All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
March 16, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah.
Okay, folks, we are back here on the cutting edge at Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, war, pestilence, hunger, thirst, starvation, and even the good times.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you would like to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, you know, we had a caller the other day worried about the fact that Eamon Al-Zawahiri, number two man to Osama bin Laden, might have actually lived in Lodi, California, back in 1999.
And the debate still rages on this, but I think the authorities, whoever they are, saying that the eyewitness was incorrect, that the Zawahiri did not live there.
And this led to a discussion of what would I do with Lodi if it turned out that Lodi actually happens to be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda.
And it led to my memory on the fact that the only place I've ever banned calls in the whole history of this program is Reno, Nevada, because when we started the program, the calls from there were just idiots.
I mean, it was, you know, I mean, it takes a lot for me to say that too.
And so we banned calls, and it was almost like for like 25 days, made big news, made USA Today.
Somebody asked me, well, if it does turn out that Lodi is one of these locations in the country's breeding ground, should we just get rid of Lodi?
Don't just ban calls.
I said, oh, no, no, you can't get rid of an American city, a California city.
Now I may have to rethink it.
Here's a story from Lodi.
When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, Curtis Gokey decided to sue the city for damage.
The only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck that backed into his own car.
That minor detail didn't stop Curtis Gokey, a Lodi City employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for this December accident, even after admitting that the crash was his fault.
So the city denied that claim because Curtis Gokey was, in essence, suing himself.
He and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.
City attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey cannot sue her own husband.
You can't sue your spouse for divorce.
You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence, Schwalbauer said.
They're a married couple under California law.
They're one entity.
It's damaged to community property.
But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has the right to sue the city because the city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle.
In fact, her claim currently pending at Lodi City Hall is for an even larger amount, $4,800.
She says, I'm not as nice as my husband is.
You got to love this.
A couple more soundbites of the White House press briefing today.
David Gregory, did you happen to see earlier this week, the Washington Post ran a big puff piece on Gregory?
He's the new Sam Donaldson.
He's Sam Donaldson.
He's the Sam Donald Donaldson of George Bush.
You know, Donaldson, among many things that led to his fame, was a provocateur with Ronald Reagan throughout much of Reagan's administration.
So they're having this White House press briefing today, and they're talking about this offensive that's going on in Iraq.
Does the president think that an offensive like this, high-profile, is necessary in part to turn public opinion around in this country about the war?
Our commanders in the theater have the authorization to make tactical decisions about the operations that they undertake.
And there have been a number of operations that have been undertaken over the course of the last several months to really go after the terrorist and the Saddam loyalist who want to return to the past of oppression and tyranny.
Okay, now Gregory takes that and asks this question.
Are you saying that the president does not specifically authorize he knows about the operation?
He's been briefed on it, but this is a decision that is made by commanders who are in the best position to make the tactical decisions.
Well, wait till this gets some legs this afternoon.
So Bush didn't know about the ports deal.
Bush doesn't know about this initiative.
You just know what they're going to do with this or what they're going to try to do with it.
And that has portrayed Bush as a wandering, aimless fool in the White House bubble with a staff that can't stay awake, a staff that can't read at tea leaves, a staff that's tone deaf.
My, don't they know that this is the last time, this is the worst time to launch an offensive like this.
Hadn't they seen the polls?
The American people want us out of there.
We played soundbites all in the first hour in case you missed it.
Various members of the media is saying, this is unbelievable.
The polls say American people don't want us in Iraq.
They don't trust it.
They want to get out of there.
Well, the president says he's now saying we're going to have more preemptive strikes.
He's rattling his saber against Iran.
And now he's got this major offensive in Iraq.
It's as crazy.
Is he not listening to the polls?
And so we get from these people that they are insistent that leaders govern by polls because it's their poll.
You see, they consider themselves the fourth branch of government.
They're trying to influence policy here.
And they think they've succeeded with their constant negative barrage of news over the last number of years about Iraq, that they've convinced the American people that Iraq is bad, mistake, shouldn't go, shouldn't have gone and ought to get out.
And they pretty much admit this.
They're very happy about it.
They've been trying to prove for the last 10 years that they still have that old monopoly power that used to exist before that damn new media came along.
Well, now the new media has come along and busted up their monopoly.
So they've been working hard for five years to create an anti-war majority in this country.
And now that they've done it, they can't believe the president's ignoring it.
They just can't believe it.
It doesn't compute with them.
Well, let me explain it to you as I did right as the previous hour ended.
One of the reasons, and I think it's the main reason that the left, the media, the Democrats want Bush to be driven by polls is that they, the left and the media, the Democrats, are not manly.
And I know that they're not manly.
They've been feminized.
They live inside the Beltway.
They've been feminized by the radical feminist movement for who knows how many years now.
They are not manly.
And that makes them uncomfortable with Bush's manliness.
They're threatened by it because manly men lead.
They may not ask for directions all the time, but they lead.
They're going to go someplace, even if they don't bother to ask where.
They're going to go.
They are confident in their own beliefs.
They take risks to assert those beliefs.
If I may throw myself in this category, like I courageously and bravely, against amazing opposition and odds, stuck to my position on the ports deal.
See, unmanly men, wimps, men that have been cowed, men that have been feminized, wait for the safety of consensus.
And that's what a poll is, because a poll that shows a majority of something at consensus gives you an escape hatch.
Well, I was only doing what the poll.
I was only doing what American people wanted.
I mean, I, you know, an all thing.
I'll give you an example.
Jack Bauer doesn't give a hoot in the world about polls, but this new wimp president on 24 is totally driven by him.
Now, who's manly and who's not?
This new president on 24 is this, he's totally cowed, and he's cracking up now.
And it isn't going to be long before the vice president and the secretary of homeland defense actually conduct a coup to take over the government and CTU.
But it's a great, it's a great example.
Jack Bauer wouldn't lead by polls.
Hell, Jack Bauer didn't even follow the rules.
He just leads.
And that's what Bush is doing.
He's just leading.
And it threatens them.
It threatens them.
They want him to be more like them, consensus builders, consensus followers, because when it all blows up, you got an excuse.
Well, I was only doing what the American people wanted me to do.
That's why in private, sir, you'll find aside from whatever policy differences people have, Bush is envied, I think, and I think he's greatly admired in that, at least in that one characteristic, and probably many more.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Okay, let's go back to the phones here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Talent on loan from God, Virginia Beach.
This is Tim.
Glad you called, sir.
Thank you.
I'm on.
You're on.
It's your big showbiz break.
It is an honor and a blessing to talk to you, Miss Limbaugh.
Thank you.
I was talking to the screener.
Basically, I'm only 19 years old, and I was a Democrat.
I mean, even before I could register, I mean, I called myself a Democrat and a liberal.
Was that because you grew up in a Democrat home?
I think it was actually quite the opposite.
I was kind of being a little rebellious.
My parents are very conservative.
My father's a, he listens to you every day.
He's probably listening right now.
Ah, that makes total sense.
I understand.
I didn't rebel in that way, but I understand that.
So I went to college.
I went to a small private school in North Carolina, and I went and I joined like Catawba for Kerry, and I'm very sad to say that I voted for Kerry in 04.
And after that, I mean, very shortly, I'm talking like even a month after that, I started to study.
Somebody said Ronald Reagan was just the crappiest president ever.
So I actually studied and looked at some of his numbers and the things that he said.
And it's exactly like you're talking about.
I mean, it's emasculating how the Democratic Party is just because if you, I mean, Reagan and Bush, they have that in common.
If they see something and they know it's right, they're going to do it no matter what.
And that's what a man does.
And the Democratic Party, I mean, that's the reason I left, just because.
Tim, this is fascinating.
You're a very interesting guy.
I want to know how this process happened.
Because the way you tell the story, here you are, this lifelong Democrat.
You're even part of this group, Catawba for Carrie, and you're out there rallying.
And then you said a month after you voted for Kerry, you felt emasculated.
You started studying Reagan, who everybody told you was a crappy president.
I mean, this is one of the quickest transitions.
Something had to happen.
You had to have this in the back of your mind.
You had to have a little guilt about being a Democrat for a long time.
What triggered this reversal?
Honestly, it was my roommate.
He's a libertarian, and he was very conservative.
And he said, man, just stop talking about it and stop, you know, putting up a wall and being defensive and just read.
And so when I actually studied, went out on my own and stopped listening to what everyone else was telling me and the media was telling me and polls were telling me, when I actually read for myself and gained a little bit of wisdom, I realized that the side that I was on was not right in any way whatsoever.
And so, I mean, it's just, it was.
It was a huge transition and a very quick one.
And a lot of my friends, you know, turned their back on me.
A lot of them wouldn't talk to me.
And I'm sure they're telling you you've been brainwashed and how did it happen?
Well, what was it that made you feel emasculated?
Well, I was going to a lot of different groups and support things and rallies and things like that for women's rights, which first of all, I had that guilt in the back of my head because I'm going, I'm not a woman, why am I here?
And then, you know, that's just.
Well, why were you there?
Why were you going to women's rights rallies?
I think, honestly, because everyone else was.
It was just something that we all know.
It was the thing to do to show that you were sensitive and open-minded and understanding, right?
Right.
And it's okay to be sensitive.
I have a girlfriend.
I'm very sensitive to her.
But if she does something wrong, no longer will I say, oh, well, she's a woman.
I have to respect that.
Nah, if it's wrong, you tell her it's wrong.
If somebody, anybody on earth, is going something wrong, you have to.
Now, wait a second.
Hold it.
Was she going to the women's rights rallies, too?
No, no.
Now, I can understand if you're going to go to the women's rights rallies just to be with her.
I mean, I've done stuff like that.
But you went without her.
Right, yeah.
Was she a liberal Democrat or conservative?
She was actually apolitical until she started listening to your show with me.
Aha.
Well, this is fascinating.
You felt emasculated after voting for Carrie because you had to go to these women's rights rallies at.
Go ahead.
Let me interrupt you.
Oh, no, no, no.
I was going to say it's just wimpy.
I just felt extremely wimpy.
I mean, you know, I don't know.
Terrorists affect your country.
Oh, let's hug them.
I mean, it's no common sense behind it.
No, there was no.
You're right.
It was just nothing but a bunch of raw emotion.
No, no common sense.
Common sense is what destroys it.
Adaptation of common sense will destroy liberalism like a nuclear weapon didn't knock us up.
Say that again?
I said common sense will do to liberalism what a nuclear bomb will do to Nagasaki.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
But it lacks it.
It definitely is lacking it.
There is no common sense there.
That's the other thing that got it, was the emasculation and the common sense lack thereof, anyways.
So I'm assuming now that you feel happier and you feel much better about yourself.
Oh, yeah.
Because you're being who you are.
You're not doing what you think other people expect you to do in order to have them think of you in certain ways.
You're just being who you are.
You're being a man now.
Absolutely.
All right.
The only thing I would advise you, the only thing I would advise you further is if you don't know where you're going and a woman's in the car, ask directions.
You will save yourself a lifetime of grief.
Thank you, sir.
All right, Tim.
I'm glad you call.
We are happy to have you in the audience out there.
Jason in San Antonio, welcome to the program.
Harry Rush, greetings from San Antonio, Texas.
Thank you very much.
Great to have you with us.
15th year of the show.
That call you just had from the gentleman in North Carolina is why the Democrats are going to get their heads handed to them again in November.
He said it.
He had a girlfriend who didn't care about politics, but the media and Democrats didn't convert her into an apathetic voter or a Democrat voter.
They're converting her into a Republican.
And I wanted to ask you, if the Democrats get creamed again in November, and I believe they will, where do they go from there?
They've got nothing to point at.
They can't say that it was the president's popularity.
They can't say it was the proximity of September 11th.
And do you think that'll change the fundamental leadership of the Democratic Party?
And I do mean the media when I say the Democratic Party leadership.
Oh, no.
It won't change the media.
In fact, I've already addressed this.
I addressed this in 2002, and I addressed it in 2004.
And I'll be happy to address it now because it's a great question.
In 2002, when the Democrats thought they were going to take back the House with the Wellstone Memorial, I said that when they lose, the last thing they're going to do is examine what they're doing wrong.
They are going to get mad, and they're going to think they didn't get their message out, and they're going to start sounding even more outrageous and extreme.
And by gosh, they're doing it.
After 2004, I said the same thing.
Folks, these are not the people who are going to admit their own mistakes.
They're going to say it was stolen from them again or they were cheated out of it.
They're not going to examine themselves and they're going to get even more bellicose.
They're going to get even more outrageous, and they're going to think they didn't get their message out.
Now, they did do lip service two or three days on, gee, we got to get a message here on its values.
They got caught up in this red state, blue state thing that lasted two or three days.
Now, what are they doing?
I said the other day that emotional satisfaction has become a substitute for victory to these people.
You can take a look at these far-left-wing blogs, these kook, like moveon.org.
Moveon.org has just sent out a mailing to their, they claim to have 3 million people on their mailing list.
And they are ecstatic.
You know why they're ecstatic?
Because they claim that they've got 200,000 signatures on a censure petition based on what Russ Feingold did.
They've got 3 million members.
They've got 200,000 signatures.
They are ecstatic.
This is going nowhere, but they're ecstatic.
They're finally happy.
They are showing how much they hate Bush.
Not going to get them anything.
They're not winning anything.
The people who run moveon.org may collect some more money in this, do some more fundraising, but not going to win anything.
So let's move forward to 06.
Let's just hypothetically say that your blowout scenario actually comes to pass.
Let's say they are blown out.
Let's say not only do they not pick up any seats, they lose some.
Because the conventional wisdom right now is they may pick up as many as eight in the House.
And they got an outside chance of winning the Senate.
They got an outside chance of taking back the House.
All right, let's say they lose.
Let's say they lose seats.
My prediction is that Pelosi and Pelosi and Reed might be a trouble.
But as far as the Kook base is concerned, it depends on how the campaign was run.
If the campaigns are run and a bunch of people were really out there trashing Bush and saying he's Hitler and he's the worst guy out there, and if they come close in these races, what the Kook fringe base will say, we're making progress.
Yeah, we might.
It's like when this guy Hackett lost, they called it a victory.
They called it a victory because Hackett showed him.
Hackett showed them.
Hackett said the right things about Bush.
He was out there telling the truth.
He came within four or five points in a heavy Republican district.
This is a victory.
And they were all celebrating and they had lost.
So if they can convince themselves that whatever happens in their loss is accompanied by enough hate-filled, rage-filled rhetoric, they'll feel good.
And they'll think they just got to keep working at it.
Just keep plugging away.
And they'll be on to 2008 to take over the White House and they'll get the House then.
But do not expect them to admit that, you know what, we got trouble.
We had better really examine ourselves.
They won't do it because they're elitists, arrogant, and they condescend.
And nothing that could be going wrong is their fault.
They're entitled to power.
It's their birthright.
And somebody's denying them, and those people will pay.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Everything I say is interesting.
It is never uninteresting.
800-282-2882.
Well, somebody just sent me a note.
Say something interesting.
I'm listening now.
I'm a what am I, a circus act?
Okay, I've got the radio on.
Say something interesting.
Everything I say is interesting.
Have you seen this headline from what is it?
It's a Herald Sun, Herald Sun somewhere news.
The headline is just, it's hilarious.
Ground zero building talks collapse.
No, but put the word collapse in the headline.
The World Trade Center's collapse.
They put it in the headline.
Talks between World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein and New York State officials over who will build what and when at ground zero falling apart.
They collapse, they fall.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh.
The negotiations broke off acrimoniously shortly after midnight as both sides failed to meet a deadline set by Governor Pataki to settle their differences.
Yeah, well, see, we're supposed to have Iraq totally rebuilt with a functioning democracy with no more bloodshed, no killing, nothing but peace and love and flowers and peace marches and everything in two or three years in Iraq.
And here we are five years, almost four and a half years after 9-11, and there's still nothing there but a big hole in the ground.
Here's Jennifer in Fort Hood, Texas.
Hi, Jennifer.
I'm glad you called.
Jennifer in Fort Hood, Texas.
Hello, glad you called.
Hello, Jennifer in Fort.
Jennifer's gone.
Well, don't erase that because what Jennifer said she wanted to talk about, did she hang up after I went to?
Because I thought I heard a and then the line went dead.
Oh, she was on a cell phone.
I see.
They might have lost the signal.
If you notice that never happens to Jack Bauer, she was going to say that she voted, she voted for Bush twice, but these constant rotations and deployments are getting tiring.
Her husband is in Iraq, and she wants him back.
She wants him home.
She wants the troops home.
And she says that there's a poll in Army Times that 72% want the troops home within a year.
Now, when you talk, I haven't seen that poll.
Is that a poll of troops that say they want to be home in a year, or is it a poll of somebody else?
It's a poll of troops.
Well, that is the plan.
It has been the plan all along.
In fact, I would, you know, we played a soundbite of Tim Russet the other day.
The media going bonkers here, media just beside themselves that Bush isn't listening to the polls.
He said, wait, how can he start rattling the sabers here in Iraq or in Iran?
He starts talking about the new strategery to deal with Iran.
But, I mean, we're supposed to bring the troops home from Iraq in about a year.
It could well be that you bring the troops home from Iraq because the mission will be finished according to the objectives so that fresh deployments are ready then to go to Iran if necessary.
Although I don't think that would be an initial ground movement if that ever happens.
Mario in Detroit, you're next.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Yeah, Rush, thank you for having me.
Here you go.
Calling each other.
It's great to have you here on the show.
Hey, listen, first of all, I want to tell you, thank you for making me a very wealthy man and with a good clear head.
And also, are you there?
Hello.
Yeah, yeah, I'm here.
I'm wondering, how did I make you a very wealthy man?
Well, I went broke when I was 41 years old, and I stumbled across your radio program, and you gave me the determination to go out and bust my agates.
And I've done it, and I'm 67 years old, and I'm proud as hell of doing it.
Well, Andy, I owe a lot to you.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
It's a testament.
You are a testament to the opportunity that exists in this country.
Rush, you hear what I said?
I said, I only have an eighth-grade education.
Well, that's about what mine is because I didn't pay much attention in high school.
I didn't go to college.
So you and I are in the same boat.
Yeah, you know something?
I hear these people moaning and groaning about too much pressure working and all that kind of yada yada stuff.
That's bullcrap.
You know, I leave the house in the morning at 4 o'clock, and I'm lucky if I get home at 6.
And, you know, you got to work.
What are these people moaning and groaning about?
Well, let me.
Oh, no, no.
Let me explain this to you.
You're talking about the White House staff, right?
Okay.
It's a good question because actually the people that are leading this are actually Republicans.
And the reason they're doing it is they think that the White House has lost its bearings in terms of being able to empathize with the American public.
And they use the, I know people are tired of hearing about this, the port steal as an example.
They can't believe that the White House got sandbagged by this.
They think there should have been somebody in there to tell Bush, don't do this.
Don't let this get it.
And this is the wrong time to do this.
Stop this, whatever you do.
You can't win this politically, which I said at the outset, by the way, too.
You can't win this.
But nobody apparently had the sensitivity, the understanding of this is going to blow up out there.
And I think a lot of that is because a lot of people in the either a lot of people in Washington don't have a clear understanding of the genuine anger there is over illegal immigration in this country.
I think the two are inexorably linked.
So the people who have been, this White House was a smooth, well-oiled, and well-run machine the first four years.
What's happened?
This is the kind of stuff would never happen.
So now we get stories on how it's a 24-7 job, and it is, Mario.
And I'm not trying to make excuses for them, and I'm not trying to diminish what you said about your own work schedule, because I understand totally.
You think you're where you are because you've worked.
Well, being in the White House, in the executive branch, the office of the president, it is stressful.
But they knew it going in.
But they haven't really rotated any people out of there.
It's the same bunch that went in in 2001 when Bush was inaugurated.
It's 24-7, 365 days a year.
Now, if they get married, they get a couple of days to go get married, have one-day honeymoon, but then they're back.
And I'm sure that while they're away, they're really not away.
And when the president travels, many of them do too.
And so what we're talking about here is not people who are work adverse.
They just burnt out.
The theory is that they're just burnt out, that the human being just can't go 24-7, 365 for five years on the same stuff and not burn out.
And they're not talking about people like Rove and Andy Card.
They're talking about people, names we don't know, because there are a lot of people in the White House and the staff press office, the political office, policy places, East Wing, West Wing, that are ⁇ you'd never know they're there.
And it is their job here to stay fresh and so forth.
So that's what the claim is.
And their fear is, is that they won't quit because they're not going to run out on the president and the president won't ask him to leave or replace them because he's so loyal.
And there's also the fear that Bush doesn't even know he's got a problem.
Bush doesn't even, not know, he may think he doesn't know.
He doesn't even think he has a problem.
And that's probably more it than anything else.
Dick Morris had a column this week.
I sort of touched on what I was mentioning yesterday, but we had a call here about making tax cuts permanent.
And I said, there's one guy that can do that, and that's Bush.
He's got to get out and start selling it.
He's got to be out there a bunch of times more than once a week on the things that matter.
He's still got two and a half years in his administration and can't just blow those off.
And it's the same thing here.
But I don't think that's in his interest.
I don't think he has a desire to do it.
His job is his job, and he's going to go about doing it his way.
He's not going to let these outsiders in the media and even in his own party tell him how to do it.
His dad was that way in a similar respect.
But it's not, don't, don't, don't make the mistake of thinking that there are people in the White House who don't want to work anymore.
There is a concept of overwork.
In fact, I myself have been fought by many to have been overworked the first four years of this program.
They forced me to take vacations because I wouldn't.
So the first four years, radio show wrote two books and started a television show.
And my partners were definitely afraid I'm going to burn out.
I was going to get tired of it.
And I was the golden goose.
And so they made me take a vacation one February down here in Florida.
That's how I got familiar with and came to like living down here.
It was February.
It's 85 degrees.
It's 12 inches of snow in New York.
And I'm on the 24th floor of a condo building with my cigars reading books all over.
I fell asleep every afternoon, Saturday and Sunday.
It was a two-day thing, just a weekend.
And I genuinely decompressed.
I don't remember decompressing like that even since.
But the sound of the surf pounding, it was just gorgeous.
The view faced east.
So it happened to be a full moon one of those nights.
I just, whoa, this is cool.
But I was eager to get back.
But no, the concept of being burnt out is different than growing tired of the job and not working and not applying themselves.
I think when you get burnt out, even when you work, you're not accomplishing much.
And that's what people are afraid is happening inside the White House.
I appreciate the call, Mario.
Thank you so much for your kind words.
We'll continue here in just a moment.
Stay with us.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, and play-by-play man of the news, all combined here in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Sarah in Florence, Kentucky.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks.
You know, if the White House folks are tired, they need to start reaching out to us grassroots folks.
Since 2004, we've been sitting waiting for somebody to hand us the baton, and there's just no outreach.
And I think that would be a good vehicle for them to push the agenda.
We are watching.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
That's not what they need.
See, they've already got you.
But what they need, I thought when I first came across this, I don't know where I read this.
It was yesterday or last night.
When I read that, it was Terry Holt who said it, who's a Republican strategerist.
He's on TV now and then.
And he was lamenting the fact that there was nobody in the White House that could have told him what the public reaction is going to be to the port deal.
And I said to myself, you know, they need me in there.
If there's anybody in touch with the base in this country, it's me.
But then I said, I can't go.
There'd be a conflict of interest.
But I was willing to serve.
I was willing to serve.
They could call me on the phone.
Rush, we got this port deal coming up.
How's it going to play?
I could have told him.
And, you know, when you say reach out, what do you mean?
Well, I think one of the most frustrating parts about the port deal is please whisper it when you say when those two words, please do this again for me and whisper it because it irritates people.
Okay.
Rush, one of the most irritating things about the park deal is the pattern of a knee-jerk reaction.
You know, as conservatives, we should be proactive, not reactive.
And even though our leaders were getting calls from their constituents, it was their duty, in my opinion, to educate themselves so that they could educate us.
And then we could, in turn, educate each other within our own individual circles of influence.
That's what grassroots is about.
I agree with you, Sarah, but when you're in election year and you're talking about people like Peter King and others in Congress are being too idealistic, they're not concerned with educating you.
They're concerned with getting re-elected and making so all they care about is what you think in a situation or their constituents think.
Their constituents don't understand it, but think X. They'll still go with what their constituents think.
We know a lot of constituents think that leaders should lead by example and do what's right, not what's politically.
Maybe so, but I'll tell you what, Sarah, in all honesty, there are a lot of people who think that elected officials should do everything that their constituents want and nothing else.
And that's why we do not have a direct democracy, because that's not possible.
It's why we have a representative republic.
And we trust that the people we elect are going to know more than we do because they have access to more information and more knowledge.
But when they don't use that access that they have to gain that knowledge and impart it, that's when I have a problem with them.
But I understood this.
This was a tsunami of panic and hysteria, and there was no way that this deal was going to go through.
And even while supporting the deal, I said this all throughout it.
And there are people, and with hindsight looking back, yeah, I wish the White House wouldn't have even let this thing get out.
Just kill it.
But it's too late for that now.
But I think Bush probably will reach out more to the base by virtue of going out and talking to the base more and more, especially if this notion, I don't know where this comes from.
Paul Weyrich in the New York Times story today says a conservative base is demoralized and the vote turnout may be far less than what it's been.
And he's a brilliant man and he's got his finger on the pulse, but that's the first time I've heard this.
I haven't gotten that sense sitting here in my anchorman's chair behind the golden EIB microphone that there's any less energy.
I mean, I know there's anger, but we'll see.
Bush is not on a ballot in 06, not directly.
I got to run because of the constraints of time.
We'll get one more call in when we come back.
Stay with us.
Okay, Matt in San Francisco.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the program.
I keep hearing about this 71% of the armed forces who want to go home within a year.
Yeah.
If I were out camping in the middle of a desert at 130 degrees with windstorms and somebody came up to me and said, would you like to go home in a year?
I'd probably say yes also.
If somebody came to my family and said, would you like to go to Disneyland in a year?
The answer would be yes.
Okay, so I guess what you're saying is unless they all go AWOL and leave, it doesn't mean anything because despite what they want to do, they're staying and doing their duty.
That's right.
That's their job.
They know it.
But if somebody came to them and said, would you like to go home?
I'm sure they'd say yeah.
Well, here's how it was framed.
After I heard Jennifer was on the phone, was it Jennifer?
Was that her name?
Yeah, and I guess we lost our cell connection.
I went and I dug up the story.
I found a version of it here on the Christian Science Monitor.
A large majority of U.S. troops think that the U.S. should withdraw completely from Iraq within a year.
Stars and Stripes reports that a polling 944 U.S. troops in Iraq, conducted by Zaghbi, found that only 23% of service members felt the U.S. should stay as long as needed.
Although the poll conducted in January and February was carried out without Pentagon approval, Zagby said they did have the approval of commanders in Iraq.
Of the 72%, 22% said troops should leave within the next six months, 29% said they should withdraw immediately, 21% said the U.S. military presence should end within a year, and 5% said we don't know.
The poll was funded by Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies.
And when I, anytime an organization has the word peace in it, throw it out.
It's just a bunch of long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM peace types that have an agenda.
But what about Zogby, Rush?
And just tell you what I think.
I'm a manly guy.
▲
Export Selection