All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
April 19, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, still have a lot to do in this hour.
I want to get to the hearings with uh Attorney General Gonzalez before we finish today.
Uh dingy Harry in the news for two things, both incredible, and a couple of other things too that are along the lines of the themes established by me heretofore on our program today.
Greetings, welcome back.
I am uh Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, Doctor of Democracy, real anchor man.
On the EIB network, telephone numbers 800 282-2882.
Our poll is still open at Rushlimbaugh.com.
Which MSNBC anchor should resign to make room for a minority host.
Your choices are Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann or Tucker Carlson.
The uh percentages haven't changed because there's a lot, a lot, a lot of votes.
So they it's gonna take a whole lot of votes in one direction here to change this.
Forty-nine percent for Matthews, 47% for Olberman, 4% for Chatsworth Osborne Jr., Tucker Carlson.
The uh poll will be open throughout the remainder of the program today, and perhaps beyond.
And this is all due, of course, to the complaints by the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson that there aren't enough black there are none.
And uh MSNBC is all white all night.
And of course, these are good liberals at MSNBC, always preaching to us about what we need to do to rid the country of the ravages of discrimination and racism.
Well, let them show us.
Not one minority host in prime time on MSNBC, let one of these people quit, give their show up to a minority leadership.
Uh I want to grab a call here because it will serve as a transition to the uh furtherance of a theme previously established, Driftwood, Texas.
John, nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Did us from taxes rush.
Thank you, sir.
Um, you know, one of the things that that that struck me early on about this when we started hearing about the shooter was of course he railed against women, and he railed against the decadence of our society, but he also railed against rich kids.
I even heard the term uh rich white kids at one point.
And uh that struck me as odd because uh there has been an undertone of going after achievers in this country, people who work their tails off, who put themselves through college, and yet they are punished, they are called the evil rich.
Amen.
And I don't hear that coming from a that's not a broad uh spectrum argument that's being made.
It's it's it's really focused on on just a handful of group of people who who live class envy on a daily basis.
Now, but who's responsible for those divisions?
Well, who who is directing hatred toward the rich in this country and has been for as long as I've been alive?
Well, case in point.
And and and I find it very interesting.
You know, you can say what you want to about the decadence of our society and about women, but but you know, to single out the rich, like like none of these kids that were shot were kids that go to school.
Virginia Tech does have a lacrosse team, and one of the victims was on the lacrosse team.
Now, you you say single out rich.
He didn't single out rich.
That's what they that's what the drive-by's focused on.
He did single out women.
Why don't the drive-by's focus on maybe the feminist movement is creating tumult and chaos between boys and girls.
This guy, remember the first thing that we were told about him, the first thing we were told in his girlfriend broke up with him, and that was the first person he tried to find.
Uh found her.
I went a counselor trying to mediate this argument, and then the shooter blow them blew them both away.
So, yeah, he ran it against women too, and he ran it against a lot of things.
But when he mentioned rich, guess what?
Ooh, template, template.
Drive-by media, here's one thing.
Ooh, rich!
Man, we hate rich too.
That's that's part of liberal democrat politics.
Is stirring up resentment against the rich.
Demonization, it's a specialty of the left.
They demonize entire groups of people.
They demonize the rich, they demonize majorities of any kind, they demonize business, they demonize big oil, they demonize Walmart, they demon You look at their enemies list.
And you would have to conclude that they are anti-success and anti-capitalist, which I believe they are.
I believe they are threatened by anybody Who makes it without some government involvement in their lives or some movement involvement in their lives, like the civil rights movement or what have you?
These are the people who are full of hate, folks.
These are the people that continually demonize the rich, and let me tell you how it manifests itself, not just in this case with the shooter.
Whenever there are talk of tax cuts.
Oh, and how often do we get stories about the wealth gap is widening?
The richer getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is being wiped out.
What do you mean, how do you think that affects people?
Well, when the when the when Democrats come along like Clinton, or now the current crop of Democrats talk about raising taxes.
Well, guess who?
Everybody's tax is going to end up being raised with the people who have been victimized by this demonization, the middle class and the poor.
You raise somebody else's taxes, it ain't gonna make one iota's worth of difference in their lives.
If somebody's taxes get raised, yippee.
Doesn't improve their lives at all.
But there's this thing.
I coined the term in the early 90s, get even with them ism.
All it is is that the Democrats in the left go out and tell a majority of Americans, we're gonna make you feel better.
We're gonna give you a little revenge.
We're gonna give we're gonna, we're gonna really punish these rich guys.
The thing is, the rich stay rich, don't they?
I wonder why that is.
And these people that are being told the rich are getting punished or being lied to.
Well, they may be getting punished, but it's not making them less rich.
And these tax increases on the rich are not making the middle class wealthier.
It's it's it's akin, you know, my mother, and you're I'm sure you've heard this growing up.
You better clean your plate, they're starving kids in China.
And I I finally one day said to my mother, You you mean to tell me if I eat everything on the plate, the kids in China are gonna feel better?
Don't you sass me.
What else could she say?
There's the same routine they play uh with with the rich.
That's demonization.
They are creating hatred.
For as you say achievers, wealthy people, what have you?
Uh you've you've got you've got the uh there's any number of examples of this as I went through their enemies list.
Walmart, big oil, uh you name it.
They can't wait to foster as much hatred on people as possible and have them share that hatred.
They say we're coarsening the culture, they say we are polluting the these are the people that have been doing it for 50 or more years.
These are the people who have been creating divisions in this country beyond what they're even aware of.
They want those divisions to occur because the more people on on the victimized side of any issue, the more votes Democrats have, theoretically.
And that remains the objective for all of these people.
Everything they do and say is political, folks.
Everything.
Now I have an interesting piece here.
And it's from the Cato organization, Libertarian Group, and the headline is are the rich really getting richer?
The number of U.S. households with a net worth of more than $5 million, excluding their primary residents, surged 23% to surpass one million for the first time in 2006, according to a survey released on Tuesday, Reuters reports.
The survey by Chicago-based Spectrum Group found that the number of U.S. households with more than $5 million rose from $930,000 in 2005.
Or $930,000 in 2005.
In 1996, there were only about a quarter of a million households in the ultra-rich category spectrum said.
The surge in household growth is underpinned by economic growth and growth in recent years, which has fueled both stock market gains and also the market for private companies.
A study also ascribed gains to rising real estate valuations and favorable tax policies.
Well, in the policy analysis, has U.S. income inequality really increased.
Cato's senior fellow Alan Reynolds writes, quote, there are frequent complaints that U.S. income inequality has increased in recent decades.
Estimates of rising inequality that are widely cited in the media are often based on federal income tax return data.
Those data appear to show that the share of U.S. income going to the top 1% has increased substantially since the 70s.
Studies based on tax return data provide highly misleading comparisons of changes to U.S. income distribution because of dramatic changes in tax rules and tax reporting in recent decades.
Aside from stock option windfalls during the late 90s, stock market boom, there is little evidence of a significant or sustained increase in the inequality of U.S. incomes, wages, consumption, or wealth over the past 20 years.
In other words, according to an in-depth study of a libertarian group Cato, it's all lies.
But it's lies that are believed.
And so people think they're getting poorer, even while we got a booming economy.
I think the rich are getting richer, and it's the richest fault.
The rich are stealing their money.
Who gives us this thought?
Who puts this thought in people's heads?
It's the Democrat Party, the American left, and the drive-by media.
It's called demonization.
Let me give you a practical example of how this works.
Now, normally I would not do this, but I'm going to do this to illustrate a point.
I'm going to talk about something personal.
In the state of Florida where I live, there are various proposals before the Florida legislature to do something about property taxes.
And one plan would eliminate them.
just totally eliminate property taxes.
It's a controversy here because we are a state that has a population that lives here half year but they don't have Their homestead is not here.
Their primary residence is not here, but they come as snowbirds.
And uh the the uh uh property tax, they're wealthy people are wealthier than most because they're able to afford two homes, and so property taxes reflect that.
And Native Floridians are being soaked and saddled with property tax increases, so they think they've come up with a program here called Save Our Homes, which is designed to make property taxes more fair.
Bottom line is people still upset about it, so there are many proposals, but one of the proposals before the legislature is to eliminate property taxes altogether and to uh replace it with a two-cent increase in the sales tax, which would put the sales tax to 8.5%.
Now you can imagine how this is being demagogued.
I have had three newspapers in South Florida call me and want me to react to us to a fact they're gonna put in their stories.
And the fact is this my property taxes last year were 430,000.
The year before that they were 488.
Uh my homestead exemption, as does everybody who lives here, allows for only 3% increases every year in the property tax, long established before I got here.
So the Democrats in the Florida legislature, and I've seen this in newspaper stories six times since Sunday, are running stories.
The Democrats are out there talking about how it, and they're holding up pictures of my property tax bill.
They've gotten they've printed them out, and they're holding them up for the drive-by media.
Is it fair that Rush Limbaugh would save 429,000 dollars in his tax bill?
And they're using this, and I don't don't misunderstand here.
Whatever they end up doing, folks, I am an adult.
We're gonna pay the taxes regardless where they collect them.
The property tax is a punitive tax on the American dream, and it has gotten out of hand in all kinds of places.
But I have not entered the fray.
I'm not out there saying, hey, I want the property tax done away with because I haven't said anything publicly about it all.
They've just gone to the public records, they found what I pay.
There are many people in Florida who pay that much or more, but guess who they're focusing on?
Me, because everybody knows, and I'm they have created this image of me.
I'm hated and despised and all these other rotten things, and so these are the people that create class envy, these are the people that create demonization and demonize people and hatred for achievers and others.
So they're holding up my property tax file, and they're waving it around for the cameras, and they're using that to drum up support among Democrats in the state to oppose this change in the property tax.
Everybody's property tax would be eliminated, not just mine.
Everybody's would be eliminated, and it would be replaced by an increase in the sales tax.
I don't even want to argue the merits of both.
I'm just saying that in one of them you've got a consumption tax.
You're only taxed to what you spend, you know, food and other things like that are exempt.
But of course, the usual liberal reaction it's gonna be the poor and women hardest hit, or minorities and women hardest.
The same old template gobbledygood gobbledygook and garbage.
Now, I I tell you this not for any reason other to illustrate what uh what what what what our caller was talking about, the demonization of the evil rich.
And and how hatred is worked up to defeat common sense public policy on that basis.
On the basis of dividing people, uh, And creating resentment and hatred and dislike.
This guy, this shooter, he railed against everybody.
He railed against women, he railed against Jesus.
He railed against all kinds of things.
Also the rich.
And guess what they focus on?
Now, why does this guy hate the rich?
I mean, he's somehow found a way to go to four years at Virginia Tech.
He's been in the United States for 14 years.
Who is it that made this guy hate the rich?
Well, I there's only one answer to this.
The Democrat Party, the American left, and their willing accomplices in the drive-by media routinely portray the rich as a bunch of evil, rotten SOBs who are out to steal everybody else's money.
Walmart's an example, big oil is another.
This guy's genuinely angry.
This shooter was genuine generally angry.
He's angry about women too, but of course they didn't mention that.
They didn't, it glossed right over that.
We could easily take what he said and say maybe feminism made this guy all he wants is a girlfriend or a wife or something.
He's got some feminist trained woman that's an absolute B.I. itch on wheels and drove him crazy.
What if we said that here?
Well, that doesn't fit the drive-by's template.
But what's different about saying that than focusing on the rich made him do it, the evil rich and so forth.
So I'm telling you, my point here is that the coarsening of this culture and the creation of hatred from one American to a group of others is being fostered precisely, not by me, not by Sean Hannity, not by Neil Bortz, not by Mark Levin, not by anybody on Talk Radio.
It is being fostered and has been for decades by the American left, the Democrat Party and the Drive-by Media.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Now, if this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was?
This guy had to be a liberal.
You start railing against the rich.
This guy's a liberal.
He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line.
So it's a liberal that committed this act.
Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them.
That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm just pointing out a fact.
I am mating no extrapolation.
I'm just pointing it out.
They try to.
Whenever I can tell you for the history of this program, starting way back in the early 90s, when there was any kind of an incident, crime or what have you that attracted national attention.
In the early days of this program, the drive-by media went out and they tried to connect the perpetrator to this program.
They did everything they could.
In fact, it went so far as Bill Clinton blaming me for influencing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the bureau building.
These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred.
These are the people that invented this kind of uh of tactic, uh, if you will.
Uh can you imagine if this guy, the shooter in Virginia Tech, had sent me his package.
I'll tell you what I would have done had he had he done it, I would have called authorities in in Virginia and I said, I'm not opening this.
Uh here it is, you want to send somebody up to look at it and get it.
And I would not have used a moment of it.
But it would have been learned that he had sent it to me.
And you know what the drive-by's would be saying today?
That figures limball listener blowing away the campus.
That's they are they they are waiting every day for some event like that to happen.
And yet, right before our eyes, it is NBC, a respected, valued, highly wanted major news network.
Well, this guy sent it to them for a reason.
He didn't pick ABC, didn't pick me, didn't pick CBS, didn't pick CNN, didn't pick Fox.
Where do he say Senate NBC?
And boy, are they not playing along?
They're airing it more times than this guy pulled the trigger.
And they're out there talking about how tough the decision.
Whoa.
We agonized and agonized and agonized.
Really?
Such a tough editorial decision.
The public has a right to know.
Meanwhile, the same people will say to us, well, we can't show you videotapes of 9-11.
That's too soon.
Too traumatic.
We can't traumatize the families of the victims.
Oh, we can traumatize these families and the entire Virginia Tech family.
Uh we we can't show Americans being beheaded by Islamofascists in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever it happens.
We can't see it.
Can't see Danny Pearl being murdered.
Uh Or anybody.
Oh, we can't wait.
Oh, American people couldn't handle it.
We can't even go see a movie, United 93.
That was too soon for that.
Memories are just too traumatic, Mr. Limbaugh.
We can't.
Let NBC get hold of this stuff.
Bam, it's all over the place.
Saturation coverage, never stopping.
Now they're saying, well, you know, we're only doing 10%.
10% of our cover.
No more than six minutes an hour.
Oh, that's that's highly restrained.
That's very, very, very newsworthy.
They're just double standards all over the place, folks.
And I'm telling you, I'm I'm just I'm fed up with listening to who it is that's supposedly coursing the culture when I watch it on television every day and I read it on obscure websites every day.
These are the people that write books about how to assassinate George W. Bush.
How I give you a couple other examples here.
About this Timothy McVeigh and the and the Mira building.
You people who were not with us then, uh the Clinton administration did try to blame that act on me.
And Clinton went out there and said, uh his highly acclaimed speech to the people of Oklahoma City.
He made some reference to how this is what happens when people attack their government and so forth and so on.
And of course, we're attacking government spending, government regulation, high taxes, and this sort of thing.
That's what he meant, but he was just using it as a political opportunity.
We raised hell about it.
McCurry eventually apologized, said now we're talking about the Michigan militia shortwave.
But there was a cover story of Time magazine of a fireman holding a baby that had been killed.
And in the midst of all this discussion about whether or not I was responsible for this, John Carlson, uh hosting a talk show in Seattle, got a hold of the fireman.
From Oklahoma City was on a cover.
And it turns out that that fireman and all of his buddies at the firehouse listened to me.
The rescuers and the heroes are who listened to me.
The people who listen to this program were outraged by what happened.
There was no love for Timothy McVay anywhere in this country.
And the Democrats in the Clinton administration tried to foster it all off on conservatives led by me.
The movie Falling Down.
There was a movie with Michael Douglas falling down about a white guy goes nuts being fired for a minority, I think it was, right?
And he goes on a shooting rampage.
God, yeah, this is uh limbaugh inspired, blah, blah, blah.
This is they've been doing this.
Well, they've been 18 and a half years, it'll be 19 in August.
They've been doing this for at least 16 or 17 years.
At every turn, if they could find a way to peg the Virginia Tech shooter on me and Hannity and Mark Levin and Neil Bortz, they would do it.
And don't think they haven't looked.
And don't think they haven't given up on the possibility.
Uh you know, we were angry white men for a while after the movie Falling Down came.
Yeah, enraged and angry.
All of you hayseed Southern Hicks, as they think of you in the South, the angry white men.
And that's and you had a temper tantrum in 1994 when you elected the Republicans to control the House.
Yeah, my name was in the movie review in the New York Times of falling down.
My name I was considered to be an inspiration for that uh for that movie.
So I'm telling you, this is nothing new.
I've just reached a boiling point with it after all this that's happening in some of the after the IMAS thing, it's it's open season on talk radio by the very people themselves who are responsible for the things they claim are being caused by others.
And they've been at this a lot longer than I have.
Now, I gotta move on.
There's a couple other things.
We'll get them to get to your phone calls too.
Get this, Dingy Harry.
Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, was among those who denounced yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal partial birth abortion ban.
Here's what he said.
A lot of us wish that a Leto weren't there, and O'Connor was there, indicating his desire that there had been a fifth vote to invalidate the statute, as Justice O'Connor had provided the fifth vote to invalidate Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban in a previous case.
But here's the interesting thing.
Dingy Harry voted for the statute that the Supreme Court upheld.
Well, now what are we to make of this?
Dingy Harry voted for the partial birth abortion ban, the Supreme Court more or less upheld when asked about it by a reporter.
He said a lot of us wish Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there.
Now, what does this say about Harry Reid?
He votes for a law that the court upholds, then denounces the court for upholding it by attacking one of the justices who voted to uphold it.
Does this make any sense?
Alito didn't even write the decision.
He voted for it.
Kennedy wrote the decision.
Somebody needs to ask Harry Reid why in the world he sounds like such a buffoon.
He also voted to ban partial birth abortion back in 1999.
Folks, it's pure politics.
Not even the issue of life is something sacred to these people.
The template after yesterday's decision was oh my God, we gotta do we can't have any more elitos.
This comment by Dingy Harry is to set up the next battle for whoever might be nominated in case there's a vacancy.
He votes for the same law the court upholds, and he's lamenting the fact that they upheld the law.
That is dishonest, it is disingenuous, but more than that, it is just plain pure political trickery.
Dingy Harry also today said the war in Iraq is lost.
A U.S. troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country.
I believe this war is lost.
This surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.
Said this the same day that President Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio Town Hall meeting defending the war on terror.
You have heard me say that the Democrats are invested in defeat.
They own it, they have the deed.
There is no co-signer, they didn't take out a mortgage.
They own it outright.
They want us to lose.
And they tell me I'm coursening the culture.
They want this country humiliated, they want our military made a mockery of.
They want our president a laughing stock around the country.
They tell me I'm coarsening the culture.
We always hear from these people.
Well, the rest of the world hates us.
The rest of the world hates us because of Democrats and the division that they have created in this country, the rest of the world sees the people who might have problems with this are comforted and aided in airing whatever it is they disagree with us about because the Democrats of this country give them the leadership and the cover.
If the Democrats in this country and the media are going to do stories about how Bush ought to be assassinated, should be or could, and here's how to do it in a book.
That Bush is is is an idiot, he's a cowboy, is a frat boy, whatever he is.
That uh unprecedented numbers of U.S. soldiers are dying every day for no reason.
Bush is this, Bush is well, anybody around the world who also hates us is gonna find great comfort and courage in speaking out the same way.
So this notion that we have lost our reputation in the world, I lay it at the feet of the Democrat Party in this country and the drive-by media and the entire American left.
I don't hear myself, Sean Hannity, Neil Bortz, Mark Levin, anybody else ripping this country on a day-to-day basis.
I don't hear us trying to just divide people this country into various camps.
I hear the exact opposite.
I hear love for country, I hear upbeat optimism, I hear can do spirit, I hear no limit to what you can accomplish in this country.
That's what we talk about here.
Try to inspire and motivate people.
Nobody on the left has tried to inspire or motivate anything other than hatred.
And they've done a damn good job.
Read their blogs.
Some of the most despicable obscene stuff coming from American citizens I've ever seen in my life, and it's only getting worse, and they, the Democrat Party, is sponsoring it, they are motivating it, they are inspiring it, and they are rewarding it by validating the authenticity and the legitimacy of a bunch of insane lunatics.
Tell me that my buddies and me on talk radio are coursening the culture.
To give you another example, Alberto Gonzalez up before the Judiciary Committee today with Leahy.
And here's a portion of Leahy's opening statement.
Investigation is fair already has pulled back the curtain to reveal unbridled political meddling, Katrina-style cronyism, and unfettered White House unilateralism.
Directed at one of our most precious national assets, our law enforcement.
our legal system.
With just as respect for the United States as a leader in human rights has been diminished during the last six years.
The current actions have served to undercut confidence in our United States attorneys.
This is absolute BS.
There's no lack of confidence in U.S. attorneys.
This is pure politics.
As it, you know, the great illustration of this.
Diane Feinstein, years ago wrote letters of complaint to the Justice Department about a U.S. attorney in San Diego, Carol Lamb because she wasn't prosecuting enough illegal immigrant cases.
Well, just like Dingy Harry voted for a law the Supreme Court upholds, and he's all upset about that.
Diane Feinstein's now joining the chorus.
It was unfair to get rid of Carol Lamb.
It was unfair to be critical of her.
She started it.
And now what is what is this business of civil rights around the what's this got to do with Gonzalez being up there to talk about the U.S. attorney thing?
There's not a crime that's been committed here.
Not one crime, and Leahy would have to admit it as many Democrats have.
But of course it's not about that.
It's about the seriousness of the charge.
It's about politicizing our legal system, politicizing our legal system.
Look at the way these people conduct judicial hearings, politics.
The White House has sought to destroy nobody's reputation, nobody's career.
The Democrats can't wait to tell the world from Kennedy and Bork on forward about what a bunch of reprobates nominees are.
And conservatives just sit around and take it.
Well, you know, that's that's the lay of the lamb these days.
And they get away with this kind of rot gut from Leahy.
This is nothing but a bunch of lies, pure politics, Katrina-style cronyism, political meddling.
It was Chuck Schumer who kept Fitzgerald's investigation alive, demanding updates now and then to know why more progress wasn't been made in getting scooter libby or rove invited or uh indicted or even Cheney.
You can make book on it.
Democrats start complaining and moaning about something, they are the ones that are doing it themselves.
Or have done it.
Now, here's an exchange.
And of course, the only reason I have this is because the drive-by media put it on television today.
So this is their definition of fairness.
So you have Lahey and a couple other Democrats questioning Gonzalez, then you go to a Republican to show balance.
But who do you go to?
Arlen Spector.
So the drive-by is can say, well, we had a Republican on there commenting on Gonzalez, and we had we had Leahy and so forth.
So we're balanced.
Here's the exchange.
Specter says, Do you prepare for all your press conferences?
Were you prepared for the press conference where you said there weren't any discussions involving you?
Senator, I've already said that I misspoke.
It was my mistake.
I'm asking you, were you prepared?
You interjected that you're always prepared.
Were you prepared for that?
I didn't say that I was always prepared.
I said I prepared for every hearing.
Well, and I'm asking you, do you prepare for your press conferences?
Senator, we we we do take time to try to prepare for the press conference.
And were you prepared when you said you weren't involved in any deliberations?
Senator, I've I've already conceded that I misspoke at that at that press conference.
There was nothing intentional.
See, it's a crime to not prepare for press conferences.
And that's the Republican.
And so the drive-by has put this, oh, we've been fair.
We've been fair.
We had a Republican questioning him, and we had...
I bet you could find other Republicans who didn't take this tack at all.
Now, CNN this morning, live, the anchors Heidi Collins and Tony Harris are discussing these hearings with their legal beagle, Jeffrey Toobin.
And Bruce Fine is a former associate deputy U.S. Attorney General.
And Collins, the anchorette, says, Hey, Jeffrey, is it surprising to you then to hear Arlen Spector's tone...
Well, Arlen Specter has been historically, uh, at least in certain circumstances, kind of a maverick moderate Republican.
I mean, Gonzalez has got to hold on to the Republicans today, and he's not off to a good start with with uh Spectre because he keeps repeating these these lines about, oh, I I kept waiting for the consensus.
I kept waiting for the consensus of my colleagues.
I mean, is he the attorney general or not?
Oh, come on.
Consensus here.
Well, we can rely on the consensus of a bunch of bought and paid for scientists to tell us we're destroying the planet but global warming, but the attorney general can't take the advice of associates in his office.
He was waiting for consensus.
He was involving his underlings.
come on.
Consensus?
He said, why?
This he's the attorney general.
Okay.
George Bush is the president, and there is no global warming in his mind, so shut up from now on about it.
There is no global warming.
Bush says so.
I say so.
No need consent.
By virtue of consensus, this is the most powerful, most accurate radio show out there because they got more listeners than any other media figure like me.
Same thing if that can make global warming real.
What I just said's real.
Difference is it is real in my case.
One more before we go to the break here.
Harris says to Tubin, well, what's the grade on what you've seen so far?
I I I would say charitably incomplete.
Bruce, what's the grade on what you've seen so far?
I think they will view many of these answers as what I style Clintonesque and is trying to parse his involvement in the Samson review process as opposed to his other uh involvement.
Wait a minute.
Now not only consensus is bad, but Clinton-esque is bad.
I thought Clinton esque was brilliant.
The drive-by's used to sit around and be marveling at how well he lied.
They were so excited he was even talking to them that he he and he lied so well they were just stunned at how well.
Now Clinton-esque is bad.
Consensus is bad and Clinton esque is bad.
Folks, you cannot trust these people.
You can't.
You need to doubt everything you hear from these people until you can confirm it on your own.
Because it's tripe.
Now, this business of consensus, there's Jeffrey Tubin saying that it's a mistake for Gonzalez to say he'd been waiting on a consensus of his staff.
Come on, he's president of the attorney general.
You realize the hypocrisy there?
They are demanding consensus from Bush on the war.
They're demanding they be listened to, not just the Democrats but the media.
They call Bush strong-headed and stubborn, but here in Gonzalez, it's a defect.
Today it's bad.
But they demand the same behavior from Bush.
Bush was slammed yesterday by Pelosi and Reed for not being willing to listen to others.
When they went up there to have their little big powwow.
Well, I uh you know, this is this is uh uh I've been studying these people.
I know them like the back of my hand, and I'm just I'm just amazing consensus, global warming, it's fine.
But uh it's not good for Gonzalez.
They demand Bush use consensus, listen to others.
People are a menace.
John in Raleigh, North Carolina.
We've got about a couple minutes, but I wanted to get to you before we had to go.
Hey, Rush, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
Um it I just wanted to comment.
I'm an alumni of Virginia Tech, and um, I just if if dealing with all this this week wasn't enough, I think I can speak for the majority of the Hokie Nation that we've been just as angered at uh three-ring circus that the media has made of our campus, and at the same time have been uh just blown away by how well mannered our students have been and how they haven't uh for the most part been drawn into the baiting questions by the media trying to get them into their political war on our campus.
And um, I wanted to touch on the point you made about the rich.
If the media is trying to say that uh the the victims from for Virginia Tech that they've interviewed had a part in uh making fun of this kid, they definitely picked the wrong school.
Our our motto is that I may serve, and we actually get joked on when in on the football field as uh from our upper tier ACC schools as culture versus agriculture, and we're very much a blue-collar school.
So it just again is further angering to me that without doing any research, um, not only mispronouncing our president's name and our school's name, that they just continue to try to draw something out of this for their own political gain and the case.
Well, that's exactly you've perceived properly.
Don't from this day forward, John don't ever expect to do research.
They're they're guided by templates.
They're they're they're they're they are guided and driven by action lines in stories, not and and templates, not uh not research.
Um Virginia Tech uh may be a blue-collar school.
The alumni may be blue-collar.
Uh its identity may be that.
But the professoriate probably isn't viewing itself that way, are they?
How many professoriate, how many professors, how many faculty at major institutions of higher learning do you think consider themselves blue collar?
Why they wouldn't deign.
And you can't you can't eliminate from all this uh, you know, what they're teaching in class.
This hatred for the rich business.
They're just two places that comes from.
Well, the the left through the media and and and through academia.
This hatred for the rich.
And there may be a little of a wound up in human nature, but it is promoted and exacerbated in classrooms.
Back in a sec.
We are well over 100,000 votes now at uh rushlimbo.com on our poll, who should quit at MSNBC to give their show to a minority.
Now keep the poll open until tomorrow.
Uh, because it's close.
▲
Export Selection