All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
January 3, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's kind of hard to it's actually not hard to believe.
I was going to say it's hard to believe, but I can't.
Really isn't hard to believe.
I mean, nothing's changed.
I mean, it's the same agenda.
It's the same.
It's boring.
I was hoping to come back here to some excitement.
I mean, I'm excited to be back with all of you, but you have to keep talking about the same rot gut over and over and over again.
Anyway.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Rush Limbaugh back in the air chair, the official Attila the Hun chair here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Broadcast excellence, three hours of it straight ahead.
We're ditto camming the whole program today for those of you who are subscribers at Rushlimbaugh.com.
Telephone number is 800 282-2882, and the email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
So I see that James Ryzen's book.
The publication dates moved up to uh today.
Ha!
Fashionette.
And he's on the Today Show, exclusively, of course, uh talking about some things that uh he finds very troubling about the spy scandal.
Uh while we were out, the uh the uh Justice Department announced an investigation to find out who's leaking all this, and that really is what's important about this.
Uh uh it it's it's still much ado about about nothing.
And there's a great I I th there's a great Victor Davis Hanson piece that ran on uh December 29th, National Review Online.
Well, actually, I think it ran, yeah, National Review Online.
And it dovetails so nicely, ladies and gentlemen, with one of my ongoing theories.
One of my ongoing theories, let me just spell it out here for you, uh, is that we have such a cushy life compared to our ancestors, that we have so much prosperity, we've got so much time on our hands that we are free to invent our own psychoses, our own traumas, our own disorders, because there's nothing out there that's really that stressful unless we make it so.
Now I know everything's relative, and I'm not saying there's not stress in life, but compared to our forefathers and our ancestors, we don't really know what it is.
Uh and and so uh you you you you take the baby boomer generation, which is I think the prime culprit in in thinking everything revolves around them, and I am one, by the way, but I of course am immune because I am far more mature than the average spoiled brat baby boomer.
Because I had to mature early for a whole host of reasons.
But anyway.
Bottom line is we we really have a lot of time.
We have a lot of free time, we have a lot of prosperity, and as such, uh we we all get we we all get uh uh uh a little bit reluctant here to admit how well we have it, how good we have it, how well off we are.
There always have to be problems out there.
Then, and I I got when I was out, I played golf starting Tuesday ever, because I hadn't played golf since the week before Thanksgiving.
And I'm not scheduling myself this way next year.
I I mean I moved down here to Florida to be here this time year.
Every weekend, I'm off to some snowbound northern city, either at a wedding or at a Christmas party or something, and I'm not doing it again.
Because I, but anyway, I made up for it.
I played golf uh from Tuesday through uh through yesterday.
And I was out in Los Angeles.
Uh in fact, I got a big thrill.
Monday night, last Monday night in uh uh New York, I was in the ABC broadcast booth for the last Monday night football game uh with the uh the New England Patriots and the New Jersey Jets.
And uh Al Michaels and Madden, and it was a hoot.
Uh and then I uh met some ESPN people and uh didn't know where they were, didn't they know I was gonna be there, met them down on the field and so forth.
I mean management types.
Oh, yeah, and they they were a little, they were they were a little surprised, see.
They were nice as hell, and I just, you know, my usual charming self.
I I said, hey, tell everybody back in Bristol I said hi and I wish them the best.
Oh, okay.
Good to see you, Rush.
Yeah, it's great to be here with you too.
Uh anyway, went out to LA and and played golf uh a couple days, and after golf, you know, you always go to the uh clubhouse and repair there for uh uh snack or something.
And I I you know, as w whenever I leave, I always come back.
What?
What no, there's no business deals being made out there.
What do you mean?
Oh, there were no business deals.
No, that's not what goes on out.
Not not when I go to a country club.
I don't make business deals.
It's strictly golf.
You go out there and you socialize with people.
Uh When I'm around, the talk, the talk always turns to politics.
And, you know, I I uh look, I'm I'm leading them to something in a very circuitous way, and I've I've mentioned this a couple of times before, but uh generally when I go away, I always get a uh uh a question that seems to be thematic of the time.
Where whatever it is, and there was a theme uh this week, whenever I talk to people, and these are some of these people were acquaintances and not not uh good friends or on the way to becoming good friends, some of them were liberal.
Uh and and the but the theme of the question was Rush, why why why why why does Bush not respond to all these things that are being said, even though he's starting to do so now?
Why doesn't he respond?
And I give them the answer that I have given you.
And I think now this is gonna dovetail into this great piece by Victor Davis Hanson and the whole point that I want to make here about how fortunate we are in this country and sometimes don't have the uh sense to know it.
I said to him, can you conceive?
Now, all these people, by the way, are daily immersed in media as consumers.
They're not in the media business wise, but they're immersed in it as consumers.
As as many of you are.
And when you're immersed in the media on a daily basis as a consumer, that becomes your world.
What they report, what they say is going on, that becomes your world.
That becomes what like I I constantly get emails from, are you gonna are you gonna get even with the New York Times?
And I don't read the New York Times.
I read the New York Times only when there's something in there that somebody tells me after the fact I should read, like this NSA story.
I don't read it.
The New York Times does not affect my day.
But it does a lot of people, or whatever network news they watch.
They can't understand how Bush is not affected by it.
They don't understand how President Bush can get away without reacting to all this.
And so I say to them, you know, try to understand this.
Try to understand a man, anybody, President of the United States or anybody else in the country, who has a job to do and goes about that job with just that as his focus.
He's not worried about what is said about what he's doing.
He doesn't consider his job to be responding to the daily agenda or talking point set by whoever in the media.
He has a job to do.
This results in Newsweek writing this story that they also wrote back in the early 80s about Reagan about being detached, being in a bubble, uh, not being really uh aware.
He's not bringing in us, not bringing in our liberal media friends, the Washington establishment to have a chat, go back and forth to find out what's really going on out there.
What's laughable about this is that George Bush knows more about what's going on in this country than the people in the inside the beltway media culture do, and yet they're telling him he's in the bubble and out of touch.
He just ignores them.
Now he doesn't he doesn't think that it's necessary to respond to everything they say.
Those of us immersed in media every day, uh, if you don't watch it, your world is shaped by that.
That's what you think the world is.
And you think everybody in the country is as immersed in it as you are, and so this NSA spy scandal, you think is just captivated the minds of the American people.
And the American people are demanding answers, and they're talking about impeaching Bush because that's what you hear the media talking about.
The fact is, if you look at a Rasmussen poll on this, most of the American people get it.
Even 51% of the Democrats interviewed by Rasmussen admit that they understand the necessity for taking steps to protect the homeland and the country during a time of war with a with an enemy such as Al Qaeda.
I'm not I've got it here.
Here, but let me let me give you the details before I go to the break here.
Now I remember uh I'm I'm I'm leading up to something with this.
And this is not a story about how don't I'm not trying to tell you again over and over and over to ignore the press or to not worry about that's not the point here.
The point is us.
The point is the American people.
This poll came out on Wednesday, which I what was that?
Uh December 30th, I guess.
Well, that's when I got when I printed this.
A poll by the Rasmussen reports illustrates the pervasive dishonesty of the American press in dealing with the New York Times story about the NSA's intercepts.
The major dishonesties are demonstrated by the two questions asked in the Rasmussen poll just reported.
First question and the responses.
Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the U.S.?
Yes.
64%, no, 23%.
Second question in the responses.
Is President Bush the first president to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
Yes, 26%, no, 48%.
Now, also in this uh in this poll, you you can find uh that the uh the the the whole Democratic Party leadership's out there accusing Bush of of uh impeachment type crimes.
But a majority of Democrats approves the NSA program.
51%, even as it might be endangered thanks to the New York Times exposure of it.
Fifty-one percent of Democrats approve of the spying program.
So look, the the the point here is that.
I get these questions all over the place.
Why doesn't Bush do this?
And why does Bush is doing his job and he's not immersed in this?
Bush is a satisfied human being.
George Bush, and he's been through the he's been through the sewers of alcoholism, folks, and he's been through recovery.
And George Bush, I'm I'm just gonna lay it out for you.
George Bush has placed his confidence uh in God.
He's a man of faith, and that intimidates people.
And I'm telling it's real simple.
He is confident that the things he's going to do will work out.
He's a confident guy.
He doesn't, he's not upset by these people.
He's not deterred by he's not depressed.
He doesn't sit around and worry why people don't like him.
He's above it.
His job is far more important than responding to a daily agenda set by media.
Look at the latest press conference.
They go up and ask him about their reporting.
They didn't ask him about the economy, didn't ask him about any other news, only their reporting.
They they're the ones in the bubble.
And I think as as a as a result of this, a lot of us get drawn into this daily bubble, and we get this impression that we have no leadership and we have no responsive leadership in the White House, the leadership of the party, the leadership of the country.
And why isn't he responding to this?
He's above it.
He doesn't think it's necessary to doing his job.
Now we can have arguments about that because you do need to keep the rank and file stoked, and everybody needs leadership.
I mean, the the country's not a bunch of self-starters out there when it comes to this.
So when he does respond to it and he does take steps to uh to to dig them back, then everybody applauds and loves it, and I like it too.
Don't misunderstand, but I'm I'm uh the the whole notion that he's not doing his job or that he's out of touch, or it's just the exact opposite.
He is more focused than the average human being on doing doing what he's doing.
May not always agree with what he does, but he's more focused on it than anybody would believe.
I had a quick time out, and and we'll dovetail into this Victor Davis Hanson column that sort of uh reflects one of my ongoing, never-ending philosophies.
Quick timeout, stay with us.
We'll be back with much more here on the EIB network.
All right, now here.
I just got an email.
I was just checking email here.
Actually, I was deleting a bunch of old email, and I and I found something here that uh that was sent this morning at 9.30.
Uh it it's from I doesn't matter who it's from.
Here rush.
Below is a small section taken from the Washington Post.com news located in Google.
The explosion, this is about the miners in West Virginia.
The explosion took place Monday between 6 and 6.30, as two groups of miners in separate carts were entering the mine to resume operations after the holidays, according to Laura Ramsburg, a spokesman for the West Virginia governor.
Miners in the second cart who were not within sight of the first heard or felt an explosion ahead of them and swiftly retreated.
Mine supervisors were alerted by phone at 6 40 a.m. and began evaluating carbon monoxide levels.
Her question is, I want to know if it's customary in the United States to go back to work six hours and thirty minutes after midnight on New Year's for people in the mining industry.
Answer yes.
And besides, this is not six hours after midnight.
I came in yesterday.
Yesterday was Monday, January 2nd, and that's when the miners went to work.
The miners didn't go to work New Year's Day.
They went to work January 2nd on Monday.
It was 18 and a half, and yes, the mining industry goes to work.
What do you mean, is it customary?
If this shift starts 6 a.m., that's when they go to work.
If you notice the news, there's got to be an easier way.
There has to be an easier way.
Why?
We're the United States of America.
Why, why we can't keep subjecting people to this kind of risk and danger.
Why?
Who do we think we are?
This is this is what these people do.
It's coal mining.
I mean, it there may be we'll if the environmentalists weren't around, it'd be a hell of a lot easier way to get it out of there, folks.
But because of environmental regulations, and there are some new safety regulations too, this is what it is.
And heck, I came in.
Nobody sent me the memo that we weren't working yesterday.
I got in here at the usual time, and I didn't see Snurgley's car out there, and I said, Oh, something's something's crazy.
Maybe Sterley didn't get the memo.
Um, and so I came in and and uh I got this eerie feeling that I'm the one that didn't get the memo.
So I started emailing people and I didn't get any response.
I called them in New York, nobody answered the phone.
I got voicemail.
I said, What dirty trick has been played on me?
Because I was here, I was all ready to go.
I I didn't start doing show prep and everything else.
Finally emailed Brian, who was just getting in at about 10 o'clock in the morning, and he just chuckled and sent me the memo that everybody else got, but my name's not on it.
So here I was, and it was about 10:30, and I said, Well, I'm gonna go play golf again.
And so that's that's what I did.
So not only do miners go to work on January 2nd, so did I. But I mean, this question, is it customary for people in the mining industry to go to work on the second day of the new year?
I'll bet you some of them went to work on the first day of the new year.
It wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Anyway, Victor Davis Hansen, let me get started with this.
After September 11th, national security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other voting for all sorts of tough measures.
They passed the Patriot Act, they approved the war in Afghanistan, they voted to authorize the removal of Saddam, and they uh they nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo's uh Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.
They knew about all these things.
After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells and a flurry of Al-Qaeda Fut was most Americans thought another attack was imminent.
And one of their politicians to think the same thing.
Today's sour puss, Senator Harry Reed, once was smiling at a photo op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism.
So we've forgotten that most of us after 9-11 would never have imagined the U.S. would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.
Now, the horror of 9-11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade.
Gone mostly are the flags on the cars and the orange and red alerts of Democrats and the left in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention Al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.
Apparently, due to the success of George W. Bush keeping the United States secure, he and not bin Laden can now more often be targeted, targeted by a relieved left.
Deserving of assassination in an Alfred Kopf novel, an overseer of Nazi policies according to a U.S. Senator, a buffoon and rogue in the award-winning film of Michael Moore, yes, because we did so well against the real enemies.
We soon had the leisure to invent new imaginary ones in Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Scooter Libby.
You see, the theme carries.
Bush has done a great job.
We have done a great job at securing our safety.
Well, there gotta be other enemies because the Democrats just can't get along.
The Democrats cannot say, hey, we helped.
The Democrats cannot find a way to tie it, try to take some credit for this success.
They have to focus on it as a giant failure.
Here we've had all this success, and what do they do?
Want to impeach Bush?
And it's the theory, I think where we're gonna get dovetails is life's pretty easy compared to the way it used to be.
So we invent problems.
We go out and invent traumas and disorders and all sorts of things.
We're simply immune to good news.
Even in the economy.
While the economy's roaring along, you go talk to the average guy in the neighborhood.
Yeah, I'm doing fine, but I'm worried about my neighbor.
There always has to be an undertone of negativism or pessimism about your outlook because that's what makes people think that you're enlightened.
When you're positive and optimistic and happy, they say that you're vacant.
And they say that you're ignorant and you're not really seeing the horrors that are out there.
That you've got your head buried in the sand, or that you are in a bubble.
And that you are detached.
Quick timeout, more after this.
Stay with us.
Back in a saddle.
But not on Brook Brokeback Mountain, whatever it is.
L. Rushbaugh and the EIB Network.
I need to conduct an investigation here, folks, to find out who among the staff authorized a day off everybody but me.
I'm the only one that shows up.
Back to Victor Davis Hans.
Just a couple more points out of this.
Afghanistan, October 2001, conjured up almost immediately.
Warnings of Quagmire, expanding holy war at Ramadan, unreliable allies, a trigger happy nuclear Pakistan on the border, American corpses to join British and Russian bones in the high desert, not a seven-week victory and a subsequent democracy in Kabul of all places.
Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than Democrats dethroning the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, hitherto missileproof in their much ballyhood cave complexes that maps in Newsweek assured us rivaled NORAD's subterranean fortress.
You remember those maps?
Do you remember I remember Newsweek's maps of the Tora Bora complex?
And I thought I was looking at something that we built in the mountains here out in Wyoming and Norad.
Oh, they had these people portrayed.
I mean, they were they were nuclear powers.
There was no way we had a chance against these people, but we were suicidal to go in.
It wasn't going to work out.
Now we've got a democracy and Kabul.
We've got a democracy in Baghdad.
Are we then basking in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines?
Hardly, since the bar has been astronomically raised since Tora Bora, after all the Afghan parliament still squabbling a long way from the city councils of Cambridge, La Jolla, or Nantucket, or maybe not.
The same paradox of success is true of Iraq.
Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf Kingdoms, thousands of Americans killed, just taking Baghdad alone.
Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait on the eve of the war.
Had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two and a half years later, eleven million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election at a cost of some twenty one hundred war dead, he would have been dismissed as unhinged.
But that's exactly what happened.
And the reaction?
Democratic fire brands are now talking of impeachment.
What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated?
Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?
One causes the demise of history.
The past is either not taught enough or presented wrongly as a therapeutic excuse to exercise or excise our purported sins.
Either way, the result is the same.
Historically ignorant people who know nothing about past American wars and their disappointments, and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle.
Thank you, Mr. Victor Davis Hanson.
Because that's the point.
Everybody, I say it constantly, everybody's historical perspective begins the day they were born.
They don't know that we lost 750 people on a training exercise for D-Day.
They don't know about the Battle of the Bulge.
They don't know how rotten it was.
Because since the day they were born, every generation believes that it's in its last days.
Things are so horrible, so rotten, we're in the last days, Rush.
It's over.
We're being overrun everywhere.
We have no guts.
We have no willpower.
It's over.
And Mr. Hansen writes here.
Our grandparents in the recent past endured things that would make the present ordeal in Iraq seem almost pedestrian.
And they did all that with a result that a free Germany could now release terrorists or prosperous South Korean youth could damn the U.S. between their video games.
Instead, we of the present think that we have reinvented the rules of war and peace anew after Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the three-week war to remove Saddam.
We decreed from on high that there simply were to be no fatalities in the American way of war.
If there were, someone was to be blamed, censured, or impeached, and right now.
Second, there's a sort of arrogant smugness that's taken hold in the West at large.
Read the papers about an average day in Washington, D.C., LA, Detroit, or even smaller places like Fresno.
The headlines are almost the story of mayhem.
Murder, rape, arson, and theft.
Yet we think of Afghanistan as failing or Iraq hopeless when we watch similar violence on television there, as if they do such things, and we surely do not.
We denigrate the Iraqis trial of Saddam as if the Milosevic legal circus or our own OJ trial were models of jurisprudence.
Still, who would have thought that poor Barzan Ibrahim Alta Creedy, a mass murdering half brother of Saddam, would complain that Iraqi TV delayed live feeds of his daily outpurst by whimpering, if the sound is cut off once again, then I don't know about my comrades, but I personally won't attend again.
This is unjust and undemocratic.
A greater percentage of Iraqis participated in their elections after two years of consensual government than did Americans after nearly 230 years of practice.
It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists than the French or Germans, who often either wire terrorists money or sell them weapons or let them go.
For what it's worth, I'd prefer to have one Jalal Talabani or Iadalawi on our side than ten Jacques Chirac's or Gerhard Schroeder's.
Precisely because we are winning this war and have changed the contour of the Middle East, we expect even more and ever more quickly, without costing lives or treasure.
So rather than stopping to praise and commemorate those who gave us our success, we can only rush ahead to destroy those who do not give us even more.
And it's absolutely right on the money.
Victor Davis Hanson, that ran in the uh National Review Online back on December 29th.
Now, there's a little for for those of you that follow what goes on in the blog world, a little little tidbit here.
This uh this this uh Democrat, this kook blog called the Daily Cause, I I still don't know how to pronounce that, the KOS.
Uh this guy that runs this blog, Marcos Molitza, whatever his name is, has regular phone calls with Democrat leaders in Washington, Rom Emanuel, Harry Reed, and their staffs.
And and this this guy is is perhaps the most influential left-wing blogger that there is because they have adopted this guy's policies, beliefs, rhetoric.
When you hear them on their anti-Bush bandwagon, it's his rhetoric they've adopted.
They consult with this guy regularly.
He has appeared before them to advise them on how to proceed with their agenda, uh, so forth and so on.
Okay, so what?
Well, his latest rant is that the only reason, the only reason that Bush is fighting a war on terror in the first place is because Republicans are cowards.
So what?
We lose a couple buildings on New York and all of a sudden we got threat levels, we got color-coded threat levels, we got spying on American citizens, we got invasions in Afghanistan and what Republicans is afraid to deal with these people?
Republicans are just cowards?
That that's the latest take from the it's gonna get even kookier, folks, as this year heats up because of it being a midterm uh election year and uh and so forth.
So I I mention all of this uh primarily because I was hit with this question while I was gone.
Why doesn't Bush get inv from in in I'm telling you, in Bush's world, he is a he is an overwhelming success at what's going on here.
And I'm just for those of you that that have trouble understanding this, I don't know how I don't know how to explain it to you.
He's confident that everything's gonna work out.
He doesn't have to have to get into media battle every day.
He's looking at this in the long term anyway, and he's confident that as far as this country is concerned, things are gonna work out.
It's gonna end up okay because it is.
In his mind, things are working out, they're doing phenomenally well.
Uh but because this is politics and their efforts to bring him down, impeach him, do this and sort of the other thing, uh, there are people hellbent on making it look like an utter failure.
And that's the point of sharing with you all this data to turn what's happened here, a robust success into an utter failure is a great indicator of just who it is that we're dealing with on the left.
Uh and you talk about people that are never positive, talk about people that can't possibly they I'm they don't even smile.
I don't even see them laugh.
I never see them smile.
They don't even seem to be I mean, they these people are are happy, miserable or miserably happy, unhappy, whatever.
Mike Puta, Gordon of Florida, we'll start with you on the phones today.
Grad that glad to have you with us and hello.
Hi there, Rush.
Uh honored to speak with you, uh listener for a number of years.
Thank you, sir.
The reason I'm calling is that I disagree that Bush doesn't need to respond.
And the reason being that if he doesn't respond, it just emboldens his critics.
They say more and more.
It builds up his critics, his ratings drop, and therefore the Congress feels emboldened to, particularly maybe the uh moderate Republicans and so forth, feel emboldened to disavow him and not go along with his programs.
It's not a point that he's responding for himself.
I realize he probably is very confident in and of himself.
He needs to respond from the sake of his program to put off his critics and to build up his base.
I'm not saying he shouldn't respond.
And in fact, I said I'm glad what he does.
I'm trying to explain why he doesn't.
And it's not because he's detached, it's not because he's out in the left field, it's not because he's an airhead, and it's not because he's an idiot, it's not because he doesn't see things.
He's just on a different plane.
He's above it all.
He doesn't think this has anything to do with whether or not his job is being done well.
Um I'm sure there's some people in the White House.
There is an ongoing philosophy in the White House, by the way, uh regarding media.
Uh don't respond to things, just let each of these fires burn out, because there's going to be another one, and you can get caught up responding to all this stuff, and then you will take your eye off the ball.
Now you're right.
Uh when the approval numbers fall, then then the the cowards at heart rise to the top, be they elected Republicans in Washington or elsewhere, and they feel the need to abandon the president because his numbers are going down and nobody wants to appear with him and so forth.
But you know it that he finally uh uh toward the end of the year did respond, and the approval numbers got back up.
Has it stopped the Democrats?
No, and nothing will.
You have to understand responding to the media is not gonna stop them, responding to the Democrats not gonna stop them.
The reason you do it is to provide leadership for your side, which is what you're saying.
And I totally, totally agree with it.
I'm just I I just am trying to explain here that you don't have a president who's clueless.
It's in fact just the opposite.
Uh and and he he his sights are set on things that he considers far more important than the New York Times.
In fact, this investigation, I I think the one thing that woke him up uh in in this regard was this uh New York Times story.
When was it on the 16th about the NSA leaks, National Security Aid?
I mean, this is serious stuff.
He takes the war on terror seriously, protecting the people and defending the constitution of this country, and this is an effort to undermine that ability.
The Democrats have gotten so far, and these leaks are coming from somewhere.
They may be coming from the Justice Department, but it's time to find out where and to get serious about it, and I think I think that's got him revved up too.
But it's all in the end, all I'm trying to say is that he has an inner what can I say?
Uh confidence.
It's not the word I'm really looking for here, but he has no not a compass.
It's he's he's just he's he's very secure.
He's just confident he's doing the right thing, and I don't mean from an ego standpoint.
I I I don't I don't mean it.
He's right and everybody else is wrong, it's not his attitude.
He's just confident that all this is going to work out.
He's confident we're going to win the war on terror.
He's confident that this is going to succeed, confident about Iraq.
He just knows that it's going to work because he's doing the right thing.
It may take some years.
But he just has that, he just has that belief.
