All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
September 5, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, I just got to read a little bit of what the president said in his speech today about the war on terror.
And real sketchy, but he referred to the opponents, the war on terror, as appeasers again.
Oh, that just infuriates them.
When they're called appeasers, when they're called cut and run.
In fact, we got an audio sound bite from this morning to let you illustrate that.
Greetings and welcome back.
It's Rushlin Boss serving humanity.
Talent on loan from God here at 800-282-2882.
This is on, it's number four.
Mike, CNN American Morning, Miles O'Brien interviewing Senator Schumer.
Question, I mean, we can all do the Monday morning quarterbacking as to whether it was a good idea to go to Iraq in the first place, but what do you say to that?
This idea of calling names, you know, cut and run or appeasement, isn't going to work.
You know, it worked in 2002 and it worked in 2004 because Americans were basically happy with our foreign policy.
Now they're not.
They're demanding answers.
They're getting some answers from Democrats, but none from Republicans other than sloganeering.
That's what's helping us in these elections.
I swear, it's the exact opposite.
Man's delusional.
It's the exact opposite.
We're getting nothing but sloganeering from the Democrats, and it's sloganeering that benefits the enemy.
In fact, if you look at a lot of polls, most people don't want to pull out of Iraq, Senator Schumer.
And if you think that you lost elections because Republicans called you names, then you had better think again.
You didn't lose elections because you were called names.
You lost elections because of who you are and what you believe and what you said.
This proves a point that I have been trying to make to people while trying to calm you down about these supposedly disastrous results that we're headed for in November.
These people on the Democrat side still can't come to grips with the fact that they are the ones being rejected.
They can't come to grips with the fact they are the ones losing elections.
They still blame things that have nothing to do with their defeat.
And as long as they do that, they're never going to figure it out.
Now they think they get swift voted and name-calling appeasers cut and run this sort of stuff.
It's exactly what they're saying.
They are appeasers.
They do want to use diplomacy.
They do want to cut and run.
Merthy, they rallied around Murthy like you can't believe.
He's the guy that wanted to redeploy to Okinawa.
So we could make a fast reinsertion into Iraq if we had to.
I'm telling you, as long as they keep themselves in denial, they are not going to be able to come to grips with why they're losing.
And until they do that, folks, they're not going to figure out what they need to do to win.
Tests of a deep water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, according to three companies today.
And the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50%.
It's called the Jack 2 well.
It was drilled about 5.3 miles deep by Chevron with a couple of partners, State Oil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corporation of Oklahoma City.
During the test, the Jack 2 well sustained a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day.
Test results are very encouraging.
They indicate a significant discovery.
Full magnitude of the field's potential is still being defined.
Discovery has industry-wide implications.
They may be the first ones to hit the jackpot, but if the current thinking is correct, this is only a beginning.
Other companies will emerge as good or better, said analysts.
So we've got, they went 5.3 miles.
Now, current technology, I think, if I read this right, bringing oil up from this find would be economically justified only by oil prices over $50 or $55 a barrel.
It'll take almost two years to start coming online.
Now, I'm reading about this.
It's all being portrayed here as great news.
Big news.
And it still strikes me, why wasn't ANWAR considered good news as well?
I mean, if this could boost our U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50%, now, ANWAR wasn't going to do that, but it was significant.
I mean, it could take out Venezuela from the equation.
I could equal the output from Texas.
The thing to remember, ANWAR was vetoed 10 years ago during the Clinton administration.
We could get, I don't know, if this thing could boost the production by 50%, I don't know how many barrels of oil a day that is, but it's great.
And if this turns out to be true, this is good news for the country and bad news for liberals and even worse news for liberals.
Because the way they're structured, anything that's good for America is bad for them right now.
The economy is going great, guns.
We are at full employment.
The Democrats trying to make misery and doom and gloom out of that.
Another thing that's not panning out the way they thought, this is an AP story.
Immigration protests that drew hundreds of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators to the nation's streets last spring promised a potent political legacy, surge of new Hispanic voters.
Today we march, tomorrow we vote, they proclaimed.
But an Associated Press survey of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, and other major urban areas that had large rallies found no sign of a new voter boom among Hispanics that could sway elections.
There was a rise in Los Angeles where 500,000 people protested in March, but it was more of a trickle than a torrent.
Protest organizers, principally unions, Hispanic advocacy groups, and the Catholic Church, acknowledge it's been very hard to translate street activism into voting cloud, though they insist they can reach their goal of a million new voters by 2008.
Now, when I see this, it infuriates me on a number of levels.
Number one, this idiotic, stupid, worthless Senate immigration bill authored by Senator McCain is predicated on the notion that we better do what we can to get these voters.
And you talk about appeasement.
The Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate were out there talking about these are the future of America.
This is the backbone of America.
These are people doing jobs Americans won't do.
All of this was designed to lure Hispanic voters into the Republican Party, and the Democrats are trying to get them in the Democratic Party.
Democrats are out there actually recruiting in these protests.
It's just infuriated.
The whole motivation for that stupid Senate bill is awash.
And look at the animosity they've created among their own base.
Look at the animosity Republicans ended up creating in their own voters over this by pandering to a group of people who haven't even been moved to sign up to register to vote.
Another thing it tells me is how many of those people protesting were actually illegals.
You know, in most cases, and we make jokes about it, but it's going to be difficult to register to vote if you're illegal.
You're not going to show up and do it for fear of getting caught or what have you.
The next thing that's troublesome about it is that the whole notion that the future of the Republican Party hinges on a specific group of new voters and that we're going to come up with a piece of legislation that panders to them rather than deal with the issue is just frustrating as hell.
And the House Republicans, as I mentioned earlier, and as you know now, have shelved the whole thing.
They've got 19 days left before they go on another recess, this one for the election.
So they have 19 days to put together an immigration bill.
It's sort of a catch-22.
Many House Republicans would love to do it, so they go out and campaign on it.
And the House bill was good.
It was, well, better than the Senate bill by far.
But if they do it and they produce a bill, it's going to die in the Senate, and it's going to make the party look totally ineffective.
And that's not going to be good going into the elections.
So they decided to shelve it because they don't have enough time and they can't get it passed in the Senate anyway.
And they also realize that they're not going to get a whole lot of support out there for trying on this issue.
The effort is appreciated, but there's a lot more expected here than just effort on the part of Republican-based voters and millions of other Americans too that may not even be part of the Republican base.
The House is the only body that's been right on this.
But McCain and sadly, the White House led the Senate and defined what this bill is going to be.
And that makes the House effort to get this done impossible.
So if they run with it and lose, it'll only highlight their impotence and hurt them.
So they have to hold back.
But it's a big problem because of the White House and McCain, and the party may suffer from it.
The worst thing is it's just a huge opportunity being blown because of this.
It's been sitting there all year.
There's been ample time for leadership.
This is what I mean.
When the White House comes out, it takes a position on something that's opposite what conservatives in the House want to do.
They're kind of stuck.
And they hung tough, I think, for as long as they could.
And they refused to go to conference on the Senate bill.
So you can boil it down.
Okay, we're not going to get a bill, but that's better than a bad bill.
And that is going to be the message resonating from here, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, I don't think we're going to lose the House.
I don't buy conventional wisdom, and the drive-by media is not right about a lot of things lately.
And they're making too big an effort here already to make it look like it's already a lock.
But if we do, if we do lose Congress, it won't be because of Iraq, and it won't be because of the war on terror.
It'll be because of the moderates in the Senate who have sway over the party, given the thin majority in the Senate regarding open borders and the White House and the Senate's wrong position on this issue.
If we lose it, if people sit out, if Republicans, in exasperation, say to hell with it, it's going to be over immigration.
Illegal immigration is not going to have a thing to do with Iraq or any of that.
The liberals are going to want to say that we will lose over Iraq because they want to downplay the fact that they're dead wrong on illegal immigration too.
They want to focus attention elsewhere.
And the war is vitally important.
But from a purely political perspective, the illegal immigration issue is the priority issue of the day that neither party has the guts to run on because they're so afraid of offending the Hispanic vote.
Well, now look, there isn't one.
There's no great grand new registration among Hispanics.
The fear was worthless.
It was just a bunch of people, mostly anti-war advocates, if you want to know the truth, and a bunch of other disparate fringe wacko groups who saw a protest out there and said, hey, it's the Vietnam 60s all over again, went out and got involved in it.
And it was made to look much bigger than it was.
It was made to look like it was all about illegal immigration when it wasn't.
It was protesting against the government, against the administration, the usual rabble, the usual human debris out there causing a ruckus.
But all these elected officials quaking in fear over the fact that, look at all the new voters, we're infuriated.
What new voters?
It's a trickle.
There hasn't been any significant voter registration from all these protests to even make a dead in this.
This is a sorry, sorry, shameless episode in our party and the Democratic Party as well, as well as the U.S. Congress.
Back in just a second.
Okay, so what are the Republicans going to do if they're going to shelve immigration?
What are they going to do when they go out there and campaign?
Well, in addition to talking up national security, the Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, is reporting that House Republicans plan an appeal to the conservative base on fiscal responsibility in a legislative last stand before voters decide their fate in November.
The second week of September, Republican leaders are going to unveil a resolution commemorating the five-year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks.
That same week, we'll also tackle earmark reform in another attempt to win back disgruntled conservatives upset with congressional Republicans for what they see as a failure to curb government spending.
Now, they haven't come up with the rules changes yet.
They're not complete, but the House is expected to vote on a bill that would require individual members to attach their names to all earmarked projects in each of the appropriations, tax and authorizing bills.
The initial changes, which were included in broader lobbying reform package, applied solely to appropriations bills.
So Jack Kingston of New York said, I think we'll have a meaningful September, but it's got to be meaningful enough for us to keep our majority.
All right.
This isn't going to get passed before the election, and it's not going to get signed into law, just like the immigration bill wouldn't.
But they are going to do what they can to at least demo the effort here.
Also, what they're going to do, and these are good things as well.
The House, well, the Republicans, House and Senate, are going to author spending bills for the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.
The rest of the agenda, as I understand it, Republicans are going to produce legislation that would give approval to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.
It's not a domestic spying program.
I'm reading this from the Los Angeles Times.
It's a foreign surveillance program, and there's not one Democrat that wants to shut it down.
And this is going to be great.
I hope they do this.
Because, you know, we've had this judge say in Eastern Michigan, you can't do it.
It's unconstitutional.
So the Republicans are going to say, okay, we're going to give it congressional approval, get it the president's signature.
We're going to go ahead and define this program.
We're going to say it's okay to do.
Now, the Democrats, it's going to be time to put up a shut up on this.
I hope they do this more than they do this earmark business.
I know that's important to a lot of you, but frankly, folks, I'll be honest with you.
I don't ever expect federal spending to go down.
It never has in my lifetime, and I'm not living pie in the sky on it.
It's what elected officials do is spend money, and it isn't going to change.
Discipline, yeah, but if you think there's going to be significant movement, especially now before the election, you're dreaming.
But if they can put the Democrats on the defensive here by coming up with an actual program that allows foreign surveillance, legislation produced by Congress, that debate, that debate, the Democrats you know will oppose it, even though they don't.
They'll have to oppose it because of their kook fringe.
The Republicans are also going to propose a new plan for using military tribunals to try terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
The Democrats shot that, or a judge did, and they're going to try to get that as an act of legislation.
Judge took over the role of commander-in-chief.
And so those are a couple things that they are going to try.
I want to go to the soundbites of Casey and Santorum.
Let's go to number 10 first.
Unlike all these Republicans in name only, Santorum is standing by his principles.
Here he stands by Donald Rumsfeld.
I'll be happy to start there.
I think Secretary Rumsfeld has done a fine job as the Defense Secretary, and the problems that we are confronting are problems of an enemy that's a very potent enemy, much more potent than I think anybody ever anticipated.
We need to go out there and continue to fight this war on Islamic fascism, not just as my opponent likes to focus on, just the war in Iraq.
That's a front of a multi-front war in which we're fighting against an enemy that is a very dangerous enemy.
Now, get this one.
Santorum's debating Bob Casey.
Bob Casey Jr., who may be the worst performance in public by a politician I've ever seen.
It was embarrassing.
Here they have this exchange about the surveillance program.
Listen.
You support more intelligence gathering because your party has been out front trying to undermine our surveillance programs.
You're the one who's gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs.
What do you think has kept our people safe?
What do you think stopped the British attack?
You folks have been the party, as you have been the party, of making sure that we don't have the intelligence gathering capabilities that we need and have joined in.
I'm not debating a part of your debate.
I'm debating you.
And I've looked at your comments saying that you have serious concerns about our surveillance programs.
I don't.
I think there's surveillance work that we should do.
No, we should keep the program.
Bob Casey ends up saying, no, we should keep the program.
And that's the position of all the there hadn't been one move made to defund the program.
They're just purposely lying about it and mischaracterizing it as a domestic spy program as part of their campaign.
And Casey was nailed there by Rick Santorum.
Back with more right after this brief timeout.
All right, get this.
Right buddies at WorldNet Daily.
City of Chicago, state of Illinois, promoting an event to honor Mexican independence.
The celebration called the second annual Mexican Independence Skyline Tribute will feature prominent buildings throughout Chicago being bathed in Mexico's national colors of red, white, and green for six days beginning Tuesday, September the 12th.
The tribute recognizes the important role that Mexican Americans have played in Chicago over the last century from the early days of the railroad and the stockyard industries through the steel mill boom to the president, according to a website promoting the tribute.
Today, an estimated 550,000 Mexican-Americans live in the Chicago area.
20 businesses and landmarks are slated to participate in the second annual Mexican Independence Skyline Tribute in Chicago.
Buildings, including the Sears Tower and the Wrigley Building, will be illuminated with red and green lights, while other buildings and locations will spell out messages such as Viva, Viva.
Well, the event began last year to mark the September 16th Mexican national holiday.
One more soundbite here from Santorum and Casey in their debate.
Actually, yeah, it was Meet the Press with Russert and they had their debate.
And this is an example of Santorum standing behind President Bush.
Absolutely.
I agree with the President, as you see, the vast majority of the time.
When I agree with him, I say it.
And when I don't agree with him, I say it too.
You think he's a great president?
I think he's been a terrific president.
Absolutely.
So he's not cutting and running.
Santorum is not afraid to stand with President Bush.
The president out there once again today in a speech of the Military Officers Association of America, really talking up the war on terror.
This is of two reasons.
I'm sure it's election time, but it's also we're coming up on the five-year anniversary of 9-11.
It's also a very substantive reason.
There are people out there who want us dead only because we're alive, and we don't accept their belief in things.
And it's an ongoing effort to remind the American people that this threat is real and that we all have to face it.
We have three bites.
Here's the first.
The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they're not madmen.
They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane.
These al-Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists.
They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power.
And this one I love because this is a favorite theme of mine.
You can't negotiate with evil.
I mean, look at folks.
When good negotiates with evil, evil will always win.
When right negotiates with wrong, wrong will always win.
How do you give up such core principles?
What is there to negotiate?
Here's how the president says it.
In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call infidels.
A category that includes America, the world's free nations, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam.
They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world.
Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden earlier this year.
Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers among us.
These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom.
It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them.
All right.
Right on, right on, right on.
And comparing today's appeasers to the appeasers of Hitler.
The world ignored Hitler's words and paid a terrible price.
His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers and set the world aflame in war before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives.
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them.
The question is, will we listen?
Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?
America and our coalition partners have made our choice.
We're taking the words of the enemy seriously.
We're on the offensive.
We will not rest.
We will not retreat.
And we will not withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed.
Rattle, rattle, rattle, rattle.
All right, so while the Democrats are out there talking about we're not safer, Bush has not made us any safer.
The president is ratcheting this up and making it clear to anybody who hears it how serious the threat is and what his intentions are in dealing with it.
Mike, in Mission Viejo, California, welcome, and I'm glad you waited.
Rush, many dittos, longtime listener and student of yours, and I just appreciate all you do for us.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Appreciate that.
Republicans, the people who on the Republican side who want to go ahead and want to show defeat and let the Democrats take over, very bad thinking.
They ought to take Rush Limbaugh's message, and we ought to stand up and say these Democrats are unpatriotic.
They are not supporting our troops.
They are not standing with us.
And I don't know why they just, Republicans can't stand up from the hilltops, take Rush Limbaugh's message, and come into the election year and tell them that they are unpatriotic.
They are appeasers.
They are wanting to run away.
And it would be a great message, just like the liberal message when we tagged them with liberalism.
I tell you what, I couldn't agree with you more.
And it's easy to say you can make it, it's just nothing more than common sense.
When you have people who are actively invested in our defeat, how in the world do you not challenge their patriotism?
When you have people trying to undermine the mission in Iraq and the morale of the troops, how do you not challenge their patriotism?
What is it?
It's not just bad judgment.
It's far more than that.
When you've got people trying to destroy the spy program that helps us identify who's going to kill us and when, what do you call that?
When you've got people who want to punish America, the whole country, for a few incidents at Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, more than they are interested in defeating those who want to kill us, what do you call that?
When you set it up that way, I've grown a little weary.
Over the years, to avoid controversy and to avoid unnecessary partisanship, I have refused to use the word, I challenge your patriotism to these people.
I've always pulled back, like everybody else does.
And I have questioned their judgment.
But now, this is more than judgment.
They're not just wrong.
They're making active decisions here.
They are taking positions which are intended to harm our effort to beat this enemy.
When you have a senator, Dick Durbin, who refers to people at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as the equivalent of Soviet gulags, pole pots, murderers, and Nazis.
And he will not say one word like that about the enemy.
What do you call that?
Now, some people might say, eh, Russia's just campaigning and Democrats are just playing to their base and stuff.
That's far more than that.
When you have in the drive-by media, not one story on the heroism of any armed services individual in Iraq, and we know that there is lots of heroism.
Same thing in Afghanistan.
Not one story, when all we get are stories about how they are murderers and rapists.
What in the world is patriotic about that?
In fact, it already has hit a nerve.
Mike, see if you can find fairly quickly the screaming Hillary.
She is the best example, the embodiment of just how a nerve has been touched when their patriotism has been challenged.
They have been forced to redefine their patriotism.
Patriotism now is criticizing your country.
That shows valor, and that shows guts, and that shows courage.
To admit that your country can be wrong, that's patriotism.
I got you.
And also to criticize the president is now considered patriotic.
Here is how Mrs. What's the date on this thing?
Do we know off the top of your head when she made this screeching statement?
Well, it's a couple years ago, and this is, it's hard to listen to, folks, but it's worth it.
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
See, the nerve's already been touched out there.
If the Democrats keep this up, if they keep up this stance they've got, we're not safer, the administration doesn't care, we're not doing what the 9-11 Commission said, if they make it look like they want to continue to talk and negotiate with these people rather than wipe them out, the opportunity will be there.
I can't imagine, though, anybody actually standing up and saying it who is elected.
I can't imagine it.
But, ladies and gentlemen, that's why I am here carrying the torch.
Well, here we go again.
I'm going to tell you what's in the news, and you're going to say, gee, Rush, how many times have we heard this this year?
Democrats push for own religious voice.
Yes.
Jim Kunin, Associated Press writer, 13 years ago, David Wilhelm, chairman of the Democratic Party, told the conservative Christian coalition that good Christians could belong to either major political party.
He was booed and hissed.
Today, Wilhelm wants to spread that message to a different audience, Democrats, and he's hoping for a better response.
With a leading poll showing only one in four Americans viewing the Democratic Party as friendly to religion, Wilhelm and a broad-based group of Christian Democrat activists are starting an internet effort to organize religious voters whose views might be compatible with Democrats.
They have this website, www.faithfuldemocrats.com.
What a pathetic name.
Well, if you have to go out and say you're faithful, there must be some doubt, huh?
It goes online today.
It will showcase theologians, party strategists, political leaders, and bloggers in hopes of conducting a national discussion on politics and faith.
Wilmhilm said, it struck me as strange that people whose political world is motivated by faith had to be a Republican.
Democrats need to be on that playing field.
He said the site will give religious Democrats the moral support and some language they can use.
Okay.
Democrats push for their own religious voice.
I mean, shortly after the 04 elections, well, we're going to get stronger on values.
The 02 midterm, well, we're going to get stronger on value.
You guys routinely laugh at, impugn, make fun of Christians?
Who do you think you're going to be fooling?
Democrats push for own religious voice.
You know, the real question that we have for you, Democrats, is this.
Just what do you want us to believe you have faith in?
It's all about faith.
You have faith in global warming?
You have faith in all these cockamamie oddball kook issues.
What is it you have faith in?
Christianity is Christianity.
Religious values are what they are.
You don't need a new language to help Democrats communicate this.
I guess they think they do because if they go out and actually talk about values as they exist, they will anger other Democrats and liberals.
It is a tough road to hoe.
Mark in Baltimore, you're next.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the show.
Hey, Rush, Megan Dido's from Baltimore.
Thank you, sir.
I'm watching the news, and they're saying, you know, there's a difference between our war in Iraq and the war on terror, but yet at the same time, they're reporting that we call it a top county leader in Iraq, the guy that blew up the shrine.
So, you know, it's very confusing what's going on out there.
Well, it actually isn't.
The Democrats' position is that the war on terror is in Afghanistan and that the war on terror will be over when we get bin Laden and that Bush doesn't care and that Bush is ineffective.
Iraq was totally unnecessary.
Iraq was something personal.
It was either oil or avenging his Saddam's attempt to assassinate Bush 41 or whatever cockamame reason.
Then their other position is that by going to Iraq, we've actually created terrorists.
We've created more terrorists than there were because they're really mad at us now.
And so they think if we get out of Iraq, stick to Afghanistan, find bin Laden, that's it.
And we can negotiate with the nations of the world to help us in this quest.
Blah, Now, the number two guy that was captured in Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not the number two guy in Al-Qaeda.
The number two guy in Al-Qaeda is Ayman al-Zawahiri.
He's the deputy chief of staff, whatever they call it, whatever his title is, to Osama bin Laden.
And he's the guy that does all the videos lately.
We haven't seen bin Laden except on audio tape in quite a while.
This was the number two guy of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
But that ought to tell you, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they will go wherever we are to fight us and kill us.
If they've already come here, folks, watch the path to 9-11.
You know all these terrorist hits that happened in this country and on Americans around the world all during the 90s.
You know it.
But when's the last time you saw any pictures of the 93 attack in the World Trade Center?
When's the last time you saw pictures of the Kobar Towers being blown up or any of the U.S. embassies in Africa?
When's the last time you saw a picture of the USS coal after it was blown up?
You will see it all in the path to 9-11, and it will be unmistakable.
They will go wherever we are.
The Democrats' position on this is just it is shallow and it is dangerous.
Dan in Wilbur and Massachusetts, you're next.
It's great to have you.
Rush, it's an honor to speak to you.
I've been approaching my fifth year as a student with the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Thank you, sir.
I'm kind of in a dilemma here.
My wife and I, we recently were at a weekend gathering, and the topic of the gas prices was brought to the table.
And I had mentioned how nice it was to see them actually drop back lower again.
And I also made another comment: gee, I wonder if we'll see it hit the $1.99 mark again.
One of our acquaintances there said, the only reason why these prices are going down is because we're approaching the midterm election.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I didn't know how to respond to that.
Maybe you can shed some light on this.
Well, look, this is quite simple.
But you're dealing with people who aren't going to believe it.
Ask them just exactly how the president can get the world oil price to fall such that gasoline prices come down.
And ask them how the president can dictate people's usage, supply and demand, that will cause the price to come down.
Ask them how the president can do that.
And ask them how the president got the price up in the first place and why he would do that to his own political fortunes.
Ask him why he got the price up just so he could bring it down.
It's the whole thing is absurd that any individual can control such a world market like oil and its derivatives.
It's just, it's ridiculous.
You shouldn't even entertain the thought.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Have to go.
But we will be back tomorrow and do it all over again, fully revved up.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection