All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
January 1, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, conversationalists, music lovers, all across the fruited plate.
A special welcome to all of you recently diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder.
Those of you who have fits of temper and rage that you just cannot possibly control, there's 16 million of you out there, according to latest scientific research.
We want to get as many of you listening to this program as possible.
I am your host, the harmless, lovable little fuzzball, Rush Limbaugh, at 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I'll tell you, you couldn't have a better bit of symbolism than this.
Hundreds of friends and colleagues of the late House Speaker Thomas P. Tip O'Neill Jr. gathered on Monday in Boston to dedicate a big dig tunnel in the Massachusetts Democrats' name against the backdrop of a city skyline once marred by the elevated central artery.
They credited Thomas P. Tip O'Neill Jr. with using his wit, his savvy and political muscle to launch the nation's largest public infrastructure project.
Just how many gazillions of dollars over budget is the big dig and how many more decades did it take to build than was originally forecast?
It couldn't find anything better to name after Tip O'Neill than something as corrupt, as costly, and as evidentiary of big government than the big dig.
Senator Kennedy said today, Boston's getting the chance to tell Tip that we'll never forget what he meant to us or what he did for us.
I love Tip when he left Congress.
Started doing those hotel commercials.
We popped out of suitcases in the middle of the bed.
Forget what that hotel chain was.
Hey, guess what, folks?
This is good news for our side.
Historians might have to rethink the image of Abraham Lincoln.
The image of Lincoln is that he was a carefree, almost poor, came from the really wrong side of the tracks kind of guy, young adult, only later developed character traits that helped him because, well, he became one of the nation's most celebrated statesmen.
But of course, we've all heard the stories of his childhood and read by the light of a candlelight.
He just lived in these log cabins.
Horrible, horrible poverty this man endured.
Guess what?
New artifacts and documents found recently at New Salem, Illinois, an historic site near Springfield where Lincoln lived in his 20s, indicates that Lincoln owned property and one or more buildings.
The discovery, said state historian Tom Schwartz, completely changes the picture of Lincoln as someone who in his younger years relied on townsfolk for lodging and meals.
Instead, it paints a picture of a well-focused, financially secure young Lincoln.
Yes, Abe Lincoln was a rich Republican, and he set the tone for all of us back in the days when he was in his 20s in Illinois.
I knew it had to be true.
Abe Lincoln, original rich Republican.
The Schwartz guy said it immediately roots him.
It makes him a gentleman of property.
He's not living this bohemian life where it's kind of carefree, no property, no worries, where he can sit under the trees and read.
Sounds like what Pat Leahy does today.
Lincoln had his own place in New Salem, but he might have dined with neighbors.
That might be historically true.
Not because he was in poverty or because he was lazy.
They say now that he just probably was a bad cook.
And if he wanted to eat decent food, he had to sponge off the neighbors.
But he was an original rich Republican.
Hubba hubba.
Great news.
I love it when Historians revise all these year-long, decades-long, centuries-long conclusions that have been wrong.
Animal news here, folks.
Where is this from?
Seattle.
Woodland Park Zoo.
Has anybody out there been to Woodland Park Zoo?
Have you been to Woodland Park Zoo?
You lived out there.
Have you been to Woodland Park Zoo?
Acting like you wouldn't get anywhere near 10 miles of it.
Snurdley used to live out in Seattle, loved it there.
Woodland Park Zoo has harmed a 39-year-old Asian elephant named Bamboo and should move her to an elephant sanctuary in Tennessee, said an animal rights wacko group in a lawsuit filed yesterday.
In the King County Superior Court lawsuit, the Northwest Animal Rights Network claims that the zoo has failed to provide bamboo space for roaming, foraging, and bonding with other elements.
Well, there's a reason.
This elephant apparently is a BI itch.
Here is the rest of the story.
Yeah, well, we just received the suit.
It's going to go to our legal counsel, said Gigi Avianik, a zoo spokeswoman.
We can't discuss it right now.
Now, Bamboo, the 39-year-old female who lived at Woodland Park Zoo since her arrival from Thailand when she was just a year old, was transferred last summer to Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma because she wasn't getting along with other elephants at Woodland Park.
Particularly, she wasn't getting along with Hansa, the five-year-old elephant that was born there.
Sounds like a perfect name for a zoo, Point Defiance, to take this elephant to.
Zoo officials announced recently that Bamboo would be returning to Seattle soon because other elephants in Tacoma have not accepted her.
And yet the lawsuit claims that the zoo's been unfair because they haven't given the elephant a chance to bond.
Sounds like the elephant makes enemies wherever she goes.
Hasn't had a chance to bond.
Hasn't gotten along with elephants in two other zoos.
Obviously, you know, I mean, as in all species groups, you have your bad actors.
And she probably has some deep resentment over being removed from Thailand when she was a year old anyway.
Defying Governor Jody Rel, defying that governor, the city of New London, Connecticut voted yesterday to begin the process of evicting the remaining residents of its Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
The vote 5-2 signaled that a long battle over eminent domain is near a resolution.
It's the end of a long road for the city of New London.
This, of course, is the Kilo decision.
Over the last few months, some of the seven plaintiffs in the suit have agreed to sell, though three had continued to fight.
Suzette Kilo, a nurse who has become the public face of the opponents of eminent domain, has vowed to stay in her pink Victorian cottage with its views of the Thames River.
Mr. Christofaro, whose family owns a house on Goshen Street, has also declined to settle.
And that's why the city council of New London voted yesterday to begin the process of evicting those two.
The governor tried to step in.
Can we get some cool heads on this?
This is a case, if you recall, it got this whole started Supreme Court decision allowing this because these are undesirable people.
These are poor, downtrodden people, apparently.
The city of New London doesn't want them there.
It wants some developer to come in, develop the property, make something big out of it, pay higher property taxes.
And the Supreme Court found that that's perfectly fine if the local government wants to do that.
And you know what's interesting about this, folks, just to refresh your memory, we keep hearing from the Democrats and from the left that they are the party of compassion.
They are the people who care about the downtrodden, the forgotten, the lost, the wandering, the poor, the hungry, the thirsty.
And yet it was liberals on the Supreme Court that basically told these people, you're worthless.
Your property is worthless.
It doesn't matter, hillabines to us.
Scram.
If the city of New London tells you you're not wanted, then take the hint and get out.
They want this new developer to come in.
Now, you would have thought that the left would have taken up the cause of these average Americans being told by the city of New London to scram.
But no, the Libs found common ground with the government of New London.
And I think this should always be a lesson to you.
When it comes to a contest between the lost, the wandering, the suffering, the sore, the thirsty, the hungry, the poor, the downtrodden, or a government, libs will always choose the government.
And the little guy will always get shaft, as he always does when libs are in charge.
We'll be right back, folks.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back, El Rushball, the EIB Network.
All kinds of criticism pouring in today via email.
And I knew it, predicted it.
I warned you people was going to happen, even though you're not getting the criticism.
Parents upset over my remarks regarding ADD and Riddling.
And then there's this.
Rush, why do I listen to your program?
Let me get this straight.
The Senate wants to give the country away to Mexicans.
Bush is at the Mexican border.
Terrorists were arrested just across the Canadian border.
This is Election Day in California.
And yet you spend the first hour of your program talking about some road rage theory in Plan B.
I guess I should be glad that you're not giving an exposition about some golf trip that you took.
By the way, who gives a flip about that either?
What a waste of my time you are every morning.
Apparently, you're so isolated in your social circle and your lifestyle that you are becoming irrelevant.
Lou Dobbs on CNN has picked up a ton of viewers, including me, by concentrating on the Senate immigration treason.
Why don't you give it a shot, Rush?
Our society will change dramatically by what may happen in that conference committee.
Your second hour just started.
Now you're talking about some elephant in a zoo.
Wow, I think I'll flip over and listen to anybody else instead.
Rush Limbaugh living in his own little world, Richard Scott from Fremont, California.
Richard, I must commend you took a lot of guts to send me this note, knowing full well I could read it on the air, thereby exhibiting your total ignorance.
Now, he's a subscriber to my website, and they say the customer's always right.
He may cancel subscription now, but Richard, you know, there's a saying we have on this program called the Cutting Edge of Societal Evolution.
Did you listen to the program yesterday, Richard?
Did you listen last week, the week before?
All we've been talking about is immigration, and frankly, I need a break from it, Richard.
I'm getting IED over immigrants.
I'm fed up with it.
I'm tired of it.
I don't want to talk about it anymore.
Give me a day off, will you?
The conference committee hadn't even started.
I'm not going to blow all the emotional reservoir people have before they even get down to work on it.
Besides, I know what's going to happen, Richard.
It ain't going to happen.
We're going to see to it that it ain't going to happen, but I'm not going to turn this show into a one-note Samba, Richard.
I'm trying to qualify here for drugs, for IED.
Whatever the drug they're going to give.
Seriously, Richard, this program is on the cutting edge.
All these things you complain we haven't talked about, you obviously have missed.
We talked all about California 50 yesterday.
We talked all about Francine Busby, illegal immigration.
You are free to complain all you wish, Richard, but try to have some of it based in fact the next time.
Wayne, in fact, if he doesn't cancel the subscription, I may cancel him.
Wayne in Folsom, New Jersey, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing?
It couldn't be better, sir.
Thanks much for your call.
Well, I just want to say I got a theory as to why they have this new disorder.
And that is they want their own parking spots, Rush.
We're a country of appeasers, and they just want to put an angry face next to that wheelchair what they have over there.
They want their own parking spots.
Yeah, these people are driving around with road raids.
They can at least pull into their own spot and put a smile on their face.
All right, Wayne.
Appreciate it.
Thanks for the call.
Here, Jessica in Southern California.
I think I'm in for it again here.
Jessica, welcome.
Hi.
Real quick, I wanted to jump back to the Plan B.
And actually, you're mistaken about how Plan B works.
It actually does prevent conception.
I think you have it confused with RU486, which actually causes an abortion.
Now, wait a second.
Jesse, you've got to indulge me here because yesterday when I was explaining this, I got, look, I don't even want to relive it.
The email from angry women telling me this is what happens when boys start talking about girl stuff.
You don't know what you're talking about in Plan B. You don't know what you're talking about in RU486.
You ought to just shut up about it, Rush.
You men don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about when it comes to us and reproduction and leave it alone because it's none of your business.
I mean, countless emails like that.
And I was told by, I can't tell you, and I went and looked it up and I found it, they said plan B essentially causes an immediate period.
Correct.
It causes an immediate period, but it does not prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg.
And that is why you have to take it immediately after you've had intercourse because once that sperm fertilizes the egg, you're going to have the baby.
No, unless you get an abortion.
But let me ask you.
Exactly.
Okay, since it causes an immediate period, obviously you can't.
I should ask, what the hell do I know?
Would you want to take plan B?
Let's say you have a very active and fulfilling sexual life.
Okay.
Would you want to take plan B after every event?
No, I would be responsible enough to use contraception.
But if I had a one-night stand and hadn't been up to date on my pill, I would much rather take Plan B and prevent fertilization than to have an abortion, which I believe is a totally different thing than preventing conception.
So I just wanted to make that clear because people are very confused between Plan B and RU486, which does cause an abortion once an egg has been fertilized.
And I think it's an important distinction.
No question.
No question about that.
But it's, you know, to a lot of people, it's a distinction without a difference when you insert the moral component to it all.
But it's not, because if you don't have any problem taking the pill to prevent fertilization, why would Plan B be any different?
Well, because plan B is the result of a lack of judgment, a lack of preparation.
Plan B is something that you take to accommodate, excuse me, lack of care, concern, judgment.
Birth control is a form of making an early judgment and taking protection.
It's a moral question to a lot of people.
It's not a moral question because if you're going to be having sex out of wedlock anyways, and that's why you're taking birth control is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
If you take plan B, you're still preventing an unwanted pregnancy.
You're not having an abortion.
They're totally different from having an abortion.
I mean, if you take plan B, you're still trying to be proactive and prevent that pregnancy from ever occurring.
Right.
That's totally different than being so lazy that you didn't even go and get the plan B to prevent the pregnancy.
Okay, now it's two months later, you have a baby growing in you, and now you're going to have an abortion and you're killing that life.
Those are, I believe, those are two totally separate things.
And that's why Plan B tried to become an over-the-counter product so that people could be proactive about it.
And people were so confused, even pharmacists, saying, telling people that it caused abortions, that that's why it failed to pass the FDA.
You think it ought to be over-the-counter?
I think it should, because pharmacists are as confused as the rest of the general public.
And there are pharmacists that will not fill those prescriptions because they believe it causes an abortion.
And I think that that's...
Well, now, wait a minute.
What is...
What is wrong with a pharmacist exercising his own morality in these kinds of things, his own conscience?
I think if you, I think the circumstances where your access to pharmacies is limited is probably very rare.
I mean, most people, I think, probably have access to numerous pharmacies.
But for in those instances where the person only has access to one or two pharmacists, you know, in our in our breadbasket where people are very religious and those pharmacists won't dispense plan B, what do they do then?
I don't know.
I don't know the answer to that.
I think that's a little bit.
Well, that's, you know, I'm in it deep enough now.
I can tell you what's going to happen after you hang up.
I'm going to get people calling me saying, why did you let her say that?
She didn't know what she's talking about.
You really let us down.
This is one of these no-win days.
I know it.
It's shaping up that way.
Well, tell them to read the package insert.
You know, they're uneducated and just learning from what other people have told them instead of doing their own research.
Yeah, okay.
I'll spend the rest of the day telling them to go read the package.
Well, I just said it, but you don't have to say it.
I said it.
Read the PI.
You'll become much more informed than just listening to somebody on the radio.
Are you saying you're not to be trusted?
You're not saying that.
Don't say that.
Don't say that.
You don't have to trust me.
You don't have to trust me.
I'd much prefer people did their own research, but I mean, I can tell you, I'm a drug rep. I sell drugs into women's health, and that's the way it works.
All right.
Look, Jessica, I appreciate the call.
Thanks for having me on.
That's my pleasure.
Thanks very much.
Jessica tooling around in Southern California.
We've got a brief break here coming up, an EIB Profit Center timeout.
And we'll be back and continue right after this.
And as I predicted and as I knew, dear Mr. Limbaugh, stop her Plan B lies, referring to Jessica from Southern California.
Plan B can be used to destroy a fertilized egg.
I got this in freshman biology in college.
It's also here from the FDA.
How does Plan B work?
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy.
Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary.
That's ovulation.
It may prevent the union of sperm and egg fertilization.
If fertilization does occur, plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb implantation.
If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking plan B, Plan B won't work.
Stop her from lying about this.
Yeah, I think it's time for plan C. Just to there's got to be, well, if I say anything else, I'm going to get cream.
So just leave it at that.
Another email.
Dear Rush, there's an attempt I just read to pull you off of Armed Forces Radio.
Military radio may go hip-hop.
This is according to Stars and Stripes.
The consulting group Lund Media Research recommended changes, these changes, after an analysis of American Forces Radio, and officials are going to meet this week to discuss the proposals.
Now, I have right here, formerly Nicotine Stainfingers, the results of Lund's research, Lund Media Research.
Officials from Lund said talk radio continues to be a strong draw for older troops, but fails to have the same impact with military personnel in the 18 to 34-year-old range.
They've recommended cutting back on NPR and making other radio personalities available over the air only in regions with three Armed Forces radio stations.
But here are the numbers.
In terms of percentage, the total audience for this program in Armed Forces Radio is 24.9%, 25%.
That is a percentage of everybody in the military listening to this program.
That is huge, folks.
That is a larger rating than we have in this country.
That is huge.
In the 18 to 34-year-old group, the percentage is 17.8%, which is that is larger than any radio program in this country has over this country's population.
The 35-plus demographic is 35.2%.
These numbers are just a gn's eyelash behind NPR.
Let me tell you what this is really all about.
In order of listenership on Armed Forces Radio, according to Lund, is NPR and me.
We're statistically tied.
Then Tom Joyner, then Hannity, then Dr. Laura.
And down here at the very end where you can barely register any listenership is Air America and some other liberal hosts.
And I mean, we're talking percentages of 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 1.6 versus the 35.2.
And yet Lund is telling the military, hey, they don't want talk radio.
We think you need to put hip-hop on there.
Let me tell you what this is.
Now, what this is all about.
This is all about getting us off of Armed Forces Radio because the libs they put on there the last six months are not registering.
I think that's all this is about.
Remember, there were Senate hearings and Tom Dungheap Harkin on the Senate floor invoking my name and telling lies and things about I've said out of context and how outrageous I am.
And why should the troops only get one side?
Why can't they get X?
Why can't they get Liberal Talk Radio and so forth?
So they got Liberal Talk Radio on there.
And just as in this country, where nobody is listening to it, nobody in the Armed Forces is listening to it either.
And they've got audience figures that do not justify continuing coverage of the liberal talk shows on Armed Forces Radio.
Now, I specifically, I just want to say something else.
I specifically waited until this hour to discuss this because only the first hour of my show is available on Armed Forces Radio.
So I want to play this above board and close to the vest at the same time.
But it is clear here that if there's an analysis of what's being listened to and what isn't, liberal radio and armed forces other than NPR, nobody's listening to it.
And if you're going to make cancellations, it would certainly be that programming, but not me.
But they're going to suggest getting rid of all of it, except on three stations in very select markets around the world where there are only three Armed Forces Radio Network stations.
And in fact, one of the things that we hear mostly from military personnel is, we need more hours.
Why can't we get all three?
Why do we only get one?
NPR, they do four or five hours of NPR, maybe even more.
And yet, in one hour here, we have almost as much listenership on the Armed Forces Radio Network as NPR gets in four or five or six hours.
So there's no question that there's no sense in getting rid of this stuff.
And there's no evidence that putting hip-hop on there is what the armed forces around the world in general want to hear.
Well, I guess maybe Lund has some research saying so.
But I'm just suspicious of this because I think it's obviously, since they can't justify all these pathetic liberal so-called radio programs, let's just get rid of them all.
I just get rid of them.
And that's, to me, there's no question what's going on.
Mark in Bethel, Ohio.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
As usual, you've already had the error corrected.
I was calling to correct about that young lady that called in about how the plan B works.
You've already figured out it does not prevent conception.
It prevents implantation by disrupting the uterine lining and essentially causing a period.
If she's already in the time of her cycle where she hasn't yet ovulated, it'll prevent an ovulation, which could then prevent fertilization.
But if she's already ovulated, it will not prevent conception.
So help me out here.
I now confess to being a little confused about this.
I'm getting people saying that plan B and contraception are the same thing, and there's nothing different about them morally, and they do the same thing.
It's just plan B is if you forget to take your contraception or use your diaphragm or what have you.
I get other people saying, no, Plan B is essentially a way to erase a mistake.
And it is, whereas contraception prevents fertilization, plan B doesn't, and therefore it's bad.
Who's right in all this?
Well, the contraception works by preventing the woman from ovulating.
So it prevents it on a constant basis if you take it regularly.
So that does prevent.
What, Plan B?
Plan B is an extra high dose of the hormones used for contraception, like the pill is taken every day.
Yeah.
If you take it every day, it prevents ovulation, which will then prevent fertilization from occurring.
If you have not been taking it, you can take an extra large dose.
Usually it's two pills in the morning, two pills 12 or 24 hours later.
That will disrupt the uterine lining and essentially cause a period.
But if you've already ovulated during that time where you forgot to take your contraception, then you could still be getting fertilized egg.
So in other words, it will not prevent 100% fertilization, but it will prevent implantation, so then you won't go on to carry a pregnancy.
But it's not actually preventing fertilization.
It's not.
It's not caused by preventing ovulation.
All right, so it's not preventative.
What would the word for it be?
Corrective?
That would probably be okay.
A good euphemism.
Well, just trying to make a point.
I'm not trying to attach any morality to the comment.
I just.
Yes, it would.
It is effective.
Well, should it be over-the-counter?
Should it be something that women should use every day?
That's the moral argument.
I don't think so.
Well, no, if it causes a period, like you say, is that something you want happening as frequently as you have sex relations?
It's used to prevent the pregnancy that's going to result from an unwise action.
Yeah, an unwise action.
Well, they're back to lack of judgment.
Okay.
Doctor, I appreciate the call.
Thank you very much.
Who's next?
Neil in Boston.
You're next, sir.
Nice to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, Rush.
Mega mean-spirited red spec and a blue state dittos.
I called to correct something he brought up earlier this hour.
I'm calling from Boston.
Yes.
And I just got, well, one thing, I just got to get this out.
It's an honor to speak to you.
I've been listening to you since like 91.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
The Tip O'Neill tunnel in the Big Dig was dedicated a day or two ago.
You said that work was complete.
Work is not complete on this thing.
And work will never be complete on this thing.
The big dig.
Let's see.
The big dig.
Yep, yep.
No, it didn't say the Big Dig construction is finished.
I just.
But why'd they dedicate it to Tip O'Neill if it didn't finish?
I believe they dedicated it to Tip O'Neill because he brought in all the money from the government to pay for this thing for the boondoggle.
Almost $15 billion.
Yeah, almost.
And that's to date.
I mean, they're replacing tiles in the walls of the tunnels and the off-ramps every night.
They shut some of the off-ramps and on-ramps nightly, you know, around midnight until 5 a.m.
People in Boston call this thing the big sieve, and they call it that for a reason.
It leaks.
Obviously, if it's a sieve, it leaks.
Get the original cost estimate on the big dig: $2.6 billion.
It's up to $14.6 billion now.
That's why I said it was perfectly named after Tip O'Neill, Democrat, New Dealer.
It makes perfect sense out there.
All right, we have some audio soundbites on the gay marriage controversy out there.
Let's go to the audio tape.
The president yesterday at the White House.
Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges.
You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
And I am proud to stand with you.
This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment.
And I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs in the hands of the American people.
Well, okay, fine.
That's good.
Now let's go to the reaction.
Reaction is hot and heavy out there in the drive-by media and among Democrats.
We've got a little montage here.
We got Matt Wauer, Peter Slan on C-SPAN, Tammy Bruce on Fox News, Bob Shrum, Bill Schneider, Miles O'Brien from CNN.
If you ask people what they care about, gay marriage are way, way down on the list.
Terrorism, education, federal budget, unemployment, and taxes.
Gay marriage did not come up in this list.
Gay marriage is not at the top of the list right now.
On a list of 29 issues, gay marriage.
Iraq, the economy, immigration, and gas prices top the list.
Debating the definition of marriage is a diversion.
When they asked Americans what are the most important issues, top of the list, gay marriage ban, a constitutional amendment doesn't even rise to the digit on that poll.
Okay, if that's all true, and I don't doubt it, if that's all true, then why are you people so exercised?
Why are you so bothered about this?
If it doesn't stand a chance of passage, which is what I'm hearing a lot of drive-buyers say, and the Democrats, if it doesn't, well, what's the big deal?
Don't you want the president to have a defeat?
Wouldn't it be fabulous if the president was proposing this and it went down to defeat?
I mean, what do you care?
What's the big deal?
I don't remember campaign finance reform being at the top of anybody's list.
Do you?
When they took that up.
And there's more that meets the eye here.
They are worried about this in the drive-by media.
They're worried about this in the Democratic Party.
Let's listen to Stephanopoulos on World News Tonight last night with Charles Gibson.
Gibson said the polls show Americans are fairly evenly split on this issue.
So let's get into the politics of this, George.
Why does the White House think this is a political winner for the president if indeed we're all split?
Because, Charlie, the politics of this are all about intensity.
And according to our poll, the number of Americans who are strongly opposed to gay marriage is more than twice the size of the number who are strongly for it.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
Then what is this evenly split business, Charlie?
Resume tape.
Group of voters who want to block gay marriage is three times as likely to vote on the issue.
So even though you're not going to see the president spending a lot of public time on this after today, the Republicans are going to zero in on those motivated voters with targeted radio ads, with mailings, especially in rural areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Missouri, where they have incumbents in tight races.
Oh, now it's becoming a little clearer, ladies and gentlemen, as to why the Democrats are upset.
They're worried this may rally the Republican base.
And they're worried that, but I think there's something more to it than even that, ladies and gentlemen.
But first, let's listen to Pat Buchanan with the hardball last night, Chris Matthews question.
In a worst-case scenario for you, Pat, is that the country basically becomes largely Hispanic and gay?
No, if that isn't the worst case scenario, when you go to bed at night, isn't that what you really worry about, Pat?
I think what's coming is the complete Balkanization of America, and I'm afraid it's going to be by ethnicity and culture and language and every other way.
And we're going to be like the Balkans, only we've got a much larger, more prosperous country.
And so that it's not like the country you and I grew up in, Chris, whereby we were mostly not natural.
Bob Shrum can't handle any of this.
He steps in.
Number one, a committed gay couple living in a relationship is not a sign of decadence.
Number two, Pat, when your ancestors and my ancestors and Chris's ancestors got off the boat, the Yankees who ran the country said it was terrible.
It was going to lead to the balkanization of America.
It was going to change America in terrible ways.
This has been going on for years and years and years.
I mean, the same people from Georgia, for example, who are going wild on immigration right now and saying we have to keep Hispanics out, were the same people who were saying we have to keep blacks down.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Shrum.
We're all just a bunch of racist, sexist, bigots, bunch of hobophobes.
The Democrats cannot get off of this old mantra and template that they have had.
I think that the problems that the Democrats have with all of this is that, well, they're afraid of it for some reason.
They're deathly afraid when this thing comes up.
And normally, if you're not worried about something and if it doesn't have the support of the people, if it isn't going to win, you join everybody, laugh and you tell people how idiotic this is.
but to act righteously offended and outraged and so forth indicates that they have a real fear that this might actually happen someday.
The bottom line is that Democrats know they lose on cultural issues every time they are brought up.
Doesn't matter when, doesn't matter how, doesn't matter who.
There's only a few exceptions to this, and that's in largely liberal cities where there are fewer people at work.
We will review some of the elections going on today.
Some of them are quite interesting.
We did touch on them all yesterday.
We'll review them here when we get back from this top of the hour timeout.
▲
Export Selection