's just horrible, folks.
Back after this, thanks for the call into holiday.
Wish, may all your cigar ashes not stick to your clothes.
Rush Limbaugh.
▲
Export Selection