All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
February 9, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Am I screwing up Open Line Friday?
Because after all, I've taken calls on a grand total of two topics.
I got the one Anna Nicole Smith call out of the way, and everything else has been about Rudy Giuliani.
That's not the way it's supposed to work, right?
We can we can do it any way we want.
So even though it doesn't seem like it, we should make the official announcement.
Live from New York City.
It's open line Friday.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
It is technically open line Friday.
Rush is not here.
He's in Pebble Beach.
Where I think he goes every year.
The uh big tournament that used to be the Bing Crosby.
What do they call it now?
The Pebble Beach Pro Am.
I think ATT for a while was sponsoring it.
Um I don't know why they all go out there.
The golf course is beautiful, but every time they play that thing in February, it seems like it's 38 degrees, the wind is whipping off the Pacific.
They're all wearing sweaters, they all look miserable.
I think that adds to the appeal.
I mentioned Rudy Giuliani.
I spent a lot of time in the first hour of the program talking about my own personal conflict when it comes to the notion of Giuliani being the Republican candidate for president.
I wouldn't normally raise as a topic, an issue in which I had such mixed feelings.
The best way to do talk radio.
Say what you think and let the audience react is the best way to approach a show like this.
But I just believe that there are a lot of American conservatives who have the same dilemma with regard to Giuliani.
Look at it this way.
Imagine that he was pro-life and had been pro-life all along.
Is there any doubt who the Republican candidate for president next year would be?
It would be a coronation.
He would sweep to the nomination because he just seems so right now.
But he is very liberal with regard to gay relationships and government recognition of them.
He is pro-choice on the abortion issue.
Then you've got the whole backdrop of how splintered the Republican Party is in general right now.
For about 15 to 20% of the party's voters, the most important issue out there isn't terrorism, and it's not abortion.
They're obsessed on the immigration issue.
And the party itself doesn't have a stand there.
There are some Republicans who are adamant hardliners.
And a few of them are running for president.
You've got Duncan Hunter running, and I think Tancredo's still talking about running.
They are absolute hardliners.
Round everybody up, throw them out.
You have President Bush who has taken a much different approach.
You have a lot of Republicans who are in between.
So when the party is going to face enough trouble as it is holding itself together because of the abortion issue, rather of the immigration issue, do you want to introduce the abortion thing and put up a candidate that 85% of the party may disagree with on that issue?
I really don't know what the answer is.
Giuliani has other problems as well.
He doesn't fit the nice, neatly packaged image of the great Republican family man, family values, and so on.
I mean, his personal life has he's got some Anna Nicole Smith in him.
I mean his last marriage was a mess.
It ended badly, being played out in the tabloids.
Reminds you kind of a Clinton.
And I'm not suggesting that on terms of personal behavior he's anything like Bill Clinton, but Rudy Giuliani's personal life is not that of George W. Bush, where he can stand up with the loving family that he's been with forever.
That would pose, I suppose, a problem for some.
On the other hand, if the opponent is Hillary, what's she going to point to?
You talk about a family of dysfunction that would be up there.
So I'm throwing this out to the audience to get your reaction to the notion of Rudy Giuliani being the Republican nominee for president, and do you hope that he wins it?
If there was an alternative that would excite me, I don't know that I'd be raising this question.
But if not Rudy, then who?
Mitt Romney?
What's his stand on abortion this year?
McCain?
What's his stand on anything this year?
I'll tell you this right now, even though John McCain is pro life.
I would trust Rudy Giuliani to make good appointments to the judiciary before McCain.
I think McCain would be far likelier to choose a moderate or a social activist to the Supreme Court than Giuliani.
Giuliani has said who he would nominate.
He's tossed out the names of Scalia and Thomas and John Roberts, Alito.
Those are great justices who believe that the Constitution means what it says, not what they wanted to believe.
Allen Town, Pennsylvania, Dennis, it's your turn on Russia's open line Friday.
Thanks, Mark.
Uh, enjoying the show.
Thank you.
I'm a conservative uh pro-life Republican, and I think the issue here is one of degree.
Uh I'm not really sure what Giuliani's policy is on uh you know pro-choice.
I know some of my friends they'll think that the morning after pill uh should be forbidden because that that that's killing the life.
And then you have the other extreme where you have the thorough choice people that think that partial fourth abortions should be allowed because uh, you know, that's okay.
So, you know, I I think it's gonna be a matter of degree in what we look at Giuliani to wear what what does it really mean to him uh to be pro-choice?
Well, you're right about that.
There are abortion extremists who can't say no to any abortion.
They're willing to accept partial birth abortion, which is the closest thing that we have to infanticide legally in this country that we've ever been faced with.
On the other hand, you have conservatives, you're right.
They don't accept the morning after pill as opposed to the French abortion pill, the morning after pill, that most people believe to be contraception because uh because you haven't actually had had conception occur yet.
So there are people all over the map on that.
You're right about that.
In terms of the degree that you state, I don't think anyone would argue that Rudy Giuliani is a table pounding pro-abortionist.
On the other hand, he's been quite clear through most of his political career where he stands on that issue.
In terms of the impact he could have as president of the United States, it's probably limited.
The best I think most of us who are pro-lifers can hope for is that you do step away from Roe versus Wade and bring this issue back to the state so that state can states can pass laws that they're comfortable with.
And I don't think many of them would ban abortion anyway, even though I may happen to think that that would be the moral thing to do.
So you seem to be suggesting that Giuliani's position is nuanced and we need to learn more about it.
Well, absolutely.
And not only that, Mark, I think, you know, and I saw what Ross Perot did back to the former Bush, although I remember I I had an opportunity one time to have dinner with the former Bush, and he told me he thought would really cost him the election wasn't Perot, but it was Greenspan and being too late to react uh to reducing interest rates and recognizing what was going on in the economy.
Well, there's a lot of causes for defeat.
I think that the first Bush lost because he broke the no new taxes pledge, but there are a lot of those issues, but there's no doubt that the presence of Perot on the race siphoned off a lot of votes that otherwise would have gone to Republicans.
I do think that every Republican voter has to consider the prospect that if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, that a lot of normal Republican typical Republican voters won't be there.
They'll either vote for a third party candidate or they'll just sit it out.
And that's something you have to consider.
On the other hand, Giuliani is someone who is very popular among swing voters, the so-called undecided, the ones who don't really believe in much of anything, who flop back and forth from party to party depending on the election.
The group that went entirely to the Democrats in 2006.
Giuliani's very popular with them.
So he's he's a real he's a real, real mixed bag.
And I think you can you can hear it in the callers who have called in.
Everyone seems torn and conflicted on this.
Do you hope he wins the nomination?
I I do too, right now at this point, because I don't see anybody else out there right now that has got the track record that I would feel comfortable in voting for.
And I'm sure the heck not going to vote for another rhino uh like we have with Alan Spector here in Pennsylvania.
He's probably one of the biggest rhinos uh that you've got in uh in our Congress right now.
So I don't know who would be a third party candidate either, Mark, to give any competition.
You know, it's uh I just think I think that if the Republicans nominated Giuliani, there would be a third party that would call itself the pro-life party, and while it would not have any chance of winning, it would certainly siphon off normally Republican votes and perhaps turn a lot of you know swing states to the Democrats.
That is a major concern, and the only person who can end it is Giuliani, and I'm not sure how he can, but it's going to be up to him to make pro-life voters comfortable with him, even though he isn't himself pro-life.
For Collins, Colorado, Lynette, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Hey, Mr. Mark, thanks so much for filling in.
Thank you.
Anna Nicole Smith dying, and I thought about Clinton and and where we were going and where our ideas came from, and you compared Clinton with what happened and where our values are going down the tubes, and it starts with the president.
I also wanted to say I'm pro-Giuliani.
I can't help myself.
I heard him interviewed, just letting you know on Hannity yesterday.
Yeah, he didn't be gone.
He he was on Hannity and Combs' television program, and uh, he did a couple of other interviews in which he's trying to address these questions, and he's given the answers that I think that you would expect, in which he talks about the kinds of judges that he would nominate and so on.
Yes, I I don't know if that's going to be enough for a lot of Republican voters.
Well, he talked about abortion being more personal with what he thought as wim a woman's right to choose.
I am a pro-lifer, but for him to want to have judges that it would interpret the Constitution, I did not get the impression he didn't deny it.
I'm this is my own take on what he said.
I don't think he was like, let's make laws that make abortion illegal across legal across the board.
Well, we don't have to do that because it already is.
Yeah, I know.
But he wasn't he wasn't pro-abortion for everything for every reason.
He just was talking about his personal choice, but with his judges, I I guess with his own.
Well, you are right.
The the greatest way a president affects issues pertaining to life is nominees placed in the federal judiciary.
Because what happens is in individual states, when they pass laws restricting abortion, be it partial birth abortion or parental notification, invariably you get liberal federal judges who strike it down and they cite Roe vs.
Wade, even though there's nothing in the Constitution about privacy and there's nothing in the Constitution about abortion.
So long as he doesn't nominate judges like that, he's probably advancing the pro-life cause because other than judicial nominees, there's very little right now that a president actually does on the issue of abortion.
Thank you for the call in it.
My name is Mark Gilling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
America needs a leader.
Whether you agree with him or not, President Bush has a firm vision of how to deal with the terror threat and how to deal with Arab nations that have been led by bad forces.
He got us involved in Afghanistan and he's gotten us involved in Iraq for better or for worse.
He has never wavered in his conviction that you confront terrorism where you find it, and that you try to introduce a third way of life in the Arab world, the notion of democracy and self-determination to provide an alternative for those who don't want to live under tyranny and don't want to embrace terror.
The Democratic Party doesn't have anyone who has any conviction on the issue of terrorism or on the issue of Iraq.
It's why they all supported the war and they're all now demanding that we end the war.
Their position is premised entirely on how well or how badly things are going in Iraq.
That's their party's great weakness.
They don't know where they want to Lead the country.
They're simply following public opinion polls.
In talking about the Giuliani candidacy, Rudy Giuliani strikes me as a leader on the issue of abortion, which we've been discussing on today's program.
While I personally disagree with him, he has also never backed down his pro-choice position.
He isn't wavering, even though it might have helped him politically to persuade some social conservative voters.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal on the editorial page compiled four and a half years worth of statements from Hillary Clinton on the war with Iraq.
And they put him back to back to back to back.
October 10th of 2002.
Remember this is when the war was popular, overwhelmingly supported by the Congress.
This was Hillary then, quote, the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.
As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction site and other military targets.
She added that Saddam, quote, has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.
I believe that the authority to use force to enforce the United Nations mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
She even invoked the name of her husband in describing why she was supporting the resolution to go to war with Iraq.
Then, a year later, December of 2003, right after Saddam was nabbed, Hillary, quote, yesterday was a good day.
I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the President, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam, now he will be brought to justice.
Then she adds, I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority if necessary to use force against Saddam Hussein.
I believe that was the right vote.
As for Iraq's prospects, she declares, quote, herself a little optimistic and a little pessimistic, but we have no option but to stay involved and committed.
Then, five months later, April 20th, 2004, on the Larry King program, where she was no doubt bombarded with difficult questions, she said, quote, I don't regret giving the president the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.
Asked by Larry whether she thinks she was fooled, she replies, the consensus was the same from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
It was the same intelligence, belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction.
So as late as April of 2004, she was still on board.
But then, a year and a half later, October of 05.
My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain.
I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal.
I don't think it's the right time to withdraw a month later, November of 2005.
Starting to see some waffling here.
If Congress had been asked to authorize the war based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.
It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor, not a rigid timetable the terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war.
Now she called for that in November of 2005, about a year before Bush did exactly that.
Then, December of 2006, two months ago, I certainly would not have voted that way had she known what she knows now about the war resolution the first time she refudiated her own vote.
January 13th, one month ago, responding to President Bush's plans for the troop surge.
I don't know that the American people of the Congress at this point believes this mission can work.
And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?
And then January 27th, only a couple of weeks ago, campaigning in Iowa.
Hillary Clinton Demands, quote, the President Bush extricate our country from this before he leaves office.
She promises that if elected, she will end the war quickly.
The same person who only two years earlier rejected the notion of a timetable.
She accuses Bush of misleading the country, even though she herself, by her own public statements, said that there was a general consensus, not only from the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, but everyone else.
She's someone who is altering her position over a five-year period in direct relationship to what's happened to the public opinion polls.
That isn't leadership.
That's followship.
All she's doing is tracking public opinion and saying what she believes will sell at that point in time.
We don't need that in a president of the United States.
We need someone who's willing to lead.
And without regard to my differences between Giuliani on abortion, he is a leader who will lead this country.
We don't do contests here, do we?
See, I'm from local radio.
34th caller gets a six pack of Pepsi Cola or something like that.
We don't really do that on Russia's program, right?
I can't walk in here like a hick and try to give things.
But if we did do contests, and we don't, if we did do contests, how hard would it be to find the winner of a contest that asks the following question?
What is Scooter Libby accused of doing?
No one knows what he's accused of doing, yet you've got all these lefties out there convinced that he's a crook and convinced that therefore Bush is a crook.
At some point I'm going to get into that case today.
At some point.
I'm also avoiding the Anna Nicole Smith story as much as possible, though I see a scan on the judge turns down emergency request to test her DNA.
Why would you test her DNA?
I know that there's some sort of controversy over which of these two boyfriends is the father of the child who's now going to get five hundred million dollars, but why would you trust her DNA?
I'm completely not up to speed on the Anna Nicole Smith story.
For those of you who are obsessed with finding out more about it, Russia's program today is going to let you short because I am uh I'm not up to it.
Lake Wells, Florida, Dan, it's your turn on EIB.
Hey, Mark, it's an absolute pleasure to talk to you and be on the EIV network.
I feel honored.
Great, thank you.
Anyways, uh, like I was telling the call screener, I'm not a political junkie by any stretch.
Uh I'm uh a common man, truck driver.
So I listen to the radio a lot, and uh listening to what you're saying about Giuliani.
Um my main concern and a lot of my friends uh is the security of this nation.
And uh outside of Iraq, being number one, you know, taking care of our business there.
Our border security is paramount to me.
I mean, I heard something on Glenn Beck the other day, if it's true that twelve American citizens are murdered every day by illegal aliens.
Uh have you heard anything about that?
I I have no idea what he said on his program.
I doing as good as I can do as well as I possibly can in keeping up on what Russia saying on his show because I don't want to misquote him.
But don't make me responsible for what one of these other talk show hosts had to say.
Your point is is that we've got a problem with regard to illegal immigration.
I don't know what Giuliani's position on that is.
I've read his comments that he believes that a protecting the border is the most important priority.
I don't think that he's closed the door on the notion of illegals eventually finding a path to citizenship, but he's made it clear that it wouldn't be an easy path to take.
I guess I would describe him as something of a moderate somewhere between the hardliners who want to throw everybody out and the softliners who think that everyone who came into the country illegally ought to be given a check and thanked for breaking the law.
I perceive him as being somewhere in between there.
Uh I believe about twenty percent of traditional Republican voters believe that the immigration question is the most important one confronting the country.
I think it's up there, but I am still far more concerned about Al Qaeda than I am illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico.
Uh the only two Republican candidates that are making a big deal about the immigration issue are Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, neither of whom is particularly qualified to be president of the United States, and neither of whom has spoken out on many of the other issues that are out there.
So what do you think about Giuliani?
Well, I think that he exudes leadership based on you know everybody else I've seen.
I mean, I want somebody with some moxie, you know, somebody that's gonna, you know, let the rest of the world know basically don't tread on us.
And uh I mean, I think we've got we you'd you'd think that nine eleven was thirty years ago, and not just five and a half.
We put this as so far and so remote.
But I think you've got to confront the reality that terrorists are going to try to hit us again.
If a nuclear dirty bomb was set off in New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles on the same day, who do you want to be the person who's leading our country at that point in time?
Do you really want Hillary Clinton?
Do you really want that that's my point?
You really want John Edwards.
Some I think would be okay with McCain.
I'm not sure if I would be.
I think you want somebody who's battle tested and who has been there.
To me, that's the paramount consideration.
Now the abortion issue is a real one, however.
I just can't sleep it under the rug and say that it isn't there because I believe strongly that we are killing babies in this country for no reason other than the convenience of their parents.
As much as I have tried to come around to the other position, my mind, never mind religion, my mind has not gotten me there.
It is a disgrace on this country that we are willing to accept the wholesale slaughter of babies simply because a handful of elitists decided that it was someone's right to be able to do it.
Can you overlook Giuliani's position on that and still be true to your pro-life beliefs?
That is going to be a major challenge for a lot of Republican voters.
But you're right.
If you're looking for a leader among the Republicans who are running, is there anybody even close to Giuliani when it comes to leadership?
I don't think so.
Thanks.
Uh let's go to Midland, Texas and Joe.
Joe, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Yeah, I was uh telling your call screener about the uh the Hillary issue, but I just had another thought when you were talking to Dan for a second.
But first on Hillary, um it's monkey see monkey do.
She knows how to go about it because she had eight years of watching her husband uh go with the flow and go with the tides and listen to the prevailing winds and become some completely galvanized from any personal sense of accountability on any issue.
Yeah, you know, though, she's not as good as him.
I don't know that any Democrat will ever be as good as Bill Clinton at just changing his colors and saying whatever needs to be said at that point in time.
I think Hillary has a real challenge in front of her.
She has tried to position herself as a moderate.
That's why she voted for the war.
It's why she talked tough for the first three years after the war, but she also realizes she's got a Democratic primary to win.
And that party's base is way out there on the war.
They're the ones that are demanding that Democrats in the Senate do something to cut off funding for the war now.
Those senators know that that's a disastrous political position to take, but it's what their base wants, and it's what the people are gonna be voting on Iowa, New Hampshire and all those other states.
It's what they want, and Hillary's got a play to them too, so she's trying to speak out of both sides of her mouth, and she's now moving herself over to being Hillary the lefty for a while, and she's gonna try to move back to the center if she wins the nomination.
You think she's as smooth as her husband and trying to do that?
I think she comes across as awkward, she's clumsy at it, and she seems very disingenuous.
She's not near as smooth as Bill Clinton was at it, but that's where she gets her pattern of doing it because she saw it be so successful for him, so she feels like she can do it herself because that's the Clinton machine in operation.
But on on Giuliani, you were talking to Dan about the uh the prevailing issues, and this is my take on it.
I'm not gonna make a decision on Giuliani or McCain or anybody right now.
Let's wait and see.
But you said the Al Qaeda issue, the immigration.
Joe, how long can you wait, though?
Well, I don't know.
I can't I don't know.
I'm I'm hoping to make up my mind real soon.
I don't know how long.
Yeah, I mean, I want to be part of this process just because I look at how the Republicans has have historically done it.
The person who takes the lead the year before always wins the nomination.
I mean, this goes all the way back.
The last one who I think came from behind was Goldwater in 64, but prior prior to the you know, it 1968 with Nixon, 72, Nixon obviously, uh uh uh Ford and 76, Reagan in 80, the Republican front runner the year before always wins the nomination.
George W. in 1999 took the lead in all these opinion pools and went on to win the nomination in 2000.
Most Republicans get cast aside by the voters the year before and they tend to narrow it down.
Now the Democrats are just the opposite.
They pull their candidates out of the middle of nowhere.
Person can be way, way behind in the polls in December and then win the Iowa caucuses.
I want to support somebody now.
I want to find someone who I think can lead the country, and I don't have anybody yet.
I'm looking strongly at Giuliani, and I'm trying to hit myself on the head hard enough to put the abortion issue out of my mind, but I'll admit I just can't do it yet.
Thanks for the call.
Valdasta Georgia, Scott, it's your turn on Russia's show.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
I just want to make a few points that I haven't heard you even discuss.
Well one is I truly believe that a conservative will be elected uh by the Republicans this year just because of everything that's going on.
You've obviously touched on the abortion issue, but you haven't said much about the fact that Giuliani seems to just step on the second amendment.
He uh very pro-gay rights.
You're right.
He is soft on gun control.
In fact, he's a gun controller.
You're right about that.
So I mean, he's got a lot of things against him.
And the main thing I want to say, I know that you've mentioned that uh, you know, the Republican primary is gonna be one in Iowa, but there's a lot of things that people forget out there.
It's actually one in South Carolina, but Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina decide it generally.
That's what's happened in the past, at least.
Well, that's right, and that's kind of what I wanted to say is that this thing's gonna be won in the South.
And there's uh, you know, obviously the the drive-by media doesn't really look at what people in the South have to say often, and just want to let everyone know out there that there's not a lot of people down here that are real real happy about voting for a uh guy from New York.
You know, we we kind of want to leave that for the the Democrats and Hillary there.
So who are you left with?
Who who are you left with, then, Scott?
Well, I tell you what, you know, uh the latest poll I saw showed Newt Gingrich's third in the polls with 16%, a guy who's not even in the announcement to run.
And if this guy would get in get motivated, um, put himself put himself in this deal, I I think he can win it.
I really do, and I think a lot of other people feel the same way.
He's the only Reagan conservative out there.
Yeah, I mean there's just it just doesn't feel right to me.
I mean, he doesn't it it's like the suit doesn't fit.
Part of it goes back to the historic opportunity they had with the contract with America and taking power in the nineties and just watching Clinton outmaneuver them.
Now, admittedly you were going up against a shark, and he Clinton had the home field advantage with the media, but Gingrich had an opportunity at great power and didn't do a lot with it, and then when faced with some bogus scandal charges, basically took his ball and ran away.
Now, he's out there, but I don't think you'd honestly say that you're inspired by Newt Gingrich right now, and you've been waiting for the day Newt could become the president of the United States.
Could you?
I'm excited about Newt.
You know, if you go back and listen to some of the speeches that he gave, especially during the contract of America years, I think that uh he's a positive guy.
He delivers a positive message, and people can get behind that.
I just don't like the fact that it's a year and a half before an election and we're starting to settle on a candidate who we don't want.
This is just doesn't make sense to me.
Well, you're right.
It's it's a year and a half before the general election, but it's really only a year before the Republicans decide who their nominee is.
And I don't think the settl you said that settle on.
I don't think there is a settlement yet.
I think it's a race really without a front runner.
McCain is still doing very well in the polls.
Find three Republicans, though, who like John McCain.
It's almost impossible to do.
Now you can turn to Gingrich, but Gingrich hasn't even decided that he's going to run.
After that, you've got Mitt Romney, whose views seem to change from decade to decade or half decade to half decade, depending on whether or not he's running in Massachusetts or running in a state that is normal political beliefs.
Then I see Sam Brown back and Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter and all these other absolute nobodies.
But I don't think anyone's forcing anyone on anyone.
People have to decide who they support, and it isn't an easy decision this time around because everyone is flawed.
I'm Mark Gilling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-288-2 is the telephone number.
So far, only one Anna Nicole Smith call.
I don't want you want you to feel totally deprived.
So how About an Anna Nicole Smith crack.
How many days in a row will Greta do the Anna Nicole Smith story?
What's the overunder on that?
Will she do Anna Nicole Smith and the murder and the custody and this and that for as many days as she did Natalie Holloway?
That was the woman in Aruba.
I don't know.
These cable channels specialize in stories like this.
Anna Nicole Smith is someone that everybody in America knew.
There aren't many celebrities who had higher name recognition than Anna Nicole Smith.
Somewhere in there there's a topic, but I will admit to you that I can't find it and I don't have it.
The closest I can come is that it has something to do with Clinton and our acceptance of the trailer park culture as being kind of okay.
John Daly, the golfer, is in there for me somewhere too, but I don't have the topic.
So maybe Rush can develop it.
Would Rush be talking about Anna Nicole Smith or would he be ignoring it?
He'd be doing a mention.
He'd probably have more intelligent things to offer than I have so far, though, correct?
Yeah, you didn't want to tell me that, but it's true.
Vancouver, Washington, and Jeff.
Jeff, you're on Rush's program with the guest host, Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, uh, you're doing a great job, and it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Uh, I have an observation that I've made.
Uh, you know, it goes back, I'm old enough to very much recall the Vietnam War.
And at the time the Liberals very successfully spun all the blame to the military establishment.
Our soldiers were vilified, called monsters and baby killers came home, you're spit on, you couldn't find work.
And the call at the time within the liberals was end the war, bring the troops home.
That was the call, you're right.
Now, here we have Iraq, and they're all patriotic heroes, they're supported by the liberals, referred to as patriotic heroes.
Even Mertha, when he made his crazy allegations, said it's not their fault.
It's a str the uh strain and the pressure they're under.
But I support them completely, but all I seem to hear is redeploy.
And we've got over a hundred thousand patriotic heroes by their own account over there in Iraq, and they want to send them to Guam Timba to Antarctica send anywhere but what's happened to the lefties?
Why aren't they demanding that we bring these troops home?
You're right.
They aren't saying let's bring them all home.
They aren't necessarily saying peace and love.
They're using this redeploy line.
That's what the Democratic politicians are saying.
But what do you think the Democratic base?
That bunch of hard left bloggers out there, the left, you know, the kooks that are the base of their party, they want them all to come home, but you're right, and I think you've picked up on something.
Well, the politicians don't want to say bring them home.
They want to say redeploy because they don't want to send the message that they aren't willing to use the American military when it's needed to be used.
Well, I think that there's two other very primary really reasons also, Mark.
One is that they don't want over a hundred thousand patriotic heroes here refuting everything they're saying about what's going on there and talking about the progress and the the ninety-five percent of the Iraqis who truly want them there.
And I think the second reason, which is just as important is they don't want a hundred thousand of these heroes back home angry because they didn't get to finish the job they were sent to do.
And I and I don't know that anybody can generalize as to what all of the troops or even most of the troops think ought to be done.
Uh my guess is that a lot of them, particularly those who are in the reserves, want to come home, but I also think they want to win.
And I'm somebody that's not sold on Bush's troop surge because I'm still not clear as to what a definable victory is.
But I haven't heard anyone come up with a better plan.
What I hear from Democrats is bring them home or let's get out of this mess, but no real plan as to how that would be better, how our own interests are better off if we all allow Iraq to really disintegrate and fall apart.
Bush is the only person who has a plan right now.
I'm Mark Dowling sitting in for Rush.
Julie in Columbus, Ohio, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
You're on, Julie.
I'm sorry.
What I was going to say is that um you asked a question on why um would they want Anna Nicole Smith's DNA thing?
Yes, you and do you know the answer?
Well, I have a couple theories.
Well, give me a give me the best one real quickly.
Well, one could be that the child isn't even hers.
Um, wait a minute.
We don't have any time to get into this because I'm up against the clock this hour.
But if you're actually introducing the notion that the child isn't hers, these two guys who debate have been arguing over which one of them uh belongs to them, but the baby has to be hers, right?
Nonetheless, we did accomplish it.
One per hour I'm batting one 100%, one Anna Nicole Smith call per hour I've gotten in so far.
▲
Export Selection