All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 12, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Just waiting for you to tell me it's time to start in there, Brian.
Just waiting.
Greetings, folks.
Hey, thrill and delight.
Can't tell you how much I appreciate your being here and what a what an opportunity it is every day to uh be with you.
Here on the EIB network, Rush Limbaugh.
Show prep.
For the rest of the media which follows today, 800 282-2882 is the number if you'd like to be on the program.
Let's talk about the Democrats some more.
I love talking about the Democrats.
There's a story out there, and this story is so multidimensional.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker to B, Nancy Pelosi is already announcing changes for when the Democrats win back the House in uh in November.
And among the changes is that she has decided to kick James Harmon, Jane Harmon from California, a fellow Californian, by the way, off of the uh House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
She's the ranking Democrat there and replaced Jane Harmon with Alcy Hastings.
Now, for the life of me, I don't know why you would if you're thinking about doing this, why in the world go public with it?
All you're going to do is make an enemy out of Harmon and a fellow Californian.
What is I I think I think really what this is, she's trying to get back in good graces with the Congressional Black Caucus because she is she's she's suggesting Alsie Hastings uh as as the new Democrat on the uh uh select House Committee on Intelligence.
Uh the only thing I can think of here, and it's it's asking.
Remember, I sided with the uh Congressional Black Caucus last week in the dispute they have uh with uh with Miss America, Nancy Pelosi over the disposition of William Jefferson, uh Democrat Louisiana.
She wants him off the Ways and Means Committee.
So they think, why where's due process here?
He hadn't been charged, hadn't been indicted, uh he's denying everything.
What what's what what's the point?
And she they're right.
Uh the thing about this is I'm gonna let you hear some Jane Harmon sound bites here in just a second, because it really, in terms of substance, it's it's a roll of the dice.
I mean, when you when it's down to these people, Jane Harmon's far preferable, by the way, to Alcy Hastings.
If you don't know, uh Alcy Hastings has a past which should disqualify him from being on any intelligence committee anywhere.
Alcy Hastings uh in uh 1983 was then a U.S. district court judge.
He was a federal judge.
And he had lied, a federal uh uh j jury found that he had lied and fabricated evidence to win an acquittal on bribery charges in 1983.
The Democrat-controlled House voted for 13-3 in 1988 to impeach him.
Several of the 17 impeachment counts, according to Congressional Quarterly, alleged that Alcy Hastings committed acts of perjury during his 1983 trial, keeping in mind that Hastings would be told the most sensitive intelligence sequence.
Consider the fact that another impeachment count approved by the House alleged that Hastings leaked information about a wiretap he was supervising, and thereby forced a halt to an extensive federal undercover operation in the Miami area in 1985.
In 89, a Democrat-controlled uh Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting 150,000 in bribes uh in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and committing numerous acts of perjury at his own trial.
Now, this is who Pelosi wants to he's he's been re-elected to the House.
This is who Pelosi wants to be the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, replacing Jane Harmon.
Now go and Well, I don't know what her I don't know that she has a problem with Harmon.
That's just it.
I I I have I'm I'm not that steeped uh in the in the bowels of of the uh digestive system of the Democratic Party.
So I don't I don't know what she's got against Harmon.
I just uh uh unless she considers Harman a Threat.
Uh uh Harman is is well respected in the Democratic circles.
And Harmon, by the way, when it comes to the war on terror, is not the typical Democrat.
She's she's uh I mean she's she's a lib Democrat, but but she's not a kook on this.
She doesn't side with the Kook fringe uh when it when it when it comes to the war on terror and the uh and the war in Iraq.
I think this is just a uh a little olive branch, the Congressional Black Caucus to put one of them on the intelligence committee and get rid of a white woman uh from uh from California.
Uh this to mollify them over their their anger at the way she's treating Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
All right, so who is Jane Harmon?
I mean, I don't expect all of you to know who Jane Harmon is, minor figure in the House of Representatives, unless you immerse yourself in a media bubble every day.
Like I have to.
You wouldn't uh wouldn't expect you to know who she is.
She was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday, and I think she demonstrated uh why Democrats can't be trusted to lead the war on terror.
