All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
March 28, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Way to go in there, Brian.
What did you do to fix this?
Tell me now.
I want to know what it's fixed.
I want to know what you did.
You sprayed the connections with the compressed air stuff.
You sprayed.
You people won't believe this.
He sprayed our male connector jacks plugs with lubricant.
And that and females too.
So you spread the male and the female connectors with lubricant and forced air, and that cleared up static.
It did, because I can bang in a desk and no good static.
Well, greetings and something you can try at home, ladies and gentlemen.
Make it up.
However it sounded to you, it works.
800-282-2882.
Brian, your face turning red in there.
Nobody can even see you.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
We just feel so sorry for Dawn.
She's the lone babe in this office full of guys.
Her world has changed so much.
She's been privy to a world she only dreamed of.
Anyway, I want to go back to Kathleen in Grants Pass, Oregon.
Kathleen, thanks for holding on.
I appreciate it.
Hi, hi.
All right.
I want to start the story again so I don't lose any context to this.
because Kathleen's point is that the criticism I got last night on Larry King Alive was based on a misunderstanding.
Stephanie Miller, who made the criticism, said that I had...
What did she say?
Did you see it?
I did.
I did.
All right, then.
Tell me again what you think she was criticizing me for.
She was criticizing the fact that she said that you thought that John Edwards was using this medical situation kind of politically, you know, to get a bump, so to speak.
And that their decision to do, I mean, I'm extrapolating.
I don't remember exactly what she said because the minute she said it, I remembered the show that day, and I knew that what you were saying was immediately going to be taken out of context.
So did we.
We sit here, well, we do.
We chart the instances that this happens, and we wait for it to be taken out of context on these various websites because we know that people in the alternative drive-by media and other places do not listen to this program.
They find out what happened here on these websites.
So it's kind of fun to toy with them now and then.
But it wasn't Tony Snow she was referring to.
And as I said before, this is why Larry King was so horrified because she gave him the impression that you were criticizing the Edwards.
Well, no.
If you go back and look at, I've got the transcript.
I don't want to play the whole thing again.
But King's last question.
Rush thinks Tony Snow is being political.
He thought Tony Snow was what she was talking about, which is why I did.
Oh, I see.
But that was not what she was referring to.
Well, and I thought it was because they invited me on the show yesterday.
They said they wanted friends of Tony Snow to come on and talk about him, and I couldn't make it last night.
So knowing that that's what they were talking about, I thought Tony Snow was the topic.
And anyway, well, here's the whole thing in context, because what Kathleen in Grants Pass, Oregon is saying is that the criticism of me last night was misunderstood because of this.
There was a leak on a Politico website at 11.07 last Thursday that the Edwards campaign was going to suspend.
The press conference happens, and the exact opposite is said.
The Edwards said we're going to hang in there.
They're going to keep it going.
Oh, we're not going to cower in the corners, whatever else they said.
And Howard, and by the way, Politico did a correction.
As soon as they found out, they explained what happened and so forth.
They got it up.
They didn't put it on a back page, put it right there in front and center.
Howard Feynman reacting to this in glee.
Well, it was exciting, too.
In addition to it being a political 10-strike for the Edwards, it was exciting because we had something unexpected.
We never get the unexpected in these affairs.
And so I then said, well, whoa, maybe the Edwards campaign, we know how PR works in politics.
Maybe they decided to falsely leak, I speculated, the idea the campaign was going to suspend in order to create the very suspense and excitement that Howard Feynman said he so loved.
And it's that which Kathleen says Stephanie Miller misunderstood my point.
Now, let me take it further because after all this happened, later that afternoon, I got an email from John Harris, who runs Politico.com.
He and Mike Allen left the Washington Post to go over to start this.
And I got a bunch of people with them over there, Roger Simon and others.
And he sent me a note.
He said, I didn't hear Rush today.
Actually, he sent it to my chief of staff, trusted aide, H.R.
He said, I didn't actually hear Rush today, but two things.
First place, we stand by our story on the Republicans looking for a replacement for Gonzalez.
See, I had said that the Politico had blown two scoops here in one week, and that upset them.
I said the Gonzalez scoop was blown because he's still there.
He hadn't been forced to leave.
President's backing him up.
And then this Edwards leak that said he was going to suspend the campaign.
So the email was basically, we didn't blow the thing.
The Gonzalez thing is still there.
Yeah, you're right about the Edwards thing, but we've apologized for that.
We've put the correction up.
And then, Kathleen, he went on to say in his email, he had not heard my show that day, but he had heard from people that I had suggested that the Washington Post ought to slap these guys around a little bit and censure them.
So I'm looking at this email and they wanted to come on the program and discuss this.
So HR, and I don't see these emails till late in the early evening when I get home.
So I'm seeing these long after they've been sent.
And HR said, you guys better be very careful.
That's not what was said on this program.
And if you ask to come on out of these premises, it isn't going to work.
So I got home.
I read all this.
John Harris's email address was in the correspondence.
I sent him an email back.
I said, John, you know, I have 600 and some odd radio stations.
And it would really help if you guys would tune in one day to actually listen to what happens here instead of getting your information from your so-called sources or whatever term he used to describe the people.
I said, I said, I assumed your business is competitive and just like mine is.
And I assume that when you had these two mistakes today, that your old newspaper, who's got to be worried at having lost you, and you've got this competing website, I thought they would slap you around.
I didn't suggest they should.
I said it'll be interesting to see if the Post does slap you around a little bit.
You used to work there, but I never once said anything about censure.
I don't even understand this.
Somebody had told him that I had compared the people at the Politico to the Indianapolis Colts.
And I didn't understand that.
How in the world are you guys like the Indianapolis Colts?
I never even used the term Indianapolis Colts talking about you guys today.
He wrote back and he said, well, what I was told was that you equated us with being the Colts the way we pulled out of Baltimore in the middle of the night on a snowy night in January, whenever it was, and moved to Indianapolis.
And that we did the same thing and we've left the Post in a lurch and now that we ought to be censured.
And I said, I cannot believe I didn't talk about the Colts.
I didn't talk about censure.
I hope you kick their ass.
They're so emotional.
I am just, and he wrote back to explain to me, because I didn't understand the Colts analogy, wrote back to explain what that was to me.
So, well, I didn't have a chance to listen to your show today.
Got to it a little bit later.
But it's a, and then he didn't want to come on the air because we'd hashed it out, and he was really concerned about the blown scoops thing and so forth that I had talked about with Gonzalez and the Edwards leak.
And I said, this is another glaring example of how this happens.
He's got, I don't know who it was that heard my show that day, but it couldn't have been what I said that they passed on because I never mentioned the Colts and I never mentioned censure or any of this sort of thing.
And then the piece, their resistance, is the next day on Friday, Howard Kurtz, who's the media writer for the Post, slapped him around.
Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post, did a story on how the political people blew this press conference and the leak with Edwards and so forth and so on.
And I got a nice note from John Harrison.
You were right.
Your prediction was right.
We did get slapped around by the Post today.
I said, well, I expected it.
You can't expect they're going to be fraternal and love you guys.
You were their star political reporters, and now you've split the scene and you've got this great website going that's getting noticed and it's causing them, I'm sure, some grief over there.
All newspapers are wondering what the hell to do to keep their businesses viable.
And I gave him some advice.
If I were you guys, I wouldn't worry about Kurtz and I wouldn't even respond to him putting all this in an email.
Stay on offense on your pages.
They did respond to it because that's their nature.
But I only wanted to tell you that story because it's just emblematic and typical of the kind of things that happen that get said on this program and then they get twisted and totally made up in some cases.
You know, and I've heard that many times.
But today on the show, I just had to straighten it out because I heard your show and I know exactly what you said about John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards.
And I know exactly where that comment came from.
And I just think these people get so emotional, you know, and they're so bent on destroying you or getting something from you that, I mean, I think it just fries their brain a little bit.
And they don't pick up what you say accurately.
They don't want to.
They don't want to.
No, they don't want to.
They don't want to.
And furthermore, don't forget who these people are.
These are the people that think Bush ought to be murdered.
These are the people, if you go to their websites, you can read comments about Tony Snow, you deserve to die lying for Bush.
Right.
Those things are all over their websites today.
Things that would try to portray me and others on my side of the aisle as these insensitive, mean-spirited extremists and so forth.
Right.
That's why Stephanie Miller made the comment about the Conservative Party of the Republican Party could produce people like you and Ann Coulter.
And that's because Larry King kept asking her, are you sure he said that?
Are you sure he said that?
Yeah, well, I don't know Larry that well, but I gathered from that he couldn't believe I'd said it.
No, he couldn't.
No, absolutely.
He couldn't.
I could just see it on his face.
He didn't know what to do with it.
He didn't understand it.
Well, I'm glad you called.
Well, thank you.
Because I hadn't even thought to repeat the politico story, but it dovetails with your analysis of what happened here.
Well, I'm really glad it got straightened out.
It was really bugging me.
You sound like a babe, by the way.
I just, I have to say this.
I used to be.
Once a babe, always a babe, until you get elected to the Senate.
Something happens then.
Well, thank you very much.
Okay, Kathleen.
Have a great rest of the week.
Thanks, Rod.
Brief timeout.
Back after this.
Okay, back to the audio soundbites.
Ladies and gentlemen, to once again demonstrate how I, El Rushball, I'm on the cutting edge of societal evolution, and you will be too.
If you listen regularly, let's go back to last Friday.
I said this on my own show.
I totally overlooked this.
You know, their press conference coming up soon of the tainted pet food, and they think that they found rat poison in the tainted pet food, the cat and dog food out there.
What's the latest death toll on the cat's last?
I heard it was 14.
The drive-by question was, that, it's all well and good about the animals.
What about the seasoned citizens out there who have to eat dog food and pay for their medicine because they can't eat real food and pay for their medicine?
How many seasoned citizens have gotten sick eating rat poison tainted pet food?
I haven't seen the drive-bys care about it.
I haven't seen the drive-bys look into it.
I haven't seen anything on it.
But clearly, it's an area of concern that we all, 15 pets now, have assumed room temperature over this.
It's just very sad.
It's just very, very sad.
So yesterday morning, and that was last Friday, yesterday morning on Good Morning America, co-host Chris Kumo talking with reporter David Curley.
Question, David, what do you hear about these reports about a human victim of this contamination?
Yeah, this is according to a published report out of Canada that a Canadian woman tried to coax her dog that wasn't eating by eating some of the pet food herself.
This happened for two weeks.
She became violently ill, vomiting, foaming at the mouth.
Has this woman died?
I haven't heard about this.
But you see, there now has been a human victim reported.
ABC had it, yes.
I saw the story myself.
Trying to coax her dog that wasn't eating the dog food by eating.
Well, this is a published report out of Canada.
You doubt the Canadian press.
A Canadian woman tried to coax her dog that wasn't eating by eating some of the pet food herself.
It does lead to an interesting question.
How did she house train the dog?
Well, if you are.
Snurdy doesn't believe this.
You think this woman just doesn't want to admit that she purposely ate the dog food for the food sake of it.
And so the excuse that she's offering is, oh, my little dog wasn't eating this, and I was trying to get my dog to eat, and I tried to show it.
You don't buy that.
You don't, you know, you know something, Snerdley.
You're too big a cynic.
You don't understand how some people relate and react to their pets.
Pets, particularly the people who don't have kids, are like their children.
The pets become their children.
The pets are sick.
If the pets aren't doing something right, I can totally believe that there are people out there who would eat something trying to coax an animal to do the same thing.
They have this bond.
People form this bond of human relatability to animals and they project their own humanity onto the animal.
And they think that they can show an animal what to do by doing it.
Just, of course not.
And if I ate cat food, my cat would look at me like I was the biggest idiot on the face.
Of course not.
I wouldn't do it.
But I can totally believe that with all the people in Canada, that there is one woman who would.
You know, it didn't even occur to me to think that the woman is just trying to save herself some embarrassment because she ate the food herself, but doesn't want people to think she's an idiot.
So she wants them to think she's a great humanitarian or animal lover trying to protect her little dog by showing it how to eat when it wouldn't eat.
The places your mind goes sometimes.
You ought to work for one of these left-wing websites now.
You would fit in.
Anyway, to show you how you doubt people can do this?
Let's go back 1995 on the floor of the House.
This is after I had spoken at GoPAC, and the Democrats back in 95 in that heated budget battle were talking about how the Republicans' budget was so full of cuts that it was going to cause senior citizens to choose between dog food and medicine.
And I, in one of my opening laugh comments, my speech to GoPak, I made mention of this and said that I have a big heart and a compassion.
I love my mother.
And if that's the case, then I had gone out and bought her a new can opener to make it easier for her to eat the pet food.
Pat Schroeder went to the floor of the House of Representatives, said this.
And they had the big kahuna of GoPak come speak, none other than Rush Limbaugh himself, who stood there and said to all these people who paid all this money to keep GoPAC rich, he was hailing the GOP budget.
He said, according to the paper and according to the C-SPAN tape, he thought it was wonderful because it would starve the poor and it would drive Medicare recipients, including his mother, to eat dog food.
But not to worry, mom, he says, I'm sending you a new can opener.
Wow.
That tells you what today's about.
Well, I saw this when I got over to the TV show.
They showed me this video because I had not seen it during the day.
I split a gut.
But this is sort of a microcosm for what happens to me on these left-wing websites.
They simply have no sense of humor.
And especially when the humor is directed at them.
I mean, the idea that because the Republican budget was going to starve kids, as though parents have no control over this, nothing to say about it.
You're just going to let your kids starve.
And then that senior citizens are going to have to choose between dog food and medicine.
So if you don't think that it's possible one woman in Canada could actually try to show her dog how to eat by eating it herself, you've got another thing coming.
I think that's entirely possible.
San Francisco, City Council voted yesterday to become the first U.S. city to ban plastic bags from large supermarkets to help promote recycling.
One of these guys said it could save 450,000 gallons of oil a year by banning the bags and remove the need to send 1,400 tons of debris now sent annually to landfills.
The mayor, Gavin Newsom, said, that's a sensible chances are good he's going to sign it, said one of his legislative agents.
I have some comments on this and we come back.
Sit tight.
Stay where you are.
Yes, they're glad to do that.
You bet.
Making the complex understandable, San Francisco lawmakers voted to ban plastic bags.
I think the city has grocery stores.
They've got six months to get rid of them.
I don't know what they're going to use.
City's Department of the Environment said San Francisco uses 181 million plastic grocery bags annually.
Plans dating back a decade to encourage recycling of the bags have largely failed with shoppers returning just 1% of the bags.
They go on to say 450,000 gallons of oil a year will be saved because they claim that the petroleum industry manufactures these bags.
It's a petroleum product.
I don't know if that's still true anymore, but I know it once was.
But I just remember, you remember when you used to go to grocery store, in the good old days, get a good paper bag, solid paper bag, bunch of paper bags.
When I used to go to the store, that's what they used.
When you go in there and you put them out in the trunk of the car, backseat, or whatever, and you drive off and everything's hunky-dory and fine.
And you can reuse the bags for whatever at home if you need to.
And they went to these plastic bags, and everybody remembers the reason for this.
Because we had to save the trees.
Had to save the trees.
Paper bags were killing trees, and they weren't easy to recycle.
Even though trees are a renewable resource, you just plant a bunch of them.
And I just remember a couple of times, it's been a long time since I've been to the grocery store, but when I used to go to grocery store back in these days, when the bags, the plastic bags came out, you had an option.
And I'd say, please, I want a paper bag.
And these snarky checkout people would look at me like I was some kind of devil that wanted to destroy the planet like I kicked little cats around or something.
So now, keep that story in mind.
And here's the next one.
This is from Reuters.
Mercury in high energy or in energy saving bulbs worries scientists.
There's an old joke about the number people takes to change a light bulb, but because the newer energy efficient kinds contain amounts of mercury, the hard parts getting rid of them when they burn out.
Mercury is poisonous, but it's also a necessary part of the most compact fluorescent bulbs, the kind that environmentalist wackos and some governments are pushing as a way to cut energy use.
With an estimated 150 million carbon or compact fluorescent bulbs sold in the U.S. last year, with Walmart alone hoping to sell 100 million of them this year, some scientists and environmentalists are worried that most are ending up in garbage dumps.
Mercury, probably best known for its effects on the nervous system.
The Mad Hatter, the book Alice in Wonderland, was based on 19th century hat makers who were continually exposed to the toxin, which is something I did not know till I read this story.
At any rate, we have the environmental wackos once again at cross-purpose.
They care about the environment and they end up destroying it.
Now, I just want you to remember this San Francisco business about getting rid of the plastic bags because remember they were the lifesavers.
They were revolutionary.
There was going to be a recycle.
This was, why, this was one of the greatest inventions to come down the pike.
And now, nope, got to ban them.
These compact fluorescent bulbs are going to be the next plastic bag.
I don't know how long it's going to take, but at some point we are going to hear from scientists that we've got to stop using these compact fluorescents because the mercury in them is destroying the environment and creating personal risks to our children who play in landfills and dumps.
And may encounter the mercury and may end up like the Mad Hatter.
Here's Malcolm been holding a long time.
Malcolm's on the phone from the Netherlands?
Is that right?
Malcolm is in the Netherlands.
Great to have you, Malcolm.
Thank you, Rush.
Wooden shoe and windmill dittos from the Netherlands.
Thank you.
I've actually been trying to get through for 15 years.
I'm 27 now.
I first converted when I heard the story back in 1992 about the guy who gets a tax cut and how many people he affects just by going on vacation.
Suddenly he made all of Supply Side make sense to me.
So I want to thank you for that.
You're welcome.
Yeah, I actually used to wear the Clinton Awareness dollar bill folded.
I'd walk around in seventy with the best.
Deficit awareness reduction ribbon.
Yes.
Yes, sir.
Thank you for showing me the light.
I'm calling in regards to what the pork that the Democrats are putting on.
First off, are they subsidizing any pork farmers, or is all the pork in the bill?
All the pork's in the bill.
But there's so much going to agriculture.
Some of it's going to go to park pork farm.
There must be six different allocations, just off the top of my head, to agriculture, if not more, in the Get Out of Iraq in March of 08 bill.
Well, I think that that's actually brilliant for them because they can say when Bush vetoes it, they're going to go separate it into two bills.
They're going to say the first one, Bush didn't want to fund the troops.
Bush didn't want to give all this money to the troops.
They're going to forget about the withdrawal surrender date and everything.
But the second thing is I think they're going to tap into the heartland monopoly that conservatives tend to have with the farmers.
And I think they're going to take this and say, look, well, we tried to help out these farmers who are struggling, and the Republicans, because of politics, refused to give all this money to the farmers.
Well, there's an interesting question that you have raised.
And let me explain the answer on two fronts.
Well, maybe three.
In the first place, I'm not so sure that you seem to indicate that it's just a matter of time before there is a funding bill for the troops.
And I raised this in the first hour.
The Democrats have drawn the line in the stand here.
I don't know how they compromise on this.
They've got their dreadline date, March 31st of 2008.
They don't want it sooner.
They're worried about every loss of blood, loss of life, drop of blood of our troops, they say, but they're willing for more loss of life and more drops of blood through March 31, 2008, which means they want the withdrawal to happen during the election year in the presidential campaign.
So I don't know how they're going to compromise with this.
And I don't know what the Republicans are going to do.
Bush is not going to go along with this.
He's not going to ever sign a piece of legislation that has a specific date of withdrawal in it.
So I don't know where to compromise.
As to the pork and the fact that Democrats have loaded up a bunch of pork in agriculture states, which are assumed to be Republican states, red states, and that when this doesn't get signed and doesn't happen, that these people are going to be out of whack.
I don't know that that's the case.
A lot of Republicans are fed up with all of this kind of stuff.
And it's one of the reasons Republicans were voted against last November is because they were engaging in this kind of stuff.
Now, what you're saying is politics is local, and everybody's fine when they get their pork, but they don't want anybody else to get any.
A third thing I would say about this is the president did not specifically say none of this stuff is worthwhile.
He said some of these are emergencies, some of these are crises.
They just don't belong in this bill.
He did not indicate he would not ever sign a bill into law that had these pork projects in it.
He just said they don't belong in anything to do with national security or the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
They have no place there.
There is some stuff in this bill that will not survive.
And there was a catch-all that so much stuff has been thrown in here.
But it would be interesting to see if it eventuates, manifests itself the way you suggest.
Nobody knows what's in this yet.
I mean, most Americans who listen to this program after today know what's in this bill.
But outside of this audience and maybe a few others, I don't think that most Americans know what's in this.
So if they don't know, how can they be disappointed?
The drive-bys were not promoting all the pork in this bill.
They were just focusing on the epic struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and surrender.
Pork that was in it was irrelevant.
Plus, Malcolm, let me tell you this little tidbit.
The Democrats in the House have already proposed a new farm bill with $124 billion in addition to the pork, the $24 billion of pork that's in the Get Out of Iraq bill.
And guess what?
This $124 billion in the farm bill that the House Democrats have proposed is up from the $84 billion that the Republicans had in the last Congress.
So they've added $60 billion to their farm bill.
Look at their largest, the president talked about this.
It could be the largest tax increase in the nation's history is also in this get out of a rock and lose the war bill.
So there's, you know, the Democrats knew this is going to get vetoed.
They knew it didn't have a chance of becoming law.
So they throw all this stuff in there, and some of them are negotiation throwaways.
You know, in every negotiation, you go in with a bunch of demands, quote-unquote demands, that you're willing to throw away.
You never go in.
I don't care if you're negotiating the price of a car, you never go in with a list of demands or things you want that doesn't have some stuff in it that you can throw away because you have to appear to be giving something up.
That's how you achieve compromise.
Yes, you have to give something up.
You have to be, and both sides are expected to play this way.
Now, in this case, the fundamental element of this bill is troop reduction reduction starting in 2008, March 31st of 2008.
And I don't know where the compromise is on this.
Because on one side of the bill, you've got victory.
The other side of the bill, you've got defeat and surrender.
Now, somebody tell me where is the compromise there?
And I asked early in the program, we haven't had any takers on this, have we?
I asked, where's the compromise between defeat and victory?
Is it partial defeat, partial victory?
Is it some agreement where both sides can claim they won, even though that can't possibly be true?
Well, take that back.
The way Washington operates, the way these people up there talk, they could probably come up with something about which they could say just that, regardless of what the details are.
Anyway, Malcolm, I really appreciate your patience.
It's great to hear from you.
Thanks much.
I'm sure this is a more detailed and in-depth, responsible answer than even you expect.
Back up.
I don't know if you've heard about this, folks.
I intended to talk about this, but I just learned something that sort of disappoints me.
As one of the Republican Party's most prominent national fundraisers, Sam Fox should have had an easy road to an appealing diplomatic post.
But Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and other Democrats, raised concerns about his nomination to be ambassador to Belgium because of a $50,000 contribution he made in 2004 to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
You know, a lot of Democrats blame that group for sinking presidential campaign hopes of John Kerry, who served in Vietnam.
Of course, Kerry's pathetic, dry-ball, dull personality and absolute abhorrent politics would have nothing to do with him losing the election.
No, it had to be the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
So a vote on Sam Fox was scheduled for today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He is 77 years old.
He's out of St. Louis.
National chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition has donated well over a million dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s.
John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, grilled Sam Fox about the Swiftboat contribution during his hearing on February 27th, asking him why he gave money to a group that was smearing and spreading lies and had been condemned by members of both political parties.
Anyway, the White House has pulled Sam Fox's nomination.
Free political speech.
You think we have free political speech in this country?
Go out there.
So he contributes $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans of Truth, and the Democrats and the Senate hold up his nomination.
Obama, Barack Obama, at the end of the hearing last month, told Sam Fox he found his testimony somewhat dissatisfying.
Obama said, well, you know, I would have preferred you saying, you know, in retrospect, looking back, contributing to the Swiftboat campaign was a mistake.
I wish I hadn't done it.
And he didn't say that.
He didn't grovel to these guys.
This is another example of the Stalinist tactics of the Democrats.
So anyway, the White House, I don't know exactly why yet what full reason is, but they've pulled his nomination.
Sam Fox will not now get a vote on the ambassadorial post to Belgium.
Here's Mary Ellen in Rhea Both, Massachusetts.
Am I pronouncing that right?
Rehoboth, Massachusetts.
Rehoboth.
It's great to have you with us.
Thank you.
Well, thanks, Rush.
First, I want to say God bless you.
You are a true American hero in my eyes.
Thank you.
Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson, it would be very interesting to know what they stand to profit for changing their vote.
I'd really be interested to know the corresponding state and what they're receiving, what pork the actual individual senators' states are receiving.
I, at this point, don't know.
I just have the full list of all the projects in there, but I don't know what states specifically and what members of the House benefit from.
Remember, there's a House bill that has the pork in it.
I don't know that I'm sure the Senate does too, and they added some of their own pork to it.
I just don't know which goes to where.
As for Hegel, he's up for election in 2008.
Oh, not really.
And plus, you know, Hagel's running for president.
Now, there's not a snowball's chance in hell he's going to get anywhere in the Republican Party running for president.
But as far as maybe he's got polling data in Nebraska, even though Nebraska went for Bush over 60% in 2004, maybe people have soured there on the war, and Hagel's listening to the polls, who knows?
But in terms of specifics, he and Nelson, they both did a reversal.
Nelson's a Democrat, but he was with the Republicans on this.
And somehow, Dingy Harry, the news is, and it's got to be more than this.
The news is that Dingy Harry convinced these guys that the election results last November were to get us out of Iraq.
But I think there's something more to it.
You might think that I'm a little suspicious, but you've taught me well.
And you've always said follow the money.
And I don't think these are all these are 100% people of conscience.
So those that have said we're against this war from the beginning, maybe I would cut them a little slack.
But it just seems like there's a whole lot of changing going on, and not necessarily because of the last election or because of 08.
So, you know, I'm still a little suspicious.
I think people want to be able to go back to their states and say, yeah, not only did I end the war, but I also brought back the bacon.
There's no question that that's a factor.
And don't you think that because they're able to put these bills together under kind of like, you know, the old Maxwell Smart cone of silence.
Well, yeah, but you have to dig deep to find out what's in these things, and half the members don't even read what's in them.
Well, they've read far enough to know that they're going to come home with something.
Yeah, I know.
I think, look, we'll try to find out.
It's sort of ancillary to me in terms of importance.
With Hegel, I just can't explain it.
Nobody can explain.
Everybody's trying to figure out what this is about.
The best I can come up with is he went to Maverick U, studied under John McCain, and is trying to establish his own similar Maverick ID here and distance himself from the Republican Party for whatever benefit he didn't really get out of it.
Thepolitico.com has just posted on the blog that the Reverend Zach has decided, it's just a report, to vote for the Magic Negro.
That would be Barack Obama.
Sorry, this news breaking now when we have to go, but time to go to the golf course.
See you people tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection