All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
May 3, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Drive by media is so sad.
There's no tsunami.
There was no tsunami folks at drive-by media there.
They were just hoping for disaster in Doom and Gloom, but it didn't have in fact.
They're still covering the story on CNN.
Just reviewing an earthquake.
The island nation of Tonga.
They have been get this.
They have been reporting that there were waves of one foot to one and a half feet on certain islands, but there are no reports of damage.
From one foot waves are crying out, the surfers have been polluting my beach and my ocean for the last two weeks because we've got five foot waves out there.
Sometimes sometimes even more.
Anyway, greetings.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
L. Rushbow, the EIB Network South, since there's not going to be a tsunami, it's bird flu time.
We gotta get everybody all hepped up about the bird flu now.
Drive by media on from the tsunami now.
Nothing happened there to the bird flu.
A Kentucky technology executive pleaded guilty today in federal court to bribing a congressman in charges stemming from an investigation of a Louisiana House member.
Vernon Jackson, 53, chief executive of Louisville-based IGAT Inc., pleaded guilty to bribery of a public official and conspiracy to bribe a public official.
The Congressman was not identified in court documents or during Wednesday's plea hearing, but documents make clear that the Congressman whom Jackson admits bribing his Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, who uh represents New Orleans.
Jackson faces a maximum of 20 years when he is sentenced July 27th.
Plea agreement calls for a sentencing guideline range not to exceed seven to nine years, but the judge is not bound by them.
So uh Congressman has not been charged.
William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, denies any wrongdoing, said his office uh been cooperating with investigators.
All right.
I know that uh the drive-by media is full of reports.
And by the way, this is not really drive-by media.
There are Republicans planning to abandon George W. Bush and droves, particularly during this election year.
Bush has had it 36%, 33% approval rating.
Uh guys, an albatross around our neck.
We got to get out of there.
We don't want Bush doing anything but raising money for us.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
There's a precedent for this.
By the way, a couple of pollsters are saying is a bad move for the Republicans.
You know, if the Republicans, I'll just give you some advice right now.
All of you Republicans in Congress, including you, Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow and and all the rest of you, McCain.
You want to win re-election in this year if you're up.
You want that you want the you want the Republicans to hold the House?
Unify behind George W. Bush.
Just do it.
Just do it.
Don't try to please moderate or Democrat voters by showing your independence.
Just go out there and unify and support the president on a number of issues that you can.
Fred Barnes, who at the time was a senior editor of the New Republic, posted a piece in the LA Times December 9th, 1986.
Ronald Reagan's sixth year.
Conservatives in 86 were abandoning Reagan, the most important conservative in the history of the movement in America.
A dozen or so conservative leaders met privately at a Washington hotel last week to discuss the future of the political movement.
Edward Fulner of the Heritage Foundation was there.
So were New Wright strategist Paul Weyrick, several fundraisers, two officials of the administration, and a few Capitol Hill aides.
Not surprisingly, the conversation turned to President Reagan and the Iran arms scandal.
Forget Reagan, they agreed.
The president's a goner.
His influence shattered forever.
We got to decide how to press our agenda without him.
Only Bill Kristol, a top official of the Department of Education, dissented, insisting that Reagan should be defended.
Thus the Iran scandal has achieved what Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondal, the 8182 recession, and the Marines debacle in Lebanon couldn't.
It has caused the disintegration of the Reagan coalition, a blend of conservatives from fundamentalist Christians to libertarians that held together as the most unified single block in American politics for a decade.
And even if the coalition is revived on an issue or two, aid to the Nicaraguan Contras say or funding the strategic defense initiative.
As Reagan serves on his final two years in the White House, it won't be the dominant political force anymore.
The matter can be put quite succinctly.
Without Reagan, the conservatives lack a popular leader, and without the conservatives, Reagan lacks a broad ideological base.
Both wind up losers, and the political balance of power tilts away from them.
Sure, the conservatives are still sentimentally attached to Reagan, but he's no longer the same rallying point.
Worse, there's no replacement in sight.
Conservatives are fragmented on who should be the Republican presidential nominee in 1988.
The gravity of the split is only now dawning on Reagan and his allies.
Last Tuesday's Secretary of Education, William Bennett denounced conservatives for ingratitude and political stupidity in abandoning Reagan.
There is no conservative agenda without Reagan Bennett said.
He's the man who made whatever good has happened to this administration happen, and people should be mindful of it.
Pat Buchanan, the White House communications director, is even more blunt.
There's an old saying that the major failing of Americans conservative conservatives is that they don't retrieve their wounded.
Now's the time you take an inventory of your friends.
Not too many friends are turning up, however.
Human Events, the weekly conservative publication that Reagan reads faithfully, has only half-heartedly defended him on the Iran arms deal.
Linda Chavez, White House aide until last winter, published a column in the Washington Post denouncing Oliver North, the ousted National Security Council official blamed for diverting profits.
She said that he was not a true conservative.
Bennett, who got Chavez, her first job in the administration was so mad about this, he quickly spread the word that he was sorry he'd ever sponsored her.
Why are conservatives so wary of supporting Reagan in his moment of greatest need?
Alan Riskind, the editor of Human Events, says nobody believes in the issue, giving arms to Iran.
Nobody's persuaded by the arguments.
And while conservatives love the Contras, they think that aiding them has now been jeopardized.
Military aid was only narrowly approved by Congress this year.
The scandal over diverted funds makes renewal of aid less than likely.
Another source of wariness by most conservatives was the firing of North.
Was North scapegoated or did he deserve to be fired?
asks Jeffrey Bell, an advisor to Jack Kemp.
Until conservatives know that, they'll be on hold.
They love North.
And though many conservatives may be inclined to stand with Reagan, they're unsure where to do that.
With new revelations and the Iran scandal occurring daily, they don't know what ground to stand on.
Complains Howard Phillips of the conservative caucus.
The nature of the issue keeps changing.
Finally, there are conservatives like Howard Phillips, who always regarded Reagan as too moderate for their taste.
We wish the best for him, but we're going to focus more on the 88 presidential race and on helping the cause, Howard Phillips said.
Reagan's turned over the substance of policy to people in fundamental disagreement with the policies he's rhetorically espoused.
Phillips is resistant to lobbying.
His friend Buchanan pleaded with him over dinner last Wednesday to come to the president's defense.
But afterwards, after that dinner, Phillips went on ABC TV's nightline and trashed Ronald Reagan.
Seems like history is repeating.
Now, I know Bush is no Reagan, and don't misunderstand in the in the sense of leading a movement, and I've been the first to say this.
But what's interesting is that everybody they just want to abandon him, and I'll tell you that there is something in here that's really true.
Conservatives do not retrieve their wounded from the battlefield, they abandon them.
There is so much, especially more so today than ever before.
Because there's so much competition out there.
Conservatism has gotten so big.
It has so many people who want to claim to be the leader, who claim to be the definers that if anybody takes a hit, they're happy to let them fade away.
Because competition, there they're, you know, conservatives do have competitors within the ranks.
When the competitors bite the bullet, bite the dust.
They're only too willing to let them, some of them are just fade away.
There is not a whole lot of public defense, including of the president.
Now it's true the president's not defending himself either.
But I'll tell you something, I re I remember this period.
I was working in Sacramento at the time, and I was wondering, and well, during this all this Ron Contra stuff, where's Reagan?
He was being trashed every day in a media.
Where's Reagan?
Why did he get up there and answer this stuff?
And some people were saying, because he can't.
Because he can't, because it's true.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They say the same thing about Bush.
Why didn't he go out there and defend himself?
Well, Bush's answer is he doesn't care.
He's got his job to do, and he doesn't think it's PR spin.
Same thing with Cheney.
Cheney's got a piece coming out in Vanity Fair, I guess, or an interview with him.
And they ask him, well, what about your horrible public image?
So I'm not in the public image business.
I guess I could improve it.
I went out there and tried to improve it, but that's not what my job is.
My job's not public spin.
My job's not my public image.
And so it's amazing these parallels.
Yet when Ronald Reagan died, all these people who abandoned him were muscling, those still around, were muscling, trying to get in the front row, trying to make sure they were all over the place, be seen as loyal, never wavering supporters.
The 86 uh midterm elections, you know, there were there were uh uh these these defections and people we can't we can't run with Reagan where Reagan's destroying us.
There's always there's always been this tendency on the in the conservative side to you know when there's when there's trouble, split scene and run away.
And of course, you know, Reagan did some things to irritate conservatives.
He while he cut taxes, he also raised them at times, and you know, abandoning Lebanon after the marine barracks was hit.
They wasn't popular with people.
Uh but look how time changes things.
When you go back and you look at the totality of a period of time, uh I don't remember uh during the funeral week of Ronald Reagan, other than his son and uh maybe a couple Democrats, but even they were pretty quiet.
I don't remember any of these conservatives stepping forward to remind everybody how effectiveless and worthless and pointless the last two or three years of Reagan's turmoil.
Do you?
Your highly trained broadcast specialist L. Rushbull, and uh also America's anchor man on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network 800-282-2882.
Little um little uh illegal immigration news.
First from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Americans becoming tuned to the mushrooming debate.
Uh legal and illegal seem to be defining the frames of reference.
Uh there Let me summarize what this story is all of.
There's an admission in this story, essentially the representative of the drive-by media here.
There's an admission here that when the truth is used, liberals lose.
And by the way, that same thing happened with the NSA debate.
Liberals lose if you truthfully say what the NSA question about.
It's intercepting foreign communications versus the contemptible lie of domestic eavesdropping.
Uh by the same token, if you talk about illegal immigration, which we are, and it is, public majorities are mightily against it.
Here's some of the story.
Immigrants, legal and illegal, are undeniably more visible since they are they and supporters began spilling into the city streets across the nation six weeks ago in a quest for legal status.
How Americans who haven't spent much time thinking about immigrants will see them from here out depends on who frames the debate, say observers of American social movements.
The public, I get this.
This is Robert Putnam, who is a professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
Get this.
He says, the public, for better or worse, makes a huge distinction between illegal and legal immigrants.
For better or worse, there's an option.
The public, for better or worse, makes a huge distinction between illegal and legal immigrants.
Insofar as the issue gets cast as illegal immigration, a substantial majority of Americans are opposed to it.
It triggers issues about the rule of law and the fundamental notion that you don't cut in line in front of other people.
But if the issue gets phrased as immigration, Americans are almost all drawn from immigrant stock, and in our folk memory, immigration is a very positive thing.
So the bottom line here, when you tell the American people the truth about this, they come out on the correct side of it.
Washington Post, after protests, backlash grows.
Opponents of illegal immigration are increasingly vocal.
This is uh uh let me just read you the relative excerpts here.
In the Washington area, African American radio listeners kept bringing up the immigration issues as a guest host, tried to discuss the abuse of black and Latino workers at a North Carolina meat processing processing plant.
I would say the majority of comments were hostile, but it wasn't an overwhelming majority, said the host.
A lot of people said immigrants were trying to make ends meet, just like us.
Then there were those who said that they're taking our jobs or taking our services, and they shouldn't be legal.
That my forefathers were slaves, and those people haven't paid their dues.
So um, you know, it's it's it is it is and here's Cornan, John Cornyn, one of the many politicians who got a gift from uh sendabrick.com, which allows visitors to purchase a brick for about eleven bucks and mail it to their representative, a weighty hint to build a border fence, the site's operators could not be reached for uh uh comments, so people are out there sending bricks.
There is a backlash.
The jump the shark moment has occurred for the New York Times today.
Headline after immigration protests, goals remain elusive.
But the protesters do not appear to have achieved their primary goal, changing votes in Congress.
And some critics say the demonstration may have generated a backlash, hardening positions on Capitol Hill.
Why don't you say it?
Instead of after immigration protests, the goal remains elusive.
Why don't you just say protest didn't work?
That would be the more accurate headline.
Even some immigration rights backers say few, if any minds were changed.
They call the marches a Rorschach test, in which people simply saw their own view reflected in the sea of mostly Latino marchers.
I have no effective data on this, but it's probably hardened positions and maybe done a little bit of wedging, said John Corzine, governor of New Jersey.
I think the people that were really fired up about this still are in the position that they had to start with, they still carry.
Wedged?
Who got wedged?
U.S. taxpayers are getting wedged on uh on all this.
So uh the immigration debate uh marches on the media when the drive-by media has to say that goals elusive, there's a backlash happening.
Let me translate for you.
It was bad.
They didn't get anything they wanted out of this, and they're they're they're beside themselves.
All right, audio soundbite time, somebody is lying.
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright insisted yesterday that Sudan never offered to round up bin Laden and extradite him to the U.S. saying that President Clinton's claim to the contrary was a misstatement.
She was asked about Clinton's admission in 2002 on Hannity and Combs last night that he had turned down Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden because he had committed no crime against America.
Albright uh told uh Hannedine Combs he was not offered.
He was not.
So this is very interesting, folks.
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is publicly disagreeing with her former boss.
Somebody's lying here.
Let's go to the soundbite.
This is February 2002.
The quality of this audio is not good.
Uh this audio preserved by our people of buddies at Newsmax, former President Clinton talking about bin Laden.
Mr. Bin Laden used the word in Sudan.
He was expelled from Sony Ray and I wanted his war in America.
They believed it at the time.
He had committed no crime against America, so I don't want to bring him here because we had no wish to hold him.
So we knew he wanted.
So uh put it with the Saudi to pay because they could have, but they thought it was a lot of men.
That's why I want to all right.
So that's the tape.
Clinton said, Well, but I did I d I didn't want to bring him here because we had no base on which to hold him.
So let's go to Hannity and Combs last night.
Hannity says, I want to go back to the issue of Sudan offering Bin Laden to the administration on a silver platter.
Was he offered Bin Laden multiple times by the Sudan?
He was not, and I think going over that record, if you look at the certain the people that were saying that, they were many people that were lobbying for Sudan.
I think believe me, if we had had an offer of Osama bin Laden, we would have taken it.
He just said that he wouldn't have.
Next question.
How could Bill Clinton say I pleaded with the Saudis to take him if he didn't have them?
How how do you how do you say those words?
Because there is movement, but believe me, uh, if we had been offered Osama bin Laden, uh, then that offer would have been taken up.
And I think what's been very hard is kind of a misstatement of a lot of facts on that.
And uh I look, we worked very hard to try to deal with the terrorist issue, very different before 9-11.
That's that's what this is all about.
They're still trying to cover up the incompetence and the lack of attention to this issue by this administration.
Monsor Ijaz, who's a Fox contributor, uh is is on record as saying two or three times that he knows of that it was uh because I think he was partially involved in the uh in the effort.
Oh back in a moment.
All right, we're back.
The excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Nice to have you with us.
I mentioned earlier a picture, ladies and gentlemen, uh, from one of the uh uh uh protests on Monday.
I don't know where this is.
It looks like it could be Chicago, but I'm not certain.
There are two signs here uh that are being held up by and they're pretty big, these malcontents.
The first sign, Bush is the symptom, capitalism is the disease, revolution is the cure.
WWW dot socialism and liberation dot org.
And the next one by answer.
This is the uh they're the pro-communist bunch.
Um stop attacks on immigrants and celebrities.
Stand against racism here and abroad.
Stand against racism here and abroad.
And that dovetails precisely with Shelby Steele's piece on yesterday about why there's so much collective guilt in this country and why we minimally try to solve our problems.
Then there's this, and I don't know how many of you have seen this, it's going around the internet.
It was a letter sent to Senator Frist.
And I don't even know how uh recent it is.
Uh but it is a letter sent to Senator Frist from a retired border patrol agent.
Dear Senator Frist, there's a huge amount of propaganda and myth circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexicans, Salvadorian, Guatemalan, and Honduran aliens.
Illegal aliens generally do not want U.S. citizenship.
What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residents without paying the price.
There are no jobs that Americans won't do.
Illegal aliens are doing jobs Americans can't take and still support their families.
Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, lift dozens in a single resident's home, share expenses, and send money to their home country.
There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home.
They're not homeless.
They're not Americans.
Some left jobs in their home countries.
They came to send money to their real home, as evidenced by the more than twenty billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens are not critical to the economy.
Illegal aliens constitute less than five percent of the workforce.
This is not an immigration nation or immigrant nation.
There are two hundred and eighty million native-born Americans.
While it's true this nation was settled and founded by immigrants, legal, it's also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
There is no such thing as the Hispanic vote.
Hispanics are white, brown, black, and every shade in between.
Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, anarchists, communists, Marxists, and independence.
The so-called Hispanic vote's a myth.
Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.
Mexico is not a friend of the United States.
Today, Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their school children.
If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a third world nation overnight.
Besides, there are two hundred and eighty million native-born Americans who want a better life.
I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life.
When will the USA lifeboat be full?
Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
There is not a labor shortage in this country.
To say so is a lie.
It is racist to want secure borders.
What's racist about wanting to secure borders in a secure America?
What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into the country and steal benefits?
What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American dream without paying the price?
David J. Stoddard, U.S. Border Patrol retired in Hurford, Arizona, I just read excerpts of it.
Um it this thing makes more sense than anything I have heard coming out of Washington, D.C., other than if a Tom Tancrano, but I'm talking about the people that dominate this debate.
This makes more sense than anything you hear uh on a a daily basis.
Richard in Lexington, Kentucky, welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hi, Rush, thanks for taking my call today.
Yes, sir, you bet.
Uh first I want to thank you for all you do for our troops that are stationed overseas.
Uh, someone who just returned from Iraq recently, uh I know a lot of us have access to the internet, and we appreciate being able to get on Rush 24-7.
Well, uh, thank you, sir, but but uh the thanks go uh uh much uh stronger from our direction to yours.
Well, what I want the point I wanted to make today is I tuned in just a little bit ago because I'm a school teacher here in central Kentucky, and the debate going on right now about the Republicans leaving Bush aside in order to get away from the failed presidency and tying it to what happened in the 80s with Reagan is exactly what I am covering in my social studies class right now.
Really?
Yes, sir.
And a lot of it has to do with and I'm able to tie it.
The New York Times actually helped me out yesterday because that one of their newswire services ran the whole Iran U.S. argument as being the Cold War revisited.
And it gave me a the ammunition I needed to show that how Reagan was vindicated now for ending the Cold War in the eighties by his direct approach he had taken with the Soviet Union, the same way Bush will be vindicated in years to come by taking on directly the axis of evil for lack of better words, or the problems in the Middle East.
History will vindicate both of them as it already has with Reagan.
That is an excellent point.
And in fact, allow me to expand on that, because the uh if you go back to the Cold War, and I know a lot of you people were alive during the Cold War, and a lot of you are paying attention to it, but memories are short.
Emotions uh are uh excited by current events, sometimes that crowds out the memory.
I I will never forget this.
During the uh uh period of time when I became an adult and started paying all this attention, I was stunned.
The Democrats, the American left, wanted to do nothing to harm the Soviet Union.
Oh no, in fact, they they they were making plans for the Soviet Union to be a constant.
It was always going to be there.
We had to appease them.
We had to find a way to get along with them.
There was no way they can't be defeated.
They're too big.
Plus, a lot of the leftists, you know, actually admired and were hoping for the Soviets to succeed in their worldwide revolution of Marxism and so forth.
Yet Reagan kept plugging away, kept calling the evil empire, just like when Bush uses the word evil, they got all over Reagan, and he thought he was nuts, they thought he was the problem, Gorbachev was the hero, Gorbachev was the savior.
Here we're now in another circumstance where we're fighting another entity that is evil, that is actually attacked this country.
The Soviets didn't ever do that.
Uh and you've got the same crowd on the left practicing the same beliefs.
You can't beat them, there's no point in truth.
We're in fact we're creating terrorists.
Bush is making it worse by by provoking these people.
Bush is creating all these terrorists.
We need to get out of there and come back to our own country.
You cannot trust leftists to defend the country, to see and spot evil, and to want to face up to it.
You it just isn't going to happen.
And it's a history in this sense does repeat itself.
And there's no question we're gonna win this war.
We're the United States of America.
Now, all bets are off if we elect a Democrat in two thousand eight.
But the odds are we're gonna win this war, and and uh uh Bush, uh, as Richard says here, will indeed uh be vindicated.
I'm glad you called, sir.
This is Jim in Philadelphia.
You're next, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush.
Ple pleasure to talk to you.
You bet, sir.
I just wanted to mention you were just talking about Matt Albright on Hannity last night, and uh it got my ire up because I remember distinctly about uh when uh when Clinton was lying about Monica Lewinsky and the whole cabinet came out, including Mattel and Albright, and they all backed him and said, Oh yeah, he would never do such a thing.
And of course, uh when it turned out they admitted he lied, they all shut up.
And then on top of it, uh, which really I was aghast when when she brought us into uh the Balkans and and uh that battle, she was acting she was Secretary of State, but she put the role as Secretary of Defense in leading that war.
And I I just couldn't believe what was happening.
The press never said a word about it.
And she directed that whole war.
And uh, yeah, and you know you're right.
My memory is she had something personal, every a bit Milosevich, she would say his name and she would spew it with hatred.
Exactly.
And and uh course you're not surprised the media is gonna oppose a Democrat led war, are you?
Uh no, of course not.
No.
No.
But you know, on top of that, originally they had uh separated Kosovo through uh what I believe was uh NATO, and then she turned it around pretending that it never happened and put on her UN hat and then said, Oh, we're gonna change it now and separate Kosovo from uh the rest of uh Yugoslavia or Bosnagovia or Crocia.
And you know, and they acted as if uh that was all something new.
And they had she had totally screwed it up from the beginning and then acted as if they were gonna now take care of things once the so-called genocide was gone on.
And I and I just I just kept every day seeing that here's a Secretary of State running the this defense department.
And and these people can never be trusted to say one honest thing.
I mean, they and they don't care.
They just come out and say one thing, contradict themselves one step right after another.
And what they also do is they hang tough together.
As you pointed out, the allegations were made about Lewinsky.
Albright led the cabinet and a lot of White House staffers out and said they standing by the president, we believe he's telling you we couldn't believe he'd do this sort of thing, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Um and even to this day, this this whole shadow government that exists.
Why Albright's still on television talking about this stuff is to make sure that what they were not doing before 911 doesn't get appropriately covered.
They're doing everything they can.
Sandy Burglar sneaking into the uh archives building in order to do whatever he did before the nine eleven testimony that he made.
Mary McCarthy at the CIA uh uh potentially leaking this stuff to Dana Priest.
Uh the the Clinton's are all over the government, CIA, Pentagon, State Department.
And it's amazing.
They they know they don't defect.
I don't care who they are.
Folks, you uh you know, uh you liberals uh you know, we we talk about ourselves as as being oriented toward principle and staying to our principles.
And you might say, well, the liberals have their principles too and they stick by them.
But it's it's something other than their principles.
You have to understand just how committed leftists are to leftism and and uh things they believe.
Um and they're not gonna allow any individual in their movement who has a failing to affect uh or harm the image.
That's why failures, the Democratic Party and in the liberal movement get vaunted to the top of the stature pole, and why they're constantly awarded.
It's why they're constantly trying to take their failures and make them out to be the greatest things that ever happened to the country and so forth.
They will not abandon.
I I don't know if one defection from the Clinton administration.
Do you?
I don't know of one.
Uh and when Garrett Steph Stephanie Stephanopolis for one maybe you can say Dick Morris is is uh is is a defector, but you know, Morris is on Fox News, so that lets the left side of course Fox no credibility there.
Stefanopoul is now at ABC and so he's cool.
Uh but look at the other side of it.
Gary Aldrich, FBI agent comes out with that book about what he saw, destroy him.
They band together to destroy those uh their enemies and and prop him up.
And that's one thing we don't do, as the story from the eighty six LA Times indicates what's going on now.
You got Republicans, and it's been Chuck Hagel, I don't care abandoning Republic.
In fact, there are a lot of Republicans who abandon a Republican president just to make the left and the media in Washington like them and give them airtime and respect and so forth.
It's uh frustrating.
Maddening, sickening.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
All right, now I want to I want to go over a news story here from the New York Times because I was discussing uh a few moments ago the uh the plans announced by New Orleans Mayor Ray Negan.
Should there be another need to evacuate the city and if another hurricane hits, and I said he basically said it's up to you to get your butt out of town.
The buses are gonna run, but you've got to get your butt on them.
And some people think, you know, Rush, you've been having so much fun with Mr. Nagan.
Uh I've been reading the emails.
Is that really what he said?
I know.
My friends, I am shocked that you would doubt my perspective on this.
Let me go to the New York Times.
Mr. Nagan said that if a hurricane threatened this year, there would be no shelters of last resort.
Places where the city's poor have gathered to sit out storms, which last year became bunkers for thousands when New Orleans flooded.
Instead, the convention center will simply be used as a staging area for residents unable to leave on their own.
Buses will pick citizens up and take them there, and other buses will take them out of town.
Still, the mayor stopped short of saying it everybody would be forced to leave, emphasizing that though evacuation would be urged if a major storm threatened.
We're dealing with adults here.
Amtrak trains will be used to ferry out the elderly and the disabled, he said.
Both Nagan and the top aide emphasized that citizens would primarily be responsible for looking out for themselves when a storm threatens.
Now, the way I read that is you're it's up to you to get yourself out of town.
The mayor asked whether his plan would be carried out by his challenger should he lose, quickly shot back.
If somebody new comes in, they'd have to be Einstein to figure this out.
Now, permit me a brief observation.
After Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath last year, what was the number one complaint?
That nobody in government, any level, did anything for anybody.
Yeah, they called an evacuation, but they didn't get anybody out of town.
And so politicians rushing, we will help you next time.
We're going to make sure this.
And what's the what's the solution?
Now it's time to warn people in New Orleans, and lo and behold, hey, they're on your own to get to the evacuation centers.
You are on your own to get yourself up to that convention center or what have you.
You're up to you're on your own.
We're not going to go door to door and force you out of there.
You are an adult.
Translation, hey, there's only so much we can do, and you're going to have to do whatever you can for yourself.
This is not a Democrat message.
This is not a liberal Democrat message.
Now, why is he offering this message?
Because the liberal Democrat way, forcing people to sit around and wait for somebody to come to the rescue bombed.
Miserably.
And so the only solution.
Now, if if the mayor of New Orleans can say to his citizens after this experience last year, hey, you got to do it yourself.
Don't you think it's time for maybe liberals to start thinking about that in jobs and education and other acts of self-responsibility?
It's up to you.
I know, folks, it's a dreamy.
Um we sit here, we fantasize, and uh, you know, we dream also want to congratulate Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.
He won the Republican nomination for Governor Tuesday after campaigning as the candidate who could best deliver his party from a year of political scandals and infighting.
Uh late returns had Blackwell 57% of the vote to 43% for Attorney General Jim Petro.
Uh Blackwell's prominence as a leading black voice in a GOP could be pivotal to the Republicans.
He is the first black candidate to run for governor in Ohio.
So congratulations, uh, Mr. Blackwell.
Uh we got to take a brief time out.
We'll be back and continue in a second.
Tiger Woods just announced on his website that his father Earl has uh passed away from uh prostate cancer.
Uh we interviewed uh for a Father's Day issue once uh some years ago, Earl Woods for the Limbaugh Letter.
And uh I am issuing the executive order to uh put that interview from uh years ago up on Rush Limbaugh.com this afternoon.
Coco, if you can get together with Diana, the editrix and uh get that done, that'd be great.
We'll see you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection