All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
August 18, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
A program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Half my brain is tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, it's Friday.
Let's keep cooking.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And a telephone number 800 282-2882 in the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Take a very huge career risk on Open Line Friday, turning over the program to rank amateurs.
And we go to the phones.
But it's a fun thing to do, and you are lovable rank amateurs.
You can bring up anything you want on Friday when we go to the phones.
The program is yours.
Again, the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Try this.
Television can act like a painkiller when it comes to children.
And television is more effective than a mother's comforting, according to a small Italian study.
The University of Siena study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood, was based on 69 children aged 7 to 12 who were divided into three groups to have blood taken.
One group was given no distraction while the blood was being taken, while mothers of children in a second group attempted to distract the youngsters by talking to them, soothing and or caressing them.
In a third group, the children were allowed to watch television cartoons while the blood was drawn.
After the samples were taken, the children and their mothers rated their pain scores.
Children comforted by their mothers recorded middling scores on average.
The mothers rated pain scores higher than the children, but they also recorded a lowest pain scores for kids who had been allowed to watch television.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, from the Italians based on 69 kids.
Television better than mom.
How long will it take for this?
A Reuters story, how long will it take for this to find its way into the American left belief system?
I mentioned moments ago, still on the uh the uh this this district judge uh uh diggs in Michigan.
Uh Anna Taylor Diggs and her decision on the National Security Agency's uh foreign surveillance uh program.
I mentioned a column uh by by Debbie Schlossel at her website, uh, and which she profiled uh the lawyers in this case.
By the way, the term, if uh if if you shop around for a particular court or a judge, it's called forum shopping.
And I still don't know whether it happened in this case, but it's hard to believe it didn't.
Uh let me read to you an excerpt from Debbie's column in January when the case was filed.
Then there is one of the lawyers, Mohammed Abdrabo, a Palestinian attorney and ACLU of Michigan board member.
Not only does he represent a number of accused terrorists, he lied in signed documents about it.
In the ACLU lawsuit complaint filed in federal court, Abdrabo's ACLU claims as part of his criminal defense practice, Mr. Abdrabo has represented and continues to represent people the government has suspected of allegedly having some link to terrorism or terrorist organizations.
But in a grievance that this man, Mohammed Abdrabo filed against Debbie Schlossel to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, which was designed to deny her her right to free speech and to intimidate her into changing this column from which I'm reading.
She didn't and she says she won't.
Uh Abdrabo wrote and signed his name to the following.
Quote, without hesitation, I affirmatively state that I have never represented anyone accused of terrorism or money laundering.
I can also affirmatively state that I have never represented or consulted with anyone accused, suspected, indicted of money laundering, let alone money laundering to finance Al-Qaeda.
Debbie Schlossel will not be able to provide the ADB, the attorney discipline board with a single court appearance, document or public record that would indicate that I have ever represented a suspected terrorist or money launderer.
Well, Ms. Schlossel uh responded, hmm, make a grievance against Abdrabo for lying either in court or to the Grievance Commission is appropriate.
In fact, Mohammed Abdrabo represented Gamel Mania Ahmed Al-Majar, arrested in December 2002 in raids by then U.S. Customs for operating a money laundering business, Najar money transfer, through Dix Dollarmart, one of six businesses believed to have transmitted as much as fifty million dollars per year to Yemen in violation of the Patriot Act and other reporting requirements.
Customs agents told Ms. Schlossel they believed the money was going to finance terrorist activities, likely Al Qaeda.
Abdrabo is listed as Al Najar's attorney on the federal court dockets.
So we know one thing for sure about Mohammed Abdrabo, writes Miss Schlossel, he is a lawyer.
What we also know is that many of his clients are involved with terrorist and other nefarious activities.
He appeared at the arraignment for two Palestinian and Lebanese clients, accused and later convicted of chopping a Jordanian Palestinian to death.
All three were under investigation by the FBI for mortgage and real estate fraud and were suspected of sending the proceeds back home to the Mideast for assorted nefarious activities.
Abdrabo is heavily involved with the American Arab Antidiscrimination Committee, which openly praises Hezbollah, the terrorist group that murdered over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians in Lebanon.
In the West Bank, Abdrabo made a career of legitimizing Palestinian terrorists in his work for Al Haq, the Palestinian version of the ACLU, only it's worse if that's possible.
In work for the United Nations, Abdrabo co-authored a report on the Syrian Golan.
The Golan is in Israel right now.
Clearly, this man has a political agenda not friendly to the U.S. or our key Mid East ally.
Spying, taping phone calls, Abdrabo doesn't have a problem with that either when he's the one doing it.
On September 7th, 2004, the same day he filed his phony grievance against Miss Schlossel, Abdrabo had one of his friends, a man identifying himself as Casey Khalil, call Ms. Schlossel and try to entrap her in a taped phone call, but it didn't work.
The man whose number came up as Khalil Companies on her caller ID claimed he was a client of Abdrabo for his mortgage company's problems with the state of Michigan and wanted information on him.
Now this ACLU lawsuit claims the following.
In Part 88, the program, the NSA program, has inhibited communications between Mr. Abdrabo and his family and his friends, because he is less candid about his political views and avoids saying things that are critical of the U.S. government over the telephone or through email.
So one of the lawyers in this NSA case actually, in order to get standing for his other clients, says, hey, I got friends and family over there, and I'm afraid to talk to them because they're afraid to talk to me because they're afraid the United United States government is listening.
This is one of the lawyers, Mohammed Abdrabo.
As Ms. Schlossel continues, Abdrabo is a vocal member of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission appointed by Michigan's Liberal Democrat governor Jennifer Granholm.
There was a meeting of this commission since the NSA program was disclosed in the New York Times in December.
Mohammed Abdrabo is as vocal as ever.
All of these attorneys had a press conference in Detroit yesterday.
Remember this column was written in January upon the filing of the suit.
Contrary to being silenced, these lawyers couldn't seem to shut up.
Now that takes me.
Before we go to the break here to a post, uh Andy McCarthy, National Review Online, uh, when I first started talking about this in the previous hour, I mentioned I thought this whole case might get thrown out on the basis of standing, because the people bringing this suit have to prove they've been harmed, which even now the lawyer, one of the two lawyers for the ACLU in this case, Mohammed Abdrabo did.
Now, this is a particularly ingenious insight on the part of Mr. McCarthy.
Is it just a second?
I thought those leaks didn't matter.
Remember back when the New York Times first disclosed the existence of the NSA terror surveillance program?
Number of us contended that this should be grounds for a prosecution because it alerted the enemy to our signals.
A signals intelligence effort in wartime.
It alerted him to how we were attempting to track him down.
Nonsense, yelled the Times and its allies.
You see, they explained Al Qaeda already knew that we were using every means in our arsenal to penetrate its communications.
Telling terrorists about the NSA program didn't alert them to anything they weren't already well aware of.
Well, apparently the ACLU and CARE, Greenpeace, other public interest organizations who sued the government didn't get the memo.
Because in order to convince Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, keep getting this woman's name confused.
And I'm sorry about that.
I keep going Ann or Taylor Diggs or whatever.
Anna Diggs Taylor, in order to convince her to invalidate the NSA program, these plaintiffs, including uh Mohammed Abdrabo, had to establish they had standing to sue, meaning that they had suffered some kind of individualized harm, or that they might in the future.
Something that was unique because it's not enough for standing purposes, simply claim a general objection to government policies.
So how did these plaintiffs claim to have been harmed?
They are journalists, they are lawyers, they are scholars, they do research and other work in the Middle East.
But now, according to Judge Taylor's opinion, they've sworn in affidavits that persons abroad who before the program became public knowledge spoke with them by telephone or internet no longer do so.
They are, she says, stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk to clients because people suddenly think the U.S. government's listening.
So which is it?
Libs.
Is the terrorist surveillance program leak a big nothing that changed no one's behavior?
Al Qaeda already knew about it.
Or was it a bombshell that changed everybody's behavior?
Evidently it depends on which scenario the left believes will damage the Bush administration more on any given day.
Here we have the very people who claim that leak was no big deal, claiming that the leak stifled their ability to do their work.
In this case, in Michigan, before a hack Democrat judge named Anna, what is it?
Right, Anna Diggs Taylor.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Telephone number on open line Friday, 800-282-288-2.
Before I get off of this and move on to other subjects, I've got two more sound bites right up to number six there.
Ed uh Victor Davis Hansen with the limbaugh echo on the uh Neil Cavuto show on Fox yesterday.
First question from Cavuto What do you think?
What'll be the fallout from the uh NSA decision up there by that judge in Michigan?
If you go back and look what FDR did, he had military tribunals and he executed German saboteurs and didn't even tell anybody about it.
We covered up the deaths of American generals in World War II.
Highest ranking American general in the European theater was killed by an accident.
No American was allowed to know about it.
Um it's nothing like Lincoln or Johnson after the Civil War suspending habeas corpus.
I could go on and on and on.
I love the story about Lincoln, by the way, in the Civil War.
Uh some Ohio politician was uh uh campaigning, I think for governor of Ohio, and he was out there ripping the uh the Union and its uh president and policy.
Lincoln was the equivalent of the National Guard in those days out there and apprehended the guy and said you're an agitator and we're getting rid of you.
They sent him down to Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy.
And Jefferson Davis said, we don't want you.
We can't trust you.
And they sent him to Canada.
Can you imagine if Bush did it?
Can you imagine if Bush would go in and take Harry Reed or Nancy Pelosi and ship them over to Baghdad or to Tehran?
That would be the equivalent of it today.
That's what Lincoln did.
And he's considered one of the greatest president, because he preserved the Union, which we're trying to do now.
We're trying to preserve the country.
Next question from Cavuto.
It's not the end of the story, this judge's ruling and what she said, but steer me through the process.
Then what?
It's all predicated on one thing that we haven't had another Line 11.
And so we have a former president Jimmy Carter at a time of war, showing more sympathy for a terrorist organization like Hezbollah than a democratic government of Israel that was attacked.
We've had Reuters throw away their 150-year reputation for disinterested coverage by printing doctored photos.
We're seeing a crisis in the West, and it's all predicated that we're not going to have another 9-11.
Once that happens, I think this will all just be rhetoric because it'll be an existential question of whether we're going to survive or not.
That's an interesting point.
Uh Hansen is saying there is that the Democrats are really rolling the dice here that we're not going to have another big hit.
Uh And that all this is unnecessary.
Where I disagree, and I don't care whether Bush is still president or not president.
If there is another big hit, guess who is going to get blamed?
The drive-by meeting of Democrats are not going to blame themselves for not seeing the threat.
They're not going to say, oops, oop, oh no, what do we do now?
I mean, they will in private.
They'll have backdoor meetings.
Oh, my God, what do we do now?
How do we spend this now?
But they'll come out with a way of blaming Bush for it.
If it doesn't happen till 2010, they'll blame Bush for it.
That is never going to end, ladies and gentlemen.
That's why they must be always in the minority.
Tim in Jacksonville, Florida, I'm glad you waited.
You're on open line Friday.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
It's good to talk with you.
Thank you, sir.
I understand that.
Um I talked to your screener earlier and had mentioned to him that my wife and I had adopted a couple of uh combat airmen currently serving in Iraq.
And I and I knew you had a program, you know, for people to adopt soldiers, and your screener said, and maybe you can get on and kind of tell me you know what you guys have done, and then that may motivate some people to, you know, to get on board with you and move forward.
Uh this is the Adopt a Soldier program, and uh what we have done is allowed people to purchase subscriptions to the uh to the website uh and uh and the money does not go to us.
It's uh it's uh it's a charitable thing or nawash.
And uh this allows soldiers in theater around the world to be able to uh access rushlimbaugh.com in totality.
Uh not just the webcam presentation every day, but the the daily audio stream that podcasts either straight to your computer via iTunes or well, you can download them to your computer in your own hard drive without using iTunes.
Um the the essential stack of stuff, the virtual encyclopedia of knowledge and history that is Rush Limbaugh.com.
Uh one of the um one of the things that we're uh one of the areas where we are now with the program is that uh so many people donated, so many people have have uh donated, and a lot of members of the military and were trying to change their minds about this, but they just are hung up on accepting what they think is charity, which I totally understand.
But uh when I've and I've I've heard from several of them uh uh in the Rush Comments email line, which is the exclusive email pathway to me for subscribers to Rush Limbaugh.com and I've said I've written them back, I said you guys got to learn how to receive.
People think that we all need to learn how to receive.
Like I'm bad at receiving.
I don't want anybody noting my birthday.
Embarrasses me.
I'm not good at receiving things.
I'm just so oriented on providing for myself.
I just I get really somebody wants to do something for me, I immediately feel obligated and I don't like feeling obligated.
And I've had to do hard work, ladies, and just psychologically, emotionally hard work on learning to receive.
It still embarrasses me.
And these guys are the same way.
Uh they epitomize, you know, pull yourself by the bootstraps.
Uh they have volunteered, they're out serving the country, and they don't want to be considered charity cases.
So uh uh it's an ongoing process uh trying to convince as many of them that this is something you, the American people want to do for them as uh as a just a little show of support.
Now tell you where this all originated.
The idea for this originated, and we defeated this, it got rolled back, but old Tom Dung He Parkin was up there in the Senate ripping this program and ripping me to shreds, and they were trying to either get this program taken off of Armed Forces Radio or to have other programs added to it.
And then there was a story that the the uh Armed Forces Radio Network people had gone out and done a survey uh and they had found that uh uh soldiers didn't want limbaugh anymore.
They don't want talk radio, they wanted hip-hop and they wanted music and they wanted this or that and the other thing.
And I saw that and I said, well, this might happen.
And I know a lot of these guys love listening, only get the first hour of the program anyway.
But that the uh the uh military got a note from the Pentagon, they were not the they did the survey, it was informational only, they didn't implement uh that aspect of it, the stuff that affected uh this program.
But when all that was going on was when we initiated the uh the Adopt a Soldier program.
So we're still uh engaged in the uh the thorough and the fever feverish process of matching up uh uh military member donors to those who have uh already uh committed uh a gift or two to uh a soldier, and we'd put them together when it happens.
And if they want to communicate with each other, that's fine.
If they don't, that's fine too.
But we inform the military personnel who it is that has quote unquote adopted him.
It may be the word adopt that they don't like.
And I driving around highways, I see adopt a highway.
I said, what the hell is adopting a highway?
And somebody said, Well, you pay money to help clean it up.
I said, I don't pay enough taxes already for this.
Now I have to adopt a highway.
What else can you adopt out there?
You can you can adopt a rest area, you can adopt all kinds of maybe that's the one they don't like, but we're still working on it.
Thanks for the call out there, Tim back in a second.
Ugh.
Talent on loan from God.
Living legend, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity simply by showing up.
This is a strange story.
The New York Times headline, Walmart image builder resigned.
Walmart image builder.
Okay, it must be a Democrat because otherwise the name would be in the headline.
So I'm saying, who is this?
Before I read the story.
Always always try to figure out the news before I know the news, because it's a fun game, see if I can predict it.
Couldn't figure out who it was, didn't remember.
Uh civil rights leader Andrew Young, who was hired by a Walmart to improve its public image, resigned from that post last night after telling an African American newspaper that Jewish, Arab, and Korean shop owners had ripped off urban communities uh for years.
That'd be black communities for those of you in Rio Linda.
He said that uh that these Jewish Arab and Korean shop owners had sold us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables.
In the interview published yesterday in the Los Angeles Sentinel, a weekly, Andrew Young said that Walmart should displace mom and pop stores in urban neighborhoods.
You see, those are the people who've been overcharging us.
He said they they they sold out, they moved to Florida.
I think they've ripped off our communities enough.
First it was Jews, then it was Koreans, now it's Arabs.
Uh Mr. Young 74, former mayor of Atlanta, former U.S. representative to the UN apologized for the comments, retracted them in an interview last night.
Less than an hour later, he resigned as chairman of working families for Walmart, a group created and financed by the company to trumpet its accomplishments.
Uh said Mr. Young, it's against everything I ever thought in my life.
Uh never should have been said.
I was speaking in the context of Atlanta, and that doesn't work in New York or Los Angeles.
His uh remarks drew forceful condemnation from Arab, Jewish, and Asian leaders.
The national director of the uh anti-defamation league, Abraham Foxman, called the documents uh comments very hurtful.
He said the sad part is that even people of color and even minorities who suffered discrimination and prejudice are not immune from being bigoted and racist and even anti-Semitic.
This is kind of strange.
Uh I made the comment, somebody was asking me, I forget the call, I forget what it was about earlier this week.
Somebody was talking about whether or not uh uh something of black politicians said was racist or Jesse Jackson's, and it never is because they're minorities and they don't have the power to enforce their racism, and so they're really not racists, and you can't hold them accountable.
Now, we've had Jesse Jackson talk about Jaime Town.
We've had Al Jarkson, uh Al Sharpton talking about uh Jewish interloper at Freddie's Fashion Martin Harlem.
And now we have Andrew Young.
Now, are we to ask the same questions here we asked about Mel Gibson?
Andrew Young, obviously not inebriated when making these comments, but uh did he really mean this?
As Mel Gibson, no question about it meant it.
And he was properly condemned for what he said.
I guess Andrew Young has been too.
But in I'll tell you what, what what's really puzzling about this is in the old days, and Mr. Snerdley, you can back me up on this.
In the old days, they Would have gone to the mattresses to save Andrew Young.
They would have turned over every rock.
They would have done everything possible to say that the reaction to Andrew Young was overzealous.
It was uh uh uh out of proportion and was racist itself.
But now Andrew Young, why he's roadkill.
Cast aside.
Seventy-four years old, great Democrat, done great things, career over.
Why is this, ladies and gentlemen?
Why is this, ladies?
I'll tell you exactly why it is, because liberals are liberals first.
And Walmart is public enemy number one for the Democrats domestically.
Well, public enemy number two.
Bush is public enemy number one, Walmart number two.
It's a tough toss-up.
Is it big oil or Walmart?
It's all well, is it big pharmaceutical?
Is it uh is it big fast food?
Uh every successful American corporation or business entity is under attack, and the Democrats are out there saying now that Walmart actually harms the middle class, and Joe Biden is basing his presidential hopeful candid uh candidacy on this very issue.
This is mind-boggling to me.
Walmart serves their constituents.
Well, it's not mind-boggling.
I mean, I in a political sense, it is what they're doing is servicing the unions.
The unions want Walmarts unionized.
I saw Ben Stein on TV yesterday.
He was on a cavuto show.
He said, Look, I I wish Walmart paid people more than they do, but the people are working there and they're they're trying to get jobs there.
And for a minute, the people that get jobs have to step up from where they are.
And it's the way the market works.
Walmart's not your final resting place when you get a job.
It's usually a stepping stone to something else.
I know they they just they just raise salaries in addition.
They're they're showing a little sensitivity to this.
It doesn't matter.
Walmart has been targeted.
The politics of this are fascinating to me because the very constituency that shops Walmart, the Democrats claim are their best buds.
Hey, we're looking out for you.
Uh we're the ones taking care of you.
You're the you're not gonna get shooed.
We're gonna make sure those taxes on the rich get uh get raised.
What about our taxes?
Well, get to that later.
But we're gonna raise taxes on the rich.
And you should feel happy about that.
Meanwhile, these people go to Walmart, they uh get cut rate prices, uh, dollars go further in there, which Democrats claim to want, but of course that's the big illusion.
Uh Democrats are Democrats first, liberals are liberals first, and right now the liberal cause is servicing unions.
And that means destroying uh Walmart.
Here's Jerry in Portland, Oregon.
Jerry, thank you for the call on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hi there, Rush.
Thanks so much.
Hey, uh got a question for all the libs out there.
Where's the beef on this uh this thing in Detroit?
Uh where's the victims?
I think they need to parade them out in front of us and show us all these terrible victims that cause this judge to make this ruling.
Well, you know, I'm glad you asked that because um one of the aspects of the law uh uh that that has to uh it's it's in the in the in the NSA program is that a person who has been identified and is suspected of making calls to known al-Qaeda cannot go public.
It's a you cannot do it.
Uh you can tell your lawyer, but your lawyer can't go public either, and this was part of the uh uh uh aspect of the lawsuit, I think.
Haven't read the whole thing, but uh this is one of the big beefs and complaints that the uh the plaintiffs have they can't go public with it, meaning they can't defend themselves in public.
Of course, they're not identified publicly either.
The reason that they can't defend themselves and mention it publicly is because that would blow the program.
Uh and so they're all upset about that.
So you can't produce the victims uh if there are.
I I uh uh I know what you mean by victims.
Let's show us the people who are innocent here who have been nabbed and are about to go to jail for it.
That's your point, right?
Well, exactly.
But use the other logic that we get searched every time we got on an airplane.
Every single person does.
They check every flight, ship, truck, they get checked out.
Um why not phone calls from suspected persons outside the country?
It doesn't make sense.
But I got a question what authority does this judge have in national security matters?
They don't they're not they don't have a re representative authority from American voters, so how do they get to make security decisions?
Well, that's a that's that's the question we're all asking.
We've got an activist judiciary.
Uh uh she accepted the case.
These guys apparently forum shopped at the ACLU, took their case up there.
Uh, and and the judge doesn't have any commander-in-chief roles according to the Constitution.
And what's even worse about it now is when we criticize the judge, we have legal scholars like Jonathan Turley.
So you can't do that by criticizing she's tall, short, a Democrat, she's Pisces.
Nobody's doing that.
But besides that, where where is it written?
A judges are above criticism.
We can try to destroy presidents, apparently, for five years consecutively.
We can't criticize judges and their rulings.
No, because judges are impartial arbiters and simply uh applying law.
Questions that come before.
Well, clearly they're trying to write the law in many cases and become the law.
Uh many of them are just political hacks that have been appointed.
This is this this this woman, Anna Diggs Taylor, campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1979 and was rewarded for her uh campaign work with this uh with this appointment late in his uh utterly disastrous uh term uh in office.
The most disastrous presidency in the modern era.
Quick timeout open line Friday can uh resume and uh consume right after this.
Stay with us.
I want to revisit the uh Ned Lament Joe Lieberman race.
The Brett Girl, ladies and gentlemen, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate uh rallied supporters of Ned Lament uh in Connecticut, yes, I think it was in New Haven, saying that Democrats needed to fight Republican fear mongering to regain control in Washington.
This is what the Brett Girl said.
I voted for this war.
I was wrong.
I should not have voted for this war, and I take responsibility for that.
Well, what we need a change.
We need a change in policy, a change in direction in Iraq.
We need to make it clear that we're gonna leave Iraq, and the best way to make that clear is to actually start leaving.
This guy supposedly brilliantly mental midget when you uh get right now.
Something else interesting in here.
Uh uh the Brett Girl said that uh that Joe Lieberman shouldn't even run uh as an independent.
Uh uh the Brett girl said he should not be running as an independent.
I don't think it has anything to do with the polls.
This is about democracy.
He's a Democrat.
He ran into Democrat primary and he didn't win.
Democrats chose Ned Lament as their candidate, he should be their candidate.
Whoa, whoa.
All right, I this takes me to something.
The uh the Lieberman Senate run is exposing uh yet again all of this Democrat Barbara Streisand.
Not not so much as liberal Barbara Streisand, but Democrat Barbara Streisand.
Democrats are famous, uh, ladies and gentlemen, for saying things that they don't really believe in.
A mantra could be if it sounds good, it is good.
Uh and as a strateger, if it fools most of the moderates, it's even better.
Let me give you the latest poof.
The will of the voters, we must respect the will of the voters.
That's what the Breck girl just said.
Why Lieberman lost.
Ned Lament won.
He shouldn't run.
This is a democracy.
Oh, sounds so nice.
Actually, it sounds kind of fascist to me.
But nevertheless, they they want Lieberman to drop out of the 06 election.
And you know why?
Respect the will of the voters.
Yep, we got to respect the will of the voters, except.
Except there's a small problem with this.
The will of the voters in 2004 saw George W. Bush voted president.
Bush was voted commander in chief.
Where is this?
Respect the will of the voters now, Breck girl.
Uh and by the way, Mr. Breckgirl.
The last time you Democrats put forth a resolution to get the hell out of Iraq it got 13 votes in the U.S. Senate.
What about the will of the voters?
I mean, you don't even vote for what you believe in.
You voted for the war, but now you don't believe the vote was right.
And you're getting applause from a little small crowd for Ned Lament.
Up in um in Connecticut.
Now all of a sudden the votes of the United States Senate don't matter because they don't represent the will of the Democratic Party.
See that's that's the problem.
A little uh little potentially troublesome indicator for lament in the campaign lies in voters' opinions of the candidates.
Only 23% in a new Quinnip Act survey had a favorable opinion of Lament.
Twenty-eight percent had an unfavorable opinion the rest were mixed.
Forty-three percent viewed Lieberman favorably and 28% viewed him unfavorably with the with the rest of them mixed.
So Democrats have a real problem.
What do you go on now?
Is it the will of the voters or the will of the polls?
Because exit polls are supposed to count more than what the voters actually do when the exit polls say that John Kerry won the election in 04.
Exit poll showing he won mean there had to be fraud someplace so what is it the will of the voters in which you're lost or is it the will of polls?
You're telling the guy leading in your precious polls to get out of the race.
You're telling your own guy, Ned Lament, who has more unfavorable than favorable numbers, to stay in that he's the nominee.
This is I'm telling you folks, these people are corkscrewing him into the ground continually hour by hour they're doing this.
Here's uh Mike in Aspen in Colorado.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush.
How's it going?
I just want to touch on the subject that you were talking about with the unionizing of Walmart and things.
Walmart's a big company, and I think that their employees would benefit from having some kind of stability for their pay scale and things like that.
The reason I bring this up is CEOs make a lot of money, and they get a lot of perks and things.
I walked into Walmart today and said, you know, I'd like a job here, and, you know, these are my demands.
I want some stock options.
I want health insurance for the rest of my life, even if you fire me.
And if you do fire me, I want, you know, an exit bonus of, you know, $3 million.
And, you know, I'd get laughed at if I did that and walked in there.
But what's, you know, CEOs can do that.
And even if they trash a company, they're still, you know, glorified or, you know, given stuff to leave.
And, you know, the rest of us, if we screwed up a company, we'd get frustrated.
fired and we just get left to the wayside why is it easier for people you know with that you know kind of ability to just walk away with so much more than say the average person who works hard every day and just tries to support their family and uh you know make a difference in the community or whatever when you know there's so many people out there that all they really care about is just themselves Mike how old are you?
I'm 45.
No 45 A, you don't sound 45 and B, the questions you just asked me the point you just made sound more like somebody in college who's being indoctrinated by a bunch of liberal anti-capitalists than somebody who's 45 years old should know better.
Well I'll I'll be honest with you I don't uh um I used to be a Republican when I was younger I voted for Reagan and um as times went on I I kind of saw things a little differently and went to the case Mike I have to Sir I want to ask you a favor.
Can you hold on I've got to take a break I will I will promise to take you as the first call and answer your questions in the f in the first segment of the next hour if you can wait for a while.
Will you do that there'll be no calls between now and you'll be the Next guy I go to, but I don't have time to answer you in detail now, and I want your call is perfect to uh uh uh introduce Limbaugh Conservative Fundamentals to this audience once again.
Would you be willing to wait?
Great.
We'll be back in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
All right, we get back.
Uh top of the next hour, we'll uh resume our conversation with Mike on the disparity of CEO pay and uh average employee pay right after this.
▲
Export Selection