All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
October 2, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, well, well, well, well, a um a glaring discrepancy here that I mentioned earlier in the program has just been addressed by the speaker of the House, Denny Hastert.
I just told you mere moments ago, this is not going to work for the Democrats.
And I will explain why here in just a second.
Greetings, great to have you back, kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
L. Rushbow, a living legend behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, Danny Hastert has sent a letter to the uh to the FBI and others, and he had a press conference still going on now.
John Shimkus is speaking now.
But uh Hastert said, since the communications appear to have existed for three years, these are the instant messages and emails of Mark Foley to the page.
Since these communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent that there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages, but did not report them to the appropriate authorities.
This is in Hastert's letter to the uh Justice Department.
It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now.
Haster just went out there and said, We, the Republicans, we did not have these instant messages.
We did not know about these instant messages, but somebody did.
Who are they?
And how did those instant messages end up getting the ABC?
Who had these instant messages?
Now, what I w again, I I had a weekend uh uh at a friend's house and a bunch of people around all day and night Saturday discussing this.
And uh and I said that there's so much of this that smells to me, aside aside from what Foley did, nobody's defending Foley, but like the the thing that struck me, the similar thing that struck me was members of Congress have had the National Intelligence estimate since April.
They've known what was in it.
All of a sudden, one sentence from it gets leaked last Sunday to the New York Times.
Voila, we think we've got a brand new discovery, something that's been covered up, but some diligent whistleblower has finally released it to the New York Times, and nothing was further from the truth.
It was known and it was held in a band, and it was used in a dishonest, misleading way in the election cycle by the media, the New York Times, and whoever it is that uh that fed it to them.
Now this Foley business.
Uh obviously there are people who have known this.
The page knew it.
How did the page, who did he talk to?
Who did the page talk to, and then who did that person then talk to, and who started rubbing their hands together and salivating, and how long ago?
You know, Foley is from a safe seat.
Foley's re-election was guaranteed.
Uh but now it is uh it's it's assumed the Democrats are gonna are gonna take the seat because Foley has resigned and has said that he uh needs to get some serious help for alcoholism.
Now you know what Foley could have done.
Foley could have said, as was recently done in Washington, by the way, Foley could have said that what he was doing was mixing some pills while he was consuming his adult beverage, and when he was sending these instant messages to the page, he actually thought that he was on his way to vote.
But he didn't do that.
Now it was only last week, maybe two weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story on the glory and the salvation and the wonderfulness of four what is it, months of sobriety by Patrick Kennedy, and how Washington has come together to discover its common humanity to help a fallen comrade regain his sense of balance and put his life back together.
Really?
Is that what this episode shows?
Don't think this episode shows that at all.
Uh Hastert, and he was pretty firm.
I mean, he he was he was uh for him uh animated.
He made it plain we didn't have these IMs, we didn't know about These IMs, these instant messages, which are far more explicit than the emails that ABC originally released.
But he said somebody did.
Somebody had them, and somebody knew this was going on.
And what about all this for the children stuff?
Where was the concern for the uh the kid, the pages here, who uh who actually got caught up in all this?
It doesn't seem to be that there was any concern.
This was seen purely as a political opportunity by the Democrats to take down a sitting uh member of the House of Representatives as the uh the time became right.
Now the the uh uh question arises will this backfire?
Republicans seem to be playing this in the correct way on both ends.
They've condemned Foley, he has no place here.
Uh we don't tolerate this, and they're not saying this, but unlike Democrats, Democrats do.
I am telling you again.
Democrats do not find what Foley did with the page repugnant at all.
Democrats celebrate human weakness.
Democrats celebrate it, they coddle it.
They believe in the imperfection of all of us.
They believe that the human being is imperfect, and they think they own the compassion issue by embracing all of this uh imperfection out there, and then they turn their guns on the Republicans who they say are intolerant when they condemn lawlessness, when they condemn people who engage in uh in things that are wrong as opposed to right.
The very fact that Republicans even discuss the concepts of right and wrong makes them judgmental and rigid and intolerant, racist, sexist, bigot homophobes is the cliche.
Uh and so they're taking this and saying, see, we're the compassionate ones.
Wait, but they they they're there's it's all of it's all smoke and mirrors.
That I nobody's gonna convince me.
And they're not even talking about how horrible it was what Foley did.
They're trying to say, look at how rotten Republicans are.
But they're not condemning it.
They've defended it.
Like a caller just said, Jerry Studd, is it Gary or Jerry Studs?
I've Gary G-E-R-R-Y.
Gary Studs did more than engage in an exchange of words with the page, actually went out there and had a little whoopy.
And the House censured him, and he got re-elected from his uh from his district.
Twice, I think, uh Barney Frank and so you can't convince me the Democrats find any of this uh behavior repugnant.
Uh one quick item here before we go to the break.
A public scruble in New York is requiring detention for parents who get their kids to school late.
Under the new rule that the Manhattan Scrual for Children, parents who don't drop off their children by 825, have to pick up late slips from the principal's office and go to the auditorium to serve 20 minutes of detention with the kids.
The parents need to make the breakfast, get the children dressed and get them to scrub on time, said the principal Susan Rappaport uh in yesterday's New York Post.
Some tardy parents at the Scrual, which has 660 pupils in kindergarten through eighth grade, complained the detention made them late for work.
But others approved, saying they felt humiliated and won't show up late again.
Okay.
The weirdness and the oddness continues to surround us.
A quick timeout, ladies.
What what you you agree with this policy?
You agree with making the parents go to the auditorium and spend 20 minutes of detention with the kids?
Why?
Because it's not the kids' fault since they can't get themselves there on their own.
I'll bet you it is the kids' fault.
What if you got a bunch of kids at home who don't mind their parents?
Come on, Johnny, get ready, we gotta leave.
No!
No!
I want to listen to the McDonald's tingle one more time on Disney.
Or whatever the kid does.
Puts toothpaste all over his clothes.
I don't know what kids do.
I know enough.
Yes, I do.
Actually, back in just a second.
Stay with them.
Audio soundbite time.
We have a full roster of sound bites, but uh other things have gotten the way today.
Let's go to uh Fox News Sunday yesterday.
Britt Hume, this is during the round table, Juan Williams have this exchange.
I must tell you, Juan, I haven't been listening and hearing much uh uh many, many attacks in recent times about the about the Clinton record on this.
It's kind of until he came out and this all happened, it wasn't being talked about.
What about the Patrick 911, that ABC movie?
Well, that was fictionalized history.
What about Rush Limbaugh in the literally in days after in the pages of the Wall Street Journal?
When did you remember that, Juan?
Not till E.J. Dion Jr. wrote his op-ed last week on Friday in the Washington Post.
Did anybody remember my op-ed in the Wall Street Journal?
And all it was saying we need to investigate the Clinton administration and look at what they did to fight terrorism.
Uh if we're serious about learning what happened or what caused 9-11.
I published that in October of 2001.
Well, the journal did.
I wrote it in October of 2001.
Uh and it's it's these people obsessed with me.
I'm the one that got all this blaming of Clinton started.
If it weren't for me, why nobody would have been examining it.
The problem is Clinton's brought all this on himself by making such a big deal out of that movie and and causing an examination of things that happened.
And the Woodward book.
Hey, forgot, you know, the Woodward book, I don't think it's part of the Clinton war room, but it's all part of the mix as to its timing, and of course, he's had two other previous volumes of Bush at War, volumes one and two, and they've been pretty sympathetic and pretty supportive of Bush.
This one creams Bush, lying to the American people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Bob's got a bit get himself back on everybody's good side in Washington because he was losing cocktail party invitations out there as a result of the first two books.
Now, Michael Shire was also on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
He uh Shire headed up the CIA's bin Laden unit.
Wallace's question, in your opinion, is somebody who was up close and personal.
Why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the U.S. coal?
Mr. Richard Clark, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Osama bin Laden.
That's the plain truth, the exact truth.
Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998.
We had plans that had been approved by the joint joint operations command at Fort Bragg.
We had opportunities, uh many opportunities to kill him.
This is not a question of interpretation or judgment.
This is a question of fact.
And the documents will show the president had the opportunity.
Clinton started all this himself, you know, when he starts raising hell about the movie, The Path to 9-11.
And you also got to say kudos to Chris Wallace for not caving on this.
He came right back to the issue this past Sunday, yesterday, and uh tackling it head on.
You know, there's a there's a movement now in the drive-by media to go after Fox News.
David Border, the Associated Press.
Did I print that out?
Let me see if I've got it.
I'm uh I saw this on Saturday.
Uh, and it just hit the wires.
Uh I guess last night or yesterday.
Well, I guess I didn't print it out.
Anyway, talks about how Fox News celebrating its tenth anniversary and having been knocked back on its heels because their ratings are down.
They're still four times what their competitors are.
But their ratings are down.
And it's uh you know, I I I I think that the it's the premise here is kind of absurd.
Yesterday in the weekend review section, New York Times front page of the weekend review section.
There was a story about how Democrats have decided to go after Fox News.
It is a laughable premise.
The Democrats have PBS, the Democrats have CNN, the Democrats have PMS NBC, the Democrats have CBS, the Democrats have NBC, the Democrats have ABC.
Fox News, and I don't mean this to be a cut.
I'm just trying to paint a picture of of accuracy and reality.
Their highest numbers, viewership numbers are at night, and they run anywhere from 1.8 to 2.5 million homes.
People, what have you?
And the Democrats are targeting these people as their primary enemies.
If you add up all of the liberal drive-by media outlets and add the publications, the newspapers and magazines.
And it it uh story talked about how Carville and Bigala went on the O'Reilly factory, and they read him the Ryder Day, and they told him what was.
And they're not gonna sit here and take this anymore.
Fox is a far right wing broadcast unit, and they're not gonna put up with this.
Uh Intellectually, it's impossible to understand.
So it's ridiculous to look at it intellectually.
You have to look at it politically.
Fox is a political opponent, and the Clinton war room, which is sponsoring all of this, does not just want to defeat political enemies.
They want to destroy them.
That is Hillary Clinton's primary fundamental belief as she practices the art of politics.
Destroy your enemy.
Get them out of town.
Get them out of the business.
Get them as far away from you as possible.
And that's, you know, their their track record on this.
Seach and destroy.
Look at what happened to Paula Jones.
Look at what happened to Kathleen Willie.
They trashed Monica Lewinsky as trailer park trash and a troll, whatever they were saying.
It doesn't matter who it is.
Blame me for the Oklahoma City bombing.
I mean, the list goes on.
Now their target is Fox News, and here comes their old buddy David Border in the Associated Press with a nice little hit piece.
Now, this this New York Times week and review page, in their story, they kind of warned the Democrats, be careful here, because if you make this, if you guys they go on Fox, that's starting to happen.
Barbara Boxer went on last week.
Whatever the, and there is a strategery.
Whatever question the host asks, the response is, ah, I see you're on the president's side in this.
You're with President Bush.
You think the president's right.
Well, we knew this was not fair and balanced.
They did it to Jane Skinner last week, they did it to John Gibson.
They've done it all over the place.
It is a stratagem, ladies and gentlemen.
And the purpose of it is to rev up their base.
They know their base hates conservatives, hates Republicans, and if the Democrats can go on this network and make it sound like Fox is horrible and rotten to the core and needs to be destroyed, the Democrat base 11.
What they are forgetting is that when they do this, they rev up the opposition base.
And this piece in the Sunday New York Times week and review section warned them about this.
I read it and I thought, you know what?
This is kind of a warning, a little little little shot across the bow.
Uh be careful here what you guys are doing and the way you're doing it, because it it might backfire on you, which is the theme, isn't it, for Democrats since 2002.
The history, which is repeating itself, is that everything they do backfires on them.
Like this Foley thing in time.
Well backfire, like the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, backfired.
Alex in Brooklyn, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, it's an honor to see with you.
Uh Megadetto's from Brooklyn.
Uh, I've been listening for uh 16 years.
Uh remember the dark days uh after the 1992 election, uh you rallied me and uh you rallied us, and uh we we got Congress back uh uh for the first time in 40 years.
I don't know if we've done the best things uh with Congress since then, but uh there have been a few good bills.
Um I wanted to comment on the on the Foley situation.
Uh I I uh thoroughly believe uh that no one knew about the IMs until uh until I news uh broke it.
But uh I think with this information out, uh somebody in the leadership uh a long time ago, eight eight uh ten, eleven months ago when they knew they should have uh uh asked him to step aside and get another candidate.
Uh, because it's it's this is the worst possible timing.
He's on the ballot.
Uh I don't know if they're gonna be able to write somebody in or people will have to vote for him to get the Republican in.
Uh but it's it's uh that I think was a mistake on their part.
Well, uh all I can tell you is what Hastert said today.
Hastert said that he didn't have the IMs, that nobody in the Republican leadership had the IMs.
Uh what did he say about the emails?
Did did um emails were innocuous.
I don't think that the emails that they first released were just sort of, you know.
Not much.
IMs are explosive.
And has to, we didn't know about it.
Now there are people that knew that that uh that that Foley was uh sort of uh risky uh with the pages.
But it w there had not been any activity.
Nobody has yet stated that Foley's ever met one of these people and did anything.
It's all just words, sort of like the Pope.
Um I'm just wondering when the militant Islamists are gonna get mad about this and protest.
I'm not trying to sidestep the issue.
Point is uh I think the Republicans thought they dealt with it.
I saw Newt on television this morning, and he said that the people who knew about it had approached Foley and they told him to cool it.
This is not cool.
You're cruising for trouble here, and they thought that the situation was over.
The real question here, uh Alex, and I'm not trying to skirt this.
This is nobody in the Democrat side's concerned about this behavior.
They're not concerned about the page.
This is political.
That's the context you got to look at it.
Like Hastard said, we didn't have these IMs.
Somebody did.
For how long have they been holding these IMs?
And how do they end up at ABC?
And he wants an official investigation into that.
For the children.
We have the audio sound right from Denny Hastard about a half hour ago, said this about the instant message exchanges from Mark Foley to a page.
Anyone who had knowledge of these instant messages should have turned them over to authorities immediately so that kids could be protected.
I repeat again, the Republican leaders of the House did not have them.
We have all said so and on the record.
But someone did have them.
That's right.
And the Ethics Committee, the Justice Department, the news media, and anyone who can't should help us find out.
News media.
Yesterday, I sent a letter to the Attorney General requesting that he investigate to what extent any federal laws were violated by Congressman Foley.
And also to find out who might have known about the sexually explicit instant messages.
I was pleased to read in the newspaper this morning that the FBI has begun to investigate.
Okay.
All right, all right.
So now we know that Hastert didn't know about the instant messages, but somebody did.
And since their strategic release, that's remember, the release of these instant messages was not to protect this kid, not to protect the page or any other page.
The release of all this was not to clean up Washington.
The release of all this was not to make sure that some predator pedophile was running around loose, got caught and sent out of town.
That was not the purpose of this.
This was a strategic release to help the Democrats during the election.
So I, L. Rushball, America's real anchor man, want to know when the Democrats knew about the instant messages.
They may have known about this before Hastert and the Republicans.
It would appear so.
So the question is, when did Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats know about the instant messages?
That needs to be the question that needs to be asked.
All these jerks out there suggesting that Hastert and everybody else resign are missing the point.
The real question here is who had these instant messages for how long and who coordinated their release in a strategic way with uh Brian Ross at ABC.
Don in Cincinnati, welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Sorry about the bungles yesterday.
Hey, uh, just a little down today about that, but you know, that's a long NFL season, and uh that's what happens sometimes, and he just didn't get the pa uh the path protection he deserved.
But uh, you know, it it's gonna be another great year, I think, for the Bengals, and uh we'll it's about time for us.
Anyway, the brush the reason I called was um, you know, um you've heard of uh Mel, uh I've hit the jackpot Reynolds, the congressman from Chicago, Illinois area.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, um what to add to your argument on that, Rush.
The fact is he was pardoned by Bill Clinton.
And uh, where is the outrage uh from the uh child predator people that want to, you know, to to come down on that?
It's it's it's incredible.
Uh Bill Clinton got away with what he got away.
The American people didn't seem like they were outraged or anything, and here he gets away with that, and uh Mel Reynolds was pardoned, and I think he's still doing community service.
Oh, that's dangerous.
Yeah, I mean, uh Rush, I think you already played some tapes of him hitting the jackpot.
I mean, this was with an underage girl, um, and uh We remember it.
We we certainly remember all this.
That's why the uh this is this is this is all gonna backfire.
Democrats forget uh they they keep forgetting that there are people like I don't know how they forget this, us, Fox News, and alternative media are gonna go back and remind people of the history the Democrats want to forget.
You talk about Clinton pardoning Mel Reynolds.
Clinton also pardoned a bunch of terrorists uh from an organization called the FALN had something to do, I think with Puerto Rico, but that but the she he pardoned them uh to help his wife get the uh a certain a certain vote uh when she Puerto Rican vote in uh in New York City uh when she ran for the Senate.
Now here's Bill Clinton running around out there.
I was obsessed with Bin Laden the Republicans are telling me that I was too obsessed.
And I was spending too much time on that and not working to help everybody work together.
You know, I always like I said when Jackie Robinson out there, we retired his number from baseball officially.
I was up there at Shay Stadium, and I said it's just a testament to what can happen if we all work together and give everybody a chance.
Well, I gave Mel Reynolds a second chance, and I gave those terrorists from Puerto Rico a second chance, and Republicans got mad at me because I was so obsessed with bin Laden.
Um, I I uh I think it's fun trying to keep up with the people that are pathologically out of whack, but after a while it it gets a little frustrating because you have here there's a component here you can't take out of the equation.
Go back to Haster.
Hastert says uh uh let's see, uh yesterday I sent a letter to the attorney general requesting that he investigate to what extent any federal laws were violated by Congressman Foley.
Um we've all said that we didn't know about these uh instant messages and so forth.
Uh but someone did have them in the ethics committee, the Justice Department, the news media, and anyone who can should the news media, the Republicans I think you hope he's just saying that.
He can't possibly believe that he's gonna get support from the news media.
By that he means the drive-by media in uncovering this mystery.
Thanks for the call, Don.
Rich in San Marcos, California.
You're next on the program.
Great to have you with us.
Yeah, hi.
Hi.
Yeah.
Um about this thing about Broder and Fox.
Um I find it kind of interesting in that uh, you know, they're the ones who believe in freedom of the press, and when they have opposition, they want to shut them down.
Typical, but what if Fox went after those guys?
They are.
Fox is beating them.
That's the thing.
I mean, beat them up on stories.
I mean, start pulling these guys and making them responsible like Broder.
He does he writes a bunch of trades.
No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
It wasn't Broder, David Border, B A U D E R. He's a writer for the Associated Press.
I didn't.
That's okay.
It's still a it's a drive-by media guy, and and uh what you're talking about, I can what you're actually saying is what if Republicans went on CNN and every time Wolf Blitzer asked him a question, aha, I see you're in Nancy Pelosi's purse and you're in Harry Reid's back pocket.
I can tell her these backbone.
That's what you're saying, right?
Right.
Get a backbone.
Well, I've I have done that.
Well, you have, sir, but you're not going to be able to do that.
I have I have done that.
I did it with Paul Azan and then with Katie Couric once, way, way back long time ago on the Today Show.
Uh I do it.
I I refuse to accept their premise.
Uh well, yeah, Rush, but you you have the courage.
So does Hannity and a few other folks.
Well, what I'm saying is, you know, uh even Tony Snow is starting to get a little more aggressive with these guys.
I mean, you know, come on, guys, don't you know, if you're gonna write a story, have it factual.
You know, and be willing and be willing to be challenged if you write garbage, much that they do all.
Rich, I have I have to tell you something.
I uh let me let me let me and quit I want to quit skirting the issue.
You ask where the where's the Democrats' concern for freedom of the press.
I am telling you, I I I cannot emphasize this enough.
They are Stalinists.
They're not interested in freedom of the press.
They want Fox destroyed.
They want Fox shut down.
Now they know they'll never get that, but they want Fox destroyed as an entity of persuasion, purveyor of news, what have you.
They want Fox done away with.
You know, George Will wrote a column, it runs on M SNBC.
It's gonna be the newsweek uh issue, and the current issue.
Our friend John Carlson uh out in uh San uh uh uh uh Seattle uh in a precursor of what the Democrats will do to talk radio if they win back the House and the presidency and can uh invalidate the fairness doctrine.
They have just ruled that a couple of talk show hosts in Seattle cannot discuss certain issues because they they were part of a campaign.
They were advocating a particular side in a public issue out there, and they fan the Democrats finally found a judge to shut them down on the basis that they were illegally contributing to a campaign with their comments.
They had the audacity to use the word we discussing their particular side of the issue.
Now, we've talked about the fairness doctrine on this program a number of times, but you've got to understand, Rich, there's no freedom.
When you're talking about liberal Democrats, you are talking about a bunch of Stalinists who will shut down people who say things they disagree with or shut down people who oppose them.
I'm not using the term Stalinist lightly.
I'm trying to figure out a way to communicate this to you and to anybody else.
Why attack Fox?
You think it's just to uh uh cause people to view them in a different way?
You think it's to discredit them simply so nobody will believe what they say?
Uh there is a Fox on television is the one voice of so-called opposition.
Look at all that they've got.
As I just I just ran through the list.
Every television network, every other cable news network, all of the print magazines that are national, the New York and local magazines in Los Angeles, the newspapers and the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, look at all that they have.
And they're focusing their efforts on a cable channel that has a maximum of two million viewers at its peak.
Do you think it's they're afraid of two million viewers?
They're afraid they can be beat by two million viewers.
Well, they think they are.
They lie to themselves.
Fox, Limbaugh, Talk Radio, that's the reason they're losing.
And it's not because that those entities are so powerful.
Uh they think that people are lying about them.
They think Fox is telling lies.
They think I lie about them.
They can't stand opposition.
They choose not to debate it.
They can't win.
They are arrogant, condescending Stalinists.
Nobody should have the audacity to disagree with them and then try to harm them with what they believe.
That will not be tolerated.
And so, you know, asking why the Democrats were where is their concern for freedom of the press?
Don't make me barf.
Fascinating story from yesterday's New York Times.
I mean, let me just give you the headline.
I'll give you a couple of details, but try the headline.
Black incomes surpass whites in Queens.
Black incomes surpass whites in Queens across the country.
The income gap between blacks and whites remains wide.
No more so than in Manhattan, but just a river away, a very different story is unfolding.
In Queens, the median income among black households, nearing $52,000 a year, has surpassed that of whites in 2005, according to census data.
No other country or county in the country with a population over 65,000 can make this claim.
The gains among blacks in Queens, the city's quintessential middle class borough, were driven largely by the growth of two parent families and the success of immigrants from the West Indies.
Many live in tidy homes and Verdant Enclaves like Cambria Heights, Rosedale, and Laurleton, just west of the Cross Island Parkway and the border with Nassau County.
David Viran, a 45-year-old lawyer, one of them.
He estimates the house in St. Albans that he bought with his wife three years ago for about 320 grand is nearly doubled in value since they renovated it.
Two family homes priced at 600 grand and more seem to be sprouting on every Vacant lot, he says.
Southeast Queens, especially had a heavy influx of West Indian folks in the late 80s and the early 90s, said Mr. Virin, who, like his 31-year-old wife, was born on the island of Jamaica.
Those individuals came here to pursue an opportunity, and part of that opportunity was an education.
He said a large percentage of college graduates.
We're now maturing, we're reaching the peak of our earning capacity.
Despite the economic progress among blacks in Queens, income gaps still endure within the boroughs black community where immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean, are generally doing better than American-born blacks.
When immigrants come here, uh they are not accustomed to social programs, said an expert, and so they uh go get jobs.
This is the New York Times, ladies and gentlemen.
This is not me.
Uh saying this.
This is the uh New York Times.
Black incomes surpass whites in Queens largely because of two parent fam.
Well, it's it's been trending that way for five years.
It's been we've done stories on this, how it's been trending, but surpassed now in 2005, surpassed.
Now, there are two things here.
Two income families.
Two income families.
What what what does this mean?
Any number of ways to uh transit.
For those of you in Rhea Linda, uh, it means that there are a mother and a father in the or a father and a father and a mother and whatever, but there are.
Oh, that's right, they don't play that way.
Right, so it's a mother and father, sorry, Mark Foley.
It's a mother and father in these homes.
Uh two income families.
Then the immigrants who show up from the West Indies are not that well versed in social programs, so they go get jobs.
Confounding, confounding the welfare state, uh, even in New York.
Here is Steve in Middlesbrough, Virginia.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hello, Ross.
Well to the Redskins and to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, uh, I don't think we should complain.
I I think it's just nice to see the Democrats finally willing to wage war against somebody, even if it's Fox News or you.
And do you get the impression that if somebody had told Clinton when he was president that uh bin Laden that if bin Laden was a Fox News talk show host, that uh he was a really, really, really tried again?
It is it it is interesting to note the enemies.
Yeah, Walmart, Fox News, McDonald's, big pharmaceutical, uh, big bucks, big tobacco.
It is Microsoft, uh, but man, they want the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
They want lawyers' constitutional rights for enemy combatants.
Bob, Oakley, California.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Thanks, Rush, for taking my call on the quick.
Uh, I was telling your screener, I had resi I used to contribute all the time to the Republican National Committee, and I resisted doing so for recent in recent years because of the president's lack of control of the borders and whatnot.
But with everything that's with everything that's coming out, all the leaks, uh, the uh assassination of uh character, uh Clinton on the uh Fox News Network, those kinds of things.
This Sunday I did take another call from the Republican National Committee, and I'll be sending in my contribution again this year.
Aha!
So this stuff is starting to rev you up.
Absolutely.
I've had it.
Interesting.
So this stuff is making you angrier than whatever it was that the Republicans were doing to make you mad.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Hmm.
Now, this is fascinating.
So now you want is it that you want Republicans to win, or you're just so mad at the Democrats that uh you didn't care if they won because you wanted to show the Republicans a lesson, but now you can't stand the concept of thought of Democrats winning.
Which is it?
Well, I've always voted Republican, uh, always.
And uh, but this year I wasn't necessarily thinking about sitting out.
I would have still voted, but I just uh Oh, you weren't gonna give any money, I say okay.
All right, well.
I wasn't gonna send money this year.
Yeah, yeah.
That that that uh that makes sense.
Well, here we have another example of a rigid, intolerant American who has never voted Democrat.
Never, never voted Democrat.
That's why these people need to be destroyed.
Well, another exciting day of broadcast excellence is in the can and over with.
But never fret, my friends.
There is tomorrow.
Back in twenty one hours to wrap it up all over again, and we'll look forward to it.
Thanks for being with us today.
▲
Export Selection