All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:09
May 31, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists.
All across the fruited plane.
Time for the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting Rush Limbaugh program and a one and only EIB network.
Telephone number if you'd like to join us, 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
Many people asking me, Rush.
So what did you think about the finale of 24?
I waited, I didn't mean to wait this long, but I waited a while because I know some people record it and T-Vo it.
You haven't watched the finale?
Okay.
Well, well, I I I uh I'm gonna go ahead and mention any snurderly hasn't seen the finale, but enough time's gone by now that uh if you haven't seen it, it's not my problem.
Uh it's it's yours.
I loved it.
Folks, I I think this is the best season yet.
It's I'll tell you something.
24 is interesting.
Uh uh most series like this, any series uh in their fifth season, uh, when ratings are generally starting to trend downward.
This is their highest rated season yet at uh at 24, and it was uh just I I every episode to me was there wasn't one wasted episode, wasn't one wasted moment.
And I thought the finale was just superb, but I was disappointed.
I I don't I didn't like the I didn't like the last three minutes of the final episode.
I didn't like the Chinese, the Chicoms coming back and capturing Jack and putting him on a freighter heading back to Shanghai or wherever they were going, because I know I just know, and I I haven't talked to Cerno or any of the 24 guys about this, but I just know that the Chinese are not going to be part of next year's series.
I I know for a fact that Jack Bauer cannot be in China when next series first season uh first episode airs, and you want to know why?
Because the show is 24, 24 hours each episode is one hour of a 24-hour day.
Do you know how long it takes to fly back from China to the United States?
Sixteen hours.
I know I know damn well that they're not gonna have Jack Bauer on an airplane for sixteen hours, sixteen episodes of twenty-four next year.
So I know that something's gonna happen, uh, that he's gonna get off that uh slow boat to China uh before he gets there.
I have no clue what's gonna happen.
I had visceral desires.
I wanted this wacko president to suffer public humiliation over what he had done.
That didn't happen.
Uh and I wanted a number.
I wanted this this shadow government explained.
Who are these clowns uh talking to the president throughout the last five or six episodes?
Who are these guys?
I I thought there'd be some tie-in, at least referenced.
I know why there wasn't.
It's because all of that's going to be explained next year.
The character of President Logan, Gregory Itsen is the actor, uh big presence this year.
And so he's gonna be on the series next season.
And we don't know, it could well be that by the time the series starts next January, the writers will have found a way for him to get out of any trouble he's in.
He's still being president, still be president.
Who knows what's going to happen?
Uh I'm not sure that they even know what they're gonna do with him yet.
Uh, but I I just I thought it was fabulous.
I just I just didn't like the Chinese bit.
Uh, the here's Jack after saving the day, and there's a phone call at some remote location where he saved the day, some dock somewhere, that his daughter's on the phone.
And I say, how would she know the number of this place?
Uh but anyway, uh that that doesn't detract.
In fact, it probably just sets up the uh the next season and builds curiosity about it uh even more.
All right, that's I mean, that's that's the Cliff Notes uh version of my uh thoughts on the season finale of 24.
Uh I uh I I I I should I sell this?
I tell you this the terror, let's put it this way the terrorists next season are gonna be more conventional than uh than they were this the terrorists this year as you know started out to be uh uh separatists from a breakaway republic, i.e.
Chechens.
Uh weren't allowed to say that though, had to be political correct.
Uh but it'll be, I think there'll be more conventional uh uh terrorists uh in the in the next season, season six coming up of twenty-four.
All right, I want to talk a little bit here about the left and Hadith and uh how they are attempting to already mine this as a uh positive for them in their campaign against the United States.
You might no no, Rush are campaigning against Bush.
Now they're campaigning against the United States.
These are the people that claim they support the troops.
They demand that we respect them when they say they support the troops.
The first chance they get to dump on the military at large, they take it.
And that's exactly what's happening here in this whole episode with Hadith.
Right now, everything is alleged.
We uh haven't had the investigation conclude yet.
Uh and until that happens, it's dangerous to start making all these assumptions, but these people can't help it because they want the news to be what they want the news to be.
They're so excited.
They've already talked about now this is a cover-up going on.
When did Bush know?
When did he know it?
How high up does all this go?
Now the left is arguing out there, and you've heard this that we are killing civilians just by our very presence there.
And they claim to be upset by Abu Ghrab and this incident in Hadith involving the Marines.
But leave it to the left to be concerned about the death of citizens, but only in certain circumstances.
For example, the left in this country would have done not a damn thing about the slaughter, the rape, and the torture of the Iraqis by Saddam Hussein.
The point is they don't care about the Iraqi people, and don't let anybody tell you they do, and don't let them convince you they do.
These people claim to be all upset over the death and murder of innocent Iraqis.
It's a little late for that, leftists.
You phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and roller hayseeds.
If you cared about the citizens of Iraq, you wouldn't have uh you would have done something about it and demanded something be done about it long after, soon after you learned of the torture and rape rooms that Saddam Hussein was in charge of.
Oh no, you have to go out and portray the United States as the focus of evil.
We're the bad guys.
Saddam just had to do all that to keep his country in control.
You claim to be concerned, these leftists claim to be concerned only when they can use information to embarrass our military and undermine the war effort, which is what everybody in the drive-by media and all of their guests who are chomping at the bit for this to be even worse than it appears to be.
All they want is to undermine not just the forces that wear the uniform, they want to undermine the whole war effort, and that's nothing new.
That's who they've been ever since I have been alive.
Doesn't matter what war, other than a Bill Clinton war.
They stood aside and didn't care about that one.
Same thing with Vietnam.
They claimed we were the bad guys, that we were causing all the destruction.
And then they sat back as one and a half million Cambodians were slaughtered after we left.
They claim to care about starvation in Africa.
One thing I tell you, I am getting so fed up.
Every week it seems, we got a new story of some dingbat airhead celebrity demanding, we've got to do something.
We have to do something.
And it's a different country in Africa every week.
And we hear about the starvation, or we hear about AIDS, or we hear about this.
They did nothing.
And their president, Bill Clinton, did nothing but close their eyes and ears to 800 Rwandans being slaughtered, and then had the audacity to praise Bill Clinton for having the courage to apologize for not doing enough.
Meanwhile, when renegade African leaders like Robert Mugabe systematically destroy his country, purloin property owned by private citizens and jailed people.
You don't hear a word about any of the evil governments.
Same thing in Sudan, same thing in Somalia, demanding that we do something.
We've got to do something.
Ignoring all the while the totalitarian militant Islamist and dictatorship governments throughout that country who are subjugating, imprisoning, torturing and killing their own people.
Not to mention the UN blue helmeted peacekeepers who were involved in all kinds of sex scandals.
So you people on the left who are out there throwing parties over this incident at Hadith, understand this.
You're not going to succeed in undermining the war effort.
You're not going to succeed in undermining the U.S. military.
This is an uncommon event.
You will not get away with portraying this as a just a day's work on the part of the U.S. military.
What you don't understand or what you do understand and choose to ignore is that the enemy that we are attempting to vanquish has instances like Haditha as their daily operating procedure.
And you still refuse to see the evil and the danger and the problems faced in opposing this enemy.
You blame it all on us, and a bunch of us are sick and tired and don't want to hear this dribble and bilge bubble out of your phony mouths anymore.
One of the uh finest Phil Collins tunes ever.
Something happened on my way to a stairway to heaven or whatever it is.
800-282-2882.
Here is Debbie in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi, Debbie, nice to have you on the program.
Well it's appropriate to talking with you.
Um I want to contact comment on the conversation you had regarding the gender specific t communication.
Um I'm a marketing director for a study abroad program and for high school students, male and female, we just report the facts.
We give them the information on our website, all our media communication, and we let the people figure it out for themselves.
They're smart enough, just give them the facts, the truth.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just a second.
I'm I'm not quite sure what you do.
Do you work at a T V station or not?
No, I work for a um marketing program for a study abroad program for high school students.
Fine arts students that go to Italy for four weeks.
It's called Spoleto Study Abro.
And I have uh you know, we have media material we we send out to interested people.
And our website is the main portal of people finding us.
We simply give them the facts.
Right.
And and how much let me let me let me ask you a question.
How much coverage do you get uh uh on your press releases and your project?
Well, um well, we get tremendous amount of hits on our website because that's the way most high school students find out.
No, no, no, no.
But wait wait, wait.
Um maybe I'm still not understanding.
Do you you send out press releases to other media hoping to get publicity or in marketing?
So you do you send out press releases about your project to other media hoping to do stories on it.
Um, yes and no.
But mostly no, because we're too small, and people say, Oh, yeah, you're just one of thousand small programs that are sending kids to Italy, big deal.
So we pretty much send out our own media material, direct mail material to schools that emphasize the fine arts that still have art programs and music programs.
All right.
But we just but in the communication, it's it's not gender specific.
We just simply state the facts.
And I'm I agree with you.
The information, they try to make it gender specific on the news.
It's like click it off, hello, you know, not not interested.
And so it's just media communication today.
Well, the reason the reason that I asked you if you if you sent out your promotional materials to uh broadcast media hoping for coverage, uh, is that I wouldn't expect they'd be very interested in what you're doing since you don't feminize it.
Uh since you don't emote it.
I mean, you're you're dealing with as you describe it, just the hardcore facts of what your what your project is all about.
Uh, and it probably wouldn't appeal b based on on uh that stuff.
That story that we were talking about was in the New York observator.
It was it was specifically about broadcast news.
It was not about people who who do who would do what you do.
Right, but but what I'm saying, even as a consumer of that broadcast news, it turns me off because it's not the facts.
It's always biased.
Oh, I see.
Okay, so so pardon me.
This is my fault.
I didn't understand you because I'm a man.
What you're saying is that even though they're dumbing it down or doing what they're doing to try to appeal to women, it's not reaching you.
You don't care about it.
You do want the hard cold facts because that's what you do in your own business.
I have a brain.
And I can decipher you know, I'm gonna process it as meaningful to me.
And I in in trying to make it dumbed down.
I'm tired of us dumbing down smart Americans.
Well, good.
And so it are in Don't whatever you do, don't don't change out there uh because the the uh the temptation.
I mean, it it it it takes effort uh to not you know not fall prey to emotional uh pitches and and uh so forth.
Debbie, thanks for the uh phone call.
Lee in Fort Worth, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Yes, sir.
Well, first of all, I'm a long-term listener, and uh, I think it's time you got a promotion.
So let me say Rush, dig a dittos.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate it.
Now regarding the Jefferson matter and all of the that would be uh Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
Yes, sir.
The ones that everyone is saying should not have had his offices raided.
I believe that they're all shouting that because they're afraid that their sacred place where they can hide their own dirty laundry could be jeopardized.
I believe that there are so many of those guys up there that are doing things, taking bribes and doing various other things that they're scared to death that their hiding place could be compromised.
You know, I'm gonna I want to respond to that in this way.
I'm sure you do think that, and I'm sure a lot of people do.
I think you, and I mentioned this yesterday.
You are very uh, and I don't mean to demean you here, but you're very typical because this is simple uh to uh to understand.
Uh this is so you and I cannot hide evidence anywhere in our offices and our homes.
We can't do it.
They on Capitol Hill appear to be asking for that privilege.
They and not asking it, they appear to be asserting it because they are members of Congress, and because they are part of the legislative branch, because they have separation of powers in the executive branch because they cannot be invaded in this way.
And it is patently absurd in an election year.
You would think these guys would be so concerned they are about other issues that come up, uh, would be so concerned about how this plays and how this sounds out there.
At least somebody expressed some outrage over what Jefferson has done here.
They've got him on tape, and somebody that has uh uh uh paid him a bribe has pled guilty to it as as part of a plea deal.
Um so it is quite natural for people to think not only are they arrogant and out of touch, but maybe they have things to hide and are trying to draw the line so that further investigations of members of Congress can't be done in this fashion.
It's it it's fascinating too because you have in the elite corners of this country, you have elite debates going on now, even about the separation of powers, and was this proper and is there a better way to do it, and is there in fact uh some way to avoid this happening in the future?
All I can tell you is that investigators have been trying for months to get cooperation from Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, uh, via subpoena, and he ignored them.
He just refused.
He and it was because they found him hiding stuff, hiding papers, uh attempting to steal them uh uh out from under investigators' noses uh in a blue bag that he had.
It's gotten so absurd now.
In fact, uh uh you know, I love Jim Sensenbrenner, but this is going too far.
Sensenbenner drafting bill to protect congressional documents from FBI raids.
Sensenbrenner, who's chairman of the judiciary committee in the House, said yesterday he intends to draft a bill that would shield congressional documents and materials from being seized in searches similar to the FBI raid on the office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
Mr. Sensenbrenner is just taking this too far.
Uh this is this is a bit much.
Um and I I think Darrell Issa, a Republican Congressman from uh California, uh has threatened the judge who issued the search warrant with impeachment.
Be uh because he uh he uh he viol and Gonzalez, too.
He wants to he wants to somehow uh get the attorney general out of the way, Gonzalez.
And people are saying, you know, if Gonzalez had been a little bit more sensitive to the way things work in Washington, he would have called up the sergeant at arms in the house, and we said, here, we need these documents from Jefferson's offices.
I think they tried that.
I think they dealt with counsel for the House of Representatives, lawyers for the House for stonewalling all along.
It's it's it's it really is mind boggling to us serfs out here.
We serfs, us serfs.
It is mind boggling to listen to some of this.
I tell you, if you doubted they think they're above us and special, you shouldn't anymore.
Thank you.
And I know.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
EIB Southern Command Rush Limboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist.
All right, the Justice Department yesterday vigorously uh defended the recent weekend raid of the office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last August.
The government uh questioned in a 34-page motion filed in U.S. district court uh in Washington whether it could have obtained all the materials it had sought in a subpoena if it had not launched a surprise raid on Jefferson's congressional office May 20th.
According to the government filing, an FBI agent caught Jefferson slipping documents into a blue bag in a living room of his palatial New Orleans home on Marengo Street during a search.
As I said earlier, uh Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, should have learned from Sandy Burglar.
You uh put this stuff on your socks, put it up your trouser leg or something.
It is uh my belief that uh when Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, placed documents into the blue bag, he was attempting to conceal documents relevant to the investigation, said FBI agent Stacey Kent of New Orleans in an affidavit that was part of the government's court submission.
The document was filed in response to Congressman William Jefferson's lawsuit, demanding that the government return to him document seized during the raid on his uh Capitol Hill office 11 days ago.
Robert Trout, the attorney for Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, said that he would refrain from commenting pending further review of the government's documents.
Meanwhile, the FBI raid spurred new tensions between Congress and the administration as a House Committee chairman vowed to interrogate top Justice Department officials.
And as I say, I know there's a lot of elite jawboning going on.
This is one of these things where all these people who think and want to be the smartest people in the room start talking about this in such esoteric pseudo intellectual fashion that our heads start spinning.
And they're doing this under the concept of separation of powers.
And what did the founders intend?
Why didn't this happen for 200 years?
This is the first time it's ever happened since the founding of the country.
There must be some reason it didn't happen.
Um there are reasons that it didn't happen uh specific to this case.
Uh actually reasons why it did happen in this instance, specific to this case.
When you boil this all down, let me just ask you people a simple question.
Do you, any of you actually we are originalists here.
When it comes to the courts and the Constitution.
Does anybody really believe that the Founding Fathers intended for members of Congress under separation of powers to be able to hide evidence of felonies in their offices?
Bodies.
Such things as this, I just refuse to believe it.
My common sense, I know that makes me a plebe and a serf compared to the elites inside the beltway, but my common sense tells me that no such thing could have ever been intended.
There is no question that they were concerned about uh uh intimidation of the executive or from the executive toward the legislative body.
And so there you you can't you can't interrupt a member to and from work.
Hello, Patrick Kennedy at 245 a.m. going into a vote.
Uh you can't uh uh purloin documents relevant to legislation, uh any of those kinds of things, but but the idea that that you can hide evidence of a felony in your office as a congressman.
Uh you members of Congress, you actually believe that run on it.
You know, it's an election, you're going to run on it.
You know, come out and tell the voters how stupid we are for not understanding this.
And this asinine immigration bill in the Senate.
Tell us how dumb we are.
Just run on all this stuff.
Go out there and insult our intelligence.
We're stupid enough to buy what you say.
Come on and tell us about this.
This is just, it's, you know, it's defensive, uh, it's an insult, uh, insult to intelligence, sensibilities, and uh all sorts of things.
And I I also think uh, you know, I I'll I'll go on the record.
I I think well, everybody's praising the president for going in there and putting a 45-day hold on uh on what to do with uh the documents purloined from Congressman Jefferson's office.
I'm not sure that was wise either.
There's this cooling off period.
Now they're negotiating about what to do.
Now I'm not sure.
I've been thinking about this.
I'm not sure that was a wise thing to do.
I mean, that's that's is that not the executive branch stepping in and involving itself in this.
It's the this is exactly what these guys in Congress are upset about.
The executive branch doing X involving the legislative branch.
Now, Bush, the president's gone in there and said, Well, now I'm gonna seize those documents myself and we'll put them under seal with some uh the third party that has no interest in the case and give everybody a cooling off period.
And I guess it works for a while, but now the tensions are heating back up because both sides are digging in on this.
There doesn't seem to be much uh given when you have Congressman wanting to impeach the judge, who uh issued the search warrant and impeach Gonzales, uh the uh the attorney general over this, uh, you know, go ahead and run on it.
Members of Congress are up every two years.
Impeach the judge for issuing a search warrant.
All this, of course, in the context, you know, folks, uh uh even if you're not hiding anything, if somebody wants a search warrant for something you've got, they can get it.
Trust me.
Uh and in this case, we obviously have obviously allegedly have somebody attempting to hide something.
And the Justice Department is putting these uh releasing the details of these affidavits to explain why they uh why they did what they did.
At any rate, it is it's just another mountain of absurdity being piled onto other mountains of absurdity.
Uh here is uh Scott in Atlanta.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
What an honor.
Thank you, sir.
Um I just want to say that I think a lot of this uh investigation that you're referring to right now is just another example.
I've heard you allude to it, of Dennis Haster as a total failure leader, um, speaker of the House, the Republican Party.
I think he's been a failure, and I think this is another symptom of his failure.
He has failed to show any leadership as a Republican leader in in the House.
And uh he's missed I don't know how many opportunities in leading the charge for the conservative movement uh and being vocal.
He's uh doing the opposite, and they got him in where they wanted him of where uh Newt Gingrich was, who was so controversial, but the difference is a person like New Gingrich Gingrich got things done.
Well, hang on here just a second.
I uh I I'm I'm not I have I don't I've I've met Speaker Hastert once in a green room uh for Fox News Sunday, shortly after he became Speaker.
So that's been many, many moons ago.
Uh and I've not I've not spoken to him since.
Uh but we need to cut him some slack on a few things here.
I I I will agree with you that it was politically tone-deaf.
I mean, here you have these guys.
To me, the one thing, and what you're actually saying out there, Scott, is it seems like our guys don't know they're in a war.
And they don't know that Democrats are trying to destroy them, not just beat them, but Democrats are trying to destroy conservatism in this country.
And I've known this for the 18 years I've been on this program, and it guides the way I do it each and every day.
Now, these guys, for some reason, don't seem to understand that.
So here you have the Jefferson circumstance that drops right in your lap in the midst of a Democrat attempt to cast all Republicans and in fact the entire party as nothing more than a culture of corruption.
Bam o here you've got William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, and instead of seizing the political opportunity here, and also standing for a conservative principle such as the rule of law.
Speaker Hastert and Senator Frist, by the way, at the same time descended into this protective cocoon of, hey, we're in Congress, you can't do that to us.
Now, both have since modified their hard stance on that, but nobody that I've heard up on Capitol Hill, maybe one guy is criticizing Congressman Jefferson.
And certainly no Republican is.
Now they're in a war and they don't get it.
They've got they've got a chance to fire back and and and repel some of these attacks that uh that are trying to portray them as all members of a culture of corruption, and they don't see it or they don't act on it for whatever reason.
That's what frustrates me.
They're in a war, we're all in a war, I'm talking about political war in the arena of ideas here, and they don't get it, and they don't fight it.
Now, why don't they fight it?
Well, I've a I've alluded to this in the past, and I don't know why I have to explain this, but I've been reading places where people don't get or understand this comment.
There is no elected conservative leadership in Washington guiding these people.
Now, what's so hard to understand about that?
Well, what do you mean there is?
There are a lot of elected conservatives.
Yes, there are, but there it's not an elected conservative leadership.
There is conservative leadership all over the country, but it's not elected.
We don't have a president who is leading a conservative movement.
We have a Republican president who is doing his job.
And he doesn't view himself as leading a movement.
I'm not being critical.
This is just who he is.
Fine and dandy, he's a Republican, he does certain things we like, tax cuts, prosecutes the war on terror, war in Iraq, uh uh number of other really good things, but some things we don't understand.
Certainly not as conservatives.
But he's got a different agenda, which is fine.
We knew this going in, but he's not leading a conservative movement.
So therefore, why do you why do you think Hastert should?
Hastert's got a Republican president to deal with.
Newt didn't.
Newt had a Democrat president, he was in opposition.
You can't run around and lead a conservative movement if the Republican president, who is the leader of your party, is not going to go along with you.
In addition to that, folks, you have to understand that Hastert and a lot of the leaders in the House are livid at the White House.
Let's talk about immigration for a second.
The House Immigration Bill, which everybody now is trying to destroy and impugn, was put together at the direct request of the White House.
And has now solidified around McCain and Kennedy.
You don't think they are livid in the House?
Do you know the Medicare prescription drug bill, Part B. That Republicans in the House wanted no part of it.
Now Delay did, uh, and he was a good foot soldier on it, but that was a White House thing.
They don't want and they didn't want any part of Social Security reform.
They wanted no part of it for whatever reason, whether they were right or wrong, they wanted no part of it.
Social Security, third rail, you don't touch it, you touch it at your own uh risk in politics, it's a way to get defeated.
They didn't want any part of it, the president did it anyway.
Porter Goss, one of Hastert's best friends, tapped from the House of Representatives to go be CIA director.
Um, Hastert does not like the way Porter Goss was treated.
He was not even given a courtesy phone call from the White House before Goss was fired.
He learned about it when everybody else did.
They have been biting, they haven't been crazy about some of the budget items they've had to pass with all the spending and so forth, but they have had to be loyal to a Republican president.
Newt Gingrich didn't.
Newt Gingrich had to be loyal only to the conservative movement that elected him, and that he was leading at the time against a Democrat president.
So the tempers in the House leadership have been boiling over.
And the last straw was when the executive branch sends a search warrant, even if it was for a Democrat.
So the preceding things, that it was the straw that broke the camel's back, and that that the that was just they were just fit to be tied over it, and that uh is what caused them not to see the political maybe they did see it, and they thought we got a score to settle with the White House before the Democrats.
Um there's a lot going on up there that these guys in the House have had to just hold their noses over.
And this immigration business, I can't tell you folks.
Uh with with everybody uh you know trying to abandon them in the house and put pressure on them to cave and change their bill to go along with McCain and the Senate, they see what's going on.
They see an effort here to appease the president and McCain and get them a bill.
There has to be a bill.
Legislation for legislation's sake.
There has to be a bill, and they're the ones who can have to bite the bullet and eat the excrement sandwich with no mustard.
And they're fit to be titled.
Quick timeout, back after this.
Look, folks, I I I have no brief against Denny Hastert.
I think he's wrong on this Jefferson thing, but I think he's a good guy.
And I think he's he's worked pretty hard to keep a Republican majority together up there during some some really uh uh difficult times.
And as if you if you're if your memory is intact, uh it's one thing to have frustration when you're dealing with a White House that sometimes is not on the same page, but the Senate practically never is.
And everything you put together in the House in terms of legislation, that is what your constituents want, and by the time it ends up in the Senate, it is ripped to shreds in conference, bears hardly any resemblance, and they take the heat for it.
Uh when so they're they're they've they've got they've got a lot of problems.
And I'm just saying that if there were an elected conservative leadership somewhere that that that could uh uh have and maintain some party discipline and give everybody a road to follow.
Uh you'd have a whole different situation.
Right now you got a bunch of freelancers.
Uh and and they're they're heading out all over the prairie with uh with no fence posts, uh no guardrails, and no stop signs uh out there.
Um Mr. Sturdley says there's no elected conservative leader on the horizon, no potentially elected potential electors of I wouldn't say that.
Uh it won't be McCain if if if uh if that that's what you mean, won't be McCain.
There are a couple.
Chris in Dayton, Ohio.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Simplify, Rush.
Thanks for everything you've done for the truth.
Appreciate that, sir.
Um, how long is it going to take for the media to actually come out and say, well, the reason that the Republicans are not saying anything is because they don't want for their backgrounds or their offices to be searched because they're involved in it too.
It's everybody, it's not just the Democrats.
Don't even worry about this.
It's just it's everyone doing it.
Oh, I think that goes to the notion that a lot of people out there think that part of the reason that the uh House is going along with this absurd notion that we shouldn't be able to search Congressman's office is that they are covering up uh or or want to be able to cover up evidence of their own misdeeds.
I I think that's what your comment proves.
Uh as far as the press, look at comment on this yesterday.
If you didn't see it, go to my website today, still reflects yesterday's program, and look at the puff piece the New York Times did on Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
It was a puff piece pretty much excusing him from any ethical standards whatsoever because he was born poor.
They even had a picture of his mother and father's graves at the church in the poor dirt farm community where they all grew up.
Eight of them, tiny little house, pick cotton, uh you've you know the drill.
Uh and and so uh I think our guys, it's not in their nature.
It never has been.
Frustrating to no end, but it's just not in their nature, not since Newton the boys left to run around and get into uh uh uh partisan battles with these guys in the uh in the media.
And there's any number of reasons for it.
We've gone through them countless times.
Uh the media uh is is uh you know Washington Post at least is is hitting the news and the facts of the of the Jefferson case uh pretty hard.
But you know, even even even if there are Republicans, and that there's a fear that there is here with this Abramov scandal, even if there are things that you're trying to hide in there, it still doesn't it doesn't prevent you from running around and saying, what culture of corruption, what culture corruption they talk about?
Congressman William Jefferson.
What you can at least do that.
But they're not doing it.
And we're back in a cutting edge.
El Rushboat, two hours down and one to go.
And the fastest three hours in media.
Lots of exciting things are still ahead.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection