All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
May 17, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Look at this headline.
Look at this headline as an AP story.
It says it says fear gnaws Mexicans as votenears.
As a Mexican presidential election coming up, I'm surprised there are any Mexicans left in Mexico.
To vote, that that's why the headline caught my eye.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
And the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular Rush Limbaugh program.
We're here, the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today.com.
I want to start by going back to yesterday's program about 24 hours ago.
And I w I want to review what I said leading into a discussion of President Bush's speech on immigration the night before.
Let's get to the president's speech on immigration last night.
What you saw, what you heard, I think is a uh sincere leader trying to lead the nation.
We've got the the third rail of third rails here, the uh illegal immigration, and the horses are out of the barn on this.
You can lock the door to the barn all you want, and you can say but when the horses are gone, the horses are gone.
And this is one of these issues.
You heard the president, you saw him trying to solve a problem that previous leaders and politicians created, ignored, and encouraged.
And it's a tough thing.
All right, no, no, it's a question.
Does that sound like I was giving the president the benefit of the doubt?
I was uh uh understanding uh this is a big problem.
Yeah, he's had a role in it, but uh it's a problem created long before he got there.
Uh and of course, I know it's got a lot of people royal, but you didn't you didn't hear anything in that that would constitute bigotry or harsh criticism of the president, did you?
In fact, you go through the whole program yesterday.
You won't you won't really hear that, was respectful of Vice President Cheney, as I always am on this program.
And I, you know, asked him some pretty tough questions.
That was not a you know, I didn't lob a bunch of softballs at him.
So imagine my shock and stunned amazement when I'm watching the round table of one of my favorite television shows.
Uh special report with Britt Hume, and they're discussing the reaction of the president's speech, and Fred Barnes turned to speak.
He said this.
The president did not do very well among the hardcore anti-immigrant people.
The hardcore people, the blog, the conservative blogs, the conservative talk radio people, Rush Limbaugh, and so on.
Uh the difference is they don't have a vote.
And and once you get uh a uh an issue that has tremendous momentum behind it, it's really the chemistry uh in the Senate in the House that matter.
Whoa, no, what is this uh anti-immigrant?
When in the world, especially yesterday or any day, have I expressed anti-immigrant sentiments.
Uh I have expressed alarm and concern over the original Hegel Martinez bill that would have allowed as many as between a hundred and two hundred million new legal immigrants into the country in twenty years.
I think that's a bit overdone that we we uh I've never suggested we ban immigrants, ban immigration.
I've only spoken about illegal immigrants.
What is all this?
Is anti-immigration people, the hardcore people, the blogs.
You know, this is this is uh uh this is disappointing.
There's no anti-immigration setup among any of the people I know about this, it's all anti-illegal, and I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.
The word illegal, if it doesn't mean anything anymore, take it out.
But if if if if illegal still has meaning, if you can go to dictionary, you can find that it has a meaning, then and it continues to be used, then why why ignore it?
And why why why try to cast people who are um uh not anti-immigrant as anti-immigrant?
As a whole.
You know, I'll tell you what, this this issue uh is is got more divisions uh in the Republican, it's causing more divisions in the Republican Party than any issue that I can recall in a long time.
And I frankly, including to do my ports deal.
I I can't recall an issue.
I've been doing this for 18 years.
It'll be 18 years in August, big anniversary coming up.
I I can't trying to think.
Uh there have been some, but I can't Think of any single issue which has uh Republicans slash conservatives more up in arms than this one.
Uh uh and particularly with the the uh apparent lack of response at the highest levels of government, House, Senate, White House.
Uh oh, the the House Bank was a big deal, uh, and the uh House Post Office and some of those correct corruption scandals that existed back in the late 80s and early 90s, but either this is um this is incredible.
You you've got even among the conservative quote unquote intelligentsia, and yes, we have pointy-headed elites in the conservative movement, just like they exist on the left, and they're mostly inside the beltway, and and even those people are divided on this.
Some of them are calling each other anti-immigrant, the others are saying, yeah, you don't understand a problem in America.
You need to get outside the beltway and go see it.
This is a uh classic illustration here of how uh if at least Fred Barnes, I don't know if he's speaking just for himself or representing the weekly standard where he works as well in an editorial sense, but this idea that there's an anti-immigrant mood out there is uh you know misstated, and frankly, it is uh it's absurd.
Now there's action in the Senate, as you know, Jeff Sessions succeeded in reducing these numbers uh from uh 100 to 200 million to somewhere between uh well, I think the top will be sixty million.
Uh and and it's it's strange when when when you can have new immigration of sixty million over twenty years be considered a victory.
So these guys start with this massive high starting point, 100 to 200 million new legal immigrants, and uh sessions, oh, that's too many, and starts alerting people in the Senate, and they voted uh change the amended amend it, and they get it down to the the top now would be I think it's either yes, sixty uh million is is what it would be if the full caps are reached, but that's not really the big story.
The real big story is that the Senate yesterday voted against securing the border before implementing provisions that would grant the right of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens that would uh double the flow of legal immigration.
Uh the uh the amendment would have delayed the amnesty and guest worker provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill until the border had been sewn up successfully.
Majority of Democrats, 36 out of 44, were joined by 18 Republicans, and the chamber's lone independent to kill the amendment on a 55 to 40 vote.
Well, that sort of sums up where we are here.
Uh 55 to 40, and the amendment would have delayed the amnesty and guest worker provisions in the Senate's bill until the border had been sewn up successfully.
Meaning, if you look at it the other way, fifty-five Senators said, screw security, we're gonna join the Democrats and the open borders crowd here.
Would you like to hear the names of the 18 Republican senators who voted with the Democrats on this?
Here we go, in alphabetical order.
Uh Robert Bennett of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, Norm Coleman, Minnesota, Susan Collins, Maine, Larry Craig, Idaho, Mike DeWine, Ohio, Lindsay Graham, South Carolina, Chuck Hagel, Nebraska, Dick Luger, Indiana, Mel Martinez, Florida, uh Luna Murkowski, Arkansas, or Alaska, sorry.
Uh uh Senator Shelby from Alabama, Olympia Snow from Maine, Senator Spector, Pennsylvania, Ted Stevens, Alaska, Voinovich, Ohio, and John Warner from Virginia.
There were four Republicans who didn't vote.
Uh Tad Cochran, Mississippi, Judd Gregg, New Hampshire, uh Trent Lott, and uh Senator McCain, who was uh Columbia University making a commencement address, and a fascinating headline on that story.
Wet weather dampens protests at uh at McCain's speech, did the commencement speech at Columbia uh University.
Anyway, we have to take a brief time out here, folks.
We'll be back and continue with all the rest of today's program in mere moments.
Don't vanish, stay where you are.
And we're back 800-282-2882.
L. Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all feeling, all concern, pretty much all everything, maha, Rushy.
Uh, and welcome to those of you watching the program today on the Ditto Cam at Rush Limbaugh.com.
We we're by the way, for those of you watching the program on the Ditto Cam, we are investigating sabotage here.
Uh Ditto Cam settings are all out of whack and we can't get them back to where they were.
Uh, we've we've done our best to normalize the uh the picture, but with the normal settings we always have, I look like I'm uh uh uh sun sunburned, you know, red apple.
We can't have that.
The last thing I am is a red.
So uh we've made some dial position changes here, and uh Brian says, I guess I'll have to look at the owner's manual.
I said, screw that, get a new camera.
Obviously been using this a long time, just get a new camera.
We're the EIB network for crying out, well, I'll look at the owner's manual.
The great thing about technology today is you don't have to look in the owner's manual.
At any rate, 800-282-2882.
Guess we're supposed to be uh proud and we're so I guess we're supposed to applaud this today.
The Senate voted today.
We got audio sound bites from Senate action today.
Ted Kennedy flips out.
That's coming up.
Senate voted uh today to exclude illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors from a chance at remaining in the country under what critics say is an amnesty program.
Unanimous vote on an amendment that before Easter had been considered a poison pill, provided added momentum for broad immigration uh reform that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants and put many of them on a path toward citizenship.
This is the uh Kyle Cornyn amendment.
Uh Kyle of Arizona, Cornyen of Texas.
They softened the bill Tuesday in negotiations with the uh supporters of the legislation.
Sponsors agreed to include exceptions for hardship cases and those who don't know or didn't know a deportation order had been uh had been issued uh for them.
Senator Kennedy said, we want to keep those who can harm us, the criminal element.
Well, yeah, keep them out of here.
Uh those who could benefit benefit us ought to remain.
Uh yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, of course.
I know well, yeah, I know let's let's you want to know what one of the hardships is?
It'll hurt my family if you deport me.
Uh so that if if if somebody's family would be hurt by deportation, they don't get deported.
Okay, it's I tell you it's gonna be fascinating to see where this goes.
I folks I I know it's getting worse by the day, and it's inexplicable.
It doesn't make any what are these 18 Republicans doing?
What is so difficult to understand about this in terms of the smart, sensible thing to do here?
The first thing is the security of the border, and to have 18 Republicans.
Oh, nope, nope, can't put that in there.
Maybe they didn't like the fact that we can't do anything else until the borders.
Well, what is wrong with that?
I am I am I am trying to maintain my composure, but uh that no matter where I look and no matter how dig I deep uh deep I dig.
Uh I can't I can't come up with this with uh with the with an explanation for any of this that makes sense to me.
Um here's some of the some of the details.
By the way, I I have need to issue a correction.
Uh Senator Sessions uh uh fix uh did the the top is 90 million now, between 60 and 90.
I I made a th that it was 30 and 60 million that the uh uh new amendment uh adjustments allow for.
It's uh you know, it used to be hundred, two hundred and seventeen million, somewhere between there, those two numbers uh after after Jeff Sessions uh did his magic uh the the range now is between sixty and ninety million.
But I mean what a so what?
I got it wrong by thirty million, ten million here, ten million there, but what are we talking about anyway?
It's not these numbers are still ridiculous.
It's still absurd.
I mean, it's crazy when the top figure now gets reduced from 217 million to 90 million and you think, aha, victory.
It uh at any rate, the the this uh the the amendment to um uh delay the amnesty and guest worker provisions until the border had been sewn up successfully was uh offered by uh uh Senator from Georgia by the name of Isaacson.
He said, We didn't we didn't enforce the border.
Uh we granted amnesty in 1986, and 20 years later there are 11 to 12 million to 13 million who've come because of the promise and opportunity of this country, but also because we've given a wink and a nod to the security of our border.
Mr. Isaacson's fellow Georgian Republican Saxby Chambler said, I don't see how any senator who is serious about border security and enforcing our immigration laws can disagree with this amendment.
To disagree with this amendment sends the message to the American people that we're more eager to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship than we are to secure our borders from further illegal immigration and the smuggling of illegal drugs and uh and weapons.
Speaking of that, illegal drugs, uh Jonah Goldberg had a piece today, the National Review Online, one of their uh editors at large or executive editors, and he said it's interesting if you compare the way we're fighting the war on drugs uh to the way we are fighting uh the war on illegal immigration.
He said, pretend for a moment that illegal immigrants are illegal drugs.
And is the war on illegal drugs working?
And in fact, some people say it isn't gonna work because the supply and demand laws are gonna take over.
As long as there's a demand for drugs, they're gonna find a way in the country, no matter what you do at the border, is that if you look at illegal immigration that way, some people might have the um uh the same take.
But his is his interesting analysis is that while all kinds of people are just dead set serious on the war on drugs, and we have got to cut I mean no God, we're not gonna cut anybody any slack.
We're not gonna back off one second.
The same problem, you've still got an insecure, unprotected border that leads to the existence of both problems, and yet the illegal immigrant crowd, um uh the well, the open borders crowd.
Ah, borders we need to deal with this on the interior basis, we need these voters.
What whatever Kaka may be thinking they've come up with.
Uh and when it comes to the war on drugs, it's an entirely different mentality and attitude by people the same people.
Uh so it is interesting.
We'll link to it at uh at rushlimbaugh.com.
Uh also uh there's a there's an amendment that was uh defeated uh yesterday.
That was the Byron Hillmanhead Dorgan amendment, uh, defeated 69 to 28.
Uh his amendment would have eliminated the central plank of Bush's immigration policy, a program to offer temporary guest worker visas to 325,000 foreign workers a year, Dorgan and some union leaders said that the program would insource a steady flow of cheap labor that would compete for low-skilled jobs, lowering wages for everyone.
So a Democrat amendment to scrap the guest worker plan was also um uh defeated.
And it's interesting, Dorgan acting here at the behest of uh of unions.
Uh and then, and then there's this.
This so many aspects of this story are mind-boggling.
From Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, Mexico warned yesterday that it would file lawsuits in the United States in our courts, if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border, and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.
Bush announced Monday he will send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, but said the troops will just provide intelligence and surveillance.
They will not catch and detain illegal immigrants.
Mexican foreign secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station, if we if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people, we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates.
The Mexican officials say they worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths.
Now let me see if I understand this.
It's getting harder and harder to make sense of any of this.
Mexico says that if the U.S. National Guard actually takes any action to protect our borders by holding back illegal aliens, then they are going to sue in the United States in our own courts, they're gonna sue us in our own courts for essentially protecting our border?
Who they gonna call John Edwards, who's gonna take the case for them.
I know they'll find a lot of lawyers to take the case.
But where will will not one just one elected United States officials stand up and take a position on this?
Just one?
Is there not one I don't care what party?
Is there not one elected official who, when hearing that Mexico threatens to sue us in our courts if the guard actually happens to participate in protecting the border?
To announce the lunacy of this?
And to say, who do you people think you are?
By the way, Mexico, where's your shame?
Does it not bother you that so damn many of your citizens want out?
Nobody looks at it from that angle either, but this is absurd in so many different ways, it makes no sense.
I can't figure it out, folks.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, even a retired Marine Captain sent me an email and said, look at Pal.
You want to sound like a little hungry high school kid, go ahead, but it's beneath you.
Sometimes I have trouble understanding exactly how it is people perceive me here.
Greetings, folks, and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to uh to have.
I you you you heard right, Mexico is warning of lawsuits in our courts if the National Guard detains uh immigrants.
And I you know, this what what when somebody in our elected capacity gonna stand up and say, hey, Mexico, your your your own immigration laws are nothing but a bunch of uh uh BS and we demand that you change them.
Well what we just sit around and take it.
You know, these these these these little third world countries just diss on us all the time, and we just sit around take it because we have institutional guilt, folks.
We have guilt and so forth.
It's pervading every aspect of American culture and politics now.
There's just no by the way, interviewed Shelby Steele yesterday afternoon for the uh next issue of the uh of the Limbaughter, and it was fascinating.
Uh this man has written a book, White Guilt, that will just you know I have people come up to me all the time saying, Rush, how can a liberal be a liberal?
How can anybody be a liberal?
You know, I'll go through my various answers, uh, this, this, this, but he answers it.
He answers it, you've got to have a tremendous foundation of guilt.
He also explained to me, and I thought I knew the answer to this, but uh I I didn't, I wasn't quite all the way there.
We were talking about his views on the uh the black population and how and how it's just in terrible trouble because the current civil rights leadership, which he thinks is fading away, he's very optimistic that all this is going to change, but the current uh civil rights leadership has done its best uh to uh uh make sure that successful blacks are not portrayed as role models,
uh, such as Condoleezza Rice uh or Colin Powell or Justice Thomas or any number of them.
And I I I said, well, then what why is that?
I mean, is it I I understand the threat to the civil rights coalition of uh people like Dr. Rice and and Justice Thomas and Colin Powell who have achieved uh outside the uh prescriptions that the civil rights coalition say are necessary, such as affirmative action always say, No, no, no, it's nothing to do with that.
He said, the problem is that Justice Thomas and his success and Condoleez Rice and Colin Powell demonstrate that there is no institutional racism in America anymore.
They demonstrate that black people are free.
And he said that black people of the blessed civil rights leaders have just done their level best to keep their charges, their people, a people they claim to lead, ill-equipped to deal with freedom.
I'd rather keep them uh in an entitlement mentality.
Uh uh he said, this is not about rage.
When you see riots after the Rodney King episode or OJ or what is not about rage, there's not if he said if oppression caused rage, then the slaves would have revolted.
They didn't.
That's not what there's no rage that's causing all of this.
Um he said this is this is a purposeful strategic attempt to use guilt and to blame white people and other people in power uh and and and perpetuate this, and it's the purpose of it is to continue to spread this guilt among non blacks and non minorities.
And and it's working.
And it's been working for a long time.
this business with illegal immigration, I guarantee you that as far as the Democrats are concerned, the reason we're not going to do anything about it is because they refuse to be seen or thought of as being cold hearted, mean spirited and cruel to the quote unquote disadvantaged.
Not to mention the political aspects.
They see them as future voters and a way to expand their party and all that.
That that of course makes sense.
But aside from the other, it's like the story I told you to big time TV personality.
Got into an argument with a bunch of us out in Southern California over immigration.
He finally got frustrated at being unable to refute any argument that we were giving him.
He finally got mad.
He started pounding a dinner table.
He said, Look, if any poor person color wants to come to my country, try to prove their wife.
Well, I am not going to stand it their way.
I will not do it.
If they I'm going to open my house, I'm going to open my I'm going to welcome them in.
He was so frustrated.
Well, Voila.
Uh guy was hell bent on making sure that nobody thought he was mean, mean spirited, cruel, cold hearted, the inability to put his own country first, the inability to put what's right to enforce the law or what have you, the inability to deal with the national security of this country on any issue, subordinated to his own guilt.
And that's, I think, uh where a lot of people come down on this uh illegal immigration business and trying to seriously do uh something about it, because they're afraid what others will say about them, especially in an election year.
Oh, yeah, they don't care about the poor.
I mean, the worst thing that you can say, uh a politician, one of the things about which a politician will be the most afraid of having said about him or her is doesn't care about the poor.
I mean, it's almost it's almost a requirement that you care about the or say you do uh if you have any chance of being elected.
All right, I want to go to this uh ABC Washington Post poll.
Uh, but I want to preface it by doing another C I told you so.
Let's go back to this program yesterday.
Audio soundbite number three there, uh, Mamon.
Um this this is what I said yesterday about the uh uh drive-by media loving the Bush speech because he he staked out the moderate middle.
Judging by the mainstream media's reaction today, I mean the New York Times has run a sympathetic story by Elizabeth Bumiller on just how nice and thorough and consistent Bush is on Mexicans and immigration and what it means to the country and blah, blah, blah.
And the LA Times liked it.
The Washington Post liked it.
And they all used the word moderate.
The president struck a middle chord.
All right, well, we're gonna find out real quick, since that's what the drive-by media is saying.
I want you to pay special attention to the polls because we are always told that elections in this country are won by the party that best courts the undecided vote, the moderates, the independence, uh, the middle ground, because the base of both parties you take for granted, they cancel each other out, but that great unwashed in the middle in there, that's who we go get.
Okay.
So if the drive-by media wants to anoint the president's speech last night as a big appeal to the center, then his approval numbers ought to skyrocket if this is indeed a country of moderates.
So let's just wait and see what the next approval numbers from drive-by media polls show us.
Well, we have those numbers.
Here's Elizabeth Vargas uh on ABC's World News Tonight.
A new ABC News Washington Post poll finds that the president's approval now stands at just 33%, tying a 25-year low.
The president's approval rating on immigration is at almost as low as his overall job approval.
His oval office address last night was intended to seize the political high ground on immigration, but it doesn't look like he won over many critics.
Well, it also illustrates what I said that this is not a nation of moderates.
It's not a nation where there's a big center of undecided independence, because if there were, and this was indeed a speech that targeted the center of this issue, why these people would be rallying to the president's side in the poll, but it didn't happen.
Last night, um, also same show, Elizabeth Vargas spoke with George Steffi Stephanopoulos to review these findings.
And Vargas said, in the meantime, the polls are showing a disconnect.
People very unhappy about the president and his administration.
This is the most fascinating finding in the polls.
Sixty-nine percent of the American people think the country is on the wrong track, but fifty-eight percent of the American people think their local community is on the right track, is going in the right direction, and 89% of the American people are optimistic about their own personal future.
You know, a president just shouldn't be at 33% when you've got 89% of the country optimistic about their future.
This is a challenge and an opportunity for the president.
Stop the tape.
That's all we need to hear.
That's why I don't believe this 33% business.
And I have also explained what Stephanopoulos here is agog about and just can't understand.
69% think the country's on the wrong track.
Now, how can that be if 58% think their local communities on the right track?
And 89% are optimistic about their own personal future.
How do 58% positive, 89% positive equals 69% negative?
How does this happen?
It happens only if you want it to.
It happens only if you ask the questions the right way, and we know that the drive-by media's constant pummeling of this economy for the last five years and the pummeling of this administration.
Remember my formula.
I came up with my own version of the Einstein theory of relativity to explain all this.
They just constantly bash their influence is down, but if they hit it every day, they're going to affect people.
So when you have 58% think their local community is on the right track, but everybody else is in a tank.
Guilt.
It's guilt.
They well, I don't know.
I mean, I'm doing f I'm doing fine, but I I I I see the news and I say all this horrible news of the economy is going crazy.
I mean, I'll so they say it must not be good out there.
It's good for me.
And then when they think it's good for me, it's not good for everybody.
Well, that's not fair.
Why I feel guilty about that, so I'm not going to say it's that good.
But I'll tell them it's somewhat okay.
And then you get 89% of the people optimistic about their own personal future, but 69% think the country's on the wrong track.
This isn't just Iraq, folks.
Uh you may think it is, but this is this is and it's not just illegal immigration in that debate, although that's part of it.
It some gasoline price uh residue in there, no doubt.
Uh, this is no more than the the the drive-by media lobbying these darts and a little mortar fire into crowds and heading on down the highway to do it again later that day or the next day.
The only way you can have 89% of the people optimistic about their own personal future, and 69% think the country going in the wrong direction, is that people think they're doing well but nobody else is.
And that that that is a phenomenon I have noticed uh uh not just in the last five years, but uh periodically, and maybe it is just in the last one.
No, because we've talked about this.
92.
Remember when Clinton was running around.
This is the worst economy in the last fifty years.
Well, he was doing the drive-by media's work for him.
He was hammering.
That was a campaign theme.
We were it was not the worst economy in the last fifty years, it was a mild recession.
And you go back and talk to, but what had people call this program back then?
Oh, I'm doing fine, but I uh worried about my neighbor across the street.
That's where that started.
That's where I first heard it was the uh the presidential campaign of 1992.
Remember the Bush administration back then wasn't responding to it because they didn't think anybody would ever elect Bill Clinton, and they weren't taking Perot seriously either.
Uh and and yet they kept hammering that worst economy in the last fifty years stuff and putting people first and all that rot gut, and it created the notion that while people were doing okay, they didn't think anybody else was, and that seems to have survived here.
Uh but George, all this means is that this 33% approval number, that there's something uh wrong with it.
A few more comments about this, but a brief timeout back in just a second.
Okay, the ABC Washington Post poll revealed uh yesterday on the 15th.
President's approval rating 33 percent, congressional approval rating, whatever it is.
How often are they doing these polls?
Was this the May 15th tracking poll?
Was there a May 13th?
Will there be a May 14th?
And what I want to know is was the poll of the 15th a poll of the whole day, or did they run a morning poll?
Did they run an evening and afternoon poll?
Did they run a late night poll?
Uh how many polls are these people?
You know, every day there's one of these polls.
Every day we have NBC News in a Wall Street Journal.
Um we've got Harris Interactive out there doing their own stuff.
We got USA Today Gala, we got AP Ipsos, we got CBS New York Times, we got six polls.
Six days leaving out Sunday for Sunday you talk about all the polls.
Um And the headline, Bush approval ratings lower, and we helped.
What started as a make news uh stunt to attract left wing readers is now morphed into a political strategy.
Propaganda under the cover of news.
Now, I understand this.
I understand a lot of you out there couldn't care less about drive-by media because you know who they are.
It's like you know liberals and so forth and so on.
Uh and a lot of you believe that the uh 33% number is pretty close to accurate.
We're in deep doo-doo.
That we are in deep doo-doo.
And we could be in deep doo-doo, folks.
It's not too late to avoid ending up in deep doo-doo, but uh I mean, we as as a uh as a party, the leadership of our party has uh been taking us in directions that uh we as conservatives don't recognize and uh and don't support.
Tom in Knoxville, Tennessee.
We'll start with you on the phones today.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Hey, I think I have an answer for you on these possible lawsuits coming out of Mexico.
Um I thought was that when you read that, I was surprised, but I thought, you know what, we can't even defend our own home without the threat of a lawsuit.
You know, if you have somebody that's trying to break in or perhaps invading your property, and so I think they've learned from the best.
Well, but that's that's not the point.
I mean, I understand the point that you're you're you're you're trying to make about that, but uh uh uh lawsuits and courts are out of control.
This this is this is more this is the all I'm saying is where is somebody with some sense and some responsibility in a position of elected power going to stand up and say to Mexico, this is absurd.
You try suing us.
You can't tell us how we're gonna protect our own country.
And yet they're doing it.
And we're just standing around twiddling our thumbs.
In fact, eighteen Republicans joined with the Democrats yesterday to make it clear border security is the last thing they care about.
What are you laughing at in there, Snerdly?
Well, well, I mean, the the the um what don't want to I didn't understand what you said.
Where?
What what voter who uh I'm not sure I understand.
I'll get I'll get from you in the uh uh the uh in the in the in the break.
Um but here's here's the um here's the thing.
W the the Republican Party, conservative movement, Republican party, conservative movement has defined the Republican Party for 20 years.
Uh we're a national security, we're a law and order, free market party.
And we're not beating the crap out of the enemy in uh in Iraq, and and Steele's right about that, Shelby Steele.
We're not enforcing uh our own law on the border, and we're spending like idiots.
And I think one of the pieces of glue that's that's holding the conservative movement together today is the is the detestable, contemptible uh left.
Uh we know that the country simply can't be turned over to them.
Uh and that's plus there are some other signs out there of of uh conservative muscle flexing.
There was a literal earthquake in Pennsylvania, just as there was in North Carolina and just as there was in Ohio in these in these primary elections.
Rhino Republicans, liberal blue blood country club Rockefeller Republicans, are being thrown out of office, and conservative Republicans are winning in these primaries.
So the Republicans in in Pennsylvania and uh uh Ohio, North Carolina.
I mean, Pennsylvania is is this is pretty remarkable.
Pennsylvania not known as a as a hotbed of conservatism, and the Republicans in these primaries uh just clean the clocks, these conservatives of these old moderate country club Rockefeller blue blood types.
And uh same thing with Ken Blackwell in Ohio and and um uh what else?
There was one other state, I guess it was um maybe it was Ohio, but forget I know North Carolina, but some oh, it was in Reston, Virginia, where where these uh people that wanted to set up a day labor center uh for illegals.
They got thrown out uh as well.
So there's clearly unrest out there, and these people in Washington had better notice it.
Or they are gonna be in a deep doo doo with all the rest of us.
Back in just a sec.
And we have uh audio sound bites from the Senate floor yesterday.
Uh Democrats illustrating they are nowhere uh on the immigration debate.
▲
Export Selection