And of course, when you're up against a bunch of pessimists, I don't know about you, but when I'm around pessimists, no matter what you say, if they want to disparage it, and especially if you just say, I feel good about it, I think it's all going to work out.
Oh, you listen to you.
Head buried in the sand.
You're not able to face reality and so forth.
The people that aren't able to face reality are the Democrats today.
The American left, they're the ones with their heads in the sand.
They're the ones that don't see the reality.
They're the ones that are exactly what they accuse Bush of being.
Detached in a bubble in their own world.
And everything else be damned.
There's no great sense of purpose to what they're doing, other than it's about them.
And that it's not going to take them that far.
I don't care what anybody says.
I appreciate the call.
We'll be back after this short EIB profit setter timeout.
Stay with us.
To my hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and Lucas, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's an honor to speak to thee.
Happy New Year to you from Cape Girardeau.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, you know, with the uh the extreme hatred that's going on right now, uh, with the wiretapping that they think it's a big right-wing conspiracy.
Are the Dems gonna give give uh uh Judge Alito a harder time as a result?
Yeah, they were gonna give Alito a hard time no matter what.
Uh I I I I I don't know that I don't know.
How can they get extra motivated?
How can these people how can they become more hateful than they are?
How can they become angrier than they are?
They live it, they breathe it, they're constantly that way.
I don't think that matters.
I think the interesting thing about Alito.
Um there there's a story that ran yesterday in the New York Times.
This uh this Alito supporters portray nominee as less polished.
As Sam Alito enters his final week of dress rehearsals for his confirmation hearings, participants say his performance has already made one thing clear.
He will never be as polished and camera ready as John G. Roberts Jr. was at his own hearings a few months ago.
He's not gonna be the well manicured nominee, said one participant in the rehearsals.
That's not to say it's gonna be worse, it's just going to be different.
Look at who cares about Alito in these hearings?
This is what we know.
We know the liberals will embed their questions in lengthy political statements.
We know the liberals will attempt to intimidate Alito in an effort to make him lose his temper, and we know the liberal questioning will be condescending and moralistic in an effort to make them look good and conservatives look bad.
The same people who are saying that Roberts was too polished and too rehearsed, and his cle kids' clothes were too cute and perfect, and their hair was too blonde.
Now all of a sudden they're concerned about Alito's imperfections.
I think um from from what what I have been able to gather, the um Alito situation is is gonna be a little different.
I don't know that the left has as much money to spend on the attacks on him as uh as they would normally have.
Uh and I think they're gonna be throwing dirt in uh in in different kinds of ways, but make no make no mistake, there will be dirt.
It will be vicious.
It will be i i uh i uh no, I I just I don't see it work.
I I don't think they might filibuster.
I have no I don't have no clue what look it.
How else can I say folks?
I don't know how to tell you this.
Because in the I HR, you think they'll filibuster?
You think it'll work?
Start a you think what they're gonna do is I don't care what the Democrats do.
I'm can't can I can I I don't my life is not governed by what are they gonna do and how do we have to react to it?
I'm sorry.
I just I've given up on that.
I do not get up and look at the news every day and say, ooh, what are the Democrats doing, and what do I have to do in response?
Now, if they're attacking institutions and traditions that I believe great, yep, I defend the institutions and traditions.
But I don't care what the Democrats are doing.
None of it is a surprise anymore.
They are the most predictable group of people outside of your kids that I know of.
To be governed by what we think they'll fill a book.
I hope they do.
I I hope the Democrats make asses of themselves even more.
I hope they make fools of themselves.
But I don't care what they do.
I'm more concerned about how things are gonna be advanced and so forth, and and uh uh I think he's gonna be confirmed.
What the process is gonna be what it is.
They're gonna throw out everything they've got.
They're gonna try to destroy the man's character, his reputation, and his life.
What's new?
Have you heard of Robert Bork?
It's been that way ever since Robert Bork.
So I don't care what they my life does not depend on what the Democrats do, say, or think.
I don't mean to be mean about this.
It's just the way it is, back in just a second.
All right, the first hours in the can.
Great to be back in the saddle.
Folks, as I say, but not unbroken broke.
Whatever it is, Mountain.
Uh what is it?
Broke back?
▲
Export Selection