All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
November 13, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I'm wondering if over the weekend I fell asleep for two years.
Because I wake up today and I turn on the television and I could swear that Nancy Pelosi and Carl Levin are president and vice president.
I mean, they're telling us what's going to happen in Iraq.
They're telling us what's going to happen.
Well, they're not talking about immigration.
I find that interesting.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you with us.
We've got broadcast excellent straight ahead.
Three big hours here on the one and only EIB network, El Rush Ball, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies at your service.
The telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
A lot of big news here today.
One of the big stories is how Nancy Pelosi has thrown her hat in a ring for Jack Mirtha to be the, what is the title?
I'm not even sure the title.
The majority leader.
Now, Steny Hoyer is from Maryland and has been an ally of Pelosi's for a while, although Mirtha was her campaign manager, essentially, when she herself sought the majority leader position in the House.
Now it is tradition that speakers stay out of the contests where their members elect majority leader and caucus and whip and all this sort of stuff.
And there's supposedly now a fracture in the unity of last week after the Democrat victory because Pelosi has issued this letter supporting Mirtha.
She's also going to kick Jane Harmon off the intelligence committee.
There's personal animus there and it goes way.
I've forgotten what the story is.
I've forgotten what the person who talked about it even a month ago before the election, but I've forgotten what about Jane Harmon's gone and Alcy Hastings may be back in the scene talking about the culture corruption.
Here's a guy who was impeached as a federal judge for lying, fraud, extortion, whatever it all is.
He might now become a leader in the Democratic House, which figures.
Intelligence Committee chair.
Oh, yeah, Alce Hastings, Intelligence Committee Chair.
Wright.
That's what makes it so incredible.
Replacing Jane Harmon.
That's a name being bandied about.
At any rate, I find, I don't understand the tradition.
I don't know why it is traditional that speakers don't get involved in the race for their underlings who are essentially on the speaker's team.
But this apparently is fracturing the Democrats a bit.
I think the report of the fracture is way overblown about Stenny Hoyer.
The guy was a machine during the campaign.
He was traveling all over the place helping Democrat candidates campaign.
I think he went to 37 states.
It was clear that he was setting himself up to gain the favor of people in the vote coming up to be Nancy Pelosi's number two.
And she's just thrown her hat in a ring for Mirtha.
They are going to be who they are.
And some people are saying, you know, it's not normal for the speaker to get this partisan.
Well, these are Democrats.
These are liberals.
What do you mean it's not normal for these people to get partisan?
Some of this stuff is just frankly absurd.
I know that Pelosi thinks that Harmon hasn't been tough enough on Bush on intelligence matters and she's too moderate, but there's some personal stuff here, too.
And I just forget what it is.
And, you know, they're both from California.
One's from Northern California.
One's from Southern California.
Jane Harmon's husband is the Harmon of Harmon Cardinal, the stereo moguls, speakers and so forth.
So she doesn't need the money.
She doesn't need the gig.
Then this popped up on Saturday, and this has everybody in a tizzy.
A top U.S. intelligence official has been meeting with Middle East counterparts to discuss proposals expected from the Baker Commission on Iraq, Middle East sources have told Newsday.
The proposals reportedly include an approach to Iran and Syria, a policy that Robert Gates, a member of the commission, has argued for.
Gates, former CIA chief, longtime protégé of the Bush family, is, as you know, President Bush's choice to replace Rumsfeld over at the Pentagon.
Rarely has a government report been more eagerly awaited than the one being prepared by Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton about how the U.S. can leave Iraq.
You know, that's strange.
I thought the idea was to win there.
What happened over the weekend when I was asleep and out playing golf?
All of a sudden, now the policy is how to leave.
Well, hey, folks, who was it that was talking about this during the campaign?
They are going to cut and run.
That's who they are.
They're the cut and run Democrats, and they're going to get out.
And now we've got this Baker Commission.
I don't even know if this, they haven't released anything official.
This is a leak from somewhere.
This has to be a leak from somewhere.
And I couldn't begin to tell you who, but if I had my, if I had to guess, I would say this is a leak from somewhere, somebody close to this commission trying to make sure that what they are going to report gets accepted.
And to put it out there before it's actually released, they're expected, the group's recommendations are expected to be completed by December.
This takes us to Carl Levin.
I watched him on television this morning at a press conference announcing what his priorities are going to be as chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate.
Yesterday he was on, what was it, Storff's Stephanopoulos' show on ABC, and the question was, Senator Levin, your leader, Senator Harry Reid, said that the Democrats' first order of business will be investigating Iraq.
Is that your first order of business?
First order of business, I believe, is to join hopefully with some Republicans who I think now will emerge to press the administration to change course in Iraq by telling the Iraqis that our presence there is not open-ended and that as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months.
Four to six months.
And I'll tell you, when you listen to these guys, there's a person who remains glaringly irrelevant to them, and that's the president, George W. Bush.
So they're making all these plans now to get out in four to six weeks.
And you have this Baker Commission report, details of which are being leaked when the report's not even due until December.
And there's a lot of stuff in this leak that, if it's true, is disturbing, that we're meeting, we're going to have Iran and Syria.
And by the way, this is not the first time this stuff is leaked.
They're leaking it a bunch of times in order to set this up and get it established in the public mindset that that's what's going to be said so that when it is officially released, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, good idea.
That's exactly what we thought was going to happen.
So instead of the plan being oriented toward victory and how we can win in Iraq, we now are going to discuss, have a plan presented on how to get out of there.
The commission's discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the U.S. concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.
So we're going to give up, basically.
Apparently, according to the leak, the Baker Commission is going to recommend finding ways to get out of there because we can't win.
In fact, not only we can't win, we can't even stabilize the situation.
So we've got to make plans to retreat.
Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, reportedly has come to agree with what is expected to be the most controversial of recommendations from the Baker Group that the United States approach Iran and in tandem with Israel approach Syria to help with Iraq, according to a source familiar with Negroponte's thinking.
Okay, I'm lost.
I have to admit, folks, I'm not qualified as above my pay grade.
Why in the world you have make a deal with Iran and Syria to help us get out of Iraq?
Oh, boy.
This is just, oh, boy.
I'll tell you, I just, I can't, I can't get over this.
Welcome back, by the way, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man here on the EIB network.
Listen to this.
And this is from the story of the Iraq study group.
And I mean, this thing is so detailed, they may as well release it.
I mean, this is one humdinger of a leak.
Listen to this.
While the Bush administration is not expected to drop its opposition to a nuclear Iran, really, you mean that's even on the table?
While the Bush administration is not expected to drop its opposition to a nuclear Iran or even the threat of military action to prevent it, the Bush administration could offer limited security guarantees that America would not attack Iran from Iraq and will prevent an armed anti-Iranian militia in Iraq from causing trouble.
Now, wait, if we're getting out of Iraq, how in the name of Sam Hill can we attack from there?
And then it will prevent an armed anti-Iranian militia in Iraq from causing trouble.
You mean there's an anti-Iranian militia in Iraq?
I thought the militia, the insurgency, was anti-U.S.
Now we're being told there's a bunch of anti-Iranian feelings in Iraq.
Well, I mean, we've known that there always were.
The countries were at war for a time, but I thought the sole focus of evil over there was us.
Now we've got to guarantee, in addition to pulling out of there, we have to promise or guarantee that we're not going to attack Iran from Iraq and that we're going to do everything we can to make sure the anti-Iranians in Iraq don't do anything about their anti-ism.
Whether that would be enough to persuade Iran to be more helpful in Iraq, I can't believe I'm reading this.
The country that invents and builds the IEDs that are blowing everybody up.
Whether that would be enough to persuade Iran to be more helpful in Iraq is not clear, analysts say.
Iranian intelligence officials are sent to get this one.
Iranian intelligence officials are said to be very worried about a hasty U.S. pullout from Iraq and the resulting chaos in the wake of Tuesday's elections.
Now, wait a second.
It was just last week that the Iranians in Al-Qaeda and Hugo Chavez and everybody else were praising the Democrats, praising the American people for their vote.
And, you know, I was wondering if any of this embarrassed the Democrats.
I don't think it did, but had they been agreeing with me, had our number one enemies of the day been agreeing with me and praising my success, it would give me pause.
But now, all of a sudden, we're hearing stories in this leak about the Iraq study group that the Iranian intelligence agencies are said to be very worried about a precipitous U.S. pullout from Iraq and the resulting chaos in the wake of Tuesday's elections.
I don't know what kind of guarantees can we offer about the Iraqis.
If we can't stop those idiots from attacking us, how can we guarantee the Iranians that they're not going to attack them?
Folks, you know what this is?
This is a huge disconnect.
And if any of this is true, and believe me, I hope and pray that it's not, but I have my doubts.
I think it's pretty close, actually.
It just means that there's the biggest communication gap between the elites and real people that there has ever, ever been.
This is well, no, this is not pragmatism.
This is what's exactly what I mean.
This is what the elites say is pragmatism.
This is defeat, gift-wrapped.
This is admission of defeat.
This is not only are we going to cut and run and hightail out of there, we're going to admit that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place and that we're not capable of winning wars like this.
I'm not a neocon, not being a neocon here.
I'm simply reacting to what these people say.
There is nothing pragmatic about that.
Pragmatic pragmatism is simply boneheaded elitism.
These guys think they're smarter than everybody else in the room.
This is shockingly sad and disappointing.
I'll use their language.
This is not useful, ladies and gentlemen.
This is not helpful, this idea and this plan.
But it is what it is, and it will no doubt unfold before our very eyes in due course.
Now, about immigration, after the election last week, the White House let it be known that they were excited to get going, get going here on the amnesty and whatever else for all of the illegal immigrants in the country.
That was the one area where real compromise and bipartisanship with the Democrats was looked at as some sort of progress.
Here in the Washington Post today, Democrats may proceed with caution on immigration.
Yes, when it comes to immigration, things are never easy.
In the days after the election, the Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities.
Experts said the issue is so complicated and so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now.
And a number of Democrats took a hard line on illegal immigration, were also elected to Congress.
Now, wait a minute.
I remain confused again.
Or how can I remain?
I remain confused.
I got up confused.
I am more confused when I watch the news.
I am more confused when I read it.
And now I'm really confused because last week and over the weekend, I heard our guys, our pundits, saying that the position of strict border control and anti-amnesty was a loser.
I mean, the Weekly Standard's saying it, Fred Barnes and Ed Crowder saying it.
Even Michael Barone is saying it.
That it was a losing issue and that it's guaranteed to keep the Republicans a minority party if we don't grow up and understand the need.
Wall Street Journal, I mean, a decent size of the so-called conservative punditry has said essentially that one of the contributing factors to this massive defeat last week was the stridency, the nativism, the racism inherent in the anti-illegal or the illegal immigration policies that were espoused by conservatives.
Now, all of a sudden, if that were the case, you would think that the Democrats would be right in, ready to move in for the kill.
But no, today it's so complicated.
It's so sensitive.
It's so explosive that doing the wrong thing on this issue could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now.
Also, a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were elected to Congress.
So the conventional wisdom over the weekend, and actually before the election from the right-wing punditry elite, was that the Republican position on illegal immigration hurt the GOP.
Now, all of a sudden, the same position would hurt the Democrats, or their position would hurt the Democrats, when in fact, everybody is misreading this.
There's not only a disconnect with these people on the Baker Commission, there's a disconnect between the elites in Washington and everybody else on the issues that really matter to people.
Democrats had everybody believing that they were going to move fast on this.
They had the Council of La Razas all upset.
They don't understand this.
I mean, everybody was waiting for the Democrats to call a meeting with President Bush yesterday to get up there, plan the legislation to make amnesty permanent and relax border security, don't build the fence and all.
Now, the Democrats want to back off from this.
It's almost like the Democrats are afraid that if they do what everybody expects them to do, that it'll put the Republicans back in power.
What is that?
If the Democrats grant amnesty, work with the president, grant amnesty, and all of that, then that'll put the Republicans back in the power.
Yet our own punditry says that's why we're out of power.
Strange days indeed, ladies and gentlemen.
Here's a quick call here from Donna in Westchester County in New York.
Donna, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Yes.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, thank you.
I'm a first-time caller.
I'm a little nervous, but I first of all want to thank you for everything you do.
Because of you, for the first time in my life, I feel like an intelligent, smart person.
So thank you so much.
Well, you're more than welcome.
I know how happy it can be to think of yourself as intelligent.
It's served me well my whole life.
It certainly did.
Rush, I'm a little bit upset with President Bush.
However, I do love the man 100%.
I would like to know, you know, listening to what you said about Jim Baker coming on board, what is it about the election that made George Bush think that we should now enlist the help of Iran and Syria, whom everybody that has a brain would know.
They are the problems there.
Wait, The president hasn't accepted this yet.
This is the Baker Commission.
And it's obviously a leak, and it may be a leak intended to force the president's hand, but he hasn't accepted that yet.
These are people trying to influence the president.
He asked them for this report, and it said he's going to accept what they want.
So we'll see.
Tickling those 88s and having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, El Rushbo serving humanity.
With half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair, here on the one and only EIB network.
One thing, the last caller from Westchester County, what was her name, HR?
Never mind.
Donna, that's right.
Why would Bush accept a plan that asks Syria and Iran for help?
You might ask, why would Bush, after being so firm in his insistent to not leave Iraq until there's victory, all of a sudden do a 180?
And I, you know, you look at the election returns, and if you look at the interviews with people who have voted, it seems like Iraq was one of the big issues in the election, and that people are tired of it, and they want to get out of there.
And it's the president said people have spoken.
That might explain why he is taking a reversal on this, although he hasn't yet.
And that takes me back to this Baker Commission report.
You know, this is not the first leak.
There have been many of these leaks.
This one is just more detailed than any of the leaks prior.
I don't even know if they have anything written down formally.
The report's not due till December.
Now, there are many reasons for leaks.
One reason for leaks is to object for somebody on the inside who objects to what's going on in the committee, leak it so that people find out what kind of outrageous stuff is being talked about, thought of, maybe recommended.
Another reason for leak is to have trial balloon, to put it out there in some detail and gauge reaction to it before it's released.
And that's sort of like gutless.
I mean, you got a commission, and a commission is charged with coming up with a plan, and the commission comes up with a plan, and somebody there leaks it to get a reaction to it.
Hey, come up with a plan, come up with a plan.
But there are any number of reasons for these kinds of leaks.
And it could well be that this one is just out there to gauge public reaction to it.
The big thing, the two big things in this story, in this leak, are that we're abandoning any idea, any premise of victory, that we're just going to get out of there, and that we're going to guarantee Iran that we won't attack them from Iraq.
And that we're going to try to make sure that Iranian groups, Iranian people are not attacked by Iraqi insurgents who don't like the Iranians inside Iraq.
And then I guess that we're going to discuss ways we can be helped in this by the two countries that are really stoking the fire, Syria and Iran.
Ron in Corpus Christi, Texas, you're next, sir.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
I just wanted to comment on Pelosi getting behind Mertha for the majority leadership.
She said earlier this week the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open, and the most ethical Congress in history.
And to me, that just doesn't square.
Because I tell you, I told your call screener, I'm the guy that discovered the AB scam tape, the full tape, and I went to the American Spectator.
And this guy has been misleading people about his involvement in AB scam and what's on the tape for years, and he still is.
When the tape came out, he went out and lied and lied again.
He turned on two fellow congressmen who survived, testified against them.
He went to the ethics committee and misled them, and he got by on a 6'6 vote from being expelled.
He's been involved in his corruption is legendary.
It's legendary.
He supported the Osprey, which is a disaster, and both Bush and Clinton were against that.
And he gets his biggest contributions from Bell, Helicopter, and Boeing.
And, you know, there have been four fatal crashes.
And he says things are tough.
Those things happen.
You know, this guy, they want to put him in the leadership.
It just doesn't square with me.
It just doesn't.
Well, the Democrats being in the leadership doesn't square with me, any of them.
Democrats winning the election doesn't square with me, but they did.
And so we've got to deal with it.
Anybody who believes these guys are going to be corrupt-free, ethically pure, is just silly.
I don't think anybody buys that or believes that.
And by the way, Pelosi is promising from this day forward.
She's not talking about assembling people who are free of corruption in their past.
It's just her way of contrasting it.
That's just a slam on the Republicans.
That's all that is.
And, you know, they all have their own scandal problems.
I've got a story here about Harry Reid.
In fact, let me get to that right now.
Thanks for the call out there, Ron.
And we played that Mirtha tape.
But as I was, I must tell you, you people who are not watching on the Ditto Cam couldn't see this.
Those of you watching on the Ditto Cam could.
When Ron was going through this litany of things about Mirth, I'm just shrugging my shoulders.
So what?
Too late now.
Everybody gave it their best shot, try to dislodge the guy, but it is what it is.
There are certain realities that have to be accepted.
Now, one of the things that we are told that caused independents and moderates to leave the Republican Party and vote Democrats was pork.
Earmarks.
Excessive spending, right?
And there's a lot of people that believe that.
So two stories here.
Let's see.
Is it two or just?
Yeah, two stories.
Both in, interestingly enough, the Los Angeles Times.
Will the pork stop here?
Meaning, okay, now the Democrats are in charge.
Is the pork going to stop?
What an absurd question.
Who was it that invented pork?
Robert Byrd is the king of pork.
He's still in the Senate.
He is a Democrat.
Anybody who thinks this is going to end is silly.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry vows to make reforms of congressional earmarks a priority of his tenure, arguing that members need to be more transparent when they load pet projects for their districts into federal spending bills.
But get this: last year's $286 billion federal transportation bill included a little not little noticed slice of pork pushed by Harry Reid himself that provided benefits not only for the casino town of Laughlin, Nevada, but also possibly for the senator himself.
Reed called funding for a construction of a bridge over the Colorado River, among other projects, incredibly good news for Nevada in a news release after passage of the 2005 transportation bill.
What he didn't mention, though, is that just across the Colorado River is Arizona.
And in Arizona, right across the bridge, Colorado River, Harry Reed owns 160 acres of land several miles from a proposed bridge site, and that the bridge could add value to his real estate investment.
So here's Dingy Harry, who just last year, just last year, or yeah, 2005, went out there and got involved in earmarks and had a bridge built over the Colorado River to some land that he owns in Arizona that's going to be developed now because his bridge is there.
And here he is today talking about how we need more transparency and we need all this other week.
More accountability for people to get engaged in pork projects.
Now, of course, Dingy Harry denies any personal financial interest in his efforts to secure $18 million for this new bridge connecting Laughlin, Nevada with Bullhead City, Arizona.
Senator Reed's support for the bridge had absolutely nothing to do with property he owns, said Rebecca Kersner, Reed's communication director.
Of course not.
Why would we even think that it did?
After all of the real estate deals that Dingy Harry has maneuvered and massaged and managed for his own benefit in and around Las Vegas, why would we suspect that Dingy Harry earmarking money for a bridge across a river to some property he owns would have anything personal attached to it?
However, some bullhead city Arizona property owners and local officials, I love some of the names in Arizona of towns just blow me away.
Bullhead City.
One of my favorite names of a town anywhere is Sholo.
Sholo, Arizona.
And they just got some great names for towns in that state, Winslow.
At any rate, some Bullhead City property owners and local officials say a new bridge will undoubtedly raise land values in an already booming commuter town where speculators are snapping up undeveloped land for housing development and other projects.
Experts on congressional spending say that Dingy Harry's earmark provides yet another sign of the need for reform.
Don't make me laugh.
There's not going to be reform on any of this.
The Congress has been spending money out the wazoo since before any of us were born.
It is their job.
And anybody who expects that they're going to spend less is naive.
It's just, they'll go through the motions of trying to make you think that they're going to come up with legislation to make all these earmarks transparent.
But at the end of the day, it's just like tax reform, serious tax reform.
It isn't going to happen.
Not with this current crop.
Not with this current crop of people there who live and breathe on the tradition of what the House and the Senate's primary job is, which is spending money.
When I read that Harry Reid pledges to address his pork, I may as well be reading that Harry Reid is going to support tax cuts.
Both are not going to happen.
And then this.
Also in the Los Angeles Times, Speaker to be Pelosi, no stranger to earmarking.
Turns out that Dingy Harry has nothing on Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi has helped direct tens of millions of dollars to subway and bridge projects in San Francisco.
She has secured money to restore a historic schooner and convert the old San Francisco Mint into a history museum.
Citizens Against Government Waste, a critic of such pork barrel spending, has calculated Pelosi's district received nearly $31.3 million through earmarks in the last two fiscal years.
And of course, it was Ms. Pelosi among those assailing Republicans' use of the practice of earmarking all during the campaign while bringing $31 million home in earmarks to San Francisco at the same time.
Quick time out.
Back with more in just a sec, folks.
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
The most listened to radio talk show in America for a reason.
It's the best one.
We are here at 800-282-2882.
You know what?
I'm going to leak something to the Iraq Study Commission.
Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton and these guys, why stop at asking Syria and Iran to help us out?
Why not go all the way?
Ask the North Koreans for some assistance in this.
After all, they have relationships with Iran.
There are all kinds of weapons technology transfers going back and forth.
Bring Hugo Chavez in.
Hugo Chavez, an enlightened world leader, understands the evil that exists in the United States, understands how we are the problem in the world, as do the North Koreans, as do the Syrians and the Iranians.
By the way, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again essentially said that Israel is illegitimate and won't last long.
Ho-hum is the reaction, needs the oil price back up, I'm sure is partly behind that, but he also means it.
And we're going to get out of the region here as quickly as we can.
But if we're going to get help from Iran and Syria, why not ask the North Koreans what they think?
Let's make it a giant big party.
And we had the guy from Corpus Christi who gave us the litany on Jack Mirtha and the AB scam.
And we played a portion of his audio, the audio that he dug up where Mirtha was offered a bribe and said, not now, but stay in touch.
If the Republicans had any masculinity, they would demand the Mirtha file be opened up immediately.
This guy's being posited here as a member of the Democrat leadership.
I will guarantee you that if the Republicans had won and somebody on the Republican team had a past like Mirtha does, the Democrats would be demanding everything about this guy be known before he's going to the media with it and they would leak it and they would get it out and they would try to destroy whoever.
Republicans are running around acting like a bunch of whipped puppies.
And in the meantime, old Henry Waxman is so excited he can't figure out who to investigate first.
He was asked over the weekend about this and a Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration's running of the government.
And this is AP, and they can't, they're just so excited to write this stuff.
He says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing.
His biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.
There's Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq.
That's Halliburton.
Homeland Security, political interference in regulatory decisions by the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, allegations of war profiteering.
He says, I'm going to have an interesting time because the government reform committee has jurisdiction over everything.
The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose.
So Waxman sharpening his knives, Democrats getting ready to do everything.
And Dingy Harry reiterated over the weekend, the first order of business oversight.
Investigations, subpoenas.
They don't even need subpoenas.
Waxman goes on to say, I don't need subpoenas.
I can investigate all I want.
We only get subpoenaed people who refuse to testify, but if we need to use subpoenas, we will.
Meanwhile, the Democrats might put Alcey Hastings in charge of the House Intelligence Committee.
He's got a sorted past.
Murtha does as well.
And it's, you know, ho-hum, yawn, another day at the city.
Justin in Austin, Texas.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Oh, yeah.
Thank you, Rush.
Megha Ditto's from Austin.
Thank you.
I wanted to try to take you off the topic, but I wanted to ask real quick, I'm going to go up to D.C. on Thursday, and I wanted to know about, I know you're speaking on Thursday.
I want to know what you were speaking about and how long you were going to speak for, you know, things like that.
Why, if I give you the wrong answers, are you not leaving Austin?
Just going to stay home?
No, definitely not.
Are you flying in?
You're flying into Washington from Austin to attend this Rush to Excellence performance at the Warner Theater.
Yes, you are.
All right.
Well, I have to be honest about what am I going to speak?
I have no clue.
I don't decide these things until the day before.
I wait till the last minute based on the latest news.
I mean, there'll be some themes.
There always are some themes, and I try to incorporate some funny stories from past events on this program as an illustration of my philosophy toward doing the program.
It generally goes, once I get started, I lose track of time.
Sometimes it goes two hours, sometimes an hour and a half, and nobody gets up and leaves.
If I saw people get up and leave, I would know when to quit, but nobody does.
So you can count on it being worth your time.
I promise you that.
It's not going to be.
You're worried that you're coming up to see a 20-minute speech, probably, right?
Well, yeah, a little bit.
I'm going to, I've got one of my girlfriends.
I'm going to bring her.
She's on the opposite end of the, she's pretty, she's a liberal.
All.
Oh, are you?
An uninformed liberal, and I'm going to do my best to try to get it.
How many girlfriends do you have?
And how do you shoot?
One.
I've just got one.
I've just got what?
Okay, well, you're going to bring one of your girlfriends.
All right, well, you're going to have a great time if you're showing up with a liberal female girlfriend of yours.
That helps.
I might include you in my remarks.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
In fun.
In fun, of course.
Not by name.
In fun.
Have you seen the Drive-By-Media's new theme here?
Father knows best.
43 goes to daddy for advice.
The thing they don't tell you is they hated 41 just as much and thought he was just as big and incompetent as they think Bush 43 is.
▲
Export Selection