All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
September 5, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Man, it's already Tuesday, fastest week in media.
It's already Tuesday.
Yes, my friends, greetings and a hearty welcome.
Early Rush Limbaugh program from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Well, we are being pounded here with a thunderstorm.
This is much worse than what Ernesto was when I went through here.
Gonna go on all day, too, by the way.
The EIB Southern Command telephone number if you want to be on the program today, folks.
800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
A group of biblical scholars said they've recalculated their scriptural calculations.
They've redone them.
And biblical scholars, who's the source of this?
This is the Lord's Witnesses.
Gordon Ritchie is the guy's name.
I have this on the PR Newswire.
The bottom line here is that biblical scholars have performed 11 different scriptural calculations, all of which point to the United Nations being hit by a nuclear terrorist attack this month.
Which, of course, that's received with mixed emotions.
The UN being hit with a nuclear terrorist attack.
They do make it sound quite unlikely, but the odds are far greater than what they used to think.
This is sort of like the guy who said that August 22nd would be the day that Iran would end the world.
And of course, that didn't happen.
But I just wanted to get it out there.
You never know.
And so this is September.
What is this?
The 5th.
So we have only 25 days here for the biblical calculations to come true.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, let me deal with a rumor that circulated over the internet, hit the Drudge Report.
I forget, I guess it was sometime Saturday or Sunday, the rumor being that I am helping to launch or welcome Katie Couric to the CBS Evening News tonight or this week.
The reporting on this was somewhat confusing and sketchy based on how you read it.
I had people emailing me all weekend long who were taking different things out of it.
It's amazing to study this.
This just is a little aside, but it was an amazing thing to study the way people read things.
Drudge was pretty clear about what this rumor was, but I had people, so I see you're going to welcome Katie tomorrow night with Cronkite, meaning tonight.
Oh, don't, what do you mean?
You're going to do an interview with Katie?
Why would you help Katie?
What are you doing an interview for?
And then it was just all kinds of different takes.
Many of you accusing me of being a sellout, a phony, going over to the dark side, what have you.
And I sat there and I smiled in stunned amazement at this.
I've been here 18 years.
And I even got emails from friends.
One friend sent me a note, nothing but question marks in the subject line.
And I just wrote, but do you think I'm an idiot?
Do you think I'm a fool?
18 years I have been sitting here in the prestigious and distinguished Attila the Hunch hair.
And yet, there are those isolated moments in time where all of you or some of you think I'm going to be the biggest blithering idiot that you've ever encountered.
Well, I understand why this is, ladies and gentlemen.
As conservatives, for being downtrodden for so long, being in the minority for so long, you have become conditioned to the left outsmarting even the best and brightest of our movement.
And you have also been betrayed since Ronald Reagan.
Conservative Republicans have been betrayed to one degree or another by every elected official.
Well, by many elected officials, certainly elected conservative leaders have gone south on a number of things from Senator McKay.
Well, you know, I could mention names, but you know what I mean.
And so I think people are just waiting there on the precipice for the latest example of, oh, no, we can't trust any of them.
Let me explain to you what happened and tell you what this is.
Early in August, I was approached by Ms. Couric herself.
And she told me of a segment that they were going to do in their new newscast called Free Speech or Freedom of Speech, Free Speech, I think it is.
And every night, there will be a commentator that will get between a minute and 15 to a minute and 30, depending on how competent and good they are.
I got the full minute 30.
And on Friday, they're going to do comedians.
And they're going to do this every night.
And some nights it's going to be a Walmart shopper.
Some nights it'll be a professional academic.
Some nights it'll be a pundit.
It'll be full of people that you know or you don't know.
They hope they're going to run the gambit with this.
And Katie asked me if I would consider appearing on the first week.
And I said, yeah, but my experience with these kind of things, Katie, leads me to ask you for certain promises, conditions.
And I got those promises and conditions.
They were met.
So last Thursday, we taped it in the EIB building in Manhattan after the radio show.
And it wasn't until, I guess, Saturday that I found out it actually is going to run on Thursday.
That's the plan now.
And so I don't know who's doing tonight.
I don't know who's doing tomorrow.
I've heard that Clinton's done one, that McCain's going to do one, Giuliani.
I don't know about anybody else.
I have no clue who else is doing this other than, I don't know any more than you do.
All I know is that I did mine, and it will air sometime in the newscast on Thursday.
And a lot of you, I think, are a little short-sighted on this.
