All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
April 11, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Say where Fred Thompson said he had cancer is in remission and never had any problems from it.
Supposedly a mild form of some kind of lymphoma.
And there's a reason he's getting this out there now.
I mean, that's obviously getting closer to making a decision on whether or not to go for it.
In terms of the Republican nomination, which reminds me, we have our annual leukemia and lymphoma Society of America curathon coming up on the 20th this month, Friday, the 20th of April.
We have raised Boku bucks, and you people have just been amazing in the number of years that we've been doing this.
It's coming up again.
There's a little heads up here on Friday, April 20th.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, fun frolic and frivolity for all, as well as the serious discussion of issues.
A program reminder, I will be out this Friday once again.
But my good friend Tom Sullivan from KFBK Sacramento will be here.
He, of course, head of the Sullivan Group, the opinion auditing firm in Sacramento that has audited my opinions for accuracy since the late 80s.
And of course, ladies and gentlemen, you should know that I'm thinking of dropping these audits from the Sullivan Group, not because of any problem at the Sullivan Group.
Their fees are very reasonable.
It's that by virtue of consensus of the American people, it's established that I am the most accurate, that I am the most listened to, and that I am the most correct radio talk show host out there.
I got far larger audience than anybody else.
And more Americans agree with me than anybody else in the media, any single individual, and therefore by consensus, by virtue of consensus, I'm it.
And if you're not one of those who are part of the consensus, then you are a rush denier.
Time for some global warming news, shall we?
Yes.
The crazy world of Arthur Brown hit the top of the charts in 1968, used to play that song as a struggling young disc jockey star of the future.
My second year in broadcasting, 1968, back in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Okay, global warming update time, some doozies today in the stack.
First off, I know I've been pummeled with emails from people who happened to see Newt Gingrich and John Kerry, who served in Vietnam in their so-called debate on global warming.
Yes, it was on C-SPAN.
And when I first heard that this is going to happen, I said, well, it's about time.
And I hate saying this, but you have to understand, I hate saying this.
Something happens to Newt when he gets up there face to face with these libs and it's like, make nice.
It's like kiss up.
I mean, it's almost like he gets starstruck in front of these people.
Remember the joint press conference with Hillary on healthcare?
And he was on the program after that.
I told him I was a little incredulous at that.
He said, well, forget partisanship.
A good idea is a good idea.
And I said, well, that's the problem.
I'm not sure.
But I mean, Carrie, I mean, sitting duck, sitting duck time, and to sit there and agree with the notion that we're in a crisis because of humanity is to just ignore the central political theme of this whole issue.
So I was, like you, I was sad.
It was just, it was very sad.
That's about the best way I can characterize this.
Now, one of the things during the entire effort of mine here to educate as many people as possible on the real truth of the political movement of global warming has been to tell you that what this is all aimed at is you and your lifestyle and the entire American lifestyle.
And by extension, the lifestyles of Western democracies in general, but the focus is on us.
We're the bad guys.
It is our excessive consumerism.
It is our attempt to drive bigger cars that is the problem, they say, and that becomes the target.
We're supposed to roll back our lifestyles.
We're supposed to have less expectations of the future because our actions, human beings using their brains as God created, to create longer lifespans, a better standard and quality of life, has become the focus and target.
I've told you this over and over again.
A lookie here from the UK Guardian, stop shopping or the planet will go pop.
In the week that saw Primark Mania, Jonathan Porret, the government's green guru, says consumerism is now a lethal disease.
Many big ideas have struggled over the centuries to dominate the planet, begins the argument by Jonathan Porrett, government advisor and all-around environment guru.
Fascism, communism, democracy, religion.
He lumps them all together.
He's a lib.
Fascism, communism, democracy, religion.
These are the primary ills and evils of the world.
But only one of these has achieved total supremacy.
Its compulsive attraction robs its followers of reason and good sense.
It has created unsustainable inequalities and threatened to tear apart the very fabric of our society.
More powerful than any cause or even religion, it has reached into every corner of the globe.
It is consumerism.
According to Jonathan Porrett, the most senior advisor to the government on sustainability, we have become a generation of shopaholics.
We are bombarded by advertising from every medium, which persuades us that the more we consume, the better our lives will be.
Shopping is equated with fun, fulfillment, and self-identity.
It's also, he warns, killing, killing the planet.
He argues in an interview with The Observer that merely switching to ethical shopping is not enough.
We must shop less.
This guy better watch out.
He is going to lose female support here.
The men will love it if he keeps this up.
It's what he says.
He said, ethical shopping is not enough, meaning, you know, buying Priuses and compact fluorescence.
We got to stop buying everything.
We got to stop buying all.
We got to shop less.
You think women want to hear that?
Men might, but HR going to use it on Teresa tonight.
Hey, Teresa, your shopping's destroying the planet.
But that, actually, turn this around and use it.
All of a sudden, all of us deniers, all of us skeptics, go home and tell your wives, your spouses.
I, of course, have none, neither.
But you can do it for me.
You can go home and you can say, honey, I just read the most amazing thing.
I heard it on the Rush Limbaugh show today.
And he cited the source.
It's The Guardian in the UK.
We got to stop shopping.
Shopping is killing the planet.
Go tell all these parents that are watching Al Gore's movie and coming home saying, oh my God, we're killing the polar bear.
Tell them, no.
It's shopping that's killing the polar bears.
We've got to stop shopping.
That's what the guy is saying here.
There are a growing number of dissenting voices, though, such as the so-called frugals, individuals who use the internet to seek a simpler lifestyle, and organizations and websites which urge people to kick the retail habit.
Porrett has concluded that consumerism is central to the threat facing the planet, cannibalizing its natural resources and producing the carbon dioxide emissions which result in climate change.
I think capitalism is patently unable to go on growing the size of the consumer economy for any more people in the world today because levels of consumption are already undermining life support systems on which we depend.
So if we do it for any more people, the planet will go pop.
So, okay, keep the poor poor, make the rich as poor as possible, and save the planet.
Now, Paul Ehrlich tried this, and he's still a guru, even though every projection and prediction he made was deemed to be wrong.
The population bomb, he made the bet with Julian Simon, Julian Simon said, I'll make you a bet.
By the year 2000 or whatever his apocalyptic year was, I'll bet you we got more of the following minerals, blah, than we have today.
And Ehrlich said, oh, I'll take that.
I'm going to skunk you.
And of course, Ehrlich was dead wrong.
We had more of everything.
We had more abundance.
We had cheaper prices on a number of things, factored for inflation, of course.
And the reason was the good old supply and demand.
When there's demand, people are going to go out and supply it.
Yes, Mr. Snurdly, what's the...
Well, we're not...
Snerdley's question.
How is society supposed to function if people don't buy what they need?
He's not advocating total end of shopping.
But look at, you're asking me to analyze some guy rationally.
This is a kook.
The point is this is kooky, but it's being passed off as brilliance.
It's being passed off as insightful.
It's being passed off as enlightened.
And it's, you know, but it's going to attract its fellow kooks here.
So first they take away our big cars.
Then they're going to take away the light bulbs.
We've got to get these little screwy things.
Then our paper bags, L.A. is going to get rid of paper bags, and they're going to get plastic bags, rather.
L.A. is going to get rid of plastic bags and grocery stores.
Then they're going to get rid of hairspray, which they tried to do with the aerosol spray can.
Now they want us to stop consuming or we all die.
I'm telling you, folks, the environmental movement is the new home of displaced communists, and their attack is on capitalism.
Pure and simple.
If you just listen to them, you don't even have to trust me.
Meanwhile, the Groundhog's prediction for an early spring is proving wrong in New York City.
A cold front has kept temperatures about seven degrees below the historical average this month, just 10 days into April.
Temperatures have averaged 42 degrees.
That's about a degree warmer than the average for April of 1874, which is the coldest on record.
So the bottom line is that New York temperatures rival the record for the coldest April since records have been taken, 1874.
Baseball games in the upper, they've got a snowstorm in the upper Midwest states.
It's got all kinds of airports bogged down.
Chicago O'Hare and others.
Major League Baseball having to cancel even more games.
Cleveland Indians moving games to Milwaukee where they got a retractable roof there.
They can play the Anaheim Angels.
I'm sorry, Los Angeles Angels.
This is normal stuff.
The snowstorms in April happen.
But the PS Derecisa Tonza today, Cheryl Crowe and Lori David in a biodiesel bus traveling the country to raise consciousness on global warming.
And there are numerous stories out there with quotes like this.
Lori and I just met in November.
This is Cheryl Crowe speaking.
Lori and I just met in November, and now we're sleeping together, she said with a laugh.
Yet we're sleeping on a bus in separate bunks.
On a more serious note, she told People magazine, when I learned how serious global warming is, I wanted to do something to help.
So when Laurie and I were talking about what we could do, well, my answer to everything is to get on the bus and take it to the people in the true troubadour fashion.
And what is she doing to be eco-friendly?
Well, I try to wash my clothes in cold water as much as I can.
I turn off lights in rooms that I'm not using.
I drive a hybrid.
I'm getting solar panels for my house.
To save water, I'm only going to shower once a week, she joked, like I did when I was a kid on Saturdays.
She also had her tour bus retrofitted to use eco-friendly biodiesel fuel.
We're in a bus powered by vegetable oil, so we're craving French fries the whole tour.
This is like Hillary's bus tour for education, except Lori David and Cheryl Crow on a bus tour across the country to raise consciousness about global warming.
A tour began at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
And she said, Yeah, I know it snowed the day before they got there.
I know it's snowing.
It's just, it's laughing.
It's a joke, except these people are treated as heroines.
These people are treated as, you know, they're Paul Revere as they're riding across the country and they're sounding the warning British are coming to Britain.
Global warming is coming and it's going to kill us.
I'm here because the more I learn about global warming, the more I feel compelled to do something in my own way, whatever it is.
Just do something.
Whether it matters or not, just do something.
And that's the clarion called just do something.
By the way, April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years in the whole country, not just in New York.
How does this square with global warming?
Well, Mithril Limbaugh, global warming is not primarily happening in the United States, Mithril Limbaugh.
It is our accident in the United States, Mithril Limbaugh, that's affecting climate other places on a planet like Greenland and the Arctic.
And that's the problem, Mithril Limbaugh.
They've already said that we're freezing, for heating up America.
We're going to suffer for what we're doing.
Trying to warn everybody as best I can.
It is a pure liberal political issue and nothing more.
And we will be right back.
Stay with us.
Well, poor old Rudy Giuliani, he got tricked into going on the prices right and didn't know the price.
The usual setup questions in the drive-by media.
They asked him what a loaf of bread cost and a gallon of milk was.
And he didn't know.
He hadn't stepped into a grocery store lately.
So there's a little bit of embarrassment out there.
On both counts, he said, I don't know what he said the bread was, but he said the gallon of milk was $1.50.
How many of you really know the price?
No, no, no, no.
I mean, really know the price of a loaf of bread or of a gallon of milk.
And I'm not talking about how many of you remember what it cost you the last time you go.
The fact of the matter is, most people, when they go to the grocery store, it doesn't matter what it costs because they have to have it.
You got to have milk.
And of course, you got to have bread, the so-called staff of life.
You buy it.
Whatever it costs, like gasoline, you buy it.
Now, you'll remember the gasoline cost because that's a little political there.
But I mean, most people would have to search their memory banks.
And of course, the point they were trying to get with Rudy was: well, he doesn't get to the store.
And that means he can't represent America's president.
Well, he hadn't been a real guy and go to a grocery store.
But my question is, how many of you really know what the price of a gallon of milk is in a loaf of bread?
Not what it is in the grocery store.
For example, how much does a gallon of milk really cost?
If you factor out the taxes, federal and state, if you factor out the subsidies to the farmers, if you factor out the transportation cost, what does a gallon of milk really cost?
Is it like gasoline, where the feds get something, I don't know, 17 cents a gallon in tax and the states get 28 cents?
Is it true that as in milk or as in gasoline?
You know, the federal government makes more profit on gasoline than the oil companies do because they don't have any costs.
They don't have any R ⁇ D.
They don't have any drilling.
They don't have any distribution costs.
I mean, they're just thieves.
Every time the gallon of gas goes up and you people start getting crazy and making all kinds of cat call noises out there, stop about the oil company profits.
Stop and think.
State and local governments are every penny is profit.
And the more the price goes up, the more they benefit.
Well, is that true in milk?
I wonder.
Does the government profit more from the sale of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk than the actual manufacturers, producers, and distributors of those products?
Even if they don't, in this case, because their food items may not be federal tax on it, but point, there's local sales tax on some of these things in some states.
Point is, how many of you really know what the cost of these things is?
By the time you subsidize the farmers and factorate all these other things, what is the real cost?
Rush, you're skirting the issue trying to save Rudy.
No, no, no, I'm not trying to illustrate a point, folks.
I'm not trying to say, you think Rudy Giuliani needs people to bail him out on the prices, right?
It's just a typical trick question from the drive-bys, and it has no practical relevancy to the election and primaries or whatever coming up.
All right.
Look, folks, I've had diarrhea of the mouth today, but what's so funny in there?
Just ask the wife.
Oh, that's a real sexist comment.
That's a real sexist comment, Brian.
So Rudy should have just asked his wife what the.
I'll bet she hasn't been to the grocery store in a longer period of time than Rudy.
Be my guess.
But nevertheless, I've hogged this program, understand, and it's time to get you involved here.
So we'll go to your phone calls right after this break, and we'll spend a significant amount of time with you.
So 800-282-2882 is the number if you'd like to appear.
Sit tight.
We'll be right back.
No need for you to think, folks, I do that for you.
Here behind the golden EIB microphone.
I have a better question than what's a loaf of bread costs or a gallon of milk costs?
I mean, that's a tired question.
It's an age-old question.
Reporters need to come up with new questions, such as, what do you think one of Hillary Clinton's pantsuits costs?
And the answer to that, well, I'm not sure, but it's probably pretty cheap since she probably buys them by the gross.
Ask Hillary what.
You don't like that comment, Don?
Don't smirking in there.
Ooh, maybe it hit a nerve.
Ask, okay, if you don't like that, ask Hillary what one of her pantsuits costs and see if she knows.
Well, if you're going to ask Rudy about all this corner stuff, you know, the neighbor of John Edwards, this Monty Johnson guy that Elizabeth Edwards is a slumber and his house is a slum, his property is a slum, his 42 acres, and he's this rabid, rabid Republican.
She wouldn't ever want to meet or talk.
She wants to keep her kids away from the guy.
He's got to sell his property because the property tax has doubled because the Edwards built this monstrosity of a mansion across the street from him or down the road from him.
And somebody asked Edwards about this.
Well, you've got to ask my wife.
Ask Elizabeth about that.
So I guess Elizabeth's out there protecting the homestead.
So your question is good, Brian.
Rudy should have just go ask Judith about that.
I've got more things to be concerned about than what I pay for loaf of bread or what have you.
All right, to the phones, Neil in Loveland, Colorado.
Thank you, sir, for waiting, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush, Miguado, Dittos, and thank you for all you do for us.
You are it.
Well, I appreciate that.
Just one of the many forming the consensus I refer to here.
Thank you very much, Neil.
That's right.
Well, the stuff you're talking about, Speaker Pelosi, today is just incredible.
And your morning update on her today got me inspired to call.
Yes.
I need your memory, but it seems to me that I recall the mainstream media started reporting job approval ratings for Speaker Gingrich.
Yes, that's true.
They did.
But I didn't hear that on a Tip O'Neill, or I haven't heard that on Speaker Pelosi.
So are there job approval ratings for her?
I haven't seen any, but I'll tell you what, I wouldn't be surprised if there were somewhere down the road.
They may be doing polls on it.
The results aren't what they want, so they're not releasing them, would be my guess.
But if they ever come back with an approval poll for Pelosi that is higher than Bush's, I wouldn't put it past them to put that out.
What they do, what they're doing now is rating Congress.
And you may have heard recently that Congress is up.
The congressional ratings are up around 40%.
They used to be lower than Bush, but now they supposedly are up.
And from yesterday, actually Monday, an AP poll indicates the public wants Congress to push for an end to a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
40% of those surveyed said they approve of the job Congress is doing.
Now, how do you get from 40% of the everybody knows what Congress is doing?
They're withholding funds and they're trying to withhold funds.
And an AP says here that the poll indicates the public wants Congress to push for an end to a war.
How can you say what the public wants when 40% of them is not a majority?
Well, you can say it because you think your audience is a bunch of idiots.
40% of those surveyed said they approve the job Congress is doing.
That's up from 25% approval registered for the Republican majority in the weeks leading to the elections.
The public opinion split is identical on the issue of Democrat handling of Iraq.
40 approve, 57% disapprove.
Well, hell's bows.
How in the world can you get from 57% disapproval to the statement that the American people want Congress to get us out of Iraq?
I don't believe you can.
You can't.
Support is lower among self-described political independents who deserted Republicans in the last now.
Only 32% of them register approval of the job Congress is doing.
36% favor the way Democrats are handling the job.
And even anti-war Democrats seem slow in warming to the new majority in Congress.
59% of that group, the Democrats, approve of the way the party is handling Iraq.
39% disapprove.
Among Republicans, it's 86% disapprove.
How in the world does any of this even get to 40% overall?
But beyond that, how does 40% come anywhere near speaking for the American people?
Doesn't.
It doesn't.
So that's what's out there.
But as far as specific polls on the Speaker of State, Nancy Pelosi, I have not seen any.
Okay.
Well, when you do, I'd like to hear them.
Oh, we'll pass it on when we get there because I'll tell you, and I just want you to be warned that when and if that day comes, it'll be because she's got higher individual approval numbers than Bush.
Okay, so now it's got to be below 30.
If they're doing it, it's got to be below where Bush is, or that's why they wouldn't put it out.
All right.
Well, thanks so much, Rush.
You bet, Neil.
Michael in Charleston, South Carolina, thank you for waiting.
You're next on the program today.
Hey, Rush.
Yeah, let's start the poll right now.
I disapprove of Madam's speaker.
Forgive my passion, but I found it ludicrous for the Democrats to say that they support the troops, but they're going to base their vote on whether to fund them or not, on whether they get a place to store their peanuts.
Give me a break.
I mean, let's just say, where's the integrity?
You either support the troops based on your core beliefs or you don't.
Don't tell me that you don't want one way or the other because you're going to have to.
I have to tell you, I think they've dropped the support the troops business.
I don't think they're even trying to even make that statement much anymore.
They just want the phones for defending.
They did.
No, no, no.
They tried all last year, but you don't hear them say, you don't hear them make a big point out of supporting the troops when they say they want the withdrawal date to start March 31st of 2008.
They'll throw it in as we do.
They need to do this to make the troops safer.
The reason I think this is so personal is because my son-in-law, Sergeant Buddy Hugh, was killed in Afghanistan on the 19th of February of this year.
And it just grates on me to have the Democrats with their podium that they have to just spew all the discontent and the hatred and the rocks that don't tell me that you support these guys.
If you want to save money, let's call back the Demetics and the surgeons and stuff.
You know, you'll save money on treating them, and then a whole bunch of more will die.
You'll save money from the VA.
Give me a break.
Don't tell me that you support the troops.
I want to get the Taliban or Iraqis and give the enemies a plan of when you're going to withdraw.
You know what the root of your anger is?
Yeah, I know.
I got a dead soul on.
A 23-year-old daughter's a widow and a four-month-old grandson that doesn't have a father.
And it just insensit that she gives us the minimum wage increase instead of doing something about the encourages across the border.
In addition to that, the real reason that you are fit to be tied is because what all of what you've said translates to is, and what you know, is that the people you're talking about here want defeat.
And that's what frosts you.
That's what you hear.
And when they say they support the troops, your intelligence tells you to be angered and outright outraged because you know they're lying to you about that because they want these troops humiliated.
They want troops defeated.
They want this whole thing to be a giant embarrassment.
And they are at the same time trying to massage this with occasional statements that they support the troops.
You've got the deceased.
They don't feel good about themselves.
They want to feel good about themselves.
Of course it's about themselves.
They're the biggest narcissists in the world.
With all liberals, it's about them.
Look at me.
I'm claiming my claim.
I'm doing a good job.
Just pat me on the back.
Look at me.
I'm the first woman speaker.
All that all that in a bag of chips.
Yeah, but you look, let me, Michael, what you, you should know is that they create a number of alternative realities in which they then live.
And they believe people like you are so few that they're not running a political risk with any of this.
They believe that the vast majority of the American people want us to lose in Iraq.
believe that they want the troops out of there and the Iraq war over ASAP, regardless the outcome, because they believe it.
And they have such an arrogance and a condescension that they assume that whatever they think is what everybody else thinks too.
And then they go about trying to make that happen if they have sober moments when they realize they're living in an alternative reality.
Look, I share your anger and your outrage, and I totally understand it.
You know, one of the things that I think they've calculated, they look at numbers.
And this country has changed in a number of ways, say, since World War II and Vietnam.
I saw a figure the other day, and I'm trying to just remember this off the top of my head.
Population of the country, it's give or take, adult population, 225 million, somewhere around there.
And I think what I saw was that the number of military families is 2 million.
And you're in that group.
And the Democrats will look at that and say, 2 million military families versus what?
Well, we'll go with the bigger group.
And no sense of honor, and there's no sense of trying to appeal to you.
You're a minority in terms of numbers, and you're not the future where they're concerned.
And you, I think, instinctively understand all this.
Your outrage and anger is completely understandable.
And it's also indicative of so many.
You don't have an outlet for it.
And you're looking for leadership throughout the country to express the outrage that you feel, and you're not getting it.
You're not seeing it anywhere.
And that just makes you even more frustrated.
I'm glad you called here to vent a little bit because you're among friends here and people are sympathetic to what you and your family have gone through.
Feel free to call anytime.
We'll be back in just a moment.
I need to send out an APB out there for Neil in Loveland, Colorado, who we talked to at the beginning of the half hour here.
He wanted to know if there were any Nancy Pelosi approval numbers, and I said I hadn't seen any.
Neil, there are approval numbers out there for Nancy Pelosi, and they are from the AP.
And Coco up at the website found this on a Washington Post blog with the blog post dated yesterday.
And the headline, Pelosi's approval takes first hit.
But not only that, she took her first hit because of me.
Under near-withering assault from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has seen her approval rating suffer its first significant drop in her brief tenure wielding the gavel as Speaker of State, according to a new independent poll.
While she still remains more popular than President Bush, I told you, Neil, this is the first one of these I've seen, by the way.
While she still remains more popular than President Belos.
Can I you do a name recognition survey on Nancy Pelosi?
Let's find out how many Americans can name her or can recognize her name compared to President Bush.
But anyway, Pelosi's job approval rating dropped to 46%, according to an AP Ipsos conducted poll in the middle of last week.
Her disapproval rating climbed up to 44%, which is a sizable shift from mid-January when the same poll had her approval disapproval at 5135.
That mid-January finding held steady in late February as the Washington Post ABC News poll showed her job performance rated at 50 to 31 in favor of her.
Now, it's certainly noteworthy that the AP Ipsos poll was conducted during the peak of attacks against the speaker for leading a congressional delegation to meet Bashur Assad.
Those attacks included Vice President Dick Cheney's remarks on the Rush Limbaugh show.
So I am blamed along with Vice President Cheney for causing her approval number to take a big hit.
How many times when the drive-bys have reported President Bush's approval numbers, have you seen it said it's certainly nowhere noteworthy that the latest Bush poll was conducted during the peak of Democrat attacks on the president for X. You never see that.
The Bush poll numbers are attributed to the fact that Bush sucks.
Bush poll numbers are attributed to the fact that Bush is an idiot, that Bush is wrong.
Pelosi's plummeting poll number is due solely to the fact that Cheney was on this show.
You just got to love these people.
In one sense.
Neil, I'm glad you asked the question.
I would have not known this.
I don't read the Washington Post blog, but Coco up there with nothing to do, apparently.
Why else would you read it?
Went and found it.
Dave in Rosemead, California.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, how are you doing, Rush?
Good, sir.
I'm not going to say Ditto's because it's stupid.
If I didn't enjoy the show, I wouldn't be listening.
Well, what do you think Dittos means?
It means I enjoy the show.
I like the show.
That's good.
That's good.
Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with you.
It's just a mind-numbed robot agreement type thing, but it isn't.
Yeah.
Well, I'm looking at George W. Bush going down as one of the worst presidents in American history.
Really?
He's failed at everything he's done.
No, he hadn't.
First of all, let me establish my bona fide.
I have a PhD in American histories, and I'm a retired Army colonel.
Okay.
He started a war that he was not willing to win.
He didn't start it.
His only chance now is to let the Democrats defund it and try to blame the debacle on them.
So you think that's what he's going to do?
I think that's exactly what he said.
Do you think he'll eventually go along with the Democrats defunding this and allowing the troop withdrawal to begin?
No, he won't.
He won't blame the Democrats.
They will not vote the funds, and he'll try to blame them, and the media will blame him.
But wait a minute.
You said his only chance is to let the Democrats defund it.
That means he's going to sit by and let them do it.
You just said, no, he won't go along with it.
No, no, no.
He's not going to go along with the plan for the timetable.
He will refuse, and they will refuse to accommodate him.
And so they won't vote the fall.
All they have to do is not vote the funds.
It's not something that they have.
All right.
Well, let's just continue along with your theory here.
Will he succeed in getting the Democrats to be seen as responsible for the defeat?
Probably not.
You believe not?
I believe not.
I mean, Clinton managed to get the Republicans blamed for not voting the budget, but I don't think the mainstream drive-by media will allow Clinton to push their blame.
You think 30, 40, 50 years from now, when historians probably not yet born go back over this period?
Well, they're going to see that he tried to institute a tax cut that he failed at.
He didn't fail at that.
It didn't be permanent.
They weren't tax cuts.
Wait a second.
That's why I said no, he hasn't when you said he's failed everything he's done.
The tax rate reductions have been a boon to the economy, and they are real, and they were substantive.
But they expire in 2010.
Beginning now, they expire one by one until 2010, and then they'll allow you to get a lot of money.
How come you guys are going to say, hey, we didn't raise taxes, we just let the Bushes.
You got to understand.
If you're a PhD in history and science, you understand that politics is about what you can get when you can get it.
He got 10 years on this stuff, and the idea was that it would be so successful and everybody would know it, it'd be renewed.
Now the Democrats take over, of course it won't be, but you can't chalk that up to failure.
Bush has disappointed a lot of people, a lot of things, but it's quite a stretch.
He's the worst president to American history.
But I'm glad you called.
I wish I had more time with you, Dave.
I really do, but I'm simply out of it.
Back in a moment.
By the way, on this tax cut business expiring in 10 years, don't forget you get people like McCain and Olympia Snow and a bunch of Republicans who don't like tax cuts.
We're opposing Bush on this.
As I said, it was the best he could get.
You get the best you can when you can.
▲
Export Selection