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'd you do to fix this?
Tell me now.
I want to know it's fixed.
I want to know what you did.
You got 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 the 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 the desk and no good static.
Well, greetings and something you can try at home, ladies and gentlemen.
Make it up.
Uh however it sounded to you, it works.
800 282-2882 if you want to be Brian, your face turning red in there, and 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 she's she's the lone babe in this in this office full of guys.
Her world has changed so much.
She's she's been privy to a world that she only dreamed of.
Anyway, I want to go back to Kathleen and Grants Pass Oregon.
Kathleen, thanks for holding on.
I appreciate it.
Hi, hi.
All right.
I want to start the story again.
Uh so I don't uh lose any context to this.
Because Kathleen's point is that the criticism I got last night on Larry King Alive uh was based on a misunderstanding.
Stephanie Miller, who made the criticism, said that I had uh well what did she see?
You did you see it?
Um I did.
I did.
All right, then what what are you telling me again what you think she was criticizing me for?
She was she was criticizing uh the fact that she uh she said that you thought that John Edwards was using this medical situation um kind of uh politically, you know, to to get a to get a bump, so to speak.
And to and that their decision to do I mean I'm extrapolating.
I don't remember exactly what she said, because I the minute she said it, I I 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 we well, we do.
We chart the instances that this happens and we wait for it to be taken out of context on uh on these various websites because we know that you know people in the uh alternative in a drive-by media and uh other places do not listen to this program.
They find out what happened here on these websites.
So it's it's kind of fun to toy with them now and then.
But this is what but it wasn't Tony Snow she was referring to, and I as I said before.
That 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 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 she that was not what she was referring to.
Well, and I thought it was because they invited me on the show yesterday that they said they wanted friends of Tony Snow to come on and talk about him, and I 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 and anyway.
Well, here's here's the the whole thing in context, because what what Kathleen and Grant's Pass Oregon is saying is that uh the criticism of me last night was misunderstood because of this.
There was a leak on a politico website at 1107 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 gonna hang in there, they're gonna keep it going.
Oh, whoa, whoa, we're not gonna cower in the corners, uh, whatever else they said.
And Howard and by the political did her correction as soon as they found out they explained what happened and so forth, they got it up.
They didn't put it on the back page, put it right there in front and center.
Uh Howard Feynman reacting to this in glee.
Whoa, and 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.
Uh the idea the campaign was going to suspend uh 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 it took a bunch, but I got a bunch of people with him over there, Roger Simon and others.
And he sent me a note.
He said, I didn't hear Rush today.
I didn't actually sent it to my chief of staff, uh, trusted aide, uh H.R. I didn't actually hear Rush today.
But uh 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.
Uh he hadn't been forced to leave, president's backing him up.
And then this this Edwards uh 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 put the correction up.
And then uh 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 and uh and they wanted to come on the program and discuss this.
So HR, and I don't see these emails till late in the uh early evening when I get home.
So I'm I'm seeing these long after they've been sent.
And H.R. said, you guys have 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 gonna work.
So I got home, I read all this, uh 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 assumed your business is competitive, just like mine is.
And I assumed 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 uh people at the politico to the Indianapolis Colts.
And I didn't understand that.
What an 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 you you equated us with being the Colts the way we pulled out of Baltimore in the middle of the night and 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 at a lurch, and now that the we ought to be censured.
And I said, I cannot believe I didn't talk about the Colts.
I didn't talk about censure, it I hope you kick their ass.
And he wrote back to explain to me, you know, because I didn't understand the Colts analogy, wrote back to explain what that was to me.
So, well, I I didn't I didn't have a chance to listen to your show today, uh, got to it a little bit later.
But it was it's it's a and then he didn't want to come on the air because we'd 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 and the uh and the Edwards leak, and I you know it it I said this is uh 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 Colts and I never mentioned censure or any of this sort of thing, and uh and then the piece de 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 the uh political people blew this press conference and the leak with Edwards and so forth and so on, and I got a nice note from from uh John Harris saying, 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 gonna 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.
They're all newspapers are wondering what the hell to do to keep their businesses viable.
And I I gave him some advice.
Further, if I were you guys, I wouldn't I wouldn't worry about Kurtz and I wouldn't even respond to him putting all this in an email.
Uh you know, stay on offense on your pages.
They they did respond to it.
Uh because that's their nature.
But I only wanted to tell you that story because it's it's just it's 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 I've heard that I've heard that many times.
Uh and but today on the show, I just had to straighten it out because I 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 and and they don't pick up what you say accurately.
They don't want to.
They don't want to.
No, they don't.
They don't want to.
And and furthermore, uh 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 uh, you know, they you know will try to portray me and and and others on my side of the aisle as these insensitive uh uh mean-spirited extremists and so forth.
Right.
That's why Stephanie Miller made the um made the comment about um the Conservative Party, the Republican Party, uh could you know, uh produce people like you and Ann Coulter.
And that's and 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.
You I could just see it on his face.
He didn't know what to do with it.
Yeah.
He didn't understand it.
Well, I'm uh I'm glad you called.
Well, thank you.
I hadn't even thought to repeat the political story, uh, but it dovetails with uh 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.
Well, I used to be.
Not at all.
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 uh great rest of the week.
Thanks, Rod.
Brief time out back after this.
Okay, back to the audio soundbites.
Time, ladies and gentlemen, to once again demonstrate how I, L. Rushball, I'm on the cutting edge of societal evolution, and you will be too.
If you listen to 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, uh, the tainted pet food, and they think that they found rat poison in the tainted pet food, the uh cat and dog food out there.
What's the latest death toll on the uh cat's last I heard it was fourteen.
Their 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 drives-by's care about it.
I haven't seen a drive-by's look into it.
I haven't seen anything on it, but clearly it's an area of concern that we all fifteen 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 Curly.
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.
Uh has this woman died?
I haven't heard about this.
But there you see there now has been a human victim reported.
ABC had it guessed.
I saw the story myself.
Um trying to coax her dog that wasn't eating the dog food by eating.
Well, that's that's that this is uh published report out of Canada.
You doubt the Canadian press.
A Canadia Canadian woman tried to coax her dog that wasn't eating by eating some of the pet food herself.
Uh it does lead to an interesting question.
How did she house train the dog?
Well, if you if you are you snurdly does 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 her.
You don't buy that.
You don't, you know, you know something, Snartley, you're too big as cynic.
Uh you don't understand how some people relate and react to their pets.
Their pets, particularly the people who don't have kids, are like their children.
They they the 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.
You know, 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 on the face of the course not.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't do it, but I can totally, I can totally believe that with all the people in Canada that there is one woman who would.
I 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.
That the places your mind goes sometimes.
You ought to work for one of these left-wing websites now.
You you would fit in.
Anyway, did to show you how you 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 uh the Democrats back in '95 in that heated budget battle were talking about uh how the Republicans' budget was so full of cuts that it was gonna tr uh uh uh cause uh senior citizens to choose between dog food and medicine.
And uh I, in one of my opening laugh comments in my speech to Gopak, I made mention of this and said that uh uh I have a big heart and a compassion.
I love my mother, and uh, 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 Rosh Limbaugh himself, who stood there and said to all these people who paid all this money to keep Gopak 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'd 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 Republic Republican budget was gonna starve kids, as though parents have no control over this, nothing to say about it, they're just gonna let the kids starve.
And then that senior citizens are gonna have to choose between dog food and medicine.
Uh so if you 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 uh 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.
Uh, 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 uh landfills.
The mayor, Gavin Newsom said it's sensible.
Chances are good he's gonna sign it, said one of his legislative age.
There's some comments on this and we come back.
Sit tight.
Say where you are.
Yes, uh, I'm glad to do that.
You bet.
Making the complex understandable.
San Francisco.
Uh lawmakers voted to ban plastic bags.
I think the city has grocery stores that get six months to uh get rid of them.
I don't know what they're gonna use.
Uh 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 one percent of the bags.
They go on to say 450,000 gallons of oil a year are wait there will be saved because they claim that the uh 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 uh you used to go to grocery store in the good old days to 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, uh, 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.
Uh and I I just remember a couple times, it's been a long time since I've been to 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 of people takes change a light bulb, but because the newer energy efficient kinds contain amounts of mercury, the hard part's getting rid of them when they burn out.
Mercury's poisonous.
But it's also a necessary part of the most compact fluorescent bulbs.
The kind that environmentalists 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 uh most are ending up in garbage dumps.
Mercury probably best known for its effects on the nervous system.
The uh Mad Hatter, the book uh Alice in Wonderland was based on 19th century hat makers who were continually exposed to the toxin, which is something I did not know until I read this story.
At any rate.
Uh the 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 all remember they were the lifesavers.
They were revolutionary.
There was gonna be recycled.
This was why this was one of the greatest inventions to come down the pike.
And now, nope, gotta 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 florescents because the mercury in them is destroying the environment and creating personal risks to our children who play in landfills and dumps.
And uh may encounter the mercury and may end up like the mad hatter.
Here's uh 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.
Uh thank you, Russ.
Uh wooden shoe and windmill dittoes from the Netherlands, huh?
Thank you.
Um I've actually been trying to get through for 15 years.
I'm 27 now.
I first uh converted when I heard the story back in like 1992 about the guy who gets the tax uh cut and how many people he affects just by going on vacation.
Suddenly you made uh all of supply side makes sense to me, so I want to thank you for that.
You're welcome.
Um I actually used to wear the uh the Clinton Awareness uh dollar bill folded uh walk around and say that.
I'll agree with that.
Deficit awareness reduction uh uh uh ribbon, yes.
Yes, sir.
I thank you for uh for showing me the light.
Um I'm calling in regards to uh to what the uh the the pork uh that uh that the Democrats are putting on.
First off, uh are they subsidizing any uh pork farmers or is all the pork in the bill.
All the pork's in the bill.
I but that there's so much going to agriculture, some of it's gonna 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 uh in the get out of a rock in March of 08 bill.
Well, I think that that's actually brilliant for them, because they can say when when Bush vetoes it, they're gonna go separate it into two bills.
They're gonna 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 gonna forget about the uh the withdrawal surrender date and everything.
But the second thing is I think they're gonna tap into the uh like the heartland monopoly that conservatives tend to have uh on like with the farmers.
And I think they're going to uh take this and say, look, well, we tried to help out these farmers who are struggling, and the Republicans, because of politics, refuse to give all this money to the farmers.
Well, that's an interesting question that uh that you have raised.
And I'll let me explain me explain the answer on two fronts.
In the first well, maybe three.
The first place I'm not so sure that there you you seem to uh 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, the 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 gonna compromise with this.
Uh uh I uh and I don't know what the Republicans are gonna do.
Bush is not gonna go along with this.
He's he's not he's not gonna 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 the 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 gonna 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 the 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.
The third thing I would say about this is the president did not specifically say none of this stuff is worthwhile.
He says some of these are emergencies, some of these are crisis.
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 uh 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.
Uh there is some stuff in this bill that that is what will not survive.
Um, they just this was a catch-all that so much stuff has been thrown in here.
But I'd be interesting to see uh if it if it uh eventuates manifests itself the way you suggest.
Uh I don't, you know, th nobody knows what's in this yet.
I mean, the the the 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 uh that most Americans know what's in this.
So if they don't know, how can they be disappointed?
The drive-by's 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 dollars, in addition to the pork, the 24 billion dollars of pork that's in the get out of a rock bill.
And guess what?
This 124 billion dollars in the farm bill that the House Democrats have proposed is up from the eighty-four billion dollars that the Republicans had in the last Congress.
So they've added sixty billion dollars to their farm bill.
Uh look at the largest, the president talk about this.
What i 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 there's you know, this this the Democrats knew this is gonna be 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 price of a car with it, you never go in with a list of demands or 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.
Uh, in this case, the the fundamental element of this bill is troop reduction reduction starting in uh 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 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 appreciate your patience.
It's great to hear from you.
Thanks much.
Uh I'm sure this is a more detailed and in-depth, responsible answer than even you expect.
Doc Effort.
I don't know if you've heard about this, folks.
I intended to talk about this, but I just learned something that that sort of disappoints me.
As one of the Republican Party's most prominent national fundraiser, Sam Fox should have uh 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 Swift Boat 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, carry's pathetic dry ball, dull personality, and absolute abhorrent politics would have nothing to do with him losing the election.
Oh, it had to be the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
So a vote on uh 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?
You go out there.
So he contributes 50 grand to the Swift Boat Veterans of Truth, and the Democrats in 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 disfatis dissatisfying.
Obama said, Well, you know, I would have preferred you saying, you know, in retrospect, looking back, contributing to the Swift Boat 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 uh Ria Both, Mass Massachusetts.
Am I pronouncing that right?
Rahobeth, Massachusetts.
It's great to have you with us.
Thank you.
Well, thanks, Rush.
Um, first want to say God bless you.
You are uh a true American hero in my eyes.
Thank you.
Um Chuck Hagel and uh Ben Nelson.
It would be very interesting to know what they cheer and what they stand to profit um 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 the full list of all the projects in there, but I don't know what states specifically uh and what members of the House benefit from it.
Remember, there's a House bill that has the pork in it.
Uh I d I don't know that the I'm sure the Senate does too, and I've 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.
Uh and and uh plus, you know, Hagel's running for president.
Now there's not a snowball chance in hell he's gonna get anywhere in the Republican Party running for president.
But uh as far as uh maybe maybe he's got polling data in Nebraska, even though Nebraska went for Bush over 60 percent in 2004.
Maybe people have soured there on the war and uh Hagel's listening to the polls, who knows?
But in terms of specifics, uh, with he and Nelson, they you know, both did a reversal.
Nelson's a Democrat, but he was with the Republicans on this.
Uh and somehow Dingy Harry, I the the news is, and it it's it's gotta 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 a rock.
But I don't I don't 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 a hundred percent people of 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 I 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.
Uh there's no question that that's that's a factor.
And don't you think that because they 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 it, they've read far enough to know that they're gonna come home with something.
Yeah, I know.
I I think look at try to find out.
Um it's sort of ancillary to me in terms of importance.
With Hagel, I just I 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 get out of it.
The Politico.com has just posted on the blog that the uh Reverend Jacks has decided this 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