All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
January 24, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back with Broadcast Excellence.
Another two hours straight ahead.
We are ditto camming the program today, by the way, at rushlimbaugh.com.
All three hours for those of you who wish to watch broadcast excellence unfold right before your very eyes.
Telephone number if you'd like to join us.
800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Let's listen to a couple of soundbites from President Bush yesterday.
He was in Manhattan, Kansas, Kansas State University, a little town meeting, speech, and a question and answer session, which followed.
We've put together here a montage of his comments on the NSA so-called domestic spying program.
Something that you've been reading about in the news lately.
It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program.
After the enemy attacked us and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans, I asked people that works for you, worked for me, how best can we use information to protect the American people?
We have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al-Qaeda affiliate or al-Qaeda.
And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.
I repeat to you that you hear words domestic spying.
No, these are not phone calls within the United States.
It's a phone call of a al-Qaeda, known al-Qaeda suspect making a phone call into the United States.
I'm mindful of your civil liberties.
And so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process.
We brief members of the United States Congress.
You know, it's amazing when people say to me, well, he's just breaking the law.
If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?
And that resulted in a lot of applause.
This next is a, well, one more thing.
It is contemptible.
I said this yesterday.
It's a contemptible lie that the Democrats and their media buddies portray this as a domestic spying case or story or scenario.
It is nothing of the sort.
Here's the, this is a great Q ⁇ A.
And it's actually, the woman just wanted to stand up and make a speech, and the president tried to get her to get to the question because time was limited, but he didn't really succeed until late in the exchange.
It speaks for itself.
Listen to this.
Hello, Mr. President.
I'm an American Iraqi Kurd.
I would like to salute you and salute all the troops of freeing 27 million people.
They are free.
Thank you.
I would like to share these thoughts with all our nation and everybody who is questioning what happened to the chemical weapons.
Saddam burned 4,500 villages.
I lost more than 10 members of my family underground.
We found their bones after when we freed Iraq.
Saddam himself and his people, his followers, they are chemical weapons.
Please stop questioning the administration and their decision.
It was the best decision anybody could take.
Freeing 27 million people.
Okay.
This is a question and answer period.
Mr. President.
I hate to cut you off.
I'm on a roll, but what's the question?
Mr. President, all I could tell you, I have two members of my family.
They are in the Iraqi parliament.
And both of them are women.
My sister-in-law and my aunt, they are in the Iraqi parliament.
And I would like you to share this happiness with me and with all the Iraqi people.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you.
Never did get to the question.
The woman just wanted to speak out.
There was a whole day like that, what was like that yesterday.
And that's why people who've called here today who said they saw some of it were so inspired by it because it's not what you're used to seeing when the president goes out and has to deal with the press.
And as I say, we just played for you just a couple of small little soundbites, just a smidgen of what went on yesterday.
The New York Times, the most important thing to them was the question that Bush got about whether he'd seen the movie Humpback Mountain.
Brokeback Mountain.
I'm sorry, broke back.
It's just, it's just a, what did I say?
No, I didn't.
No, I didn't say that.
I said Humpback Mountain.
Broke back, brokeback Mountain.
I'm confusing it with the whale movie, a movie about the whale in the River Thames.
No, imagine of all of that that went on, they have to ask about this gay cowboy movie.
And I have to talk about that as the focal point.
There's just a huge, huge disconnect.
I had a story in the stack yesterday I did not have a chance to get to, but it was an AP story.
And it is exactly, exactly what I knew was going to happen, exactly what I predicted to you people was going to happen.
Lawyers for Scooter Libby told a federal judge on Friday they want to subpoena journalists and news organizations for documents they may have related to the leak of a CIA operative's name in a joint filing with prosecutors.
Lawyers for Scooter Libby warned U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton that a trial likely will be delayed because they're strategiery to seek more subpoenas of reporter notes and other records.
Lucy Douglas, the executive director of the Reporters Committee FOR Freedom OF the Press, said the defense's strategery is no surprise, but still alarming.
Every key witness in this case is going to be a reporter, she said it's an absolutely ugly situation, putting reporters in a very, very bad position, and it should send a chill up the spine of American citizens across the country.
Well, it won't, because most of the American citizens are going to be plauding the whole move to bring a bunch of journalists up there to find out just what they knew and from whom.
Now Timothy Phelps, columnist for Newsday, has an article for the Columbia Journalism Review, and he says that, whereas the reporters who testified for the prosecution in the Libby case, Patrick Fitzgerald, did so mostly under agreements restricting their testimony to very specific issues, Libby's lawyers though, are not bound by such agreements.
If called by the defense.
The reporter's case for immunity from testifying, which the courts have rejected anyway, is even weaker than it was when dealing with the prosecution.
After all, Libby has a fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial.
Phelps' piece is important.
This is according to James Taranto at Opinionjournal.com.
Phelps' piece is important because it's the most comprehensive acknowledgement we've seen from a news reporter of what we've been arguing for years, that journalists have done their own profession grave damage by flogging this Phony scandal.
This whole Valerie Plain thing, we've all been saying it.
This is going to lead journalists to exactly where they don't want to go.
It was a slam dunk that Libby's lawyer is going to subpoena these people.
And there's a companion story to this.
And I have it from Richard Baer at theamericanthinker.com.
It's one of our favorite blogs out there.
Larry Franklin and the New York Times NSA leaks.
Pinch Schultzberger, meet Larry Franklin.
The publisher of the New York Times had better pay attention to the fate of Mr. Franklin because last Friday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III sentenced Pentagon employee Larry Franklin to just over 12 years in prison for his role in providing classified Department of Defense documents to two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, and also to a diplomat, Naor Gillen of Israel.
Virtually all the coverage of the sentencing focused on the implications for Rosen and Wiseman in their upcoming trial.
But the real story of the sentencing and the judge's comments on Friday are what they might reveal about the risk to media leakers and publishers of classified information, such as those who provided information for the NSA surveillance story published by the New York Times.
Franklin's sentence of 12 years was on the low end of federal sentencing guidelines and followed a guilty plea that he made to three felony counts last October.
Franklin's sentence will likely be reduced in exchange for his cooperation in the upcoming trials of the two former APAC employees.
Franklin's been cooperating for several years with the Justice Department, including serving as a courier in a federal sting directed against Wiseman and Rosen.
Now, aside from the controversy or any controversy about the legality of the surveillance itself, the media is concerned that Justice Department investigators will demand to know who contacted the Times reporter James Risen and leaked the story to him.
Champions of the theory that Bush did something illegal by ordering the surveillance tend to also be champions of the need to protect the whistleblower.
If you believe the administration overstepped, then you seem to also wind up in the camp that believes that leaking by the whistleblower and dissemination of the story by the Times was a public service in each case, certainly not a crime.
The issue of whether journalists should have to give up sources was also recently a focus in the Valerie Plame Joe Wilson story.
Now, the NSA disclosure is a far more serious affair than the Franklin Rosen-Wiseman story or the Plame Wilson story that kept the chattering crowd in D.C. on their toes for more than a year.
If one follows the logic of Judge Ellis, it's hard to see how James Risen, Bill Keller, and possibly little Pinch will not be asked to take a perp walk, maybe in leg irons someday soon.
In the NSA New York Times case, one of the recipients of the information the New York Times disseminated is Al-Qaeda, which now knows of the surveillance effort and is better able to evade detection of its communications.
Providing relevant secrets that aid an enemy in time of war is no laughing matter, and a legal precedent exists for prison sentences of non-trivial duration for those who are found guilty.
So the Libby trial and this can, I know we're going to find out who leaked this.
There probably is not a whole lot of reporting on just how angry some people are about this in the White House on down.
But this point about the fact that since Al-Qaeda can read the New York Times, they now know what the program was.
They've got ways to avoid it.
And with journalists now subject to being subpoenaed and leakers, whistleblowers of the Department of Defense getting 12 years in jail, I will guarantee you there's some people who thought they were going to nail George W. Bush with all this who are beginning to have second thoughts.
We'll be back after this.
Ha, we are back having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Hi, this.
I love this next story, folks.
Stack yesterday didn't get to it.
A conservative alumni group dedicated to exposing the most radical professors at UCLA is offering to pay students $100 to record classroom lectures of suspect faculty.
The website of the Bruin Alumni Association also includes a dirty 30 list of professors considered by the group to be the most extreme left-wing members of the UCLA faculty, as well as profiles on their political activities and writings.
The chancellor of UCLA, Albert Carnesale, last week denounced the campaign as reprehensible, and screw officials warned that selling or distributing recordings of classroom lectures without an instructor's consent violates university policy.
News of the campaign prompted the former Republican Congressman James Rogan, who helped lead impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton, to resign from the group's advisory board.
He says, I'm uncomfortable to say the least with this tactic.
It places students in jeopardy of violating myriad regulations and laws.
At least two other members of the group's board, which consists of more than 20 people, also have quit over the group's efforts to have students record their professors.
The group, which is not affiliated with UCLA or its official alumni association, is the creation of Andrew Jones, a 2003 UCLA graduate.
Said he runs the organization mostly on his own with $22,000 in private donations.
He told Reuters he's out to restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus and says his efforts are aimed at academics who proselytize students from either side of the ideological spectrum, conservative or liberal.
You know what I find fascinating about this?
What I find fascinating about this is the left always finds it reprehensible when they are exposed.
If somehow a student takes notes or takes a tape recorder in and lets somebody hear what the professor is saying, it somehow violates some vague but undefined right.
It's like nobody other than the students, these young skulls full of mush, should be allowed to hear what our intellectually brave professors are saying in these classrooms.
And yet when somebody says, you know what, let's hear what these lectures are.
We hear all this talk about liberal bias in a classroom.
Let's hear, you can't, why, that's violating policy.
Why, you can't do that.
The threat of being exposed causes these people to have panic attacks.
The Los Angeles Times, a couple days ago, ideologues at the lectern.
David Horowitz had a great column, publisher of frontpage.com, author of The Professors to be published later this month by Regnery.
Stephen Zelmik's a political moderate who has taught in the English department at Temple University for 37 years.
He has served as president of the Faculty Senate, director of the university's writing programs, and more recently, vice provost for undergraduate studies.
On January 10th, Zelnick and I testified as witnesses before a Pennsylvania House Committee on Academic Freedom, possibly the first such committee in the history of higher education in America.
Zelnick told the legislators that as director of two undergraduate programs, he had observed the classes of more than 100 teachers.
He had seen excellent, indifferent, and miserable teaching.
But in all those courses, he said, I have rarely heard a kind word for the United States, for the riches of our marketplace, for the vast economic and creative opportunities made available for energetic and creative people.
That is for our students, for family life, for marriage, for love, or for religion.
I have never, rarely heard a kind word for the United States.
Now, we're not surprised to hear this.
But for some reason, the people who are so glib and so open and so eager and so willing to preach the negativism they believe the United States to be somehow don't want it heard by people outside the classroom.
Somehow they don't want it known.
Somehow to expose that, why, that's a violation of some vague right.
But we all know what goes on in there.
People send their kids away to school and they cross their fingers.
We hope we have an American when he graduates and not some little Marxist running around thinking this is the worst country on the face of the earth and wanting to join people to help blow it up.
But it's a crapshoot, depending on what university or institution of higher learning that you send your young skull full of mush to.
Susan Estrich weighed in on this at newsmax.com.
One of the worst ideas to hit academia, she says, paying students to tape their professors in the hopes of discouraging their expression of views that one side considers to be radical.
And she's talking about the Bruin Alumni Association unofficial group.
Says the new project offers students $100 to tape record the classes of certain professors who've been designated by the organization.
He says, I've been teaching for 25 years, the last 15 at USC.
In my classrooms, I have only three hard and fast rules, no political correctness.
Every point of view is not only welcome, but also essential.
And I forgot to print the second page, so I don't know what the other two rules are.
But I think bottom line is the left gets scared.
See, it all follows the same pattern, folks.
They cannot have it known publicly who they really are.
They don't want it known what they really believe in.
They don't, other than these idiots like Ward Churchill, and Churchill is a glittering jewel, a colossal example of what probably is going on in a lot of classrooms across the country.
And not just in college, high school too, but it's most predominantly taking place in college.
But we have in the Democratic Party and the American left an ongoing desire to mask, more so in the Democratic Party.
The American left is just going nuts with what they really think and it's not helping anything.
But the Democratic Party is doing everything they can to keep their real views, their real agenda hidden, camouflaged and masked.
And now when somebody might shine the light, I mean, we have, how about what?
Whistleblowers.
I thought we love whistleblowers.
I thought we had sunshine laws.
We're supposed to hear and see everything going on in our government.
But for some reason, we're not allowed to know what's going on in America's institutions of higher learning, supposedly.
We're not allowed to know what's going on in there because apparently the people who are most disturbed by this are people that don't want it known what they're saying.
Why would that be?
If we all have a right to free speech and think whatever we want to think, why would these people be afraid to have us all know what they're saying in there?
We are on a roll here at the EIB Network.
Let's go to Pierre in Quebec.
Pierre, thanks for calling.
It's great to have you on the program with us.
Good day, great Maharashi from the great white north.
Thank you, sir.
Much more of you who listen to you than you may think.
I appreciate that.
It took over a decade, but finally the Conservatives are coming back in Canada.
My question to you is, do you think that Bush policy is going to change towards Canada now that I don't know how soon it'll happen?
I mean, it'll be soon.
Certainly in the next three months, there'll be some outreach.
Absolutely.
You can bank on that.
I wonder if, like, after being so long under Liberal leadership here in Canada, people have been saying for so long that things have been getting so cold between our southern neighbor and us.
Do you think that it will take a long time for things to get better the way they were, or you think it's going to be over a short period of time?
You know, the thing I think you should look for is what have you had up there, 12, 16 years of Liberal Party rule?
Yes.
All right.
Based on the experiences that we've all had here in the United States, look for your Liberal Party to refuse to act as though they lost.
Well, of course, yeah, they started to be doing this.
But you know what did you do what brought them down big time?
We had the money scandal here and over what they call in Canada here, the sponsorship programs.
Right.
And millions and millions and millions of dollars were wasted and given to contracts that never even took place.
And basically, the people wanted to give the liberals a lesson.
And then we had basically we came close to a majority, conservative majority government.
And so many things happen in Canada so fast lately.
And people are going to be able to do that.
The real question, though, that you have is beyond the improved relationship between the governments of the two countries.
That's a no-brainer.
But if you're asking me if Canada at large is going to become less hostile, my point to you is the losers up there are going to become more hostile.
They will follow the pattern of the liberals in this country, who haven't really won anything that they can count on other than Clinton's two terms since 1994.
That's really how far back they go to thinking they've been out of power because that's the year they lost the House of Representatives, and that's a true power base in this country.
And they're just fit to be tied.
And their birthright, just like the liberals in your country, their birthright is power.
They're entitled to it.
And now they're not going to accept this.
The conservatives may have won the election, but that isn't going to stop them.
They're going to get more angry.
They're going to get more bellicose.
They are going to be less friendly to the United States.
Their pattern is so easy to predict because a liberal is a liberal wherever they are.
And we've seen it happen here.
They'll become angrier and even more obstinate.
They will consider the new government that's been elected illegitimate in the way that they deal with it.
They will consider it an aberration, a temporary bump in the road.
It will not result in what you think.
Therefore, it's up to these new conservative leaders to also learn the lesson of what happened down here.
Start acting like you won.
Act like you won, coming out of the box.
And remember who elected you.
And remember that those are the people that sent you into office to do certain things different than have been going on under the liberal rule.
And if they do that and they get a fresh start and a quick start doing that, then it won't matter what these liberals are doing other than your country is going to become more polarized.
And you might think, how can that possibly be?
Believe me, liberals still have a long way to go to get even further left, despite how far left that you think they are.
Joe in Fort Myers, Florida, you're next.
I'm glad you called on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Rush, I don't know how to make this point.
And I'm using your show actually kind of as a platform to reach our Democratic leaders because I agree with you.
So I want to say Rush is right.
I'm been very frustrated with my party for several years now, and I'm just not sure what I'm going to do.
I agree with you that we're not standing up for what we believe in, and I'm disappointed in my party for that.
What do you want to hear them say that they're not saying?
To use Hillary as an example, she's slid from a lot of the standpoints that I would agree with her on to get elected.
And if we have to lie to win, I'm ashamed.
And I'd rather go down swinging and fighting or win with my head held high versus win, knowing that I did it on false pretense, or lose on false pretenses even worse.
And I'm very frustrated with them.
I'm like, for instance, I'm against gun control and more gun bans.
I think there's too much of it.
I'm for affirmative action.
I'm for a woman's right to choose.
I think there should be higher taxes on the rich for welfare and taking care of the elderly, and especially since George Bush has us in the war, to support the war.
I think we should leave other countries alone, and I think we buck too much in other people's business.
And I don't have a problem with what I believe in.
I have a problem with our leaders, my leaders, who won't just stand up and say this.
And I'm very frustrated with them, and I wish they would say the truth and be proud of it.
Why do you think they won't?
I don't know.
I think they're afraid of losing.
And if we have to deceive conservative Republicans to win our platform, with all due respect, I'd rather lose it.
Okay, let's talk about that than win with defeat.
Joe, let's talk about that attitude because as a conservative, I've gone through all of this that you're going through back in the day, although the conservatives never had any trouble saying what we're for.
I mean, we're proud of it.
We're very proud of what we believe in, and so we don't mind.
We want everybody to know what we really are, what we really believe.
And we've had a deal 50 years with the media and others mischaracterizing us as racist, sexist, bigots, homophobes, that sort of thing.
So we're very much interested in, hey, here's who we are.
We'll shout it from the rooftops.
This is our core.
This is our soul.
And don't believe all these lies about us.
However, there have been times in our history where others have said in our movement what you just said.
Hey, wait a minute.
You know, it's one thing to say what we believe and all that.
But if we're going to lose, what's the point of being in politics?
Because politics is about winning.
You can't do anything until you win.
And from this springs the old argument that in primaries, you go out and you just mollify your base and you say whatever you have to do to get nominated.
Then the theory goes that once you've got your party's nomination, you can't win just on your own party's votes.
You've got to go get some votes from that precious center, the moderates or whatever.
So you moderate what you campaigned on in the primaries.
And this is what Hillary is already doing.
Hillary is behaving as though she's already won the nomination.
And so she is practicing the time-honored theory of now going and getting people who aren't Democrats because her objective is to win.
Because Hillary can't do anything until she wins.
Now, my problem with liberals is pretty much yours.
They will say whatever they have to to win, but when they do win, they will not do much of what they say.
Remember back to 2001 when Bush was inaugurated and he comes out with his first agenda items.
And it was exactly what he had campaigned on.
And the Democrats said, this is a dirty trick.
What do you mean?
He's going to do what he said he was going to do.
And that's who we conservatives are.
So you might, and you can, I think from one standpoint, let me ask you, would you like to see Hillary elected?
Forget the way she's campaigning, Joe, forget what she's saying right now.
You think you know who she is, or maybe you don't, but let's say you think you know who she is.
Do you want to see her elected?
Yes, but I don't want to be ashamed of the deceit to get there.
If we're going to win, if we are going to turn the country the way I think it should be changed, the way we believe it should be changed, then we need to stand up and pull people into that.
And you don't do it by line.
And to be honest with you, I don't want to vote for them for that very reason.
If I could have any of them hear me right now on your show, it would be stand up and say what you believe or get out of the way and let somebody else do it.
Because I don't want to win with a lie.
I think it's wrong.
I'll give you one national example.
As I told your screener, I said that I'm not totally against the war.
I think as a country, we went into the war.
Democrats and Republicans supported the president.
I think he was ignorant at best, deceptive at worst on why we went into Iraq.
But we supported it, and for us to say we didn't now is a shameful thing because the truth is the truth.
And I don't like that.
And that's what grieves me about my party right now is we want to win at all costs.
And I've never wanted to win at all costs.
Well, look, I hear exactly what you're saying, and I feel like... Frustrated with my party.
Well, I can hear it.
And you get on your roll.
I feel like I'm listening to myself a couple of times because I had this conversation with Mary Madeline on their famous Afghanistan trip.
And she was talking about what the Democrats have to do.
And I said, you know, for the long term, I mean, you might be able to win an election now and then by being deceitful, as you've described, or positioning yourself, portraying yourself something that you're not, but you're not going to build a long-term, deep-rooted movement on the basis of deceit and lies.
And that's what you instinctively know.
So if you want your party to be in power and entrenched with power and deeply rooted, the task is exactly what you've said and what I have said too.
You go to the American people with what you really believe.
It took us 50 years to win, Joe.
50 years, but we've won and we haven't been defeated since.
Well, from 1994 on in the House and Senate.
And we sometimes in governance stray from our policies, too much spending and this sort of thing.
But in terms of telling the American people who we are, we have no qualms.
There are different factions of the conservative movement with different minute disagreements here and there.
But a conservative is pretty much somebody who's well-known and conservatives do not go out and say, I'm pro-choice in order to get Democrat votes.
A liberal Republican will do that, but a conservative won't.
I agree.
No, go ahead.
No, I was just going to say, because I wanted to let you go and not take up more of your time.
I disagree with your ideas, your platforms, but I agree with you that we need to win in the arena of ideas, and you don't do that by line.
Exactly right.
And I'll tell you, one of the first issues you mentioned, gun control has to be one of the most frustrating things for you to watch because your party is obsessed with winning some of these red state votes back and their chosen topic or issue is gun control.
Al Gore started talking about how he's for gun control in the 2000 debates and John Kerry did it in 2004.
It's the NRA.
It's a lot of people hunt in the red states.
You're for more gun control and here's your party selling that issue out.
That's got to frustrate you to no end.
I can't disagree with you, and that's my problem.
They make me ashamed of me as a party, of us as a party, even though I'm proud of what I believe in.
And I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, Rush.
I never have, because I believe what I believe.
And if you want to believe, that's fine.
But this is how our country comes to our conclusions by majority rules on these things and the arena of ideas.
And when they lie, I can tell you this: I'm not going to vote for any Republican, but in all likelihood, I'm not voting for any Democrat.
That's lying.
It's not going to happen.
One more question before you go.
You mentioned, you gave us a litany of issues, gun control, pro-choice.
You went down a list.
As you watch the Democrats today, do you hear them even addressing issues, or are you a little tired of their effort to make Bush out to be some impeachable monster as it so obviously has failed?
See, I bet you like that.
I bet you like that they're doing that.
I bet you because, I mean, obviously you're not a fan of Bush.
But they don't have an agenda.
I don't hear them talking about anything they're for.
All I hear is negativism and doom and gloom from all of them.
I can't disagree with you again, which is part of my frustration.
You know, if we want to say, for instance, that we're for affirmative action and supporting that in the colleges, in the workplace, and things like that, then we should say that.
And if we think that the Republicans are against it and we want to say, look, they're against it.
They're not supporting you.
They're not helping you get ahead.
They are keeping you down.
We want to help you get ahead and keep on an even footing, then we should say that.
And we should point that out.
But just to bash, and I think bashing is fine when it's true.
But then I think we have to come up with our alternative platform.
And I'm not hearing it out of their mouths, which makes me think they're afraid of what they believe in, which I don't understand.
Well, they are afraid of what they believe in because they know right now they're not going to get elected on an agenda of high taxes.
They're not going to get elected on a lot of the items that you mentioned.
It's not where the people are right now.
But see, that's the challenge.
You have to start sometime trying to change people's minds.
If that's what you believe in your core, if that you really think tax cuts are going to make this country greater, if you really think affirmative action is going to make it greater, it's up to them to go to the people of the country as we've been doing for 50 years and try to persuade them.
And if you succeed and you get elected, bamboo, you've got your mandate and you've planted deep roots.
But that's what they're not doing.
There's a long explanation for why, and I've mentioned it countless times on the program, but I'm way long in the segment.
I just want to thank you, Joe, for calling.
I understand your frustration better than you may believe.
That's Joe from Fort Myers, Florida, and we'll be back and continue in just a second.
Well, you just heard it, folks.
There's a young man, Fort Myers, Florida, Democrat frustrated with his party.
And I'm telling you, for every one of those that would call here, there are thousands of others out there who are feeling frustration along the same lines.
It may be different specifics.
But, I mean, you can't look at the Democratic Party today, what it's doing and how it structured itself, and imagine that it's got a bunch of robust followers going, yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to get on this train.
Yeah, I want to go to the championship.
Yeah, I want to be on this team.
There's no such inspiration coming from these clowns, the Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Dick Turbin.
These guys make you want to be on their team.
Here's Rodney in Philadelphia.
Hey, Rodney.
Good afternoon, Rush.
This is Rodney Team.
I'm from Philadelphia, Missouri.
Oh, I'm sorry, Philadelphia, Missouri.
That's close to Hannibal, if you're familiar with that area.
Yes.
Just wanted to acknowledge and just say mega dittos and also honored to be a part of the program today.
Going back to President Bush and his monologue you had earlier, I had the privilege of getting to see that exchange he had with the Iraqi lady last night on Fox, which today I didn't get to see the whole thing because they cut that off too quick.
But as important and as inspiring as what she had to say about what we're doing in Iraq, I think of how President Bush responded to that.
And, you know, he simply thanked her, but he also focused on what was at hand, that he wanted to acknowledge that this is a question and answer.
You know, that just shows the integrity and the modesty that we have in our president.
That's the key.
That's the key word.
You're really dealing with a modest man here who was, I watched it.
I could tell he was a little embarrassed because this QA session here, I don't have a lot of time.
I appreciate the compliment, but so forth.
Now, you nailed it.
Modesty was one of the characteristics that came across loudly yesterday for the president.
Okay, coming up next, Newsweek magazine.
Next up, boys and girls are actually different.
Amazing.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection