All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
August 28, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host of this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a daily and relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
We find it, we proclaim it.
This causes panic and fear amongst those who have not the courage to deal with the truth.
You need the courage to deal with the truth to listen to this program, otherwise you too will descend into the early stages of madness.
As has happened to the American left.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Now imagine this.
Saw this story a couple days ago.
McCain stresses Iraq war support support.
And I said, wait a minute.
He was just in Ohio with Mike DeMine, uh, Mike DeWine ripping the way the president described the aftermath, mission accomplished, final throws, and so forth.
Said he thought the American people have been lied to about how easy the mission was going to be.
Then in a story in the Arizona Daily Sun, McCain on Friday said he supports the U.S. mission in Iraq days after faulting the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing it'd be some kind of day at the beach, which did not happen.
Bush, I don't care what he said, never led anybody to believe it's going to be a day at the beach.
McCain uh explained his position after his headline grabbing comments criticizing the Bush administration.
He only did that because Hillary got her tenth cover of Time magazine.
So he had to go out there and capture some media attention.
He knows how to do that, and that's uh rip his own party and rip the president.
He said, I never, I've never intended my concern that the American people be fully informed about the conduct and consequences of the war to indicate any lessening of my support for our mission there.
He uh complained in his appearance Tuesday about major mistakes the administration's made, such as under underestimating the size of the task, so forth and so on.
The comment prompting criticism from the right and left that McCain was flip-flopping, contradicting his backing for Bush's uh policy.
Democrats criticized McCain Friday, last Friday, calling him a Monday morning quarterback and arguing he should try to change Iraq policy if he disagreed with Bush's handling of the war.
Uh Stephen Hess, a political expert at the Brookings uh institution, think tank, said McCain's making adjustments.
He's trying to adjust his position uh to be the most advantageous.
Well, that's probably right.
Uh but if you're willing to adjust your position, I mean it's like Kerry, I voted for it before I voted against it.
McCain, he's for the war until it's expedient to be against it and then when that doesn't go well, he'll go back to being for the war.
Uh, these people.
The big difference here in politicians getting votes and uh in other people just trying to utilize their uh character.
New York Times has a story today.
Real wages fail to match a rise in productivity.
Now, the key word in the um in this headline is the word real.
Real wages fail to match a rise in productivity.
You remember this Washington Post story a couple weeks ago told you about the headline.
What was it about?
Uh Bush uh oh, Republicans losing the support of security moms.
So you think, oh my God, security, uh, that's the that's Republicans' big issue.
Keeping a country safe, war on terror.
Don't tell me that women are abandoning the Republicans.
That's what the headline led you to believe.
In fact, the first paragraph of the story.
Then you read the story, and you find out it's not that at all.
What actually happened was that the Democrats are losing ground in the security arena with women, but Republicans don't seem to be picking it up.
And so the story is Republicans are losing the uh security moms.
It was a sight to behold.
It was totally misrepresentative, such is the case with this story in the New York Times.
Real wages fail to match a Rise in productivity.
With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages in most workers.
Wait a second.
I thought the worst economy in the last 50 years was uh when Bush 41 was president.
That situation is adding to fears among Republicans, the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year's midterm elections, even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years.
Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing.
Since last summer, however, the value of workers' benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government uh data.
Moreover, polls show the Americans are less satisfied or less dissatisfied with the economy than they were in the early 80s or early 90s.
Rising house and stock values have lifted the net worth of many families over the last few years, and interest rates remain fairly low.
Well, what polls show Americans are less dissatisfied.
Why couldn't you say more satisfied when you write the story?
Why couldn't you say polls show that Americans are more satisfied with the economy than they because that's what less dissatisfied means?
Now wait a minute, but I thought real wages fail to match rising products.
That doesn't make sense here.
Total employee compensation plus wage benefits has fared a little better.
Wait, I thought real wages fail to match a rise in productivity.
But total employee compensation, wages plus benefits, uh has fared a little better.
Its share was briefly lower than its current level of 56.1% in the mid-90s, and otherwise has not been so low since 1966.
Over the last year, the value of employee benefits has risen only 3.4%, while inflation has exceeded 4%, according to the labor department.
Nominal wages have accelerated in the last year, but the spike in oil costs has eaten up the gains.
Average family income adjusted for inflation has continued to advance at a good clip.
Well, there's all kinds of confusing stuff in this story.
I mean, people are more satisfied with the economy.
The rising house and stock values have lifted the net worth of many families over the last few years.
Average family income has continued to advance at a good clip, adjusted for inflation, and yet real wages fail to match a rise in productivity.
Real what is what is real in front of the word wages mean?
What it means is that you have to strip out health care and other benefits in order to get this headline for the most recent expansion, and uh uh it's only in the last year have wages stagnated next to inflation.
It's only in the last year that there's been a stagnation near inflation.
But when you add the benefits in you have an increase.
When you take the benefits out, of course you have less total compensation, but the real wages uh are this the story is just a hundred percent misleading on purpose.
Part of the effort here, that's an election year campaign season.
New York Times giving advice to the Democrats on get an issue, guys.
Go.
Hey, if you're not gonna do the war, do the economy.
That always works.
Here's our help to you today.
You can say that people's wages are going down because our headline says it.
Nobody's gonna bother to read the story.
It's too nuanced.
Can't do it in 20 seconds on the TV, so just do the headline and get some experts out there to back it up.
And voila!
You can paint the economy as bad people losing their shirts out there when it's not true.
That's what this is all about.
This is not gonna not uh make the feminists happy out there.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Study teachers gender affects learning.
For all the differences between the sexes.
That's a that's a that a profound admission for somebody in a media to make.
For all the differences between the sexes.
Generally they think there aren't very many.
For all the differences between the sexes, here's one that might stir up debate in a teacher's lounge.
Boys learn more from men, and girls learn more from women.
Hmm.
That's the upshot of a provocative study by Thomas D. An associate professor of economics at Swarthmore College and a visiting scholar at Stanford.
His study was to appear in the Education Next quarterly journal published by the Hoover Institution.
Vetted and approved by peer reviewers, his research faces a fight for acceptance.
Some leading education advocates dispute his conclusions and the way in which he reached them.
But Thomas D. says his research supports his point that gender matters when it comes to learning.
Specifically as he describes it, having a teacher of the opposite sex hurts a student's academic progress.
We should be thinking more carefully about why he says.
He warns against drawing fast conclusions based on his work.
He's not endorsing single sex education or any other policy.
His study comes as the proportion of male teachers is at its lowest level in 40 years.
Roughly 80% of teachers in U.S. public schools are women.
For example, with a female teacher, boys are more likely to be seen as disruptive.
Girls were less likely to be considered inattentive or disorderly.
In a class taught by a man, girls are more likely to say the subject was not useful for their future.
They were less likely to look forward to the class or to ask questions.
That makes sense.
Men are never right when it comes to women.
Teachers or uh otherwise.
That's something, well, uh carries out all through life.
Uh eighty percent of teachers public schools are women, the media is being taken over by women.
Television is open.
Oh, now it's coming into clearer focus.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair, we go to Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
This is Norm, and I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome.
How are you doing, Rush?
It's a pleasure and an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted to uh try and help you out with making what is the determining factor, whether being held at gunpoint is harmful or not.
Uh according to uh the left and the journalists that we are exposed to, uh, then there should be no post-traumatic stress uh for people that have been exposed to being held a gun point.
But the factor that determines whether it's harm, if you are a terrorist, a freedom fighter holding a journalist, that is not harm.
But if you are a Marie the Gitmo, oh the travesty of it all.
Where is the humanity rush?
Um you know that is an excellent point, ladies and gentlemen.
For example, at Club Gitmo or at Abu Ghrab, when terrorist prisoners were held at gunpoint.
Why, that was torture.
It was the beginning of torture horrible.
We were harming them.
We were harming ourselves, we're betraying who we are.
We were destroying our position in the world.
We were making the world hate us.
Now some Palestinians can point guns at two of our fox journalists and release them after forcing them to uh convert to Islam.
And they released unharmed.
And they were, you know, treated really well, too.
Treated really well.
In fact, none of what the Palestinians did, the Palestinian uh uh kidnappers, no, that's not going to harm the Palestinian image of the war.
Of course not.
By the way, um, something you should know.
Uh Sintani and the photographer, when they got out of there, they renounced their conversion to Islam.
They said, we just said it.
They are you.
They are now targets.
Their names may as well be Salomon Rushdie Jr. and Salman Rushdie the Third.
Because once you convert, doesn't matter how you convert.
If you convert at gunpoint to Islam, you are not allowed to renounce it.
You would infidel.
These guys have put bulls bullsh eyes on them by uh by doing this.
I still find it fascinating that after all the great talk about how well they were treated and how wonderful experience was, the first thing they did was high tailored to Israel for safety.
Stephen Fresno, your next sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Hey, been listening to you since about day two or three in Fresno, and you've given me many, sir.
Thank you.
Very much I appreciate that.
Hey, um in uh that same vein of the same story, uh you know, there's these folks in this country, these pinheads that want to go running around talking about the religious intolerance of Mr. Bush.
And I think this is a perfect example of the meaning of the separation of church and state.
How so?
Explain yourself, sir.
So people are not.
When's the last time George Bush held a gun in anybody's head and said you will be a Baptist?
Oh.
They won't they won't even allow a cross on a hill that's been there, sir.
I know.
Well, exactly.
Well, but see, Bush doesn't have to do that.
All he's he is president, so when he mentions God from the pulpit, when he mentions God from the uh from the White House, he's forcing Christianity on people.
Well, I think those folks ought to realize that this is a perfect example of what church separation of church and state really means.
Uh they know it.
You know, this is the thing.
They know what's they're just there are people in this country trying to destroy the institutions and tradition that define this country.
Make no mistake about it.
And blurring this whole issue of separation in church and state is one of the many ways, uh, one of the many techniques uh uh that they are attempting to do it.
There'll be pl plenty happy to have other religions out there, uh their own and so forth.
Uh try try this.
From Rasmussen reports.
This ran on Saturday.
Not surprisingly, the Bible Belt region lives up to its name, with states like Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia containing the highest percentage of those who believe the Bible is literally true.
Alabama and Arkansas came out on top.
Seventy-five percent say they believe the Bible is literally true.
West Virginia was at seventy percent.
Tennessee, sixty-eight percent.
The Northeast region of the United States represents the other claim, or the other extreme, I should say, in Vermont and Massachusetts, only twenty-two percent of those respondents believe the Bible is literally true.
The lowest percentages in all states surveyed.
Earlier this summer, a national survey found that fifty-four percent of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.
In Arkansas, the question proves to be one of the rare ones that doesn't cause divisions along party lines.
Eighty-three percent of Republicans, 75% of Democrats say they believe in the Bible's literal truth.
79% of women, 69% of men in Arkansas identify themselves as true believers.
So uh let's see here, and um we got Arkansas, we got Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, the forces of evil have uh lot more work to do in those states.
Forces of evil are succeeding, apparently in the uh northeastern regions.
Mike, Southwest Harbor, Maine, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush, great talking to you.
Megadiddos, I've been listening to you since the closed nomy days.
Thank you, sir.
How are you?
I'm fine and dandy.
My point that I'd like to make is uh for one the hypocrisy of the media.
And another is that Democrats are unevil or unable to deal with uh fanatic religions.
I think they they are.
Only there's criteria.
They've got to be within our borders.
Do you remember Clinton and uh Waco?
Boy, when that happened, he came down with both feet.
Well, uh, remember now Clinton had nothing to do with that.
Janet Reno launched the uh Waco invasion.
Clinton, when he was asked about it, told everybody go talk to her.
Well, you know what, and where was the media for the women and children that they pulled out of there like uh like they're doing in the Middle East.
That was a different story.
Well, of course this is true.
Uh there is far more tolerance of uh wacko extreme religious elements outside the country, particularly if they are enemies of the United States, then they are friends of the American Democrats.
I mean, the Democratic Party has worked hard for the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
The Democratic Party has worked very hard to make it very difficult to uh to spy on these people to find out when their next terrorist attack might be.
They've made it very difficult to uh interrogate known terrorists to find out what the next uh when the next attack might be or what what any kind of future plans are.
They have uh uh made it very difficult to um uh have the military treat these people as actually military and foreign combatants.
Uh they're doing everything they can to shield them uh as American citizens per se, granting them access to uh uh uh congressional rights, bill of rights.
This is why I say the Democratic Party in this country is uh and the American left is uh sabotaging our ability to defeat this enemy.
That's why I but why I asked before I left.
Uh I I when people are seeking our defeat, when they're advocating for our defeat, why can't you challenge their patriotism?
Why can't you raise the question about their patriotism?
Why do you have to say, well, I'm just questioning your judgment?
When they're advocating for their own country's defeat, how does that not have an effect on their patriotism?
And we're back at 800-282-2882.
Nice to have you uh on the program with us, ladies and gentlemen.
Okay, CBS prepares to launch the new season of Survivor, this time featuring teams divided by race.
Enraged city officials are saying it promotes divisiveness and are calling for the network to reconsider.
Too late, gang, the show's in a can.
The idea of having a battle of the races is preposterous, uh said City Councilman John Liu on Thursday in New York.
How could anybody be so desperate for ratings?
For the first portion of the 13th season of Survivor, which premieres September 14th, the contestants competing for the one million dollar prize will be stranded on the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, and be divided into four teams, blacks, Asians, Latinos, and whites.
Lou, who is Asian American, said he was launching a campaign urging CBS to pull a show because it could encourage racial division and provoke negative typecasts.
I wonder if there are ever any positive typecasts.
He and a coalition of officials, including the council's black, Latino, and Asian caucus, planned to rally at City Hall last Friday.
Uh and they did.
Uh at any rate, as you people well know by now, we on this program last week handicapped the new season of Survivor.
And I have to tell you, I thought, okay, here's a show that is dividing people into race.
Big network, big network, dividing people into race, having them compete against each other as a group, groups of people comprised by race.
And I well, uh it's interesting to see what some people can almost get away with and others can't.
So we handicapped this according to the stereotypes that are out there.
Did this on the basis of illustrating absurdity?
The program is absurd, ladies and gentlemen.
So we illustrate absurdity by being absurd on this program.
So we handicapped it based on stereotypes of groups out there.
And every group got hit.
There wasn't one group protected in our handicapping.
In fact, we added other groups.
We asked, how come Al-Qaeda doesn't have a team?
And how come the Jewish people don't have a team?
And how come uh uh Arabs don't have a team, Arab America.
How come we're leave these groups out?
Uh and this is it's it's discriminating, it's unfair.
All of this was designed to illustrate the absurdity of the show.
We had a lot of fun with it.
We had some yucks, we were laughing about it.
And then over the two days that I was out, playing golf out on Long Island, I played uh Shinnecock and the uh of the new Sabonic.
Of course, I'm gonna play the National Friday afternoon.
We got monsooned out, played in the monsoon anyway at Sabonic on Friday morning.
Literally played in a monsoon.
I've done dumb things in my life, but it was the one chance to get on the course brand new and play it.
Uh so I went to dinner at a friend's house on Friday night, got back in the city, I went, well, got home and and started reading all this stuff.
Uh and I I I was stunned.
I really was I I shouldn't have been.
I'll I I I don't know why this surprised me, but it did.
When I read the comments about this show, mine were the only comments that were put in these stories, and it as far as I could tell, I was worse than the show.
What I said was worse than what the show is gonna be.
I became the focal point.
And then it struck me.
And I don't know, this is this is what should not have been a surprise.
Liberals have no sense of humor.
Literally none.
They are not happy.
They cannot laugh at anything.
You go back and look at the annals of comedy and look at all of the stereotypical humor that used to be considered great.
Look at Hanny Youngman.
Um look at all the mother-in-law jokes that have gone around out there.
Um the the husband and wife jokes, the male versus female jokes, the blonde versus brunette joke.
They're all over the place.
But you can't, I liberals do not, will not, cannot laugh at this stuff because it's their own constructs.
We're not supposed to find humor.
There are no differences in people.
It's outrageous to say.
So I'm I'm amused reading this stuff, but I I fired off some emails to people.
I said, I got I don't know why it has taken me so long to learn.
These people, when it comes to things they've constructed, political correctness, what is proper, what is improper, what you can say, what you can't say.
They're just sitting out there waiting to be offended, and they don't even see the humor.
Now let one of their people do it.
Let one of their people get involved, start making lay.
You can talk about assassinating George W. Bush all you want, but it's great stuff, it's great humor.
Uh so listen to some of the reactions that there were.
We've got a montage here.
This is Carol Costello at CNN, Jin Chow, who is new demographic uh, I guess some anti-racism training firm of New Demographic.
Chris Jansing at uh MSNBC, and there's one other on there.
Listen to this.
Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh got the buzz going early with his nationally syndicated show, commenting on survivors' competitive swimming events.
I know what you're saying.
You're saying I'm being racist, you're saying I'm being racist because I'm saying blacks can't swim.
Discussions like that.
Stop the type, stop the type.
Requeue that to the top.
Now, do you see what happened here?
And see what happened here.
I went on to cite a study.
Because there was a guy that called, and I knew the guy was I knew somebody was gonna call.
So we had a study out there which cites this.
I didn't say it, I report it.
It's out there.
But when I report it, they have to take it out of context and make it like I know I'm being a racist, but I'm gonna do it anyway, because I think it's funny.
And they all get to act in their mock, outrage, and shock.
Why, how can this be happening?
Okay, here we are from the top.
I'll try not to interrupt this anymore.
Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh got the buzz going early with his nationally syndicated show, commenting on survivors' competitive swimming events.
I know what you're saying.
You're saying I'm being racist, you're saying I'm being racist because I'm saying blacks can't swim.
Discussions like that have anti-racism organizations concerned.
I'm sure there are other people who think just like Rush, you know, and who are looking for those things.
Yeah, I want to see the Asians out with everybody, and I want to see, you know, the blacks who can't swim.
Let me ask you, Fernando, to comment on something that Rush Limbaugh of all people, I had to say, he weighed on weighed in on this whole controversy, and he said the white team would be the best swimmers based on the performance of white athletes at the Olympics.
Rush said the Hispanics might win because of quote their remarkable ability to cross borders, they don't get apprehended.
He said the Asian Americans might outsmart everybody.
And then he said the African Americans would be in trouble because they're not good swimmers.
You know, 20 years ago, that exact swimming crap got a baseball general manager fired and justifiably so.
Presumably that will now happen to Limbaugh.
Yeah, right.
Dream on out there.
Uh you notice how they all focus on the the blacks can't swim.
Do you realize do you people remember what all I said in handicapping this?
I ripped into the whites, too.
I said they'll probably lose because they have the guilt overrunning things.
They've got guilt of being in charge and oppressing all these people.
I said the whites will bring vials of disease.
Everything the liberals have taught us.
Whites, you know, Columbus, Eastern Europeans, Western Europeans came here, they brought syphilis.
They brought environmental destruction, they brought homophobia.
So all I said was the whites to the Cook Islands are gonna take vials of disease to poison their opponents.
And all these, everything liberals are teaching kids.
I was making fun of it.
They leave all that out, go to the blacks can't swim business, because it's all about that.
There were so many of the Hispanic comments.
They do cross borders.
They don't get apprehended, they do it without water.
People can go anywhere.
And I also said they will do things other people won't do.
Well, I'm sorry, liberals tell us that.
They do jobs that other Americans won't do, which is why we have to accept them here as a permanent, low-paid, underclass.
So I'm simply turning around everything the libs tell us about these groups.
Back on them in terms of handicapping race survivor.
And I turn out to be public enemy number one.
I'm worse than the show.
I'm a bigger problem than the show.
I should be fired.
Show can go on, but I should be fired.
Bryant Gumble can say whatever he wants.
He can refer to Gene Upshaw as a lapdog of white owners on a leash.
And I've read reporters, that's what he said.
And I've read reporters saying he's got a right to say what he wants.
Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post, and pardon interrupt, he's got a right to say what he says.
He's a well-thought-out researched commentator.
That's why people watch his show.
Kid you not.
And then, and then uh remember what he said about the Olympics?
The Greeks had nothing to do with it.
A bunch of white people, no black people at the winter Olympics, how representative could.
Wow, articulate and brilliant is Bryant Gumble.
Nobody cares a whit.
Um, at any rate, I I guess I guess I should learn.
It ain't gonna stop me, folks.
I mean, I'm I'm just saying I was just surprised uh at this reaction at the humorlessness of uh of these people.
Linda Stacey in the New York Post, I guess on Saturday.
Did you read that, Mike?
I even know her.
I actually called her once to find out what fire fighters in New York make, because I wanted to make a donation to a family of a firefighter who had died fighting a fire somewhere in Queens.
Uh but but I mean, she was just I forget the specifics of what she said, but I was reading it and I was just laughing myself silly over these people's inability to crack a smile about virtually anything.
Maybe it's just they can't laugh about me.
I think that's that's probably more what it is.
Well, here, since I'm on this, how about this?
This is a story from Reuters.
Taller people are smarter.
Study.
Randy Newman was right.
Uh while researchers have long shown that tall people earn more than uh shrimps.
Uh it's not only social discrimination that accounts for the inequality.
Tall people are just smarter than their height-challenged peers, according to a new study.
Wonder if CBS factored this in assembling the teams.
Because we all know that Asians have a they have a height problem.
Yet they're the brainiacs of the bunch.
So how can we possibly assume that this study is correct?
Well, I know you got Yao Ming, but I mean, this isn't a little bit of an exception.
As early as age three before schooling has had a chance to play a role, and throughout childhood, taller children perform significantly better on cognitive tests, wrote Ann Kate.
Oh, it's chicks that did this.
Anne Case and Christina Paxon of Princeton in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Uh, the researchers, case, this be Anne Case and Christina Paxson believe the height advantage in the job world is more than just a question of image.
As adults, taller individuals are more likely to select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence for which they earn handsome returns.
So, um there.
So taller people, smarter than shorter people.
That'll become a new stereotype here on the EIB network.
It's a Princeton study.
We can rely on it, folks.
It's been peer-reviewed.
By the way, as to Asians being the brainiacs, why is that insulting to it?
How is that insulting to anybody?
You say Asians are the brainiacs.
They are running rings around Americans when it comes into SAT scores.
Getting into University of California and other places.
It is what it is.
The Libs just can't deal with the truth when returned back Adam.
Back after this, by the way, stay with us.
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
I got something here from the Huffington Post.
That uh when was this thing posted?
Uh 25th.
What's today?
The 27th.
It's Friday the 25th.
All right.
Some some clown named Russell Shaw and uh Russell Shaw, I don't have time to read a whole thing to you.
But he actually is seriously posing a proposition.
What if we allowed another terrorist attack of a hundred, two hundred lives lost in order to save millions?
But his theory that we will save another terrorist attack.
Well, you know what I should read this to you, because it's unbelievable.
It's so foreign to rational thought.
Having read it once, I can't.
I'll have to read this again to pass this by you.
Uh I hope and pray we don't get hit again like we did on September 11th.
Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.
If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn't pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occurring.
But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by, say, 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world and even on this nation.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.
That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist inclined leanings.
An entirely hypothetical yet real politic calculus that's ugly, cold hearted, but must be posited.
This is a type of calculus the Pentagon war game planners and political consultants do all the time.
A combination of what if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.
What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand times the lives lost?
Let me just paraphrase here.
What he's saying is, what if there were another terrorist attack that got Bush defeated?
A terrorist attack that get, and he goes on in this piece.
If Bush is defeated, then Democrats win, we get universal health care, the world will love us again.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
He's actually, and he uses the number 100 people.
If a hundred people die in a terrorist attack, those hundred people dying worth defeating Bush, worth defeating Republicans in the November elections.
These people actually think this way.
They actually think I'll keep this aside and go into more detail tomorrow.
Read the whole thing to you.
And even read some of the responses it got on the on the Huffington Post, far left wacko kook site.
But it's just amazing.
What if we had a terror attack and a hundred Americans died, and that led Democrats back to power?
Well, of course, just like it worked in Spain.
It'd be just the it just.
And this will bring about good people in government.
And it'll save the world and save the government.
We'll all have health care and all these other things.
It's sick, folks.
Of course, he's not volunteering to die.
Uh nor I doubt his family.
Quickly, Joe, Spring Hill, Florida.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Rush, megadettos.
Thank you.
Um about these caucuses that uh are running around protesting uh the survivor.
I mean, you got the black caucus, Asian caucus, Hispanic caucus.
Aren't they doing the same exact thing?
Well, of course.
You know, this is this this is this is the fascinating point.
We have the Congressional Black Caucus.
We have the Hispanic Caucus, we have the Nags.
We have organizations based on race and sex.
And they are exclusive.
You can't get in if you ain't what they require.
And they demand policy based on that.
Then you had groups, Hispanics and blacks in New York City proposing the show and so forth.
And yet, I somehow am racist.
You know, EIB does not have a caucus.
Anyone can be a member, anybody can come and join any time they want, ladies and gentlemen.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Uh more detail on this wacko comment about uh another terrorist attack.
Would it be worth it in order to elect Democrats to control the House?
Uh that's going around the blogosphere on the left.
See you tomorrow, folks, had a great time today.
▲
Export Selection