If they don't even think we're at war.
Question.
Chris Wallace says Should the events of this week speed up the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
Well, the Zarkawi death is uh a great achievement.
Wonderful police work.
It won't reduce the insurgency, I don't believe.
Um, he is a uh charismatic leader, but nonetheless, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a small piece of the insurgency.
Uh Al Qaeda worldwide uh does not depend on one or two leaders.
So uh I don't see that.
All right, so why why then why focus on bin Laden?
Your whole party, Ms. Harmon, focuses on defining success against Al Qaeda as getting bin Laden.
Your presidential candidates have made the point we haven't got bin Laden.
Well, we're not winning the war on terror.
We're losing the war on terror because we haven't got bin Laden.
Now we got the operational leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
He is room temperature.
He has been killed.
Ugh, police action.
It's a wonderful police work.
It was not police work.
This was counterterrorism, counterintelligence using agents from uh Jordan, the CIA, U.S. military special ops, a SEAL team.
This was tremendous work that was done.
It's not it's it it's not just police work.
And to say that just getting rid of this guy is not going to affect the insurgency, then I suppose we can begin to ignore bin Laden because that wouldn't have any effect either.
This guy was active.
He was on the ground.
He was leading, he was, call him charismatic or whatever you whatever you want, but he was the guy that was inspiring others to follow in his footsteps.
Of course it's big.
She then added this.
I just see this differently.
I'm not talking about cutting and running.
Uh that's not at all what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about how do we win.
We win politically.
We don't win militarily.
Playing whack-a-mole in the Anbar province is not working.
We kill one person ten arise.
That's just not the not the strategy that can work.
All right, so that Fitz, if we're not in a war, then killing people wouldn't matter.
We got to do this diplomatically and politically.
With who?
Who are we going to talk to?
We're going to convene uh an encounter session?
An encounter group with bin Laden and the successor that was named, quote unquote, earlier today by Al Qaeda to replace Sarkawi.
What a joke that is, too.
Would Al Qaeda have a convention?
Have some votes, figure out this new guy to take over where Zarkawi left off.
What an absolute joke.
Try to portray this bunch as a Western type organization has democratic uh roots where they go out and name a successor and so forth.
These are thugs.
These are typical gang members.
It's absurd.
But this is why we can't trust these people to lead the country.
There's winning this thing politically.
Little window there on the brain of all Democrats.
You win everything politically.
No, you don't win militarily.
You don't, you don't you do not win politically uh uh with a terrorist group.
You just don't.
Uh tell me how it's done.
Somebody want to tell me how you win politically, especially if she said there's so many different insurgents' groups.
Why, why killing this one guy isn't gonna matter?
You can't play whack 'em all in uh in Anbar province.
Uh uh it's striking, but they are so out of touch uh with the realities of war and how victory is achieved that they're stim it's not trustworthy, folks.
They're not that they have not demonstrated one bit of evidence that would suggest we can trust them to lead the country and to defend the national security.
Quick timeout, back right with more.
Everyone's a winner, hot chocolate, one of the finest bumper rotation tunes on the program, El Rushbo, with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
All right, so uh what is it?
Jane Harmon says she says, I'm not talking about cutting and running.
Uh we just can't play whack-a-mall in Ann Bar province.
It's not working.
Oh, really?
Playing whack-a-mall in Anbar province isn't working.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a story from Al AP.
Uh that is entitled The Next Generation.
And just listen to how this story begins.
They rose up quickly to take up Osama bin Laden's call for jihad.
Ruthless men in their twenties and thirties, heralded as the next generation of global terror.
Two years later, forty percent are dead.
Targets of a worldwide crackdown that's claimed its biggest victory with the killing of Abu Mousab Al-Zarkawi, Al Qaeda's frontman in Iraq.
Manhunts in Asia, Africa, and Europe have pushed most of the rest deep underground, finding refuge in war-torn Somalia or the jungles of the southern Philippines.
While there are still recruits ready to take up Al Qaeda's call to arms, analysts say the newcomers have fewer connections than the men they are replacing, less training and sparser resources.
