All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
February 20, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sometimes I must be honest.
Some of you uh wonderful people out there just frustrate me to no end.
I'm checking the email here during the uh break top of the hour.
Hey, this is really funny first hour, and I can't help laughing myself still, but what about the serious stuff?
What about the issues?
What what about what about the ports and the Arabs, the Arab Emirates owning our ports?
So I hang my head and frustration and near depression.
Where were you last week?
When we talked about it, this program is on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program of the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Glad to have you.
The uh telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-288-2.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, let me very succinctly describe this uh United Arab Emirates port deal.
I I I just I spent 30 minutes on this last week.
I even told you about my trip to Dubai, described who these people are, what they're trying to went through the whole thing.
It was up on the website.
Why aren't you talking about the point deal?
We try to look forward on this program.
We stay on the cutting edge.
But let me just very succinctly, and I I know that some of you can have problem with this.
Economically, it is a good deal.
Just from a pure economics standpoint, it is a good deal.
Politically, it's a disaster.
And so what do we do?
What do we do?
Well, I guarantee you what's gonna happen.
We're gonna come down on the political side.
We've got we've got Republicans out there in Congress who we can't do this as crazy.
We've got we've got uh uh Chuck Schumer with a press conference uh with one of the fathers of uh person that was killed at 9-11 saying the president's gone insane.
Um I I'll repeat myself.
I guess I'm gonna have to because people are at the point deal.
Let's look at the strict economics of this.
We don't operate the ports now.
The British do.
A British firm operates the port.
Yes, respect there are ally.
I know that, but point is it's foreign ownership.
Now the second thing is the British sold the ports to the United Arab Emirates.
Okay, so the United Arab Emirates, uh, their seven emirates that make up the UAE.
I've been to Dubai.
Dubai is it's just amazing.
You fly in there, you I floor some of the ugliest, most desolate-looking desert I've ever.
Desert in this country is is an oasis compared to the desert I flew over and in getting there.
And then out of nowhere rises this city that makes Las Vegas look like an anthill.
And it is uh the hotels are all uh uh Europeanized and and uh Americanized.
Every sign is up in English uh with Arab com uh compliments as well, but uh clearly what the emirates are doing uh is is building a a haven in that part of the world uh for Europeans and Americans to invest in, and it's working.
Uh the amount of money that is going in over there and building this place up is just as it's astounding.
And I met with uh I met with some diplomatic people when I was there for a half a day, and uh they're big fans and they were sold on it.
But admittedly, these are State Department people, so uh that went in one ear and out the other.
In fact, that raised a couple red flags.
You know how I am about the State Department.
But the uh United Arab Emirates uh still are the United Arab Emirates, and they are they are not they have not been given an all-clear on uh ties to terrorism.
They have just the opposite.
But let's look at the economy, what are they paying?
Eight billion for this or something, isn't it?
The price tag for this, eight billion.
Let's just look at the economics.
It's it's a strictly theory economics.
Forget the politics of this for a moment.
I I know some of you don't care about the economics, the politics is all that mattered, but um, I'm telling you, and they're there are two different ways of looking at this, and economically it's it's it it makes all the sense in the world.
I went through last week how we, you know, we had this fear of the Japanese when they bought up the Rockefeller Center Trust, they were buying up buildings in Japanese or in California, and everybody thought that we're gonna end up having Japanese bosses and that the Japanese are gonna infiltrate America and destroy our culture, and everybody's gonna have a geisha girl, which I was all for.
Uh but it didn't happen.
It did it it didn't happen.
the Japanese are having their own economic problems now, but all those scare theories didn't.
I know the Japanese didn't threaten us with terrorism.
If you go back and those we're talking about the 80s, you didn't need the fear of terrorism.
There was this fear of a cultural takeover that we were selling off parts of this country that we shouldn't be selling.
We can make, okay, go ahead and sell our debt, sell investment uh in government bonds, but don't sell off the actual infrastructure of the country.
There was all this paranoia about it.
And it didn't materialize.
Now, economically, these people are gonna own the port.
They do not want their own property blown up.
I don't care who they are.
They don't want their own property blown up, and they're not gonna buy these ports for the express purpose of blowing up those ports.
And I may they may buy the ports for the express purposes of allowing unsavory types, but it's not going to be United Arab Emirates law that governs the union contracts, who gets hired.
It's all going to come down to our own laws.
It's all going to come down to how we deal with immigration.
It's all going to come down to how we negotiate union contracts.
It's all going to come down to U.S. law in administering these ports, Coast Guard, all these uh agencies are still going to play the same role that they would play when the British owned these ports.
Uh uh in a the the I guess the popular fear is that the Arab Emirates have so much money that they would gladly pay eight billion dollars to facilitate entry to the country in order to blow up parts of the country or to facilitate terrorist acts, and that's where the political aspect of this comes in.
You can't ignore that.
In a post-9-11 era, you simply cannot ignore it.
And in a political sense, it appears tone-deaf to makes no sense whatsoever politically, of all the foreign owners that we could solicit of all the foreign owners that are out there, the United Arab Emirates, who is lost their minded?
I can totally understand that reaction to this.
And if you were listening on Friday, that that was my concluding thought.
Maybe it was Thursday, I forget when it was that we talked about it.
It's a shame, though, because economically uh it it it's it is a good deal.
Go if you if you want, if you can find one anymore.
See, economics is not taught in this country in high school anymore, college really.
And so the whole economic aspect of this is totally missed and forgotten because people are ignorant too.
They just haven't been taught.
But if you could find one, if you could find a very good PhD in economics as an open-minded teacher, he'll tell you that if you just look at the economics of it, slam dunk good deal.
But politically, I don't think it has a prayer.
And and it probably uh given the post-9-11 world shouldn't have a prayer.
Uh, and it it's they're gonna have to pull back from it now.
They're just too much inside the beltway opposition.
What's interesting, though, here's the thing that's fascinating.
Last week on our New York affiliate, our flagship, WABC AM77, John Gambling, who hosts the two hours prior to this program, had on Ann Compton of the White House press corps.
She's an ABC.
And he asked her if um if the Cheney story has sort of sucked all the oxygen out of the uh room.
Oh, yeah, yeah, that's the only story anybody cares about in Washington Riders.
And he asked her, well, do you think maybe we ought to be getting some news from you on the potential purchase of our of these six ports uh by the United Arab Emirates?
And she had no clue.
She had no idea that was even happening.
She's uh sort of laughing nervously, uh, John, you're gonna have to get back to me on that.
Maybe send me an email, get me up to speed or something like that, which prompted me to say, I'd like to get about five or six of these Washington beltway types in here, just do a little pop quiz.
And find out how much they know what's going on outside Washington or outside this administration.
I'm sure Ann Compton's up to speed on it now.
Uh but uh you know, try try this story.
So I think all this is interlinked on the on the political side.
Muslims assault the American embassy in Indonesia.
Makes total sense to me.
Why wouldn't they assault our embassy in Indonesia?
According to former President Clinton, those people publishing those cartoons of uh of the Prophet are criminals.
He said this last week.
He blamed the Europeans and he blamed America for fanning the flames of this opposition, and he totally stood by the concept that uh these publications should not be free to publish this kind of thing.
And he dumps on America, dumps on Europe.
Bam o is it any surprise that Muslims would be enraged and assault the American embassy in Indonesia?
And according to vice president, vice perpetrator Al Gore, the current administration of this country hates Muslims, hates Arabs.
We indiscriminately lock them up and torture them.
So you got Clinton and Gore, the um the uh ad hoc Clinton foreign policy team currently managing our country's foreign relations on foreign soil, encouraging Islamo fascists to riot and and and provoking them.
There's a logical reason for all this.
The Clinton administration's laid out the case.
The West in general, the United States in particular, have made grievous intentional and criminal provocations and have not apologized for it.
There's no excuse for these cartoons.
Clinton thinks ought to be shut down.
These papers that did that ought to be punished.
They ought not be published here.
Let me tell you something, folks.
When you have a former president encouraging activities that would limit freedom of the press, I would think that would interest David Gregory, at least some.
When you have a former president suggesting that the mainstream press decide what to print and not to print because of fear, there's an outfit, a little publication in Boston.
Jeff Jacoby writes this, The Boston Phoenix.
And they admit they're not going to publish those cartoons because they have fear of violent reprisals.
Hello, terrorists win.
Then you have Bill Clinton and Al Gore in Saudi Arabia and wherever Clinton was talking about how these cartoons are bad and that we are mistreating Arabs and Muslims and Saudis and that we are putting them in prison and we're locking them up, throwing away the key, making them go on hunger strikes.
These two guys single-handedly are out fanning the flames of all this.
Does it make the news?
No.
It's not even commented on.
Cheney and this hunting accident remain the big story with the mainstream press this week, both time and newsweek putting that on their cover.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
America's anchor man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, L. Rushbow, serving humanity simply by showing up.
An interesting email here.
Rush, they're not buying the ports.
The UAE babe uh people are not buying the ports, they're buying the container terminals.
In New York and New Jersey, they have a joint venture with the port authority there to improve six berths.
There are five other container ports in New York and New Jersey alone that are not being affected by the purchase.
And then the letter writer points out, I think this is accurate too.
He said, Don't forget DP World, which is the UAE people, is already operating the ports in China, Germany, Hong Kong, and so forth that are shipping us the containers anyway.
So they already own and so now so they should own the world?
No.
Well if they then they're surrounding us.
So I'm telling you politically, this this doesn't have a chance.
It it just doesn't have a prayer.
Brian in Fishkill New York, your next sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Brian, you don't really want to know.
Yeah, uh first of all, uh uh just uh I'm a Louisiana uh native uh up here in Fishkill, and I have an aside about that just real quickly.
Uh if everybody in the Ninth Ward really wants to get crazy, why don't you start with the oil and gas revenue that's been spent in squandered since the days of Huey Long?
Uh truly could have made the streets of New Orleans paved with gold by now.
Anyway, uh just moving on to the city.
That would have meant the money didn't go into the back pockets that it ended up in, and there is your answer to that.
Well, I I worked as uh, you know, as an intern in the Louisiana State Senate, and I just love for people to take a survey down there and find out how many state reps uh you know in the House and the Senate came into office without a paved rope up to their fishing camp.
And after they got into office, how many of them got a paved road up to their fishing camp?
It's just a little quirky kind of survey, but just that's a starter.
Um but I want to talk about this uh port deal.
And it has to do just real quickly, Rush, on how I just, you know, as Americans, uh I think we get tired of being played for chumps, you know, and look what d did you interpret what I said a moment ago as recommending the dealer.
No, sir, not at all.
Oh no.
I'm just expressing my views.
I I I I I hear you loud and clear where you're coming from, and you know, I got it.
Um it may be economically a beautiful thing and politically it just kind of stinks.
But and that's the essence of it.
I mean, we kind of need to look out after our own, for instance, you know, let's just go to the Chinese.
Why did they need to own two sides of the Panama Canal?
Why does Boeing need to sell them airplane wing technology in order to sell planes uh in in China?
You know, it it uh it you know what you're illustrating, it is a global economy.
You you you're you raise a good question.
Why should we let Boeing sell jets to people who are our enemy?
Why because if we don't, Airbus will.
Uh and Boeing is an American company that has to participate in the world.
Uh but I totally understand what you're saying.
Uh th there are a lot of people that don't trust this, are not going to trust this.
Uh it's too close to that region of the world that spawns all this terrorist activity where all these mosques are, uh that are creating all this hatred for Western society.
Uh and it's it's just it just looks like by opening up these six container areas that we are saying, hey, if you can't get into our country in it away, buy your way in if you want to blow us up.
That's how a lot of people hear this, and and and it's why would we do this?
How stupid can we be?
Which I totally understand politically.
When I say to you, go out and find somebody that you trust to tell you the economics of this, just for your own information.
I'm not trying to change your mind or persuade your mind on this because I know it's not possible, and I I'm not even of the mind to do it.
Here's Greg in um in uh in Monroe, Michigan.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Rush, it's a pleasure, and you are the shining hill of the Repar Shining Light on the Hill of the Republican Party.
Now the conservative movement.
I am I I'm not a shining light anywhere in the Republican Party.
I didn't right.
I misspoke.
I think the Republican Party listens to me like every other party does.
Oh my gosh, we gotta deal with this guy too.
Uh well, the reason why I'm calling is I just want I don't think we're giving you or uh this show enough credit on why Gregory apologized.
This show nor me get enough credit for anything that happens in this country.
But uh I I think it's just showing that we actually cause the liberal media to apologize for being themselves.
Well, actually actually uh I would I would love to take credit for this, but I don't like to take credit for things I don't genuinely accomplish.
And when David Gregory said his wife is the reason he apologized, that's good enough for me.
That's I can uh totally believe that.
If he got if he got home at night and his wife started scolding him, I can't compete with the wife when there's an anger contest going on, I'll guarantee you.
Here's Bruce in San Diego, you're next, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Infinite dittoes to you.
Thank you, sir.
Uh a lot of us out here appreciate your uh getting the facts, getting the truth, and uh getting the analysis that we don't have time in our busy lives to do.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
Uh I was wondering why did it take over 48 hours for Dick not for David David Gregory to make his apology public?
Was it to get it?
Well, wait a minute, it was longer than forty-eight hours.
He didn't apologize till Sunday.
It was however many hours in a week.
Was it was it to give him time to sober up or maybe to get drunk and sober up?
Or to attend a professionalism and manners seminar?
And what why did he appear on NBC?
Why not Fox News?
Everybody knows NBC is a liberal network too.
Plus, that's where of course he no, that's a great point too, because he knows he's gonna have a safe seat at NBC.
That's his that's his network.
He he knows nobody's gonna put him through the ringer on NBC, but he didn't know Mary Madeline would.
Right.
But uh yeah, why didn't he call a press conference to apologize?
Yeah.
Why why did he apologize on a Sunday morning show?
Why did why didn't he do the whole press corps get it?
Why did he call a press conference and make this public this apology?
Um and and to whom is he really apologizing?
That's why I wasn't quite sure of that.
Uh is he apologizing American people?
It seems to me he should apologize to McClellan.
Was he apologizing to other media buddies?
Was he apologizing to Cheney?
I don't know who he was apologizing to.
Well, thanks very much, Rush.
All right, Bruce, thank you.
That's a good question.
Why did David Gregory wait over a week to make this apology?
And why did he do it on only one program with a friendly host?
Where he knew he was going to get softballs.
He didn't even go on Larry King to apologize, nor to explain his actions.
So those are all uh relevant points.
Folks, I'm sorry, I have to go back to the Clintons after the break, but you will understand why.
There's bad polling news out there for Hillary, and the media is circling the wagons.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
A couple more comments on this on this port controversy.
I I have to tell you, folks, that Democrats are really puzzling me on this.
I mean, they're really confusing me.
Because all of a sudden they're acting like we have an enemy.
All of a sudden they're acting like we need to be worried about these Arabs.
We can't trust any Arab.
You do you want to talk about profiling?
They won't let us profile in the airports, but we can profile this port deal all day long and say just because it's a bunch of Arabs, we can't sell it.
Yet at the same time, uh in in Congress, they're trying to create the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
They want to stop the spying program.
Well, no, they don't want to stop the spy program.
They want you to think Bush is spying on you rather than spying on foreign interests.
So while they've said no profiling in airports, can't do that, that's why you grandmothers and two-year-olds get security wanted out there, and Sahib goes strolling through untouched.
And then you've got you've got all Ted Kennedy and these guys worried about the way we're running prisons and so forth.
You've got Clinton over there encouraging riots against the uh publication, people that publish these uh photos.
You've got Gore over there saying we're mistreating Arabs, and all of a sudden, we can't let them buy our ports.
Where's the threat?
The debit you Democrats are really puzzling.
I I can understand conservative fear and opposition to this, but the Democrats, this is the first sign since uh about four days after 9-11 that I get the sense from them they think that we have an enemy in these people.
That I mean, that's really what puzzles me about Barbara Boxer out there talking.
Here's Barbara Boxer said uh uh what she says uh face the nations.
It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9-11 to take over part of our port operations and many of our largest ports.
This has to stop.
Okay, that has to stop.
We can't do that.
We can't do the uh investigation, we can't do the surveillance.
We can't do interrogations in prison, but we can damn well stop them from buying our ports.
Well, I have I have the compromise solution.
Here you go, folks.
For the for those of you out there that have problems with this, there's only one entity that can bring peace to this whole deal.
There is only one entity that we know could successfully run these operations, and that is Halliburton.
Now, if somebody could persuade whoever it is that's running Halliburton to intercede on behalf of America, oh, would not that be great.
Wouldn't you love to see the steam?
You think that there would this be a roof trick.
This is a Bush trick.
They knew that this would never go.
They knew the American people would never stand for the UAE buying these ports.
So Halliburton comes.
It was a trick all along.
It was a trick all along, and now Halliburton's gonna get a steal of a deal, blah, blah.
I would love it.
Oh, it's one of those things.
And I would, I I would it'd make my it would make my weak.
If Halliburton comes into the rescue.
All right, now.
Nope, I'm sorry, Florida Times Union.
Washington Bureau.
I think the Florida Times Union is in Jacksonville.
Hell I don't know.
I don't care.
But here's the here's the story.
Growing numbers of Americans oppose a, and this is not new news.
This is just another poll confirming what we've already learned from a Gallup poll from a Harris poll that she Hillary Clinton, 51% of the people say they will never vote for her in one of these polls.
Now, this is not that bad in this one, but still it's bad.
Growing numbers of Americans oppose a presidential bid by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in uh 2008 and favor a run by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This amid broad public willingness to elect a woman president, according to a nationwide poll released on Sunday.
The President's Day survey conducted for Hearst Newspapers by the Siena Research Institute of Siena College in Loudonville covered uh 1120 registered voters was completed on February the 10th.
Some 48% of survey participants said that Condoleez Rice should run for president as an increase of six points over a similar survey a year ago.
But Hillary saw opposition to her own presidential bid grow over the same time.
Some 44% now say she should not run up from 37% who felt that way last year.
The percentage of registered voters who say Clinton should run slipped from 53 to 51% over the past year, as support for a rice candidacy increased from 42 to 48%.
Now this next.
Sorry, I got a problem with this.
The survey found that 79% of participants were willing to vote for a uh woman as president.
64% said the nation was ready for one.
The survey did not test a head-to-head race between Clinton and Rice.
I'm sorry, some people say don't like me.
Putting papers on the table irritates them.
So some emails irritate me.
Why don't you talk about the port deal?
Why don't you talk about the port deal?
Now 79.
79% of participants willing to vote for a woman.
See, I have this theory about polls.
Well, for you don't think that's you don't think it's accurate number?
Snerdley.
Now Snerdley isn't in a vowed chauvinist, though, and he's proud of it, so he doesn't think it's anywhere close to 79%.
I don't either, but not not for any cultural reason.
Um 79's 80%.
I I just I but here's the thing.
I have this theory about polls.
You are uh Mr. or Miss or Mrs. or you're both, depending on the day you choose.
Average American.
And a phone rings or you're walking the mall and some pollster comes up to you.
It's worse if the poll's done in person, but it's it's uh pressures just as just as uh significant if it's on the phone.
And they start asking you all these questions.
Now, uh I don't care who you are, you will think that a pollster already has an opinion on all this.
And you have been so sensitized to the militant feminist agenda over the last thirty years in this country.
If somebody comes along and asks you, um, are you going would you would you vote for a female pre- You're not going to say no.
You don't want the pollster thinking bad things of you.
You don't know if they're wearing a wire.
You don't know who they are.
We have all this talk about cameras and listening devices all over the place now to fight terrorism and so forth.
Um the the uh I I think this figure gets inflated.
Because this is this is people just answering with what they think will give them the easiest time with the pollster or telling them what they think the pollster wants to hear.
But I don't think I think 79%'s a little a little top-heavy, no pun intended.
And you want to know why?
Because the truth is that voters who will most scrutinize a female candidate will be women.
Uh, I I I think during wartime, I don't know that a majority of American women would give another woman the presidency or vote for another woman for presidency.
I just I could be wrong.
You know, there are days I think I'm an expert on women, and there are days that I wake up and realize the folly of thinking that.
So, but I just I I I do I got Dawn laughing there.
Okay, so uh aside from all that, the crux of the poll is that we got another bit of evidence that Hillary's popularity is waning.
So, lo and behold, what do I find in the mainstream press today?
Well, I find two stories.
One in the Los Angeles Times by our old buddy Ronald Brownstein, and is uh the title of his column, even Clinton went by the book.
What does a president read about other presidents do?
Help prepare for and deal with the presidency.
In Bill Clinton's case, the answer apparently was everything.
This is a fawning puff piece on how Clinton prepared himself for the Oval Office by reading about Lincoln, reading about Washington, reading about all these other presidents and so forth.
Why are we getting this now?
What does it have to do with when Clinton's over in on foreign soil inciting riots against newspapers that publish the cartoons of the prophet?
What in the world are we getting this piece now to dress Bill Clinton up for?
It's the continuing quest for a legacy.
Who cares now how Bill Clinton prepared for the excuse me, besides we all know that what he primarily did to prepare for the presidency was to stand in front of a mirror and bite his lower lip and rehearse it until he got it down automatically.
And there may be a couple of other things.
You know, pretend that every day's the senior prom and he's the king.
But I mean this this business fawning over how Clinton prepared for the presidency is just the timing is suspicious and it's it's worthless.
And then the PAs they place these don'ts.
Here in the uh in the Washington Post, special care for big Clinton donors.
Big dollar political donors are like exotic animals.
Both require near constant attention and delicate treatment from their handlers, and I would add a few pardons.
No politician knows this better than Senator Hillary Radham Clinton, who, along with her husband, has perfected the care and feeding of major contributors.
Now, aren't we in the midst of the so-called Abramov scandal?
Aren't we in the midst of trying to nail Tom Delay on just the we get a fawning puff piece on how nice Hillary and Bill are to their donors?
And we and we and we get a piece on the care and feeding of donors and how Bill and Hillary understand the necessity of this.
These three stories, I guarantee you the news in this poll was known before it was published today.
Uh and these stories that appear today, probably written last week sometime.
I just too coincidental to me.
A fawning puff piece on how the horn dog in chief prepared for the presidency, and then a piece on how Hillary and Bill really know how to take care of their best donors.
Yeah, and they know how to pardon them.
At the same time.
All on the same day, the latest poll showing Hillary losing favor among the American electors.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
We'll be back in just a second, all right.
Back to the phones we go.
This is Keith in Chicago.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the uh program.
Good to talk to you, Russell.
Um, I'm a little appalled by your uh uncertainty about the veracity of that poll.
The fact that overwhelming majority say the country is ready for a female president.
Well, that's my point.
They they all they say it because I think a lot of them say it because they think it's the politically correct thing to say to a pollster.
I don't think they actually mean it.
Maybe it's the right let me see.
Vinice Irvuto and Daira Gandhi, your hero, Margaret Thatcher.
Oh, wait a second.
We're the beacon of enlightenment in the world, correct?
And these third world countries, even the Philippines, elect females.
Of course, Americans would vote for anyone, regardless of gender if they're qualified.
That's Republican mantra.
That's that's that's it's not, it's not gonna be just qualified.
And they're gonna vote against people too on the basis of whether they like them or don't like them, qualified or not.
I think the country would elect the role.
I'd vote for a female president if it were Condoleez Rice, or if Gene Kirkpatrick would have run.
I would have voted a long time ago for female presidents.
I vote ideas.
Well, then what what's your objection to the poll?
Most Americans are saying what you say.
Now I'm just I'm my I'm not objecting to the poll.
I just if I'll tell I I said what I said.
I think the I think the biggest scrutiny would come from other women in wartime.
That's a generic question, and I I said what I said.
And that is, and I will say it again.
It is a question that I think people face fear in answering because of political correctness.
Would you vote for a woman pro No.
Oh, you're a racist pig, a sexist bigot, eh?
They don't want to face that reaction from the uh from the pollster.
I think uh that's one of the one of the problems with uh with with with polling.
Um, I didn't invent the gender gap.
I I in fact I I don't really we talked to Kato Byrne for the interview, the next issue of the Limbaugh letter, and she makes the point there isn't a gender gap, that the Feminazis just created all of this uh as a as a political wedge uh issue.
Uh and she's got the statistics that back it up.
But I'll I'll save that for when we publish the uh from the interview.
Keith, I gotta run here, but uh keep your radio on, and we got some women coming up who want to talk about this, and it it might uh shine some light on on this.
Uh Kim in Washington, hello, and nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush.
Um I wouldn't vote for a woman.
And why not?
Well, for one, that I think as soon as you vote for a woman, you open the door to vote for other women, and I don't know if there's too many women that are um qualified beyond the ones that we've mentioned to take over that role in future elections.
Well, would you let me throw some names up?
Would you vote for Hillary?
No.
Would you vote for Condoleza Rice?
Probably.
Would you vote for uh well I don't know there won't be anybody else this time around.
But that that's the point that I have is that if um you if you tried to run another female afterwards, now you're looking at possibly a Democrat going up against Condoleezza rates.
Let's say she stayed in office for eight years.
Now you're looking at giving Hillary a better option of getting in.
Um I just don't know if the Arab nations are ready to deal with a female power in a presidential position.
With us being like the higher power.
No, I wouldn't I tell I wouldn't let that that would not stop me.
You know, if they don't like it, you know, go buy else's ports.
Uh that that that that wouldn't stop me.
But I I uh opening door to other women, of course it would.
There's no question it would open the door to other women, uh other women.
Now, if you're saying it would open the door to entitlement to other women.
So the problem with a female presidency is the feminist movement.
The problem is, well, it's Hillary's turn.
Nobody's basing her her candidacy on whether she's qualified or not.
Nobody's even examining that.
I've told you why the press and those who are behind Hillary's ascension are are for it.
They think she deserves it.
She's entitled to it because of all the the garbage she's had to go through being Bill's wife.
You know, and and she's she held that marriage, she held that president together.
She left Yale, she left the Great Northeast, she left a budding career on her own to go to that Hayseed State, Arkansas, hang around with that horn dog was having affairs with people, had to park herself at that little hayseed law firm, ended up getting in trouble over it.
She's done nothing but been a perfect servant to this guy.
It's her turn.
And so the the the f the feminists basically have said women's advancement is due to past discrimination.
And we ought to advance women because of that, not simply because they're qualified.
And so you're gonna open the door to this sense of entitlement.
But hey, if the right female candidate came along uh and was on the ticket, I would vote for it.
Uh I it's all about ideas with me.
I gotta run.
Thanks, Kim, for the uh for the call.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
So I'm sitting here watching CNN uh during the break, and they're doing a little feature on dreaming big, having big dreams.
They're asking uh one of their anchors, what a Tony.
What are you what are your big dreams?
So they put up a graphic with Tony's big dreams.
And I'm looking at it and said, Well, Tony wants to be me.
I think his he wants to be Rush Limbaugh.
I'm waiting to see what some of the other CNN people come up with as they as they dream big.
Anyway, here's what we got coming up in the next hour.
We still have the Alan Simpson sound bites.
I just have two of them from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday, in which he uh talks about the media and the fire storm overreaction to the uh uh uh Cheney story last week.
Also, Bush.
Bush had a private meeting with Michael Crichton in the White House.
Michael Crichton wrote the anti-environmentalist wacko book State of Fear, and the uh environmentalist wackos around the world are alarmed.
They're very worried, they're troubled that Bush spoke to Crichton.
Uh we will talk about this and other items as the next hour kicks off in mere moments.
▲
Export Selection