All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
November 29, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks, J. D., Johnny Donovan.
Pleasure being here with you.
Rush is back tomorrow.
He really is experiencing what could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity or experience.
But you have to understand it's Russia's lifetime, and that means that we probably would never, ever, ever get the chance to do what he's doing.
But God bless him, and he'll share with us as much as he possibly can when he gets back.
But the important thing to note is he will be back tomorrow.
By the way, uh I think what uh uh Michael Evans was asking to the other three.
Well, I said the the dinner tonight with the President, the Prime Minister, and the King.
Of course, it's King Abdullah who is throwing this dinner for President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, and it should be a pretty important dinner and a pretty interesting one.
Paul W. Smith here, fellow student of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where there is never a final exam, but we are tested every day, and I am coming to you today from the Midwest campus of the Limbaugh Institute in Detroit, Michigan.
The Motor City, home of Motown, the growing life sciences corridor, and so many good positive things that we hope you get to know about us.
Now, uh still to come, Newt Gingrich will join us before we're through here today with some observations on the news of the day, and there's lots of it.
We'll keep you on top of that as we try to on this your favorite radio station, day in and day out, every hour of every day, including these hours of broadcast excellence with L. Rushbow back again in the chair tomorrow.
Ryan Sager is going to join us shortly on uh on his idea that economic and religious conservatives and their disagreements, battles, whatever, resulted in the GOP losing Congress this past election.
So that'll be interesting to hear.
Uh China is all over the news.
I haven't even had a chance to tell you.
I was just in China.
And uh and there's some observations I want to share.
If you you can't pick up a newspaper here, a news uh cast or whatever without China being in the news.
It's there all the time now, and for good reason.
We'll get into that a little later.
Uh earlier, before coming on board, I was able to grab a conversation with Tom Casey, the State Department's deputy spokesman and deputy assistant secretary for public affairs.
I thought it would be good to speak with somebody from the administration, somebody who isn't on the road, uh and is still at the White House.
On the leaked memo, Bush Advisors Memo cites doubts about Iraqi leader.
That's uh front page of the New York Times.
Uh, the calls for conversations with and help from Iran and Syria, and uh so much more.
So uh uh let's uh if we can.
Mike Mamon is running the uh the board, our engineer as always, H.R. Kit Carson, the executive producer.
And uh let's just uh take it away on this conversation from just a little while ago with uh deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey.
Happy to welcome to the program the State Department's deputy spokesman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, uh Secretary Tom Casey on the other end of our line right now.
Secretary Casey, uh nice to have you here with us.
There's certainly a lot going on with our president today.
Well, there certainly is, Paul.
And I think it's a very important opportunity for the President and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq to get together to be able to talk to one another about the situation there and to try and uh come up with some additional ideas about how we can work together to improve the situation and to speed up the process of having the Iraqis uh take responsibility for their own security arrangements.
And I'll tell you, Secretary Casey, it seems uh more than ever the president is tougher than ever on his expectations uh or at least expressing them publicly uh more than ever, that he wants uh Maliki to show the strategy, show what he needs to succeed.
Tell us what you need uh to govern and to be uh uh sustaining yourself.
He's he's really kind of laying that on the line for their dinner tonight.
Well, that's right.
As he said, he intends to do as much listening as he does talking in this meeting.
But an important point of what he wants to hear from the Prime Minister is how does he see the way forward?
What does he think is necessary?
What is his plan for being able to rein in the militias to improve security not only in Baghdad, but in other parts of the country as well, and to be able to make what we all want to see happen, which is uh a gradual transfer of control of the security situation and of the remaining areas where the United States is involved into the hands of the Iraqis.
It is their country, and we do want them to be a normal sovereign state like any other and be a good ally for us in the war on terror.
Much is being made today uh earlier in the New York Times and elsewhere about a uh so-called classified memo prepared by Stephen Hadley and uh some of his top advisors weeks ago regarding concerns on whether Maliki can control the sectarian bloodshed rocking the country.
And uh and in one of the quotes in there says uh that Maliki is either ignorant of what's going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action, end of quote.
Uh leaked memo on uh an awkward moment in that they're meeting today or uh a fortuitous moment because it kind of sets the stage for Maliki before the President even speaks with him.
What are your thoughts?
Well, look, uh you know, in in terms of any documents that people claim to have gotten hold of, you know, I'll let the White I'll let the White House speak to that.
But I think the main point that's been made by the President, that's been made by the Secretary, it's been made by others, is that we do have confidence in this Prime Minister.
He's the person that the Iraqi people have chos have chosen to lead them, and we want to help him achieve his objectives.
We certainly, though, are insistent with our Iraqi allies and friends as we are with other country other countries in the region, that we all need to work together, have a clear plan, and have some clear ideas on how to move forward.
And so that's what I think we're looking to hear from the Prime Minister today.
Uh this is certainly a friendly meeting.
It's certainly one that's a continuation of a lot of conversations that the President and other people have had.
But we want to hear his ideas because we do all agree that the situation is difficult and we need to take actions now to be able to make things better and to be able to get us on that track on that track towards a peaceful, stable Iraq.
And by the way, uh the memo doesn't say anything about replacing Maliki, so that should be pointed out as well.
Uh what about your thoughts, uh, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey with us regarding the uh the study group and others who are sp are, I guess, pushing for these talks, direct talks with Iran and Syria, their involvement in this whole situation.
Well, you know, I think one of the things that some of the people who are advocating talks right now have to answer is talks to what end and to what per and to what purpose.
Uh talking is not of and by itself a policy.
You've got to think you're going to be able to achieve something with that.
And the problem that we've seen continuously with Iran and Syria, not only in Iraq, but in Lebanon, in terms of the Palestinian Israeli conflict and elsewhere, is that they say perfectly wonderful nice things about their desire to be helpful and their desire to see the situation improve.
But the actions they take are funding of terrorism, funding of militia groups, direct support for those people that oppose the things in practice that they rhetorically say they're in favor of.
So I think we've got a lot of questions about uh whether some kind of conversation or dialogue with these countries is really appropriate given their unwillingness to take even the most basic actions to stop doing some of the negative things that they've been doing in Iraq.
Final uh thought here, Secretary Casey, and we appreciate your time.
Uh the President has said, uh and this is not an exact quote, obviously, uh there's various things like we can't win if we cut and run, things like that.
But most recently it is that uh th this whole idea of whether it's a civil war or not a civil war, but he says that we aren't going to pull the U.S. troops out, quote, until the mission is complete, end of quote.
Can you give us the White House definition of or when we'll know when the mission, quote unquote, is complete?
Well, sure.
And I I think it's been pretty clear and it's been consistent over time.
What we want to do is be able to ensure that the Iraqis themselves, their security forces, their political system is strong enough to be able to have full responsibility for handling the security situation and managing and managing the affairs of the country in a way that's going to make that country a success.
Um I think that's a pretty clear pretty clear line to draw.
The political process has worked well and has moved forward.
You've had elections in which millions of Iraqi people have come out and voted for a gov voted for a government.
You have political leaders who are working as hard as we are to try and resolve some of the problems there.
What we all know to be the case, though, is that we haven't had that kind of progress on the security side.
And that's why it's imperative that we continue to work with the Iraqis to make sure that they've got the kind of forces in place that can manage the security situation on the gro on the ground effectively, so that we wind up with a stable functioning state, a democratic state in the Middle East, and again, one that's going to be an ally with us in the war on terror.
Secretary Casey, thank you so much.
Welcome, Paul.
Pleasure to be with you.
My conversation uh earlier with Tom Casey, State Department's deputy spokesman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, on the White House view, the official view on the news of the day, and there's lots of it.
And as far as the civil war goes or not civil war, it's kind of an oxymoron war is inherently uncivil, as many have said uh before I just did.
But uh fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if you're a soldier there and you're getting shot at, it doesn't matter if it's uh because it's the crossfire between Sunnis and Shiites or or whatever it might be.
Uh if you go by the dictionary uh of a civil war, quote a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country, that certainly describes Iraq, but uh be that as it may, it doesn't much matter at this point.
What does matter is that we show the troops that are there some support, and I came upon this.
I don't know very much at all about this organization, but uh did something uh with them on my Detroit show uh where it's an opportunity with the Christmas Spirit Foundation and Federal uh uh Federal Express, FedEx, in cooperation with the National Christmas Tree Association, have organized a nationwide effort to boost the Christmas spirit for U.S. military men and women.
This for the uh second year now, Christmas tree growers and retailers are going to be donating real Christmas trees to be distributed at military bases in the U.S. and overseas.
So far, more than eleven thousand trees committed from twenty seven states, sent to uh they're going to be sent to twenty-five military bases in the U.S. and overseas.
The spirit of Christmas to uh even more military families by getting involved.
You can uh read about it and find out and get involved at Christmas Spirit Foundation.org.
Christmas Spirit Foundation.org.
It's about uh time to go to Ryan Sager, which we'll do in just a moment uh more talk as to why the Republicans lost Congress.
He has an interesting view.
He'll share it here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
Uh being a former disc jockey, I'm waiting for him to start the song, but uh that's they never do.
They they never get to the lyrics here, do they?
The power the power of Mike Maimon's editing here.
But Lou Rawls was so good on this song, Michael.
Uh I know uh for the uh Christmas season, Rush does get some uh some nice music out there for you, and uh he will continue to do that.
He will be uh in tomorrow.
The only thing I can figure is this.
Uh the fact that Rush is not on the air today, because now we have this date line, Amon Jordan, the Associated Press.
The White House says that President Bush's talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki have been put off until Thursday.
So here's this whole build-up we're all a part of.
And uh it's not going to happen today or tonight as originally planned.
And uh there are only two things.
It's uh it's either that they figured out Rush wasn't on the air today, but will be tomorrow when he can really weigh in on this whole thing, or the uh the the Tater Tots didn't come in in the special order.
So I don't know which it is at King Abdullah's dinner party, but it's been uh canceled.
The or at least the talks have been canceled until tomorrow.
All right.
Uh back online with our guests, uh Newt Gingrich coming up in a bit.
Arthur Brooks will be here talking about the differences in charitable giving between conservatives and liberals, and uh it coincidentally, and I spoke with John Stasel earlier today.
Uh uh, he has a special on tonight called Cheap in America.
John Stasel reports on charity.
Who gives, who doesn't, and why we all should be more generous.
Uh special edition of 2020 tonight on ABC that John is doing, and in fact, he speaks with Arthur Brooks in that special.
We'll have Arthur on uh i in just a bit uh talking about how charitable we really are.
And who is more charitable?
Liberals or conservatives.
He he has an answer for us.
Now, Ryan Sager is a New York Post columnist.
He has written a book called Elephant in the Room, uh the new book that explains how the Republican Party is self destructing, and we're very happy to welcome him to the Rush Limbaugh.
Ryan Sager, I'm Paul W. Smith In for Rush, and uh welcome.
Uh thanks for having me on, Paul.
Uh they did uh kind of self destruct, but this was going on for a long time.
I used to say uh that the Republicans had been spending our money like drunken Democrats.
Uh and uh and it it caught up with them, didn't it?
Well, I think absolutely.
I mean, it it started uh it's accelerated under George W. Bush and this and this unified government of having a Republican Congress and a Republican president, but it really started back in the late nineties, around ninety eight, uh the Republicans who went through the government shutdowns with Gingrich, uh they were just traumatized.
The the the people who were there in Congress at that time are shell shocked.
These are these are damaged individuals, and and they can't they've decided they can't fight for small government anymore, and they started rolling over on budgetary matters in around ninety eight when they gave up their fiscal discipline, and it's it's really only snowballed since then.
Well, as you explain in your book, The Elephant in the Room Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the battle to control the Republican Party and and how this uh what's being called as the Bush brand of big government, big religion conservatism, and the GOP's corruption by power is tearing the Republican Party in two.
How did they get along before now?
What happened here?
Well, they used to, you know, the the Republican Party used to be held together by the idea that libertarians and social conservatives uh could be in this conservative coalition together uh because both wanted essentially the same thing, small government.
And now uh plenty of social conservatives do want small government still and they're valuable allies, and obviously libertarians are too small a number to to get anything much done by themselves.
But I think between uh first of all, there's you know, there's a third party on Congress, as the old saw goes uh the appropriators.
So I mean, first of all, there's just incumbent titus, uh, as Newt Gingrich called it in the book.
Uh and then there are there's a certain uh extent to which some social conservatives have gotten too comfortable trying to get something out of the government, whether it be face faith-based uh initiatives or or abstinence education or whatever they're looking for, uh, when really the idea should be that you know the government is dangerous.
Any power that you don't want Hillary Clinton to wield come 2009, uh, you know, God forbid, uh, you don't want to give to the Republicans now, because you don't get to control, you know, who uh uses the power that you give government.
Is it because uh there's been a a blurring of the the very in the past uh clear lines, uh pro-life, uh anti-gay marriage, things like that?
Well, there's there's been a blur of of what the purpose of being in politics is is for religious and social conservatives.
I think uh the just keeping the government off their backs and allowing them to have space to do things like home schooling and and to not have the government interfere with r uh family life and religious life is probably uh enough uh enough of a big uh a big enough task to uh hold them over.
And instead we're trying to get more things out of the government.
But uh again, it's it's not I wouldn't say the social conservatives are to blame for any of of the government growth really under Bush.
It's it's much more a factor of that when both parties when one party holds both branches of government, or all three branches of government, if you want to cut the Supreme Court, uh you have nobody saying no.
I mean, Dick Army said it uh said it best again in another interview in the book that you know when he said no to Bill Clinton back in the nineties, everyone applauded him, all the people he loved.
Uh when he started saying no to George W. Bush in the first two years after he got into office on spending issues, everyone he loved uh was at his throat.
And you know, I think that has a lot to do with why we don't have that great defender of of small government in Congress anymore.
And and w you look at the future and you look at the the the people who would like to run for the Republicans next time around, and you have to wonder uh is it going to be somebody who's going to come back and say, you know, we've moved so far away from true conservativism that uh that they're going to be the true conservative and all of a sudden we'll regroup and go back that way.
Do you think that's possible?
Well, I hope so.
I mean, there's a big regional problem that the GOP is getting into also, which I think is probably the the biggest thing we should be concerned about.
You know, red and blue ended this election, and we ended up instead with this four region country where the Republicans are largely confined to the South.
That's where they're solid, they can hardly lose a seat.
The Democrats can't lose a seat in uh the Northeast, and then the the Midwest is somewhat populist and it's turned a little bit democratic in this election, but it's it's the West.
It's the West that's up for grabs.
It used to be a very solid Republican region, but we are seeing a huge swing towards this this interior West that used to be uh very solid Republican territory becoming contested uh battleground states, especially you know, Arizona and Colorado.
Let's uh let's let our listeners join in in the conversation at 1800-282-2882, 1800-282-2882.
Why do you think the Republican Party is self-destructing?
If you do agree or not, we'll hear from you next.
Thanks, Johnny Donovan.
Uh, hope you're having a great uh day, middle of the week here, and uh staying on top of everything that's happening here in your favorite radio station.
It's so great to be here with you, and even better to be able to tell you that Rush is back from his excellent experience, his uh his really once-in-a-lifetime experience.
He'll uh share as much of it uh with you as he can, uh, I'm sure tomorrow, right here on the EIB uh network.
Uh a nice call uh uh out from my boss, uh Mike uh Feesey with his lovely wife Susie driving in Florida on a mystery trip.
Mike is taking his wife on a mystery date, and uh nice that he can listen in uh on uh this radio station for this program, and it's nice to be here, Mike, of course, running uh for many, many years this station in Detroit, WJR,
where I do the morning show, and uh happily come here from time to time and from here in the Golden Tower of the Fisher Building to uh to uh talk with you and to meet interesting people like Ryan Saker, who is a New York Post columnist, author of Elephant in the Room, and talking about uh the Republican Party self-destructing.
You have a thought or two on that, I'm sure.
You can go to Rush Limbaugh.com or call us at 1800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882, and to your calls in just a moment.
Uh Ryan, the uh the Christian coalition's new director president recently stepped down because he was opposed to taking the coalition into environmentalism, reducing poverty.
If he'd been successful, would that have meant the coalition would have embraced what had always been uh thought of as more liberal positions, in your opinion?
Well, th there's certainly this idea of trying to get evangelicals into uh the environmental movement and and the press uh likes to make quite a bit out of this.
I think uh it's because uh that's a certain amount of wishful thinking.
They want to see the religious right take a turn towards issues that they favor.
Uh I just don't think those issues have the same power with the base uh as most of the traditional issues uh from abortion to gay marriage, uh, et cetera.
And why were they Republicans so afraid to make those big and important issues in the midterm elections?
Well, I think that uh I'm not sure they have been afraid to hit the issue of gay marriage.
They certainly tried to use the uh the state initiatives again to uh to try and boost turnout in key races.
Uh unfortunately for for the Republican Party, I think that doesn't uh work very well.
You saw in Virginia the uh marriage amendment to the state constitution passed overwhelmingly, but it wasn't enough to to pull George Allen out of an extremely close race uh where a recount, you know, was it was even possible at the end there.
So I think people uh those issues don't necessarily uh do enough to stem the tide of of an election like this here.
All right, let's uh let's go to I I uh for the life of me.
I I still don't understand why, Ryan, the the Republicans were not able to uh make hay, no pun intended, with the great economy, uh the way it was going.
Not so great here in Michigan, but elsewhere.
The economy was on fire, and they they usually that works, but that they didn't really uh have an opportunity to to push that very much.
And they got pushed into the uh the war, and that was a losing proposition uh either way for them, unfortunately.
But let's get to some of our callers at 1800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882, and see what's on your mind.
Mike is right here in Detroit on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Mike, I'm Paul W. Smith.
Nice to have you on board.
I listen to you every day.
I'm I'm lucky to have you in our town.
And my comment for Ryan, he he said that he felt the re the Supreme Court was in uh control of the Republicans or conservatives.
I would say we're at least one vote away from that truly being the case.
Uh and I thought that that was one of the important issues that the Republicans didn't capitalize on publicizing the importance of holding on to the Senate as far as being able to be the ones driving those types of nominations.
Also, I feel the Republicans didn't, or President Bush did not take serious illegal immigration issues, which are affecting many, many states beyond the borders.
We know that even in Michigan, where you are, Paul W., as well as allowing the mainstream dinosaur media to have the perception that we're losing in Iraq, whether that's true or not, but many successes in allowing our men and women to fight the battles to win.
be victorious uh not handcuffed them by uh uh political correctness when you're a warrior I think those are some of the issues that drove this uh Reagan Democrat away from Republicans this year.
Hmm.
Ryan?
Well, I definitely think you're right.
We could use another real conservative on the court, especially to overturn some of the atrocities we've seen during this administration, like campaign finance reform, which we really need to get overturned in the next couple of years.
As for illegal immigration, I think that that's an area where there was this idea out there, this election, that illegal immigration could be a great motivating issue in a lot of races, and it just backfired tremendously.
not because of the president but because of the the more conservative position.
We lost the Republicans lost fourteen points.
One of the biggest losses in any group in the exit polls among Latinos.
And this is what everyone's opinion on the the issue of of getting control of the border and I I think we do need to to get firm control over the border and I think you'll hear all of the Republican candidates talking about that in two thousand eight.
But the political calculus here is that this is going to damage us tremendously in the West.
Uh i this issue did not pull out races in in Arizona where JD Hayworth uh went down despite his positions on uh his strong position on illegal immigration and uh and Randy Graf uh thought he could pull it out just based on an anti uh illegal immigration campaign and and lost uh by a tremendous landslide there.
So you know the the West again is is tilting.
You you lose seventy thousand votes in three states in two thousand four Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada and and the presidency's in John Kerry's hands.
And with the growing Hispanic population out there, we can't just uh throw that vote away.
We have to find a way to court it even while gaining control of the border.
Were you uh just uh for a moment, were you a bit surprised uh in terms of the President Bush has always uh already shown that he's not uh a conservative it's been disappointing to many of us but uh that he truly wasn't embracing conservatism when he had the opportunity to make uh Justice Scalia chief justice and didn't what did you uh think about that, Ryan?
Did you uh have any reaction to that well I definitely uh was in the Scalia for chief camp uh I'm a big fan uh as as uh conservatives are uh I think that uh he wanted to have a a chief who was solely kind of a creature uh of Bush um not not not to impune the independence of John Roberts,
but somebody that he put on the court and and especially I think that he wanted somebody with more of a uh uh deference to executive power when it came to the war on terror where I think Scalia uh probably shows a little more independence on that issue as far as uh being sympathetic to to certain civil rights arguments.
Let's go to Robert in Vandalia, Illinois on the Rush Limbaugh program, Paul W. Smith in for Russia and our guest Ryan Sager is ready to take your question or comment, Robert?
Well he had made the comment earlier that uh you know the Midwest was more of a populist type voters going on with stuff like that.
My question is is uh uh how can he say something like that whenever I know for a fact that most of the people that I I live around and work with and I visit a lot of Southern Illinois because being a truck driver, you know we tend to swing towards the Republican side of the vote, but because we are so outnumbered by people north of I-80 in Chicago, you know, we we always seem to lose I mean our governor now won't even visit Springfield most of the time because he's too busy being in Chicago.
He tried to shut down two thirds of our town by closing the prison and uh when we went to go kind of protest that well along with many many others over the uh uh financial initiatives he was trying to take to supposedly save our state he couldn't even be bothered to leave Chicago to come visit us.
A lot of us wish it would be that way but we are outnumbered by people who live off the government hill and and are are the the poor side of Chicago or the ones that he cows who the richer side of that area.
Right.
Well, I'd say that you're definitely right that he...
I'm sorry, was the caller finished with the question?
Yeah, he was.
You're right that these states are in control of people who are pretty comfortable with government programs and want more government programs, and that's what I mean by populist, economically statist and liberal and socially conservative.
And so I contrast that with the interior west, which is very much a libertarian region, which is very socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
And so...
uh there there is a balancing act uh uh that goes on where you appeal to one you might risk losing votes in the other uh and and so it is it is a balancing act but the Republican Party has always existed on this South uh versus West axis and it's tilted so far south that we lost California in the nineties and now we're losing some of these interior West states and we just can't afford to become a regional party of the South.
Ryan Sager is with us the book is the Elephant in the Room Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the battle to control the Republican Party uh the question I have and and you may have questions too and we want your questions at 1 eight hundred two eight two eight eight two or uh Rush Limbaugh.com is is what it would take to bring them all back together again in time for two thousand eight if it's uh if it's an issue or issues or a strong leader.
We'll find out at least Ryan Sager's take and yours on that when we return on the Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
Paul W. Smith in for Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh in for Rush Limbaugh tomorrow.
1 800 28282 and the gentleman's been holding forever and we're going to get to him in a moment he's still upset about that leaked memo front page of the New York Times and I do want him to have the opportunity to be heard if uh we're ever going to make any inroads against the institutional media then we are going to we the people are going to have to do that.
But let's uh let's uh finish up with our guest Ryan Sager whose book is out there now called The Elephant in the Room Evangelicals, Libertarians and the battle to control the Republican Party.
Is it uh the next big issue uh or is it going to be the next big strong conservative leader and can it be done for two thousand and eight in your opinion, Ryan?
Well I've been out there making the case uh maybe I'm biased being a New York Post uh columnist, New York New York uh New Yorker, uh Rudy Giuliani I think this is the man who can in many ways reunite this party.
He's got a record of of cutting government in uh in New York City, of getting crime under control, cutting welfare, cutting taxes.
Uh and combined with his his strength on national security, I think that this is somebody who could appeal uh to a very broad uh spectrum of the American public and I think uh a lot of conservatives are finding well but but religious conservatives might have a little problem a little and not there's there isn't anyone out there that's perfect.
There isn't anyone out there with a record that can stand up completely, but Rudy's got some issues out there.
No, absolutely, but what I've found is he's actually the most warmly loved figure among evangelicals, according to, well, they did another version of it yesterday, I think, the Quinnipiac thermometer poll, where they look at, they rate the warmth of how people feel about different political figures.
And we've also seen polls being done where they test, you know, people say, oh, just people don't know about Rudy's social views.
That's why he tests so high in so many polls.
But they've done polls where they put front and center his views on social issues, and he he really doesn't particularly lose support.
He's and and I saw it I went down to South Carolina when he did a visit there and I've just seen it uh all over the country.
People are and especially and even social conservatives Christian conservatives have said they're willing to uh consider him despite uh and to support him strongly despite the uh his differences on social issues.
And I think you'll see a primary campaign where he's going to make clear, you know, he's not going to be pushing some social uh left agenda even if he's not entirely in concert with uh the religious right with that thought in mind Ryan then where does Gingrich fit in on that as a potential candidate in two thousand eight.
Well I'm a big fan of Newt and uh he he uh had many illuminating things to say and many critical things to say uh about the president and kind of the conclusion the last interview I did for the book and I used it as my conclusion he he is a candidate who's going to liven up our primaries.
He's gonna get people talking about serious ideas and serious topics.
I just think that his image is too battered from the nineties to to really be somebody that we can expect to make it to a general election.
I think there's you know three top tier candidates ahead of him between McCain Giuliani and Mitt Romney coming up strong on the outside.
Interesting very good I appreciate that.
Good luck with the book, The Elephant in the Room, Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.
Thanks, Ryan.
Thanks so much for having me on.
Ryan Sager here, New York Post columnist, by the way, and author.
Uh coming up, uh, how are we doing as uh as uh being well, whether you're liberal or conservative, and I I have a pretty good feeling that I know what you are listening in here, unless you're taking notes, uh how do we hold up in terms of our charitable giving?
How do the rich uh hold up next to the say middle class and the middle class next to the poor in charitable giving?
Uh interesting study done by Arthur Brooks.
Ties in nicely with what John Stassel's doing tonight, cheap in America, John Stasel reporting on charity, who gives who doesn't, uh, and uh and he interviews uh some uh some very rich, filthy rich people.
And and his uh feeling is that the richest of the rich, some of them the filthy rich, don't give as much money in terms of a percentage of their salary, a percentage of their income.
The working poor, in fact, he says, give away a higher percentage of their salary to charity than the rich.
But but the point uh that I feel, and and we'll see what you feel about this and what Arthur Brooks feels about this.
Okay, so if if you're rich and you give a billion dollars and you're worth a hundred billion dollars or whatever, uh it's still a billion dollars.
And uh even though somebody says, well, yeah, but they had a hundred billion, they only gave one billion.
Well, they still gave, and you don't have to.
Nobody has to.
So it's another one of these, it could very well be another one of these bashing the haves uh up against the have nots, and it's to show maybe that uh people who don't have nearly as much uh give much more, and and we'll see.
We'll we'll see how it plays out.
Um and we'll do that with Arthur Brooks coming up here shortly.
But I do want uh this gentleman who's been standing by forever, Joe in Maryville, Tennessee, who uh joins us now on the Rush Limbaugh program, back to something we talked about, I think, in the first hour.
Are you there, Joe?
Paul W. Skill off the bench.
Welcome aboard.
Thanks very much.
Appreciate it, Joe.
Well, you had uh Secretary Tom Casey on earlier that was discussing the State Department's official view.
Um of course official views come out of memos, charts, great thinkers thinking behind the scenes, if you will.
But then all of a sudden we have Steve Hadley's leaked classified memo hit the papers.
And it discusses the prime minister's ignorance, misrepresent uh misrepresenting or incompetence.
Now we've got Bush over there with Malachi and the King of Jordan.
And you just mentioned also that Bush is putting off the talks until Thursday.
Right.
So it's my guess, it's only my guess, that the reason those talks are being put off to Thursday is because they have to fly in a nonverbal interpreter to see whether or not Malachi has Hadley's memo in his brain housing group while he's talking to Bush.
This is called leaking classified information that is against the law, Paul.
We can't.
And yet it it apparently it apparently isn't against the law as long as it finds its way to the front page of the New York Times.
I I'm not familiar with the law that uh gives them that uh opportunity, that ability, that right, but you're right.
It is a classified memorandum by the president uh of the United States National Security Advisor.
And the whole doggone thing is printed, I believe the whole thing is printed in today's uh New York Times.
Besides the fact that the news has it, where it uh points out that the document says the continuing violence suggests the Iraqi Prime Minister is, quote, either ignorant of what's going on, as you said, uh misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.
End of quote.
So there you are, uh Joe.
I'm glad you were able to get that off your chest.
And much more as we continue here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
So much I have to uh get in here, and I and I can't.
Uh you don't let me forget telling you about my trip to China most recently.
Uh the study that women talk three times as much as men, and a a firm in Illinois that offers alibis, and this is you want to know what's wrong with America.
You get that a company could do business, the Alibi Network.
We've got Newt Gabriel's coming up, and so much more.
▲
Export Selection