Magnus Randstorp.
Where did we hear this guy's name last what was he talking about last week?
Once you see the name Magnus Randstorp, you don't forget it.
I don't remember Let's talk.
Who is this guy?
He's um, oh yes, it's a Swedish uh National Defense College.
He said, uh, there are more people popping up that are being put away, but the question is whether the new ones have the fortitude to take up the mantle and carry the struggle forward.
I don't see that they have.
All right, now I'm in a conundrum.
I'm in a dilemma.
Because we have the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence saying that playing whack-a-mall in Anbar province is not working.
Right here in this story.
And yet here from Al AP.
Forty percent of the Al Qaeda recruits following in bin Laden's footsteps are dead.
Folks.
Where would we be today?
And what would we be discussing if 40% of the U.S. military that has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were dead.
Bush would have been impeached.
This radio program would be coming to you from jail.
Who knows what's going to be going on?
If we had lost 40% of our deployment, playing whack-a-mall in Anbar Pro.
Well, it may not be working in Anbar Province, but damned if it didn't work, and everywhere else we're trying.
Forty percent they're down.
And uh and and Randstar Mantooth, what's his name here again?
Magnus Ranstorp, all upset, because the recruits just don't have the same fortitude and courage and guts that those who are deceased brought to the war.
Well, what are we to do now?
Jane Harmon says playing whack-a-mole in uh Anbar Province doesn't work.
It obviously is working.
They have been driven to Somalia, by the way, that's not a good sign.
I've told you one of the things I learned when I uh went did my troop visit to Afghanistan is that Al Qaeda is going to seek out stateless regimes.
That's where they can move and take over the whole country.
That's where they were able to get a beachhead in uh in Afghanistan.
And now Somalia they've they've overrun the warlords in there, and that's going to be their new base of operations.
Uh true, they're not going away, but to say that playing whack-a-mall doesn't work.
40% of them, folks, are dead.
Forty percent of the recruits since bin Laden.
Bob in Rockford, Illinois.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Thank you very much.
Good to talk about.
You bet, sir.
You bet, sir.
I think I know why the press, the liberal press, the drive-by media, the good part of the Democratic Party and others feel free to say whatever they want at any time they want, whether it's seditious, whether it gives aid and comfort to the enemy or whatever, because at some level they truly believe that the terrorists cannot bring this country to our knees.
They are so egotistical and so self-absorbed and feel so powerful that they believe that they can't the terrorists cannot be tr successful at any rate.
And so if a few lives are lost here and there and some property destroyed, it's all okay because they can't can't win in the long run.
Therefore we're free to say anything we want to defeat our own efforts of the current administration.
You know, it's interesting.
I uh I have uh I have myself proffered uh a variation of that of that very theme.
Uh uh in the context that the Democrats and liberals would have loved to uh convince themselves and everybody else that we can go back and live in a pre-9-11 world uh mentality and attitude.
And if we get hit, fine, we get hit, uh take it, no big deal, but it's not a war.
Is it just terrorists, it's who the world is, we have to learn to deal with it, uh security, fix it, stop it, so forth and so on.
What I wonder is had a Democrat been in the White House when this happened, uh I don't want to think never mind, I don't want to think about that.
I really, really I I just let me finish the thought.
Uh I'm I'm not sure that the left would have the same attitude about that.
I think their whole attitude today is oriented around utter hatred of George W. Bush.
And it is irrational, and it is they are they're willing to overlook successes and achievements.
They will condemn, in fact, successes and achievements in order to continue their their their jihad, if you will, of hatred against George W. Bush.
And I you know I I think we're seeing their true colors here.
I I think they resent the U.S. military.
They're not happy with any success stories.
Um as long as they don't get hit, uh, and as long as they can blame others for whatever does happen in a terrorist attack, there may be some of them that would put up with it.
But it's not something I want to find out.
I don't want to have an experiment.
Let's say put a let's put a Democrat in the White House, have another terrorist tax, see what happens.
I'm not ready for that.
My friends, I simply don't have the desire to play that kind of experiment.
Ben and Charlotte, North Carolina, I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Terra Podhead Ditto's rush.
It is an honor to speak to you.
Terra pothead dittoes.
Pod head did P POD Ah, good.
Wondering where we were headed here.
I'm a big time iPod listener of your show.
Thank you.
So you're you you do the podcast.
That's great.
Yeah, I I was just listening to Friday's show, actually, and um I I noted that the uh the media seems to be pretty upset at the idea that the uh the military men who went and worked on Barcowli, they didn't get the medical attention to him fast enough to save his life.
But what I thought was ironic was didn't you read us an article about them saying that it was unnatural how well the medical world had progressed and been able to save people out on the field.
So are they for saving people on the field or are they against saving people on the field?
I'm a little confused.
All right, let me expand on that because I know exactly what you're talking about, because it's an excellent point.
We had a story, what is this?
It was before the O4 elections.
Uh huh.
Was uh what it was it after the elections?
Maybe it wasn't after you.
I thought it was a pre election story, but it was it was an all Reuters story.
Uh and it was lamenting the fact that battlefield fatalities are at an all-time low in the U.S. military.
And they were unhappy about it.
And we thought, why in the world?
And they blamed advanced medicine.
They said too many surgeons and too many doctors on the front line saving lives, that really ought not to be saved.
I mean, they're gonna have no eyes, no arms, no legs.
Who'd want to live that way?
Uh and and because the doctors on the front lines, they're not in the rear saving other lives.
And so, yeah, battlefield fatalities are down, but it's not good.
We're scratching our heads.
Well, how in the hell can this not be good?
As well as we all understand liberals, that one um buffaloed us, baffled us for a while until a editor of uh newsletter, Diana Schneider came up with the answer.
The answer is uh they want battlefield deaths.
Because that would have helped generate anti-war support among the American population.
So they're upset at lives being saved on the battlefield.
Now we didn't get there soon enough to save Zarkawi.
Way to go, Ben.
There's an example.
This is a podcast listener, and uh he has a great memory, able to put things in a great perspective.
I'm glad you called.
We've got a brief timeout, and we're back right after this.
And we're back uh big time fun here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Yes, we have some sound bites coming up soon from the uh that tin foil hat convention, the left wing bloggers.
Um you know how to say this.
The Maureen Dowd went out there.
Maureen Dowdwent, there we got these all these Democrat leaders, it was covered extensively.
I don't know if she found a guy, Mr. Snerdley.
I you know, Mr. Snurley, when I think of Maureen Dowd, I don't think of her finding a guy.
Uh you have it on the brain.
Uh but no.
I know she wrote the book about it, but but uh maybe that would be the place for her to find a guy.
I don't know.
All I know is she went out there.
The libs are going out there, the media's going out there, Washington Post, New York Times, who else?
Uh LA Times big story, net savvy Democrats aim to pack a digital punch.
What I want to know is did Reynolds Rap sponsor this thing?
Who where did they get all the tin foil?
To make these hats.
You know, if Reynolds Ramp was uh was a corporate sponsor of this, we need to know.
But I mean, these people at this thing, they hate Republicans, they hate Democrats that are that are not sufficiently anti-war.
Uh there's one guy who says Joe Lieberman's gonna be taken down.
Uh conference attendee Diane Masters, emergency room physician from Fremont, Michigan, Lieberman's gonna be taken down, and the message is gonna be it's not just enough to call yourself a Democrat.
You've got to walk the walk.
Now, my my question is this about these people.
Why do you need an underground lib blogosphere, media, whatever, when the drive by media exists?
I can understand, see the Democrats out there looking for the answer to me.
They've been looking to the answer for me since about 1990.
And they've gone through Mario Cuomo, they've gone through Gary Hart Pence, they've tried Air America, they've tried it all.
They've tried Michael Moore.
And now these guys are being compared to me.
Uh how in the world does the drive-by media, which is the New York Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, Time Newsweek, LA Times, and on and on and on.
Why do they need an underground media?
Why do they they already are the drive-by media?
Why the i their their fascination with can this blogger convention?
Can this be what uh what actually upsets the balance of power that the conservative media limb Fox News have?
And it's just it's it's it's a joke.
Uh it it's like the drive-by media, they've I guess they're admitting they can't do anything about me, so maybe these bloggers can.
It was one thing when we all came along, we were definitely underground.
There was a monopoly out there, and we were the ones, um, uh all this new media that blew that apart.
And they're looking at at uh what they're trying to do in the same prison through the same prison as they look at what we've done here, and it's it's not the same thing.
I don't think these people know that half these bloggers here hate the New York Times.
And they hate the Washington Post, and they hate this Democrat or that Democrat because they're not sufficiently insane enough.
In fact, look let's go to the audio sound bites of this.
Let's move up to audio soundbite 13.
Barbara Boxer delivered a speech.
Guess the keynote address, Barbara Boxer keynote address, and after she spoke, she took questions from the uh audience, and an unidentified tin foil hat member said, please help me understand the thinking of your Democratic colleagues in the Senate on impeachment.
I've heard the argument that because of the way the Republicans used impeachment, the political tool against Clinton is the reason for not using impeachment in this case.
Why is it?
I get it, yeah.
Uh I get where you're going.
You support it, and I gotta tell you, number one, we do not control the House of Representatives.
Right now, it's an impossibility to even go there.
But it's a question of strategy.
I think we could tell the American people that certainly we ought to be looking at this.
But do you think that's what the average American wants their life to be dealing with that?
I think we have to realize there are term limits and W is going away.
I say censure the president now, move on, move on.org.
And uh and get to the issues, and you know, it may well be that there are crimes that are so obvious that that's what the Congress winds up doing.
But just remember, just remember, we don't run the Congress right now.
Oh, this is not what these people wanted to hear, folks.
I I hate to tell you, they they don't want to hear we don't control the House.
They want to hear how we're gonna take it back.
They want to hear what Boxer and everybody else's plans are to take it back, and then when they get it back, they want to hear how we're going to impeach Bush.
And when she says, look, Bush isn't on the ballot.
Bush is going away.
Do you think this is what the American people want their life to be dealing with?
Did you hear any applause during any of this?
You did not.
This is not what these nuts wanted to hear.
Let's move on to meet the press.
The founder of uh the Daily Coast, Marcos Melitsis, uh, whose nickname is screw them.
Uh and Byron York National Review Online, also on Russert says, Marcos, you think the blogosphere has become to liberal activists what talk radio is to conservative activists.
Yeah, absolutely.
I think it's a very apt analogy.
The idea being that here finally we have a place where good strong progressive voices can get together and we can talk and we can motivate each other and we can organize, and we can do and plan the kind of hard work that it takes to win elections.
Republicans and conservatives learned this a while ago, you know, decades ago.
You know, it's about time we learned that lesson as well.
Well, the real question needs to be asked do you guys really want to win elections?
You just want to feel good.
You want to be emotionally satisfied at the end of the day, or do you want to win elections?
Because if you want to win elections, somebody needs to tell you how.
Uh now, I don't mean to offend Tim Russler, but Tim, I gotta tell you something.
It's absurd to compare a blogger whose book sells six thousand copies, and maybe has I know it gets a lot of hits and so forth, but to compare that uh to me or this program is is is Well, frankly, Tim, I'm insulted.
I'll just be honest with you.
I'm just I'm insulted to be thought of as that small and that insignificant.
Um in fact, Russia says, Marcos, what what's the most important thing liberal progressives uh and bloggers can do to influence the midterm elections?
We're identifying Republican uh misinformation and dirty tactics and talking about those, acting as a rapid reaction force, motivating people to get active and to get involved in campaigns and to help fund campaigns and uh do the hard work that it takes to do these elections.
This is the stuff that the right-wing noise machine has been doing for decades.
Now we finally have a vehicle, and we're very small comparatively.
We don't have the kind of influence that, say a Rush Limbaugh does on talk radio, but we're growing, and we're becoming more and more sophisticated as we've mature as a medium and as a movement.
Well uh living in delusions isn't gonna help here.
You know what this is more like it's like a Star Wars convention.
It is.
I would not start well or or Star Trek.
I mean, take take your pick.
Star Trek convention.
Uh pining away for what is not going to happen anymore, pining away for what will never be again.
And that isn't America in the vision of these people.
So Russert says, Well, you didn't mention Senator Hillary Clinton.
Is she a favorite amongst the liberal bloggers?
Not really.
Not really.
Doesn't mean they hate her.
You know, that there's there's a difference.
I mean, we're not necessarily Rush Limbaugh listeners and and have it out for her.
So the uh the stain that people have for Hillary a lot, it's not because she's too liberal, too conservative, too moderate or anything else like that.
The reason Hillary Clinton isn't necessarily well liked is because she's seen as part of the establishment as part of the people that brought us the troubles that the Democratic Party is suffering today.
Oh, no, no, that's uh it's more than that.
She's not sufficiently anti-war, and that's why she's not popular uh out there amongst the um the blogosphere.
Matt in Cincinnati, glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Navy veteran ditto, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Uh, It occurred to me the reason that the left needs an underground media is that it gives them an excuse when they think that the mainstream media is not getting their point across, that they're that they're that they're biased.
You know, if you listen to the the wackos on Airhead America, they're always complaining about how the media is biased to the right.
Well, we all know that's different, but uh it gives them a good excuse um for why their message isn't getting out.
They have to have these undergrounds because the the news just doesn't go their way.
Yeah, but you know, it it's it's it's the dynamic I'm talking about.
Let me let me let me retrace my well-trod steps on this.
Uh number one, let's go back 1988, there was nothing but the drive-by media, and it was a monopoly.
And of course, so there was obviously a vacuum.
Uh and and the the uh efforts to counter the liberal uh dominance in our country and culture had been percolating for decades.
And it uh it really came to an official head with the election of Reagan, and that's really mass education of Americans began on this issue, actually with his campaigns in 1976.
Uh and and that and a number of other things set the stage for what was to come.
1988, this program starts, spawns a number of other uh programs and and and uh other types of new media.
Uh and we were entirely different.
We had different objectives, we had different desires, different approaches to the country's problems and the way to appeal to the American people.
We didn't disrespect them, we didn't look down on them, we didn't condescend, we weren't arrogant.
We let them know that they're the ones that make the country work, wanted to inspire them, uh lift them up, uh, relate to them and validate them.
And if you want to call it an underground media, I mean you can call them underground media, but it certainly was at some point because it had to seek its own uh business model, it had to seek its own uh uh uh methods and and means of distribution, uh, because the dominant existing mainstream media wouldn't listen to us.
All right, so and now we've busted up the monopoly, and we are a major player, and they don't know how to deal with us.
They've been trying to find a way, Democrats and liberals, to duplicate what has happened with us so that they think they compete.
Their arrogance does not allow them to understand the dynamic that's even at work here.
They are their own problem.
They created this problem by being who and what they are.
Yet they still haven't come to grips with uh analyzing their own role in their own demise.
So now here comes the latest in an effort to balance the seesaw, if you will, of new media.
Now we've got tried Michael Moore, we tried liberal talk radio, it doesn't even show up.
We've now we've got the the kook blog fringe.
The dynamic is all different.
Why do you wh why does the mainstream media need an underground that's just like it?
The point of the matter is is that there's no difference in these kook bloggers and the drive-by media and the Democratic Party.
And so they are at war with each other.
They are competing against each other and they're taking each other out.
Uh and you just heard them admit this by virtue we don't like Hillary, she's doing this, you know, that um but they are not a party of ideas and they're not a movement of ideas.
They're a movement of emotion, rage, and anger.
They can't get over the loss of their monopoly, and the and the and the working everyday troops out there represented by the blogs are so livid at their own party for squandering the majority of the monopoly they had for all these years that they're mad at them.
So the dynamic is entirely different, and yet they don't see it.
And in order for this not to be seen, the mainstream media, dine drive-by media has to see itself as not what it is.
And the Democratic Party has to see itself as not what it is.
And as long as they keep lying to each other about who they are, they don't matter.
Back in a moment.
By the way, I need to mention here, ladies and gentlemen, that John Murtha, Jack Murtha...
Has uh written a letter to Democratic colleagues that he's gonna seek the uh uh what is it, the House Majority Leader position of Stenny Hoyer, number two in the House.
If the Democrats win the House in November, he said, if we prevail, as I hope and know we will, and return to the majority of this next Congress, I would appreciate your consideration and vote and look forward to speaking to you personally about my decision, sent this letter out to members of the Democratic caucus.
So and there's a huge primary going on.
Again, the Democrats are beating themselves up.
This is in Richmond, Virginia.
One Democrat, and this is for George Allen's Senate seat.
One Democrat calling his rival the antichrist of outsourcing U.S. jobs, argues he's trying to buy a win in the Virginia primary.
The other fires back, labeling his opponent a sexist who is hostile to affirmative action and is at heart a Republican.
This is Harris Miller and Jim Webb are running for the Democratic senatorial nomination to oppose George Allen in November, and it appears to be shaping up as a replay of Phil Angelitus and this Westley guy out in California, the Democratic gubernatorial primary.
Mike in Palm Beach, Florida.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you.
Which side of writ of the bridge are you on?
Uh I am on the east side of the bridge right now, Rush.
You're on my side of the bridge.
That's right.
That's right.
All right.
Well, welcome.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I get an idea why that underground is there, and I I think uh it's because they can say things that the um the mainstream wants to say but can't.
Such as Um Nothing I can think of offhand, but yeah, one of the callers before said Randy Rhodes.
Show I've every now and then I'll just go through and listen to about 30 seconds of her.
That's about all I can take.
And she said some really, really nasty things that I think maybe Matthews or Feynman would like to say, but they know they can't.
Well, you know, I I actually uh I think that the the drive-by media is doing a pretty damn good job of saying what they want to say about people.
Uh about conservatives, about Bush, about about Republicans.
Uh in terms I I I just folks, I I I have my ego in check here, and I I I'm I'm totally in control.
I you have to know who you are in life and and and who you're not, what you are and what you're not.
And I'm telling you that the the only not the only.
The main reason that I don't care whether it's these hapless, pathetic, embarrassing liberal talk shows, or whether it's the liberal kook fringe blogosphere, or whatever Michael Moore.
It's all to counter me.
It is all to counter the impact of me and my brethren.
Fox News, other talk radio hosts.
Believe me, folks, in the closed door cloakroom behind closed door meetings of Democrats, they are shooting devils and darts at pictures of all of us.
They're blaming us for all of this, and they're trying to come up with ways to counter it.
Uh and and the I there's there's such angst and anger and division on the left.
It's because they're losing.
Uh, and of course, when they're losing, they're not blaming the right people.
They're blaming, well, not I mean, they're right to blame me and others, but they better look at themselves.
I use this analogy all the time.
If half of my audience vanished, the last thing I'd do is start finding who's responsible for whoa, what's the media saying about me?
Why how come how come that audience is I would blame the rating services?
They're just not rating me fair.
That's what the Democrats are doing, and blaming voters, blaming hanging Chad's voting machines.
If I had half my audience vanish, I start looking at what am I doing wrong?
What's happening or not happening on this program that's uh not meeting people's needs, expectations, desires, or what have you.
It's what they're not doing.
So you've got the division in the ranks over losing, and then you've got all the finger pointing going on, but they're not pointing at each other or themselves.
They're really aiming at who they think are the enemy, and the enemy is us.
They have a birthright, they think, to empowerment of title, uh, and and uh and and leadership, and it's been upset, and they can't deal with it, and they don't know how.
So I don't think there's anything conspiratorial about this.
I think it's perfectly natural in terms of human nature, but when you have a bunch of arrogant, condescending people who refuse to think they're possibly at fault for anything, you get the circumstances that we now have.
And I love it.
Not good for Ben Rothisberger.
Many of his teeth are gone, fractured a less sinus cavalier uh cavity and a broken jaw, severely injured both of his knees when he hit the ground, and a plastic surgeon has been summoned.
That's the latest on the Steelers quarterback.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection