All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
July 21, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
The views expressed by the host on this program rivet and dazzle the nation.
The views expressed by the host of this program are copied and stolen by others and then used as their own.
Later on in the broadcast day, Rush Limbaugh setting the standard that many attempt to emulate, but never, never succeed.
800-282-2882.
So MSNBC has just announced that Israel will invade Lebanon tonight.
Sources close to the invasion say, no doubt.
Just give it away.
Meanwhile, Condoleezza Reisel will leave on Sunday for the Middle East.
She said, look, we're not, we can't negotiate with these people.
She said, we're going over there looking for a lasting peace.
I'm not alarmed.
People say, why are they going now?
Is she going to try to shut Israel out of what they're doing?
No, I don't think that's the case.
I think there is a crying need for an American presence over there.
But it's clear from some of the things that she said at her press conference, just recently concluded, that traditional ceasefires and resolutions and this sort of thing are not the answer in this particular circumstance.
In addition to that, Bolton has been out there and he's being praised for echoing the administration line, which is what he should do, what his critics were afraid he wouldn't do.
They're afraid he'd be a cowboy out there.
But he's been saying, how do you negotiate with these people?
How do you negotiate?
How do you have a ceasefire with terrorists for crying out loud?
We also had a call not long ago from somebody who said, hey, how about those captured Zarqawi documents?
One of those documents said that got to get out there and Al-Qaeda needs to somehow foment another war for the U.S. to get involved in.
Otherwise, we're going to lose Iraq like that because we're getting our butts kicked here.
We have the story that the Israelis have been preparing for this conflict for a year.
And that is because, it makes total sense, the Hezbollah people failed to get out of there when they were supposed to because Resolution 1559 was never enforced.
The UN Resolution 1559 never enforced.
So I shared with you the story from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Israel set war plan more than a year ago.
Strategy put in motion as Hezbollah began gaining military strength into Lebanon, as though he can't trust these Israelis.
They say this is all because of this kidnapping.
They've been planning this for a long time.
Just like Bush planned to go on Iraq when he was governor of Texas, blah, blah, blah.
All right.
From the Washington Times today, Abraham Rabinovich, Hezbollah, trained for six years, dug deep bunkers.
Well, Shazam, news flash, Hezbollah planned to attack Israel since 2000.
Never had any intention of agreeing to UN Resolution 1559 because they knew nobody would ever enforce it.
Hezbollah has dug dozens.
What did Wrangell call it the other day?
Hezbollah?
Was that what he called?
Hezbollah, something like that.
Hezbollah has dug dozens of bunkers in the difficult hill country in Lebanon, close to the Israeli border, some as much as 130 feet deep, from which fighters can emerge at night for forays against Israeli positions, according to Israeli military officers.
Yep, senior military Israeli officers said they've been preparing for this battle for six years, ever since Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon.
This is a moment in time which has been coming.
And all the resolutions and all the demands and all the calls for peace and all the ceasefires have actually done nothing more than ratchet things up.
You got to let these events play themselves out.
There has to be.
You know that there's going to be an ultimate battle here at some point.
There has to be.
And only after that ultimate battle will there be peace.
Because it is victory that gets us peace.
And I've, this is a limbaugh doctrine.
I've been on this for five years.
Japan, Germany, civil war.
Go look at any armed conflict.
You will not find one that was solved by a peace movement.
You won't find one that was solved by a resolution from the United Nations.
And you won't find one that was solved by a ceasefire.
Just doesn't happen.
Never has.
All right, moving on to other things.
Madison Avenue advertising executives are so bent on taking control of America's children that they would put computer chips in kids' brains if they could, said Hillary Robham Clinton yesterday.
Saying advertisers have found so many new ways to get at kids through video games and the internet, Hillary warned that we're verging on a society out of a grim science fiction novel.
She said, at the rate that technology is advancing, people will be implanting chips in our children to advertise directly into their brains and tell them what kind of products to buy.
She said this in a talk at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Said the country was performing a massive experiment on kids who average more than six hours a day with media and advertising, soaking it up through TV, computers, games, and iPods.
She said the fastest growing advertising market is the six and under set, and that children's health is already being hurt by products like camels, candy-flavored cigarettes.
Are they still sold?
You got to be kidding me.
The anti-smoking Nazis haven't gotten those off the market yet?
You've got to be kidding me.
I thought those things were longer.
You can't, you, oh, Dawn tells me you can't find the mainstream.
Well, that makes more sense.
What the hell is she talking about?
Camels, candies.
Did you used to get those things when you were a kid?
I did too.
Pretended to smoke them.
But they tasted so good the hell with that ate them.
Didn't smoke them because they couldn't smoke them.
But it was brilliant marketing technique.
Didn't even try to light them, Mr. Vimone.
I was smarter than that.
That's where Hillary's missing the boat.
She thinks these kids are a bunch of idiots.
You know what she's really upset about?
You know what she's really upset about?
She wants to be the one to implant chips in kids' heads in daycare centers and so forth.
Turn them into little mind-numb liberals following marching orders as robots from Washington and wherever.
And now she's mad the advertising agency people are going to get to them first.
Japanese car maker Nissan said today that it has pulled a raunchy commercial starring Sex in a City actress Kim Cattrall from New Zealand television after complaints over its content.
Now, did you watch Sex in a City, Snirdly?
You don't know the character she played?
You don't?
Okay, good.
If you don't know that, maybe some of you out there didn't watch Sex in a City.
I didn't either, but I mean, I know the character.
She played a sex-obsessed and promiscuous character named Samantha Jones.
So she's in the, and she wrote a book with her ex-husband on the female orgasm and how to, I'm not kidding.
She really marketed this promiscuous sexual character.
Well, no, they were married at the time she wrote the book, but now they're divorced or separated since the book came out.
At any rate, so she's this sex pot character.
So they've hired her at Nissan to be in this ad for cars, and they've had to pull the ad because it's about their new sedan or whatever.
And she says, among other things, why didn't you tell me it was so big?
I just wasn't prepared for it.
Well, the all-new Nissan Tita makes you feel really, really, really good inside.
She tells the salesman, ah, that was amazing.
Absolutely fabulous.
I mean, the great body and the way you moved it.
The double entendre-laced ad was approved by New Zealand's Television Commercial Approvals Bureau before it was broadcast.
Nevertheless, it sparked a number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board.
Nissan said it was taking the commercial off the air before the board could consider the objections.
Yes, we made this decision in the interest of self-regulation and in response to public feedback, Nissan said.
Now, New Zealand, I don't know if you know this or not, New Zealand is very liberal.
When it comes to TV contact, New Zealand contact content is incredibly liberal.
This must have been something because they don't get complaints like this.
You know, one of the funniest car commercials I have ever seen, and it was broadcast in the UK.
And I don't know how long it lasted, but probably not long.
I don't even remember the kind of car it was.
It was some wacko, obscure brand that only liberals wearing Birkenstocks would buy and happily drive around in.
And it was just very clean ad.
It was a car, a parked car sitting in front of somebody's home in a typical London street.
And for 20 seconds, nothing happens.
Just that car just sitting there.
And then the last 10 seconds, a bird flies.
A bird is flying over the windshield of the car, and the hood of the car automatically raises and kills the bird.
Just whacks it before it can poop on the windshield.
It was an escape.
That was the car.
What's an escape?
It's a Ford car.
Okay.
Well, whatever it was.
Yeah, the hood just bam came up, whacked the bird, killed it, and then music, not a thing about the car.
And just said, this car, apparently, this car is immune from bird poop on your windshield, and then the hood will take care of it automatically.
Anyway, quick timeout.
Open line Friday.
Your call's coming next.
Stay with us.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, having more fun.
And a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh Open Line Friday.
Jerry in Cookville, Tennessee.
You're next, sir.
It's nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
I'd like to talk about the U.S. Senate race here in Tennessee.
But beforehand, I'd like to say hi to my friend Randy.
His son, Brad Cushing, in the USMC on the USS Iwo Jima, is helping getting the people out of Beirut right now as we speak.
But the Senate race here in Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr. is he's had several different deals, and he talks about the culture of corruption.
His uncle is going to wind up going to prison from the Operation Tennessee Waltz, where they took bribes from the FBI officials posing as a company to get set up.
So Harold's aunt ran for her brother's seat and won by 13 votes.
When they checked that out, it winded up that some people had voted twice.
They didn't live in the district.
There were dead people's names that were voted.
Why, wait a second now.
We're talking Democrats here.
Why is this news?
Well, it's the culture of corruption in the Republican Party.
All this guy has to do is look at a photo album, and I'm sure he can see all the corruption anyone can imagine.
Photo albums.
But before I get off, what do you think the bloggers would do to JFK if he was alive today?
Well, I don't know if that's the question.
Would there be bloggers today as they are if Gerald or if JFK was still alive?
I think the real question is, would JFK be a Democrat?
Would JFK be a Democrat?
Well, he'd still be a Democrat.
But I mean, this party is so far and away to the left of what JFK was.
I think if, you know, all things being equal, things as they are today, the Kuk Fringe bloggers would just destroy the guy.
They have no tolerance whatsoever.
In fact, I mentioned earlier, this is a story in the New York Sun today.
At a time when centrism has become a dirty word in some Democrat Party circles, hundreds of the party's avowed moderates.
Who wrote it?
Was Josh Gerstein?
This is a good reporter.
Josh Gerstein's a good reporter.
Avowed moderates.
He's not falling for the conclusion that they are.
He's just pointing out they claim to be.
Anyway, these avowed moderates are convening in Denver this weekend to discuss their agenda for this fall's election and the presidential contest in 2008.
The annual meeting, the Democratic Leadership Council.
By the way, Joe Lieberman was one of the founders of the DLC, and you see what the bloggers are doing to him.
By the way, there's polling data out on that.
New polling data.
It is essentially, yeah, Lieberman may lose the primary, but he will clean up as an independent in the general election.
That's going to be interesting to watch if that actually happens.
But anyway, the conflict between the Democrat Leadership Council, the avowed moderates in the Democratic Party, and the kuk fringe, the bloggers, the net roots, is so intense that when Mrs. Clinton appeared before the council last year and called for a halt to the fighting between the groups, the bloggers unleashed attacks on her that are still reverberating.
A newspaper report in May that Mrs. Clinton hoped to create a unified Democratic agenda under the council's aegis received two reactions from a leading liberal blogger.
Lots of laugh, shorthand for laugh out louder, lots of laughs, and D-O-A, meaning dead on arrival.
So, you know, this is not the whole Democratic Party, by the way.
The Democrat Leadership Council is indeed the avowed moderates, but they're really worried about the net roots because they've taken the party off the cliff.
You know, you might argue they're already off the cliff.
Is there a chance they can grab a hold of a branch halfway down and climb back up?
See, that's the great untold story.
We keep hearing about how fractured the Republican Party is and how disjointed it is and all of that.
But the fact is the Democrats are not unified and they've got real trouble because of this wacko fringe, which has assumed itself to be the base.
And they've been empowered because mainstream Democrats in Washington are countowing to them.
And so these so-called reasonable moderates are having their meeting in Denver today, wringing their hands saying, what do we do about this?
So you ought to say the bloggers, Democrat Underground, Daily College, whatever it is.
Go there and read what they're saying about Israel.
They want it blown off the map.
And they're Democrats.
Darren in Alexandria, Virginia.
You're next in the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Anytime, sir.
Anytime.
I just want to give a big thanks to my friend Carol who got me addicted to your show two years ago.
It's the only healthful addiction known to exist in America.
Get this and you're cured.
I know it.
And without listening to your show on a daily basis, I feel like I don't have that fixed.
So I want to say that.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
I just want to ask you: what we talk a lot about the Democrats and the problems that they face.
What two or three things, major things, do you think that the Republican Party has to do to maintain control in 06 and through 08?
Well, what are the three things they have to do, or what are the three things they will do?
Because there's no well, I mean, you know, if you would have asked me this a different way, what are the three big ideas propelling the Republicans in 08 and 06?
I couldn't tell you.
I mean, I really couldn't tell you the big three things.
Like, we know that Reagan had his big three things.
I don't know what these big three things are going to be.
And you do need one or two or three, no more than three, because people get it's easier to just keep people focused and motivated and inspired around three ideas.
I'll tell you what they should be should just be the simple concepts of basic elementary conservatism.
And that is limited government, get a handle on spending.
And the problem with that is they're the ones that have ratcheted it up.
Immigration is huge, and that has to do with sovereignty, continuing tax cuts and making them permanent and this sort of thing.
But the basic concepts of conservatism win every time they're tried.
Rugged individualism, self-reliance, the concept of American exceptionalism.
This is the greatest country on earth.
There is more opportunity in this country today than there has ever been.
There's no reason that that's going not to unless, of course, people who have a pessimistic view of this country get in chart, get in control of it.
There's a number of ways they could go.
And my guess is that when it gets down to primary time, you're going to hear all these guys sounding like I do because that's what they do to get elected.
So marveled at my brilliance, he's stunned into silence.
You have any reaction to that?
No, I was hoping for perhaps something a little bit more, I don't know, those are things I know conservative wins, all conservatism wins all the time, but I was hoping for, you know, especially with the out-of-control spending.
My big fan is Tom Coburn in the Senate, who's the only one really there to try to rein in the spending.
That's really my big issue.
The others are, you know, privatizing Social Security and English language, obviously.
Well, the Social Security has been tried.
They did it the wrong way.
But look, I'll continue to tackle this after the break.
We have a caller that's actually been let down by one of my answers.
Do you know how rare that is?
I know, and I'm going to prove it.
Because we had a disappointed caller.
Well, look, the guy, I wasn't sure of the question, but he wanted to know what are the three things the GOP is going to do in campaign in 06.
And I don't know what they're going to do.
So then he said, well, what do you think they should do?
I just gave him a general overview of conservatism because that's what I believe.
But he's looking for three specific things.
And one of the things he mentioned was spending.
And of course, there will be a lot of Republicans campaigning against themselves on this, blaming other Republicans for it.
But they will do that.
And when he mentioned Social Security reform, I want to tackle that with this story out of Paris because, you know, there is still value in that story if it's sold right.
Problem with the way it was sold the first time, sold it as ownership, but it's called social security.
And people have just grown accustomed to the word and the meaning of security in there.
And it was easily demagogued, well, what do you mean you're going to own it?
It's going to be put at risk.
Wall Street's going to be playing with your money.
Why?
You may lose it all.
I don't want to take that chance.
But there's a way to sell this.
The third thing that I think the Republicans, I know they're going to run on, is national security in the war.
That is a winning issue for them, and the Democrats can't make up their minds whether they want to run against the war or not.
They can't figure it out.
And some Democrats are saying they're going to back out of it because they're afraid of being tagged as anti-American or unwilling to defend the country.
But that's shaping up.
Who would have ever thought the defense of the country is an ideological issue?
But the way the Democrats have dealt with this since we moved into Iraq, it is clear that national security is an ideological issue.
If there's a party in this country that has attempted to establish an al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, if there's a party in this country that's trying to penalize our country from finding out when the next terrorist attack is going to be, who's planning it and where, it's the Democrats.
So national defense has in fact become ideology.
And I never thought that I would say that.
But let's go to Social Security business and let's try it this way.
Have a story from Investors Business Daily called A Last Tango in Paris.
And I'm just going to read excerpts of this.
Eurosclerosis.
For those seeking an elegant and romantic milieu, France has long been a favorite destination.
Recently, however, it became more of a departure point for a certain class of Frenchmen millionaires.
According to French government data, at least one million on the average, one millionaire on the average leaves France every day.
A millionaire a day vaminosing.
It's not that they're finding other places more charming than their native country.
No, it's that France punishes its wealthiest with burdensome tax rates that sometimes reach as high as 72%.
Many of those leaving aren't just the nouveau riche.
Even some old line families who've guided French business and industry for decades are also saying Sayonara.
In addition to high income, capital gains, inheritance, and social security taxes, get this.
Wealthy French are hit with what's called a solidarity tax.
Like the alternative minimum tax here, the solidarity tax is meant to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share for France's out-of-control welfare state.
But in some cases, the levy of the solidarity tax can actually exceed a person's income, making it one of the great incentive killers of all time.
I would think so.
If you're going to tax somebody more than they earn, why earn anything?
Of course, the socialists are responsible for these punitive levies, say that the wealthy who leave are avoiding their responsibilities.
At least some Frenchmen recognize this.
This tendency to take from the rich and give to the poor, which is supposed to solve all the problems in France, is ruining the country, said Elaine Marchon, London-based consultant who helps relocate French business executives in an interview with the Washington Post.
The Post-Foreign Service reports that Eric Pinchet, who has written a French tax guide, reckons that revenues from the solidarity tax are just $2.6 billion a year, a trifling amount, especially considering that Pinchet believes the tax has cost France more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.
An economy grows slowly or is ruined when investment is choked off, to say nothing of the loss of a nation's brightest and hardest working citizens.
Entrepreneur, after all, is a French word.
Both the rich and the not-so-rich, who are young, skilled, and ambitious, are leaving for countries where the labor markets are less regulated by the state and taxes not as burdensome.
The exodus might help explain why real GDP in France has grown just 1.5% a year on average since 2000, lagging behind the rest of Europe.
Now, what's this got to do with us?
Well, socialists are socialists.
Liberals are liberals.
And they will, it's just like you've seen the stories in the last three weeks.
Unexpected windfall.
Tax receipts to the federal treasury.
Why?
Where does this money coming from?
Liberals are scratching their heads.
And if you dare tell them, ever heard of the tax cuts, it is not.
And they go nuts.
No, this is corporate taxes.
We're finally finding a way to make corporations pay their fair share.
The bottom line is, this is what happens every time you cut marginal rates.
This creates more taxpayers.
The tax revenue flowing into the country is exceeding anybody's expectations.
And especially because they score these tax rates in the government budgeting offices in a static rather than a dynamic way.
It's like a zero-sum game to them.
They don't factor it dynamically.
Okay, what's going to happen when you cut these taxes?
They simply say, oop, we're losing that revenue.
We're going to cut taxes.
We're losing that revenue.
Look at how much we're going to lose.
Why we got to raise taxes somewhere else to make it up.
Dynamically scoring is: okay, if we cut those taxes, that's that much more money circulating in the general economy, that much more commerce going on.
Maybe people are going to hire more workers, aha, new taxpayers.
That's the magic.
But instead, socialists and liberals believe that taxation is used to punish.
It's not used to enrich the poor because that never happens.
Tax increases are meant to punish the rich and to create more and more class envy so that an average middle-class American who's fed up with being average and middle class hears the Democrats are going to raise taxes on the rich and he goes, all right, good.
I want them to suffer.
And then somebody says, How's it going to help you?
So you want Schadenfreude.
You want some rich guy you don't even know to supposedly suffer.
They're going to help you buy another can of Campbell's tomato soup.
No, but I'll feel better when I can't afford it.
And the liberals traffic in that.
And they're doing it in France with all these taxes.
Now, how does this relate to us?
How does this relate to Social Security reform?
Read Paul Samuelson in the Newsweek column he has in this current issue.
Because in 25 years, do you know right now, 40% of the U.S. budget is spent on people who are retired?
Social Security, Medicare, all these other entitlement programs for the retired, 40%.
And guess who's just about to reach retirement age?
The baby boomers.
And if there's ever a generation that was me, me, me, me and felt entitled, it was and is the baby boomers, of which I am one, but I do not participate in that way.
Point is that in another 25 or 30 years, that 40% that is spent on the retirees in this country is going to skyrocket and be much more than 50% of the federal budget spent on people who are not producing anything anymore.
And it's not their social security money, folks, because we've gotten past the days now where people paying in are only getting back what they paid in.
It takes the taxes of four people, three people now, to provide the benefits of one retiree just in Social Security.
So it could be in 30 years, if there isn't a reform and if there aren't changes made, we could be looking at a 50 to 70 percent tax rate on young working Americans to pay for over half of the federal budget, which is spent on people who aren't working.
Do you think they're going to put up with it?
They are not going to put up with it.
They're already fed up with what their taxes are now.
They already, these are people who already want it now.
They want the house their parents grew up in now.
They want the horses and the cars and whatever else their parents had now when they get out of college.
And the reason is because they have great expectations of themselves and the country.
They know it's prosperous out.
They don't buy into this notion that we're a soup line America on the verge of, that's where the Democrats are losing it with young people anyway.
If they have these expectations, I mean, the motto of kids today is, I want what I want and I want it now because media provides it for them when they want it.
Their music, their television, their computer, get whatever.
When they want it, it's there now.
High speed, broadband, you name it.
It's only going to get worse.
And as their parents retire and tax rates have to go up to account for all of this money that needs to be spent on the retirees, are they going to flee the country?
The obvious answer is this somehow needs to be reformed.
The whole Social Security program needs to be reformed.
And the caller earlier was addressing this.
Will the Republicans tackle it?
I don't think they have the guts in an election.
As a campaign issue, I don't think they have the guts to do it.
It still remains the third rail.
The Democrats are easily able to demagogue it.
Last time the president tried it, Republicans didn't support him in it.
So I wouldn't look for it during a campaign.
Not anything gains real momentum.
Highly trained broadcast specialist Rush Limbaugh and broadcast excellence on the EIB network.
Marlene in Manhattan, great to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I enjoy your show, Mr. Limbo.
Appreciate that.
Could you tell me, please, what you mean by drive-by media?
Yes, I'd be happy to explain this.
It is a term I coined back April, maybe a little bit earlier than that.
Are you still there, Marlene?
I'm still here.
Okay, we just got clicks on the phone.
I couldn't tell if you hung up or not.
You started it in April, isn't it?
Well, I started the term in April or March, somewhere around there, and it really, really caught on because it's very accurate.
Think of the drive-by media as drive-by shooters.
Drive-by shooters, what do they do?
They pull up to a congested area.
They spray a hail of bullets in the crowd, causes mass hysteria and confusion, mistakes, misinterpretation.
Sometimes people or their careers actually die, and then the drive-by media just smirks and rides away unnoticed in all the excitement.
They're never blamed or held accountable for the mistakes they make or the hysteria they cause.
In fact, they're lauded and they're held up as heroes, mostly by themselves.
And then while the rest of us are cleaning up the mess that they've made, they're flying down the highway with the top-down, laughing and looking for their next victims.
And I'll give you the latest example.
And it happens daily, but the latest example of drive-by media was when we are attempting to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.
The drive-by media is attempting to say and create a crisis by pointing fingers at the Bush administration as being incompetent.
They find people that are sweating, dealing with flies.
They were hungry and they were thirsty.
And the drive-by media threw a hail of media bullets into this crowd and tried to make the American people think this was Hurricane Katrina all over again, which was a great drive-by media example because there was lies, mistakes, all kinds of reporting on things that were not true.
They have yet to be held accountable for it.
They don't hold themselves.
In fact, they give themselves Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on the they created hysteria and panic.
They created all kinds of things beyond what was real in the Katrina aftermath.
They tried to do it again with the evacuation of Lebanon.
That one fizzled, but the American people didn't look at this as a governmental failure.
But that's what the drive-by media is.
Well, they're mostly liberals anyway, so that's probably why they do it.
It's intentional.
Oh, it's totally intentional.
The drive-by shooters are intentional.
They're not just driving into a crowd and a gun accidentally goes off.
Could I ask you another question?
By all means.
Okay.
Alexander Haig, you don't hear much about him anymore.
And I have some liberal friends who I'm always getting in fights with.
And one of them told me yesterday, well, Alexander Haig has been deserted by the conservative media because they said that Alexander Haig somehow rather ashamed himself or something.
What are they talking about?
Have you any idea?
No, I know General Haig, and I don't know anything about this.
General Haig has a wintertime residence down here in Palm Beach.
And every time I see General Haig, he brings up whatever issue it is that's bothering him.
But I've not heard that he's disgraced himself or done something that caused him to be persona non grata in conservative media at all.
That's news to me.
And I would have heard because I am conservative media.
Thank you, Marlene.
Appreciate it.
Curtis in Wickford, Rhode Island.
You're next on the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, it's actually Chris.
Chris?
I'm sorry, I misread that.
You're right.
Didn't have my glasses.
That's okay.
Rush, I want to say I had the privilege of seeing you about three years ago in Washington, D.C. at the Media Research Center's Dishonors Awards.
Oh, yeah.
You had a great speech, my friend.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
My question was: whatever happened to the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society?
I don't hear you make reference to him anymore.
Well, I don't hear.
I had to banish the guy.
The guy became a kook and a wacko.
Which Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society members would fall into that category.
The Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society was in Ellsworth, Maine.
Right.
And the guy's name was Charlie.
And Charlie would occasionally email me with reactions to things from the perspective of the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society, much like the Keep Our Own Kids Safe Society.
The acronym is Kooks.
And Charlie started getting mad at me when I wasn't kooky enough for him in my own analysis.
So I banished the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society for a while, and I haven't heard back from them.
So I still have the May rule, mail rule that would pop him up.
But I think he took his banishment personally and made it permanent on his own.
Mike in Morristown, New Jersey, Open Line Friday is all yours.
Welcome.
How are you doing?
I'm good.
I agree with you with your analysis.
I'm a moderate Democrat myself, and I feel the left wing has hijacked my party.
I think the Joe Lieberman situation is going to be a microcosm of what's going to happen to Democrats all around.
They have a moderate guy up there.
He gets shot down in favor of a far-left guy.
And some Republican who is centerist comes over and wins.
And I have a feeling that my party will demise over this, to be honest.
You know, I don't think it's going to demise any more than it already has over this, but, but, what's likely to happen is if the polling is correct, and it's a toss-up on that, Lieberman would win the general election as an independent.
Democratic Party identifying itself as far-left, anti-war.
They nominate as a party in Connecticut, one of those kind of guys, no experience doing anything, but he's got the right mantra in the war.
He hates it, hates Bush, Bush a terrorist, Bush a criminal.
The Democrats of Connecticut elect him and nominate him.
Then, in a three-way race, Lieberman cleans the clock.
What does that say about the Democratic Party and its whole notion of winning elections based on being anti-war, anti-Bush, and blaming America?
And that's what they're setting up, and that's going to shame.
And when you have Hillary and John Kerry and Bill Clinton all saying they're not going to campaign for Lieberman as an independent, what does that say for?
That's it, folks.
I have a veg weekend ahead of me, and I can't wait.
I've been on a goal for 14 straight days, and I need some time alone to myself.
I am hermiting it.
See you on Monday.
▲
Export Selection