All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
April 2, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Now, see, look at this.
Watching PMSNBC, they're saying, will Obama match Hillary in first quarter fundraising?
He already beat Hillary in first quarter fundraising.
And the drive-by media led by the Washington Post today is totally misrepresenting the allocation of Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife, for those of you in Riolinda, total fundraising.
I mean, it's not all for her presidential campaign.
She has to allocate some of it for her primary campaign.
You can basically cut that number that she claims she's raised in half because she said she's not going to take matching funds.
So anyway, it's not the story that the drive-bys would appear for it to be.
That means Hillary just running away with a pack.
Obama did better than Hillary in the first quarter fundraising derby.
You also have everybody waiting on Romney.
We're waiting on Romney.
We're waiting on Obama's total money, and Romney's in there, I guess.
Romney actually beat Hillary too, if you look at those numbers in the correct way.
Anyway, I'm not all adhep to it, but the drive-bys are all excited about it.
So I thought I'd try to get the truth in.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you with us chomping it a bit here, raring to go on the one and only EIB network, Rush Limbaugh, behind the golden EIB microphone.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
The headlines are proclaiming that Mrs. Bill Clinton set a record for fundraising in the first quarter and that she outraised Obama.
The New York Times says Clinton campaign shows fundraising edge.
But look, Obama is the winner of fundraising in the first quarter race.
He raised over $20 million.
Hillary raised $26.
But much of Hillary's $26 million was in $4,600 slices.
The maximum gift you can give now is $2,300 per campaign.
So you give $2,300 to the primary.
You give $2,300 in the general.
So she gets $4,600 donations from people, but half of each $4,600 has to be allocated to the primary, the other half to the general.
Since she already announced that she's not going to take federal money for the general election, she was free to collect money for both.
Now, Obama hasn't decided yet whether he's going to forego federal matching funds for the general election.
So virtually all of his money is just for the primary.
And because he's not made a decision, he's limited to $2,300 per donor.
So he's got a lot more donors than Mrs. Clinton has.
Now, most of the analysts thought Hillary would raise $30 to $35 and Obama between $15 and $20 million.
And according to Drudge, Hillary found it necessary to transfer $10 million from her senatorial campaign committee in order to pump up her total of $36 million.
And let's not forget who's actually raising this money.
It's Der Schlichmeister.
It's Bill Clinton.
He's been out there on a fundraising tear.
And of course, this is not being mentioned quite clearly.
I think, you know, despite the spin in the drive-by media, you probably got the Clinton Inc. bunch considerably concerned here about Barack Obama.
Speaking of Barry, Barack Obama, well, that's what he called himself when he was in college.
If President Bush, this is an AP story out of Sioux City, Iowa yesterday, if President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline on the White House.
And Obama says that this will happen because no lawmaker wants to play chicken with our troops.
Barack, you are wrong about that.
There are plenty of House Democrats who want to play chicken with the troops who would love to defund the troops tomorrow.
But Obama says after the president's veto, and by the way, the Kook websites are all over Obama now.
They hate his guts out there.
He said, my expectation is that we'll continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course.
I don't think that we'll see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage.
There are a number of senators who have acknowledged they got bad information or might have made a different decision in the original vote.
But Obama's sort of let the cat out of the bag.
Why?
Now, here's the question.
One of the things is that Obama realizes which way the politics on this are going to play.
And besides that, folks, Obama has a lot more leeway to reach beyond these nutty clowns and the net roots out there, these Looney Tune bloggers on the left on the war issue.
He doesn't have to prove his anti-war credentials, given he's not part of the We Were Tricked caucus in the Senate and in the House.
And the We Were Tricked caucus consists of Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd.
He voted against it from the get-go.
But he knows where this is going, and he knows full well that the American people will not stand for the troops to be defunded during time of combat, particularly with the Iranians ratcheting up the situation as they are.
Interesting story of the Jerusalem Post that published today, United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on Good Friday, which will be April 6th.
Now, this is actually according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.
According to Russian intelligence sources, the report said the U.S. has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.
The Russian news agency Novasti quoted a security official as saying, Russian intelligence has information U.S. armed forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory.
Speaking of Iran, the House, as you know, Pelosi is all over the world now.
She's over in Syria, despite the White House making requests not to do this.
And the whole House left Washington on Friday for a two-week spring break without saying a word on the international crisis, the 15 British sailors and Marines being held hostage by Iran.
Some Republicans are noting this, that Pelosi didn't say anything about it.
They say they should have gotten a chance to join the Senate in denouncing the bold actions taken by Tehran, Charles Dent, Republican Pennsylvania.
So I'm very disappointed that the Speaker chose to act.
Meanwhile, the Iranians are telling the president, stay out of this, Mr. Bush.
Bush condemned the Iranians' actions, and the Iranians said, screw you.
Iran overnight urged President Bush to keep out of its role with Britain over 15 sailors and Marines it detained for allegedly entering Iranian waters illegally.
The military or ministry spokesman, foreign ministry spokesman Mohamed Ali Hosseini, was quoted as saying it's better for the U.S. president to refrain from making ill-considered, non-technical, and irrational comments.
What would they expect?
Maybe they would prefer the President Bush go on national TV and say something like, three hours ago, the following targets in Iran were obliterated by combined actions of the U.S. and Allied Air Forces.
You know, here's the thing about this.
Hosseini's comments to Bush appear to be more civil and respectful than Pelosi's recent admonition to the president to calm down.
You know, I am still seething, and I've got a couple things to say about this as the program unfolds over her words and her attitude after they passed the timeline bill in the House.
Calm down, Mr. President.
Calm down.
Just calm down.
Calm down, Mr. President.
Just calm down.
You must respect our constitutional authority.
You have no such constitutional authority, Mr. Speaker.
You have no such constitution.
You are not the commander-in-chief.
You are not any of the things that you think you are.
And to tell the president to calm down.
I'm telling you, folks, I know it doesn't look like it, but you're going to have to sit there.
You have to trust me.
These people, it's almost gotten to the point, just get out of the way and let them hang themselves.
Talking about the Democrats in the House, the Democrats in the Senate.
Just get out of the way and let them say whatever.
When you're in the...
I've got to rule when I'm hosting the talk show.
Get an idiot on the phone, get out of the way, and let them prove it.
Don't get in the way of it.
Same thing here.
The Democrats are sowing the seeds here for an eventual huge embarrassment.
And it's going to be sooner rather than later.
I got to take a quick break more on this Iranian situation.
Just a couple C, I told you so's on this.
Sit tight.
We'll be right back and continue with all arrests.
Oh, and you know, there's a big problem in the office now.
In the business.
Yes, bullies.
Bullies have grown up from the playground and they're now in offices.
There always has to be something wrong in offices, right?
There always has to be.
We got the discrimination thing settled.
We've gotten basically the glass ceiling things.
That problem is fixed.
They just, the drive-bys cannot let a day go by with trying to create some kind of chaos and tumult in the minds of as many Americans as possible.
Details on that.
Lots of other stuff coming up right after this.
America's real anchor man, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, and even the good times.
All right, let's go to the audio soundbites because we've got a couple of things here.
We've got Senator Feinstein.
We got a media montage about the whole situation in Iran.
Last week, I guess it was what date was it, 29.
Well, late last week, Thursday last week, I think.
I got a call from somebody who wanted to talk to me about fairness and why don't the American people stand up and demand fairness from the rest of the world and the way we get treated.
And this is what I said to that caller.
You start demanding fairness out there.
Understand this.
It's not to be extended to Americans, and particularly in this climate, conservative or Republican Americans, because we're by virtue of our power and our majority status, we are guilty.
And therefore, any act against us is permitted.
But any act of retaliation by us is excessive, unnecessary.
That's why we got to close Club Gitmo.
Why these are just poor little nomads?
What do we think we're doing?
Acting like we run the planet, acting like we run the universe.
Who in hell do we think we are?
We deserve this.
We deserve to find out what it's like to feel like we have been making the rest of the world's poor and minorities feel all of our existence.
That's the point of multiculturalism and the trashing of the original founders and settlers of this country.
It's part and parcel.
So if you want to call a mass rally and demand fairness for the United States of America, understand this.
You are going to be laughed at by liberals and the drive-by media in this country throughout.
Here you'll hear Diane Feinstein in the next bite.
Use my, almost use my exact words.
He's on a late edition of Wolf Blitzer.
By the way, we do have more on her resigning from the MilCon Committee, the subcommittee in the Senate.
This is a scandal that's every bit as big, if not larger, than Congressman William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana.
It's going nowhere.
And it was started by a bunch of leftists, alternative paper publishers out on the left coast in the Northern Bay Area.
And it's just garnering no interest whatsoever.
We're going to be mentioning it again on the program today.
But first things first, Wolf Blitzer said, Senator Feinstein, I want you to react to the regime change in Iran idea.
We're hearing a lot about that now.
Is that the only solution from the U.S. perspective as you see it?
I don't know who the United States thinks we are, that we are the keeper of all the world, and that if we can't get along with the government, we've got to change that government, and then we do it by a preemptive war.
And I think that's tragic.
And I think it will set in place a kind of dialectic with the Islamic world that is very, very dangerous indeed.
So I wish that conversation had never taken place.
I think cooler heads need to prevail.
I think diplomacy needs to work at its fullest.
I think we need to put some of our best diplomatic minds forward to help the British and sit down with people and solve this situation and stop all the saber rattling.
It seems that these days all America knows is the threat of force.
The threat of force.
That is what our enemies are using against us, but yet she sees us as the primary guilty people on that score.
And it's exactly what I said.
We're the United States of America.
We're too big.
We're too powerful.
We don't expect fairness.
Fairness is not to be extended to us.
Who do we think we are?
She said, practically echoing me.
Who do we think we are that we're the keeper of all the world?
We're talking about the enemy here, Senator Feinstein.
We're talking about the Iranians who illegally snatched 15 British Marines and sailors while they were in Iraqi waters.
And we've tried, we're going the diplomatic route.
You want to do Jimmy Carter II on this?
You want these people held for hundreds of days while we do something other than saber rattle?
Who is saber rattling?
All we're doing is responding to this.
And she's all upset here that the president had to get involved.
This is not about us.
This has nothing to do with us, she says.
These are the people who are state sponsors of terrorism.
And look at the threats that Ahmedinejad has made.
This is why I say, folks, these people are out of it totally.
And this is going to come back to haunt them.
They are setting themselves up for a powerful embarrassment.
And they've got themselves in such a circumstance that when that event happens or a series of events happens that will no doubt embarrass them, they've got no way out of it.
They have allied themselves on the sides of America's enemies.
They own defeat of the United States of America, be it Iran, be it Afghanistan, be it Iraq, be it the war on terror.
In fact, you're going to see, well, I did say Peter Beinert of the, I don't know where he writes anywhere.
He used to be with New Republic.
Yeah, but I don't think he's there anymore.
He might be.
I mean, you know, these drive-bys, it's incestuous.
They just go from one publishing house to the next.
It's how they get their promotions.
They move up from reporter to managing editor to bureau chief to what have you.
But they, you know, it doesn't matter where they work.
It's all the same agenda.
And he's out there saying, you know, I don't even think we ought to be talking about war on terror.
A term is just antiquated and it's outdated.
It's not even applicable, he says.
And so this is where they are.
There is no war on terror.
There aren't any immilitant Islamists that want to wipe us out.
We're just making all this up.
And we're living here in a state of fear that's totally unnecessary.
In the meantime, we're acting like this big braggadocious bully running around all over the world, demanding the rest of the world kowtow to us.
Which, of course, is a gross exaggeration of what's happening.
But anyway, I wanted to play the Feinstein bite because I know these people, folks, like every square inch of my shrinking rapidly, but yet nevertheless glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand.
So it is what it is.
I know these people.
We're too big.
We're too bullyish.
We need to step out of this.
We need to ratchet these things down.
We need to understand that we can't tell the rest of the world how to be, which is not what's happening here.
What's happening here is simply the interest in U.S. national security.
Here's example number two of this.
A montage, a drive-by media montage from last night and this morning.
And who we got here?
The names matter.
They don't matter.
We got people from CNN.
We got people from ABC.
We get people from Newsweek.
And that's pretty much it.
A montage reporting on these Iranian hostages.
President Bush used the word hostage.
Now, is that something the British would rather the U.S. stay away from?
Mr. Bush made that comment at a press conference.
Maybe it was off the top of his head, but certainly here the word hostage is not being used.
You heard President Bush say hostages.
That's the first time he said hostages.
Do you think Bush wanted him to use that word?
I wouldn't have been able to do it.
He thought of a hostage crisis.
Use of the word hostage conjures up memories of America's own crisis with Iran.
British officials have been hesitant to use the H-word hostage, but President Bush had no qualms.
Well, somebody tell me what the hell they are if they aren't hostages.
Are they guests?
Are they captives?
are they kept they're kept as you mean okay they're kept as in as in women who have sugar daddies They're like kept women.
Oh, give me a major break.
They are hostages.
What is this?
The British, oh, gosh, that's going to really ratch.
Oh, no.
We're really going to offend the Iranians with words?
The Iranians went out and illegally captured these people, and we've got drive-by media.
Oh, no.
Oh, we're going to have, oh, guys, we call them hostages.
Can you imagine what their cocktail parties were like that night?
Probably double or triple the dose of adult beverages they're downing to handle all the fear as they're quaking in their boots.
Bush call them hostages.
Why?
This is going to remind everybody of the hostage crisis 1979.
Yeah, it already reminds a lot of people of that.
And so does the way it's being dealt with, by the way, remind a lot of people of that.
I tell you, it's more than just these people are visually blind.
They are intellectually so committed to the notion that the United States is guilty, that whatever we do, whatever our leaders say, cements further in their warped minds this whole concept of our guilt.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, time for a major announcement from me, Rushlin Boy.
As you know, there have been many attacks on my credibility over the course of my 18-plus years behind the golden EIB microphone.
There have been claims, false claims that I make things up to fit my agenda, that I always get things wrong.
You know what the drive-bys and the American left continually do, not just with me, but a number of people on the right, in order to discredit us because they can't dispute.
They cannot argue with our ideas, and so they attempt to try to discredit us as leaders, spokespeople, and what have you.
But I am here today to officially proclaim that I, Rush Limbaugh, am the most correct and accurate media figure in America today.
On this basis, I have the largest audience of any media figure in the country today and a program of this type in the drive-by media.
My audience is larger than the nightly news.
If you combine their nightly news audiences, they might have an argument there.
But this audience is larger than any cable news show.
I don't care what the show is, it's larger.
And by many, many multiples.
As such, a consensus of American news consumers by making me a most listened-to media figure in the country have therefore anointed me with also being the most accurate and the most right.
There is a consensus of agreement among the American people that this is not only the most listened to program, but by virtue of that, it is also the most right.
It is also the most accurate.
It is also the most correct.
Anybody else, people who disagree with this are rush deniers.
And they are simply living in a dream world.
They refuse to accept the truth.
They refuse to see the truth for what it is.
And I am going to become even less tolerant of the rush deniers than I have been up to now.
A consensus of the American people, ladies and gentlemen, has made me not only the most listened to radio talk show host in America, but it also the most accurate and the most correct.
Here now to the phones.
We go to David in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
David, great to have you with us today, sir.
Historic Dittos, Rush.
Hey, the senior political editor for CBSNews.com was on the Washington Journal this morning.
So I called in and asked him if he thought the reason that the network news divisions were losing viewers and laying off employees was because the conservative talk radio industry that you spawned was constantly pointing out that both the network news divisions and the entertainment network news divisions are constantly undermining our political process.
And I mean, Rush, he immediately gave you some credit by saying that you were basically the person that was leading the change under the complete change.
But then he quickly converted it to try to blow it off with talking points saying that basically people can go to whoever they choose to to get the personality that they trust.
And Rush, I thought the amazing thing was the one thing that this guy never did point out was my underlying premise that the network news divisions and the entertainment news divisions are undermining our political process.
He never mentioned that at all.
Did you have that soundbite?
Well, yeah, I've got it here.
In fact, the cookie made at number one on the Soundbite roster.
Your call, a pure coincidence, provides a perfect opportunity to air this.
But here, we'll play it.
As to him responding to your claim that they're undermining the political process, one of two things happened.
Either he forgot that you made the claim and didn't want to get to it because you so riled him up on the mention of my name that you totally discombobulated him.
And I would think that's probably it.
The second reason he might have avoided it is because he just doesn't agree with you.
And on C-SPAN, you're supposed to be polite and dull and boring.
So anyway, here's the bite.
And this is the guy.
This is the caller that asked the question.
The question, and you're from Gatorsburg, Maryland. Was, do you think the continuous decline in viewership of the major networks' news divisions and programs is a direct result of Rush Limbaugh successfully spawning an entire conservative talk radio show industry that regularly points out that the news divisions, not just the news divisions, also the network entertainment divisions, are constantly trying to undermine the political process.
Do you think that they're responsible for the fact that you guys are losing viewership and at the same time laying off a lot of employees in your news divisions while at the same time talk radio is flourishing?
What Rush Limbaugh does represent is the changing media landscape that we see just exploding over the past five years.
Of course, Limbaugh Talk Radio was a big forerunner of that.
Basically, people can now get their information, the kind of information that they want from the sources that they personally trust, whether it's on the conservative side or the liberal side, at a time of their choosing.
Certainly, online is a component of that.
And Rush Limbaugh was a big part of forwarding that and being one of the forerunners of that kind of new technology and new ways to receive information.
The only thing I would disagree here, it hasn't been the last five years.
It's been the last 18 and a half years.
And I don't think I was one of the.
Did he say?
Yeah, I was not one of the forerunners.
I was the forerunner.
But not a bad answer.
Not a bit.
Yeah, I guess we've got to give him a break.
He probably only started listening five years ago.
But anyway, that was his answer.
And you remain a little disappointed you didn't get an answer on the question you asked about distorting the political process?
Oh, absolutely.
It was like he went right into the talking points, Rush.
But, you know, you've always stated that your success isn't dependent on who wins elections.
But, Rush, your success is absolutely dependent on whether the mainstream media continues to manipulate the truth in order to undermine our country or whether they decide to tell the truth objectively.
Wait, just as it are you saying to me in this audience that if the drive-bys did a 180 and actually became fair and actually reported truth and facts, if they actually would, that I would be out of a job?
Rush, you would be completely out of a job.
And not only am I saying that, Rush, I'm saying that we should be focused on bringing down this enemy within media and not even talking about Democrats in Congress or Democrats in the Senate because they're puppets, Rush.
You know, if the mainstream media was telling the five-six of the American-age voters the same thing that you and the rest of your conservative talk show hosts are telling the one-sixths of the American-age voters, then these liberals that are thorn our country in Rush wouldn't be able to be re-elected.
So why would we talk about them?
We shouldn't talk about them anymore.
We should go to MediaLimbaugh.com.
No, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Up to now, you have been a genius.
But your last comment, I mean, and I appreciate it.
I mean, don't misunderstand.
Many people over the course of the 18 and a half years here have attempted to tell me how to do what I do and what I'm doing wrong and what I'm doing.
It happens every day.
I mean, I get, I don't count them.
I mean, thousands of emails from people and some of those emails.
You know what you really ought to start doing?
And you need to talk about this more.
And you stop talking about that.
If I listened to all of this, I would be in a little white coat, in a straitjacket, in an asylum, and I'd be going back and forth in one of those little yellow buses every day because I'd be trying to please everybody.
You can't do that.
And I'm not going to stop talking about Democrats in power.
I mean, the drive-bys are what they are.
We know that there's a symbiotic relationship, that they are accomplices in the same game, the same objective.
But the drive-bys are they have a certain amount of power, but they do not have total power getting people elected.
Otherwise, Republicans would never win elections anywhere.
But now you've got circumstances where the Democrats are in power in Washington and both the House and the Senate, slim margins in both, but it changes the way they behave and it changes the things that happen.
It's changed the way Republicans deal with them and interact.
Can't ignore them, and I'm not going to ignore them.
But I really want to, nevertheless, despite all that, thank you for your call to C-SPAN.
By the way, the guy from CBS.com's name is Vaughan Ververs.
And I just want to appreciate your question.
Thank you for your question.
Tell you I appreciate it because it means a lot to me that you have this on your mind, and a lot of other people do, and you get a chance to confront the drive-bys on places like C-SPAN with it.
You make me proud.
And I thank you so much.
Candy in Los Angeles on the 405.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning, sir.
How are you?
I couldn't be better.
Thank you.
That's terrific.
My point is that Nancy Pelosi is doing a lot more damage to, besides just the Democrats.
My mother, who is 80 years old, who votes in every election, said, this is the reason why you shouldn't vote for a woman, dear.
Look at how upside down she is.
She knows nothing.
She puts her nose where things don't belong.
That's what women do.
They're just too emotional.
And, you know, when we were talking about it, I just simply had to call and tell you because I. Wait a minute now.
Wait just a second.
You can't issue a broad generality like women put their noses in places they don't belong.
I can give you several personal examples where that's been great.
Not me, sir.
I will tell you honestly that I have been having an open dialogue with my mother about the possibility of a woman being president.
And she says, nope, they're just not emotionally capable.
Blah, blah, blah.
But the long and short of it is Nancy Pelosi was the person that she used to drive home her point this weekend when I saw her.
And I just thought that it was kind of ironic because she says, this is why Hillary Clinton can never be president.
Look at what this woman is doing.
So I think that the damage is not only to the Democrats, it's certainly to specifically to Mrs. Clinton.
Well, you know, you're very prescient, you and your mother.
Because I have to tell you something.
One of the things that I predicted would happen after Ms. Pelosi was elected to the speakership of the House was a battle for control of Washington between Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi.
And it's going to be a problem for Hillary.
You're exactly right because Nancy Pelosi thinks that she is co-president already.
Something Hillary has actually been.
Pelosi is acting like she is the co-president now, and she's doing what she can to set the Democrat Party agenda for Washington.
And it may not be something that's going to be helpful to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Mrs. Bill Clinton is not going to want to appear as far off the left-wing fringe as Ms. Pelosi does.
Even though she is, she isn't going to want to appear that way.
But Pelosi, and this is why we created the, or we reminded you of the existence of the Queen Bee syndrome, which is women in positions of power do not put other women in close subordinate roles because they don't want a female competitor.
They would rather have a male competitor in close supportive roles at a business organization, wherever.
But Hillary is going to be, she's seeking the power of the most powerful woman, the most powerful person in the world.
Pelosi is nowhere close to that, but she's acting like it.
So you're right.
There's all kinds of things here that are being roiled and mixed in this evil brew, and it is going to have consequences and ramifications down the road.
That will not lead to friendship.
No, no, not only that, it's alienating the women voters.
Because, as I say, my mother and I have had a dialogue for some time because I would love to see Condoleezza Rice run.
I really respect her.
I think she's a fabulous woman.
And I think that she might have a place someday as the chief.
However, that having been said, my mother, who, as I say, is 80 years old, said, absolutely not.
I wouldn't vote for her.
I wouldn't vote for a woman.
And my mom isn't so different than like all the other moms out there that have been around for a long time.
You know, they're from the old school.
They don't see, you know, they don't see the changes that are coming.
But when this lady, who like is an embarrassment to California anyway, you know, reacts the way she does, it's like it just drives home my mother's point that women are not fit to be in those kinds of positions.
Yeah, but you have to have a cool head.
Look at, look at, look, I understand this, but that alone, these things taken singularly or individually are not going to be enough to have an impact.
It's going to take a series of these kinds of things.
Like, this is what Pelosi is doing is doing, is not irritating her people on the left.
It's not irritating a lot of people.
They think she's looking cool, especially the left-wing kooks, which make up the base of the Democrat Party.
So it hasn't come back to hurt her yet.
And don't forget, you know, there's another side to this equation.
You can sit there and you and your mother can tell yourself stories, anecdotes about all this, but it's not scientific.
And you'd be making a big mistake if you think that you are thinking and reacting as a majority of American women are.
In and of itself, you may be right, but we'll never know.
The aspect of this equation, the part of it that's missing, is Republicans standing up and saying what you're saying, not about the women business, but who the hell does she think she is?
This is negotiating with a terrorist state.
The State Department has Syria on the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
She's over there sipping tea.
She's not the first.
A bunch of other Democrats have gone over and done the same thing.
John Kerry has been there.
Republicans don't stand up and say anything about it.
Then a lot less hullabaloo will be created in the minds of the general public.
Quick timeout.
Thanks for the call out there, Camby.
Be back in a sec.
I mentioned earlier, ladies and gentlemen, that Nancy Pelosi's calm down, Mr. President, just calm down comment, is still driving me up the wall.
Here she is.
She's a mother.
She's a grandmother.
She can nurse the kids and balance them on her knee and protect the country at the same time.
She's Speaker of the House.
She's commander-in-chief.
She's Secretary of State.
And my friend, she is a fill-in-the-blank.
What has she done?
Look at this 100-hour gimmick.
Lots of drive-by praise, but what did it accomplish?
Oh, I'm sorry.
It led to a minimum wage increase in two years, which still hasn't become law.
What did they get done?
They can't legislate anything, folks.
They can't get any legislation through Congress.
They don't have a majority large enough to sustain presidential vetoes.
And because they can't legislate, they've decided to investigate.
And they're going to go overboard doing that.
Orin Hatch finally took it to Senator Pat Leakey-Leahy yesterday.
We have the audio soundbites of that coming up on this Attorney General firing thing.
I mean, she hasn't done anything other than become the first female speaker of the House.
She's got a lot of press, a lot of Barbara Streisand.
And now she's off to Sue Syria.
The administration asked her not to go.
She didn't even ask for permission.
She didn't even call up and say that, you know, what would you think of me going over there on a fact-finding trip?
So there she is in Syria.
When we see her sipping tea with the dictator over there, Basher Assad, you know, she tells the president to calm down.
And you understand, Mr. President, she can't handle one bit of criticism.
Not one bit of criticism.
And she's on the phone to the White House complaining or moaning or telling the president to calm down while she slow bleeds the funding for the military.
She tells the president to calm down while she's trying to secure the defeat of the U.S. military and the United States itself.
She tells the president to calm down.
She defies her own government while we are at war, and she tells the president to calm down.
Can you imagine back in 1995 or 96 if Newt Gingrich had gone off to Kosovo to try to negotiate some sort of peace here while Bill Clinton was mounting bombing runs from 15,000 feet?
Can you imagine if Newt Gingrich had gone off to Syria, if he gone off to Syria while Bill Clinton was negotiating with Arafat in a Lincoln bedroom, trying to achieve Middle East peace?
Now, Bush has to do something about this.
The president has to get involved.
He can't sit there and say, okay, I'll be calm.
He's got to react to this somehow, if not for himself, for the presidency.
You know, what you might say, they got to be careful because the Republicans are going to play these same tactics if the Democrats get the White House, but I'm not so sure the Republicans have it in them to behave like this.
We'll be back.
By consensus of the American people, I am Rush Limbaugh, America's most listened to and most accurate radio or television media figure on air today.
Everybody else, a rush denier.
▲
Export Selection