All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
January 25, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh yeah, I'm glad you reminded me about that.
I'd forgotten about it.
The girls out at the Hope.
Yeah, okay.
Okay, uh thanks for reminding me of that, because I'll keep reminding me of that.
Greetings, folks, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh on a roll here on the Limbaugh Institute, or from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am firmly ensconced behind this, the golden EIB microphone here at the prestigious institute sitting in the one and only Attila the Hun chair.
Telephone numbers 800 28282.
The email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Now this is just too funny.
This by the way, those of you on hold, be patient.
I make this pledge.
We'll get to your calls in the second segment here, as soon as I finish the uh monologue open of the second hour here.
This to me is just hilarious.
I think this is a Reuters story.
I'm not sure it doesn't matter.
Senate Democratic leader Dingy Harry yesterday urged, and I want you to picture Dingy Harry as you listen to me tell you about this.
Want you to picture this little mousey guy with his soft-spoken whatever voice.
I mean, you you you know what image conjures up when you when you listen to Dingy Harry, this dynamic, powerful, overwhelming, inspirational, motivational speaker, Dingy Harry.
Senate Democratic leader Dingy Harry on Tuesday urged President Bush to swagger less and to show more honesty and humility in his State of the Union speech next week.
In a speech at a liberal think tank, Dingy Harry gave a scathing assessment of the State of the Union under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Republicans run good campaigns that when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence.
He was speaking at the Center for American Progress.
Dinji Harry's speech was part of an effort to lay the groundwork for the November congressional election, in which Democrats hope to win control of Congress or at least shrink the Republican majority.
So what happened?
Just it was less just last month.
That was all sewn up.
They were going to win back the House.
They were going to win back the Senate.
And then in 08, the White House was theirs.
It was already done.
It was a fate of compli.
Now this willing accomplice, Donna Smith, this leftist sycophant writing in wherever she writes, I think it's Reuters.
Democrats hope to win control of Congress, or at least shrink the Republican majority.
Contrast that with Carl Rove.
Carl Rova goes out and speaks to the RNC Friday night and says, oh yeah, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to kick butt.
And this isn't how we're going to kick butt.
ABCDE, here's who we are.
Here's our campaign.
This is our campaign.
These are our issues, and this is how we are going to win reelection in 06.
And Dingy Harry goes up to some think tank where President Bush isn't even watching.
He's not even in attendance and he won't even hear about this.
And Dingy Harry.
You you better swagger less.
You better, you better have more humility.
This is an absolute joke.
These guys remind me of a bunch of yapping little chihuahuas.
They come up to you, these little yapping little dogs, and they just they're big and bold, they're tiny little things, no bigger than a hot dog.
You just want to kick them across the street when they come up and yap at you.
And all you got to do, little chihuahua, these things are constantly, and I don't I know a lot of Chihuahua lovers out there, but I've got to describe them accurately.
These little things, they look like they're constantly just on this side of a nervous breakdown.
They're shaking, and they're just like these guys Democrats are.
And they start yapping, yeah, and boy, but if you shout at shut up, dog, runs across the street before you have a chance to kick it across the street.
Bush has these guys so convoluted, he's got them so out of sorts that their best tactic is to go to a group of people that's made up of people just like them and say, Bush better be, he better be more humble.
And he better not swagger as much.
Well, I mean, what that's that's the the brilliant campaign that's going to win back the Congress or shrink the Republican majority.
And then there's this from our old buddy Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times.
Now remember, yesterday, we shared with you the warning shot across the bow uh to the Democrats from E.J. Dion Jr., columnist at the Washington Post, E.J. Dion Jr. upset.
Where do the Democrats are going to get serious about this domestic spying thing, this NSA story?
Why, if they're not going to get serious about it, if they're not going to act like they should act, then what's the whole reason for having a majority party?
And of course, E.J. fell right into Carl Rose's lap, a trap.
Rove announces what our strategy is, and the Democrats take it up.
Okay, fine.
You want to debate on the NSA skiff.
Fine.
I'm going to tell you the president can't wait for these hearings.
The president can't wait for this debate.
The president can't wait for the campaign because just like USA Today Gallup poll tells us that 51% of the American people definitely will not vote for Hillary Clinton for president in 2006.
About 52 to 55%, depending on the poll you look at, and the American people want to be protected and take steps necessary to prevent another attack like 9-11.
And if the Democrats want to go out and act like Bush is the greater threat, if they want to make it appear that the real national security objective is impeaching George Bush, well then Rove and the boys welcome it.
And that's what E.J. Dion Jr. wants.
Now, Ronald Brownstein today.
Headline pretty much encapsulates the story.
Democrats may argue liberties to their peril.
Leading Democrats are challenging President Bush's record on civil liberties across a wide front, inspiring a Republican counterattack that even some Democrat strategists worry could threaten the party in this year's election.
I wonder why.
Could it be that strategists in the party know that the vast majority of these people, vast majority of people in this country, do not associate the Democratic Party with strength when it comes to the military or national security?
Who was it, ladies and gentlemen?
Search your little gray cells, if you will.
Who was it that reminded you back in November and December?
That as the Democrats kept ginning up their anti-Iraq war position and anti-war on terror position that they were sounding more and more like George McGovern.
Twas I. And they are the party of McGovern today.
And the reason they think McGovern lost in a landslide, but the Vietnam War ended as they think that's glory days for them.
Proving what I've always said, the higher and greater you fail in the Democratic Party, the more stature in the Democratic Party you have.
Witness Jimmy Carter.
And now these Democrats, they're just a bunch of 60s and 70s retreads, folks.
You know, Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin and all these guys, if they weren't senators, they'd be running bagel shops or coffee shops out in San Francisco.
That's what they'd be doing.
They're just little 60s and 70s retreads.
That's what that's exactly well, maybe a bagel chop.
But that's what they'd be doing.
Now they're in the Senate and they're and they're they're they're simply reliving their glory days.
And they've gotten themselves positioned here, where once again they are on the wrong side of uh of the American strength of exceptionalism and all this.
They don't think there's anything exceptional about America.
No, we're flawed.
We've got racism, we have sexism, we have homophobia, we have we have bigotry in all this.
I mean, we uh we need affirmative action.
Don't deny people, don't allow people civil rights.
Well, they're their view of this country as anything but exceptional.
And for some reason they think that that's a winning position to take.
Well, Brownstein's point is that these strategists understand that this is not the position that they should be having and taking from Bush's authorization of warrantless surveillance by the NSA, the renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and his critics are battling more intently than at any time since the 9-11 terrorist attacks over the proper balance between national security and personal liberty.
And in each of these disputes, prominent Democrats accuse Bush of improperly expanding presidential power, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
These exchanges establish contrasts familiar from debates over law enforcement and national security throughout the 70s and 80s.
Don't leave out the 60s, Ron.
With most Republicans arguing for tough measures, many Democrats focusing on the defense of constitutional protections.
That emerging alignment, writes Mr. Brownstein, worries some Democrat strategists who believe it may allow Bush To portray Republicans as stronger than Democrats in fighting terrorism as he did in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns.
Ron.
You know, this is a problem you people have.
Everything is not packaging.
There are things that are real.
The president will have to do nothing to portray the Democrats as you describe them.
They are doing it themselves.
What is so hard to understand about this?
We don't concoct all these spin machine games.
We don't have a bunch of PR flax out there creating an image of the Democrats and the media and the people swallowing it up.
The Democrats are who they are.
The Democrats are, despite the fact that they're going behind closed doors to come up with strategy sessions on what they believe.
Everybody knows what they believe.
You have to listen to what they say, watch what they do.
I'll guarantee you there's the the the number of people in this country who think George Bush poses the greatest threat to national security, you can put in a thimble.
And the Democrats think that that's a winning issue.
Bush is not going to have to do anything, but go out and be who he is, which is what he's been doing, and that's what he always does.
But Brownstein says Democratic strategists believe it may allow Bush to portray Republicans as stronger than Democrats in fighting terrorism.
No portrayals necessary.
It's true, Ron.
From John Kerry on down or up, depending on where he is on your scale.
There's no portrayal necessary.
And about civil liberties.
And about all of this civil liberties.
Lest we forget.
Who was it that burned down a religious compound with tanks?
Uh just think about it for a second.
Who the Waco invasion?
Who authored that and who ordered it?
And who carried it out?
The Democratic Party under Bill Clinton.
You can say it was Janet Reno, whoever, but it was a Democratic Party.
Who took an innocent child away from a legal guardian and presented him to a communist dictator?
Talking about Ilion Gonzalez.
Need we go on?
These examples are many.
It's the liberal side of the aisle that breaks those liberties in the worst way.
The Democrats say they want to be perceived as tough on national security, but uh they they don't want to be too tough on national, but they really want to be perceived as protecting civil liberties.
Well, talk to um talk to the branch dividians.
I mean, you might have thought they were kooks, but a reason to burn down the place where they live and kill them.
Yeah, to the left.
I mean, they're a wacko religious bunch.
But Caesar Chavez, now there's a man, there's a man.
Hugo Caesar, whatever.
Yes, I always call him Caesar.
Hugo Chavez.
See, the one of the Democrats' latest icons is down there visiting him, Cindy Sheehan.
And he paid for the trip.
Chavez paid for the trip.
So she's down there rallying around his cause.
He's a great world leader, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Remember, there were serious Democrats, blogosphere left wackos back during, well, it was last summer.
We need candidates like Cindy Sheehan.
Is uh Cesar Chavez, Hugo, Hugo's seizing businesses, yes.
We're doing that here too.
Back in just a second.
And welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Let's uh go to the phone and see what fun and excitement lurks behind the blinking yellow lights.
Timothy and Knoxville, I'm glad you uh held on.
Appreciate your patience, and welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Referring to uh your commentary on Hillary in the first hour.
Yes.
I would like for you to clarify what you meant about being careful who we pick as a candidate in 2008.
They run against Hillary.
Uh clarify.
Well, the word careful.
I would just you know, I hope by that you don't mean a safe candidate or or somebody who's who's uh No, just the contrary.
No, no, no, no, just the contrary.
We need we need to continue to be aggressive.
This is no time to go into prevent defense.
This is this is time to this is time to be I'm talking about nominating the wrong person.
Let's not nominate somebody who's not conservative.
Sure.
Because I think I think our views represent, you know, normality.
And uh and then we shouldn't have to be afraid of them.
Um I want a candidate who's gonna say things that that say Hillary Or any other liberal.
All right, let's do a little test.
Let's conduct a little test.
I want you to listen to some sound bites with me, and then you tell me if this is a candidate that uh you could support.
Okay.
All right.
I'm not trying to embarrass you.
I want your actual honest input here.
Let's go to the Today Show today, Matt Wauer interviewing Senator McCain.
And uh Lauer said, and this is about government reform.
He said, You you proposed new legislation that would change the rules of the way lobbyists and lawmakers interact uh this following the Jack Abramov situation.
Do you think that legislation can be passed this year?
Yes, you will see lobbying reform this year.
The question is, will we reform the system that has caused the corruption that has caused a situation where one corrupt congressman and one lobbyist can get tens of millions of dollars inserted in the middle of the night in an appropriations bill?
That's the question as to whether we'll fix the so-called earmarking the pork barrel spending.
And I don't know if we're gonna be able to do that or not.
If we don't, we're not gonna fix the system.
All right.
Uh are you inspired there?
No, I'm not Rush.
All right, well, let's all let's let's let's give Senator McCain another chance, then.
It's not fair just to have you judge him on one soundbite.
Let's uh let's go back to the Today show today.
Matt Wauer talking to Senator McCain, he says, when you were asked if you thought the president's actions, this is the NSA domestic spying scandal, uh, Timothy.
Uh Senator, when you when you were asked if you thought the president's actions were legal, you said, I don't think so.
You think the president broke the law?
I don't know.
I d I I want to be perfectly clear.
I don't know the answer.
That's why I welcome the hearings.
If we didn't, if I was sure whether it's legal or not, uh then I wouldn't feel that these hearings are important.
And again, I'm glad the president welcomes them.
The question is, is what is the that I don't know the answer to?
What's the scope of this program?
Who's being listened to?
All right.
Does that inspire you?
No, not particularly.
Well, that's that's that's Maverick John McCain of the president of the media.
Uh and he says he doesn't know if the president broke the law, and that's why we need hearings.
And he wants to know who's being listened to and what's the scope of this program.
I the way to analyze this, imagine if McCain were president, had authorized the same program to go ahead and protect the American people.
Uh would he have the same questions about his own activity and behavior?
He knows George W. Bush.
You know, this this is does is is this sound like the kind of guy that you as a conservative Timothy could rally behind and say, Yep, this is my guy.
No, McCain McCain's not a starter for me.
I mean, I I I couldn't back him.
All right, well, let's give him one but let's give him one more chance.
You may be making a hasty judgment here.
Uh let's stick with the today show.
Uh Matt Wauer interviewing Senator McCain.
He said, Alberto Gonzalez said yesterday and defended this program, saying that when Congress voted on that resolution following 9-11 uh to give the president the power to fight the war on terrorism, they were in fact giving him the power to carry out this policy.
You supported that resolution.
Had you known that that would have been part of the resolution, would you have supported it?
Well, of course I would have supported the resolution because I thought it was very important given the threat.
But would you question this policy?
I I'm I did not know that that was that was part of it.
But uh the the attorney general of the United States just made a legal argument.
He should make it at the hearing.
We should hear from other witnesses.
Okay, so so Senator McCain here says he didn't know that that 2001 resolution uh uh would cover the how can you not?
How can you not know that a resolution granting the president's power do whatever is necessary, not allow the president to spy on foreign enemy agents to find out what they're gonna do.
How can you not know that that's what that included?
Well, that's my point, though, Rush.
I mean, he's he's trying to be careful about everything he says, and and I I was concerned that that what you were saying is we need a guy who knows how to be careful, you know, when he talks at Lauer.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You misunderstood.
I said we must be careful in who we choose.
I didn't say we must choose someone careful.
Okay.
Yeah.
We've got to be careful who we choose, and that's that's I mean, that's the bottom line.
And I, like I said, George Allen today, George Allen on the floor of the Senate, when the Democrats, you know, start huffing and puffing about all this uh potential filibuster and stuff, George Allen said, go ahead, make my day.
Just go ahead.
If you want to try to filibuster this nominee, you go right ahead.
Instead of trying to cower in the corner and or or trying to say things to make people uh everywhere like you.
I mean, that that to me is uh death trap because it's not possible.
And I know he knows everything about I know he knows everything about war.
McCain was a prisoner of war.
He understands what it takes to fight the enemy.
He was when he was in that prison, he was hoping damn well we had intelligence to know where he was and how to get him out of there.
And he Yeah, I know that that's that's to me is a little bit disingenuous uh about this the way he answered all these questions.
Thanks, uh Timothy for the phone call.
We'll be right back and continue after this.
Screams of panic.
At the very mention of my name.
A couple interesting little news uh blurbs here from Hasbrook Heights, New Jersey.
A male high school student can wear a skirt to school now after the ACLU reached an agreement with the school officials.
I bet his parents are so proud.
The uh ACLU, no, it's not a kilt.
Uh the ACLU announced the deal yesterday.
It will allow Hasbrook Heights uh school uh Hasburg Heights High School senior to wear a skirt to protest the school's no shorts policy.
The uh district's dress code bans shorts between October 1st and April 15th, but allows skirts.
That's a policy that 17-year-old Michael Coviello believes is discriminatory.
He said, I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention again.
Hmm.
I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense, Coviello said.
The Hasburg Heights Superintendent Joseph Luongo did not return telephone messages left Tuesday seeking comment.
We were talking about school yesterday and why so many boys don't do well in it.
One of the reasons the schools allow skirts year-round is that's one reason to get the guys to show up.
But not this way.
Now, this is interesting, too.
You know this this guy, what's his name?
Uh James Fry, the recovering drug and alcoholic, drug addict, and alcoholic went on Oprah promoted a big book and all that.
And then people came out and said, nah, he's is he's fabricating a lot of the experiences he had, some of the wisdom in there makes sense, but he's fabricating something.
So Oprah, he goes on Larry King with his mother, I guess, uh somebody, and Oprah calls in to defend the book.
Well, a Seattle federal court lawsuit has been filed seeking damages on behalf of consumers who bought this book for the lost time they spent reading it.
Have you heard of this?
But this has happened apparently.
This is the third such lawsuit in America.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday, Seattle attorney Mike Myers lists as plaintiffs two Seattle residents, Shira Paglanawan and Stuart Oswald, who each received or bought the book before news of the book's falsity was disseminated.
The suit, apparently the third of its kind to be filed across the nation, seeks class action status against Fry and the publisher.
The uh the state Seattle attorney, Mike Myers alleges several legal causes for the suit, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
So the guy goes out and writes a book, people go out and buy it.
Book turns out to be fraudulent in some way.
Now these people want a lawsuit for their lost time.
Now there's no I can't find any dollar amount listed here in the suit.
But uh Well I wonder that's a good point.
I wonder if the previous lawsuit was against Bill Clinton for his uh autobiography, My Lies.
Well, that no, because people would have bought that book knowing in advance.
See, this is when you are deceived.
So no, it can't it can't be Clinton's book.
Bob in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes, hi, Rush.
Um, about Hillary.
Yeah.
You're wrong if you don't think she can win.
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
And it's it's very simple.
John Kerry almost won.
He lost by three points.
And he based his whole campaign on three and a half months in a swift vote.
And his background, his voting record was buried.
He made his name in BVAW a bunch of bogus psychopathic radicals he told all these twisted lies about being in Cambodia he goes to Paris and meets with the enemy during Vietnam and and works on their behalf.
All of it was buried and he almost won.
If it hadn't been for the alternative press he would have won.
Yeah, it's not going to happen they're going to bury all her past.
They're going to portray her as a moderate like they did Carrie.
One of the things you have to understand though about Carrie, I think it's a little bit mistaken to compare Kerry to Clinton because in truth, Carrie was an unknown to most of the people in the country.
He was he was he was this you know dog faced senator who didn't do much throughout his career.
And when he runs for president, he had a little bit of officer consider this.
Well it would not go in that think about it.
But the point is everybody knows who Mrs. Clinton is as my point, Mrs. Clinton John Kerry would love the kind of fawning press that Mrs. Clinton has received for thirteen years.
And it's resulted in fifty one percent of the people definitely saying you don't want to vote for her.
Now look at you can sit there and I I I'm not going to disagree with you.
She could win.
I mean anything can happen.
Who knows the future?
I'm just telling you there's no reason to be afraid of it.
Rush, hold on.
Consider Carrie's appearance He looks like Frankenstein.
He's got a boring patrician voice that puts everybody asleep they can't stand it.
All right okay grab it just Bob hang on grab cut thirteen Mike you want to start comparing voices here's John Kerry puts himself to sleep puts everybody asleep contrasted with this I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say we are America that we have a right to debate and disagree with that administration.
Now really I mean you're going from see you're that's my point you're going from one extreme to the other.
Why do you want to be afraid?
Seriously Bob why do you want to be afraid of her?
Because she is something to be afraid of and it fear helps to motivate people.
If it if it wasn't for people like you and me, we got to get out there and stop people like Hillary stop Carrie and we got to keep going because they're going to keep putting up people like Hillary and Carey Yeah and and where's it gotten them?
You know the point is I'm I look it if you want to talk about fear, I'll allow it in this context.
I would be afraid of a Hillary presidency.
I mean I that that who wants that but in terms of running a campaign and dealing with the potential candidacy that she might get nominated, the attitude to have is opposer.
Now if if if part of the campaign is to warn people what will happen issue by issue by issue if she is elected, yeah if you want to call that fear, I think that's just informing people.
I don't th there's a big difference between trying to gin up a bunch of fear and paranoia that uh that than it is you know informing people on the truth and and giving them facts and so forth.
But my I guess I guess when I say that I don't have any fear, I'm really speaking about her inevitability.
I am not one of these people who think and I haven't ever been that she has an inevitability to be elected president or that she has an entitlement to it.
I don't think it's written in the clouds written in stone etched in the beach wherever it gets written that that's uh something this country must have and that she must achieve I just I and a lot of people do and I think when you when you end up being motivated by fear, sometimes it can be a good motivator.
I mean it not but a a lot of times it it uh makes you behave irrationally and assume things that aren't and and and one of the bad things about fear is it goes hand in hand with assumption and assuming things you don't know is a dangerous thing and if fear is going to make you assume negative things and that's not productive either.
So I I'm I'm just trying to point out to you here that despite all of this the spin campaign that has been ginned up on beha on on her behalf for the last thirteen years it hasn't worked uh for a whole host of reasons but the main reason is her there's just there's not that much likeable about her and there really hasn't been the in the sense of entitlement that the media the Democrats have attached to her is as I said in the last hour.
Here she was this uh this this this uh Chicago uh woman that went to school at Yale and and met this horned dog from Arkansas and she could have had a brilliant career on her own.
Do you know she I mean she was a leading feminist light.
She made it plain as day she was a feminist in every possible way.
You could tell by looking.
And she was going to go to all kinds of great heights, and then and then she met and fell in love with little uh the horn dog and gave it all up.
Gave it all up to move to the swamps of Arkansas and had to lower herself to work in some place called the Rose Law Firm, so beneath her talent, so beneath her potential.
Look at the years she sacrificed, and look at what she put up with Jennifer Flowers and who knows who else.
And she stood behind him, and she was the reason he became elected president, and now it's her turn to be rewarded.
And that's been the whole thing that's propelled her.
That's it.
Her health care plan guaranteed well was was a large role in the Republicans winning the house in 1994 in those elections.
Just say we're we're not we're not dealing with somebody here who is um unbeatable, or who is even that formidable.
Here is Bruce in Los Angeles.
Bruce, uh, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to EIB Network.
I Rush, you're the best.
Thank you.
It's a pleasure.
Rush, uh I'm glad to hear that uh these progressives who are the mainstream can wear uh dresses now if they're men.
That cinches it for me, that's for sure.
Anyway, I called because I wanted to let you know that the Democrats really view the American people as potential collateral damage.
They won't.
What do you mean by that?
Okay.
They were looking at the numbers for the soldiers they supposedly support, and one thousand that really made their day.
Two thousand, they're in Hogheaven.
They are looking at us, everybody here, as potential collateral damage because they are hoping that we get hit so they can turn it right around and really, really go after Bush, and the collateral damage is whoever gets hurt here.
Let me tell you, let me tell you something.
You know, I'm gonna I'm gonna grant that you have a point, but I'm gonna take your point in a different way.
Using your your um your your possibility here that we get hit again, if we get hit again, does anybody really think the Democrats are going to be able to gain from it?
They are the ones who are drying to if if if there's one person out there trying to do everything humanly possible to prevent it, who is it?
It's George W. Bush.
It is not any of the Democrats.
This collateral damage business, you've got me thinking about that, because if in in one context, you you might be right, it's a little tough to say, but hear me out.
The Democrats actually, as Carl Rove said, as we've been saying here for a long time, want to convince as many people as possible that we're actually living in a pre-9-11 world.
They were trying to construct scenarios that uh are only realistic if 9-11 didn't happen.
So 9-11, eh, it's terrorism.
Yeah, we can't stop it.
Yeah, it's gonna happen now and then.
Some are gonna be worse than others.
Yes, Americans are gonna be lost.
Does it worth going into a rock?
Is it worth the war on terror?
Is it worth the human treasure that we are losing?
Blah, blah, blah.
So in that sense, you could say if they're not really going to fight terrorism all that much, because it's not that big a deal.
9-11 certainly is not that big a deal to them based on everything they've been saying and doing since, other than the first two months, then you could say losing an American here, there, a couple over there, collateral damage.
No big deal.
Now that might accurately describe them in terms of your collateral damage assessment.
Thanks for the call, Bruce.
I appreciate it.
We'll be back with much more right after this on the EIB network.
Stay with us.
So I'm getting all these emails.
When are you gonna tell us the perfect woman?
I may have I may have bitten off what I can chew, folks.
I stood on it two hours last night, and I just I mean, I think it's a flawed concept.
Uh but people are sending in their own ideas of uh perfect fact.
Who?
I don't know.
I mean, subscribers of the website.
Uh let's see, let's see.
Here's one.
Rush, I found the perfect girl.
I couldn't ask for more.
She's deaf and dumb, over sexed, and owns a liquor store.
Uh other people are taking it a little bit more seriously, but they're still quite.
I have speaking of all this, anyway, quite.
If if this if this high school senior at Hasbrook Heights high school in um in New Jersey can wear a dress, is it okay for Hillary to wear one now?
No.
Let's go back one more.
I'll tell you about the girls at the Hope.
The ones wearing the Denver Bronck.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, you say well, but you don't know what the story is.
At any rate, we got one more audio soundbite here, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Senator McCain, after he finished with Matt O'Wour on the Today Show, went over to Julie Chen at the uh early show on CBS.
Or maybe he was there first, I don't know.
And uh she says, Senator, how do you personally feel about these these wiretaps and spying all the domestic uh citizens?
Uh not only are you a lawmaker, you are also a citizen.
If you are on a phone call to somewhere overseas and you found out the government was listening in, how would you feel about it?
I wouldn't like that just because of the privacy concerns.
There have been allegations that there are Al-Qaeda sales in the United States of America, and they're listening in on that, and I think all of us, including me, would support that.
That's why I think we need to understand the parameters of the program.
So is it tough luck on those who are not talking to Al-Qaeda operatives who get their phone calls listened in on?
Yeah, I don't know whether they are or not.
The administration claims that only those uh suspected uh Al-Qaeda members who are suspected terrorists are those who are being eavesdropped upon.
Look, fuck can we be realistic?
It's going to happen.
Do you understand that despite the fact nobody wants it to, there are people that get in car accidents every day?
It just happens.
There's a there's a term for it.
Expletive happens.
There's nothing in the country or in the world that is perfect.
There probably have been people who have been talking on a phone to somebody overseas, and their phone call was logged or something.
But I'll I'll bet you 10 to 1, none of them have have been approached subpoena less.
They're talking to Al-Qaeda.
And that's that's the right answer.
I mean, look, you go into war and soldiers get killed.
It's it happens.
You know, it there's there are unfortunate things happen here.
There's a there there's a price for everything, but to demand perfection uh in in in a program like this is simply absurd.
Notice, though, as a despite all of these fears and all of these complaints, not one of these people who object to this program have suggested that it be canceled.
Gauntlet's been thrown down.
Now now I'm supposed to tell everybody what the perfect man is, too, huh?
All that in due course.
USA Today.
Look at this headline.
Young earners face intense financial challenge.
Uh this is new.
When has this not been the case?
When has it not been the case that young earners face an intense financial challenge?
No, don't give me that Clinton economy stuff.
I mean, this is just more worthless recycled news designed to make it look like the economy is horrible.
This is always the case.
This is human nature.
It's it's just the way things are.
What are we all supposed to graduate from college and be making whatever we expect to make when we're 40 or 50?
It's not news, it's just it's just it's a it's a hoot.
Why kids are struggling in America?
Why?
▲
Export Selection