All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
October 11, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings once again, ladies and gentlemen, conversationalists all across the fruited plane, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, time for broadcast excellence from the prestigious and distinguished Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's a thrill to be with you, my friends.
It always is.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, email address rush at EIBnet.com.
I, ladies and gentlemen, erred greatly, and I must correct that error, when I was talking to a caller from Kingston, New York, the C-SPAN caller from earlier today, I'd asked him if he could recall any other president about whom the media was so desperate to produce a legacy.
And I mentioned JFK as though not being one of those.
Reagan, of course, not being one, Carter not being one, Ford not being one, Bush 41 not being one.
And the error there was huge.
The media, they spent 30 years on Camelot.
They spent 30 years attempting to build this Camelot image and legacy for JFK and Jackie for their short time in the White House.
And what's interesting about it is Clinton came along, and we don't hear anything about it anymore.
Clinton has totally shot the Camelot legacy all day.
They tried to create a new Camelot with Clinton, but it kind of didn't work.
Kennedy was smart enough to do his philandering in hotels where nobody, well, nobody reported on it when they found out about it.
And it just was a different time for Bill Clinton.
Now, before we've got the Bush sound bites, oh, I want to make a prediction.
I just made a prediction to Mr. Snerdley.
We just made another bet.
And I made a prediction to Snerdley because he said to me during the break here at Top of the Hour, you know, he was down on the dumps.
I had to Snerdley on, what was it, Monday or yesterday?
Yesterday, Snerdley was so low when he looked up, he saw the gutter.
He was just down on the dumps.
And after the first hour of my program yesterday, he got down on his knees and thanked me for reviving and renewing his spirit with that brilliant monologue that consisted of the entire first hour yesterday.
Still up at rushlimbaugh.com if you missed it.
It's on our website now.
And he said to me, there's something dramatic that has changed from yesterday to today in terms of the Democrats and their own confidence about their fortunes in the upcoming election in November.
He senses that there has been something profoundly overwhelming that has changed even their outlook.
And we were discussing, I said, well, the big thing is North Korea.
When Ellen Tausher is dispatched to C-SPAN to start lying to the American people about how strong on missile defense the Democrats have always been, you know something's up.
They have been worried to death that security, national security was going to be a fundamental issue, and they were hoping the Foley thing would wipe that off the minds of most of the front minds of the American people.
The Foley thing didn't work, though.
The polling data on a Foley thing has been dreadfully disappointing to them.
It is only a factor in a few races, not many, I think less than five.
And besides that, the New York Times has run stories saying that all it's really going to do is gin up Republican turnout as I predicted on this program.
And I want to remind you that I predicted that Foley's replacement will hold his seat.
Mr. Negron will hold Foley's seat.
The Democrat here, what's his name, Mahoney?
He will not win that seat.
I have made that prediction.
I'm not going to back off of it.
I refuse to believe the Republicans in Foley's district are that frivolous and fickle.
Foley wins with 25% margins.
They're just not going to abandon the party, especially when Foley's gone.
Now, Foley were hanging around and doing a Clinton and lying about it and saying it never happened and not accepting responsibility for it and exiting the stage.
It'd be a whole different thing.
But Foley's gone, they tried to focus on Haster.
Big deal.
That didn't work.
Then North Korea happens and the whole game has shifted.
And it's back to the issue that the Democrats fear the most: national security.
The fact of the matter is they have been wrong almost 100% of the time when it comes to foreign policy, missile defense or what have you.
They ridiculed it when Reagan first proposed it.
They're the ones that gave it the name Star Wars.
They're the ones that impugned the whole concept, said that it would only exacerbate and create more tension and build up an arms race.
So I made him a prediction because I have a sense, too, that the things are just not going.
I read that Heath Schuler, a Democrat who has not ever served, so he has no track record.
Heath Schuler running against an incumbent conservative in North Carolina is out there trying to pass himself off as a pro-life gun-totin member of the NRA, folks.
Some of you might be fearing it might work, Rush.
I mean, if he goes out there and lies to those people and they believe that that's who he is, he's going to win and he's going to be able to liberal when he gets there.
Maybe, but if true, he'll serve one term and then he's gone from that district.
I don't think it's going to work.
The bottom line, though, is look what they have to do in order to win.
For the longest, for the past month, all we've been hearing about, people can't wait to elect Democrats.
Talked about this yesterday.
Nobody ever talks about what if the Democrats lose.
What happens to Pelosi?
What happens to all of these leaders, Reed, if they lose?
What happens to the Clintons' hold on this party if they lose?
At some point, this party, and I think it's already begun in certain sectors, subterranean vaults.
I think there's already some friction in the Democratic Party over the iron-fisted control that the Clintons and their war room has over this party.
Because Clinton is a reason they lost the House in 94, Clinton and Hillary.
They've lost governorships.
Bill Clinton, in truth, has been the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party nationwide, notwithstanding his two years as president.
Those are two terms.
Those terms are not going to go down in history as anything great either when all said and done.
Years and years and years from now, there has to be a reason.
Maybe they just are in love with the way Clinton gets away with smacking down political opponents, gets away with being loved by the media.
I don't know what it is.
Maybe Clinton's got dossiers on all of them, too, and that forces them to snap to and stay in line for fear of having whatever he knows about them be divulged.
There's got to be a reason that there's been 100% loyalty in that administration.
It just boggles the mind that not one member of that administration has ever come out and leaked anything harmful about what went on there.
And you know, there has to be tons of stuff.
Lewinsky alone, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willie wanted a broad box.
There's all kinds of stuff to know, but it just doesn't trickle out.
It has to be a reason.
At any rate, they're in trouble now, and because the election has turned to issues.
And when you look at it from the standpoint, nobody ever talks about what happens if Democrats lose.
It's always the context of Republicans will lose the House.
And when the Republicans lose the House, there's this or that.
But nobody ever conjures up this possibility that Democrats are disliked and distrusted among many Americans.
That is never reported.
If you immerse yourself in the media bubble every day, you cannot help but conclude that the people of this country love the Democrats.
Every one of them have no problem with any of them.
They're not even a question.
No Democrat incumbent has a chance of losing.
It just isn't going to happen.
No Democrat's going to lose.
House, Senate doesn't matter.
Well, that's unrealistic.
But yet that's the picture that's being painted.
Now there's been this change.
Something's happened since North Korea announced its nuke test.
Even if it was a dud, it still has awakened a lot of people.
It was the focal point of the president's press conference today.
And I've told Snerdley, so I'm going to make you a prediction that sometime between now and the election, somewhere in a sizable liberal publication, Washington Post, the New York Times, somewhere.
I don't know the LA Times would be big enough for this, for me to win the bet.
Somebody before the election, some Democrat, independent contractor, not working as part of the party organization, not part of a party strategery, is going to write a piece suggesting that, you know, it may not be all that bad if the Democrats do lose the House this time around.
Because after all, if they win, what are they going to be able to do?
Not much.
They're certainly not going to be able to advance their agenda.
Bush will block everything they want to do, raise taxes.
He's not going to go for that.
And they're not going to have enough of a majority to override vetoes.
And so this guy is going to speculate that it might not be good to have two years of utter failure going into the 08 elections if perhaps there's a quote-unquote popular Republican on the ballot.
Now, I'm not suggesting this will be written because they think it's true.
I'm suggesting if it's written, it'll be written as a CYA.
Well, you know, after the election, when the Democrats lose, this person can then come up and say, see, this actually is working out for the best.
This actually is, it's better that we lose.
We came close.
We picked up a couple seats.
We got the momentum.
You know how they define winning is when they lose by less than four points.
They're big into moral victories, Democratic Party.
So I know it kind of argues against what I said yesterday when I mentioned that you never see a Democrat like Tom Davis did on Sunday, the Republicans, go on television and speculate on how much they're going to lose.
You never see that.
They're always hopeful.
They're always talking about, yeah, we're going to kick button.
Yep, we're going to win.
You never see them go on TV chewing their fingernails.
I don't know.
30, 50 seats, maybe.
It's looking bad out there, Tim.
It's really, I almost didn't want to come on the show.
I'm telling you, bad.
Democrats just don't do that.
But if they think they're going to lose, if one of them thinks they're going to lose, somebody's going to want a CYA.
Cover their rear end and try to paint the best possible picture and do so in advance so that they can say, see, I knew this was going to be the case, and this is good.
If losing is not going to be a good thing for them, don't misunderstand.
Quick timeout.
Back with much more after this.
A couple more things I want to say about Foley.
We got the presidential sound bites and your phone calls.
Sit tight, my good buddies.
We'll be back before you.
Gosh, who is that?
Oh, I've got to change channels.
By the way, the bet was, I bet snurdly that that piece that I just talked about will appear before the election.
Snurdly says after, if it appears at all.
Welcome back, Rushlin Boy, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
There's a story up on Drudge.
I can't let this go by any longer.
This is an AP story that is obvious in its intent.
The headline, Army, troops to stay in Iraq until 2010.
Now, I don't even need to read the story to know that that is not what the story says.
The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010.
The top Army orificer said Wednesday, a later date than any Bush administration or Pentagon officials have mentioned thus far.
The Army chief of PASS, Chief of Staff General Peter Shoemaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying it is easier to pull back forces than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.
This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better.
It's just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot.
This happens all the time.
The Pentagon plans for countless things.
You people would probably shudder if you were ever informed of the battle plans we have for Iran.
You think they haven't drawn them up?
Let those things get leaked to the AP before the election, see what happens.
You don't think we've got battle plans to deal with something that might happen in North Korea or China?
You think we don't have battle plans and troop levels for what might need necessary in Russia if something?
That's their job.
You know, they're not fighting wars all the time everywhere.
They're people in the Pentagon.
They got to do something other than twiddle their thumbs, and they sit around and they plan for contingencies.
And so they're planning, all right, if we're going to be here to 2010, what are we going to need for it?
It's being passed off as secret plan.
Troops stay in Iraq to 2010.
President lying about effort to withdraw quickly, whatever.
And it's designed to be a little focal point so that idiots like John Kerry and Jack Murtha and Reed and Pelosi can go storm barn war crazy this afternoon on cable shows and tonight.
I can't believe what I just saw.
The president's been lying, we're going to be in Iraq to 2010.
Well, we need a new smarter policy.
I'm John K. That's exactly what this is for.
And when it happens, I want you to remember that that's not what this is.
My gosh, how many of you people in business plan beyond tomorrow?
I swear, some of the things these people try, it's like romper room.
By the way, USA Today says today that the first lady, Laura Bush, who is going to help fundraise for Republican Senator Jim Talent in Missouri's running against Claire McCaskill.
She'll be there in St. Louis tomorrow.
Talent has, I think, four or five million more dollars to spend than does McCaskill.
And it'll count.
It'll be a factor.
Santorum has more money than Bob Casey does.
But she's in there still fundraising.
While she's fundraising for Senator Talent, the First Lady also plans to take part in a tree planting ceremony in Forest Park and then to help talent light the gateway arch in pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
I wonder if they've missed any opportunity while they're in St. Louis to work.
They've got it covered.
Have they ever put the top of the Empire State Building in pink?
You know, they light it in different colors for different things.
Have you ever done it for breast cancer?
Is this breast cancer?
I've watted this up prematurely.
I'm not trying to irritate you with the noise here, folks.
It was a yeah, Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
By the way, I have to comment.
I'm just looking at Susan Estrich here on Fox.
Are you aware that Susan Estrich has come out?
She's got a new book, and it is a total rip-off of Ann Coulter's latest book.
It's a mock title.
Her book was called Godless.
Yeah, Estrich's is Ann Coulter in the right-wing church of hate.
But Susan Estrich, who can't, be kind, Rush.
We're all human beings here and we're aging.
She tries to dress up as Ann Coulter, hairstyle, black, short, slinky, shoulderless, well, straps dress.
And it doesn't work.
And she's here on Fox.
She's done some of her eyes.
Eyes look like Pelosi's now.
They're just wide open constantly.
And she's done her hair to look like Ann Coulter.
A couple other things to look like Ann Coulter?
What would you be?
Oh, a couple of other things.
What are you pointing at?
Oh, yeah.
There they got the side-by-side book.
The Church of Liberalism, Godless, The Church of whatever.
Just a total ripoff.
What does that tell you?
It's common when liberals can't win and talk radio, they have to do a copycat, or when they can't win with all the other media they have, they have to go copycat talk radio, and they prove they can't do that.
Their own books, their books, the Frank Rich books, whoever, don't sell enough to fill a thimble.
And so, what do they have to do to try to sell books?
Come out and emulate conservatives.
So, Susan Estrich has obviously checked her character and her integrity at the door in order to write a book in doing an exact ripoff.
And some people might find it funny and clever, but the way I interpret this is they're so bugged, they are so frustrated, they're so flummoxed.
They've got NPR, the three networks, the big newspapers, and they still can't dominate, they don't think, opinion media and the new media.
So, they have to copy, carbon copy, and be who they aren't.
I just think this is all a positive sign, ladies and gentlemen.
I did not get to one subject in this segment I intended to get to.
I will do that in the next segment.
We will get to your phone calls.
Ha, back we are.
EIB Network, your phone calls coming soon.
Look at this, Snerdley.
Look at this: the International Herald Tribune.
It's actually a story from the New York Times by Tom Shanker.
U.S. Ready's a possible blockade.
First suggested on this program Monday, ladies and gentlemen.
U.S. Ready.
This is of North Korea.
All right.
I want to go back to this Foley business for two reasons.
I don't want this to die on the vine here.
The Democrats, I don't know how they're going to handle this if they're going to try to keep this alive, or the media will, no doubt, for ratings.
But we have discussed so far the Washington Post story today that the way I read it, it's inescapable.
There were two Democrat operatives shopping Foley emails, not the instant messages, the emails for almost a year or nine months before they hit, shopping them to the media, hoping that the media would run the stories.
The media didn't run the stories.
They still held on to these emails.
They did not, the Democrat operatives did not do anything to protect the children, nothing of the sort.
And now they're out there demanding Denny Hastert and the Republicans resign over what they did or didn't know.
And yet, two Democratic operatives and media, such as the St. Petersburg Times, the Miami Herald, and now we learn today, Harper's Magazine, also knew of these.
They didn't think they were any big deal.
Brian Ross didn't either, as far back as last August.
Now, just because they were shopped around six or nine months ago does not mean that the sources, the Democratic operatives, wanted them to be published right away.
They could have shopped them around with the hope that they would be held for use as an October surprise.
After all, ABC held the story since August.
Ryan Ross held the story since August, waited until a few days ago, took a couple weeks ago to unleash it.
Question that I have is: why aren't the media trying to find out who these Democrat operatives were or are and who else they spoke to?
I mean, you think they just shut down after the newspapers in Florida and Harper's refused to run the story?
I think they just went, okay, well, we gave it our best shot, and we're going home.
Who else did they try to convince to run this stuff?
Why is there no curiosity about whether these Democrat operatives spoke to Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean or Rahm Emmanuel or Chuck Schumer and the rest of them?
I mean, I know this is a speculation, but what's easier to believe that Democrat operatives did not take this to high operative sources in the Democratic Party?
They only took it to the media.
Now, you know, folks on this program, we like Howard Kurtz.
What are we talking about?
At any rate, Sterdley asked me a question about some guy in a suit, and I don't see anybody anywhere.
The bottom line here is that, well, Howard Kurtz is a guy that we've always done business with.
He's been fair, and I like Howard Kurtz.
I've met him.
I've talked to him a couple of times, email exchanges back and forth, but he has something in the paper today that I just can't let go by.
I'm not sure that I even understand it.
It's about the Foley mess.
And he says, I have to chuckle when I hear Republican operatives moaning that the Democrats would spend two years tying up Bush with investigations and subpoenas.
Howard, does it really only occur to you from Republican operatives?
Have you not watched what John Conyers has been doing?
He's already been setting the stage.
He's already been doing these mock hearings that don't have any official weight.
Republican operatives moaning that Democrats would spend two years tying up Bush with investigations and subpoenas.
Kurtz writes, does anyone remember the endless Whitewater probes or the year that Republicans spent investigating Bill Clinton's sex life, resulting in a party line vote to impeach him?
Yeah, I know it was about the lying, not the sex, but some of those supporting the impeachment brigades now argue that we shouldn't trouble ourselves about who knew what and when regarding Mark Foley's predatory behavior.
Now, when I read this, I wasn't sure how to take this.
I don't know, he doesn't recognize sarcasm and irony when people like me, and I don't know who he's talking to, it's not me, but when people like me say that why should we investigate Foley?
It's just about sex.
I mean, it's a private fair.
He didn't conduct having to do with the way he did his job.
Everybody lies about sex.
It's nobody's business.
When we say that, do they not get the irony?
I guess they don't.
They don't get the sarcasm.
And he's concerned here that Republican operatives are moaning Democrats would spend two years tying up Bush with investigations and subpoenas.
Don't they remember what happened to Clinton for?
Can we review what happened here?
Clinton actually had sex with an intern.
Howard, Clinton actually obstructed a criminal investigation.
Howard, he used his office to encourage other people to obstruct that investigation.
Howard, he lied about it under oath to both a federal grand jury and a federal judge during deposition.
He lied about it to the American people and he refused to resign.
How do you compare Clinton to Foley?
That is a joke.
Foley did none of what I just recited other than resign.
See, the big lie here is that, you know, the Drive-By media forgives Clinton for all of this because they say, well, he was forced to do it because of the relentless pursuit of Republicans.
It was only about sex.
It was only about sex.
Everybody lies about sex.
He was trying to protect his family.
He's trying to protect Monica, trying to protect, of course he had to lie about sex.
And it was honorable.
Then we got stories about how little white lies are good.
They're helpful.
And this, of course, is the big lie because Bill Clinton was sued in a civil case.
And that's the reason all of this came out.
They were trying to show pattern and practice of conduct in that lawsuit.
If he had just settled it, Hillary didn't want to settle with Paula Jones.
He wanted to beat that trailer trash into the ground once and for all, could have settled it, been done with it.
It would have never happened.
The rest of it would have never happened.
But they had to search and show pattern and practice of conduct.
So Clinton tried to fix the lawsuit.
He got caught by the Landmark Legal Foundation in the process.
He was held in contempt by a federal judge.
He never challenged that contempt.
Now, if it was a personal matter, as we heard then and here now, then all the sexual assault cases where there is litigation are personal matters, and it's nobody else's business.
And that's the logic.
Of course, it's impossible to count all the women that Clinton abused from rape to simple assault because all of that is private.
I get, has any page come forward and said that Foley sexually assaulted them?
So I don't understand, Howard.
I mean, I love your work.
You're great on television.
I don't understand why it is you to compare Foley and Clinton is absurd.
It's a joke.
And then to laugh at potential investigations of Bush, what the hell has Bush done?
That is criminal.
Somebody tell me what Bush has done to warrant impeachment investigations or hearings.
What in the they are trying, Howard, to criminalize conservative and Republican policy.
And that's why they're as concerned about this.
And they're trying to shut down the last two years of Bush's agenda.
Well, that's politics, fair game, and so forth.
I mean, that was, that stands to reason that they would want to do that.
But to do it on the basis of trying to put the guy in jail or impeach him, convict him of war crimes or some sort, where is the, to, to, to say that there's any comparison between Clinton and Bush 43 and Mark Foley?
See, that's how the big lie works.
Foley emails virtual email internet sex, gets caught, quits.
He does not go on television and lie about it.
He doesn't ask everybody else to.
He doesn't try to fix the investigation.
He doesn't accuse the pages of being a bunch of bimbos and bimbets.
He doesn't drag them through the mud like they did Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.
He quit.
He left, took his medicine, went wherever he went.
They say rehab.
Fine, he's gone.
How you can make this comparison is beyond me.
Margaret in Seattle, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Megadittos, Rush.
Thank you.
Regarding the missile defense system, hopefully people realize that these systems are not ready to go overnight.
It takes many years of development, test, and retest failures before we've got anything that we can implement.
Two points, Rush, I'd like to make.
Number one, thank God for Ronald Reagan, who got us started with Star Wars in the 80s, which was a front runner to what we call missile defense today.
Point number two, I remember at the time that the Democrats were absolutely outraged with Reagan.
They tried to make him out to be a crackpot.
Not only was the system too expensive and it won't work, but do you remember the other point was we don't need it.
Now here we sit with North Korea's situation.
And the one last thing I'd like to say is we need to keep implementing, excuse me, funding missile defense, which is another good reason to keep the Democrats out of the House in November and also to keep them out of the White House in 08.
And those are my comments.
I appreciate your calling, Margaret.
Yeah, they did worse than say it wouldn't work.
They made fun of it and laughed at it.
But that's, Margaret, you have to understand it's very typical.
Big ideas to Democrats have no chance.
They are the doom and gloomers.
How many of you in your lives, your personal lives, have family members or friends who, whenever they hear of a scheme, you've got an idea, a grand vision, or a dream, laugh at you.
You can't do that.
Who are you kidding?
Something like that.
That's the Democrats when it comes to grand ideas for the country.
Can't work.
It's not good.
Right now, right now, well, not today, but yesterday, when the talk of war with North Korea was bubbling up out there, our old buddies, the Democrats, came through predictably again why we wouldn't have a chance against those troops.
North Korean, oh, they are fed well, they are trained, they are machines.
That's all Kim Jong-il cares about.
Get the body bags ready.
We can't beat any enemy.
We shouldn't even try, therefore.
If JFK were president today, we hadn't been to the moon and said we're going to the moon.
Democrats would be the ones they can't do it.
His own party would be the one to say they can't do it.
They laughed at it, impugned it, made fun of it.
But the interesting thing is now, Ellen Tosher on CS Man Today coming out and saying Democrats have always been for this.
I'll tell you, like I said yesterday, they are in such a state of disarray.
There's just no reporting on it.
There's no mention of it.
But you've got to believe me, they are.
They're an absolute mess.
They are not confident of this election in November or in 08.
Not like they want you to believe, not like the press wants you to believe they are.
They are not at all.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
All right.
Quick question, ladies and gentlemen.
What is the latest must-have Hollywood accessory?
Think about it.
Oh, come on.
All you got to do is read the news to know what this is.
The latest Hollywood accessory, must-have.
Oh, let me give you some help.
I'll just read the headline of the story.
Madonna adopts African Boy, Village Chief says.
Pop star Madonna adopting a one-year-old African boy who has lived in an orphanage since losing his mother shortly after birth.
The chief of the Malawi village where the boy is from made this announcement today.
So, you know, Brad Jolina, what are they there?
Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, they're out there doing their share.
I mean, it's a trend.
Keep a sharp eye.
It might.
What I say offend you?
I don't mean it to be offensive.
I'm sorry if anybody's offended.
Yeah, Rosie O'Donnell, she'd be next.
She's going to be in line.
I don't mean to offend anybody.
I look at folks.
I'm on a cutting-edge societal evolution.
I spot trends.
I see what's happening.
All right.
TJ, Norwich, Connecticut.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Goddos, Rush.
Hey, you said earlier about Ned Lamont saying in some sort of interview on the TV that we should just go ahead and attack Iran.
No, no, no, no.
Let me play the bite for you.
I said he stunned Chris Matthews when he said that he might support a military option being used in Iran.
Chris Matthews talking to Ned Lament, the Democrat Senate candidate from Connecticut.
Matthews says, would you ever, and Matthews shocked here at this answer, would you ever, under any circumstances, as a senator, should you get elected, support a military attack on Iran?
Look, always the military options on the table.
Really?
Things you fight?
You really think you might support an attack on Iran and what that would mean?
A war with a major country in the Middle East like Iran.
You would actually support that.
Under some circumstances.
Right now, this president's at fault because we're not in direct diplomacy with Iran.
We're not in direct diplomacy with Syria.
When that happens, we don't isolate those countries.
We isolate the United States of America.
Oh, my God.
So he comes out, he says, you heard it, TJ.
He comes and says, yeah, I'd support military option in Iran.
Chris Matthews can't believe it.
You're rude.
Yeah, major country.
And so he has to backtrack, start blaming Bush.
Now, the question I've got, Rush, is, is this behavior normal of most liberals, or is this just indicative of Northeastern liberals?
It's pretty indicative.
It covers the gamut.
Well, because the thing is, I mean, he's sitting here running for U.S. Senate here in Connecticut.
And he's telling us out of one side of his mouth, no, we need to get out of the war in Iraq.
We need to get out of Iraq.
We need to get out of Iraq.
You know, but then he'll address members of our local submarine base or local members of the National Guard.
You guys are doing an outstanding job.
This is great.
I'm proud of you.
And then, you know, he changes his mind more than the average American changes there anyway, really.
Well, there's a reason for this.
Now, in Lement's case, you know, he's not a seasoned politician, so this could just be diarrhea of the mouth in his case.
But in a lot of, I think, let's hypothetically assume that this answer was something that he was prepared to give, that he was not surprised by the question.
I think the Democrats are cringing.
There have to be.
When you look at Torsher on C-SPAN today, when you look at Heath Schuler running around as a pro-gun, pro-lifer, as a liberal Democrat in North Carolina, when you have lament holding out the possibility he would support,
for whatever reason, Bush's adaptor, what have you, military incursion into Iran, it tells me that they have internal polling that is showing they are weak as can be on this and that this anti-war thing may not be playing.
And it could also be that the anti-war thing on Iraq plays, but nowhere else.
Ahmadinejad was just here along with Hugo Chavez.
These guys made some pretty inflammatory statements.
And Ahmadinejad is openly talking about the end of the world.
The media won't ask him about it, but he's talking about it on his watch in the next two to three years.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Check this email.
Dear Rush just rejoined EIB after wife-imposed exile.
Great to be back.
I wonder if he's still married.
▲
Export Selection