All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
February 1, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, welcome back, folks.
Here we are plodding along as we do our real radio program here today talking about the Democrats and the liberals and their childish, immature, baby-like behavior.
Yeah, I know Bush is on fire, and that's why we're, I, I, I, I met a lot of people.
He's in Nashville, the Grand O'Lopri, and he is on fire.
People, I'm getting lots of emails about it.
Uh, he is on a roll, contrary to everything.
He had a bad year.
I've finally figured it out.
Well, I've gotten partial in.
Why am I so fed up?
Why?
I mean, I am literally bored, folks.
And I'm not acting out here.
I mean, I just, I watched the speech last night.
It was a great speech.
I watched the media coverage.
I listened to Democrats, and it's predictable.
I know exactly what they're going to do and say before they do and say it.
And it's childish and purile.
And that's the thing.
You know, I've always been honest with you people.
I have never wanted kids.
I don't know how to talk to them.
Goo-goo, goo-goo.
I have more substantive conversations with my cat than I know how to have with the children.
It's not the kids' fault.
It's me.
I just, at any rate, I feel like I'm dealing with a bunch of kids, feeling with a bunch of children watching and listening to these people.
Here, this is just classic.
Joe Biden says he's going to, he's more likely now.
He's going to run for president because he's got a lot of money.
He raised some money.
He thinks he did a great job in the hearings on Alito.
So he's on the situation room with Wolf Blitzer last night.
And Wolf said to him, now keep in mind, Joe Biden never makes things up, right?
Joe Biden does not plagiarize.
Joe Biden never, never makes things up.
Do you remember that?
And Wolf says, I know when you were in Jerusalem last week, you had a conversation with Bob Woodruff of ABC News just before he left to go to Iraq.
Share with us a little bit of how that conversation went.
Now, where does this question come from?
This question comes from the pre-interview.
Wolf's producer will get on the phone with Biden.
What do you want to talk about, Senator?
Well, you know, I'd like to talk about Bob Woodruff.
Oh, and so Wolf gets the cue.
I know that you were in Jerusalem last week.
You had a conversation with Bob Woodruff of ABC News.
Share with us, Senator Biden, a little bit of how that conversation went.
Bob and I were literally walking out the door, and he grabbed me and he gave me his card.
He said he wanted to talk to me, and he said he's going to Iraq.
I'd been there.
What is it like?
I said, Bob, it's a lot more dangerous than it ever has been, than it ever has been.
Do not take any chances.
I mean, I feel guilty that I didn't say to him what I started to say, which was, and don't go with the Iraqis.
Don't get in any of their convoys.
They are not equipped.
They are not capable.
They're much more vulnerable than we are.
And not that if I said that, it wouldn't have made any difference.
But he looked at me and he said, well, you know, I got to go.
And I said, well, I know you have to go, but just be careful, man.
And Woodruff is still on the ventilator, so nobody can ask him about this.
Do you believe?
So has there ever been a more perfectly tailored answer to a question in hindsight than this?
Look, I said, Bob, don't go, man.
It's more dangerous there than ever.
Fits the template the Democrats have proposed.
And don't, whatever you do, Bob, don't go with the Iraqis.
They can't handle it.
They're no good.
Democrats trying to counter the notion that the Iraqi security forces are becoming better equipped to handle the circumstances as we draw down our troop levels.
I mean, I feel guilty that I didn't say to him what I started to say, which was, and don't go with the Iraqis.
So he actually didn't say that to Bob, but he said, boy, he really wanted to.
Now, remember, Joe Biden never makes things up.
He's never, ever done that, ladies and gentlemen.
So don't start thinking that.
Now, along the lines of this, I knew this was the case.
We were talking about this on Monday, just a couple days ago.
UPI has this story.
Some U.S. troops question Woodruff coverage.
The American media stood up and took notice when an improvised explosive device grievously injured an ABC News crew on Sunday in Iraq and throughout the military.
There is sympathy and concern for anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman Doug Vogt, but there's also this question.
An officer stationed in Bakuba, Iraq Monday, wrote in an email, why do you think this is such a huge story?
It's a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page.
I mean, you'd think we'd lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.
I mean, there's a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it.
That's a really impolite and impolitic thing to say, I know, but it's what you would hear over here if you were here and asked us.
About 2,242 troops have died in Iraq since the war's start.
1,753 of them killed in action.
Another 16,000 have been injured, half of them seriously enough to require evacuation from the battlefield.
According to the Pentagon, 60% of the deaths are the result of these IEDs.
IEDs have injured more than 9,200 troops, nine times more than gunshots.
A senior military officer told UPI on Tuesday, the point that is currently being made is that the press folks are more important than mere military folks.
The unavoidable consequence of war is this.
People are savagely wounded and killed.
Soldiers in Iraq watching the coverage on satellite television and reading the news on the internet are getting the impression that the press has only just discovered this.
Amen.
Well, David Weston said this.
This makes this real for us, he said on Monday.
This makes this real.
Any soldier is going to hear that and go, what?
This makes it real?
It's not quite as simple as that, of course.
Military personnel often express frustration at the media harps on military casualty reports at the expense of what they consider their successes in Iraq.
However, as it promoted its story on Woodruff and Vote Monday evening, the local ABC News affiliate in Washington showed a montage of exploding vehicles in Iraq, footage culled largely from insurgents who videotaped the attacks and post them on websites to advertise or magnify their successes.
And it's that video ABC showed, not their own.
The families of the 76 troops killed and 533 wounded in action in Iraq from the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland might say the war had already come home.
It's just a bit frustrating to see something so dramatized it happens every day to some 20-year-old American or worse to 10, 30-year-old Iraqi soldiers or cops alongside us.
Some of the stories don't even mention the Iraqi casualties in this attack as if they're meaningless, wrote the officer in Bakuba.
Catherine Montgomery, professor at American University's Screwel of Communication, has been thinking the same thing.
When you see the kind of coverage this story is getting, it draws attention to the lack of coverage that hundreds of cases don't get.
So, does this surprise you?
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, folks.
So, and now Senator Biden trying to capitalize on this.
I just told him not to go.
The Iraqis are horrible.
I wanted to tell him, don't go with the Iraqis.
Oh, it's more dangerous than it's ever.
This is the most self-serving, pathetic answer to a question I've heard in a long time.
A quick timeout.
We will be back.
By the way, here's the phone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
And Vice President Cheney will be our guest for a few minutes at bottom of the hour, 2.33 Eastern Time this afternoon.
Don't go away, folks.
Hi, welcome back, folks.
Terrific to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
This is Lane in Jackson, Michigan.
Hello, Lane.
Hi, Rush.
Megadittos from Jackson.
Thank you.
I just, as I was watching the speech last night, I just kept, my mind kept going back to the back in the 90s, I think it was, when the Democrats were hollering about gridlock in Washington.
And that's exactly what's going on with these guys.
They're not responding to anything that the president is saying.
This is an excellent observation.
When the Democrats run the show and Republicans block what they want to do legislative, it's called gridlock and we get worried about the future of our democracy and our representative government.
And the media starts wringing its hands.
Is gridlock good or bad?
Gridlock is bad.
Now it's called partisanship.
It's called the partisan divide.
And it's all, of course, the fault of George W. Bush.
That's excellent observation.
I'm glad you called with that, Lane.
Let's, yeah, Ed in Levittown, Pennsylvania.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
I'm a fan of your shows.
Thanks, sir.
Thank you very much.
I was kind of wondering, the president didn't mention exploring for oil.
We don't have the technology right now for these so-called future fuels.
And what do you think on that?
You know, when I saw that last night, that's why the laundry list kind of bothers me.
I think the president should have hammered the Democrats on this energy business.
And there's a great editorial in Investors Business Daily Today, which really points out that American oil companies can't drill for oil anymore in America.
They have to go around the world to do it, which raises costs.
That we've got quite a lot of oil to go get in the offshore areas and in Anwar and so forth.
The president didn't talk about that at all because he wanted to talk about the alternative energy angle.
And that's just a political thing to throw in there in the laundry list that everybody will forget, but it serves its purpose the moment it's heard.
But they, at the Investors Business Daily, they say that this whole, the environmentalists are serving almost the role of terrorists by denying the United States its own efforts to become energy independent by putting all these restrictions on our ability to go get our own oil.
Now, if the president's going to say we're addicted to oil and we've got to reduce our dependence on these unstable governments that it comes from, hello, Hugo Chavez, then it would only make sense because we are an oil-driven economy.
And I don't care what he said last night, we're not going to be a switchgrass-driven economy anytime soon.
And we're not going to become a hydrogen-driven economy.
We're not going to become a windmill farm-driven economy.
And we're not going to become whatever other stupid, silly panacea these leftists have in mind to come up with alternatives to energy.
We are an oil-based economy, and there's plenty of it.
But we're not allowed to go get it because these environmentalists have ruled the day.
And it is a security problem.
And I wish the president had hammered the Democrats on this.
Speaking of this nuclear business, you know, I mentioned about an hour ago that after watching the dismal performance by, what's his name, the governor of Virginia?
Tim Kaine.
Yeah, after watching this dismal performance, it is suddenly made itself known to me that there's no one Democrat that can do this.
There's not a single Democrat that's going to go out there and succeed in delivering the response.
And I suggested a round table that perhaps Saddam do a minute and then Michael Moore do a minute and then Al Jazeera gets a minute to react.
I mean, all these people use Democrat talking points and new faces, new passion.
The president of Iran is full of Democrat talking points.
In fact, he did a response to the president's State of the Union speech in a speech that was broadcast on Iranian state television.
And he said that his country will not submit to bullying over its nuclear program.
And so this Iranian president is echoing the American liberals and the American leftists because they think we're bullies.
They call us bullies all the time.
Hours earlier, President Bush had said that the world should not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Speaking to crowds in Iran, at a place where his country's first nuclear reactor was built, this wacko president said, I am telling those fake superpowers that the Iranian nation became independent 27 years ago on the nuclear case it will resist until fully achieving its rights.
Our nation cannot step back because of the bullying policies of some countries in the world.
But he wasn't through using Democrat talking points.
He said, those whose arms are stained up to the elbow with the blood of other nations are now accusing us of violating human rights and freedoms.
The Iranian nation is the standard-bearer of freedom and human rights.
Bush in his State of the Union address described Iran as a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people.
So here you have this loony-tune president of Iran saying that he's talking about us, our arms stained up to the elbow with the blood of other nations, now accusing us of violating human rights and freedoms.
Doesn't Jimmy Carter say the same thing?
Doesn't Madeline Albright say the same thing?
She doesn't like us being the only superpower.
We're too big a bully.
The American left is replete with examples of how we have no moral superiority to anybody.
Look what we did to the Indians.
Look what we did to the blacks.
Look what we did to what we did to the women.
Look what we've done to the animals in our own country.
We deny people civil rights.
Our own president's a terrorist, folks, according to the American left.
He's spying on Americans, innocent Americans.
He's worse than Hitler.
Now, this is why I say the Democrats should have co-opted this guy instead of letting his speech be heard only by Iranians, make him part of the official response team.
The next time there is an opportunity for the Democrats to do an official response to some presidential speech.
Now, Ronald Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times has written of the State of the Union speech last night.
The headline of his piece is written this way, to still midterm waters, Bush's agenda is cautious.
His speech shifts from high-concept plans to those easier to deliver on ahead of 2006 elections.
And here's how he opens the story.
Chastened, deferential, modest.
You know, if I heard one of these lib analysts say modest, describe Bush as modest, I must have heard it 10 times today on the cable networks.
Modest.
It was certainly modest.
These are totally inaccurate descriptions, as is the description of the speech as cautious.
These people, they don't even realize when they have been spanked.
They don't realize when they've had their head handed to them on a silver platter like happened last night.
They think Bush was timid, cautious, deferential, reserved.
Because, of course, Bush is having a bad, bad, bad, bad year.
Well, the American people are in the throes of a depression, unlike we've ever seen.
Gas prices are at an all-time high.
Housing prices are at an all-time high.
There are soup lines everywhere.
Nobody's happy, and it's Bush's fault.
And I swear I cannot find those circumstances anywhere I go.
I mean, everybody's, yeah, I saw a poll the other day.
76% of the American people want health care to be cheaper and more readily available.
Well, hell yeah, everybody wants the phone bill to be cheaper.
Everybody wants everything to be cheaper.
There's no news in that.
Everybody thinks gas prices go up too much and are too high.
But they don't have the opinion of their country shaped by such things.
I don't think their country is in a rotten shape or rotten condition because of it.
The Democrats have just created all of these myths that they now believe.
They believe they're fake poll results.
I just printed this out.
Bush is really scoring big or did score big in his speech at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville.
Here's the AP first write-up of it.
Headline, Bush tries to ride post-speech momentum.
Encumbered by some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, Bush hoped to take charge of the agenda at the start of a year that will see races for most of Congress and 36 governorships.
After kicking off the fall campaign season, President Bush took to the road Wednesday to capitalize on the attention surrounding his State of the Union speech last night.
He's trying to ride post-speech momentum, encumbered by some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.
So Bush is out there floundering and flip-flopping away, folks, and he has no clue what he's doing.
He's just lost.
He's out there meandering all over the place.
Can't find his footing.
American people hate his guts.
Gas price is too high.
Nobody has health care.
They're sick and tired of all the good news that's going on because there really isn't good news.
They're tired of how Bush has made this partisan country.
They're mad at Bush because he's made the Democrats appear the way they appear.
It's just horrible out there.
That's their template.
That's their action line.
And it's childish, silly, irresponsible, unprofessional, immature, and boring.
Big time, boring with a capital B. We'll be back with the Vice President after this timeout.
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
And as always, we are thrilled and excited to have with us the Vice President of the United States with us for a precious few minutes, Vice President Dick Cheney.
Welcome, sir.
As always, we're happy to have you here.
Well, good afternoon, Rush.
So a couple questions here to get started.
You've seen so many of these State of the Union addresses.
You've seen them from the chair you sat in last night for a number of years.
You've seen them as a member of Congress.
You've seen them as a cabinet member.
How have they changed over the years in your experience?
Well, I was just thinking about that last night.
The first one I ever saw was the first time I was ever on the floor of the House.
I was a young staffer.
I just arrived here for Lyndon Johnson's last State of the Union speech.
He went up before Congress in January of 69 before Nixon was sworn in and addressed the Congress one last time.
It's changed a lot.
Obviously, it's always affected by what's going on in the world at the time.
In those days, it was in the aftermath of TAPS in 1968, of course, which had been kind of a horrific year in American politics with assassinations and riots.
And he was a bit of a tragic figure at that point, but clearly those issues dominated, dominated the country.
And I think probably more than anything else, it's that sense that the times we live in are oftentimes reflected in what goes on on the floor of the House.
Now, one of the themes today that I have seen repeated, and I think some elements are trying to cement this theme, is that, and everybody that watched saw this, the Democrats refuse to applaud the ideas of victory, freedom, security, those kinds of things.
This is being positioned today as the result of the president's polarizing partisanship.
In other words, the Democrats refusing to stand, refusing to applaud is the president's fault.
Yeah, no, I watched sitting up there, it's quite a spot to be there behind the president.
So you sit there with the speaker and look out at the crowd, and you probably got a better view than anybody else of what's going on on the floor among the members.
And my recollection is this sort of a partisan response, if you will, to the president's speeches is something that's developed maybe over the last 20 years, maybe since the Reagan years.
Of course, I wasn't there during the Clinton years, and so I can't compare it precisely to that.
I'm sure you're sad about that.
I am.
I'm broken up about it, Rush.
But the fact is, it's gotten ⁇ I think it's unfortunate the way it's gotten now.
It's partly a reflection of the problem the President talked about a little bit last night in terms of just the tone in Washington.
It's gotten bitterly partisan.
We saw, for example, what the Democrats in the Senate tried to do to Sam Alito.
A fine man, impeccable credentials, nominated the Supreme Court, and they did everything they could to trash him during the confirmation process.
And it's too bad.
Nobody likes operating that way, at least certainly we don't, but that's oftentimes a fact of life these days.
Well, is that kind of thing, I know the speech text gets out in advance.
Do you think that that kind of response is planned and orchestrated?
They go through the speech, we will not applaud here, we won't applaud there, because it seems that it all occurs in such unison.
I ask you this because I don't know.
I'm just a viewer watching it like everybody else watches it last night.
Yeah, I can't say how much planning goes in on the other side.
The speech is usually fairly closely held until the president gets the, although copies are distributed to the members in advance of the actual speech.
But I think if you look at the president's speech last night and the themes and the ideas that were in it, these are concepts that all Americans ought to be able to support.
Would you call that speech?
Would you call that speech cautious?
It's been said that it was the last word I would associate with it, I thought it was bold.
I thought the statement of American values, the statement of American future was just I loved it.
I don't see where people in the media today calling this cautious and deferential and modest.
No, I would agree with you, Rush.
The thing that amazes me about the way this president goes about these speeches, he puts an enormous amount of time and effort into them.
And I've watched several different administrations, and everybody has their own approach.
But when the president's got a major speech like this, the second inaugural or one of his State of the Union addresses, this is George Bush.
He spends hours on it, goes through, I think this one went through over 30 drafts.
He had strong concepts that he wanted to talk about.
He wanted to talk in broad philosophical propositions to some extent.
He wanted to talk about big themes.
He did not want to get into just a shopping list, you know, of 40 or 50 different items, as oftentimes State of the Union speeches do.
I thought it was one of the best State of the Union speeches I'd ever heard because it was broadly thematic and did hit on what I thought were some major, major items.
A couple of policy questions here before you go.
In his focus on energy independence last night, for the first time in a long time, the President did not refer to drilling at Anwar.
Is that off the table for you all?
No, it's not off the table by any means.
We'll keep pushing it because we think it makes eminent good sense.
And we came very close in the last session to getting it, and we'll keep working on it.
But what he wanted to emphasize last night, of course, he took a long-term view here, reaching out as much as 20 years in terms of the effort to reduce our imports, but the emphasis on technology, the ability to pursue what we think are some imminent breakthroughs in the R ⁇ D area that are going to allow us to produce more of the energy we need, even for our transportation system here at home.
So energy has been a constant theme since we got here.
It's still going to be a big one going forward, but I thought this was a bold proposition last night.
There's nothing that is in any way limited or timid when you talk about those kinds of basic fundamental changes to our economy.
The next question in policy is Social Security.
The one time I recall the Democrats really standing ensuring in a partisan nature was when the President acknowledged that his attempt to reform Social Security last year had failed.
What's the status of Social Security reform?
Because the President followed that by saying it's still broken and still needs to be fixed.
Is that still on the agenda?
It is on the agenda.
Of course, the proposal that's on the table now that we'll go ahead and proceed with is to put together a commission that includes Democratic as well as Republican members of Congress, sitting members of Congress, and sit down with them and begin to have them address this issue and look at the problem of the retirement of the baby boomers, both with respect to Social Security and Medicare.
And the Medicare is an even bigger problem than Social Security is.
And I think the sense he had last night was the President has been pushing hard on it.
He campaigned on this twice.
He obviously was a centerpiece of our program last year.
We ran into a brick wall to some extent in the Congress, and the Democrats cheered at the fact that we hadn't been able to make any progress.
But then he came right back and reminded him of the end.
But the problem's still there, folks.
We have to address this issue.
It's going to be a huge, huge mountain for us to climb.
The longer we wait, every year that goes by and we don't address it, the problem becomes more severe.
Well, you nailed it.
They cheered the lack of progress.
Great way to put it.
One final thing.
Iraq, how is it going?
Rocky security forces and their training and their ability to take over some of the security roles as we draw down our troops whenever that begins.
The incident involving the ABC crew is given birth now to the new idea that the Iraqi security forces just aren't prepared, and that whole story is a myth.
Yeah, I think the Iraqi security forces are doing very well, Russia.
I was there just a few weeks ago and spent part of the day with Iraqi security forces and our folks who were training them up at Taji, frankly, right near where the ABC crew were wounded.
It's an impressive operation.
Our guys are doing a superb job, and the Iraqis are signing up and taking the training and getting equipped and taking on more and more responsibility.
I think we've got some 40 Iraqi battalions now that are taking the lead in their relative areas of responsibility.
So the combination of what we're doing on the security front as well as what's happening in the political arena as they put together this new government, those two things together, obviously, are going to be the key to our success over there.
And we are making progress.
We are having significant success.
It's been less than three years since we arrived, and we've come a long way, and the Iraqis have come a long way.
It's hard.
It's tough.
It's a difficult challenge without question, but it's absolutely one of those conflicts that we can win.
The only way we're going to lose this is if we quit, and there's no quit in this administration.
Senator Biden said on CNN last night that he had warned Bob Woodruff not to go to Iraq because the security forces there are just no good.
It was dangerous, more dangerous than it's ever been.
Did Senator Biden warn you not to go before you last went?
No, he didn't, but I didn't really discuss my drift with him.
He didn't have the opportunity.
Good.
All right, Vice President Cheney, thanks so much for your time.
It's always a thrill to have you with us, and we enjoy talking to you immensely.
Well, it's a privilege to be on your show, Rush.
Thank you.
Good luck to you.
Vice President Cheney, who did not get a warning from Senator Biden not to go to Iraq, as he warned Bob Woodruff of ABC.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
That's what Biden said he did in just a moment.
Here's the latest on Mother Sheehan.
She's now claiming police brutality, ladies and gentlemen.
She's so mad that she wasn't allowed to disrupt last night's State of the Union speech that she intends to file a lawsuit claiming she was brutalized by Capitol Hill cops who suppressed her First Amendment freedoms.
She said, I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it.
Said this in a message posted to several Looney Tunes left-wing websites in Kooksville after she was arrested and then released on her own recognizance.
She also contends she suffered emotional trauma, complaining, I'm so upset and sore, it's hard to think straight.
I don't know how we'd know the difference.
I mean, that's what I was going to say.
When did she ever?
What's her base of comparison?
The Bush-bashing Gold Star mom says she wants to take legal action, announcing, I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight.
I'll file it.
It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.
Capitol Hill officer ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly, with my hands behind my back, shoved me up the stairs.
She said, I'm going.
Do you have to be so rough?
She said, after the officer was informed that she was a big celebrity, the abusive treatment stopped.
You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the stairs, she recalled telling the Capitol Guard, Cindy, it's tough out there in the peace movement.
Did they what?
No, taser her?
I know there's nothing in the story about her being tasered.
Once again, if they had, how would anybody know?
Those spasms are, they happen all the time.
It's when she opens her mouth.
Now, this governor, this so-called moderate governor from Virginia who did that lame response to the president last night.
Washington Times has this story.
Immigration, not a top issue for Virginia residents, he says.
There may be more than 40 immigration-related bills in the works this year in Richmond, but all that attention in the General Assembly on illegal aliens is misdirected, Governor Timothy Kaine said yesterday.
I don't believe immigration is one of the top issues in Virginia, if you ask Virginians.
I mean, it does matter to a number of people, but compared to jobs, education, and healthcare, transportation, it's pretty far down.
Some moderate.
Some moderate.
And how about this?
Have you seen this story?
Credit and bank card numbers of as many as 240,000 subscribers of the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram and Gazette were inadvertently distributed with bundles of TNG newspapers on Sunday.
The confidential information was on the back of paper used in wrapping newspaper bundles for distribution to carriers and retailers.
As many as 9,000 bundles of the TNG, that again is the Telegram and Gazette, wrapped in paper containing subscribers' names and their confidential information, were distributed Sunday to 2,000 retailers and 390 carriers in the Worcester area.
In addition, routing information for personal checks of 1,100 Telegram and Gazette subscribers also may have been inadvertently related.
And these people are harping all over Bush, spying on everybody.
These people are harping all over the NSA, and here they're giving away the credit and personal data information of all of their subscribers, or a good number of their subscribers.
Here's Kennon Alexandria, Virginia.
Hi, Ken.
Welcome to the program.
Good morning.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Megha Dittos from Virginia.
Thanks, sir.
A couple of things on this.
Timothy Kane, I watched the entire State of the Union speech, and I watched about 10 minutes of Tim McCain before I fell asleep.
That's all there was.
You didn't miss anything.
I didn't miss anything.
Good.
He campaigned basically on the traffic congestion in North Virginia.
As everyone around here knows, it's just terrible and getting worse by the day.
The problem was that he never made clear what he was going to do about it.
And we didn't have any conservative reporters asking him pointed questions like, what was he going to do?
And so when he came into office, I don't think he was in office two days before he stated that he was going to seek to have a law passed that allowed local governments to restrict or to stop development.
That doesn't sound to me like it's going to reduce any traffic congestion.
No, it's only going to make the state poorer and drive other people out of it.
It could have, however, a beneficial effect.
And that is if there's no development, the migrant workers or illegal aliens that are doing day labor will have to move elsewhere.
Well, but that's not a big problem in Virginia.
We just found that he doesn't.
He doesn't think that's not a big problem.
But traffic, traffic, now that's a problem.
And we've got, I mean, we can't deal with this traffic.
Traffic in Virginia is worse than it is anywhere else.
We've got to do so.
So we're going to stop building.
Well, that's right.
The new national spokesman, this guy that the Democrats are holding up as their guiding light for the future, big issue is traffic and the way he's going to deal with it, stop development.
I hope the Democrats keep these people out front in front of the cameras.
Nothing could be better for the rest of us.
Oh, they will.
They will.
Democrats think these people are stars.
By the way, Mr. Snerdley thinks that Mother Sheehan may have a case in her harassment suit against the Capitol Hill police.
Because she said she was humiliated.
She was forced to walk while restrained.
And some other descriptions of her treatment.
And it sounds suspiciously just, I mean, identical to the kind of things that Senators Durbin and Kennedy were upset about in terms of what was going on in Abu Ghraib.
So she might be able to claim torture.
And it'd be interesting if she claims torture.
She was treated no differently than the great freedom fighters from al-Qaeda when we capture them and put them in our rotten, stinking resorts.
Quick timeout.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
Connalisa Rice says she's going to go to the Super Bowl.
She's picked the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Said she got burned picking against them all during the playoffs.
She's now a convert.
Kofi Annan offered a grim assessment of Kosovo's progress towards stability, saying in a report that Kosovo had fallen behind in efforts to create a multi-ethnic and democratic society.
Not good news for Bill Clinton.
And you'd have to say the UN is doing a bang-up job in Haiti, too.
Right?
Consumer confidence is its highest in three and a half years.
But I keep hearing on the news, the American people are down in a dump's doom and gloom, high energy prices, and nobody's happy.
I keep hearing that on the news.
But consumer confidence from the conference board, highest it's been in three and a half years.
All right, folks, we're out of here.
We're finished.
It's over.
We'll be back tomorrow and do it all over again.
▲
Export Selection