Rush Limbaugh Program - August 11, 2006, Friday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:15

August 11, 2006, Friday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the EIB Network.
	Welcome and jump in.
	It's Open Line Friday at 1-800-282-2882.
	The Washington Times headline of their story, Scramble Starts for Political Advantage, with debates in Congress coming up on gitmo detainees and fights over the NSA wiretap situation.
	It should be noted that one of the ways the Brits were able to crack this thing were wiretap intercepts provided by the National Security Agency of the United States government of the Bush administration.
	It's going to be extremely difficult to say now that these wiretaps are somehow a danger to American civil liberties when so far they have been a danger to terrorist bomb plots.
	It is going to be extremely difficult to suggest that detaining terrorists is a bad idea.
	What we ought to do is give them civil rights when these people are determined to extinguish all of our civil rights, not to mention our lives.
	It is a shift, Democrats and friends, that is going on.
	Well, let me give you an example on the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times.
	On June 21st of this summer, editorial, lead editorial headline, shame on the GOP.
	Just lashing and crashing against Bush and everybody else, mostly on immigration.
	August 11th, editorial lead, terror in the air.
	The plot was foiled.
	President Bush has said that we're in a protected war with Islamic fascists.
	And while they take a sideswipe, the administration has tended to use the war as a cheap political instrument.
	But Thursday's news says the editorial felt different.
	And they go on to talk about, whoa, wow, there's a real threat here.
	Hold on, wait a minute.
	These people actually want to kill us?
	I'm on that plane occasionally going to London.
	Wait a minute.
	Duh.
	The most interesting and prominent voice for Democratic Party realism and offering an alternative to how to win this war is Mr. Lieberman, still the senator.
	He lost the primary to Mr. Lamont, but he's in the fight for the general election and is the senator through the end of this year.
	So Mr. Lieberman, who lost by only 10,000 votes, is in Waterbury, Connecticut.
	By the way, just as an aside, the Democratic mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut, Michael Jarjura, I hope I said his name correctly is himself an independent, is himself a loser in the Democratic primary for mayor who ran as a write-in independent and won.
	Because, as the mayor puts it, quote, here in Connecticut, the Democratic Party has shifted, I think wrongly, too far to the left.
	And that limited audience does not reflect the majority view of the people of the state of Connecticut.
	That was very evident in my election, says the mayor.
	Again, re-elected as a write-in after he lost the Democratic primary.
	He says that was very evident in my election for mayor, and I think it will be extremely evident in Joe Lieberman's re-election in November.
	Lieberman has a strategy.
	He has Democrats in place who have taken this route of the independent and write-in type candidate, the independent campaign.
	In fact, he sounds clearer than ever about the major issue.
	Here is Joe Lieberman.
	I don't want my party to be taken over by the Ned Lamonts and Maxine Waters, who will not give assurance to the people of America that we're prepared to do what needs to be done to protect our people in a dangerous world.
	Those terrorists are out there.
	They want to strike us again as they did on 9-11, and we can't deceive ourselves about that.
	And the American people ultimately, I'm afraid, no matter how upset they are about the course of our country and the direction of the Bush administration, ultimately want their government to protect them.
	That's the Harry Truman, JFK, Bill Clinton tradition in the Democratic Party.
	I'm fighting to keep that tradition alive.
	Okay, a stretch with the Bill Clinton tradition after Somalia and all.
	But still, you get what he's saying.
	This isn't the party of Truman, JFK.
	This isn't the party of FDR.
	What was FDR's war policy?
	Unconditional surrender of our enemies, and we kill every one of them until the last one says uncle.
	Now, that was clear.
	I understood that.
	Zogby, by the way, out with a Democrat poll, he says, he says that this poll was conducted August 9th and 10th.
	1,229 Democratic respondents, likely voters in November, across the country.
	He says 79% of Democrats were happy that Lieberman was knocked off by Lamont.
	That 62% say the results of the Connecticut primary will hold national implications.
	In other words, the McGovernite Party will at long last sweep the nation as it should have all those 34 years ago.
	The Democratic blogs, by the way, are just outraged.
	This is AmericaBlog.com.
	White House officials gleeful that terrorists wanted to kill thousands of Americans on 10 U.S. airlines over the Atlantic.
	Gleeful.
	Did you hear gleeful yesterday?
	So Joe Lieberman is launching an independent campaign which amounts to, as far as I can see, the soul of the Democratic Party as he evoked the party of FDR and Truman, and he put in there Clinton for some reason, maybe gratitude that Clinton came out and endorsed him.
	But I want to refer you back to George Will's column entitled Curing Liberalism of its Amnesia.
	There was a previous moment in time when the soul of the Democratic Party was also at stake.
	There was a time in the Truman era when the Henry Wallace communist wing of the Democratic Party, and they were avowedly communist,
	were sympathetic to Joe Stalin, believed in the communist model as the progress of humankind, believed in the necessity for totalitarianism to get equity and fairness in a society where capitalism had made too many people poor.
	They came out of the Depression with the feeling that Hitler was not the answer.
	He was the enemy, especially because he attacked Uncle Joe, Stalin, but also that Stalin's model was the best model.
	Those folks were taking over the Democratic Party under Truman's nose.
	And there was a meeting.
	And I want to go back to this.
	History is a wonderful thing.
	There was a meeting.
	In fact, there's a new book about it, The Good Fight.
	And The Good Fight is a book by Peter Beinart, who is an avowed liberal, not a progressive, not a progressive.
	He goes back to the 40s.
	He says liberals then were anti-totalitarians.
	They were pro-Democrat.
	They were pro-democracy around the world.
	They were Wissonian folks who did not detest capitalism.
	thought it should be restricted and restrained and regulated in the interest of the public, etc., but were not anti-capitalist communists as the Henry Wallace wing of the Democratic Party was.
	So these liberals, to make a long story short here, convened at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. on January 4th, 1947, and founded the Americans for Democratic Action, which became more left in later years, but in that year was the catalyst organization that drove the communists out of the Democratic Party and Henry Wallace away from the Democratic nomination for president.
	The soul of the Democratic Party was at stake then.
	It is similarly at stake now.
	Lieberman has raised the stakes in this debate in a very interesting way.
	And by the way, predictably, predictably, you can imagine what would have happened if a plate had blown up yesterday.
	Predictably, minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California, we take full blame, saying, Mr. Bush yesterday saying Mr. Bush had ignored key recommendations of the September 11th Commission on Airport Security.
	We're not as safe as we should be.
	Mr. Bush has not done enough on homeland security.
	Nancy, at least yesterday it was enough.
	Thank God.
	At least yesterday it was enough.
	So we need again to get into this, but Lieberman has given us a cue.
	Will Democrats take that cue?
	Well, let's talk about, and I'm going to find it in a moment.
	Here it is.
	A certain segment of Democrats.
	All of what I've said is prelude to this discussion, because in that Henry Wallace debate back in 1947, the role of Jewish Democrats was crucial in saving us from the communist wing.
	Even though the Rosenbergs and others, Jewish communists, were spies for Joe Stalin, many other American Jews did not want to go down the Stalin road, even though they were liberals.
	So here is one of them, at least a descendant of one of them, Fane Rosenbaum, writing an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago entitled Red State Jews.
	Now, if you are Jewish and if you aren't, I want you to listen to this.
	We're going to take a short break.
	We'll be back with more.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Russia and taking your calls on.
	Open line Friday after this.
	It's come out today that the Prime Minister of Israel rejected his military.
	The Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister of Israel, I believe, never to have been in the military extensively.
	He's a lawyer and a negotiator and the former mayor of Jerusalem, a man I've met on one occasion and discussed things with, and he seemed like a typical politician.
	He seemed like a guy who was typically trying to pull people together, broker compromises, try to keep things moving along.
	You know, he's not a wartime leader.
	He's not a general.
	Some of these guys have been generals, and they kind of know when you get to war, then it's, you know, to the wall.
	This guy was still trying to figure out if he could file the lawsuit and threaten enough that the opposition would back off.
	And that was his mentality.
	So he rejected the idea that they first surprise the military had a plan, and the plan was shock and awe.
	They would bomb South Beirut headquarters of Hezbollah before the leadership could get into the bunkers in a surprise bombing.
	They would invade from the sea and put a division in the Latani River cutting off South Lebanon before the fighters could go into the bunkers and get out of there.
	They would invade from Israel north to put them in a pincher movement and take care of them in about two weeks.
	All of that was rejected by the prime minister, who faced, by the way, according to Israel Insider, a potential military coup from disaffected Israeli generals who said, this is going to be our first defeat, and Olmert is the reason why.
	So today, Olmert says, nope, the ceasefire resolution at the UN isn't good enough.
	It requires us to withdraw from southern Lebanon before NATO gets there.
	That's just a victory for Hezbollah.
	So the ground war is on, and now the ground war, without surprise, will cost a lot of casualties on all sides that were unnecessary had the surprise war that the Israeli generals wanted to conduct had it been allowed to go forward.
	Just a little warning about putting lawyers in charge of your government in wartime.
	1-800-282-2882.
	So back to the question then, given the Israel situation.
	And by the way, the Israelis are united as never before on how to go on this.
	Here is Thane Rosenbaum in the Wall Street Journal.
	Quote, this is a soul-searching moment for the Jewish left.
	I would know, for six years I was the literary editor of Tikkun magazine, a leading voice for progressive Jewish politics that never avoided subjecting Israel to moral scrutiny.
	I teach human rights at a Jesuit university, imparting the lessons of reciprocal grievances and the moral necessity to regard all people with dignity and mutual respect.
	I'm deeply sensitive to Palestinian pain and mortified when innocent civilians are used as human shields and then cynically martyred as casualties of war.
	Perhaps, he says, I have been naive all along.
	And I'm not alone, he writes.
	Many Jews are in my position.
	The children and grandchildren of labor leaders, socialists, pacifists, humanitarians, anti-war protesters, instinctively leaning left, rejecting war, unwilling to demonize, insisting that violence only breeds more violence.
	Most of all, we share the profound belief that killing, humiliation, and the infliction of unnecessary pain are not Jewish attributes.
	However, he says, the world as we know it today, post-Holocaust, post-9-11, post-sanity, is not cooperating.
	Maybe it's time, he writes, for a reality check.
	This is a night that today, he writes, is a nightmare that the Jewish left always refused to imagine.
	Surely, he wrote, we did imagine, surely the Arabs were tired too.
	Surely they would want to improve their societies and educate their children rather than strap bombs onto them.
	But if the Palestinians didn't want that, if building a nation was not their priority, then peace in exchange for land was nothing but a pipe dream, he writes.
	It was all wish fulfillment, morally and practically necessary, yet ultimately motivated by a weary Israeli society.
	So he goes on to write, the Jewish left is now in shambles.
	Peace now advocates have lost their momentum and their moral clarity.
	He says, not unlike the deep divisions between the values of red and blue state in America, world Jewry is being forced to reconsider all of its underlying assumptions about peace in the Middle East.
	The recent disastrous events in Lebanon and Gaza have inadvertently created a newly united Jewish consciousness, bringing left and right together in one deeply cynical red state.
	Now, I just want to challenge my Jewish Democrat friends, and I have a lot of them constantly on the debate format here locally.
	Where do you go from here with the reality that there is no peace for land?
	You give up Gaza, you retreat from southern Lebanon, the enemy is emboldened, they believe you're weak, they're going to kill you, they're going to agree with the president of Iran, Ahman Abanaba, that you, the world is better off when you Jews are dead and Israel is extinguished.
	How do you negotiate with those people?
	Can we all just get along?
	What do you mean, get along?
	You're trying to get along with a guy who said he's going to kill all of you.
	What, is he going to be satisfied with 50% of you?
	Is that the negotiating tactic?
	Maybe he'll accept half a loaf and we'll be safe.
	William in Detroit, you're next on the Rush program.
	William, go ahead.
	William, go ahead, you're on.
	Yes, I'd like to explore the theory of mutual assured destruction as it might apply to this case of the Islamo-fascist.
	I don't think it does, but go ahead.
	Well, I mean, back in the Cold War, we were pointing nuclear warheads at Russian cities, at Russian civilians, who were, as we all know, are innocent in this game.
	They did not necessarily like communism, but we basically did it as a deterrent, telling the Russians, if you attack us, we will blow up your cities.
	That's because the Russians wanted to live too.
	These people don't.
	Not necessarily.
	I came from the Philippines, and it's actually proven to be an effective deterrent.
	Don't get me wrong, I'm not a racist.
	I've actually got Muslim friends.
	But yes, they might believe in going to heaven and their seven, nine virgins or whatever.
	But at the end of the day, they do care about their families, too.
	And believe me, it does provide a deterrent back to you.
	So what should we say?
	If you bomb one of our airplanes, we will nuke Mecca.
	Yeah, not necessarily nuke.
	We would bomb it.
	I mean, basically retaliate.
	Because you're dead already.
	The guy who bombed the airplane is dead, but we will go after your family.
	And if your family's dead, we'll go after your cousins.
	Well, now you're talking about something that is real.
	If you make it personal, the Russians did this in Lebanon when their diplomat was kidnapped.
	They said, we're going after every single relative you have and murder every one of them till you cough back the kidnapped.
	And by the way, it worked.
	Something to that, William.
	We'll be back after this.
	Here's a laugh I'll share with you.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Thursday that his close friend and ally Fidel Castro is in a great battle for life, quote unquote.
	He said in a televised speech, quote, from here, let's pray to God for Fidel and his recovery, and he's fighting a great battle.
	Pray to God.
	Ah.
	Not something these fellows are known for, are they?
	And then he went on to say that he had been in contact with Fidel.
	This is interesting because no one else has.
	And there is.
	In fact, there's some discussion as to whether or not Fidel is going to be starring in a remake of Weekend at Bernie's.
	The weekend at Fidel's will be the next film coming out of Cuba.
	Anyway, Chavez says, among other things, Fidel told me, I keep saying, Chavez, God help Chavez and his friends.
	Now, ladies and gentlemen, Fidel Castro has suppressed the Catholic Church, espoused atheism of the communist ideology, and is not known to appeal to God.
	It must mean, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to be blunt, that he's dying.
	Even atheists, when they're dying, are known to be a little concerned about, oops, what is going to happen on the other side of this deal?
	Cuba's new dictator, Raul Castro, his younger brother, Raul has not been seen in 12 days, but he has taken control.
	Without so much as saying hello to the nation, Cuba's new ruler showed his intention by calling up Cuban military-age men in a forced mobilization to, quote, defend the republic.
	So he has militarized the entire island.
	He's imposed a press blackout.
	Even socialist European publication reporters have been kicked out.
	And he is sending his secret police to crack down on the country's 10,000 illegal satellite dishes, bringing in Miami stations.
	He has declared the TV signal receptors as U.S. weapons.
	By the way, we now put a C-130 up yesterday with a TV Marti, the Free Cuba station, and it is beaming into Cuba.
	So Raul is trying to get rid of the satellite dishes.
	Raul has reintroduced communist power structures, reinvigorated the Communist Party Central Committee, has appointed all of its members.
	Raul has.
	He has taken over the country.
	And a la the Chinese communists, he has turned the Cuban military into a for-profit business.
	They have confiscated businesses and then turn around and take the profit from those businesses to finance the military.
	And it is Raul who is making an alliance with the Chinese communists and particularly with the Chinese Communist Oil Company, which is now active in drilling, get this, in the Straits of Florida between Cuba and Key West, drilling within 45 miles of Key West.
	And they are reputed to be installing the kinds of platforms that can slant drill, that is to say, suck oil out of United States territory.
	How do you like them apples?
	Speaking of Florida, here's John in Ocala.
	Is it Florida?
	John, go ahead.
	You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Roger, getting back to Joe Lieberman for a minute.
	I have two questions for you.
	First of all, do you think that he might have won the primary if the vote were taken today instead of a couple of days before this plot was uncovered?
	And second of all, how do you see his chances increased because of this?
	Well, it's an interesting conjecture.
	Yeah, what would happen had this breaking this terrorist's murder plot happened a couple of days before the Lieberman-Lamont election?
	We'll leave it to your own individual conjecture.
	But Ned Lamont is an amateur.
	And Ned Lamont, in the flush of victory, did something that for Connecticut voters, and I appreciate hearing from you, was very weird.
	When Lieberman appeared at Waterbury, Connecticut, and made the speech where the Waterbury, Connecticut mayor had been defeated in the Democratic primary and then was elected as a write-in candidate as an independent, and appeared with Lieberman in Waterbury, which, by the way, went 60% for Lieberman.
	Lamont was asked, asked, asked.
	Lamont was asked, I have a multilingual abonics being one of my other languages.
	Lamont was asked by the press to comment on Lieberman's comments and on Waterbury and so forth.
	And his campaign manager, Tom Swan, said that Waterbury is a place, quote, where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil, unquote.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Then he made things worse.
	He apologized, saying, no, he didn't mean Waterbury in particular.
	He meant former mayor Philip Giordano, who was the slime, and former Governor John Rowland, who was the evil.
	Well, that made things better.
	Those particular former officials, now not too happy about their being characterized by Ned Lamont.
	So this is going to be kind of interesting to see how this works out because Lamont is an amateur and is now running for the United States Senate against a pro.
	And I mean in the political sense of knowing how to campaign, what to say, how to make it happen.
	Lieberman senses that 25, what amounts to 25% of the electorate or 52% of the Democrats voting is not a mandate for change, and that in fact, 75% of voters did not vote for Lamont.
	And it may be that Lieberman trounces him come November, which could put an entirely different spin on this election.
	And here's the margin was 10,000 votes and 52 or no, it was 51.8 to 48.2.
	So less than two points in the difference, less than four points in the difference.
	So that's a swing of 10,000 votes, and Lieberman would have won the other day even before this attack.
	All right, here's Ray in Austin, Texas.
	Ray, welcome to the Rush program.
	Hi, how are you doing?
	Hello?
	How are you doing?
	Yeah, Ray, go ahead.
	Yeah, I'm calling in regards to the appearance by Mayor Giuliani last night on the Hennedy Comb show, which I thought he clearly, with real clarity and simplicity, defined the difference between the two parties in their approach to what I would call a war on terror.
	And basically, I think he said the Rush, I mean, the Bush Republican doctrine is one of being on offense in an all-out effort to defeat terrorism.
	We're at war.
	It is evil.
	They want to kill us.
	We need to define the terms of how we're going to respond and defeat them.
	The other alternative approach, which for lack of any other definition would be called, I think, the Democratic doctrine, seems to be one of containment.
	It's basically a defensive doctrine saying we can successfully negotiate with Islamic terrorists.
	And I think that's the basic difference which we need to spell out coming up with the election in November.
	Ray, I hope the politicians do as well as you have done in stating it as clearly as you have stated it, and I appreciate the call.
	It's exactly right.
	And the Washington Post today did an op-ed piece from Newt Gingrich, the only option is to win, asserting where we are, that when you are looking at this, you can't be looking at the United Nations to solve this problem.
	They're not going to.
	If the United Nations were around in 1942, we would have negotiated with the Nazis.
	Instead, a Democrat president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, set out the terms of war.
	By the way, the Japanese attacked us.
	Germany attacked us.
	Our reaction was, unconditional surrender, and we start killing you until the rest of you stop.
	That seemed to work.
	Jerry in New Jersey next.
	Jerry, welcome to the Rush Program.
	Yes, Roger.
	I like it when you fill in.
	Thanks.
	I'm getting up in years now, and I've been hearing the same stuff going around for 50 years about Israel and all the rest of it.
	And I think people just don't seem to understand.
	These resolutions, all this rest of this is meaningless.
	They don't accept the fact that Israel can exist.
	Right.
	So there's no talking past that.
	Yet I keep hearing, oh, we're going to have another session in the UN.
	We're going to have another Oslo.
	And it can't work.
	Well, as I said yesterday, the ceasefire in Arabic is the same word they use for reload.
	The fact of the matter is that all of these you only hear about peace plans and peace when the radical Muslims are trying to gain time.
	They're trying to gain advantage.
	They're trying to rearm.
	They're trying to sway world opinion.
	Whenever they declare war, and it's Hezbollah, for example, that has started this war with Israel, they are rapidly the victims of Israel aggression.
	And a lot of liberals in Europe and the United States buy that line.
	I just think that that's becoming very, very transparent as false.
	Could I play a little if history with you?
	Sure.
	Where do you think we'd be in the terrorist situation if Israel had never become a state?
	There would have been another excuse.
	I mean, I don't think it would go away, obviously, but it seems like that's a breeding ground for recruiting.
	It's just another way.
	There would have been another excuse.
	Because the underlying fact is that the Muslim world, and particularly the Arab Muslim world, is a failure.
	They are not the creators of new technology.
	They are not the, other than oil and their natural resources that they sell to the developed West.
	They are not people who are creating and innovating and on the cutting edge of the 21st century civilization.
	They are openly pining for the seventh century for crying out loud.
	And they're frustrated by the fact that the infidel West is so much, obviously, so much better off no matter how many times they use the oil card.
	We're obviously so much more prosperous.
	We're obviously so much more able to do things.
	We go to the moon and all they can do is talk about magic carpet rides in the seventh century.
	This is not a successful civilization.
	So if it wasn't for Israel, which is a convenient crusader-evoking reason for them to be radicalized, it would be something else.
	It would be the loss of Spain.
	Didn't you hear Zarkawi the other day?
	He's saying, we need to reestablish Daros Islam, the land of Islam, from Asia to Spain.
	And what he's talking about is they're still pining for the fact that in 1492, the last Moors, the Muslims, were driven out of Spain.
	They are still talking about going back.
	In fact, when I was in Spain, I was in Córdoba, which is a very historic place in Spain.
	And in Cordoba, there is a mosque, one of the largest mosques in the world, converted to a Christian church as Isabel and the guys who put Columbus on the map in that same year were driving the Muslims finally out of Spain.
	They took over Córdoba.
	They built a cathedral in the middle of this mosque.
	Well, we're touring this thing.
	And of course, that was 500-plus years ago.
	We go down the street, and there's a little new building, kind of a new little building, a little dome on top of it.
	I said to the guy who wasn't going to tell us what it was, what is that?
	He said, oh, that's the new mosque.
	I said, what do you mean, the new mosque?
	Yeah, the Saudi Arabians put in the money.
	They built this new mosque.
	They had a Wahhabi Imam in Córdoba preaching the return of Spain to Daros Islam.
	If Israel did not exist, my friend, they would have made it up.
	The war of militant Islam against all the rest of us started in the seventh century, and it isn't new that it's continuing in our century.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	In for Rush Limbaugh, back after this.
	You're back on the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Roger Hedgecock sitting in for Rush Today.
	It is Friday.
	Let's get to Connecticut now, Trumbull, Connecticut.
	And Tricia.
	Hi, Tricia.
	Welcome to the Rush Program.
	Hi, Roger.
	I am so glad to hear everything you are saying about not only what's happening in Connecticut, but in the Middle East.
	And I've been very disgusted with the hot-headed, short-sighted voters in Connecticut.
	I'm a registered Republican, so I wasn't participating in this.
	No, you're an endangered species out there.
	Exactly.
	But, you know, it just amazes me the ignorance that the voters in Connecticut and other states are so eager to jump in this car driven by moveon.org.
	Let me ask you about this.
	Do you think after yesterday's headlines and today's headlines about this terror plot to massacre people on these planes coming out of England that the outcome of the election between Lamont and Lieberman would have been any different?
	Yes, I do.
	Similar to how well Bush did after 9-11, you know, until recent years when people are forgetting.
	But I just also think it's a real shame that with a very likely three-way race in November in Connecticut for this Senate seat, that the Republicans are not positioned with a decent candidate to take advantage of this and hopefully strike some sense into voters about what's really important.
	And if why isn't the Republican nominee a decent candidate?
	Why isn't he?
	Yeah.
	Well, all the publicity has been negative about him, and he described himself as a recreational blackjack player.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Now, wait, wait, wait a minute.
	That's going to, if that's the criteria, a ton of people would not be able to run anywhere.
	Wait a second, recreational blackjack player.
	I mean, that's.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't understand that.
	That's really evil in Connecticut?
	No, the problem was he had some problems with some debts, which he paid off to casinos.
	And I don't want to dwell on that.
	I mean, I've talked to him.
	Well, he paid his gambling debts and he likes to play cards.
	Yeah.
	But he's not married.
	I don't think his values are right.
	And the point is no one's even interviewing him.
	Wait a minute, not married.
	Now, is that code for gay?
	No.
	No, it's definitely not.
	But I just think we need someone who has their head on straight, like President Bush, who has a family.
	So how are you going to vote?
	Well, I hope Schlesinger will take Governor Rel's advice and that of others and step down so that we can get a candidate who is going to be better and can at least get the press to.
	Yeah, but given the current three, who would you vote for?
	Oh, boy, I hope it doesn't come down to that.
	But it would have to be Lieberman, I'm afraid.
	Trisha, I appreciate the call.
	I've got to run.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	We'll be back with more on the Rush Limbaugh program after this.
	It's Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush.
	Let's take one more call.
	Squeeze it in.
	Here's George in Windsor, Connecticut.
	George, go ahead.
	I just wanted to say this election, or it wasn't even an election, it was a primary, it was about a Democrat who stepped out of line, who got spanked for it.
	And if the Democrats think that they're going to run this as a national campaign, one more little event like the situation over in Britain, and this will backfire big time on them.
	George, are you a Republican?
	Absolutely.
	And do you think that this Lieberman-Lamont thing would have gone the other way had the election say been held today?
	It would have changed everything.
	Even for the Democrats.
	That's why, again, one of theirs stepped out of line, and the severe left just came in and they beat themselves.
	They didn't beat a Republican in the primary.
	I have a thought themselves.
	I have a thought that your situation now is that Lieberman probably is locked into running as an independent because he sees himself winning.
	Absolutely.
	This is a blue state.
	A Republican doesn't even stand a chance even on a really good day.
	So they just proved that they can beat up on their own.
	So that's the message that they said.
	George, I appreciate the call.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	We're going to be back in the next hour.
	I'm going to tell you a little story about San Diego with national implications for religious freedom.

▲