All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
November 15, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Make a note in there because I don't want to forget this.
I've got this story here about there's a price war going on for Christmas between Walmart and Target, and Libs are upset.
Liberals are experts are upset.
This will be bad for business.
But the real point I want to make is I think this is going to be the year of the flat screen.
Just remind me of that, and I can take it from there.
You got it?
How have you put are you putting the whiter shade of pale through the flamethrower?
All right, I need it as an MP3 file.
I mean, no real hurry, but I just.
And I want you to crank that flamethrower as high.
I want as much compression on that as you can get.
Greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network here on Hump Day, the middle of the week, at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I want to introduce Glenn Beck, who is on the show with us from his studio in New York.
Glenn, welcome.
Great to have you here.
How are you, sir?
Thank you so much.
What an honor to be on the program.
Well, it's our pleasure.
Glenn, I have been, I hate to be naive.
I hate to be naive, but this is the best way to go.
I've been seeing the ad for your special tonight on headline news.
Yes.
Exposed the extremist agenda.
Yes.
What is this?
What are you doing?
I really truly believe, Rush, that the media is damn near criminally negligent on how they are exposing the war in Iraq and everything else.
And when they come out and say the Muslim extremists, I don't think people really understand what that is.
The reason why we are so lost in Iraq is because we don't understand who these people are.
So what we've done is we have gone over to the Middle East and we have collected very much.
I know you saw the movie Obsession.
We have collected all kinds of media from their own NBC, CNN, et cetera, et cetera, and translated it and we're exposing the faces who what I believe is out and out evil tonight.
You say you've got video of the networks that they haven't used?
Yeah, no, no, this is that who didn't use.
I might have misunderstood you.
You've got MSNBC and CNN video that they haven't aired?
No, no, no.
What we've done is we've taken the video from the sources in the Middle East, their version of MSNBC or whatever.
Oh, okay.
And we have taken it.
Like Al Jazeera.
Yes.
And Iranian state television.
And we have looked at the things that President Ahmad Dimanjad had said with Mike Wallace and Anderson Cooper and juxtaposed it to what he said in the interview when he returned from the UN.
And it is horrifying.
The people at CNN give you any trouble with this when you oppose the idea?
I will tell you that it has been probably the battle of my life to be able to get these images on television.
I will tell you also, however, that there have been people very high up at CNN that have stood next to Me and fought with me to air this special.
It is, Rush, you know better than most on what's going on.
When you are calling out the president of Iran and you are saying you see him at the UN where he is praying for strength to play his role to bring back the promised one, when he then has on his own state-run television, something that nobody else will play, him in front of a crowd saying, soon we will burn the mark of eternal shame in the foreheads of the unbelievers.
When he on his own state-run television says, we are going all the way to ancient Babylon, which will be the seat of the Islamic global government, you've got to put that into context of religiosity.
As a Christian, I heard that and I thought, oh, holy cow, what does that mean?
And nobody in mainstream media wants to air that.
Well, that's an interesting point because you know they're aware of it.
Oh, they all are.
I think that the dynamic that's at work here is that for the last, whatever, you could say two, four, or six years, but let's say since 9-11 and since the Iraq War started, the enemy to the American left, including media, has been Bush.
Yes.
Bush poses a greater threat to the world than Ahmedinejad does or any of these radical terrorist leaders.
They've done their best to make these people like Hugo Chavez lovable and likable and laughable even, entertaining.
Mahmoud is just this cute little puppy dog kind of guy, droopy ears, comes to the UN, says some funny stuff.
Everybody wants to be around him in our pop culture celebrity.
He's a big guy.
Some of the things he says, though, do end up in print.
And there have been, I'm sure you've reported them.
I have.
We've tried to get a lot of people to pay attention to it.
I think, you know, we have such a picture-oriented society.
Your show has a great chance here of opening some people's eyes.
Most people don't want to confront this kind of stuff.
I will tell you, Rush, that it is such power.
I've said these things.
You've said these quotes.
But when you hear him and see him say it, you believe him.
And it's not just that.
I don't know if you remember Speed Racer when I was growing up.
One of my favorite cartoons was Speed Racer.
We have images of cartoons that they run, you know, on their Saturday morning cartoon shows of kids in cartoon form with the suicide belt on, and they are waiting.
The one clip that we're going to show tonight is the cartoon character waiting on a cliff, seeing the Israeli and American trucks go by.
They jump off the cliff onto the top of the truck, pulling the pins of the hand grenade, screaming Allah Akbar on the way down, and then the cartoon explosion.
It is so firmly mainstream.
The biggest lie is, is that A, you can't take these people seriously because, oh, we have our own religious zealots like you know, Jerry Falwell.
They're not American religious zealots, if you will.
These guys have an Armageddon doomsday wish.
And then when you couple that with the untruth that, oh, well, it's just a few.
This is mainstream television that I'm showing you tonight.
Well, one of the problems in all of this is that I think the American people, we have such an affluent country and we have such prosperity.
And there's almost been a derived expectation of that now.
People don't want to be distracted from it and they don't want to know the threats.
Look at this last election.
This election was essentially a vote by the American people.
We don't want to hear about these problems.
Explain Rick Santorum's loss to me.
There is, I believe that guy is the church hill of our day.
I can explain it.
You go ahead.
I can explain it.
I looked this up.
Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, the whole, the whole state, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, primarily, the whole state, the second largest population of elderly people in the country.
And Santorum was a visionary.
He was talking about things that affect the country, not just Pennsylvania.
15, 20 years down the road, most of the people in Pennsylvania worried about the next two to three years.
I was.
And basically, what's the government going to do for them in the remaining years of their lives?
All this other stuff doesn't matter to them now at this stage of their lives.
Rush, I think we disagree on this point, and you're smarter than I am.
I'm practically a rodeo clown, but I really truly believe it ain't going to be 15 years.
And when you see this special tonight, you see what is really being going on in the Middle East.
You, I believe, will also tomorrow say, I don't think it's going to be 15 years.
This is not a long-term game we're playing.
These guys, when Iran gets the nuke, the whole world will turn on a dime.
It's not like what North Korea gets the nuke.
It's not the same.
When Ahmadinejad has the nuke, this guy has a doomsday apocalyptic view.
I know, the 12th Imam and all of this, and he's going to emerge from the well and get rid of all the infidels.
But he continues to threaten to wipe out Israel.
And yet, 84% of American Jews voted Democrat.
That's one of the most confusing things I've ever heard.
Who want us now to incorporate Ahmed Dinejad and the little Basher Assad and Siri to help us solve our problem in Iraq?
Some of this stuff is just patently absurd.
But look, you pointed out, you're right, I've seen obsession.
It's different when you see these people saying it on their own networks to their own people when they know they're not being watched by the world at large and they know that they're not going to be reported on by the world media at large.
What time is this show on tonight?
It is 7, 9, and midnight Eastern.
At CNN Headline News.
Yes.
Yes.
Not regular CNN, CNN Headline News.
Yeah, we'll look at all the best with this.
How long did it take you to put it together?
We've been working on it since August, and it's quite powerful.
Benjamin Netanyahu will be on with us as well to talk about President Ahmadinejad.
Okay, well, he should be listened to as well.
I mean, these people are writing the bill.
Well, he should be.
Rush, I got a list of about 10 people.
You're on it that people should be listening to.
And unfortunately, man, America just needs to wake up.
Well, maybe you can help do that with the program tonight.
Best of luck, it's exposed the extremist.
Oh, by the way, Glenn, I read something today.
You know, Al Jazeera, the English version of Al Jazeera starts today.
Yeah.
And I read that they're going to make just a few editorial changes.
For example, Palestinian suicide bombers are referred to over there as martyrs.
Yes.
They will not be referred to as martyrs here.
Bad guys?
Maybe they could call them bad guys.
Not even going to be referred that way.
But they're not going to be referred to as martyrs.
So what good is this network here?
Well, I tell you, there's a couple of things.
First of all, let's call a spade a spade.
It's Al Jazeera.
It is Osama's YouTube in the first place.
The second place is, if they decide to split that much, it's really kind of good for us in a way.
First of all, I'd cancel my subscription, any satellite company or cable company that carried it.
But the other thing is, is if they are looking, if they look like they are betraying the Islamic movement over here just to move some product, they will appear as they are in bed with the great Satan, and that ain't going to be good for Al Jazeera.
That's not going to happen.
What I'm looking forward to is for Al Jazeera to look just like NBC, CBS, ABC, and for people to not be able to draw a distinction.
There's no difference between the all-Arab network and the big three here.
There's a lot of potential here to do good.
Anyway, Glenn Beck is in New York.
Good luck with this, and we will watch.
Thank you, sir.
Glenn Beck and his show tonight, CNN Headline News, exposed the extremist agenda, the madcap militant Islamic terrorists in their own words.
CNN Headline News tonight.
Back after this, stay with us.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
I've got Senator John Abizay today, Central Command.
He was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which for all intents and purposes is now chaired by Carl Levin, even though he's the minority ranking member.
And McCain asked Abuza about adding more American troops in Iraq.
This was General Abbazaid's reply.
I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey.
We all talked together, and I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?
And they all said no.
And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more.
It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work.
I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
They will win the insurgency.
They will solve the sectarian violence problem, and they'll do it with our help.
All right, so it sounds to me like Abuzzaid is disagreeing with everybody.
He said, don't get out yet and don't add more troops.
We stay here and help these guys beat the insurgency.
Now, the context of this, I think, needs some explanation.
The context of Abbizaid's answer is within the president's current policy, and that is to establish a functioning government, training the forces in Iraq to defend themselves or run around and defeat the insurgency.
And, of course, the theory then if you add more troops, it's going to cause laziness on the part of the Iraqis falls into line there.
But the same token, if you pull troops out when the Iraqis are not ready, then they'll be swarmed.
But in another context, and I think I don't want to speak for Senator McCain, but I think I can speak for myself.
I think after all these years of attempting to establish a democracy and then win and define winning by doing that, it seems to me that if you're going to argue more troops, as the front page of the New York Times does this very day, if you're going to argue more troops, then you have to change the mission.
The mission has to be win, wipe these guys out, and then set up your security force, and then finish the job of setting up your government.
That is what a lot of people wish the mission were when we started, or was when it started.
It's what they wish the mission were today.
So it depends on the context.
I don't know what McCain's thought is on more troops, if he wants to change the objective to all-out shock and all victory or not.
But the debate nevertheless continues.
Mike in San Antonio, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush Retired Air Force Diddos here from San Antonio.
Thank you.
Thank you for you and Glenn Becker.
That's a tough actor, fellow.
Thanks a lot.
You're welcome, sir.
My comment, Rush, is that now that the Democrats have declared that Iraq is no longer a war to be won, but a situation to be resolved.
Those were Pelosi's words.
I think it's unconscionable that we keep our troops over there one more day.
I've got one over there.
He's been there for six times, and I called my Congressman Senator and said to put our troops in harm's way for some situation to be resolved, which is another way of saying politicians coming up with some faith-saving way to get out of there.
I think it's unconscionable.
I think you mentioned this earlier.
I think he might have done it tongue-in-cheek, but I think it's a real serious issue, and we ought to seriously consider getting them out of there now if the objective is to get them out of the way.
Why would you assume that what I had said was tongue-in-cheek?
Carl Levin said today that the president ought to tell the Iraqis we're getting out in four to six weeks or months.
And my response was, well, if we're going to quit, why wait four to six months to quit?
Let's get out now.
Why is it worth another American life?
If you're going to quit, quit.
Pull out of there.
You think that was tongue-in-cheek?
Well, it came across a little bit to me.
I know you hadn't said this, but that's exactly the same point I meant to my congressman.
I'm not being tongue-in-cheek at all.
I'm trying to improve the Democrat strategy.
Well, Rush, if you think about it, the Democrats have finally achieved the parallel to Vietnam that they've been talking about for the last two years.
And the parallel is that in both cases now, we've decided that victory is not an option, so we're going to find some faith-saving way to get out of it.
No, it's worse than that.
The Democrats chose defeat in order to get rid of a president and to get their power back.
So if the Democrats have chosen defeat, and that means we're going to quit now, why wait?
I mean, if the mission's over, if the Democrat Party's mind, the mission is over.
Senator Levin's mind, the mission is over.
Get out of there now.
It's not worth it.
It's not worth exposing our troops to any more bloodshed, harm, danger, plus the holidays are coming up.
What a great gift to their families to get them out of there.
Mission's over.
In fact, you're right.
The Democrats have said this is not even a war to win.
It's a situation to be resolved.
So let's resolve it.
The American people have voted for it.
That's exactly right.
All right, Mike, thanks for the call.
Moving on to San Diego.
This is Tim, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
You were saying that you're looking for a different term than Swift-voted to describe the Mirtha situation.
Yes.
I think that we should say that Mirtha is being chap-aquitticked.
It's kind of like being Swift-voted because it involves a river.
But I think the day after Mirtha's nomination is pronounced dead, we should see Nancy Pelosi wearing one of those whiplash collars, and she can say she did everything she could to save him.
So, and you're now to be chap-aquitted, he is Mary Joe Copechny.
That's right.
Okay, because I was going to say if he's Ted Kennedy, he gets away with it.
Well.
So you can't.
So I get your point.
Being chap-aquitticked.
Nancy Pelosi with the neck brace.
Well, you think he's really going to lose?
That's hard to say.
I mean, who can predict what these guys are going to do?
After that, they would have what they have right now?
Would you have thought that they would say that again?
Well, I mean, look where they are.
They have the House.
They may soon have the Senate.
In fact, I think that we need a new symbol for the House of Representatives.
Instead of having the Capitol Dome, I think that we should have a new symbol, call it the Leaning Tower of Appeasement, because that's what it's going to turn into.
In fact, no, no, no.
It already is that.
Leaning Tower of Appeasement.
Now, I love it when people come up with these ideas.
I'm not going to give up on Mirtha.
After all, I've endorsed him.
I have put the weight of my reputation and hopes and dreams for him on the line here.
Oh, you think that was the final straw?
I hope not.
Talent on loan from God.
I want you to listen to this soundbite from General John Abuzz again, ladies and gentlemen.
As you listen to this, I want you to ask yourselves, how would you describe the policy here that he is advocating?
Senator McCain has just asked him his thoughts on adding more American troops to Iraq.
I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey.
We all talked together, and I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?
And they all said no.
And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more.
It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work.
I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
They will win the insurgency.
They will solve the sectarian violence problem, and they'll do it with our help.
How would you characterize his answer here in terms of policy?
How would you describe this?
What does it sound like to you that he is suggesting that we do?
Exactly right, Mr. Snerdley.
Does this not sound like stay the course?
This sounds just, and this is the guy running the show.
This is one of the generals.
This is the Central Command Ed Honcho over there.
And it sounds to me like it's Stay the Course.
I have noticed something very curious.
Ever since the election, well, give it a couple of days.
Whenever it started after the election, the Democrats started ramping up their call to get out of there.
11 the latest today, get out in four to six weeks.
Well, his point is Bush, months, months.
Bush ought to tell them.
Bush, President Bush, don't tell them that we're leaving in four to six months.
It seems like a whole lot of voices are all of a sudden popping up saying, hey, we can't get out of there now.
Front page of the New York Times today, Anthony Zinni, other military experts.
Here's General Abuzz.
Hey, we can't get out of there now.
That's not the thing to do.
Funny how none of this was articulated prior to the election.
Hank, sorry, Mark Rockland, California.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Charter dittos rush from your adopted hometown.
Thank you, sir.
Well, you know, I was talking to your screener, and I just thought it was so hypocritical for the Democrats, Levin, Pelosi, and these folks, to have an attitude that we should put more responsibility on the Iraqis when they don't practice what they preach with welfare and entitlements here in this country.
Interesting observation.
You are suggesting when they tell the Iraqis, hey, stand up, protect yourselves, defend yourselves.
You know, they don't do that with their own constituents here.
Don't worry about it.
If you don't have it, we'll get it for you.
Absolutely.
It just burns me because they can't have it both ways.
Yes, they can, and they won the election doing it.
Absolutely.
They're not.
Look, we're going to go broke here trying to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism and Democrats.
But that is an excellent observation on your part.
But you have to understand the context.
The context is that they've never said a decent word about the Iraqis.
They don't care.
These are the people with all the compassion in the world and all the tolerance and all the understanding.
The people who run around talking about human rights and making sure everybody has them and they're not violated.
They couldn't have cared less about the people in Iraq.
This is nothing but selfishness on their part.
And everybody knew this.
We shouted it from the mountaintops, but they convinced, along with the media, enough of the American people a situation was irretrievable over there.
And so the American people voted to get out.
Changing the direction here just a bit, most Americans have a poll here.
This is from Al Reuters.
Most Americans believe smokers and obese people should pay more for health insurance, but they have mixed views on how to help the millions without any health insurance.
This, according to a survey that has been published yesterday, the poll of about 1,500 people found that about 80% in America believe the U.S. health insurance system needs fixing.
60% of those polled favored higher premiums for smokers, while 30% felt the obese should pay more.
When it comes to personal responsibility, consumers increasingly support making people pay more for unhealthy behavior, said the report in the journal Health Affairs.
The survey came a week after the Democrats won the House.
Why that's relevant?
I don't know.
Has to be in every story.
And on Monday, the health insurance industry unexpectedly threw its support behind a plan for nearly universal health insurance.
Yeah, I saw that in the stack yesterday.
So a new poll that says smokers and the obese should pay more for health insurance.
And people said, you believe the poll.
I believe every poll from now on out, ladies and gentlemen, every poll.
And I believe this one.
This one's easy to believe.
Everybody wants somebody else to pay their freight.
Everybody's willing to blame somebody for being the cause for high prices or this or that and the other thing.
And it's easy to blame the fat.
It's easy to blame the obese and the overweight.
And it is easy to believe, blame those who smoke.
Yeah, so, I mean, I totally believe this is true.
I don't question this poll at all.
Fascinating story here from Al AP.
Walmart and rival Target are brewing up a price war for toys, electronics, and other things consumers may want for Christmas that could spell savings for shoppers, but profit woes for retailers in the critical holiday quarter.
Walmart, the world's largest retailer on Tuesday, promised its most aggressive pricing strategy ever to fuel year-end business, but warned that the move could also make it miss Wall Street's expectations for fourth quarter earnings.
The announcement came as Walmart posted an 11.5% profit increase in the third quarter when improved merchandise mix and stricter cost controls offset weak growth in U.S. sales.
John Menzer, head of Walmart U.S., told investors there were huge sales increases among the discounted toys and in some electronics.
We're seeing a huge growth in our new categories such as flat panel TVs, MP3 players, laptops, and cell phones.
But this is tempered with declines in our more mature categories such as music, DVD players, and telephones.
Well, two parts to this.
First off, discounts are bad for business.
That is the theme here of the AP story.
Great for consumers.
Walmart cutting prices.
That's going to anger the Democrats even more.
Walmart's got to get their head on straight.
They got to understand that they are in the crosshairs.
They are a target.
They have a bullseye pointed on air painted on every store they've got.
And you know why?
Because they're doing a better job for the middle class in this country than the government is and the Democrats and all their programs.
And that can't last.
Liberal Democrats cannot stand for that to stand.
Once the American people figure out that the free market is going to improve their quality of life, they're not going to rely on big government programs to do it as much.
And that is going to, in turn, eliminate or decrease some of the power and the powerful of the grip that Democrats hold on people.
So they will, now Walmart's just in their face.
Walmart already a target, already hated.
And now they say, guess what?
We're lowering prices for Christmas.
They're not even saying the holiday season.
They're really piling on by saying they're lowering prices for Christmas.
I mean, that's punching a liberal in the nose when you go up and say, Christmas.
And then when you dare to cut prices even more.
So this is going to cause anguish.
So now the second part of this is, well, this is going to cause great, great results for consumers, but they might not meet their fourth quarter expectations on Wall Street.
Which leads me to a theory that I've had for a long time.
But I don't know that I'm qualified, ladies and gentlemen, because I've never been a CEO of a major corporation or a business.
So be prepared to discount everything I say because I'm not qualified to say it.
I'm not even allowed under the new rules imposed by the left.
But it seems to me that when you have a business and your focus is Wall Street rather than the business, you are making a tactical error.
I also am not sure Walmart's not going to meet its fourth quarter expectations.
With all these discounts, you know what happens?
Usually sell more volume.
Kind of like lowering taxes and increasing revenue.
Funny how that works.
Probably will work for Walmart.
In fact, it's the definition of Walmart success.
So they're going to cut prices for a period of time here in the final month leading up to Christmas.
And they're worried about the impact on Wall Street.
That, you know, I understand all that, but it seems to me it distracts CEOs from what ought to be the real mission.
But here's the third leg of this little story that I want to talk about.
You hear me say here that they're seeing big growth in new categories such as flat panel TVs, i.e. plasmas and near plasmas and the quartz, liquid quartz, the liquid crystal display screens.
These flat panels, they've been out for a long time, but the price at the outset was just too high.
You had to have one of these in order to watch high-definition broadcasts.
Well, what's happened is the reason why Walmart is expecting this to be the year of the flat panel is because the price has come down.
Frankly, I hope they're right.
I want as many of you people as possible buying flat panels, and I'll tell you why.
I love high-definition, and I have sacrificed.
I have been on the cutting edge.
I have been a pioneer taking the arrows on this.
I have in my house, and I know some of you are going to misunderstand this.
I have 12 flat panels in one of my house.
I have a 15-foot HD rear projection flat panel.
I have paid through the roof so that you can afford yours now.
And the reason for this is the more of you that go get flat panels, the more high-definition programming there's going to be out there, and the sooner the better, because there's nothing like it.
I've been willing to undergo this sacrifice, but you know, it's the way things always happen.
When new products are introduced, certain people rush out and buy them, pay the price, get the production and sales forces rolling, and that brings the price down so that everybody else, it happened with the VCR.
I led the trend there.
I mean, I borrowed $1,200 from a bank to buy a Sony Betamax that would record for one hour.
And it was only a month later that Panasonic came out with their four-hour VHS machine.
But I was loyal because the Sony Betamax had a better picture quality and a far better mechanism.
Well, people do owe me a lot on this.
I've sacrificed plenty.
This is called leadership.
Without people like me, the price would, there could not be the year of the flat panel at Walmart were it not for people like me.
So I hope they're right about this.
Because I want more high-definition programming, and I have been willing to pay for it.
Well, a hot damn, folks.
I don't know if you saw this story last night.
It was just updated.
Our old buddy Brian Ross, he of penis fascination during the Mark Foley story, has put up on his investigative blog website at ABCNews.com the following.
As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported a federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Senator Harry Reed, Dingy Harry, was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.
Now, the story last night was that Abramoff had dished dirt on six to eight prominent Senate Democrats, and there weren't any names.
Today, ABC News says one of the members of Congress Abramoff gave up was Harry Reid.
Of course, they couldn't possibly have held this for after the election, could they?
You know, they did.
They had, of course, they'll deny this.
Oh, no, no, we just got this.
We just got those instant messages of Mark Foley.
We just got them.
I mean, we ran them right up.
We didn't get this.
No, we haven't been holding this stuff.
Sorry, not likely.
A spokesperson for Dingy Harry said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.
We have no idea what Abramoff's telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kinds of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue, said Jim Manley, Dingy Harry's spokesman, in response to questions from ABC.
So Abramoff apparently has given up six to eight Democrats.
And in fact, story also goes on to say that he started his sentence today, prison sentence today, and the prosecutors, the FBI, somebody, said, we don't want him to start his sentence yet.
We're still talking to him.
And others said, nope, prison judge said prison sentence starts.
And so they, I don't know how they're going to continue to talk to him in jail, in prison, wherever he is.
It's just fascinating how all of this stuff, and this is not, by the way, this isn't the first time, folks, this is a pattern.
If we wanted to go back and document it, we could all of after elections where Democrats win, even sometimes Republicans win.
All kinds of stuff comes out that you just know has been held for obvious reasons.
This is Bob in Hughesville, Pennsylvania.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
All right.
Megan Davos from Central Pennsylvania, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Good to tell.
Just give you a little information.
About Thursday or Friday of last week, the newspapers carried a story on the Democratic governor coming out with a state faces a crisis in transportation funding.
They want to increase taxes $1.7 billion.
That would be Fast Eddie Rindell.
That's right.
Now, this is a guy that runs all over the state, giving out millions of dollars in grants all over the place.
But anyway, he wants to raise the gas tax by 12.5 cents a gallon.
He wants to increase motor vehicle registration.
We pay $36 for a car, and a truck can go up to $5.
And he wants to raise it to about $50, $55 for a car.
So?
And he wants to increase spending on mass transit, which only affects Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scrant, and Wilkesbury, which is the Democratic stronghold.
Right.
Yeah, so what?
And so we're paying for people in those areas to ride buses, basically, is what they're doing.
They want to increase the real estate transfer tax.
It's all kind of tax increases.
Let me ask you a question.
Did Fast Eddie mention any of this during the campaign before the?
Nothing brought out.
Nothing at all.
So as far as I'm concerned, that's still no excuse for people in Pennsylvania.
He's a Democrat.
You just described what they do.
Why is anybody angry or surprised?
I'm not a bit surprised.
I've been expecting it.
And you want to know something else, Rush?
Senator Santorum and Congressman Sherried the central part of Pennsylvania where I'm located.
That was not even put in the papers.
What elected them?
What elected them was Democrats?
Senator Casey.
Elect Casey was Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton Wilkesbury.
Oh, well, of course.
I mean, there's, yeah, that's.
I misunderstood you there at the first.
I was having to read the transcript of what you said because we're out of time.
Thanks for the phone call.
Look, I'm sorry, but I got no sympathy for people that live in Democrat states and get tax increases.
What are you...
▲
Export Selection