And I responded to some of the emails over the weekend questioning my loyalty to the movement, questioning my sanity, questioning my brains.
When the Drive-By Media offers 90 seconds of a 22-minute program, an opportunity for me to express our views, my views, without debate, without somebody coming on afterwards to refute it, and that's part of the feature, by the way, they've assured me and everybody they've talked to that you do your piece on X Night, the next night's not going to be somebody responding or replying.
Although I have heard that George Clooney has already asked for equal time to respond to me.
I'm told that's not going to happen.
And certainly it's not going to happen the next night.
I didn't mention any names in my piece.
I'm not going to tell you what it's about because I don't want to give anything of it away.
But just believe me on this, folks, it is our views, and they're pretty hard-hitting, and they're going to be on the CBS Evening News.
And they haven't appeared.
These kinds of views haven't appeared much on the CBS Evening News or the ABC World News tonight or the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.
So I did it as an opportunity to reach that audience, which is about, they're looking for, I bet she gets over 8 million people this week every night.
That's maybe a little bit more.
The hype on this has been what it is.
There's going to be a lot of curiosity and tune-in factor.
And she was very open and honest about all this when we were setting it up.
And they came in on Thursday, as I say, and it was kind of funny.
The crew from CBS was, what are you smirking at, Snerdley?
What time's the CBS Evening News on?
6.30 Eastern Time.
Some places, I think, they're going to do a 6 o'clock feed because some stations take the network news at 6.30 Eastern and Pacific Time on most stations.
But the crew came in.
They were just nice and fun as they could be.
And they found me to be the same way, which surprised them, which I just always find fascinating.
God, he was so funny.
He's such a nice guy.
Yeah, imagine that.
When they all left, they all want to autograph pictures.
Oh, yes.
So that's it.
It's no longer a rumor.
The reason I didn't say it, I don't know how Drudge got it, folks.
Some of you people in the email, well, why didn't you tell us?
How come we have to read?
Because I didn't know that they were even going to use it.
I don't know how many people they've dubbed, and I don't know how many of these they have in the can.
And I had, until I know it's going to be used, until I know what date it's going to be used, there's nothing to tell.
So, you know, folks, you're going to have to learn to trust me.
We're into our 19th year here, ladies and gentlemen.
I think I have earned your trust for brains, propriety, decision-making, and so forth and so on.
This is in no way going over to the dark side.
This is in no way, it may help them, but it's also beneficial to all of us.
So we'll see.
But don't worry, it's not an introduction.
It's not an interview.
It's a straight opinion piece and fired with both barrels, I might add.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Already, already having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have traveled this road before way, way, way back.
In the early 90s, took the Rush to Excellence tour to a casino in Reno, Nevada.
Oh, did I hear about that?
I said, Jesus says, go where the sinners are.
Then I did a Playboy magazine interview.
Heard the grief over that.
How could you dare do that?
I'm never buying that.
Said, I know.
Jesus said, go where the sinners are.
Now I am appearing on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric on Thursday, solo in a commentary, and all hell's breaking loose out there everywhere, including on my website.
You know, just I think some of you need to chill on this and understand that it represents an opportunity.
And that's as much as can be said about it.
I don't want to sit here and address all these fears and negative concerns.
The only thing about that somewhat interests me is even after 18 years, how many of you, well, I don't even know how many it is.
This is just email.
How some of you think I can just end up being the biggest fool on the face of the earth.
Now, I realize you've heard me talk about the drive-by media and the American left and so forth.
But you're only remembering certain selected things that I have said about them.
This is, I think, an opportunity.
And if I might say this, I probably shouldn't say this because I don't talk about myself much, and I certainly don't brag.
Let me just ask you this.
They wanted to get some conservative.
They wanted to get a leading conservative to appear.
Who did they call?
Me.
And so there it is.
It's probably going to be a win-win, ladies and gentlemen.
I understand some of you upset.
Oh, you're going to do is increase viewership for Katie.
Yeah.
But at the same time, viewers of the CBS, even news, will hear things that they probably haven't heard and don't expect to hear on the network.
I don't want to build it up.
It's just 90 seconds.
I don't want to build up expectations that can't be met, but it is what it is.
Here's Bert in Westboro, Massachusetts.
Bert, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I told your screener you've presented me with a dilemma.
Yes.
I have long since given up listening to network news.
I get my news from you, an interpretation of news from you.
I get news from other talk shows.
I get news from the internet.
And now you're forcing me to watch the network news.
I can understand that because wherever I am, you have to be.
That's right.
It is a dilemma, but I will be watching on Thursday.
But I'm not sure that I'll watch any other night.
I think that if you watch one night, you're going to be safe.
I don't think they can poison you in 22 minutes.
I think you're stronger than that, Bert.
I think you have your boundaries up.
You understand what you're watching, and you're not going to be affected by it, other than me.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right, Bert.
Appreciate the interest in this.
John in Temple, Texas.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you, Rush.
Honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I don't think everybody's kind of analyzed this the right way.
The way to think about it is, is that if all the conservatives, everybody who listens to you, watches on Thursday night, their ratings are going to shoot through the roof.
They should.
And then you're going to be gone.
I'm not going to be there.
Ratings are going to drop back through the floor.
And then maybe they'll get with a program.
They'll think, you know, hey, we're doing this wrong.
You know, they'll get with the conservative side.
That's how they ought to think about it.
Now, let's not take this too far.
I don't think that would be the case.
Who knows?
I mean, I think they're still in the, for lack of a better term, they've put the program together and they've got their ideas.
But once it starts tonight and unfolds, they're going to see things about it they like and don't like, and there'll be changes in various things.
But I wouldn't look for them to say, you know what, maybe we're missing a boat here by not being a conservative news.
I wouldn't think that that is something that's ever ever in the cards.
I'm just saying if everybody watches, who listens to your show and the ratings go up, you know, and then they go, it's all about ratings.
Who cares about conservatives?
Liberal as far as they're concerned, because it's about ratings for them.
Well, no, look at CNN.
If it were about ratings, there's a place that would be changing things.
MSNBC, there's a place that would be changing things if it were about ratings.
You know, liberalism is a religion, and news is part of it.
And there's a stubbornness that attaches itself to it, be it the Democratic Party, be it the drive-by media.
And if you aren't accepting what they say, they're not going to blame themselves.
They're not going to say, what are we doing wrong?
Why are we reaching these people?
They're going to say, you're stupid.
You're an idiot.
You're just not sophisticated enough.
And they're going to keep pounding the same stuff at you until you do get it.
So I know that if ratings matter, by the way, if ratings matter, I mean, Dan Rather was in last place for years on that network.
And it didn't move anything.
It took the Bill Burkett forged document story to start that ball rolling.
But anyway, John, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
Let's get to the issues, ladies and gentlemen.
All over the drive-by media, wherever you look, the story is out there that the Republicans have no hope.
They're going to lose the House.
They're going to lose the Senate.
It's just a matter of time.
An example just from Sunday, Associated Press, polls show GOP slipping.
You read into the story, you find out that the Democrats are no better off either.
As battle lines are drawn for the midterms, many Americans are fed up with the status quo, but they don't see electoral options.
Call it the campaign with no margin for Republican error in a nation that is war-wear and eager for change, yet seems wary of the Democrat option.
This is the part of the story that never gets told.
Yeah, there may be some disaffection with the Republicans, and there may be some polling data out there which suggests that the Republicans are in trouble.
And if it's true to any extent, it's the Republican base, as we were talking earlier, being let down once again by elected leaders who campaign as conservatives, get into office, and then don't govern as conservatives.
But the Democrats are not picking these up.
The Democrats are not pitching.
It's like the Washington Post story three weeks ago now, maybe a month, Jim Vandehey did a story on, what was it, security moms.
And the whole, the headline, the whole story was about how the new security moms just don't trust the Republicans.
They're just really worried.
All this stuff, they're losing the support of these women who really thought the Republicans were best on security.
If you read deep into the story, you found out also the Democrats were doing even worse.
The Republicans were quote-unquote losing ground in polls, but the Democrats weren't picking it up.
So the drive-by media, and you know how long this has been going on.
This has been going on for at least three months, if not longer.
Way back in the spring, we were treated to stories about Speaker to be Pelosi and Chairman to be Conyers and Chairman to be Wrangell and so forth.
Now I want you to listen to this morning's Today show, Chip Reid, and how he introduced his report about the upcoming elections.
You know, just a couple of months ago, almost no one was predicting that Democrats would take control of the House of Representatives in the November election.
But now some top analysts say it is very likely.
Now, how do you explain this?
How do you explain a report that says two months ago, nobody was giving the Democrats a chance?
Hill, three months ago, the reporters that I was familiar with and the TV networks were all giving it to the Democrats, maybe four months ago.
What this means is, ladies and gentlemen, that the drive-by media is very much aware that most voters haven't even been paying attention to politics this summer.
They've been vacationing or saving money so they can afford gasoline or what have you.
So it's time to start a new storyline that's actually a repetition of an existing storyline that nobody heard.
So they're going to present it as something brand new as people start paying attention.
Now, it's all part of an agenda.
They will not succeed with this because we are here back in just a moment.
Happily, ladies and gentlemen, making the complex understandable quickly, Eric in Charlotte, North Carolina, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Good.
I have a quick question for you.
In the 90 seconds on CBS, with your incredible powers of intellect and persuasion, do you think that you'll be able to convert Katie Kirk to a conservative?
Well, I doubt that, sir.
I think Katie's probably viewed this thing three or four times already.
I mean, you have to understand that in order for this thing to get on the air, it had to clear the suits all the way to the top of Viacom, probably.
So they've seen it more than just the one time.
Katie knows what's in it.
All of her producers were there and so forth.
Look, whether Katie gets converted or not, if, ladies and gentlemen, if my appearance on CBS can save just one liberal, it will have been worth it.
This is a humanitarian gesture that I am making.
It shows that I care about the country and I care about the American people and that I want them to be properly informed and do the right thing.
And frankly, I am stunned that some of you want to continue to have this line of demarcation where no attempt at persuasion takes place.
If they're going to offer me this opportunity to save America, to save liberals, I'm going to take it.
Pure and simple.
I mean, you know, it's not like they're asking me to go into a war zone or anything here.
Although some of you think it is.
All right, now look, there is an interesting piece, the prowler column in the American Spectator online today.
And it's all about how, and this guy, whoever is the prowler, I don't know who it is, could be, well, Bob Tyrrell is the owner, operator, head honcho, writes a column.
Don't think Bob's the prowler, could be the prowler.
He is a prowler, but I don't think he's the prowler.
But whoever this guy is, has sources inside the Democratic Party who talk to him.
This little piece is one of the most enlightening I have found to find out what's really going on in the minds and hearts of Washington Democrat leaders.
And the title of this little section here, not so fast, with polling numbers in the Maryland Senate Democrat primary now showing that relative outsider and former congressman and former head of the NAA LCP Kwaizi Mfumi leading Representative Ben Cardin in some polls above the margin of error, National Democrats are growing progressively pessimistic that they will make serious gains in the November elections.
Mainstream media outlets have been attempting over the past few weeks to slowly let the air out of a balloon that they themselves filled with their abundant hot air about Democrat momentum moving toward a potential retaking of both houses of Congress.
One Democrat political strategist said, we probably started that drumbeat too early.
We're losing a lot of that momentum.
You could blame a lot of things, Howard Dean, some of our more established candidates, but I would blame the Lieberman-Lament race and the blogosphere.
Things just move too fast nowadays.
I'll tell you, there is more and more concern in the bowels of the Democratic Party over the blogosphere than you can possibly imagine.
Especially these Democrats that consider themselves centrists, like the Democrat Leadership Council, I mean, they are really afraid that this party, if depending on what happens with Lament and Lieberman, and they see no win-win in there, by the way, if Lament wins, it's bad news.
If Lieberman wins, it's bad news for the party, the way this thing is all stretched out.
If you go to some of these Democrat blog sites today, you will read some of the most virulent, moveon.org, I think it is, some of the most virulent anti-Semitic comments from the American left about Joe Lieberman that you can imagine.
It's gotten to the point that the people that run that site have been asked to take some of these comments down, and the guy that runs the site says, well, we actually don't think it's our members.
We think it's conservatives logging on and making comments trying to foul us up.
Yeah, nice try.
The fact is, there is so much anti-Semitism on the left.
I find this so interesting because it's always been liberals who have told us they're the open-minded among us and they are the tolerant among us and they're the ones who are not bigots and not racists and not sexists and not homophobes.
And yet some of the stuff that appears on these blogs gives the lie to that.
These people are just purely enraged with a hatred that politics hasn't seen, I think, in our lifetimes.
And if you look at the lament race, Byron York has a piece, National Review online today.
He says, you know, actually, in terms of where the Democratic Party is, Nancy Pelosi actually is a centrist.
Not that she is a political centrist, but that she is in the center of where the party is.
Well, look at.
You've got the black caucus and their socialists.
You've got the Hispanic caucus and their socialists.
And you've got the blogosphere and some of these other people that are just off the charts.
Hard to characterize them as anything other than social commies.
You put Pelosi in there, and by virtue of how far left the Democratic Party has gone, you could claim, Byron York does anyway, that she could be considered a centrist, even though she's a full-fledged, pure-bred San Francisco liberal.
In terms of where the party is, she is a centrist.
And there are Democrats that know this and don't like it.
They don't, when has going left ever won them an election?
The Connecticut Democrat Senate primary has put a national spotlight on the inner workings of a Democrat Party, and they weren't pretty.
Voters saw a far-left wing of the party with remarkable sway over a mainstream majority with little interest in a fight.
You know what's interesting?
Byron York also points this out.
I think there was $4 point-something million dollars raised by Ned Lament.
He gave himself $2.5 million of it.
I think the left-wing blogosphere, which is being credited with this new trend and this new direction of internet fundraising, and that started with Howard Dean in 2000, these people are 2004, I'm sorry, these people are being credited with all this power, and they only raised, with all this publicity and all this attention, a little less than half a million dollars,
all told.
So Democrats are looking at, well, they're not that big in fundraising.
I mean, if Lament got $4 million and two and a half of it, he gave to himself, and the blogosphere basically came up with 25% of it, then what are we afraid of?
Well, we need their money, but it isn't that much money, or is it that they can agitate voters and so forth?
They're just, they're in a mess over this.
And all of these polls, ladies and gentlemen, that show the Republicans losing the House and losing the Senate, you throw that out because none of these polls show the Democrats picking up any of the discord, any of the unhappiness.
You throw it all out anyway.
Now, I think it's all agenda-oriented and bogus.
Another Democrat consultant tells the spectators prowler, more important in most primaries, it's the 10 to 15% of undecided voters have already vetted about Iraq.
The problem is those voters wanted to express their dissatisfaction with Iraq, but they also want a solution.
Pulling out isn't the solution many of them want.
They aren't going to be voting for an anti-war candidate.
I think my party has overshot its position.
Now, that's an interesting point, too.
They want something done on Iraq, but they don't want to pull out.
That's the Democrats' position, cut and run and appeasement.
I think most Americans want this to be fought in a way that wipes these guys out rather than some prolonged little skirmish governed by political correctness, Republicans and Democrats alike.
By the way, the showing of Michael Steele, a Republican, as well as others like Mike McGavick in Washington, Tom Kaine Jr. in New Jersey, along with stabilized numbers for Senator Rick Santorum, have Democrats in the Senate scrambling to find some good news to pass along to their donors.
That's the inside the Beltway chat.
Then we have, by the way, Santorum creamed Bob Casey in a debate.
Just literally creamed.
We've got audio soundbites, so we've got a couple of them, and we'll let you hear them as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears today.
Just creamed Casey.
It was the only public debate they will probably have.
It was televised all throughout Pennsylvania.
And Santorum did not run away from President Bush, and he did not run away from the Iraq war.
And he did not run away from the surveillance program on terrorists and so forth.
And he forced Casey to admit that he supported the program.
It's really good.
We'll get to that, as I say, in just a second.
Then there's the story about Hillary Clinton not running for president in order to run for, stay in the Senate and become the Senate majority leader.
Now, I didn't pass this on to you because I thought this is just absurd.
I don't even remember what paper it was in.
It was not a major publication.
It was a website somewhere six weeks ago now, maybe two months, that Harry Reid had gone to Hillary and begged her not to run for president because he wanted to leave the leadership and he wanted her to do it.
And I said, what a crock.
I mean, this is not even worth passing on.
Well, then over the weekend, here comes this story about Hillary maybe not running for president.
We got a column by Susan Estras today saying, well, that may not be so bad because there are other women that may be better than Hillary, and it is time for a woman.
And I'm part of a group that's trying to get women elected to real offices of real power.
She's got her list of potential Democrat women to either be the VEEP or the presidential nominee.
But the speculation here sort of gets interesting if what the prowler piece, the American Spectator, says is accurate about inside Washington Democrats fearing what's going to happen in the Senate,
if they're not going to take it and they're not even going to get close, then it may lend credence to the notion of Hillary backing out of the presidential race in order to stay in the Senate and be the Democrat leader in the Senate.
It was London papers that reported Hillary was looking to fill the minority leader's shoes currently filled by Senator Dingy Harry.
Her decision to take a leadership slot, if this happens, may be in part determined by the outcome of the Lieberman race in Connecticut, say advisors to Hillary Clinton.
If Lieberman wins, it leaves all of the anger on the far left focused on her, says a New York-based advisor.
It might be easier and more appealing for her to become leader of the party in the Senate.
Now, I'm not sure I believe this.
One of the reasons is I know her husband can't wait to get back and live in the White House.
So, but anyway, the bottom line is, don't believe all this garbage that you're hearing on the television or reading in the web or in newspapers about Republicans being toast.
Now, the Republicans have their own problems, such as, well, this is a real catch-22, the House Republicans deciding to punt immigration and focus on terror issues, national security issues.
I will explain to you why they did.
It was a catch-22, and they really didn't have any choice.
But it's sad.
And primarily, you get Senator McCain to blame for this.
Even if they came up with a bill, it would go to the Senate and it would lose.
It wouldn't stand a prayer.
And the party would look bad losing, even though individual House members might get credit for trying to do the right thing.
People generally don't vote for people for trying.
They vote for people for succeeding.
And If the House Republicans take a bill like all of us want to the Senate and the Senate shoots it down, which would happen, then it just makes the Republican Party look ineffective.
And that's why the strategic decision to drop it, it really is a catch-22.
I'm sure some House Republican members would love to put a bill together and propose it and get it passed so they could go campaign on it.
But the leadership obviously has prevailed against them.
But the bottom line is there is as much state of flux on the Democrat side, and it's by no means a lock.
And the fact that the media figures they got to start this story as though it's brand new today, that polling data shows it's getting very, very dicey for the Republicans, is an indication to me that it's perhaps the exact opposite.
We'll take a brief time out and be back after this.
Stay with us.
One other thing here from the spectator piece.
As Republican House members return home for three weeks in their districts, the news is mixed, according to House insiders, but the news is also more positive than negative.
While a number of House seats are in play, GOP House members who were down as much as 10 points before returning home are coming back to Washington with polling data that shows many of them back on solid footing with their constituencies.
I think there is rightly a lot of anger about the way Iraq and the Middle East is looking, says one House member from the upper Northeast.
But I think my poll numbers, those of my colleagues, had a lot to do with being complacent and hesitant to deal with the issues full on.
I went home, I worked my butt off, and I feel like I'm in a better position than I was a month ago.
I'm going to tell you something, folks, and this is, you know, political prognostication of 101.
If the House Republicans lose the House, it ain't going to be because of Iraq.
It's not going to be because of the war on terror.
It's going to be because of illegal immigration.
That will be what it is.
If they lose it, that's going to be the issue that I don't care what people say in exit polls.
I don't care.
That will be the issue that will have roiled people the most and may even prompt them to stay home.
It's that big out there.
In fact, wait till you hear a story I've got from the New York Times.
You know, all the 9-11 families and all the money they got, some of them got $2 to $5 million each.
A bunch of them are illegal immigrants whose family members were killed at 9-11 in one fashion or another.
Yep.
Some of them are illegal immigrants.
And they're upset they have to keep it quiet.
They can't spend it.
They don't want to make themselves conspicuous.
And they're also upset that they can get all this kind of money, but they still can't get a green card.
They can't get legal.
When this kind of news reaches people, and there was another rally out there in Phoenix yesterday on all this, but there's also some interesting, got a couple interesting stories here that the much sought after Hispanic voting block that was to come from illegal immigration has or from illegal immigrants has not materialized.
Now, why would that be?
Could it be that they're illegal?
I know that there's possibilities for voter fraud that are rampant out there, but the calculations of how important the issue was going to be have not produced all of the prospective voters for the Democrats that they thought would materialize.
Also, I finished watching The Path to 9-11 yesterday, written by Cyrus Norasta.
And I don't have time to get into it full review, even at this moment, because a break is coming up.
But boy, is this thing powerful.
It's a whole thing shot with handhelds.
The cinematography of this is fabulous.
ABC has made the decision to run this without commercials.
They are going to and that's how I watched it on the DVDs.
I have not heard anything more about whether or not Democrats' efforts to provide or to force ABC to make edits and cuts in this movie have proved fruitful for them.
The portrayal of Madeline Albright in this is just, oh, it's wonderful.
I don't know what act.
I felt like I was looking at her myself when I looked at this actress.
It makes it clear that this country, well, I'll tell you when I come back from the breaks.
Stay with us.
Okay, have to take our top of the hour break here.
Give you a more in-depth review of The Path to 9-11 in the opening monologue of the next segment.
Your phone call's coming up as well.
Lots to do still today, folks.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection