All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:04
May 18, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations every day.
Right here from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be with us today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I forgot in a previous hour to welcome those of you watching the program on the DittoCam today.
We did get it fixed.
It was all out of whacking out.
It was the white balance that was all screwed up.
And as usual, Brian blamed the cleaning crew for coming in here and playing around with the dials.
We've locked the dials now so that they, in broadcast parlance, they're called potentiometers or pots.
Anyway, you can turn them, and it won't make any difference.
The cleaning crew can come in here and screw up all they want.
And nothing will change the quality picture of the DittoCam you've come to know, expect, love, and demand.
And we welcome all of you there.
Let me now finish with a couple things from Bob Samuelson's piece refuting the GOP inside the beltway panic over what's happening on programs like this regarding illegal immigration.
Also have.
And I love it when other people validate me.
I validate you all day long.
I love it when people validate me.
How many times, my friends, have I warned you, don't get caught up in this doom and gloom and pessimism.
Don't fall for it.
You can't get it into your head Republicans are blowing it.
They're going to lose the House and they're going to lose the Senate and so forth.
It's just, it's become the conventional wisdom out there.
There are two pieces today I want to share with you.
And I'm always telling you, forget that.
And people have called me as recently in the last three weeks.
Rush winning's going to happen in the House, Senate.
And I wouldn't be surprised if we gained seats.
But Rush, it just doesn't add up.
I mean, you look at the thing.
You just wait, folks.
Just wait.
My main reason for saying this is not because the Republicans are doing anything marvelously well.
House is crucial.
But who in the hell is going to vote for these Democrats?
You actually think they're building and broadening a base out there?
It's just absurd to think that.
It would fly in the face of basic human nature.
At any rate, one is in the American Spectator Today by Jeffrey Lord, who is a former political director in the Reagan White House, also wrote a book called The Borking Rebellion.
And his piece is entitled A Conservative Victory in 2006.
Another is by Gary Andres in the Washington Times today.
He is a, it's an op-ed piece.
I'm not exactly sure who he is because I goofed up when I printed this and I left out the slug signature line.
But his piece entitled GOP Gloom, and he starts out by saying, conservative columnists have a case of congressional crankiness.
But he goes on to talk about all the great things that have happened that can be pointed to in the last five years that, of course, the dominant drive-by media will not do.
But we do on this program, and I'll share these two things with you in due course.
But just a couple more paragraphs here from Mr. Samuelson on this whole immigration business.
He said that the difficulties are obvious.
Competition among illegal immigrants depresses wages.
Social services are stretched thin.
In 2000, children of immigrants already represented a quarter of all low-income students in U.S. schools.
That's according to an Urban Institute study in 2000, six years ago.
Children of immigrants represented a quarter, 25% of all low-income students.
Now, the figure is probably higher today.
The study also reports that immigrant children are rapidly spreading beyond the six states where they had traditionally concentrated, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey.
Now, this may explain why immigration suddenly becomes such an explosive issue.
A reader emails Samuelson.
He says, there are children in my son's school who aren't able to speak a single word of English, and it's causing such frustration amongst the staff and other children, I'm afraid for my son's future.
There are striking parallels between how we've treated immigration and aging.
In both cases, the facts are hiding in plain view, but we've chosen to ignore them because candor seems insensitive and politically awkward.
I mean, who wants to offend the elderly?
Who wants to offend Latinos?
Amen.
We have guilt.
Yes.
The result is to make our choices work by postponing those choices.
A sensible society would long ago have begun adapting to longer life expectancies, better health, and greater wealth by making careful cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
We have done little.
Unfortunately, these two problems intersect.
Just coincidentally, the Census Bureau projects both the 65 and overpopulation and the Hispanic population to be about a fifth of the total by 2030.
The seasoned citizen population right now is about 12%.
The tax increases that will be required to pay for existing federal commitments to the elderly are on the order of 30 to 40 percent.
And by the way, this is not new news.
If you go back and look at any president's budget, any year, go back when we started this program 1988.
You'll find that if things don't change, future tax rates are projected at 78, 75 percent.
And we have mentioned this before.
People who don't think that there will be conflicts between older beneficiaries and younger taxpayers, be they Hispanic or not, are deluding themselves.
People who imagine that there won't be more conflicts between growing numbers of poor Latinos and poor African Americans for jobs and political power are also deluding themselves.
And he doesn't say this, but what his piece also drives home is that this really isn't immigration that we're talking about, at least on the illegal side.
We're not worried about assimilation or acculturation.
We're not even focusing on that.
It's strictly jobs and wages issue for people that are coming and for their supporters.
All right, audio sound by time.
As you know, General Hayden, Michael Hayden, took to the hot seat today.
Oh, speaking of what I don't know if you've heard this yet or not.
Christopher Dodd, esteemed senator from Connecticut, has said, I don't know about this wall business.
I don't know about building this wall.
We really can't do this wall unless we get the cooperation of the Mexican government.
So he's going to try to insert an amendment into this thing now that requires us to get the cooperation, approval, whatever of the Mexican government before we build a fence, because if we don't get that, it isn't going to work.
Don't ask me to explain it.
I mean, in a logical sense, it cannot be explained, other than to talk up if you want to say guilt is responsible for it.
But in this case, there's obviously pure politics behind it.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, I just saw the funniest thing.
I'm sorry, it may not be funny to you, but I'm watching Fox, and they're doing stories on these runaway alligators.
And I just don't think, every time I see an alligator, it's lumbering along.
And I know they can make a mad dash for 20 or 30 feet, but after that, they poop out.
That's why if they start chasing, you got to zigzag because they can't do that.
So there's this little slugline.
Apparently, one of the alligators that killed what was the jogger in Florida.
They've been trying to find this Gator because it's a policy, a Gator kill somebody, go get the Gator, and you terminate it.
The slugline said, runaway Gator heading west.
Runaway Gator.
Did it actually say runaway?
So they're tracking the Gator, a one-gator, runaway Gator heading west.
The mental picture of this just amuses me.
A posse, a bunch of guys tracking a Gator that may be lumbering along here at a half a mile an hour, heading west, as though the Gator knows it's eluding its trackers, a smart Gator here.
Those guys are all looking in the east.
The Gator says, haha, I will head west.
But they're on to it now.
They've been tracking the Gator.
They just can't find it.
All right.
I want you to list a couple bites here from Pat Roberts, the Republican Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee, hearing today for Air Force General Michael Hayden.
Here's a portion of his opening remarks that's Chairman Roberts.
Al-Qaeda is at war with the United States.
Terrorists are planning attacks as we hold this hearing.
Through very effective and highly classified intelligence efforts, we have stopped attacks.
The fact we have not had another tragedy like 9-11 is no accident.
But today in Congress and throughout Washington, leaks and misinformation are endangering our efforts.
Bin Laden, Sarkarwi, and their followers must be rejoicing.
We cannot get to the point where we are unilaterally disarming ourselves in the war against terror.
Yes, I told you, folks, I've been telling you the White House and everybody couldn't wait for these hearings to start.
And right there, essentially, Roberts is throwing down the gauntlet and said, run on this, Democrats.
Go ahead, seek office on this.
We double and triple dare you.
One more bite from the chairman.
I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and civil liberties.
So much.
But you have no civil liberties if you are dead.
That's true.
I have been to the NSA and seen how the terrorist surveillance program works.
I have to say that.
Stop the tape.
Democrats thus know that Roberts knows all about it.
He's actually been up there and seen how it operates, and he hasn't been forthcoming.
I can't wait till they react to that.
Resume tape.
Seen a program more tightly run and closely scrutinized.
When people asked on September 12th whether we were doing everything in our power to prevent another attack, the answer was no.
Now we are, and we need to keep doing it.
Go ahead, Democrats, run on it.
Run on sabotaging victory against this enemy.
Before we go to the break, you got to hear too from Carl Levin.
I mean, this is one of the reasons why I'm not scared, folks.
I don't get caught up in the doom and gloom.
Levin asks General Hayden, well, just listen.
One major question for me is whether General Hayden will restore analytical independence and objectivity at the CIA and speak truth to power, or whether he will shape intelligence to support administration policy and mislead Congress and the American people as Director Tennett did.
See, they just can't let go of the fact that intelligence was shaped based on administration requests.
If this is true, then the administration succeeded in getting every serious intelligence agency around the world to shape it and give it to them as they wanted it.
They just can't let go of this.
Analytical independence and objectivity.
They can't.
They're still running against Bush.
This is like a replay of Dan Rather's National Guard story.
And it is speak truth to power.
I must tell you, I'm a linguist.
I've been around.
I study etymology.
This phrase, I only remember first hearing it when Lurch started using it in the 2004 campaign.
Speak truth to power.
And I frankly don't know what it means.
Speak truth to power.
I know when I say speak truth to kooks, I know, but how do you talk to power?
Where is power?
Who is power?
Speak truth.
Do they mean by this CIA tells George Bush, no, we're not going to do your political bidding.
Is that speaking truth to power?
Is that what they mean by that?
Well, it's a dumbass phrase, and I hope they keep using it because it's going to go over everybody's head.
One more from Levin, and then we'll go to the break.
America woke up last Thursday to the USA Today headline, quote, NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
Where has he been and where has his staff been?
That whole story is blown up.
A drive-by media hit that's falling apart.
The phone companies involved said, we never talked to the NSA.
They never asked us for anything.
We don't have any contracts with them.
He's asking a question and making a statement based on things that have been proven to be inaccurate in the story.
The report said, quote, the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans, most of whom aren't suspected of any crime, close quote.
Credible.
The president says we need to know who al-Qaeda is calling in America.
And we surely do.
But the USA Today article describes a government program where the government keeps a database, a record of the phone numbers that tens of millions of Americans with no ties to al-Qaeda are calling.
How about speaking truth to truth, Senator, for crying out loud?
The USA Today story, the drive-by media hits, fallen apart so bad that they're left now panting away, hoping that MCI, a long-distance carrier, has some records when Verizon didn't.
And if it's a long-distance carrier, that's exactly what the program's always said it was, or the people that support it have always said it was, tracking phone calls in and out of the country from noted and known suspected terrorists and their phone numbers.
Anybody can answer this question.
The reason you do this, you're collecting a database of phone numbers, and then if a phone number happens to pop up and find out if the terrorist phone call, if you have that number, you can find out who it's going to.
And that is plain common sense.
The same bunch of people didn't want to connect the dots and now doing everything they can to see that we don't connect the dots.
By the way, latest headline on Fox, runaway alligator has carjacked.
It's strange, but it's carjacked an SUV out there in its attempt to get away from the authorities as it's heading west.
Back after this, stay with us.
Speaking truths to Kooks, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and a couple soundbites here from General Hayden himself.
And these, I think these two are from his opening statement.
Here's the first.
The American intelligence business has too much become the football in American political discourse.
Over the past few years, the intelligence community and the CIA have taken an inordinate number of hits, some of them fair, many of them not.
There have been failures, but there have also been many great successes.
CIA officers, dedicated as they are to serving their country honorably and well, deserve recognition of their efforts, and they also deserve not to have every action analyzed, second-guessed, and criticized on the front pages of their morning paper.
CIA needs to get out of the news as source or subject and focus on protecting the American people by acquiring secrets and providing high-quality all-source analysis.
I believe that.
Of course, giving them out of the news as sources, i.e., leaks.
Every CIA director has had trouble with that.
This next bite goes on to explain in a very understandable way why these leaks are damaging.
I can't help but think that revelations like this have an effect on the enemy.
Now, this program will continue to be successful.
But there'll be an effect here.
I mean, you can actually see this, and now I'm speaking globally about disclosures of our tactics, techniques, procedures, sources, and methods.
It's almost Darwinian.
The more we put out there, the more we're going to kill and capture dumb terrorists.
We don't care about the dumb ones.
They're the ones that can't figure out how we found out about them.
All these leaks are just going to, we're not going to get the head.
We're going to get the idiots.
Excellent point.
Back to the phones.
People have been waiting patiently.
Joshua in Moscow, Idaho, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how's it going?
We're going fine.
Great.
I just had a couple of comments.
One was about the immigration, another about my senator, Larry Craig.
On immigration, it seems to me we might as well, if we're going to be immigrating up to 100 million or more people, we might as well just annex Mexico because the population is only 107 million.
And on that basis, so you don't think the numbers are accurate?
Oh, no, I think the numbers are, I mean, wildly off.
It's ridiculous to imagine that population growth would be that fast or that our country could even begin to support it.
Yes, I agree, but it was in the bill.
Yeah, well, like I asked a half hour ago, do you remember when Medicare was first signed into law?
Do you remember what the price tag for it was going to be at its peak?
Do you remember what they told us?
I don't.
$9 billion.
$9 billion, $9 or $10 billion.
Now, I don't know what the cost of it is now, but I know it's not that.
The point is, all these numbers estimates that come out of Washington are always low.
Now, I think this bill was written in such a way that these high numbers are a throwaway in a negotiation because now nobody really objected when sessions said, we can't have this kind of plan in here, so we got it reduced to the range is now 60 to 90 million over the next 20 years.
But go back to 1986, as I said in my brilliant first hour monologues.
Go back to 1986.
We had 3.9 million or 3 million illegals here.
We were going nuts over that.
Oh, my God, what are we going to do?
We can't handle all this.
And so we did Simpson Mazzoli.
And we said, this is going to fix it.
And we don't have it anymore.
And now that 3.9 or 3 million is anywhere between 11 to 12 or 20 million.
And before this bill was monkeyed around with, there were no limits on these caps.
The caps rose.
Back in just a second.
Hi, welcome back, folks.
Il Rushbull, amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and second-hand premium cigar smoke.
Now, about these numbers, this anywhere from 100 to 217 million, you people who think this is only about Mexico are not paying attention.
We're very clear on this program.
That number is legal immigration.
That 217 million figure before it got adjusted was inclusive, or it included immigrants from anywhere in the world.
The bill was an open invitation to come on in.
It wasn't just Mexico.
It was a combination of illegals who would be made legal via the amnesty that nobody wants to call amnesty policy and an increase in the number of legal immigrants.
So we're not going to have to annex Mexico.
Although, as far as the Democrats are concerned, I don't think you can pick out a bit of difference in what their future is.
Democrats, I wouldn't be surprised if they propose moving the southern border to like Oklahoma.
Just pick a line that goes like a southern port of Oklahoma and just make what's south of Oklahoma, Mexico.
And then Democrats, of course I'm being facetious here.
But there is no effort.
I mean, they're not taking a stand on this.
They're just sitting back and watching as spectators and then lobbying their usual bromides of the Republicans, racist, insensitive, cold-hearted, cruel, etc.
Carol in Omaha, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Oh, my word, Rush.
Let me catch a breath.
I am so nervous.
And I told H.R. I just wanted him to pass you a note.
I guess you don't do that around there.
No.
If you call, you want to go on the air, you're on the air.
All right.
Well, my.
I'm glad we don't want to pass notes.
I mean, this isn't junior high school.
Well, no, but you make me so nervous.
And I know a lot of people call in and they're nervous.
And I'm extremely nervous.
And I told him my knees are shaking and everything, so I'm going to get this over quickly.
Now, let me before.
No, no, no, wait a minute.
You know, look, I have been where you are.
I have been a caller.
I know exactly what it is.
Just sitting out there.
How long have you been on hold?
You've been on hold at least a half hour.
You've been on hold a half hour and you're listening and you don't know when they're going to come to you and say, all right, stand by, Carol, you're next, and hang up on you or put you back on hold without talking.
No soothing, no comforting, just, you're next, Carol, hang on.
I know.
It just scares you to death.
And then it's torturous.
And then you hear Carol from Omaha, you're next.
And the lump in the throat.
Oh, my gosh, can I remember what I even wanted to say?
Is that about it?
That's about it.
All right.
See, well, I guarantee, you don't even sound nervous.
Nobody would have even known it had you not said it.
And when you finish with this, it's going to be one of the most pleasant experiences you've ever had.
You're going to wonder why you were nervous, and you're going to want to do it over and over again.
I don't think so.
But I did want to call in today because this notion of white guilt that you were talking about and have been talking about for a few days really intrigued me.
And I think white guilt is unwillingly playing into and contributing to minority warfare.
And the example that I posed to HR was this morning on the 6 o'clock news.
We were informed that a large grocery store chain here in Omaha and even in north of Omaha, but no, here in Omaha, the north, predominantly black part of Omaha, was going to require that all their general managers had to learn to speak Spanish.
And if they didn't want to learn, and much to their credit, they were going to pay for it.
But if they didn't want to learn, they were going to transfer them.
Well, these are people that live in that part of town and didn't want to be transferred.
And I just thought to myself, you know, you can see the changes and things encroaching.
For example, just in the redo of our supermarket, which is north of Omaha in Blair, on one side of the aisle, you have El Paso and Taco Bell and those products.
And on the other side of the aisle, you have a complete line of products that are imported from Mexico.
And I just thought that people ought to be aware of the little encroachments here and again.
Oh, I think they are.
I think they're more than aware of it.
I think you go to the border states.
They've been aware of this for years.
It's just now reaching where you are.
And you're of the approach.
Oh, my gosh, what's happening here?
What you've just described is mild compared to what's happening in other parts of the world.
Well, I know it's mild, but it really is attributed, I think, to the guilt that we have.
But I think this guilt is going to subside because I think we're trying to pass it along to the minorities.
And I think the blacks are going to be resentful and the Mexicans are going to be resentful.
And then all of a sudden we can sit back and say, hmm, okay, we're out of the picture for a little while.
I honestly think that that's what's going to happen down the road.
Well, see, this is, actually, you've actually been pretty brilliant here because the purpose of phone call is to make the host look good.
And with what you've just done, you're going to do that.
When I finish making my point here in just a second, I want to thank you.
You didn't stutter once.
You weren't nervous at all.
You're a great caller.
You should feel very good about yourself.
This is not easy to do.
No, it's not.
I always tell people, don't try this at home.
But look, here's, see, your story of what's on either side of the aisle at a grocery store, I don't care where it is in Omaha, what part of Omaha it is in.
You have another factor.
You can talk about the guilt and they need to hire Spanish-speaking general managers.
And if they're not willing to learn, then they're going to transfer them out.
That grocery store is a business.
That grocery store has no legislative power to deny the encroachment that is occurring.
They've got customers.
And if their customer base demands goods from Mexico and will only buy goods from Mexico or wants them and only speaks Spanish is not going to learn English.
That story, you can't expect a business to take a stand and put a sign out size as English only.
So the problem occurred way before the manifestation of it that you saw or heard about on the news today.
The fact that we have not enforced English only, which is part of assimilation.
There is an official language of this country, but it's being watered down.
And now businesses who either are being told by the state or some other type of law that you have to be accommodating of these languages and these products and so forth, it feeds on itself here.
And that's why you get to the point where you say there's nothing we can do about it.
The horses are out of the barn.
It is going to lead to problems.
That's what Bob Samuelson was writing about.
You know, when you have a permanent underclass, a group of people that are primarily in existence to serve as victims for liberal Democrats, traditionally it's been minorities.
And they've tried to make as many minority groups victims as possible.
Not just blacks, but women and homosexuals, one-armed amputees in Soho.
I mean, it doesn't matter.
Any little minority group, they'll turn into victims as best they can.
Well, the largest victim minority group of the Democratic Party happened to be the black population.
Now, the Hispanic population is catching up.
If I'm not, if not mistaken, it's larger, right?
And a Democratic Party seeks to keep as many of these new arriving Hispanics, legal or illegal, victims.
This is going to set up a competition among the minorities.
Wait a minute.
The civil rights leaders will say, we're the official minority here in the Democratic Party.
You're encroaching on our benefits.
And the Mexicans will say, well, screw you.
We're bigger than you, but we're still a minority.
And there's going to be a competition for entitlements.
And there's a political party out there willing, if they ever get back in power, you think the Republicans have spent out of their mind.
Don't think the Democrats are going to bring any fiscal sanity.
The Democrats are only upset.
They complain and whine about all this spending, but they're only upset because they haven't been in charge of it.
Folks, the Bush administration creates this Medicare prescription drug entitlement, and Democrats opposed it.
Democrats think that entitlements are theirs.
Nobody gets to do an entitlement because the purpose of that is to create victims and get credit for caring and compassion and offering assistance.
Here come the Republicans offering an entitlement.
Well, we didn't understand.
What the hell is this?
Well, the attempt is to get market reforms into prescription drug prices for the seasoned citizen population.
But it still was a new entitlement.
Democrats behind closed doors are gnashing their teeth.
This is our territory.
Who do they think they are?
If they ever get back in power, they are going to start expanding the welfare state like you can't believe to codify their relationship with all these new victims arriving here.
And that's why there's an opportunity here to at least put the brakes on this by stopping the inflow.
If that doesn't happen, this problem is going to keep exacerbating itself and it's going to keep growing.
And it's going to reach the point where we're almost at now, where you hear people say, nothing we can do about it.
Lily's not, well, how we can't deport 12 million people or 20 million people.
Okay, so what do we do?
Well, we come up with these bastardized ways of dealing with the problem.
The only reasonable thing to do is to remember the word illegal means something and stop this massive inflow, primarily on the southern border, and then deal with the problem that we have now as it exists.
But when you have folks, I tell you, when you have a political party, and there are only two of them, a major political party, which seeks to maintain the low-wage, uneducated status of these new arrivals, because they want to make them victims, we are setting up all kinds of problems.
These big ideas are on the conservative side of the aisle.
They always are.
They always have been.
Liberals have nothing but old, worn-out, failed ideas like Marxism.
You can't find anywhere in the world that succeeds, but yet on every college campus, it rules the day.
In journalism school, it rules the day.
It's a failure everywhere it's been tried.
And yet the intelligentsia in this country is out there educating these young skulls full of mush that that's the only fair and egalitarian way to have a fair society.
And it's absolutely ridiculous.
Evidence proves it.
So this is why it's imperative that these people in the Democratic Party not get control of the country, the budget, national security, or anything of the sort.
Because if they were in charge, well, this immigration debate's going on, whatever you think of it now, it would be so bad, it'd be three times as bad as what's going on now with no attempt to fix it whatsoever.
And the people that would be trying to fix it would not be in the majority and hence wouldn't have as much success as they're having, even though it may not appear to you there's much.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
We had a call from Houston and the guy didn't hang on.
All right.
All right.
I'm being given a note here by Mr. Snerdley.
I said English is the official language here, but there is no official language legally.
Senate voting on making English that today, not an English-only bill.
And there are objections to it.
And Snerdley says you wouldn't believe the objection.
Yes, I would believe the objections to it.
We cannot offend people that don't speak English.
We can't.
They're voters.
They're potential victims.
They're current victims.
We cannot offend them.
Can't say anything to hurt their feelings.
Can't be critical of them.
Obviously, folks, when you go up to somebody in America who doesn't speak English and tell them they have to speak English, you're telling them they're not good enough.
You're telling them they're inferior.
And we are just not going to do that.
And if you don't speak Spanish when you run our store, screw you.
We'll transfer you somewhere else where they speak Pakistani.
Steve in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Sir, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Oh, thank you, sir.
Yes.
I'm calling regarding what Fred Barnes said about you the other day and what the two articles that you read today and why these gentlemen are attacking you.
Yes.
And I believe it actually goes back to last year when the president nominated Harriet Myers and the left was so excited because they were saying that we are having a conservative crackup and you came along and wrote an article that, no, actually, it's a conservative crackdown.
That's right.
Wall Street Journal piece.
Brilliant piece.
It absolutely was.
And I think that the conservative crackdown didn't stop with Harriet Myers, that it is continued through to today, and that the president's poll numbers and the Senate poll numbers, which are even lower, are reflective of Republicans that are moving to the right, not to the left.
Exactly.
And that there are more people that, when it comes to immigration, are falling on the conservative side.
And the Country Club Republicans and the Inside the Belarus Republicans are aggravated with that.
No question they are.
But especially if you take a look at some of these primary races that we've cited in Pennsylvania, there was an earthquake there on Tuesday.
North Carolina, Herndon, Virginia, Ohio, Utah, Country Club, Rhino Republicans, Republicans in name only, are being tossed aside in these primaries.
Republican voters, you know, conservative voters, instead of, according to conventional wisdom, staying home and just fretting and being mad, are going out and flexing their muscles.
That's actually a good thought out there, Steve.
It is a continuation of a conservative crackdown.
About Harriet Myers, Mr. Snerdley, I can't recall where Crystal was apoplectic over that.
So Crystal and the Weekly Standard crowd, we were on the same side in that.
Except Crystal was, well, I don't know how to characterize things.
Where was Brooks on it?
Brooks is he was, I don't remember where Brooks was, but we were all aligned on that one.
They were happy for the conservative crackdown to take Brooks.
Brooks was with Crystal.
But may I ask a simple question?
I usually don't do this kind of thing, but let's just pretend for a moment that during the Harriet Myers episode, this program were not here.
Do you think that the Weekly Standard and Crystal and Brooks would have succeeded in cracking down on that nomination and getting just something to think about out there, folks?
No, no, no.
It's not my ego speaking.
I'm just, you know.
Try to imagine life in America if this program were not here.
Now, that's something to be depressed about.
Who's next?
Ed and Fort Myers.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, greetings from your neighbor across the state here.
Yeah, be careful at alligators heading your way.
I'll keep my eyes peeled since I work outside all day.
Listen, I have a question.
It's kind of, you know, at the risk of sounding like a White House reporter here.
It's kind of a two-part question.
If we are being crammed down our throats with this immigration bill by our elected representatives, first of all, what happened to our representative republic?
And number two is if we can't, citing the example that you had told us about in Pennsylvania, if we have our elected representatives that are not facing any serious challenge in the primaries where we can't toss them out of the election, I mean, I, as a conservative here in Florida, don't want to sit out an election.
Look, hold on, I've got to stop because I dealt with this in great detail yesterday, and I'm sure you were listening.
You were just overwhelmed by it.
You have forgotten it.
But I'll try to recap this in the monologue segment of the next hour.
What happened to Representative Republic?
And there's a rebellion going on out there, Ed, and it's something about which you should feel very positive.
I've got to run, though, folks.
We will be back.
Still lots ahead, folks.
We've barely just begun here.
Carpenter's 1969.
And we'll get right to it.
We come back from this break at the top of the hour.
It won't be long.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection