All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
January 24, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement.
African-American actress Hallie Berry.
As a African-American, I'm honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other African Americans.
Obama's, he didn't say it, but I mean, anyway, there are those.
Greetings, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
New ethics charges have been filed by the North Carolina State Bar accusing the Durham District Attorney Mike Nyfuong of withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court in a Duke La Crosse case.
The amended complaint cites findings from April 2006 that DNA tests found on the alleged accuser excluded all of the Duke LaCrosse players as potential contributors.
The complaint also states that Nyfuang was told of the test results by Brian.
We all know this, by the way, that the bar has just gotten around to adding this to their complaint.
Now, this and other stuff that they filed could have been a slap on the wrist.
You know, these guys tend to circle the wagons around one another, but this has the potential to be serious.
This could get the guy's law license taken away.
This could get him disbarred.
This, ladies and gentlemen, this could even interest, although I don't think it will, but it could interest the feds.
The U.S. Attorney could look at this and find obstruction of justice in any number of things.
This is serious, serious stuff.
The amended complaint also states that Ny Fuang and Meehan agreed that the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence and test results would not be provided to defense attorneys, which is a violation of rules.
The state bar also cited dozens of pretrial comments that Ny Fong made to the media early on in the case.
March 13th, 2006, a woman who was working as an exotic dancer claims she was assaulted by three men, blah, Now, here's another interesting aspect of this.
With this amended complaint that alleges that Ny Fuang withheld DNA evidence.
I know it's, pardon me, my hand here in the microphone.
I've got a smudge on my glasses.
It's irritating me.
At any rate, with this amended complaint, you've got the Attorney General's office in North Carolina now having turned the case over to two super duper prosecutors.
How in the world could these people go forward with a trial with all this having been alleged and under consideration about Ny Fuang by the North Carolina bar?
Would that not be outrageous and comical at the same time?
How can these people decide to try this case with the North Carolina State Bar officially complaining about Ny Fuang's violation of serious rules?
I don't know, because this is just me, average citizen, asking the question.
It seems like it would provide a tremendous conflict and problem if they decide to go ahead and prosecute this, despite all of this.
I mentioned to you a standby audio soundbite number 26.
I mentioned that one of the most interesting things in the State of the Union last night was when the president was leaving.
They kept the microphones on, at least on Fox, which is what I was watching.
And you were able to hear, as well as see, the president interacting with members from both sides of the aisle where they're asking for autographs and basically pawing the guy and angling to get in the TV shot.
And when the Democrats were doing this, it just, you know, this is so phony.
This is just, they hate this guy.
And here they are acting like they are in awe and have all this respect.
So it picks up here.
It's about two minutes long.
It picks up with Jesse Jackson Jr. asking a question to Bush, who says, can we count on the invite, sir?
Can I count on the invite?
You're like your old man.
Can I count on the invite, sir?
Comprehensive best line though, we did not go for five.
No wonder I look at it because I was reading the book.
I didn't look at it.
Josh, how are you?
Yes, sir.
Granny, I want to thank you for your comments on both four.
Yeah.
You know something?
If it's good, it is all the time.
Every time.
Thanks to text and wearing them.
Not a lot of courage we had around here.
Trueby and I were talking about you.
He said, how's Grain here?
And I said, Grain is a dignified, distinguished, magnificent soldier, Mr. Ellen.
Kind of watching you like a hawk.
I know.
Good job, Mr. President.
Thank you.
You saw those Wisconsin farmers.
That's right.
That's right.
Mr. President, thank you.
I hope you saw the good feedback you get from me.
You were sweet.
Mr. Federal.
You want me back in Minnesota?
Oh, absolutely.
Did you tell Sarshar?
I called him from the bus.
Oh, thank you.
He was still in.
Thanks for doing that.
Thank you for honoring this session.
Well, thank you.
That's a great thing about it.
We're going to get a good job.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me.
Now, Sarskar.
Don't forget.
Get him on the way out of the state of the Union.
I asked for that.
Bishop, you want all those troops to go to Fort Penn?
Thanks for coming down.
It's a great trip.
Thanks for that.
Sweet closer.
Shelly Molly.
Nice job.
Very, nice job.
Well, he spoke to me.
I was listening to you.
Thank you, Jerry.
You got everything.
President Jebby's my constituent now.
Look at that.
Grant, thank you.
Thank you, sir.
God bless you, Mr. President.
I just took him.
I took the advice you gave me the other day in that meeting.
But 40 in there, Buck.
Oh, yeah, all right.
Tejano.
Tejano.
How's that?
Hey, Kenny, how you doing?
35 days.
You see me on my shit, my friend.
Russ.
He was right next to me.
You did all right.
How you done?
So the last voices you heard there, I think Tom Harkin said, I tell you, did you see me on my feet?
And Bush said, Russ, and Senator Feingold said the computer was right next to me.
You did all right.
All this congeniality with these Democrats and what you didn't see, the president signing autographs during this whole thing.
And he's got, there was a Republican congresswoman from Wisconsin or Michigan?
I can't remember which.
She wouldn't take her hands off of him.
Had her hands on him for 30 seconds, if not more.
But she was a Republican, so I guess no big deal.
And let me close out the segment with this.
Once again, ESPN remains obsessed with me.
Last night, unpardon the interruption with Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon.
Rush Limbaugh reportedly said Friday night that the fell too often looks like a game between the Crips and the Bloods without any weapons, close quote, Tony.
What do you think of that?
I've said this before.
That is blatant race baiting.
He has done this.
That's bigoty.
Once again, they didn't hear it.
They said, Rush Limbaugh reportedly said Friday night.
No, I said it during the day on Friday, but I was among comments that went on for at least two segments, maybe 20 minutes total.
And here's a little excerpt of those additional comments that I made that these two bigots either didn't hear or don't know about and are not interested in learning about.
A lot of people have theories on this.
I've heard this uniform black business has roots in gang culture, but I think also this is also rooted in you don't diss me.
You don't disrespect me.
And disrespect can occur with just the wrong glance.
There's a hypersensitivity to it.
But it's not, you know, it's not just black players who are engaging in this kind of behavior.
I think it's a just general decline in class.
And you can't leave out the television aspect of this.
It gets you on TV, gets you on the highlight reel.
There are many, many factors in it.
There's no question.
And it's only going to keep getting worse.
So I was discussing, as you people heard, an overall lack of class that seems to be affecting the National Football League.
And it seems to be happening more and more.
We just had the 10th Cincinnati Bingo arrested yesterday since the season began.
We've had players stomping on each other's faces.
We've had kicks to the groin.
We've had, and all of these things have, what?
That, that.
I'm not baiting anybody.
I'm telling you what I've seen.
And each one of these actions has carried a meaningful penalty that has harmed the team in the quest for victory and so forth.
All of this head-butting going on out there.
And it's, you know, somebody said, well, you know, Rush, why are you picking on the NFL?
I mean, it's worse than the NBA.
You know, remember what happened up there in Detroit at the Palace and Auburn Hills and so forth.
You know, I think there's an explanation for this.
Football already is a rough and tough and violent game.
And the impression that people have of the people who play it is that they're rough, tough, really tough guys.
I mean, and they imagine these guys are acting this way at home.
And they imagine, you know, that you've got to be of a certain mindset.
And so these kinds of things are not all that unexpected in football because it is rough and tough.
It is violent.
And it is mono-amano.
And it's brutal.
You guys have no concept.
Television does not do justice to the brutality of this game when it's played legally, as the rules indicate.
So I think there's less of a shock when these kind of emotions boil over into this kind of behavior that we were discussing last week.
Whereas in basketball, where there are no pads, it's a heavy contact game now.
It used not to be.
It was a heavy, heavy contact game, but no pads.
It's not supposed to be contact.
It's not a game about brutal use of force to dominate the opponent as football is.
And so it seems to stand out more so in basketball.
At any rate, let's take a brief time out.
We'll come back and continue.
And as we do, we will incorporate more and more of your highly valuable phone calls.
Stay with us.
Okay, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh.
Always having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have your guiding light and living legend, all in one remarkable media presentation.
Now, I don't want there to be any confusion out there in my analysis of this healthcare plan that's dead on arrival.
I know there are tax increases in it.
I told you this yesterday when I played this cruel trick on you.
Yes, there are tax increases in it.
As I understand it, the impetus behind the program is to get as many people as possible buying their own health insurance so as to introduce as much market force into healthcare pricing as possible.
Now, not everybody's going to do it.
And those that don't are going to face a tax increase.
Any amount of health care benefit they get from their employer over $15,000 will be taxed.
I don't know at what rate, but it'll be taxed.
So, yeah, there's going to be a tax increase, and the purpose of this is to balance whatever tax deductions the government's getting.
You know, government never does with less.
They would never hear about government willing to do with less.
So, if they're going to offer tax exemptions for those of you who go out and buy your own health insurance, they look at it as, oh, we've got to get that money back somewhere.
But the tax increase or the new tax on people that stay in their employer-paid health plans is designed as an incentive to get you to go out and leave that plan and buy your own.
And I'm just commenting on the fact I don't know about the likelihood of that simply because so many people have come to think of it as free or as a benefit.
You may object to my use of the word free, but what is a benefit?
To dad on a Benny.
Benefit.
How many of you pay for benefits, do you think, in your own mind?
I'm just talking about attitudes here.
Forget the economics and the reality.
We deal with attitudes here.
And when you hear people clamoring for health insurance, health coverage, I'll guarantee you they're clamoring for something they don't want to pay for.
And one of the reasons they don't want to pay for it, I don't blame them, it's so ridiculously expensive and it's so ridiculously exclusive.
If at a hangnail, you're going to have tougher rates.
If you've had a heart attack, good luck getting insurance.
It's just, I don't know.
People think the whole system is rigged, and that's why the benefit aspect of it is attractive.
Plus, that whole benefit, employer-benefit system has been in place for so long that uprooting it and changing it.
And those of us who understand market forces understand for every one of us that do, there are 10,000 that don't.
And so when you start trying to sell this on the basis of market forces to bring prices down, it's going to go right over their heads.
That's not what this is.
They don't care.
I want my health insurance, Mr. Limbaugh.
Don't tell me about market forces and reducing prices.
I want health coverage, so I don't have to worry about it.
Okay.
It's going to be a tough sell.
I don't think this is going to go anywhere, but it's a new idea, and everybody's always clamoring for new ideas right in the same old, same old.
Bill in Orange Park, Florida, you are next, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
It's a real pleasure to talk to you once again.
Yes.
First of all, Rush, I have two points.
First one is: I like what you had talked about, Fox News opening up their microphones last night.
Very, very, very telling.
The other thing was I wanted to talk about the president's speech.
Yes.
I thought that the president hit a nerve last night in what I would call a defining moment in the war on terror, in that he asked a very, very simple question in the way that every single American can understand in very simple language, and it's one that we can pose to liberals in the future.
And that is, do you want the United States to win?
Do you want us to be victorious in the war on terror?
What do you mean?
We already got the answer.
They sat on their hands last night.
They don't want us to win.
They can't afford politically for themselves for us to win.
They're exposed now, Rush.
They're exposed for what they really are.
It's plain for everyone to see now.
Yeah.
I've thought that so many times the last year about the liberals and Democrats, and they still won the election.
But believe me, Rush, from what I've been hearing from people, friends of mine in this area, friends of mine that are outside of other parts of the United States, this is what resonated with people last night.
Not the health care proposal, not the energy thing, nothing of that sort.
I understand that because Bush was the most passionate during the war on terror segment of the State of the Union.
Exactly, sir.
And you could, did you see Lieberman stand up and applaud?
Yeah.
There were some other moderate Democrats that stood up, but you saw the real liberals last night.
I guess I've been seeing them all my life.
I understand what you're saying.
You think people are going to watch that last night and really have their eyes opened about who the liberal Democrats are.
Yes, sir, I do.
Well, I hope you're right.
I've thought how much more can people's eyes be opened or need to be opened about liberals?
See, you know, one of the things that I wished had happened last night, in addition to the thing that you cite, and that is contrast.
I wish the president would have contrasted his views with the views of the Democrats.
But he just doesn't do that.
He's not ideological in that sense.
Reagan did this constantly.
During his State of the Union, during his speech, Reagan would tell the American people what his opponents think, what they want, what they oppose, and what kind of obstacle they are.
And he also did it in very simple language that the average American can understand.
He did.
But George W. Bush has people in that room who are invested in Vic and defeat.
George W. Bush has people in that room trying to undermine the policy.
Now, he can find a way to say that, and he can get booze and cat calls from that side of the aisle.
But he's leaving it up to people who watch this, who see the Democrats sit down and not applaud when he mentions victory, and he's leaving it up to the viewer to conclude this for him.
That's exactly right.
Yeah.
But on any of these proposals that he made, I don't care the domestic side in the war on terror.
These people are who they are, and he needs to tell the American people what he's up against as he's trying to protect this country for us and everybody else.
Well, I think, sir, that last night every single American was able to see.
The camera told a lot last night.
And these liberals, these Democrats that sat on their hands, they were there for all of us to see.
There's no doubt about who they are.
You know something?
I have seen Hillary Clinton looking dour and sour in State of the Union addresses for the last six years.
I have seen Democrats not applaud obvious patriotic things for the last six years.
I've seen this is nothing new in terms of Democrat behavior.
There were a number of things they stood silent on last night that would be good for the country, but that didn't involve the government getting bigger.
And I've been watching this my whole life, and yet the Democrats still won in November.
Well, who's going to be the first in the news media, the drive-by media, as you like to call them?
And I like that term.
Yeah, thank you.
Who's going to be the first one to look Hillary straight in the eye and say, do you want us to be victorious?
Now, her answer is going to be yes.
But.
No, it's not going to get that far.
There will not be an answer for Mrs. Clinton because that question will never be posed.
That's what I was wondering.
Will that question ever happen?
Got it run.
Got it run.
Got it.
See you in a minute.
All right, Rudy Giuliani, ladies and gentlemen, and this is sort of an extension of the last phone call of a gentleman on the phone thinking that last night's display by the Democrats will finally awaken the American people to realize that the Democrats want to lose.
If the American people don't know that by listening to the Democrats for the last year and a half, they're never going to figure it out.
Now, the only thing is that the power of pictures, yes, power of pictures.
And by the way, the combined viewership for the State of the Union last night on all the networks that appeared outdid American Idol.
So a lot of people saw it.
A lot of people watched it, probably because they were expecting a train wreck.
But nevertheless, they watched.
Now, Rudy Giuliani is polling high in a lot of places.
Now, why would that be?
What is Rudy Giuliani known for?
9-11, Mr. Tough, America's mayor.
He's not a liar.
Mr. Tough, America's mayor.
He didn't flinch.
I have to think that the country thinks that Rudy Giuliani would be tough and no nonsense in a war on terror.
Now, if the public really wanted out of Iraq and they really wanted defeat, don't you think that Chuck Hagel, who's trying his damnedest to get noticed, would be riding high in the Republican polling rather than being talked about as an independent party candidate, which is what he's doing?
Mrs. Clinton, who voted for the war and has spent the most amount of time pulling back from that position, is leading the Democrat primary polling right now.
The Barack Obamas and the John Edwards, who are making it, Obama never voted for the war.
And Edwards, former presidential candidate, vice presidential candidate, those guys, if there was really sediment in this country to get out and lose, then a whole bunch of people would be, and if Iraq is the single most important issue on people's minds, and a lot of different people would be leading these early polls now than the ones who are.
With that having been said, let's listen to Chuck Hagel.
Chuck Hagel, this was this morning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, and he just was, I mean, well, you listen, this is just over the top.
I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy.
In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night.
There is no plan.
They're real lives.
And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.
We better be as sure as you can be.
And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 centers, to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think.
Don't hide anymore.
None of us.
So you think it's just the Democrats that want defeat.
Here's Chuck Hagel joining them.
And he's not the only one.
Chuck Hagel, we've got Voinovich, was it Susan Collins?
Yeah, Gordon Smith and Brownback.
Sam Brownback, the conservative Republican from Kansas.
Oh, yeah, and John Warner.
I mean, a lot of reasons.
There's just so little party discipline and there's so much fear and there's so much.
Why in the world?
Do you ever recall Democrats joining Republicans?
Make no mistake, this is political.
These guys all want to hide behind the notion of trying to save the lives of our soldiers and protect our soldiers.
It is maddening and it's frustrating.
But that's Chuck Hagel.
Now, if that sentiment expressed by Senator Hagel really was resonating in America today, he wouldn't be an obscure independent party candidate or third party candidate.
He'd be at the top of the Republican tier.
But he's not.
Rudy Giuliani is near the top of the Republican tier.
And he does not have the reputation of a guy who wants to lose and pull out and is weak.
So make up your own mind.
Let's listen to the drive-by media now agonize over post-speech polls.
First off is Bill Schneider.
He took a snap poll out there.
Americans who watched the speech liked it.
So Bill tries to distort it by splitting very positive and somewhat positive, which was on the screen, but left out by Schneider.
So if you added up the somewhat positive and very positive groups in their poll, you had a total of 78% who reacted positively.
When you add very positive and somewhat positive together on whether we can still win in Iraq, you got 82%.
Knowing that, here's how Schneider reported it.
The numbers tell us that the response to the speech among those who watched it, remember, was fairly positive, but not as strong as it has been in the past.
41% of Americans said they had a very positive response to the president's speech.
And were those who watched the speech confident that the United States will be able to achieve its goals in Iraq?
Still a lot of skepticism.
Only 15% said they were very confident.
46% said they were not confident that the United States could achieve its goals.
Right.
But see, he leaves out the we always when we have polling data and you've got four or five different categories, really positive, somewhat positive, don't know, not positive, totally negative, don't know.
You add him up, and this is how people get a general sentiment.
And he's leaving out half the information in the poll.
They were stunned by this result.
They were stunned by their post-poll.
They were expecting more of the same kind of thing that's resulted in what they say, our presidential approval numbers in the low 30s.
Moving on now, here's more of Bill Schneider.
He had to admit, he had to admit that he had more Democrats than usual in his pool because they wanted to see Nancy Pelosi.
Normally, the audience for a president's speech is very partisan.
People of his own party watch, the other party doesn't bother.
This audience was about equally divided between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Why, with an unpopular Republican president, did a lot of Democrats watch?
Simple.
Nancy Pelosi.
They wanted to see the new Democratic Congress, see the new Speaker of the House, and I think that brought a larger than usual Democratic audience to a Republican president's speech.
Well, I mean, that makes it even more interesting then, doesn't it?
If you had a larger percentage of Democrats watching a Republican speech and they still got all this positive feedback after the speech, I guarantee you drive-bys are not happy.
And they're scratching themselves, their heads, and trying to figure out how this happened.
So they got to say, well, it's Pelosi.
They tuned in to see Miss America and unstated, but probably thought, and no reason, no wonder they liked the speech.
Bush was nice to her.
Here's Bill Plant, CBS, listen to this.
A CBS News online poll after the speech found that eight in ten who watched were supportive.
And the president even made some progress in urging a troop surge.
That number went up.
But again, a reminder, that's only among those who watched.
And overall sentiment continues to be majority against the war.
Yeah, so what are you going to, well, why didn't you go out and find what people who didn't watch the speech thought of the speech?
What is the point of telling us, remember now, remember.
He's trying to qualify it.
As though the people who watch the speech are such a minority to the whole population, we really can't give any credence to our own stupid poll.
If that's the case, why report it?
So we, yeah, well, I mean, remember now, this is only among people who watch the speech, CBS viewers.
Well, I would hope it's only among people who watch the speech.
If you're out polling people who didn't, it'd be poll malpractice.
Moving on, this is Martha Radditz, Infobabe at ABC.
There were some real sad echoes of things he said so many times in the past when he got to the global war on terror, when he got to Iraq, and you heard him concentrate on that global war on terrorism.
Those were the sad echoes.
He brought up al-Qaeda again.
He brought up Osama bin Laden.
He brought up Zarcawi in Iraq, who died many, many months ago.
That's what he concentrated on.
He avoided to a great degree the sectarian violence, which is really the major problem in Iraq.
And once again, told Americans that if we didn't succeed in Iraq, that the terrorists could come to the United States.
And he's said that so many times in the past.
And you're bored by it.
See, it's so boring, so boring.
Being reminded of the possibilities in the real world are just so boring.
So, yeah, Zarkawi's dead because we killed him.
But he wrote a whole lot of things that indicated their strategy.
I wonder if she would be so dismissive of writings that were uncovered having been written by Hitler.
At any rate, they were just disgusted.
They, I'm telling you, wanted Bush to plummet.
They were hoping he'd fall off the podium.
They'd hoping he'd break down in tears, beg forgiveness, announced the troops are coming home, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Whatever.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this Justin, it's an ABC news alert.
Alert, alert, alert.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a non-binding, meaning gutless measure saying President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq is, quote, not in the national interests of the United States, unquote.
You know what it means?
It's non-binding.
They didn't touch funding.
They didn't put any action behind their words.
And this is typical of a bunch of blowhard politicians who have no accountability.
They're not commander-in-chief, but every damn one of them thinks they should be.
And back to the phones we go here on the Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations every day.
This is Mary in Canal Fulton, Ohio.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush.
Ditto's.
Thank you.
Hey, I was struck last night watching the speech.
Just what an honorable and decent man President Bush came across.
Yeah, I know.
His introduction of Nancy Pelosi, he went way above and beyond what he needed to do when he referenced her father.
And I thought that was so kind and personal for her, which I wouldn't have done it because I think he's not.
That's who he is.
Pardon?
It's who he is, and that's how the family, the Bush family, is.
That's just who he is.
It was very clear.
And I was left with the thought that, you know, this man is not going to send people over to die for his own political purposes or to justify his legacy or do anything like that, that he knows as the commander-in-chief what he's doing, and he weighs that option.
I mean, the consequences and the cost that other people's families are going to have to pay before he makes these decisions, and he does not do this lightly.
And for all the Democrats to act as if he's some terrible terrorist or he's just like Adolf Hitler is so wrong, and I think the American people can see that.
And the contrast between him and the way that Webb greeted him at that reception where he was so rude to him and wouldn't even answer his question, to have him be the response, I thought it was very telling.
Well, two things on this.
One of the reasons that Webb did it is because there's hardly any other Democrat senator they could find to do it that hasn't, you know, that didn't vote for the war.
That's true.
And, you know, they can't pick one of the presidential candidates because it'd be unfair to all the others.
You rule out Hillary and Obama and Edwards and all that.
Now you're going to go find somebody that did not vote for the war to go do the traditional Democrat response.
You've got to get Webb, who's a rookie.
There's a second factor here, too.
Democrats are really, really, really making a play for Virginia in every political way they can.
They had the newly elected governor do a response to something within the last year.
Now here's Webb doing it.
So there's a lot of things that went into choosing.
What do you think of Webb?
Did you watch his response?
Yeah, I thought he was just really, well, he was nothing.
I wasn't impressed with him.
I thought the things he brought up were just silly, what he started with.
I can't even remember it.
It was really a non-issue.
Yeah, it's something about 400 years ago in Jamestown.
Yeah, well, that, and then even the issues that he talked about.
Well, he was this guy, everybody says a conservative, Reagan conservative.
This guy painted a picture of Soup Line America.
He made up phony numbers about the disparity between CEO and worker pay, wanted to continue to portray this economy as only good for some people.
Wall Street is irrelevant.
Main Street's what counts and Main Street's hurting and blah, blah, blah.
And it's just, it's more class envy that the Democratic Party is known for.
And then he totally misrepresented Eisenhower and his actions before pulling out of South Korea.
Well, then he also referenced how he says that the majority of the military is opposed to this.
I don't know where he gets that information.
I've never heard anything like that before.
Yeah, people wonder, where is that?
I had the same question.
Who's he talking to?
Most of the military opposed.
There's just no basis for that.
There's no substantiation available for it.
Well, you think of his hair.
I thought his hair looked silly.
And I thought even when he started talking, he sounded like he was starting to have the deepest voice he could have, and he sounded ridiculous.
Very earnest and very serious.
They made a big deal, by the way, last night.
Apparently, Reed and Pelosi wrote the response, and he tore it up and wanted to write his own.
I heard that.
And they were.
This guy, he can do it all.
He can write his speeches.
He can deliver his speeches.
He can style his hair so it looks like a toupee.
I don't know.
It can affect or affectate his voice in such a way.
But nobody watches the responses except idiots like me.
I only watch it because I. Pardon me?
I guess I'm an idiot too because I did watch it.
Well, there's a couple of us idiots around.
I only watch it because I know the audience has expectations that I will be able to comment on it.
Otherwise, it would have been back to the movie room for me.
Well, we count on you for that, Rush.
Yeah, I know.
Because I understand what the expectations are, and I try to meet and surpass them each day.
Thank you very much.
You have a beautiful voice.
I want to tell you.
Thanks, Mary, for the call.
We'll be back right after this.
This is a performer at the halftime show at the Super Bowl this year.
The artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince.
Berwin, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited, Tom.
It's your turn on the EIB network.
Is the president not aware of the catastrophic economic effects of trying to switch to E85, which, by the way, is doomed to fail?
Corn and corn products are in everything we eat.
Wait a second.
You're talking about ethanol here, right?
Yes, sir.
You got to speak language people reel in to understand.
They don't know what E85 is.
Corn is in everything we eat.
Prices for food will skyrocket.
It's already starting to look at the price of tortillas is skyrocketed in Mexico, and there are going to be riots down there because I'm not making it up.
Look, I agree with you.
I predicted this by the time you start taking all this corn for fuel, which costs more than gasoline.
It's ridiculous.
Ethanol gasoline is going to cost more than regular gasoline because it's a shipping thing.
It's a storage and a shipping thing.
And it's a lib idea.
It's a lib idea for all these alternative fuel ideas, a typical liberal idea.
You come up with something, you save the planet, and you hurt the very people who lib's claim to love and support the little guys.
There will be riots in the southern hemisphere over the price of corn before this is all said and done.
And here's the evil United States, thought of as compassionate United States when liberals run it, selfishly, selfishly cornering the corn market.
Well, it benefits about 12 big farmers like Archer Daniels Midland.
Yeah, well, I know.
It benefits.
That's the way of the world.
It's the way of Washington.
I don't have time to back up.
We've got to go to a break.
Ask the question in the next hour.
Sit tight, ladies and gentlemen, because broadcast excellence will continue.
But this ethanol business, I'm telling you, is there's so much with the unintended consequences are going to be devastating, not just to the people of the southern hemisphere.
▲
Export Selection