All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:06
August 9, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers and conversationalists all across, they fruited play in the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program.
All ears on this program at this moment in time, I'm sure.
Here's the phone number.
And by the way, we're going to do sort of a modified version of Open Line Friday today, since I'm not going to be here on Friday.
And we're already taking bets on what major news event will happen either tomorrow or Friday or Monday during my absence, because it always does.
Something's going to happen, but I'm not going to give you the things that we've been betting on.
Some of them are quite brutal.
We entertain ourselves in various ways here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Let's go to the, by the way, Open Line Wednesday.
We're going to relax some of the requirements for callers.
If you want to bring whatever up, feel free, give it a shot.
Let's go to the audio soundbites first.
Let's just listen to some things.
This is last night at Lamont headquarters.
You would think that the presidential race had been decided last night, the way the drive-by media and the way the Democrats are reacting to all this.
It's kind of humorous to watch this.
And it's really, it's fascinating to me to watch the conventional wisdom analysis develop.
The conventional wisdom analysis is there's an anti-incumbent mood out there, and that's what this means.
And it's a throw the bums out time.
And that means it's bad for the Republicans.
We'll get to all that as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
Here's Ned Lamont.
Now, you've got to picture this, if you didn't see it.
Ned Lamont surrounded by, and this is really mainstreaming the party.
Now, this is really going to establish the Democratic Party in the eyes of people as a moderate and independent party that represents all.
The Reverend Zach Al Sharpton, they didn't even bother to go down and try to get into Cynthia McKinney's photo.
They were there with Ned Lamont.
They wormed their way in there somehow.
Kim Gandy of the NAGS, the National Association of Gals, Maxine Waters, also abandoning her colleague in the house, Cynthia McKinney, and other kooks surrounding Ned Lamont.
And this is what Ned Lamont said.
Who's been paying attention?
How many lobbyists are there for every single congressman in Washington, D.C.?
63 lobbyists for every congressman of Washington, D.C. 63 lobbyists all fighting for the special interests.
It's time to fix Congress.
One more number.
We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq.
And I'd say it's high time we bring them home to the heroes welcome.
Bring them home!
Bring them home!
Actually, what that means is cut and run, cut and run.
You know, it's fascinating to watch this because the net roots and these kook fringe, I mean, the blogosphere think that they have finally prevailed here, ladies and gentlemen.
You know a dirty little secret?
One of the ways they did this, I am told via exhaustive research late last night and today, is that they moved into Connecticut and they convinced 14,000 independents to register as Democrats so they could vote against old Joe.
And now you might say, okay, they succeeded in doing that, but they didn't tap into a huge constituency of theirs that's already there.
They were able to get these 14,000 people, but it misrepresents the mood that was actually on the ground in Connecticut.
And they're also ignoring the momentum shift that was occurring here.
I mean, the Libra Moon was down by 13 or 14 points just a week ago.
But I want to focus on one thing Lamont said here, because I've always told you guys that the Democratic Party is actually a party that's made up of disparate constituency groups.
They all have their basic single interests.
And what unifies them is their quest and desire for power and the liberalism that they all share as an ideology.
But you've got big labor, for example, and they want what they want.
The feminists, the nags, they want what they want.
The teachers' union, I mean, they're just all these different constituencies.
Now, when Lamont said 63 lobbyists all fighting for the special interest in the crowd booed, one of the theories that's going around today is that the traditional way of winning Democrat elections may now be over.
That a Democratic candidate had to make sure that he was loyal to each of these constituents.
When it came to the NAGs, got to be pro-abortion.
When it came to big labor, you had to hate Walmart.
Whatever big labor's issue was, you had to be for it.
And one of the theories evolving here is that the party, and by the way, all these people talking about how the Democratic Party is MacGovernizing itself, I want everybody to remember I first said that this was what was happening in this party well over a year ago.
They are attempting to relive their glory days of shutting down the Vietnam War by able to mobilizing so much, mobilize so much anti-war support among the American people.
And that to them represented their quest for power.
And I've asked all over the place, do these kook fringe base members actually care about winning?
I think they have more satisfaction by being able to get noticed.
I think they have a tendency here to love the fact that they can cause the party to move and react to them.
But in terms of winning, they really haven't won anything.
Even this race, I'm going to be probably a lone wolf here and suggest that this victory here does not represent what they think it means, which is fine and dandy.
As long as they continue to fool themselves, that's fine with me.
But they're McGovernizing themselves.
And what they forget is McGovern lost in a landslide.
We are in a world situation here that argues for strength, national security, national defense.
And these people are making it plain they want no part of it.
They don't consider a threat to be legitimate out there, any of them.
And as such, they're making it plain to casual observers.
And this is the key when talking about presidential races, because not everybody pays all the attention to this on a day-to-day basis as you and I do.
Casual observers, people who pay attention every four years to vote for the presidency and other things, they're going to notice that these people can't be trusted.
And if they don't notice it, we'll tell them.
We'll make sure they notice it.
That they can't be trusted on matters that are very serious.
And I'll tell you what, these guys are out there pumping themselves up, and they're feeling really good today, and they're flexing.
But you know how things can change in the world, and you know how things can change in politics.
It's a long time till November, and it's a long time till November of 2008.
And what's happening around the world with militant Islamo-fascism on the rise, North Korea, and so forth.
This stuff's not going to go away in the next six months, two months, three months, not going to go away in the next two years.
If anything, it's going to intensify.
If something happens of a major nature in favor of the United States, we pull off some grand scheme, some great military maneuver, makes Americans proud to be Americans.
These guys are sunk.
The history of the Democratic Party since George Bush was elected is to open the door flat, smack, dab in the middle of their faces every time they think.
And in the past five years, every time they've thought that they finally crossed the threshold, that they have finally reached a kumbaya land, that they've finally gotten where they can get back in power.
Reality sets in.
These are a people living in an alternative reality.
These are people that are morally inverted.
These are the people that don't see what's actually out there.
Too many of them hate, dislike, resent, don't trust their own country.
And they're just positioning themselves here as I just elected some guy in Connecticut or nominated some guy who knows diddly squat about anything, but he can parrot what the kooks, the new Democrat base, want to hear.
And this is going to send shockwaves up the spines of other Democrats in Washington.
They're all going to, if they haven't yet, they will abandon Lieberman.
They're all going to try to tell him to not do this, get out of there.
Chris Dodd has already joined a rally for Lamont today.
Lieberman is yesterday's news.
He's history.
Wait till you hear how Chris Matthews was talking about him last night on CNBC or MSNBC, whatever he's on.
Mrs. Clinton, a lot of pressure on her now.
What does she do?
She's been trying to straddle the fence.
It may be more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to put anybody's testicles in her lockbox now.
She may be feeling the pressure rather than exuding it and forcing it on people.
It's going to be fascinating to watch this, folks, because there's going to be an abject fear now.
You could almost say that the John Pedoritz says today in the New York Post that, what do you want to believe it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus on the war on terror because the Democrats, as I have pointed out routinely, despite all this rhetoric and despite all these demands, despite all this criticism, never once voted to defund the war.
When it came time to vote on resolutions to pull out of there now, next week, six months from now, the most they could get was nine or 13 votes.
They're going to look at this now, and the pressure is going to be on all of them to become kooks, or at least to sound like kooks.
And they're going to take as a message that this is what it takes to win.
So we're sitting here in the fortunate position of actually watching a major political party come to the conclusion after a primary election that in order to win, in fact, its ticket to win is becoming a party of full-fledged, no kidding about it, no masks, no camouflage, kooks.
Back in just a second.
You know, folks, I tell you what, I was toying with an idea today.
By the way, welcome back to the award-winning Thrill Pact Ever Exciting Rush Limbaugh program.
I was toying with the idea of opening the program today in abject fear.
Along the lines of maybe we've misunderestimated them, folks.
Maybe I need to rethink this.
Maybe these kooks are indeed more powerful than I ever imagined.
And maybe we need to change our tactics.
Maybe we need to afford them a proper amount of respect.
We've been laughing at them all these years.
Maybe now look at what they've pulled.
I was toying with the idea of building these people up like they have not been built up before, all for the purposes of goading them. into being even more wacko, kooky, and extreme than they already are.
And then I realized they don't need to be goaded.
They're going to look at this victory in Connecticut as evidence of their prowess and proof.
And anything that anybody like me would do to enhance it is not necessary.
Plus, I think it would have unnerved you.
And I also don't know how long I could have kept it up without busting out in sheer laughter.
So I can the idea.
I'm sitting here.
I'm still in, I'm in stunned amazement.
Just as a political analyst, as an expert political analyst, as a guy who can read the stitches on a fastball, never in the modern era has a national political party won anything big going to the left and then further to the left and then further to the left.
And that is exactly what this party is doing.
It's stunning to watch this.
I know why it is.
They have no forward vision whatsoever.
They have no plan.
They have no agenda that they can be honest about.
They have to continually live in a mask or in camouflage.
Liberalism is not going to win national elections.
Nationally, honestly, advertised and campaigned on liberalism is not going to win the presidency.
It may win a Senate seat, some states.
It may win a congressional seat in some states.
It's not going to win the presidency.
And they instinctively know this, so they mask and camouflage themselves.
And in the process, they have no vision.
They don't have any idea of the future of the country.
They have no concept of American exceptionalism.
They're mired in this notion that America's at fault, that America is to blame.
What is it about us that makes the rest of the world hate us?
And as a consequence of this, they're always looking backwards.
And they're trying to relive their youth.
It's almost like these 60s relics want to go back and relive the 60s.
And the 70s relics want to go back and relive the 70s.
So we get the war on terror is cast as Vietnam.
We get the Bush administration cast as Watergate and Nixon.
And this allows them to relive in their own minds their relevance, their power, and their, indeed, happiness.
In the process, they develop nothing new for the future.
And they keep repeating their mistakes.
Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president served two terms since, I mean, elected genuine two terms.
You've got to throw LBJ out because he took over for Kennedy after the assassination.
You have to go back to FDR.
These people do not have a track record.
And Clinton never once got even 50% of the vote.
And yet they look to that as their glory days.
And they look to Vietnam and they look to the Watergate era.
In each of these instances, they were shellacked.
They were wiped out.
Well, the Watergate was a different circumstance, but they were not able to parlay that into continual control of the White House.
They lost it four years later in 1980 because they made a mess of the economy, as we all who were alive then will remember.
Yet they keep repeating the same mistakes.
They keep thinking it's like insanity, keep doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result.
Now they are just openly, openly, this election in Connecticut, why this is going to convince them.
Yep, yep, that's the ticket.
They're going to take the results of a primary.
And by the way, somebody checked the email.
Rush, what do you mean here?
They went out and they convinced 14,000 or more independents to go to the Democratic parties to stick it to Lieber.
What do you mean by that?
There was a, from what I understand, there was a strategery that the Democrats had.
They went out, they petitioned independents to cross party lines to register as Democrats, and 14,000 independents did it.
I don't know how many they petitioned, probably the whole state.
Most of the voters in Connecticut are registered independents, by the way.
So they went out and 14,000 or so of these independents did, in fact, register as Democrat in order to be able to vote in the primary yesterday in order to stick it to Lieberman.
This, in some people's estimation, amounts to stacking the deck.
Yeah, I mean, they stack the deck.
I mean, they got the people to switch, and it created more Democrats to vote against Lieberman, but it also allows them to create this image that it was the war and Lieberman stance on it alone and nothing else that gave Lamont the victory.
Lamont did win it, but I'm talking about perceptions here.
Yeah, he won it, and Lieberman did have baggage in that regard, but 14,000 had to be enticed.
So it's what they tell themselves about this, and they're going to lie to themselves.
They're going to tell themselves what they want to hear.
They're going to tell themselves what they want to believe to be true.
And it is going to misguide them in the future.
And the whole party is going to get caught up in this, and it's going to be hilarious and fun to watch this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I know.
A lot of people asking me, Rush, are you surprised by this?
It happened?
Nope.
Not surprised at all, ladies and gentlemen.
I did say that I didn't think it was going to be a blowout, but I'm not surprised by it.
Clinton went in there and endorsed Lieberman.
It's a kiss of death.
Well, you laugh about it, and you think I'm trying to be funny.
And I know I'm a naturally funny human being.
It's true.
Clinton went in there and endorsed him.
And this presents problems for Hillary as well, which everybody is discussing.
And she's lost control of the testicle lockbox.
The kooks have it now.
Somehow, Hillary has let that slip through her fingers.
And these blogs now are in charge of 10.
They got more than one testicle lockbox, and they're going to be using it.
we can see evidence of it.
Let's go back to the...
By the way, everybody's saying this is an anti-incumbent mood.
There was a...
There was a Republican primary in Michigan.
Moderate Republican Representative Joe Schwartz lost to a conservative in a GOP primary.
The conservative here, of course, not named in the AP story.
C, anti-incumbent.
And then Cynthia McKinney, C, anti-incumbent.
She's, by the way, charging election fraud.
As I predicted yesterday would happen.
I did say I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in Connecticut if Lamont lost.
It is happening in Georgia.
But let's take a look at this Michigan thing.
A conservative won and a moderate Republican was thrown out.
This has nothing to do with anti-incumbency.
It tells you what the mood, if we're going to make judgments on one election or two elections or three, which is another mistake the Democrats make and the drive-by media, try to look at a trend in primary elections in August.
You know how many voters, registered voters there are in Connecticut?
It's like a million and a half, even more than that.
You know how many turned out yesterday?
200,000 plus.
And they're calling it, wow, it was Earthshed.
Yeah, well, it was twice the normal turnout.
But in terms of the turnout yesterday representing the likely voters of the state of the registered voters, it's a smidgen.
Here we are in August.
It's vacation month.
And we're going to determine trends, electoral trends from three elections.
All right, well, let me play the game because I'm just as good at it, if not better, as they are.
You want to talk about the anti-incumbent trend?
Throw it out.
There was the anti-incumbency has nothing to do, or the incumbency has nothing to do with things that happen in Connecticut.
This was simply moveon.org and the rest of these kooks continuing to flex their muscles after having lost every such attempt as this.
They lost with this clown trying to take a Republican seat in Ohio.
They lost in San Diego.
Why weren't those trends?
Now, of course, we got the drive-by media willing accomplices with the Democrats.
Now we've got an anti-incumbent trend, and that's only important for one reason.
That means that the Republicans are going to lose the House.
Incumbency had nothing to do with the race in Connecticut.
Incumbency had nothing to do with the race in Michigan, this primary race.
If you want a saying about that, you can simply say the conservatives are fed up with a bunch of moderates in both the House and the Senate screwing up the agenda that the conservative leadership of the country is attempting now and then to employ.
That's a positive sign.
Anti-incumbent?
These are primaries for crying out loud.
Then you go to Georgia.
Come on, isn't it amazing Cynthia McKinney has survived this long in absolute total dits?
Mainstream blacks in Georgia finally were embarrassed to be represented by Cynthia McKinney.
She has issues.
She beats up the Capitol Hill police with cell phones.
She says and does absolutely stupid things.
This anti-incumbent theory has as its foundation, ladies and gentlemen, the belief on the part of those who advance it that voters are idiots, that they don't vote issues.
No, voters are not that sophisticated.
Voters don't dig that deep.
Voters are emotional.
Voters, they just, if things are going well, they'll keep the people in power.
If things are going bad, they throw them out.
And that's what everybody on the left and the drive-by media wants as many Americans as possible to think.
But these were primaries.
These were primaries in August.
These are not general elections.
Let's wait till November to try to forecast some sort of trend.
We had real general elections.
One in Ohio in a Republican district.
What was this guy's name?
The ex-Marine guy, Paul Hackett.
You know, they lost that by four points.
They're out there claiming victory.
They lost the special election for Duke Cunningham's seat out in San Diego.
They lost that.
Those are real elections.
Of course, nobody drive-by media.
Nobody in the Democratic Party wanted to spot trends based on that.
But boy, after what, a win-one out of 20 elections, moveon.org, and all of a sudden we got a trend in a primary.
Don't buy any of this stuff, folks.
Conventional wisdom will steer you down a one-way street each and every time.
You remember what the sign is in a one-way street?
Do not enter.
A sign you never see, by the way, at a House of Prostitution.
All right.
Audio soundbite number two.
Lamont keeps screaming last night in his acceptance remarks.
I'll tell you, we succeeded here thanks to you.
Thanks to the grassroots.
Thanks to the net roots.
We got students.
We got veterans.
We got labor.
We got small business.
We've got a coalition for change.
It's a coalition for change.
It's starting in Connecticut, and we're going to take a beyond.
Yeah.
All right, Whippy.
Again, back to the special interests business.
Some are theorizing, and I'm considering this.
Some are theorizing that what, and again, it's a lot to speculate on or project based on one primary result, but the old theory of how Democrat candidates used to win has been blown out now because the special interests have been overshadowed by the new power of the kook fringe blogus fear.
Now, as to the circumstance here with Mrs. Clinton, there is no question.
Whatever else is being said out there, this win by old Lamont up there does present a problem for Mrs. Clinton.
Not only did her husband Bill go up there, took time out from going up to Toronto, stopped off in Connecticut on the way up to Toronto, and campaigned for Lieberman.
So Lieberman loses after an endorsement from her husband, Bill Clinton.
She's trying to have it both ways by not endorsing Lieberman, but not endorsing Lamont.
And this is not going to bode well these fringe kooks that run the Democratic Party now think they do.
They want rhetoric.
I don't even think they care as much about winning as they want the rhetoric.
They want hate.
They want their candidates to echo what they're saying on their blogs.
They want hate.
They want rage.
And Mrs. Clinton's not giving them that.
Mrs. Clinton's straddling the fence.
She tried to be two things or three things on every issue, following the triangulation theory of her husband and Dick Morris.
She voted for the war.
She positioned herself to the center on this.
Now she's trying to swing backwards, blaming the war plan and execution of the war for perceived problems.
She hasn't renounced her vote for the war, though.
She can go on television and rip Rumsfeld to shreds all day long and try to persuade the kook fringe that she's one of them.
As long as she doesn't renounce her vote for the war, she's in trouble.
And why won't she do that, folks?
This is an interesting question you must ask yourself.
Why won't Mrs. Clinton renounce that vote for the war?
Why won't she join John Kerry's resolution to get the hell out of Iraq now?
My theory is that she knows it's a loser in a presidential campaign.
This is not a cut and run country.
The Democrats may be a cut and run party, and they may be run by a bunch of cut-and-run little kids out there on the blogosphere who are flexing their muscles, but I think she knows the opposite.
These loons out there, they are in a feeding frenzy, and they're not going to buy the fact that Mrs. Clinton now trashes Rumsfeld for the post-war plan, the execution of the war for perceived problems, or beating up on Rumsfeld.
They're not going to buy that, at least for now.
These people are all worked up.
You have the left fighting the far left now.
Don't tell me about moderates in the Democrat Party because no elected Democrat can afford to be a moderate after Lamont's win.
They just can't afford it.
And by the way, you know, moderate Democrats is another name for a liberal in hiding anyway.
But they can't afford it.
Mrs. Clinton has lost the lockbox with one election, the testicle lockbox.
Mrs. Clinton could go on TV and make sure that she got no hard questions because the hosts knew that their testicles were in her lockbox.
But it's the other way around now.
Just like any other guy, folks, and these kooks have the lockbox, the testicle lockbox, and they are not going to be afraid to implement it and use it on her.
Where are we going next in the audio set?
Oh, yes, let's go to a little review of the drive-by media to Lieberman.
They're begging him.
They're begging him to get out.
They're begging him, don't do this, Joe.
Don't do this independent thing, Joe.
Don't do it.
We have a little montage here from Matt Wauer, Diane Sawyer, Soledad O'Brien, Harry Smith, all interviewing Senator Lieberman today on their various programs.
Is there any phone call you could receive?
Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could call you today and ask you to drop out that you would listen to?
There are members of the party who've already said that this is a selfish decision.
How can you run against the party?
What do you do when the Democratic leadership come to you and say, it does not help us if you run as an independent?
You will run as an independent at risk of losing the seat to the Republicans.
You understand that risk.
This is not incredible.
You look how these people throw their guys over.
What did I tell you?
A liberal is a liberal first.
You wonder why certain liberals, Lee and Hollywood liberal Jews around the country don't support Israel.
They're liberals first.
Why are they turning their back on poor old Joe?
Poor old Joe just did one thing wrong.
He just, and he tried to make amends for it in his campaign.
Throw him under the bus, throw him overboard.
How can you do this to the party?
Journalists are asking.
If this were happening in the Republican Party, they would be encouraging whoever the Lieberman equivalent is, do it.
Run as an independent.
Destroy the Republican.
But they would want that to happen.
No, no, we've got to save the Democratic Party.
How can you do this, Joe?
Can you ask, answer me this?
What, given what's happened to Joe Lieberman, six years ago, by unanimous acclamation, he's the party's veep.
Al Gore threw him under the bus.
Al Gore wanted nothing to do with him in this time around.
By the way, by the way, Al Gore, this opens the door wide for Al Gore.
I'm not talking about in terms of his really winning anything, but in terms of the kook fringe and Gore himself thinking that he's now got a wide open chance if he wants to do it because of the problem this causes Hillary.
So you're going to have Gore getting up, I think, up to speed.
John Kerry is all excited, and Kerry's now trying to steal Gore's issue of global warming.
This is fun.
But what should Lieberman care about the party after what the party's done to him?
Why should Lieberman be loyal to the party after what has happened to him?
Here's Hillary, by the way, this morning said this about Ned Lamont.
As I've said since the 4th of July, I will be supporting the winner of the Democratic primary, and that is Ned Lamont.
I'm going to contribute to him.
I'm going to do whatever I can to help him be found.
She knows she has lost the testicle lockbox.
And we'll be getting your phone calls here.
Just a second.
Just a couple more soundbites.
Chris Dodd this morning throwing Senator Lieberman under the bus overboard, whatever phrase you wish to use.
This isn't just about relationships and friendships or about candidacies.
It's about the people we seek to represent, the people who share our values and ideals, who come out in the numbers they did yesterday to tell us what their choices are.
And while I may disagree and regret the choice they made, I have great respect for the choice they made.
And so this morning, I'm endorsing Ned Lamont, the United States Senate.
And so Lieberman's finding out who his friends are.
That's it for you, Joe.
Couldn't care less.
Nice to know you, you twit.
Man, I'll tell you, it is in times like this you find out who your real friends are.
And he's got none in the Democratic Party.
He's got none.
Well, there's some people in Washington who have friends.
I'll tell you who else quake in their boots.
Despite what you may think, there are some old-line mainstream Democrat strategerist types.
And they're not easily recognizable because they're all trying to curry favor with the Kook Fringe here because they all need to get hired to run campaigns.
So when you see them on television, the Bob Shrums and the, you know, these types of guys who haven't won a presidential race either.
They all talk the game, but I guarantee you, there's some quaking in the boots here over what's going to have to happen because they know now, they think they know now, what they're going to have to do to win a primary in 08.
And then after that, they've got to figure out a way to tell a base to go to hell in a general.
Because the base of the Democratic Party as Kuk Fringe does not represent the country.
It's going to be fascinating to watch.
You got to hear this.
Chris Matthews last night on MSNBC.
Just listen to this.
The body language of the two is so different.
You have this very waspy fella, Lamont, very calm, very casual, very St. Paul's almost in the prep school sense.
Lieberman, of course, is the schmaltzy ethnic guy, the Uncle Tanous, you know, the guy that's very much kind of lachromose in his most, almost post-nasal drip voice is, but he doesn't look happy.
Chris, don't try saying that on ESPN.
Schmaltzy ethnic guy, Uncle Talouse.
You people might, some of you might be too young to know who or remember Uncle Tanous, but the old Danny Thomas show, you remember that HR?
And Hans Conrad, I think, was the actor who played Uncle Tanous and had this big hooked nose.
And that's what he's talking about here.
Ethnic schmaltzy guy, Uncle Tanous.
Why don't you just call him what you're calling him, Chris?
What is this ethnically or ethnic schmaltzy guy?
It's amazing what these clowns get away with.
A quick phone call, Charles, in Atlanta before we have to go to the break.
Welcome, sir.
Rush, I am speechless hearing that quote that that is racism to in any other form.
It'd be called anti-Semitism.
Let Mel Gibson accuse the arresting sheriff's deputy.
Hey, Talouse, you ethnic schmaltzy guy.
You guys have started all the wars in the world.
Let Mel Gibson try that.
Well, maybe Chris Matthews is drunk on the air all the time.
That may explain a lot of his commentary.
No, no, no, no.
We don't trade quips.
No, don't go there.
We don't know that.
Let's, you know, it stands as it stands.
Well, I'm a frustrated guy, but Tara did us you rush.
We've been together for many years now.
I was a Republican staffer in the Louisiana Senate when David Duke ran against Edwin Edwards, and Edwin became Charles.
You know, this is my fault.
I'm out of time.
I should have told you to get right to it.
I didn't give you enough time.
Charles, I'll tell you what, hang on, and when we get back to the, if you can, and we get back to calls, we'll resume here the conversation.
My fault, folks.
Bad to host duties.
My bad, my bad.
Not the caller's fault, although we can blame him.
Back in just a second.
By the way, folks, Uncle Tenus, just so you know, on the Danny Thomas show, was not Jewish.
Don't know if Chris Matthews knows that.
Described him as Jewish.
Ethnic schmaltzy.
Uncle Tenus was an Arab.
▲
Export Selection