All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
November 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, I see the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that there are no more hungry Americans left.
We've wiped out the problem, but that will not stop local television newscasts from highlighting homeless shelters and so forth on Thanksgiving Day and this weekend.
Mark my words.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and it is time to go.
The Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
We're going to do Open Line Friday on Tuesday today.
I'll be gone the rest of the week with an extended Thanksgiving break.
So the rules are this.
Monday through Thursday, as you know, we talk about the things that only interest me, but on Friday we expand that, and I will gladly entertain calls on subjects that I could care less about.
We'll do that today.
Ask anything, comment anything, whatever it is.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
It's all over the media today.
The Washington Post, Democrat leaders reject idea of draft.
There was also a story today in the Boston Globe about how Pelosi is doing her best to trim the far-left leanings of her caucus in the House of Representatives.
And there's a reason for this.
They obviously have polling data.
They're all moderates now.
They're going to portray themselves as moderates in the House of Representatives.
And this is all done, I'm certain because they have polling data that indicates the country's not ready for who they really are, which they don't need the polling data to know that.
They've been under that impression for the longest time.
Let's talk about the draft business.
Turns into be a dynamite.
See, I told you so.
Let's go back and listen to me.
It's always a pleasure for me.
I never get to hear me like you do.
I mean, I hear myself through the program, but it's different.
And I don't listen to this program when I'm not hosting it.
But when we play soundbites of me from previous programs like I'm going to do now, it's a thrill for me because I get to hear me as you do.
This is what I said yesterday on Wrangell and his true motivation on a draft idea.
I think he's trying to set it up and create a continuing anti-war mentality in this country.
It's what they think got them elected.
And he is convinced that if we have a draft, that fewer and fewer people will be sent to war because politicians won't have the guts and presidents won't have the guts to defend the country when necessary because they won't want to incur the wrath.
And so the point is that this whole procedure, this whole measure, is a continued assault on the anti-war attitude in this country to try to keep it strong and vibrant so as to make it more and more difficult for this country to defend itself.
I mean, that's the truth.
That's how far out you have to take this to explain it.
It's not, when liberals speak, ignore what they say.
You have to read between the lines.
It's sort of like being able to see the stitches on a fastball.
So basically, I said he didn't really talk about the, he's not really interested in a draft and he knows it's not going to happen.
It is merely to keep the anti-war attitude and mood in the country vibrant.
Yesterday with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, Wrangell appeared.
And the question, is your point here not so much that you're really in favor of a draft, but that you're really making a statement against the war?
I am making a statement against all wars that cannot gin up enough confidence that people would say, my country's in danger and I want to serve, my kids want to serve.
If it doesn't reach that level, then you bet your life.
I don't think that you should just recruit where people have little alternatives in their lifestyle.
And so you see, he makes my point and then goes even further with this.
He's making a statement against all wars that can't gin up enough confidence that people would say, my country's in danger and I want to serve.
My kids want to serve.
Where has he been?
Has he ever visited anywhere where there are U.S. military personnel on site?
He should do that.
He should talk to them and he should ask them why they're there.
And they are a cross-section of this country.
And they are, as a group, higher educated, more highly educated than the population at large.
They are there because they want to be.
We do not have a shortage of troops.
The recruitment levels are being met and surpassed in most of the branches of the armed services.
And then I don't think that you should just recruit where people have little alternatives in their lifestyle.
Here is the myth perpetuated again that these people are only in the military because they have no other option because this country doesn't provide enough economic opportunity for all.
And so the people that sign up are life's losers.
The people that sign up have no other way out of their horrible circumstances.
This is an abject, total lie and a myth.
But as I love to say, let us assume just hypothetically that what Wrangel said here is true.
Just for the sake of discussion, let's make a hypothetical out of it.
What if the vast majority of uniformed personnel are simply signing up because they got nowhere else to go?
They can't get out of the neighborhood to barriota ghetto, whatever.
They don't have a chance to get an education unless they go to the military.
They don't have a chance to have a decent job unless they go to the military.
If that's true, why impugn them?
Why make fool?
Look at what they're willing to do in order to get an education or to advance in this country.
Now, I just offer that as a hypothetical.
Why impugn them in the first place?
But I'll tell you why they impugn them.
Because as I was telling you yesterday, and as I have consistently said over the course of the many years of this program, liberals look at people with contempt.
And they look at military people with double the contempt because they don't like the military.
They think it's the focus of evil in the modern world.
And they'll do anything they can to denigrate it and impugn it because they want to neuter it.
They want people to think it's incompetent.
They want people to think it can't win so that it is not used.
I've always thought that in their hearts and souls, liberals love it when we have bad military entanglements because it allows them to say, see, this is not the way to solve problems in the world today.
This is no different than Kerry, who talks about them how stupid they are.
And if they don't get an education, they're going to end up stuck in Iraq.
This is the old Vietnam era mindset where it is the draft and only people who have no future end up going or who can't get into college, the dregs, the losers of society and so forth.
That's Charles Wrangel's doing us a favor.
He is merely articulating for the entire Democrat Party and especially liberalism the view of the U.S. military.
Cavuto then says, but if someone signs up for service, I mean, you know what the risks are.
You could die in combat, right?
I'm just saying that, being one that had faced these alternatives, that why is a kid who was going to Harvard or Yale or have alternatives not included in the sacrifice for our country?
Why would you recruit people who have less options for one year, for two years, for three years that go there four and five?
Their chances are living each time they go back are limited.
So now the best and brightest are at Harvard.
The best and brightest are at Yale.
See, this is an example.
You might be seduced by this argument, but let me put this in perspective for you.
What he's saying here is that people from flyover country or from the South or who do not go to these prestigious Ivy League schools, why, they're not, you know, they're just the scum, the lower dregs of our society.
He wants you to believe that he wants people from Harvard and Yale to be drafted, but he doesn't because he's really not in favor of the draft.
He just wants this as an opportunity, a springboard, to make these arguments.
The Ivy League schools, lest we forget, are trying to throw out the ROTC.
The Ivy League schools are trying to, in fact, some cities, San Francisco, trying to ban all vestiges of the military, not just the ROTC.
So here's Wrangell's.
Yeah, well, we're not getting anybody from Yale.
We're not getting anybody from Harvard.
It's probably a good thing that we're not getting anybody from those schools.
They may not have what it takes.
You know, institutions generally attract the kind of people that they need.
The U.S. military attracts some of the best and brightest and finest among us.
They are a cut above.
They're a different breed.
A country such as ours needs all kinds of people to do all kinds of things.
I mean, what if Wrangell said, you know what?
We need a draft to find people to work in the sewers.
It's not fair that people at Yale and Harvard are not working in the sewers.
What's the difference?
We need people from Yale and Harvard to be digging ditches.
It's not fair that people from Yale and Harvard only dig ditches.
Why?
In fact, we need people from Yale and Harvard to be picking fruit out in California, picking vegetables elsewhere, rather than illegals.
You know why?
Because it's not fair.
We need to spread this around.
He obviously is not going to do that.
This is a direct assault on the U.S. military.
This is liberalism on parade once again.
And at the root of this, ladies and gentlemen, is their contempt for average Americans.
We'll be right back and continue in just a moment.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh.
Open line Friday on Tuesday, 800-282-2882.
The new Democrat-controlled Congress will not seriously consider reinstating the draft.
Party leaders said yesterday, told you this.
I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said to reporters, Mr. Wrangell will be very busy with his work on the Ways and Means Committee, whose jurisdiction is quite a different jurisdiction.
She's basically saying, Charlie doesn't have any say-so on the draft as chairman of Ways and Means.
Now, that's interesting, too, because any member of Congress can introduce any piece of legislation, regardless of the committees they sit on.
So she's trying to herd some cats here.
You know how hard it is to herd cats, trying to herd these liberal cats.
And she's going to do her best to try to restrain them.
For example, the San Francisco Chronicle today, Pelosi's all smiles through a rare house transition.
Speaker to be tries to stay on agenda and downplay rivalries.
Basically, this story is about how she's trying to put out the fires that all these wackos like Wrangell are starting and how she's going to try not to be newt.
She is studying newt.
And she doesn't want to be new to.
We'll get into this just a second, but I want to explain more about this Wrangell position on the draft.
We have a couple soundbites, too.
He impugns members of the military in our all-volunteer force as coming from The less desirable sectors of our society.
So we don't get anybody from Harvard or Yale or any of the Ivy League schools.
And one of the reasons is that those schools have kicked the ROTC off campus or have tried to, made it very difficult to recruit there.
At any rate, let's take a look at September 11th, 2001.
Let's take a look at the Twin Towers.
Now, who do you think was in those buildings?
What kind of people were in those buildings, would you guess?
Well, they're from all walks of life.
I understand this.
But because you'd have the clerical pool in every office, but you had a lot of financial services organizations.
You had New York State government offices in there.
You had a tremendous amount of high-income people in there as well.
Now, who was it after 9-11 that signed up to go off to war on the war on terror to essentially defend what had happened there?
The very people Charlie Wrangell is impugning.
The very people Charlie Wrangell is insulting.
And we've allowed them to get away with drawing a distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
They are the same thing.
And I'll tell you this, folks, if and when we pull out of Iraq, the war on terror will still be going on.
Mark my words.
A couple more Wrangell soundbites here.
On CNN, he really let it rip.
He was on the situation room with Wolf Blitzer, and John King said to him, you're a lonely voice in the new Democrat caucus, are you not?
Anyone that would tell you that the affluent are enlistings are just not telling the truth.
So whether this become a bill or not, the debate will prove that they are enlisting and recruiting in areas of the highest unemployment.
And that is whether it's the inner cities or whether it's the rural areas.
And so that's a fact.
And if you take a look at the war dead and the wounded, you will see that they either come from well-known cities or towns you never heard of in the South and the West.
And those are the facts.
And so whoever challenges those are 100% wrong.
Well, you're going to have to take it up with the Heritage Foundation because they've studied it and everything Charles Wrangell says here is wrong.
The only assertion that's made that is factual according to the Heritage Foundation is that there is a larger percentage of blacks in the U.S. military than is their percentage of the population.
But in terms of education and income strata, they are an income pretty much meet the median.
In education, they are more educated, more highly educated than the population at large.
You got a story in the stack here today, 2,500 kids dropping out of high school a day.
Now, that sounds pretty high to me.
You know, the figure 3 million homeless was bandied about 2,500 a day?
For how long has that been?
If that were true, we could shut down the high schools.
They say school is just not interesting to them anymore.
They say it is just boring and they don't want to go.
I don't know about the number, but it is.
We have a pretty high dropout rate.
Well, I don't know.
Well, I just saw the headline.
I haven't read the whole story.
I don't know if it was New York or I knew New York's dropout rate is exceedingly high.
Here's one more from Wrangell.
He added this after what you just heard.
We have never heard the President of the United States or the Commanding-in-Chief make any argument in appealing to the people to enlist because it's the patriotic thing to do.
Instead of that, they offer $40,000 bonus, $70,000 education, and $4 billion in ads.
And so I'm saying if you have to go to war, don't just let the poor that come from these communities of high employment be in harm's way.
Well, they're not poor, are they, Charlie?
If you get a $40,000 bonus, $70,000 education.
Why impugn them, whatever they do?
By the way, if you notice, he keeps talking about the word recruitment as though the Army is having to go out there and really work hard on selling this whole concept.
And that's not happening.
I mean, yeah, they do recruit.
The recruitment levels have been met and surpassed.
But you go talk to these people like I have.
I mean, look, I can't say I've talked to all of them or anywhere near all of them.
All I have is anecdotal evidence of Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington last Thursday, Afghanistan, a number of other places I've been talking to troops.
I've never heard one of them tell me, yeah, I'm here because I was recruited.
Yeah, I'm here because I got a $40,000 bonus.
None of them have ever said this.
So it's a fascinating thing to watch.
Now, the well, it is.
It's fascinating because it tells us who they are.
You know, this is just sort of frustrating in a way because this is who they've always been.
And some of them are getting a little bit out of line now, according to Pelosi.
So she's trying to herd the cats and keep them in line.
As far as this business about not trying to be newt, Pelosi is seeking to differentiate the Democrats' first days in power from the Republican takeover of the House in 1995.
So it'll be Pelosi's first day in power as contrasted with the GOP's takeover of the House in 2005.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich began his first 100 days with some partisan-edged measures, including, now get that, this is considered partisan.
What the Democrats, Pelosi's 100-hour, first 100-hour plan, not considered partisan at all.
Listen to what the Washington Post describes as partisan-edged issues offered by Newt Gingrich.
A capital gains tax cut, limits on product liability lawsuits, tort reform, tougher prison sentences, and symbolic efforts such as closing the house barbershop and shoeshine stands.
Those are partisan-edged issues to the media writing about this.
What Pelosi has offered is pure partisanship.
The Republicans, of course it's partisan, but these were ideas.
And it was ideas that won the 1994 election.
And the Democrats can't say that, my good friends.
They cannot say that they're agenda one other than that they want to say anti-Iraq sentiment in the country.
That may even be debatable as we continue to analyze the data.
They didn't win on ideas.
The Republicans did.
And it sets, if she's studying Newt and the boys in 1994, she better pay special attention to that.
I don't know that she's quick enough on the uptake to figure that out.
We'll be back, ladies and gentlemen.
A man, a living legend, a way of life.
Rush Limbaugh Open Line Friday on Tuesday.
Mike, I want to jump ahead here to Audio Soundbites 7 and 9.
This Michael Richards thing, what was his name?
Kramer on Seinfeld, which was a show about nothing.
You know, it is fascinating.
Actually, it's not fascinating.
I've got to stop saying that.
I have read a bunch of reviews of Michael Richards and what he did at the Comedy Club in L.A. and his apology last night on Letterman.
And while there is a slew of outrage out there, in the entertainment community, there is, well, we have to understand comedians.
And, you know, comedians can get away with anything if it's funny.
And I suspect that what Michael was really trying to do was make news and stand out, trying to get close to the edge, close to the line, and just in a moment of failing discipline, crossed it.
And so we get critical reviews of the rant and excuse making and tolerance for it.
And then he really sewed it all up by going on a Letterman last night and blaming Bush for Katrina.
So when liberals start apologizing for things, and he's got his apology in the cycle in which the offense occurred, that is also something that's being said.
Well, he didn't wait a couple, three days like Mel Gibson.
He got out there and he apologized in the same news cycle that the immediate offense occurred in.
And then when you go out there and you blame Bush, when you apologize, oh, Bush made you, you are so mad.
You are so frustrated because of, oh, okay.
Meanwhile, how does it work?
What do you mean?
Why does that work?
It's liberalism.
It's that the entertainment community wanted a way to forgive this guy.
There was no way the entertainment community was going to jump on this guy like Gibson.
He was not drunk when he did this.
Michael Richards was not drunk when he did this.
What are you saying?
He was?
No, he wasn't drunk when he did this.
We had, you know, if I make this personal, two weeks of misreporting out of context everything about it wrong about me and Michael J. Fox, two solid weeks of it.
My apology, when it was offered, was said to be insincere, didn't count, so forth and so on.
It is fascinating to watch this.
See, I've used the word.
It does fascinate.
It shouldn't fascinate me anymore.
Because it's predictable.
I could have told you yesterday.
In fact, if I would have talked about this, I had a lot of stuff in the stack I didn't get to yesterday.
But if I would have talked about this yesterday, I would have said to you, there's nothing going to come of this.
There are going to be some initial outrage people to read about it, but it's not going to suffer from it.
This is not going to have legs.
Let's listen here to he was at the Laugh Factory.
It was last Friday night.
And by the way, I don't think if this had ever shown up on YouTube, he wouldn't have apologized.
Had there not been video of it, I don't think he would have apologized.
This happened Friday.
We only hear about it yesterday.
The apology comes last night.
Somehow, he didn't feel too bad over the weekend insulting these guys.
Some people are even saying, some people are even saying, well, now wait a minute.
Why should he be the only one punished?
How come the black guys in the audience get away with heckling him?
How come they're immune from any criticism?
How come the black guys aren't held up to a same standard?
I know comedians get heckled.
I understand this.
I'm just telling you that's what people are saying.
That's the lengths to which, no, not everybody, but the lengths to which people are going to defend Richards.
Hey, Micah, what would you do if somebody were saying that while you're working?
What if somebody were heckling you when you were?
What would your reaction be?
How come the two black guys get off scot-free?
Anyway, here's, I'm telling you, I've read all about this.
Here is the tape.
Shut up!
50 years ago, you have your own tied down with fork up your ass.
You can talk, you can talk, you can talk your brain down, motherfucker.
Blow that up, it's a n!
Oh my God.
This shocks you, it shocks you, you see what's buried beneath your stupid mother.
Okay.
So let's, let's, I mean, could you hear that well enough to hear the beliefs you knew what he was saying?
Did you hear it well enough?
Come on, I can't explain what he said.
I'm not gonna you, everybody, all right, shut up.
50 years ago, they'd have you upside down with the F-word fork up your butt.
You can talk, you can talk, you can talk.
You're brave now.
MFer, throw his ass out.
He's an N-word.
N-word is an N-word.
Look, there's an N-word.
Oh, all right.
You see, this shocks you.
It shocks you to see what buried beneath you stupid MFers.
That's what he said.
That is the first part of it, and it rolled right off the tongue.
Did you notice?
It just rolled right, right off the tongue.
So last night, his buddy Seinfeld appears on Letterman, and Seinfeld arranges for a satellite interview hookup as though it's going to be a surprise with Michael Richards.
So Richards can apologize.
And Letterman says, Michael, how are you doing?
I'm really busted up over this, and I'm very, very sorry to those people in the audience, the blacks, the Hispanics, the whites, everyone that was there that took the brunt of that anger and hate and rage and how it came through.
I'm concerned about more hate and more rage and more anger coming through, not just towards me, but towards a black-white conflict.
Come on.
There's a great deal of disturbance in this country and how blacks feel about what happened in Katrina.
And for this to happen, for me to be in a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, you know, I'm deeply sorry.
And I'll get to the force field of this hostility, why it's there, why the rage is in any of us, why the trash takes place, whether or not it's between me and a couple of hecklers in the audience or between this country and another nation.
Okay, so we got so much rage out there.
Blacks are still upset at Katrina, and of course, the war in Iraq.
Oh, we love Mike.
Oh, he's exhibiting such a depth of social conscience.
Yeah, Snerdley, program observer, has a question.
What's the question?
It has nothing to do with him wanting to put a fork up your butt.
Mr. Snurdley is black African-American, and he's asking this from his perspective.
It has nothing to do with it.
It's a way to deflect.
It's because of Katrina, right?
Because of Katrina, it's okay to call you the N-word.
Well, it's not okay.
It's a reason to forgive him.
It's a reason to not hold him account.
It's not okay for him to do it, but he is exhibiting remorse.
I've read this was a gut-wrenching apology.
This was a heart-rendering, tough-to-do apology.
He bared his soul.
He said he has demons.
He's got this closeted rage.
We all do, ladies and gentlemen.
He's going to get to the root of it.
He's afraid that this might inspire another black-white conflict out there, and we can't have that.
So, Seinfeld was then asked by Letterman.
Jerry, anything you want to say to Michael here?
You know, I know Michael many years, and I know how he works on stage, and none of that justifies what happened.
But, you know, I've been talking to him today, and he's someone that I love, and I know how shattered he is about this.
And he deserves a chance.
That's why I want him to come on.
He deserves a chance to apologize.
He deserves a chance.
So it's over.
He got his chance.
Came one on Letterman is just shattered about what he did.
It took two days for the shattered to manifest itself until the video appeared on YouTube.
Anyway, we'll be back, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll get to your phone calls next.
Stay with us.
You know, you could contrast the treatment by the media of my statements on ESPN about the media and its treatment of Donovan McNabb versus the way the Michael Richards episode is being stamped down, tamped out, gotten rid of, and so forth.
Here's Dave, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
You're next, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks for having me on, Mr. Limbaugh.
You bet.
I'm to the point where, you know, people are wondering if Michael Richards can recover from this.
And I sincerely hope that he doesn't.
I've lost all respect for him and also Jerry Seinfeld for continuing to go on with his pre-scheduled appearance on Letterman and not simply calling in and saying, you know, I was going to be on to plug the release of the seventh season Seinfeld episodes on DVD, and I can't make this appearance at this time.
So you have a scheduled appointment for Jerry Seinfeld to plug the DVD, and he does damage control by having his alleged friend Kramer on the show.
What are you saying?
Wait, Are you saying that Seinfeld's motivation was purely personal and financial in securing limiting damage to the sale of the DVD, season seven, by Defending Richards?
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
And ironically, it's this Friday, which is known as Black Friday, that they're hoping to sell the most copies of it and have it under everybody's Christmas tree.
And it's on the same program where, unfortunately, they scheduled a spot for Mel Gibson's new movie.
Apocalypto, yeah.
Right.
So I don't know.
How do I explain to my adopted son, years from now, who's biracial, that he's going to encounter people throughout his life that hate him to the point where they wish it was 50 years ago and they could hang him upside down from a tree.
So you think Michael Richards meant this?
There's no other way of looking at it.
In other words, like they said about Gibson, I don't care whether it was drink or not, it's in his heart.
It's in his soul.
You think this was in Michael Richards' heart and soul.
Absolutely.
And the only reason that Mel Gibson is getting a partial pass on it is because it wasn't on video.
And/or his lawyers bought the troopers' video to the point where he didn't get it released.
Gibson got a partial pass.
In what way are you saying partial pass?
Well, it's still not top of mind with most people in the vernacular that he chose.
You know that he did something racist, but you don't exactly remember what it was.
But Michael Richards, this is one of those that is going to live on and into me.
Well, we'll see.
I know there are people trying to stamp it down And erase it, scrub it from everybody's mind.
Now, as to Seinfeld, I hadn't thought of your angle about trying to make sure to do damage control because I didn't watch the show last night.
I didn't know that season seven of the show about nothing was due to be released on Friday.
That makes sense.
It's released today, but this shopping day after Thanksgiving is known as Black Friday, I reckon.
Oh, yeah, that's the busiest shopping day of the year, right?
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Gee, okay, I didn't, I guess, I did not know, as I say, I was going to answer you by saying friends are friends.
And, you know, some people have friends who hang by them and some don't.
It's incidents like this if you're Michael Richards, where you find out who your friends are.
Exactly.
And you are brilliant in turning it into a liberal versus conservatism thing because they are actually coming out today saying, you know, it was an attempt at being funny.
When Michael Richards said himself last night that it was anger and hate, he didn't at all say that he was trying to be funny.
What do you mean?
They're the ones turning it into conservative versus liberal.
In his apology, he talks about how it's Hurricane Katrina and a war in Iraq, and we've all got to come together in Kumbaya and so forth.
I think it's the reason for me that it's interesting to look at in a political context is because here you have Michael Richards, a very accomplished Hollywood liberal, a comedian, and he utters words that are often accused of being in the hearts and minds of conservatives.
And yet when he does it, there is no distancing of him from these people.
They circle the wagons and they're going to try to help out here because they've got to do their own personal damage control.
They can't let this stand as though it is something that reflects all of Hollywood.
So they're going to circle the wagons.
He didn't mean it as raged.
Something was wrong.
But let's compare it with something.
In fact, let's grab soundbite number eight.
Let's compare this to what happened to Trent Lott.
Trent Lott happened to make a statement at Strom Thurmond's 180th birthday party that things would have been a lot better off, Strom, if you would have won some elections in the past.
And of course, everybody from the Bush White House to a bunch of cowardly Republicans said, Trent, you got to go.
We can't defend you on this.
On this week with Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Stephanopoulos said to Robert Rice, former HUD Secretary or whatever in the Clinton administration.
This is a.
Let's see.
Yeah, it's this past Sunday.
This does show that there is yet again another second act in American politics.
Shows you something about the face-to-face life of the Senate.
These are all personal relationships in that small little room, and he had more of them.
This is about Thurman or Lott being re-elected to a leadership position.
I hope you're right, George, that he didn't mean what he said.
But you look at Trent Lott's history with regard to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, voting against Martin Luther King Holiday.
This man does have a record that could be interpreted.
Could be interpreted as somewhat racist.
It would be a mistake to so interpret it.
As George Willow there at the end saying it'd be a mistake to interpret Trent Lott as a race.
So they're still trying to destroy Trent Lott.
The Democratic Party is in Washington, all their grand poo-bah analysts on television.
So there is a marked contrast here.
Trent Lott, what he said was inconsequential compared to this that Michael Richards uttered.
Justin, or Dave, I'm sorry, thanks for the call.
This is Justin and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Great to have you with us.
Got about one minute if you can squeeze it in.
Hey, Rush.
I just want to let you know I'm a reservist that's down here in Raleigh.
And after Rangel making comments about wanting to bring in all these draft, initiate the draft, I was just kind of incensed.
I'm kind of, I guess, the opposite of what he anticipates.
I've actually got a master's degree.
I'm serving as an enlisted reservist.
And I just was totally incensed by his comments about bringing in.
Well, it's about time because his comments are nothing new in terms of what the Democrat Party thinks of the military and the people who signed up for it.
And it's an effort to impact public opinion on the military, to have public opinion of the military be negative.
The ultimate objective is to see to it the military is not deployed.
We'll be back.
Stay with us, my good buddies.
Well, the first hour is in the can, and it'll soon be sent over by Armored Courier to secure warehouse housing artifacts for the future Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
▲
Export Selection