All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
November 14, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, look at this, folks.
The Iranian strongman, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today, earlier today, that Iran would soon celebrate completion of its nuclear fuel program and claim the international community was ready to accept it as a nuclear state.
He then said that Israel has no right to exist, but hey, what's the big deal?
We're going to ask these guys for help, along with Syria in Iraq.
If we take my advice, we'll also ask the North Koreans to chime in, maybe give us some assistance.
Greetings.
And welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are.
Another three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Yep, the Iran nuclear program near complete.
Good news in America.
And try this.
This is from Al-CNN.
The headline alone, gunmen grab up to 150 from Baghdad Research Institute.
Gunmen, clad in Iraqi national police uniforms, kidnapped between 100 and 150 people at a government research institute in Baghdad Tuesday.
You mean they got a government research institute going over there?
I thought the place was burning up to hell.
Anyway, is that what it is?
It's a stem cell research.
They're looking at stem cell, embryonic stem cell research in cloning.
They're looking at cloning over in Iraq.
Oh, man, how far they've advanced.
Well, but why the use of the word gunman?
I mean, these are terrorists, aren't they?
This is Al-CNN.
Gunmen, bombers, kidnappers, gunmen, gunmen.
Every word here possible to describe these guys.
Bombers, gunmen, kidnapping.
You don't find the word terrorist in this story.
Hmm.
I guess there aren't any terrorists now that we're getting out.
You see what the Democrats are doing to Jack Murtha?
They're swiftboating the guy.
This is incredible, ladies and gentlemen.
Here for the Washington Post.
In backing Mirtha, Pelosi draws fire.
Her ethics vow is questioned.
House Speaker Designate Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of John Murthy's bid to become the House Majority Leader set off a furor yesterday on Capitol Hill, critics charging she's undercutting her pledge to clean up corruption by backing a veteran lawmaker who says, they say, has repeatedly skirted ethical boundaries.
You know, this is the fight between Steny Hoyer, who'll probably win this thing anyway, and Mirtha.
But I mean, this group crew that came out, they were involved in all kinds of charges against Republicans during the campaign.
Our old buddy Melanie Sloan says Pelosi's endorsement suggests she's interested in the culture corruption only as a campaign issue, has no real interest in true reform.
Crew is identified here in the Washington Post as a Democrat-leaning group.
Really?
It's amazing what kind of honesty you can get after the election in all quarters.
It is shocking to me that someone with Mirtha's ethics problem could be number two in the House leadership.
Now, an issue here is Mirtha's relationship with two defense lobbyists, Paul Magnioketi of the PMA group, a former aide to Mirtha, and Robert Kitt Murtha is his brother, and was a senior partner at KSA Consulting from 2002 to 2005.
He gave all kinds of donations and cross money, changing hands, earmarks for influence and so forth.
Talked about the AB scam case.
Say Murtha was not indicted.
His conduct was cleared, but he did meet with FBI agents posing as Arab sheikhs.
And after refusing bribes on several occasions, appeared to leave open the possibility of I guess this is not enough to campaign against the guy as a member of Congress.
It just he can't be a member of the Democrat leadership now.
He's not that corrupt.
He can have all these corrupt deals and still get elected to Congress.
Nobody's going to say anything about this before the election.
But woe and behold, when they're going to talk about making him number two in the House of Representatives on the Democrats, well, we can't have that.
So there's a certain level of corruption the Democrats will accept and tolerate and even promote.
But when they try to get too high up in the Democrat administration, they're swiftboating the guy.
Democrats are swiftboating Jack Murtha after the election.
And then the Los Angeles Times, Janet Hook power struggles unravel Democrat unity.
Pelosi may have another problem.
As the crop of freshly elected Democrats, including many younger ones who campaigned to the right of the party line, came to Capitol Hill for orientation Monday.
They encountered a leadership dominated by mostly liberal old school Democrats.
Well, who was it that predicted this was going to happen?
Cardoza, a leader of the conservative coalition in the House known as the Blue Dogs, warned that Democrat cohesion would suffer if the liberals in line to head many of the chamber's key committees don't take party moderates into account.
We have to try to build a consensus.
It's not going to be an automatic top-down way, or we'll have conflict on the floor.
These guys better be careful, you know, or they're going to be two-year wonders.
But anyway, so now all of a sudden, right-of-center new Democrats are getting their first look at, well, come on.
Who do they think we are at the Los Angeles Times?
Are we to believe that these neophyte conservative Democrat candidates didn't know who was going to end up running the House if the Democrats won it?
This story is written as though these bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, eager beaver conservative Democrat freshmen arrived in Washington yesterday, time for their big orientation.
All of a sudden, Stubb discovered a bunch of socialists are going to run the place.
And now they're out issuing warnings to the socialists.
You guys, you guys better accept us.
We're the moderates in here.
Pelosi's credibility on reform could be damaged with Murtha.
That's also in this L.A. Times story, the same thing as the Washington Post.
Come on, you have to have taken her seriously about this in order for her credibility to be damaged.
When I hear a Democrat say, we're going to have whatever she is, the cleanest, the most ethically pure caucus in the House in the history of it.
Come on, take what these people say and expect the opposite.
I mean, for crying out loud, everybody's acting surprised.
Who in the world took her seriously?
Voters who voted for Robert Menendez, they take her seriously on corruption.
How about the voters that vote for Dingy Harry?
Did they take Nancy Pelosi serious on corruption?
How about the people who voted for Congress and William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana?
Did they take her seriously?
And then here in the Washington Post, a choice for Democrats, Stenny Hoyer should be the new House majority leader.
They refer to Murtha as, quote, a force against ethics.
So the Washington Post has given up George Allen now in the crosshairs.
It's Jack Murtha in the crosshairs.
He's qualified to be in Congress with all these sleazy deals.
He's qualified to be a Congressman from Pennsylvania.
And by the way, he's qualified to be the conscience of the House on the Democrats' cut and run and deployment strategy.
He's good enough and he's clean enough and he's pure enough to get the Democrats on the table as wanting out of Iraq.
But when he wants to go into the leadership, he's too corrupt.
Just can't.
They think they are fooling people with all this.
Quick time out.
We'll be back lots more straight ahead.
Today, the EIB network and El Rushboe, a brief pause, back before you know it.
I've been sitting here trying to think, how many years ago was it that I warned of this?
It has to be, we're into our 19th year, 19th year in the EIB network.
This has to date back to 89 or 90.
So basically, 16, 17 years ago.
It was during the often heated abortion debates.
And I remember saying, and many of you who have been with us from the outset will remember this as well.
I said that what's going to happen is we start deciding who lives and who dies based on the convenience of the living.
We're already aborting future liberals, as it turns out, because pregnancy is a disease.
It's an unwanted tissue mass.
In fact, it's a health risk.
I mean, all these arguments were advanced.
And then we started to see, you know, these elderly people that have these various diseases, especially diseases where they lose mental capacity.
They don't even know they're alive, and they're just burdening the healthcare system.
And we know that if they could tell us, they would prefer to be dead.
So we'll find a way to euthanize them.
And then this discussion expanded with all these new genetics discoveries, such as being able to discover Downs syndrome in the womb and present that option to parents.
Do you want a child with Down syndrome?
Do you want a child with autism?
Do you want these sorts of things?
And all of this, I cautioned, I said, we're going to need a whole batch of really quality ethics people in medicine and science to deal with these things because it's going to, I remember my exact words, it isn't going to be long before you get pregnant and you go to the OBGYN and he tells you, well, we've just done the tests and your son is going to have a tendency to be overweight, have freckles, and have red hair.
And the parent wouldn't want to do that to a child.
Overweight and red hair with freckles?
Why?
Oh, no.
Let's terminate this pregnancy.
And we'll try again and hope we get a different DNA mix.
And everybody poops.
Oh, come on, Rush.
People aren't that calculated.
That's not going to happen.
Well, it is happening.
Finally, it's happened.
This is a long time, but it's a sea I told you so.
Controversy has erupted.
This is over in the UK over a new technique offered on the NHS over there, which screens embryos for over 200 inherited diseases.
Doctors are heralding the test as revolutionary for the diagnosis of genetic disorders.
Critics are warning that the groundbreaking technique is another step towards the creation of the designer baby.
They fear extended genetic screening may eventually be used to create babies chosen for physical characteristics, such as blue eyes or blonde hair.
Josephine Quinteval of Comment on Reproductive Ethics said, We are venturing into the unknown with extended genetic testing because we know so little about the field.
That is story number one, and it's in the Daily Mail in the UK.
Next story from the Daily Telegraph in the UK: babies designed to be free of disease.
Two babies have become the first in the world to be born after their mother underwent a screening process pioneered in Britain to ensure that they were clear of an inherited disease.
Freddie and Thomas Green Street's parents both carry genes that made it likely that their kids would be born with a rare form of cystic fibrosis, a debilitating inherited condition from which their first daughter suffers.
But the new technique allows embryos to be screened and only the healthy ones used for IVF.
Screening has been used regularly in the past for people having IVF, but doctors at Guy's Hospital London have refined the procedures so that a much wider number of inherited diseases can be detected using the technique known as pre-implantation genetic haplotyping, PGH for short, doctors can develop tests for up to 6,000 conditions.
Mrs. Greenstreet defended her decision to reject the imperfect embryos and criticism that the technique would lead to designer babies.
She said that she and her husband Jim didn't want to repeat the experience of caring for a seriously ill child.
Opponents of genetic screening argue that disabled babies can have a good quality of life and screening for any reason is the start of a slippery slope towards parents choosing eye color or other characteristics.
Folks out there, when I'm right, I'm right, and I'm right most of the time.
And that's what angers people out there who don't listen to the program.
That kind of bombast.
That's what we heard yesterday, right?
That kind of people have to talk about how great you are.
Well, it ain't bragging if you can do it.
Here's the next story.
Outrage.
As church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth.
This also from the UK Daily Mail, a Church of England, has broken with traditional dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.
Christians have long argued that life should be preserved at all costs, but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
The new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.
Well, too bad, disabled.
This has been coming.
It's been coming for years and years and years, and they're just now getting brave enough to openly admit what they think is proper here.
And this is all based on the convenience of the living.
And it's just, folks, it's what I said many, many, many moons ago.
It's just going to end up the continuation of the cheapening of life, the degrading of the quality and sanctity of life.
And who knows where this stuff is going to end, but it's certainly on a fast track, and it's heading down that track.
And there's really not much to stop it out there, especially in Great Britain.
I mean, with the society they have there, and much probably the same thing here, because all of this is going to be cloaked in compassion.
All this is going to be cloaked in love and devotion and caring.
And we only want to do the right thing here.
Keep a sharp eye on this because I mentioned to you long ago that this was headed your way and it is.
Al Reuters today says al-Qaeda is trying to acquire the technology that would enable it to use a nuclear device to attack Western targets, including Britain.
This, according to a senior British official on Monday, we know the aspiration is there.
We know attempts to gather materials are there.
We know the attempts to gather technology are there, the senior foreign office official told reporters.
These comments in a briefing came days after the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said that Muslim extremists were plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain, which could involve chemical and nuclear devices.
Now, is this news to anybody?
Once again, this is news that everybody who's had the guts to face it has long known has been one of the objectives of these creeps.
This is obvious, al-Qaeda seeking nuclear weapons to use against the West.
But fortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to be protected now because we have elected Democrats to run Congress and they know how to talk to these people and they know how to make deals with these people and they know how to tell these people that we don't mean them any harm.
And in fact, Pat Leakey Leahy, the incoming Judiciary Committee chairman, has an idea.
He wants to give Al-Qaeda habeas corpus rights.
He wants to ditch the foreign surveillance legislation the president negotiated before the election.
And if he doesn't ditch it, he wants to add a provision, and that is that grants al-Qaeda prisoners of war habeas corpus rights.
That will, of course, make everything better later.
The terrorists will find out we mean them no harm, that we have friends.
They have friends in high places in Washington, D.C., who understand their rights and are going to do everything that they can to see to it that their rights to explore for nuclear materials are not discovered by prying evil spies in the Bush administration or Republican agencies of our government.
Patrick Leahy has let it be known, he's let the terrorists all over the world know it, that he and his Democrats are their protectors.
They will do everything they can to see to it that secret activities undertaken by Al-Qaeda are not discovered.
And in this effort, Al-Qaeda will understand how compassionate and worldly we are and how we intend them no harm, that this was all Bush's fault, that if Bush hadn't been elected, there would have never been any terrorism.
Battle is shaping up between Democrats and the White House over the Military Commissions Act signed into law last month by President George W. Bush.
Senator Leakey Leahy is expected to take over chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee.
And the California Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.
That's prisoners, enemy combatants, terrorist prisoners that we capture.
This is all part of the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
And I just, I'll tell you what, I want to commend the people of America who voted for these Democrats because you are visionary.
You are so far-sighted.
You see so much more than all the rest of us.
You understand why these Al-Qaeda people hate us.
So you have installed in power in Washington the equivalent of their buddies, their supporters, people like Patrick Leahy and the Democrats, Jack Murthy.
First, we're going to cut and run and we're going to get out of there.
And then we're going to grant these people all kinds of secrecy and privacy rights so that whatever they're doing, try to find nuclear components for their terrorist weapons will not be discovered.
That just wouldn't be fair.
It wouldn't be right to learn those things.
Highly trained broadcast specialists and America's real anchorman holding forth from the EIB Southern Command.
Here's the money quote, by the way, on the want to go back to this baby story because this says it all and it makes my point from a couple, three weeks before the election all over again.
This is a quote from a parent who's going through this screening to determine whether or not her embryos contain flaws, if you will.
Unless you have lived with a child that has a terrible disability or disease, you can't speak about it.
So, once again, we have the introduction of the innocent suffering victim.
In this case, the parent of a child who suffers from something.
And we are supposed to identify not with the child suffering.
We are supposed to identify with the suffering of the living who are made inconvenient by this.
And you can't comment, folks.
You can't say a word unless you've been in her bra or her shoes.
You have no right.
You can't comment on the ethics.
And this is the way the left shuts down debate.
They shut down argument and they attempt to discredit anyone who would be critical of what they do by claiming, you have no shame.
You have no, you would enforce suffering on people.
You should die.
You should get the disease.
You should find out what it's like.
You are evil.
You are the devil presented.
That's the way they react.
And it is to stifle debate.
And most people who lack any guts at all, who lack any courage at all, will sit around.
Okay, okay, I don't want to offend you.
I really don't want to offend you.
If it's that bad, then yes, and I have no right.
I have not walked in your shoes or worn your bra, and I do not know how it must be.
I won't say a word.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Let me make this personal.
I'd say virtually 99% of the people who criticize me on a day-to-day basis have never, ever hosted a radio talk show, much less the most listened to radio talk show.
And until you do, you have no right to comment on what I do and how I do it.
You think that would fly?
How about if Bush said, you can't comment on me?
You ever been here?
You ever sat in the Oval Office?
You ever been one door down the hall from where Clinton and Monica got it on with the cigar?
You ever been in here and done this job?
You can't comment on what a, who the hell do you think you are?
They try that.
You can't comment on the military unless you haven't been in boots on the ground.
You haven't been to Vietnam.
If you haven't killed communists, if you didn't kill the Viet Cong, you have no right to talk about.
And they shut off and they stifle debate on virtually everything this way, particularly on these medical and health issues.
And these are ethical questions that confront all of society.
But now we've got the creation of a new set of sympathetic victims, the parents of children who are disabled or diseased.
And we're not supposed to feel bad for them.
No, we're supposed to kill them.
And we're supposed to not even let them be born because they wouldn't want it anyway if they could tell us.
They're screaming in the womb anyway.
Don't birth me.
If we were just smart enough to understand it, like if we were just smart enough to understand the dolphins, when they cackle at us.
So this is what we're becoming.
What this parent, when she says, unless you've lived with a child that has a terrible disability or disease, then you can't speak about it.
There is no truth other than that which I declare, and you have no right to question me if you've not personally experienced the same thing I have.
So that's where we're headed.
And this is actually it's not new.
Democrats have been using this technique in ads all over the championing of certain victims for causes.
Christopher Reeve comes to mind.
There are countless of these examples.
And I want to make one more point.
You know, last week, maybe it was the week before.
You know, these days are running together.
They're going by very fast here, folks.
You realize Thanksgiving is a week from Thursday?
Man.
Anyway, had this story about whether or not conservatism, liberalism, or genetic is their conservative gene?
Is there a liberal gene?
Well, guess what's going to happen here, folks?
I want to be the first to warn you.
I'm going to be the first to predict you.
All of this genetic science and all this genetic research will eventually lead to the discovery of the gene that determines whether or not a child is going to grow up conservative or liberal.
And if the majority of the scientific community happens to be liberal, they will find a way to eliminate the conservative gene and they'll wipe us out and we won't even need elections to lose.
We just won't be born.
Doctor walks in, you know what?
We just discovered your kid could grow up to be Rush Limbaugh.
No.
Yeah, you've got the gene.
No, I will not.
Your kid could grow up to be Ronald Reagan.
I refuse.
That's an insult.
Not my baby.
Yes, we've identified the gene.
Well, I want an abortion right, and so conservatism will be aborted.
The liberals are aborting themselves unintentionally when they discover the genes.
And then there might be some conservative scientists out there and so forth and so on, but they, of course, will play it by the book.
They'll play it ethically.
So it's all hitting, ladies and gentlemen, down the road.
I don't think this is going to happen our lifetime.
But who cares about anything beyond our lifetime?
We're all so selfish.
Who cares a rat's rearing about our kids?
If we did, we wouldn't have voted the way we did on Tuesday.
Who cares about the future?
We all want it now, and everybody comes after us is on their own, right?
Well, this will lead to conservatives being wiped off the face of the earth via genetic research.
So enjoy it while you can.
Hank in Hollywood, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Thank you very much, Mr. Limbaugh.
Megan, do those two.
You bet, sir.
Thank you.
You know, I was, I'm glad that you talked about this.
I'm the father of a 15-month-old daughter.
My wife is currently pregnant right now, about two months.
And last pregnancy, three months into the pregnancy, we had this test done.
And, you know, my wife called me at work, said, you know, they said our child was going to have Down syndrome and all these other things.
And I picked up the phone.
She was crying hysterically.
I picked up the phone.
I called the doctor's office.
I said, how dare you tell a pregnant woman this?
I said, how do you know anything?
I explained this to my wife that they don't know anything.
It's only three months.
They're not able to predict anything.
As it goes, 15 months later, my child's 15 months old.
She's perfectly healthy.
Everything's within range.
Motor skills are perfect.
Weight is perfect.
She's a beautiful child.
Actually, a friend of mine just got pregnant.
And I told, you know, he told me that his wife and him were going for that test.
I said, listen, don't account for that test.
Hold it.
Wait, I want to make sure I understand.
Because I thought the Down syndrome test was infallible now.
No, it's absolutely not infallible.
As a matter of fact, it could be just very well flawed.
So they told you your daughter was going to have Down syndrome and gave you the choice?
Didn't give us the choice, no, but informed my wife that there was a high probability that the child was going to have Down syndrome.
And I interjected and I told her, I said, listen, dear, just calm down.
There's no way they can tell.
It's only three months into the pregnancy.
There's no way.
And then I proceeded to call the doctor's office screaming at the nurse.
And she's totally, she has no Down syndrome.
Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely not.
There's nothing wrong with the nothing wrong with my child.
She's actually a beautiful baby girl.
Good.
And hopefully be able to grow up as bright as you.
Well, that would be accomplishing something.
I wish her the best.
They hate me for those kinds of comments, too, Hank.
Anyway, well, I've learned something.
I think this is probably going to cause a spate of calls.
Any of you guys in there heard stories like this?
Misdiagnosis, a prediction of you have none.
So I thought this stuff, amniocentesis, I thought it was pretty much 100% or very close to it.
But, you know, having not procreated, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not that.
In fact, I have no right to talk about this because I don't have kids.
Back in just a second.
Your guiding light, the triumphs of confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, multiple explanations for defeat and all that.
Even the good times, El Rushbo behind the golden EIB microphone.
One of the, and I've bought it for a while, but I don't anymore.
One of the popular explanations for the Democrat victory last Tuesday was that, well, you know, Americans want to vote conservative.
If conservatism didn't lose, Republicans lost.
Look at all those conservative Democrats that won.
People want to vote conservative.
And I understand people saying those kinds of things to themselves to make sure they don't lose all hope and so forth.
But I'm beginning to think that that's misleading.
I think that's almost a false hope situation.
I don't think that's what happened at all.
Maybe in a few isolated cases around the country it was, but I don't think there was anybody voting for anybody or anything in this election.
I think what turned this election was a bunch of people out there, you may be one of them, mad as hell, not going to take it anymore, and throwing a bunch of people out for whatever reason.
Well, yeah, you could say it was a temper tantrum.
American people had a temper tantrum.
It probably is a good way to describe it.
It was throw the bums out.
We got some new bums now replacing the old bums.
But it was a throw the bums out sort of situation.
I mean, if people wanted to vote conservative, they could have.
I mean, let me rephrase it.
I refuse to believe that enough Americans don't understand who and what Democrats are.
I refuse to believe that enough Americans do not understand that the Democrat Party is the far left as liberalism personified in this country.
They knew when they were voting for Democrats what they were voting for.
So how can you say Americans want to vote conservative when they voted for a bunch of liberals?
And I know they voted for some new conservative freshman Democrats in the House of Representatives, but a lot of those Democrat incumbents, you know, everybody in the House is up every two years, held on.
So I mean, I think people vote conservatism when they're given a reason to, but apparently keeping liberals out of power is not enough of a reason to get people to vote conservative.
Well, Rush, you can't, there weren't any conservatives on the ballot on a Republican.
I know, but there were liberals out there all over the place.
And they've ended up being empowered.
And I just refuse to believe people didn't stop to think about that.
At any rate, get this.
This is, I mean, you almost, you just, if they get to the point, all you can do is laugh.
International atomic energy experts.
Now, that is an oxymoron.
We're talking about people like Mohamed AlBaradi and Hans Blix and this motley bunch.
They say they have found unexplained, unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran.
And they've asked Tehran, Tehran, for an explanation.
This unexpected?
They've been telling us all along that they're getting closer and closer and closer to having their nuke program.
Just today, Ahmadinejad came out with his latest proclamation.
And now these wizards at the IAEA have found unexplained.
I guess they figure that the Iranians are being honest with them all along.
The report prepared for next week's meeting at the 35-nation IAEA also faulted Tehran for not cooperating, really, with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have led to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.
Who wrote this?
This is all AP.
This is one of the most uninformed, ill-informed, stupid pieces I've ever.
Every sentence in this thing is a howler.
Who are we talking about?
We are talking about the terror masters of the world.
Have you also heard this?
Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qaeda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden.
This is in the U.K. Daily Telegraph.
Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Tehran.
The revelation will deal a major blow to Tony Blair's hopes of establishing a new partnership with Tehran.
No, it won't.
Tony Blair is a visionary.
He's become a flip-flop visionary.
Well, he wants to have a new partnership with Tehran.
Just right out of the Iraq study group.
In fact, if the IAEA wants to really find out the explanation for this unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces at nuclear waste facilities in Iran, just ask somebody at the Iraq study group.
They have a great relationship.
If you want answers from our new partners, Iran, just go ask somebody in the Iraq study group to ask them where this stuff came from.
We'll get the truth.
Joyce in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network.
And nice to have you with us.
Mega Dittos, Rush, from a reformed, former socialist European.
Really?
Well, it's great to have you in the audience.
I'm sorry.
I'd say it's great to have you in the audience.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
I was calling to try to find out what your thoughts are on Mike Pence as a possible presidential candidate in 08.
I think he could be our version of Clinton.
He's a good-looking sword.
Yeah, I'm not thinking anybody presidential 08.
This is way down the pipe.
Rudy has formed his exploratory committee.
McCain is positioning himself to be the only guy who wanted us to win in Iraq.
I mean, that's what he's doing.
Right.
What he knows is by 2008, the question is going to be all over who lost Iraq.
And is it going to be Bush or going to be the Democrats?
McCain can say, we never lost.
Never.
If you listen to me, more troops, more troops, more firepower.
Now, Saber.
So that's what he's setting himself up as.
For Pence, I love Mike Pence.
I do too.
I think, and we need, let him do his time in the House.
Let him get to the leadership there and let him lead.
Let him show his stuff.
We're going to need people like Pence in the House of Representatives.
He's modified a little bit, I think, his immigration plan.
He'd come up with a compromise immigration plan to sort of oppose the McCain-Kennedy bill, which was amnesty and so forth in the Senate.
But no, Pence is Pence rising star.
Yes, he is.
And like I said, I think he could be maybe not in 08 then, but later on, he could be our version of Clinton.
Well, what was the women?
What is that?
What do you mean, version of Clinton?
You mean with internships?
No, no, no.
Not as far as politics.
You know how everybody always said Clinton was so charismatic, good-looking, appealed to women, et cetera.
I think he has the same qualities.
Hell, they say that.
They say that about Murthy.
They say it about Henry Waxman.
They say it about every Democrat.
They're never going to say that about a Republican or No, they aren't, but we will.
The conservatives.
Well, anyway, your assessment of your sharp eye on Pence is well focused.
Joyce, thanks for the.
I'm trying to read something here, folks, while closing out the segment.
For the call, a quick.
What I'm reading here is that the Ohio 15th congressional district race, the Democrats demanding, well, I'll give you the whole story a little bit.
It's typical.
She's trailing by 3,000 votes and she's running TV ads, claiming that every vote must be counted and so forth.
Just typical Democrat stuff when they lose.
Back here in just a second.
All right, sit tight, folks.
As usual, at the end of the first hour, we have only scratched the surface here.
▲
Export Selection