All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
May 4, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, this, The Excellence in Broadcasting Network, where we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am your host.
Documented to be almost always right 98.6% of the time, and that's because I have talent on lawn from God.
It's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And when they do go to the phones, the program is on yours.
Well, I'm a benevolent dictator here, folks.
It comes to this show.
Nobody has a right to speak.
Unless I grant that right, nobody has a right to be heard.
You have to earn that.
I mean, I may take the call, but you got to understand.
If you bore people, don't tune out.
And that I worry about.
I know nobody ever tunes out when I'm hosting.
When I'm speaking, people are riveted.
That's why this is such a huge career risk, turning over the content of the program to you.
Rank amateurs, lovable, I love you all, but nevertheless, compared to me, highly trained broadcast specialist, you are rank amateurs.
But that's what Friday is about.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things that interest me, things that I have passionate about.
On Friday, we allow you to bore me.
800-282.
Not that it happens much, but I mean, it's clearly something that we relax some rules on.
800-282-2882, the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, folks, I want to warn you that this is how things happen.
The headline of the story, and this is from the Scotsman in the UK.
Chimps are people too, insists scientist.
Chimps are people too.
An expert on primates is to tell a court that apes are people in a groundbreaking case that'll determine whether a chimp can have human rights.
This is coming from Jane Goodall, known worldwide for her study of chimpanzee social and family life.
Remember, she once had a gorilla named Mr. Remember that that died in the Rwanda massacres.
Anyway, she has agreed to testify that apes deserve the same treatment as humans.
Case has been filed in an Austrian court by Paula Stibb, 38 of Britain, who wants to become the legal guardian of a chimp called Matthew.
The case was accepted by the court before officials knew that Matthew was a primate.
But their efforts to have it dismissed have failed.
The case centers around money given to Matthew by a well-wisher to safeguard his future after the animal home where he lived went bust.
Ms. Stibb and her lawyers say that he should have the same rights as a child and have a guardian to help him spend it.
Ms. Stibb said, quote, Matthew likes watching TV and videos and playing games like any child.
He can use find and jester fifteen what he wants.
Of course he has the right to be recognized as an individual.
Now, what do you think her political disposition just might be?
You think she's liberal?
No question.
This is the second legal action in Europe to address whether primates should be guaranteed human rights.
The socialist government in Spain has proposed a law to allow moral guardianship of great apes akin to the care for severely disabled or comatose people.
Ms. Stibb moved to Vienna nine years ago, shortly afterwards got involved in helping to care for Matthew, the chimp.
He had another chimp called Rosie.
Well, she must be the one that has the TV show.
They share a room at an animal shelter in Vosendorf, south of Vienna.
They were seized by customs officers and given to the sanctuary after being imported by a pharmaceuticals company, which wanted to use them for HIV research.
When a court ordered the sanctuary to hand the chimps back, animal rights campaigners staged a mass protest and the country gave up.
The pair of chimps, now both 26, have lived in the sanctuary since then.
Dr. Martin Ballock, an animal rights campaigner who instructed lawyers to file for guardianship from his stibs, said, We argue that chimps are part of the same genus as humans.
They also incorporate all the characteristics to justify personhood in that they recognize and anticipate the rights and needs of other individuals.
Oh, give me a break.
You wouldn't anymore walk into a cage with a great ape in it at the zoo than you would volunteer to try to catch King Kong.
What do you mean?
They have respect.
Not all experts agree, however.
You have to read the very end of the story to get this.
Steve Jones, a professor of genetics, University of London, said human rights did not apply to animals.
I warned you people about this.
I warned you people about when the animal rights movements started.
I know where this stuff goes.
It never stops.
It just keeps getting more and more ludicrous.
And this is what I mean.
These are the same people who think we are destroying the planet.
Now, on the one hand, we're no different than apes.
We're no different than apes.
On the other hand, we're so superior and we're so this and that that we can destroy the planet.
Now, this Steve Jones, the professor of genetics, University of London, says, if you start applying human rights to animals, where do you stop?
Being human is unique, nothing to do with biology.
Mice share 90% of human DNA.
Should they get 90% of human rights?
Hey, let's use rats.
And plants have more DNA than humans.
Chimps can't even speak, but parrots can.
Should they have rights too?
This is a rare voice of reason, but you've got to look at this another way, folks.
This is bad news for Republicans because if chimps have human rights, they're someday going to get the right to vote.
And let me ask you: how do you think chimps will vote?
Hillary Clinton will be all over this.
The chimpanzee vote, the felon vote, the human rights vote.
And there was a whole human rights organization out there, a coalition of people, that, and their agenda is not human rights.
Their agenda is liberalism.
Their agenda is destruction.
Tear down social mores, tear down traditions, tear down institutions.
What better way to tear down an institution like humanity, if you want to call that an institution, than to say chimps are human and great apes are human.
Here's another way to look at this: chimpanzees may get human rights, but unborn babies can't have human rights, can they?
Can't happen.
No, Mr. Snirdly, I've not read the chimps' Magna Carta or their Declaration of Independence, but I do support the chimps' right to choose.
Now, I haven't seen the hospitals built by the chimps either.
I haven't found the hospitals built down in the ocean floor by the dolphins.
Where do we stop with this?
The guy's right.
I mean, dolphins, they're mammals.
Human rights.
See, animal rights has now become human.
We're just scum, folks.
We're no different than any of these other creatures.
They're just like us.
And I'm sure they can all be persuaded to vote Democrats.
Speaking of unborn babies not having human rights, but now chimpanzees having human rights, I saw a story up here on Drudge that says There's now a test for the sex of your baby at six weeks.
A test to determine the sex of your baby at six weeks.
Well, now, six weeks, that's clearly unviable tissue mass status, according to the pro-choicers, the pro-aborts.
Might not be a fetus.
It might be a baby.
Now, if you think a baby is a fetus, you have to defend the idea that a fetus has a sex at six weeks.
If you're one of the pro-choicers, the pro-aborts.
Anyway, brief timeout.
We've got to take it.
Lots coming up.
By the way, we just got the video, I'm told, from the appearance in Detroit last night at the Rock Financial Center, and it came in on a format that we can't, we're going to have to take it to a transfer house to watch it.
I'm doing a slow burn over this, but I'm not going to bleed on the air.
It means, well, I know what it means, and it's never going to happen again.
We are not going to, but we have the audio, and we're in the process of transcribing the audio.
We'll have the audio of the one-hour, 45-minute appearance last night with the transcript, hopefully by the end of the day when we update the website to reflect the contents of today's program.
I talked about this on Wednesday, and the House voted on it Thursday.
They passed this hate crimes bill that expands hate crimes now to include 25 different definitions of gender orientation, sexual orientation, so forth.
This is not hate crimes legislation.
It is thought crimes legislation.
Now, the bill has to go to the Senate, and the Senate has to do with it, whatever they're going to do, and they have to conference it.
The White House is threatening to veto this legislation.
What the bill will do is expand hate crime laws to include sexual orientation and gender-based attacks.
The White House is saying, yeah, this is already covered by state and local law.
And the supporters, well, no, no, no, no, it only applies to violent crime.
This is thought crime legislation.
It's nothing more than that.
But here's the problem with it.
You want to call it hate crimes.
Where does this end?
And you might say, well, you know, I guess some of you might say, well, very few of you might say, but some of you might say, well, look, if somebody really has a problem with gay, starts beating them up, yeah, just because of that.
But you know, the left is out there pushing a lot of hatred.
There's hatred for radio talk show hosts that's being pushed out there.
There's, as we've discussed, and as the Virginia tech killer made clear, a lot of hatred for the rich out there.
Why don't we include that?
If the rich get beat up.
If the rich have any crimes committed against them, let's increase the penalty.
So where does this stop?
Let's start including chimpanzees.
You don't feed a chimp when you go to the zoo because you don't like animals being treated like human beings that come after.
Where does this nonsense stop?
This is not about the law.
This is not about crime because all of these laws are covered.
All these various crimes are already covered.
This is thought control, folks.
And if there's a new theme that I want you to understand that it's taking place, being orchestrated by the left and the drive-by media, it is thought control.
And along with the thought control, all other kinds of control, you are pausing before you decide to say something for fear of something.
Everybody is acting defensive in their speech and in their actions.
And this is all happening on purpose.
It's the opposite of freedom.
It's not free expression.
It's not free speech.
It's none of those things.
They are not what sponsoring this, chilling all of that is, and frightening people and having them live in doubt and in fear over what might happen to them if they simply be who they are, if they're simply honest.
And I think this is something that you need to keep in mind.
If you watch the news, if you're one of these people that's going to expose yourself to the drive-by media on a daily basis, the context in which you must place everything you see and everything you hear is that it is about controlling you.
Same thing for the Democrat Party.
It is about controlling your thoughts.
It's about creating false impressions and having you believe things that really are not true.
And I can, look, it's a great example to do this.
The Democrats and the drive-by media have, for the longest time, been saying that the election in 06 was about getting out of Iraq.
And the American people, the will of the American people was expressed in that election.
We have to get out of Iraq.
And you hear this over and over and over again.
And then they produce a poll that says, well, look, you hear over 50% of the American people, I think the number was 60%.
We need to get out of Iraq.
And if you're just a sponge soaking it all up, not paying full attention, and you're not trying to keep in mind the context and the subtle hidden agendas that promote the reporting of this kind of thing, you get sucked in and you end up believing it.
And even when the truth is shown to be otherwise, you still reject it.
And how was the truth shown to be otherwise in this case?
Well, the will of the American people got to get out of Iraq.
That's what the elections meant.
Fine.
Democrats propose legislation.
Defund, well, not defund, but put strings on the money and then call for a withdrawal date that starts in six or eight months.
And then the legislation puts Congress in charge of when troops can fire, where they can go, where they can't go, how they can be deployed, and all of this.
And in order to get 218 votes, which is the minimum you need to pass legislation in the House, in order to get 218 votes, they had to load it up with $24 billion of pork.
Where's the will of the people in that?
And then when the president promised to veto it and did veto it, where was the will of the people when the House failed to override the veto?
Bottom line, there is no such will of the people.
Now, the people might be uncomfortable.
A majority of people might wish it were going better, but I will guarantee you, a majority of the American people do not want to lose in Iraq.
A majority of the American people do not want the American military nor our country humiliated.
And yet the Democrats, and this is a time-honored tactic that they use.
I will never forget during the impeachment process and the whole period of time leading up to it, when the Lewinsky story broke and so forth, you go on MSNBC, CNN, whatever, and all these Democrat strategerists are saying, the American people want, the American people think, how do they know?
Who put them in charge of defining what the American people?
They just say it.
They just say, and of course, the clowns that are hosting these shows on which these Democrat strategists appear never challenge them because they think the same thing.
Because the arrogance and condescension of the left is that they automatically assume everybody agrees with them except the freak kook conservatives, who are a very small minority.
Even though the audience that conservatives create for Fox News is twice that, in some cases, three times that.
All of these liberal networking channels that are also on cable.
The American people did not think anything that the Democrats are saying.
They do not think that it's not the will of the people to get out of there within the context of defeat.
So here you have the hate crimes bill.
And these laws are already on the books.
There are state laws, there are local laws.
Now they're adding 25 different definitions of gender and sexual orientation, 25 different definitions.
And it's all about punishing the way conservatives.
This is aimed at conservatives, folks.
Make no mistake about it.
It's not anywhere in the legislation.
But it's based on the arrogant presumption that conservatives are racist, sexists, bigots, and homophobes.
They believe it.
Nothing can talk them out of it.
It's the way they live their daily lives.
And so they need this law to protect themselves, the good people, from the hatred that lurks in your heart.
And I'm telling you, when I listen to them speak, I don't hear anything but hatred.
And when I hear their supporters speak, I hear raging hatred.
When I listen to Republicans, I don't even hear much energy for anything these days, particularly elected Republicans, excluding the debate last night.
I'm just, I just, but the idea that Republicans are running around harboring or conservatives running around harboring all kinds of hate is absurd.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
We love people.
We love our country.
We want the country we love to be great, to be the best it can be.
We want it to maintain the greatness that we inherited when we were born in this country.
And we conservatives know that for this country to remain the greatest collection of human beings in a free society in the history of human civilization, that we need great people.
We need free people.
We need people motivated and inspired to be the best they can be, to do that which their passion and desire leads them to.
And we don't look at people and say, eh, they can't do it.
You can't do it.
What are you kidding?
You don't have the ability to do.
We don't look at people with contempt.
We don't look at average people and say, they can't do it without my help.
Liberals do.
Liberals look at people and they have this contempt.
All of the hatred and all of the bigotry, most of it that I see in this society happens to come from people on the left.
It's like an alternative universe.
But we want people to be self-sufficient.
We want them to realize their potential.
We want them to be able to share values with their families, children, and grandchildren so that the whole thing is perpetuated.
The left only wants to perpetuate their power over people.
In addition to control over people.
Back in a sec.
It's Open Line Friday, and let's go back to the Fawns.
This is Debbie in Austin.
Debbie, nice day.
Austin, Texas.
Great to have you on the program today.
Thanks, Rush.
I got a question that needs an honest answer.
Well, you've called the right place.
And yes, that's why I wanted to ask you.
I wanted to know what the problem with Mormons is.
We already know they're like big Christians, and is it just because they don't smoke and drink?
Oh, I don't know what it is.
I mean, that's the honest answer.
I don't know what it is, but it's not that they don't smoke and drink.
Look at Mitt Romney.
I get email.
I've said that I thought Romney did well last night.
And I got some email from people.
Rush!
Rush is a Mormon.
You know better than this.
No, I don't know.
I've known plenty of Mormons, and I don't I'd rather have a Mormon than a liberal.
I'd rather have a Mormon than John Edwards as the new Jimmy Carter.
I'd rather have a Mormon than Hillary, whatever, well, not Radha anymore, Clinton.
Frankly, I don't know.
I can tell you the roots are, look at.
I would have to guess here, and it's a pretty educated guess.
The guess is that it's rooted in religion, and the people that do have a problem are rigid.
You know, you've got all kinds of religious people, and some of them are more in-depth than others.
But it's not just that people have had a problem with Mormons in the past.
The country, it was a big deal when JFK was elected as a Catholic.
It is still, the country would never elect a Jewish president, it is said.
We haven't moved that far.
But the specifics with the Mormon, I don't know.
I'm seeing all kinds of news stories about Mormons with these numbers of wives they've gotten.
There's a new movie out that Robert Novak reviewed about some slaughter the Mormons engaged in 140 years ago.
I think I'm remembering this in a very surface fashion.
All I know is that of the Republican candidates in the upper tier, Romney's the only one who hasn't been divorced and doesn't have more than one wife or hasn't had.
So I really, I'm not trying to be ignorant, but I don't understand it either.
Well, I just, I never knew.
I heard people that was afraid of Mormons.
I'm never going to vote for a Mormon.
And I just go, wait, how come?
I hear it too.
And on this one, I have to admit, I'm woefully uninformed.
I'm sure that at the next break, when I go to the email, I'm going to get reams and reams of answers to this question.
Okay.
I don't know how much of it I'll be able to repeat.
No, I'm well, this is not a pulpit here.
We've never discussed theology on this program, so I'm not a preacher, and I'm not, you know, don't do that.
I've stayed away from it.
It's other places that people should go to church for that.
Not come here.
So it really is a bit of curiosity to me, too.
Yeah, because we've heard Mitt Romney even say his personal testimony of Jesus Christ.
So we know they're Christian, and a lot of Christians...
Well, they say you're going to have problems if you say that.
Well, he already did.
Well, but there's some Christians going to say you can't be a Christian and be a Mormon.
They think there's huge differences.
Well, I'm on that book, right in the front of that book.
What book?
The Book of Mormon.
Oh.
Another Witness to Jesus Christ.
I mean, that sounds Christian to me.
Well, I'm warning you.
Uh-oh, I'm getting in the wrong territory.
Yeah, I'd be very...
Well, nobody wants to end up in a religious argument because there's no winning.
You're arguing faith.
And that's why I'm not going to argue faith.
I'm not going to sit here and tell people their faith's wrong when it's not in my purview to do that.
Not on this program.
It's just a philosophy I've had.
And I, again, I'll say it, I'm woefully uneducated on what the problems that people have are.
And I could have easily, Debbie, I could have told snurdily.
I don't want to take this call because I'm going to sound bad.
But no, I am perfectly willing to admit when I don't know something because it's so infrequent.
It humanizes me to admit that there's things I don't know.
Well, like, yeah, last night, people ask me all the time who I like in a Republican field.
And I said, well, it's sort of like the buffet at Denny's.
And I think somebody in the front row said, there isn't a buffet at Denny's.
And I said, well, see, I've just proved I'm out of touch.
The people who go to Denny's know there's no buffet there.
That regard.
I should have said the menu at Denny's.
Some of it you like, but not everything.
You use any restaurant.
Anyway, Debbie, thanks for the call.
This is Kansas City.
This is Dion.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Mega Dittos.
I'm so excited that I got through.
Thank you.
And I just wanted to, you know, I had a political blog, and I have a Rush Babe emblem right there on the front.
Showing everybody my support for it.
Data, babe.
Data, babe.
So I wanted to let you know, I was listening to your response to the we can't win guy on Wednesday, and I was just cheering the whole time.
It just expressed my views on the war to a T.
And I feel like you do in that I've been a little discouraged by some of the people in our own party that seem to have the same we can't win attitude.
And especially Bill Buckley wrote this piece recently about the waning of the GOP, saying that we can't win the war.
The Republican Party might even suffer from this.
And I know you love Bill Buckley, and I'm just wondering where is he coming from with this?
Well, I can only speculate because I haven't spoken to him about it.
I got an email about that.
Hey, Rush, you love Buckley.
If you see what he wrote, how can you still like Buckley?
You people are not aware of the pressures I'm under because of the things that I admit.
There's a view of a branch of conservatism that holds we ought to go nowhere where our national interests are not threatened, that we cannot be, quote-unquote, policemen of the world.
I can't tell you for sure that I know that Bill Buckley has been on board and then got off the train.
I don't know if he started out being for this or if he didn't.
But I think he's assessing the bungling of this as he sees it.
And he thinks that the bungling of this is going to really, really decimate the Republican Party because it's looking incompetent.
And it could well be that Mr. Buckley has fallen prey to what we've been talking about past couple of days, the media bubble.
But he's not the only one.
There are quite a few others who I know at the outset were very supportive and ready to go and simply don't like the way it's been done.
I think in his view, his criticism is based on incompetence of the whole thing.
No, he's not rooting for defeat.
And it's a big difference out there, Dion.
He's not rooting for Defeat.
He's ruining it.
And he's worried about the impact that it might have on the Republican Party and, of course, the future.
Right.
Well, and my impression was that he's never been on board in the beginning.
Well, that may be true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It may be true for a host of reasons.
Next time I see him, I'll send him an email and ask him.
Right.
I'll just, well, I've got you on the phone.
By the way, the one thing, I mean, there are all kinds of people that you could cite Buckley or a number of others.
Doesn't change my opinion of what I said on Wednesday.
Right.
We can win, the idea that we're going to lose and that we're destined to lose, that's offensive to me.
And it doesn't have to be the case.
And we can't afford to lose in these circumstances.
Plus, we're the United States of America.
So I'm rock solid in what I think of the possibilities here.
Even when somebody who I respect so much as Mr. Buckley writes something that disagrees with me, I haven't looked at that and said, hmm, I wonder where I'm off track.
Right.
But what I wanted to ask you about, I've got a piece here from WorldNet Daily about what's going on at KCI Center?
No, the airport.
Oh, okay.
Kansas City International Airport.
They have added foot basins for Muslim cabbies.
Well, this is WorldNet Daily, and the subhead is: Police worry about Kansas City Catering to Islamic rituals.
Kansas City International Airports added several foot washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer.
The move concerns airport police who worry about Middle Eastern men loitering inside the building.
After 9-11, the airport beefed up its police force to help prevent terrorist attacks.
An airport official who requested anonymity said, Why are we constructing places of worship for them inside our airports?
Why are we catering to their rituals?
We don't do it for any other religion.
Other major airports also dealing with increased demands from Muslim cab drivers.
Obviously, you've not heard of this.
No, to be honest, I'm usually really up-to-date on everything, and I had not heard that.
Well, that's amazing.
It may not be a big deal in the news in Kansas.
As I said, I got this from Joe Farah's website, WorldNet Daily.com.
Well, I had it in the stack case.
I got a call from Kansas City today.
Well, I had a quick question for you.
I'm going to be hosting my own internet radio show starting in June, and I was wondering if you had any advice for me.
An internet radio show starting in June.
Well, about what?
About politics.
I'm a conservative Christian coming from, I regard you and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter to be my heroes.
That's kind of the perspective where I'm coming from.
Well, the thing I would advise you to do is do your best imitation of me.
And you can't lose.
Speaking of.
Now, since I've got you're a conservative Christian, are you devout?
Yeah, I would consider, to be honest, myself to be like your brother coming from the same place that your brother's coming from.
All right.
Well, do you have a problem with Mormons?
Not Mormons, but does Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate bother you as Mormons?
Yeah, this is what I was going to say.
The problem that evangelicals have with Mormons is they view Mormons as a cult.
Now, I do view Mormons as a cult, but to be honest, I have no problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon because it just means he's going to be more moral.
You know, Oren Hatch has been wonderful.
Right.
You know, so I just view him as more.
I understand the evangelicals' problem with him, but no, I personally, I mean, I have other issues with Mitt Romney that I'm not thrilled about, but it's not because he's a Mormon.
All right.
Thanks very much.
I appreciate that.
We've got to take a brief time out.
Now, Bo, that's it.
We got the answer.
I don't want to get off on the, I don't want the rest of the show to be people telling me what's wrong with Mormons or any other religion.
We'll be back in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
I am a Democrat in the House of Representatives.
I've got what it takes to take what you've got.
I can make yours mine.
Rush Limbaugh singing along with the Alan Parsons Project here.
We're back in action, Open Line Friday.
You know, the question about Mr. Buckley that I just got and his recent column saying Iraq's lost.
We can't win it.
Gonna ruin the Republican Party.
I actually think it's the other way around.
I think the Democrats are the ones doing themselves in over this.
Now, again, my usual caveat, I don't know that that's going to show up in the 08 elections.
But folks, I am telling you, and we've discussed this at great length, so I don't want to sound like a broken record, but these people boxing themselves into a corner on this, that it's going to be very, very difficult politically for them to win, no matter what happens.
The worst thing could happen is if we do win this thing big time, definitively, they just are totally shut out there.
The worst thing for them is, second worst thing is they win the White House in 08 and we're still there, and they will not bring the troops home.
And then they create chaos in their own party.
And there are some adult Democrats who know this.
Ted Koppel wrote of it.
David Broder wrote of it in a piece about Dingy Harry.
And lo and behold, look at this.
Lookie here.
Another Washington Post story.
This is by Dan Balls and David Broder.
By the way, Mr. Broder, we salute you on still having a job at the Washington Post.
The 50 senators, Democrat senators, sent a letter to the editor of the Washington Post after what he said about Reed.
You know, I thought they might try to get him.
They have a presumption.
The Democrats presume that the drive-by media is on their side.
And they're not used to getting this kind of criticism.
David Broder launched at them, and they sent this big letter to the editor.
They had all 50 of them sign it in defense of Dingy Harry.
Now, the headline of this story: Democrat Field seeks new moves to halt war.
Now, I'm not going to read the whole story to you, and I'm not even going to read the excerpts.
I'm just going to summarize this for you.
You know, the media has devoted reams of paper and hours of busy broadcast time discussing the ways the Iraq war has been hurting Republicans and will hurt Republicans.
They've been destroying George W. Bush.
But here is another.
There are still too few of these.
But still, here is another article in the Washington Post, no less, that says Democrats may have their own political headaches with these, with this war.
And I'm beginning to wonder if these reporters are actually doing something they don't do, and that's listen to me, because so much of what I have said about the potential problems they face is here in the story.
It's all about the fact there's a split in the presidential field over how hard to take out after Bush, who's not on the ballot.
Now, Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are set in the story to favor less confrontation than the other candidates.
And that's because, you know, they're forward thinking.
They're thinking beyond the primaries and thinking about getting elected in the general election.
But why?
The question, why are they going easy on Bush compared to the other candidates?
We're told that the polls say the American people are totally behind everything the Democrats say and do.
The will of the people, I mean, the people may as well be 75% Democrat if you believe the polls, if you believe the drive-by media.
So why in the world, if Bush is so hated and his approval number is 39 or 36 or whatever it is percent, then why are the two frontrunners going easy on him?
You know, it's going to be interesting to see how much this debate, you know, how hard to hit Bush, strains the window addressing unity that the Democrats are trying to fake.
Now, this is a chilling thought, and it's probably unlikely, but it's something to consider.
If both Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton continue on the less extreme course of hitting Bush, that's going to displease the Kuk fringe.
And who would it open it up for if, and I look at this, is really unlikely, but I mean anything can happen.
The Brett girl could wind up in the top tier and have a serious chance at being the nominee because I know it's not likely.
It probably won't happen.
But this Kuk Fringe base Is as wacko as anything I've seen in a long time, and they are totally consumed with the notion of getting out of a rock yesterday.
And if Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are going to go light on this, and the other parts of the rest of the field are going to start hitting Bush like they have been, and this story is warning about going after Bush, she's not on the ballot.
You know, it's time to, you know, you guys are the majority.
It's time to start acting like it rather than constant whining little spoiled brats of the minority that you've been doing for the Pat Wells since 1994.
Back in just sec.
It's the fastest three hours in media to prove it.
Two of them are already gone.
He's doir.
But there's another one right around the corner.
Can't wait to get to it.
Open Line Friday continues with Rush Limbaugh hosting and starring as always.
▲
Export Selection