All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
November 15, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's not taking long, and I knew it wasn't going to take long.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program this middle of the week, hump day, excursion into broadcast excellence here on the EIB network.
Rush Limbaugh at the Institute, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I think the Democrats are running the show in Washington already.
The Republicans just announced their new leadership posts.
I like Mitch McConnell being in there as the Republican leader in the Senate.
Trent Lott's, the majority whip, he's back.
John Ensign's a good guy that is going to be in there, but it doesn't matter because Carl Levin, who's still a minority, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, is conducting things as Lowe's running the show.
And Carl Levin said this morning that the Bush administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months.
He said we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.
The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the U.S. will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months.
Now, my question is, why wait?
I mean, if you're going to quit, quit.
If you're going to cut and run, cut and run.
Hey, folks, the holiday season's coming up, Christmas time and all that.
Bring the troops home for Christmas.
If you're going to quit, what's this four to six months business?
Just quit now.
Bring them home this month.
Tell the president they need to be out of there now.
If getting the troops out of Iraq is what is going to make the Iraqi government shape up and take control of their own affairs.
And by gosh, let's make that happen.
If that's the objective, if us getting out is the answer to all the problems, why wait four to six months to start?
We have to withdraw now, ladies and gentlemen.
However, there's a problem.
Interesting how this pops up.
The New York Times.
Get out now.
Not so fast, experts say.
Is front page above the fold in the New York Times?
Where was this before the election?
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back as part of a phased withdrawal.
If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it'll galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
And that's what Carl Levin said today.
So pull them out.
Get out of there.
Just scram.
If quitting is good, quit fast.
I mean, the longer it takes us to quit, the more casualties we're going to have.
The longer it takes us to get out of there, the more injuries and perhaps deaths that we're going to have.
We've had too much loss of blood and treasure already in this.
I don't understand this delay of four to six months.
That seems reckless, unnecessarily slow.
But as the New York Times story says, this is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, but this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts, and former generals, including some who have been the most vehement critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.
Anthony Zinney, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Rummy, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than to stop it.
The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and you force him to stand up to this, Zinni said in an interview.
Well, you can't put pressure on a wounded guy.
There's a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now that there is a capability that they've not employed or used.
I'm not so sure they're capable of stopping sectarian violence.
Instead of taking troops out, Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to regain momentum as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation, develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
John Batiste.
I know it sounds like Zinni is all of a sudden.
Well, now it sounds like he's, it sounds like not Bush and Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld never wanted more troops.
It's McCain who wants more troops.
And I find this interesting.
After the election, Zinni pops up, says we need more troops.
Can somebody tell me the only person out there who's suggesting that today?
None other than Senator McCain.
Zinni hated Rumsfeld, not a big fan of Bush's, so he didn't dare say any of this before the election.
Because Zinni's one of the Democrats and the liberal media stars.
I mean, when he speaks, they stop.
He's like their E.F. Hutton.
And so he clammed up.
He went on the lam out there somewhere before the election, now after the election.
Oh, oh, oh, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Don't think Levin's idea is a good idea.
Front page of the New York Times.
Another one, John Batiste, retired Army Major General, who also joined in the call for Rummy's resignation, described the Levin proposals for troop withdrawals as terribly naive.
And there are other names mentioned, such as Kenneth Pollock, expert at the Brookings Institution, served in the staff of the National Security Council.
He thinks it's a dumb idea.
Now, yeah, now it's just like this Mirtha stuff.
Can you believe this, Circus?
All of this stuff about Murtha, all of it is being brought out after the election.
None of this, of course, none of this scandal is worthy enough to keep him out of the house.
But boy, when you talk about putting him in the leadership, well, the liberal drive-by media and this crew group and a number of others are going to town on Jack Murthy here today.
But ladies and gentlemen, I've been thinking about this, and I actually think that we want Murtha in there.
I mean, we want the Democrats to be who they are.
I know, I said yesterday that Murthy was being swiftboated.
He's complaining now he's being swift voted, but I'm going to recall that because to be swift voted is to have the truth told about you.
The Democrats think this being swift voted is to be lied about.
It's more like he's being borked by his own party.
But that's not even accurate because to be borked is to be lied about.
It could say he's being follied because the same group that got this started, the crew group was in there, Melanie Sloan and the gang.
I can't come up with a term for what's happening to him, but I'm telling you, they're trying to kill the guy.
And just after the election, they don't want him in the leadership.
We do.
We want him there, folks.
We want him in the Democrat leadership because we want the Democrats to be who they are.
We want, especially after all this, we want Murtha elected.
I therefore today endorse the candidacy of Jack Murthy to be the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives.
It is only right.
This man, after all, is a Vietnam vet.
This man was a Marine.
We are not allowed to look any further than that.
He was a hero.
We have not walked in his shoes.
Those who have not served in the military and those who have not been in the Marine Corps, those who have not walked in his shoes have no right, ladies and gentlemen, to try to pummel him.
They don't know what he's had to bear in his life.
They don't know what crosses and hardships that he has had to undergo.
This is his time.
And now his own party is trying to savage him, not because they're worried about him, but because they're worried about themselves.
Well, they're saying he was almost a crook, but see, the difference is it was okay to be a crook before the election, but it's not okay to be a crook after the election when you want to be in the Senate Democrat leadership.
This man, Jack Murthy, held out as some kind of icon on all of the Sunday shows without a whiff of comment about any of these scandals, the AB scam scandal, the earmarks, the funny money back and forth with his family and lobbyists and so forth.
And that's because Merthyr was useful to them during the campaign.
By the way, Merthyr, the Democrats owe this man.
He was the one that first stuck his thick neck out there and demanded that we retreat and get out of Iraq.
He was the architect of the cut and run policy that the American people have now endorsed with the election to power of Democrats in the House and Senate.
And this is the way they show their gratitude.
This man was a Vietnam vet.
We're not allowed to look any further.
We're not allowed to ask any more questions.
I mean, we all know that if Jack Murthy had been a conservative, none of that would have mattered.
It would have been the ethically challenged Murtha prior to the election.
I mean, these guys have had this tape of him with the FBI in AB scam, and they didn't play it on their nightly news segments last night.
This is amazing to me.
This is a guy who wants the number two job in the House of Representatives.
He's being supported by the speaker-to-be, Nancy Pelosi.
Speaking of her, notice this, ladies and gentlemen.
Pelosi is being criticized for starting the fight about Murthy, but not for backing an unethical hack who came within an eyelash of being indicted.
He was an unindicted co-conspirator.
He's conspirator.
He's probably now the second most famous unindicted co-conspirator in the history of American political scandal.
Who would be the first, Mr. Snirdley?
Who is the most well-known and popular, well, popular, but famous?
No, it would be Richard Nixon.
Richard Nixon, so Jack Murtha is in august company here.
He's the second highest ranking unindicted co-conspirator, co-conspirator.
Now, Pelosi being criticized for starting, she's being criticized for taking a position.
She's supposed to stay out of this race.
She's not being criticized for backing an unethical hack.
Now, if Mirtha's ethical lapses are so deep and numerous, as they obviously are, then why was he fit to be re-elected?
By the way, did you hear that Tom DeLay met with the Time magazine editors?
He's on the Person of the Year committee.
You know, who he recommended?
Pelosi.
Tom DeLay recommended Pelosi be Woman of the Year, Time magazine.
There could be a lot here.
This is no doubt not going to please Hillary.
Number two, DeLay could be trying to focus attention on Pelosi as much as possible.
Number three, he thinks that she deserves it because she pulled off this stunning victory.
But nevertheless, folks, I have to take a break here, but I want to go on the record.
I officially endorse the candidacy of John Murthy to be the number two Democrat in the House.
He is the man responsible for the Democrats winning the House.
They can say Pelosi got it, but it was Murthy that had the guts to go out there and demand cut and run.
Demand that we get out.
Now Levin has picked it up.
Everybody's trying to live off of the light shining on Murthy.
Everybody's trying to feed off him, and now they're trying to get rid of the guy who is their true star, Jack Murthy, more than any Democrat, told us who they are.
That's a close contest, but he's in there, and for that reason, he needs to stay in a position of prominence.
Again, we here, I've surveyed the group.
Their votes don't matter.
I just wanted to be unanimous for the sake of it.
We all endorse Jack Murthy as the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives, and we also make a move today to urge the Democrats to speed up their Iraq withdrawal timetable.
Four to six weeks is much, much too long.
If you're going to quit, you quit.
You do it and get it over with.
No reason to subject our troops to further danger and unsafety when we've made the decision to cut and run.
Get them home before Christmas so that everybody can have happy holidays.
Back after this, stay with us.
Here's that Carl Levin soundbite, by the way, we opened the program with when he said we've got to get out of there four to six weeks.
This was today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Carl Levin, the new chairman, in January.
He's a Democrat from Michigan, already acting like the chairman today.
We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.
No, no.
The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months.
Why don't you tell them?
It's not precipitous.
It is a responsible way to change the dynamic in Iraq.
Right.
To stop the march down the path to full-blown civil war on which the Iraqis are now embarked.
Why leave it up the bush?
You guys are saying he's a lame duck anyway.
He's decoupled himself.
Why leave it up to the president?
You guys do this.
I mean, what kind of guts is this to sit there and the president ought to do X?
The president ought to tell him four to six weeks.
Never mind the New York Times today.
I got to mention this again.
Front page story above the fold.
All these experts said nothing before the election.
So wait, bad, bad move to pull out now.
In fact, we need to increase troop levels.
It's on the front page of the New York Times today.
By the way, here's Murthy.
We've got a little bit longer soundbite from that AB scam tape, that FBI tape.
It's not much, a couple more lines that are even more incriminating.
This is January 7th, 1980.
Jack Murthy and an FBI agent.
I went out.
I got the 50,000.
Okay.
From what you're telling me, okay?
You're telling me that that's not what you, you know, that's not what I'm not interested.
Okay.
At this point.
Okay.
You know, we do business for a while.
Maybe I'll be interested.
Maybe I won't.
At this point, we do business for a while.
Maybe I'll be interested.
Maybe I won't.
This is the man running for the number two position among Democrats in the House of Representatives officially endorsed here.
He is a hero.
He was instrumental in our new Iraq policy of cutting and running and quitting, which I think ought to happen next month now.
Not four to six weeks, not four to six months, not a year.
If you make the decision to quit, you quit.
By the way, something else I want to also suggest, ladies and gentlemen, I want to agree with the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
We need a draft.
We need to establish, well, he's tried to set that up on a number of occasions during the course of the past four years on the theory that the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful are not in Iraq.
So I agree with Senate.
We need a draft for the express purpose of making sure that people who don't want to serve and who don't care about the military are forced to do so.
That's, I mean, when I look at these Democrat positions, ladies and gentlemen, I think they deserve amplification.
I think we all need to study these and think about them.
I mean, after all, the Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, wanted ex-cons to be able to vote, did they not, in these upcoming elections?
Murtha provides them with a future ex-con who can look out for their interests.
Murthy fills so many bills here.
He and Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, can start a new caucus in the Democratic Party, the pre-indicted caucus.
We already have the Blue Dog Caucus.
Have you heard the Blue Dog Coalition?
Get this.
This is funny.
The Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats holds a news conference.
They held one at 11 o'clock today.
Nobody noticed it.
To introduce the nine new Blue Dog elect Democrats as they announced their leadership and outline their philosophy for the 110th Congress in Washington.
Nine members of Congress.
The Blue Dog Democrats announced their philosophy, their leadership.
You know how this is going to work?
I told you how this is going to work, ladies and gentlemen.
These guys got elected as conservatives in conservative districts, and their election served to empower a far left-wing leadership in the House of Representatives.
So they're going to get up there.
They had their orientation Monday and they're feeling their oats.
They're going to make a difference up there.
They're going to get called into the speaker's office.
They're going to be told what for.
And here is an example of it.
This is from what is this?
The Baltimore Sun.
One target of Pelosi's campaign is Representative-elect Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Stenny Hoyer supporter who was summoned to Pelosi's office to explain why she wasn't backing Mirtha.
Hearst newspapers reported last night about all this.
At the session, Pelosi asked Gillibrand for her committee preferences.
So this is one of these blue dogs gets elected, comes in, all of a sudden not doing what Pelosi wants, not supporting Mirtha.
Get a note, Speaker-elect wants to see you.
You go tripsing into Pelosi's office.
Why are you not supporting my man Mirtha?
What is it that you're supporting Hoyer?
By the way, what committee assignments would you like?
Message.
You're going to be sweeping the floors here and cleaning the latrines if you don't change your mind here and vote for Mirtha on this.
The nine blue dogs held their big meeting today.
God love them.
They may, if they've got any guts, they may end up helping out.
But, you know, sort of like they'd be Dinos, Democrats in name only or demos, Democrats in name only or what have you.
Anyway, then, you know, Mirtha, William Jefferson Congressman, Democrat Louisiana, to start the pre-indicted caucus.
They can segregate this new Democrat caucus in a whole bunch of different ways.
Happily so, ladies and gentlemen, making the complex understandable.
The Democrats have a real opportunity here.
They can use these leadership posts to reach out to their favorite constituencies.
Pelosi could represent the Angry Ovary Caucus to go out there for outreach to the feminists.
Jack Murtha would represent the pre-indicted caucus along with Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
That should attract ex-cons, which they've been trying to attack for a long time, future ex-cons and people between indictments.
The whip spot.
Why not, you know, There's no requirement that any officer of the, this will surprise you people.
There is no requirement that any officer be a member of Congress.
It just naturally happens that they only vote for a member.
You don't have to be a member of Congress.
So I suggest that the Democrats also put in their leadership the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox.
They can then tap into the 10% of the Hispanic and Mexican population that lives in our country.
And they can stop calling them illegal immigrants.
Because, you know, that's harsh.
Stop calling them illegal immigrants and refer to them as non-voting Democrats.
And do your outreach to the illegal immigrant population of calling them non-voting Democrats.
I mean, there's a tremendous opportunity, folks.
So we want the Democrats to be who they are.
That's why we want Murtha to win this.
And the big guns are all out.
Everybody is a buzz today.
There's a piece by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, which has been carrying the water on this the last couple of days, that he's just totally unfit, unqualified.
They're going through all of these ethical lapses, all of his earmarks, all of his pork, all of the dubious connections between himself and his brother, other family members, contractors, defense and otherwise.
People have gotten very wealthy off of knowing Jack Murthy.
And again, I find it fascinating that none of this stuff was worthwhile prior to the election.
But after the election, yeah, we got to look into.
We can't have something like this in the post because they don't want somebody like this.
They have exit polls out there, folks, that say that the real deciding issue for moderates in this election was corruption, not Iraq.
And so they're going to do everything they can to make sure they have nobody corrupt in the leadership of the House.
But that's why we want them there.
And we heartily endorse, once again, Jack Murthy to be the number two man in the House for the Democrats.
Now, here's an AP story, Jim Koonin.
Shocking bit of news here.
Though voters apparently embraced the Democrat mantra of changing course in Iraq, a majority of the public did not detect a clear Democratic blueprint for ending the war.
57% of all adults in the AP Ipsos poll said that Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq.
29% said they do.
It's a poll of 1,002 adults, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
By the new policy here on the EIB network, we believe every poll.
Whatever the poll says, we believe it.
We have learned our lesson, ladies and gentlemen, here at the EIB network.
Yes, the public's perception was reinforced during the campaign when President Bush time and again told voters that the Democrats had little to offer on the war.
Everybody agrees that we're going to have to begin redeployment.
Ike Skelton said he's a Democrat from Missouri.
He's in line to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
He's proposed withdrawing a U.S. brigade for every three Iraqi combat brigades rated fully capable.
Everybody agrees that we're going to have to begin redeployment.
29% say that you don't have a plan, or only 29% agree that you have a plan.
This is a stunning, stunning poll.
And we believe everything in it.
Oh, here's another one.
Francis Curran, a 43-year-old carpenter from Jupiter, Florida, which is right up the road from where we are here at the EIB Southern Command, said he thinks Democrats would approach Iraq with a better lens.
You can't solve that problem without involving the other players in the region, said the carpenter.
I think Democrats might be more willing to at least not call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the axes of evil, said the carpenter.
I don't know if the president would go with this, but this administration has to involve other nations in that region.
43-year-old carpenter from Jupiter, Florida, don't call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad evil.
But clear 57% of adults say the Democrats don't have a plan on Iraq.
And we believe the polls, Democrats don't have a plan.
They didn't have a plan.
What is the purpose?
You tell me what the purpose of the story is.
We've got the New York Times saying, what?
Pull out of Iraq.
Who's talking about that?
That's absolutely absurd.
Former military brains, often quoted by liberal Democrats and the media for the past two years, the top of the page, Anthony Zinni, get out.
You mean Levin's again?
Four to six weeks and it'll help the Iraqis take.
It'll be just the exact opposite, says the military expert.
We pull out now and we're going to cause a civil war.
You tell me what the purpose of this is.
What is the purpose here of 57% say the Democrats have no plan in Iraq?
No, it doesn't mean you're going to have to get one.
They've got one now.
It's get out.
There was a plan, cut and run.
There was a plan.
Cut and run.
This isn't complicated stuff here.
What do you mean about holding them accountable or not holding them accountable?
What?
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's, Snodley, you're missing the point.
You're too cynical.
Snerdley thinks that the reason for this story on the poll, 57% say Democrats have no plan, is so the Democrats can't be held accountable when the question of who lost Iraq comes up.
That's not what it means.
That's not the point.
Besides, that question is going to be debated for the next two years.
And the guy set up to claim victory on that one's McCain.
He's the only guy talking about increasing troops.
And he can go out there and he can say, Senator McCain, who lost Iraq?
When you look back on this, was it the president?
Who lost?
It wasn't me.
I'm the only one that said, kick ass.
More troops.
Got it?
Saber!
Force!
Force force!
Nobody risk nobody.
So he's getting prepared to win the Republican primary with this.
He's going to blame the Democrats.
Here's Jonathan.
Let's go to the phones.
Jonathan Adam, Long Island.
Nice to have you on the program, sir, and welcome.
Rush, thank you very much.
After listening to you for 15 years, I finally have a chance to speak with you, and it indeed is an honor.
Well, I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you.
Well, listen, I have two observations that I'd like to get your take on.
Both have to do with the recent election and today's Republican leadership election in the Senate.
It appears that the Republicans and the Senate at least might be returning to conservative roots with the election of Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott.
What do you think about that?
Well, I do like McConnell.
McConnell has a tendency to speak his mind more so than previous leaders.
Lots return.
I don't know.
You know what?
Here's the button.
I don't care what the Republicans do.
I mean, this is, all I know is that the Republicans in the Senate are going to continue to be the Republicans in the Senate, and they're going to get steamrolled.
We just appointed a guy that's head of the RNC who has made it plain that he's not going to be a partisan.
I'm not going to disappoint in that, too.
Mel Martinez.
Like I said, I'm not going to carry these people's water anymore, Jonathan.
And I don't mean to be, I'm not going to be detached here, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you I think these guys are going to do a great job when I haven't the foggiest idea.
Well, when everybody looks at the Senate and says, gee, what happened to them over the last two to four years?
I mean, who left Senate leadership four years ago?
Trent Lott.
Well, it just seems that to some, it certainly seems that way to me that they have to be aware of the.
You're making this real hard on me.
Guess who was the author of the shared partnership agreement that gave the Democrats an equal number of committee chairmanships when the House was 50-50?
That's true.
Guess who wanted no part of the Clinton impeachment trial?
Guess who sandbagged the House managers on that?
I mean, look, there's nobody to point to here that you can go rah-rah about.
Republicans in the House and Senate are not going to be where the action is the next two years anyway.
Well, it just seems that people are looking at this election in some quarters as so historic.
But when you look over the last 26 years, I mean, the Republicans had it from 80 to 86, then the Democrats had it for the next eight years, and the Republicans got it back in 94.
For the last 26 years, the Republicans had the Senate for 16 years, and the Democrats for 10.
It's gone back and forth, so I don't see how really this election, especially at 5149, is as historic as some people are making it out to be.
They're calling it historic because the Democrats got the House back after being in the wilderness wandering aimlessly for 14 years.
By the way, MSNBC, what is it?
MSNBC has already dubbed the U.S. Senate the Schumer era.
And their story, we've got an audio soundbite that will go along with this a little bit later.
But the Schumer era is all about if he can do his job right, Democrats will hold the Senate for a generation, which is 25 years.
So we're now into the Schumer era.
And if the drive-bys are already calling it that, it's Trent who these guys, the Republicans have a job ahead of them, and they've got to perform.
Senate's not that big a deal here because it's going to be tough to come up with 60 votes on either side to get anything done.
Gridlock's not a bad thing.
The more gridlock there is, the less intrusion in your life and mine.
As to the thing that's really upsetting about the Senate to me, one of the things that Schumer said here as the architect of the era of Schumer is that he's not voting for the next Alito.
He's not going to vote for the next Alito.
Well, really?
We are surprised at this?
They're not going to vote for anybody that Bush nominates.
Bush is going to have to nominate people they want, or we're not going to get any new judges confirmed.
That's out the window.
Feeney, adios, see you later.
Got to start from the ground up and rebuild this one because the American people were tired of corruption and want it out of a rock.
Jack Murthy for number two in the Democrats of the House of Representatives back after this.
And we're back here on the cutting edge.
El Rush Ball, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Now, on the problem of confirming judges, here we are in the era of Schumer, as proclaimed by PMSNBC today.
Chuck Schumer said he's not going to vote for another Alito.
Supreme Court nominees such as Alito, the fine man, brilliant man, eminently qualified, doesn't fit the mold for Senator Schumer.
And of course, the American people don't care about the swing port Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen.
This is what we must understand.
It was not an issue in the campaign.
The American people voted to get us out of Iraq and voted to get rid of all the corruption, except for Murthy, who, again, we endorse to be number two in the House among the Democrats.
But before we leave this subject of the Supreme Court and judges, I want to remind you that the real culprit in slowing down the confirmation of judges was the gang of 14.
The constitutional option.
The Democrats were filibustering every judge nomination that came up.
We wanted to trigger the constitutional option and destroy the whole notion that you can filibuster presidential judicial nomination.
Instead, it was Senator McCain who came up with the gang of 14 slowing down the confirmation of judges when we had the majority.
And nobody puts the blame for this squarely where it belongs on the shoulders of Senator McCain or at his feet, whichever.
Now, two of his gangsters, so-called, two members of the gang of 14, Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee, lost.
And that was, believe me, you go talk to Republicans in Ohio.
Not only did they take it out on DeWine, they took it out on his son in an earlier primary in the summertime.
We're not going to let people forget these things as we move forward with all of these issues.
Jim in Knoxville, Tennessee.
I'm glad you called, sir, and welcome to the EIB network.
Big ado, Rush.
Thank you.
Rush?
Yeah.
Okay.
Hello?
Testing.
One, two, three, four.
Hello.
Are you there?
Yeah, I'm right here.
Okay.
I just want to say that the treatment the MSM has given to Murtha in terms of exposing him after the election is basically a low-grade dry run of what will happen to McCain if McCain gets the Republican presidential nomination.
We know a good deal about his mental instability, his participation.
Wait, wait, wait, hold it a second.
Don't say we when you start talking about mental instability.
I don't know about any mental instability.
What are you talking about?
You look at the presentations you've made regarding how radical he is.
I have not said he's unstable, though.
You are.
Okay, yeah.
Okay.
But I own my words, and I own all of them, and I never use those two when talking about Senator McCain.
But Newsmax has on occasion.
Well, I take it back.
I can see why you might think so, because I once referred to him as Humphrey Bogart with the marbles.
That's right.
Yeah, okay.
All right.
But I didn't use the words.
And you have McCain's participation or involvement in the Keating Five.
Oh, you're right about that.
And you have the rather vile way that he treated his first wife.
That could be fodder in a presidential campaign.
And you have the probability that the MSM knows a lot more about him than most of the rest of us do.
And my prediction is that every piece of dear dirt they know about him, and they probably know a lot more than we do, is all of a sudden going to get aired about one or two days after the day he gets the nomination, if he gets the nomination.
Yeah, if he gets it.
And that could very well totally cripple his run and let Hillary Wilde.
Bad word.
Bad word on this show.
Yeah.
Cripple.
Cripple the run.
Hamper it.
Hamper it.
Hamstring.
Yeah.
You are swift voting, Senator McCain, on this program.
Yes, I am.
People in the world.
Well, I'll tell you what I'm proud of.
You're not afraid to say what you think.
And there are too few people who will do that in a country anymore.
They're too frightened and they're too scared.
And you exhibit a courage and fearlessness that is admirable.
And I actually think you got a good point, too.
I think what's happening here to Mirtha is a classic.
The difference here is, well, no, there actually isn't any difference.
After McCain gets the nomination, I don't think it'll be the Republicans doing this.
His opponents might try to dip their toe in the water and this stuff during the primaries.
The media, that's the surprise here.
The media going, well, it isn't a surprise, the media going after Murtha.
They're aligned with the Democrats, and they simply don't want this kind of baggage at the top of the party.
We do.
We want the Democrats to be who they are and to be proud of it and to show the country who they are, which is why we continually endorse Murtha here because I still want that meeting with Pelosi, and this may be one way of getting it, too.
Back in a second.
Hey, Brian, I need a Brian, Brian, need a favor.
I need you to find a whiter shade of pale on the profit system, put it through the flamethrower, and MP3 the file to me.
We'll be back here in just a second, folks.
▲
Export Selection