All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
May 8, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic, premium cigar smoke, I am Rush Limbaugh, and this is the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We come to you today from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
This is the largest free education institution in the world.
There are no graduates and there are no degrees because the learning never stops.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, I appeared this morning on my Sacramento affiliate, my adopted hometown, and radio station that launched me to where I am now, KFBK, AM 1530.
I did about 17 minutes there talking about this, I don't know what this is other than just sheer incompetence, but what I want to say about this flap yesterday with the Barack the Magic Negro song and the television station of Sacramento Channel 13, I'm actually feeling sorry for these people today.
It's been a day.
They still can get nothing right.
And as I told the audience on KFBK this morning, I remember when I lived out there, local television news was huge and it was respected.
And the people, the anchors and the reporters were all very well credentialed.
And I mean, it was must viewing.
And I don't know what's happened out there, but clearly the television news, at least on this particular station, is just, it's gone south.
It's breathtaking how incompetent these people are.
They had a whole day yesterday to get this right, and they still don't have it right.
Obviously, they're on defense, and they're backpedaling, and they're trying to suggest that, hey, we're just starting a dialogue.
Oh, we just saw this in the newspaper.
We thought we'd ask the question.
They said that you have to pay to vote on my website, which you don't.
They said that I got into this and attacked them.
Folks, I didn't attack them yesterday.
I destroyed them.
But I was simply sitting here minding my own business.
And of course, I find out that they've done this.
This is my adopted hometown.
And I know it's part of an ongoing campaign.
And they're just little small-time dupes.
They don't even know they're being used by this organized campaign.
And they say I attack them.
They didn't attack me.
Oh, no, no, no.
They were just starting dialogue.
And then they said I was doing this for ratings.
Like, I need to waste my time with a local television station for ratings.
Yeah, yeah, this is May Sweeps Week in radio, they said.
There is no sweeps week in radio.
Every week we are rated in radio.
And besides, everything I do is ratings.
Why do you think my name's bandied about on every cable television show as often as possible?
Why do you think authors put my name in the titles of their books?
A bunch of parasites that couldn't sell their books without my name in the test.
Everything I do is I am ratings.
I am Rush Limbaugh.
So it's become apparent that they see this as a glorious opportunity to call attention to themselves.
And I was asked by the two people on KFBK this morning, Kelly Brothers and Amy, said, do you think that they're dumb like foxes doing all this for people?
Maybe.
I said, I don't think they're dumb like foxes.
I just think they're pathetically incompetent.
I mean, there's not even any journalism that's going on here.
Journalists investigate.
They don't see something on Wikipedia or YouTube and assume that it's true and run with it like these people did.
But the thing is, if they want to, I don't know how anybody could believe any news story now ever again on Channel 13 Sacramento.
If they want to attract idiots, and if they want to use this as a ratings benefit or bounce to attract idiots, I mean, there are plenty of them out there.
If that's what they want to go for, more power to them.
But I don't want to spend any more time on it than that.
There's nothing more that can be said.
Now, look, Snurdley is in there groaning.
And there's too much.
You know, I didn't get to half the stack yesterday.
And I, by the way, I'm not going to be distracted, you know, by this small fry stuff out there from getting to the real meat of the matter in the terms of the big time news that is out there.
So, yeah, they wanted me to come on their show, and there's no way.
Why would I do that?
Well, it depends.
I have to take some calls if it would depending on what the calls are.
Oh, they said that flooded their poll with my listeners.
And I didn't, all I did, they played their video.
It was their video that gave out their website for people.
I didn't tell people to go vote on their stupid poll.
That's enough.
We don't do activism here.
Don't tell the audience what to do.
This is the most informed and knowledgeable audience in radio, and it's the most loyal, and it's the deepest.
They don't have to be told what to do.
At any rate, Remy John Edwards.
Back in late April, John Edwards says there's no terror war.
Not a big, he said there's no such thing as a global war on terror.
We just, we're going to have these incidents out there, but there's no such thing as a global war on terror.
Just to remind you of that, six men from New Jersey have been arrested in an alleged terror plot against soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
According to law enforcement sources, investigators said the men planned to use automatic rifles to enter Fort Dix, kill as many soldiers as they could at Fort Dix.
It was just one of several military and security locations allegedly scouted by this group.
The suspects have their Albanian nationals.
And the Duka brothers, Drayton Duca and Eljvir Duca, Shane Duca.
The Dukas are believed to be Islamic radicals.
They're in the United States illegally.
Well, another one in this group is a U.S. citizen born in Jordan.
The U.S. Attorney's Office told Channel 4 in New York that one of the suspects was born in Turkey, four in the former Yugoslavia.
Investigators said most of the suspects have spent several years in the United States.
Tony Snow said, well, there's no direct evidence, quote unquote, that the men have ties to international terrorism.
No, I guess not.
They're just Islamic fundamentalists, and they want to kill as many soldiers as possible.
John Edwards says there is no war on terror.
All of this, by the way, going to come back to haunt them.
A couple lighthearted little stories here.
A Southwest Ohio woman who loves Starbucks coffees decided to drop the habit because she was offended by a religious-related statement that the company printed on the side of a cup.
Michelle Encano of Springboro, Ohio said she got an unexpected jolt when she saw the statement on a cup of coffee she bought last week.
Here's what was printed on the cup.
Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help?
As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance?
Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome?
After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure.
This is on the side.
I've never been to a Starbucks, and my instincts have proven right.
They're proselytizing.
Now they're ripping God.
Now they're ripping religious people.
After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to survive.
The statement is attributed to Bill Schell, who is a Starbucks customer for London, Ontario.
And it was included on the cup as part of an effort by Starbucks to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.
Yeah, we're going to have dialogue everywhere.
It doesn't matter if the dialogue is rooted in truth.
It doesn't matter if the people engaging in dialogue have a foundation of knowledge that gives them any relevance when they engage in the dialogue.
All this rattle-trap of we got to have dialogue.
We must have dialogue.
Dialogue is worthless if it's two ignoramuses talking to each other.
Dialogue is worthless if it's two idiots or one intelligent person trying to talk to an idiot.
That's why I'm dropping the Channel 13 thing.
But dialogue.
For the sake of dialogue, Mr. Limbaugh, we must have dialogue.
So Michelle Incano, who's Catholic, said, as somebody who loves God, I was so offended by that.
I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on the Starbucks Cup.
All I want is coffee.
Now, the company chooses about 30 new quotes every few months.
According to Tricia Moriarty, the spokeswoman for Seattle-based Starbucks, by the end of 2000, that would be this year, for those of you who watch Channel 13 Sacramento, nearly 300 quotes will have been printed since the program began in January of 2005.
We're strong enough to overcome the catastrophes we cause.
Why turn to a figment of your imagination?
And finally, before we go to break from the BBC, well, actually, it says Daily Mail in the UK, that BBC has been ruined by women producing terrible programs, according to Sir Patrick Moore.
He's an astronomer.
He's 84.
He said the corporation needed to revert to the golden days when the news was presented by men with impeccable English.
We've talked about on this program before the subject of the fact that newsrooms, local and national newsrooms in television, have been overrun with women.
And here's what he says: He was asked if television had got better or worse.
He says, much worse.
The trouble is the BBC is now run by women, and it shows soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen sink plays.
You wouldn't have had that in the golden days.
Asked about female newsreaders, he said, there was one day in 2005 when BBC News went on strike.
And then we had the headlines read by a man talking the Queen's English, reading the news impeccably.
Oh, for the good old days.
It's a generational thing going on here.
Obviously, the man is 84 years old.
And, you know, everybody that age looks back and thinks that the golden age was the era in which they lived.
We may have a point here, but there's no denying that women have become more prevalent in editor-producer positions.
And we've called it the chickification of the news here.
And one of the things that results from the chickification of the news is we have to have dialogue.
We just have to have dialogue.
We're going to have dialogue.
The hell with whether anything you're being discussed is properly built, is true, or any of this.
And it's all about feeling good about ourselves.
By the way, one yes, and we have to have closure after the dialogue.
We must have closure.
By the way, we got a great global warming stack today, too.
I didn't get to any of that yesterday.
I just teased one story from the Global Warming Stack.
I mentioned last week that I think we need to have separation of earth and state since global warming has become a religion.
I'm going to build on that as the program unfolds today.
But last night, this is from the New York Times today.
Last night, Christopher Hitchens and the Reverend Sharpton had a debate, and it was sold out.
Was a huge, well, I don't know what the capacity of the place was, but it was before a crowd that packed the Celeste Bartos Forum at the New York Public Library's Beau Arts headquarters on Fifth Avenue.
And Mr. Hitchens said he realized that belief in God was something that a lot of people hold dear.
Mr. Sharpton, this is on page five of the New York, printed page five of the New York Times story.
The Reverend Sharpton, in a jab at Mitt Romney and the Mormon religion, which Hitchens had criticized because it once endorsed racial segregation, Sharpton said, as for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway.
So don't worry, that's a temporary situation.
So here is now the man who basically is the chief of police of speech at NBC and CBS, Al Sharpton, who now says, well, as for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway.
So don't worry, that's a temporary situation.
Would that we call that racial bigotry?
What will we call this?
Religious bigotry?
The thing is, nothing will happen to it, could be hate speech.
Nothing, and could it be a call to arms to anti-Mormonism?
Get these people up in arms.
He doesn't really believe in God.
Get out there and vote against him or whatever.
At any rate, nothing will happen to the Reverend Sharpton on this because the Reverend Sharpton is a minority and minorities because they have no power to be any of the isms like racists, bigots, or any of that.
The Reverend Sharpton will not be held accountable or called to account because minorities can get away.
They're just trying to be heard in the dialogue.
Just trying to be heard.
Mitt Romney, I think, ought to ask now for secret service protection, ladies and gentlemen, because of this hate speech from Reverend Sharpton.
Back after this.
Yeah, welcome back, El Rushbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
All right, a little lesson here in drive-by media coverage as it relates to the way they cover news about Republicans and Democrats.
I got a story here from the Houston Chronicle written by Bennett Roth of the Houston Chronicle, Washington Bureau.
The headline, Houston-area firms steering pack money to Democrats.
The subhead, PAC money steered toward party that heads key committees.
All right.
Well, pretty boring, right?
This is standard day-by-day stuff in politics, is it not?
Let's read further.
Several large Houston-area companies in the Republican-leaning energy industry and other sectors have been shifting federal campaign contributions to Democrats, who are flexing their new power in Congress as they draft legislation on energy and the environment.
Political action committees for companies including, whoa, ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum, Continental Airlines gave a significantly higher percentage of their contributions to Democrats in the first quarter of 2007.
Well, now wait just a second here.
Are we to now believe that ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum, and other big oil companies are companies in the energy industry?
Why, I guess so.
Why, when big oil gives money to Democrats, they are Houston-area firms, leading energy industry firms, steering pack money to Democrats.
Now, can you imagine if this story was about these big oil companies giving money to Republicans?
Do you know how this story would be rewritten?
Do you know how the headline would be different?
Pig oil firms continue to enrich Republican whatever, whatever.
It would be an entirely different thing.
So big oil is lavishing cash on the Democrats, but they're just firms and energy industries.
They're not big oil.
Here's Heather in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Heather, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Welcome.
Hi, awesome to talk to you.
Well, thank you.
I'm calling because I wanted to ask you a question.
Often you use the phrase feminization of America or chickification of the news, and I'm wondering what you mean exactly by that.
Well, do you watch Channel 13 in Sacramento?
This seems pretty obvious to me.
No, I don't.
Okay, what do I mean by the feminization of America?
What I mean by the feminization of America is that feminist doctrine of the modern era, which has its roots in the late 60s and early 70s, has cowed men.
Men now have linguine spines, and women and the way they think and do things pretty much taking over or is making inroads in a lot of places, particularly in education all the way up to higher education.
Okay.
Look at there, would you agree with me that men and women are different?
Absolutely.
All right.
Well, that's all.
Women are what they are and who they are, and men used to be who they are or were.
But, you know, men are trapped.
I mean, men do anything to get where they want to go, the promised land, if you know what I mean.
And so there's been this, there's just been a general decline of masculine culture, masculinity.
And when it shows up, it's lampooned and made fun of, and it's called brute force.
And so for the chickification of the news is nothing more than you admit to me that men and women are different.
Women look at things different.
They have different interests.
And they now have more positions of prominence in the news business than they used to have.
So I guess what I'm trying to say, though, is that like to emasculate a man isn't the same as feminizing him.
Like I don't think that the lack of masculinity is femininity.
So it's to me like when you're saying that, you're kind of saying like to be a woman is to be linguine spined.
To be a woman is to be what?
Linguine spined.
When you say that feminization.
No, no.
Men are linguine spined when they become like women.
But women are not linguini spin.
You're opening a big can of worms here because I actually think that in many cases women have stronger constitutions than men, and this proves it.
What proves it, me?
No, no, no, not you.
The fact that men are capitulating all over the place.
Okay, okay.
Well, I guess that makes sense because I just think the concept of what's feminine and what's masculine, it's tricky because it's easy to say, like, yes, there's a difference.
All right, Hat, you hang on.
I've got a story buried deep in the stack, but you have reminded me that's there.
Just hold on to the break, and I will use this to illustrate what I'm talking about.
Can you?
I'd love to.
Good, thank you.
A man, a living legend, a way of life.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network at 800-282-2882.
Back now to Heather in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
All right, you still there?
I sure am.
Hubba hubba.
I found this story.
It's from Springerscience.com.
Well, Springer-SBM.com.
And it's a, here's, let me just read the first paragraph.
I'm going to summarize what the story says.
New evidence on sex differences in people's brains and behaviors emerges with the publication of results from the BBC's Sex ID Internet Survey.
Survey questions and tests focused on participants' sex-linked cognitive abilities, personality traits, interests, sexual attitudes, and behavior, as well as physical traits.
The Archives of Sexual Behavior has devoted a special section in its April 2007 issue to research papers based on the BBC data.
Now, let me, this is sort of high-end in terms of its literature.
So, let me just summarize this.
They conclude based on their massive survey that men are different than women.
Now, why would somebody have to do a survey to conclude this?
I ask you, Heather, I'll never forget Time magazine in the late 90s or in the mid-90s actually ran a cover as though they were shocked.
New research indicates men and women are born different.
It's outrageous.
And I think the fact that we know that hormones affect behavior and men and women have different hormones.
I mean, to me, the fact that they see things differently.
Men and women see things.
This is not a criticism, it's a simply simple recognition.
Let me give you an illustration.
You remember the Menendez brothers trial?
Just barely.
Well, let me refresh your memory on this.
Lionel and Lyle and whatever the other Menendez brother were accused of killing her mom and dad.
And in court testimony, one of the Menendez brothers admitted that he fired point-blank into his mother's face, but she was still alive.
So he went out to the car, reloaded, came back, and made sure she was dead by firing again point blank.
There were six female jurors from Los Angeles, and they all said, We felt so sorry for him because he's not going to have his parents anymore.
And we're looking at this.
Of course not.
He killed them.
Yes, but it's so sad.
Those were really nice boys.
I'm not aesthetic representatives of women, then.
No, I'm not saying it is.
I was just going to say this is not symptomatic of all women, but that viewpoint is becoming more and more predominant in our culture.
You know, there are activists of certain persuasions, and there are people who are docile.
We conservatives happen to be very docile.
We sit around and we let this wave of cultural and sociological change just sweep over us because we're not out on the streets marching and we're not out there saying everything said and done offends us.
We're out working.
We're productive.
We're making the country work.
These people are just out agitating because they're not happy with themselves in general.
They're miserable people and they're trying to spread the misery to everybody else.
And so this stuff's what can you disagree with me when the feminization of culture, when you look at what's happened to the U.S. military during the Clinton administration, it became a social playground, experimentation playground.
Women in combat, don't ask, don't tell, all kinds of mission of the military changed drastically to become socially acceptable, according to whose terms, rather than a lean, mean fighting machine designed to kill the enemy and break their stuff.
Yeah, I guess what I'd say is that they're redefining what femininity is.
Well, feminism has done that, yes.
Yeah, completely.
And they've sort of trashed femininity if it includes relationships and joy and happiness derived from it.
Yeah, I think a classic example is that I might get in trouble for this, but very like blatantly homosexual men are often described as effeminate.
And I think that's outrageous because I don't know any women who behave the way those men do.
It's like a caricature.
Well, I wish you hadn't brought that up because I have to tell you what's in this brilliant BBC report.
Oh, no.
In addition to the news in this, I mean, thoroughly researched, many, many participants in the survey.
Not only did they conclude that men are different than women, they also conclude that homosexuals think like women.
Thanks a lot.
What's in here?
It's the BBC saying this.
It's right here at homosexuals think more like women.
Now, I have to say that neither of these shocked me, and I was curious as to why we needed a survey.
Men and women are different.
Homosexuals think more like women.
Well, they try to.
Well, try or what?
And this is not an indictment.
It's just sociological observation.
By the way, I have another study that just came in from the BBC.
They've concluded that water is wet.
I mean, how ridiculous.
So anyway, the chickification of the news is simply an adjunct of that.
It's based and rooted in the fact that women look at things differently than men do.
And when they get in positions of power and authority, their worldview, their influence is going to be felt.
And you can see it.
Whether you want to be critical of it or not, it's another thing.
But it certainly exists.
So would you say that Condoleezza Rice is a feminine woman?
Yes.
She's a lady.
Condoleezza Rice is a lady.
Yeah, she's a woman and she's a lady.
And I don't know how she acts with these guys in private, but I don't imagine she's a pushover.
Right, right.
Okay.
So I guess I'm just trying to say that there's different ways of being feminine that are both actually, I think Condoleezza's way of being is more genuine and more true than the caricatures of femininity that the feminists try to place on everyone.
Well, okay, forget that.
Let me ask.
Do you think Nancy Pelosi, is she feminine?
She a lady?
Is she a woman?
How does she strike you?
Yikes.
No, take politics out of it.
Take politics.
Okay.
Wait a minute.
Another great example.
Feminization of culture.
The day that she's inaugurated as the Speaker of State, not Speaker of the House, Speaker of the State.
There she is on the House floor.
And this is traditional.
She's not the first to have done it.
She's got family out there.
Big Dave, first female Speaker of State.
And she's got grandkids being balanced on her knees.
She's got kids running around and all that.
And Charlie Gibson of ABC News.
And I don't doubt that a female editor or producer wrote this for him to read on the teleprompter, because that's what happens at newsrooms on television, talked about how, look at this, isn't that a wonderful site?
She can not only take care of her grandchildren and children, she can take care of the country at the same time.
That is what I mean by the feminization.
You would no more have had Walter Cronkite report something like that in that fashion 60 years ago, 40 years ago, than you would have had anybody else discussing it.
These are just cultural and sociological shifts.
And from that observation, we're supposed to conclude, by the way, that because of this newfound sensitivity, the ability to balance grandchildren and children on the knee and take care of the country at the same time, that somehow this is a step forward.
See, what you have to understand about the left, Heather, and all of this is based in liberalism, is that incumbent in it or inclusive in it is the slam at traditions and institutions that have come before.
The advance of liberalism is always said to be major progress.
That's what I disagree with.
It is not major progress.
The advance of liberalism is destructive to traditions and institutions that have made the country great.
The advance of liberalism is destructive to customs and tried and true ways for society, populations to manage themselves in law-abiding ways and other ways.
They're tearing things down constantly on the basis of false premises.
And one of the false premises out there is that women are somehow more competent and able because of the differences, their sensitivity or whatever to do things than men are.
And this has been something that's part and parcel of feminism for, well, you know, since 1969, 1970.
That's when I remember the modern era of it actually commencing because that's when it started impacting my life.
And I'm telling you, I do not have fond memories of it, folks, and I never will.
You know, I touched on this story yesterday.
I didn't have much time to delve into it, but I want to go back to it today.
Do you remember, ladies and gentlemen, all those far-left fantasies about the talking points that Karl Rove was faxing around to all the conservative pundits and all the radio talk show hosts and talking about this they drew a tree diagram to illustrate how news is made in the conservative media.
And Rove writes the talking points and it filters down to various elements of the conservative media and the food chain.
And this is said to corrupt media and so forth.
In fact, the opposite is true.
We have proven many times that it's what the Democrats do.
The Democrats constantly do this talking point stuff and they are coordinated with their buddies in a drive-by media.
As we've documented countless times, you can have the same phrase, the same point made by 15 different journalists on a whole bunch of different networks about the same story.
Well, this New York Times story shows that this criticism that Rove and somebody in the White House sending out all these talking points to the minions is another example of projection in reverse.
The New York Times reported on, actually, this was, I guess, Saturday or Sunday.
It was May the 6th, I think, which is, yes, I guess it was Sunday, reporting that anti-war wacko groups conduct a conference call every morning with the leadership of the Democrat Party.
And these anti-war groups, I mentioned that they've got a leash around the neck of Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry.
Every morning, representatives from a cluster of anti-war groups gather for a conference call with Democrat leadership staff members in the House and Senate.
Shortly after, in a cramped meeting room in Washington, they convene for a call with organizers across the country, and they hash out plans for rallies.
They sketch out talking points for rapid response news conferences.
They discuss polls that they've conducted in several dozen crucial congressional districts and states across the country.
And it really focuses here on move on.
On Thursday, last week, leaders of moveon.org, including the group's Washington director, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democrat leadership.
In the past few days, we've seen what appear to be trial balloons, signaling a significant weakening of the Democrat position on the war in Iraq.
On this, we want to be perfectly clear.
If Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush, passing a bill without measures to end the war, the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democrat leadership so expertly built will immediately disappear.
The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill without a timeline and with all five months of funding, they would essentially be endorsing a war without end.
MoveOn will move to a position of opposition.
So exactly what they accuse, falsely accuse of happening on the conservative side of the aisle is exactly what happens in the Democrat Party.
And this, and it's in the New York Times to boot, and it makes it clear that everything you hear from Dingy Harry and Pelosi and Jack Murphy is dictated by moveon.org and these wacko internet groups that are literally yanking the chains of the Democrat Party.
And this, by the way, is why Hillary Clinton is so off balance here on her vote for the Iraq war.
She doesn't dare apologize for that because that will kill her in the general.
But she somehow got to get past all this during the primaries.
And in the process, she's out there saying, we need a new vote to deauthorize the war in Iraq.
She knows that's never going to happen.
That's unprecedented.
That's just fodder for these little groups out there that have taken control of the Democratic Party.
This is, by the way, not new news.
Moveon.org and a number of other kook fringe websites on the left threatened that they were going to take over the Democrat Party from the Democrat National Committee.
The leadership just wasn't there.
And these are the people that are steering elected Democrats further and further left.
It don't take a whole lot of tugging on the leash to get them to move left because they already move in that direction on their own.
But here is every day.
And we have heard that Dingy Harry actually is inspired, motivated by his poll numbers at various Democrat websites as to how he's doing, and he will modify his rhetoric in order to get his poll numbers on these websites up.
Stunning admission.
The New York Times, Tim in San Marcus, California.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Yeah, I'm great, sir.
Thank you.
I have two things.
One is a bit of praise, and another is a little bone to pick with you.
But first, I want to mention, you know, you've been using the phrase drive-by media for a long time.
I thought that incident yesterday with that local TV station was probably the perfect illustration of that term.
And it really opened my eyes.
I thought, man, this is perfect.
Because here they took a story that was two months old.
They extrapolated this ridiculous premise, such as him needing Secret Service protection as a result of that song.
And then they tried to influence their own poll results by using phrases like, what's going on?
Does Rush want to keep his job?
Or he's in really dangerous waters here.
And then they say, but what do you think?
Well, after they poison the well, then they want your opinion.
And so then they started reading emails that were either completely negative or that were, at best, backhanded compliments.
And I thought, you know, I can't help but imagine these people sitting around in their conference room at the office saying, hey, you know, let's go after Limbaugh today.
You know, we can call him a racist, and then we'll act like we're real concerned for his career.
That's not what happened, though.
Let me, very briefly, what happened with these people, they all claim, by the way, now on their air this morning to be rush babies.
They all claim to have grown up listening to me and that I'm a good guy and that I have a loyal audience and all this sort of stuff.
But one of the guys says, look, I got into work at 3.15 in the morning and I see this newspaper story about this song.
So I went on the internet and I heard the song and I, whoa, and I sit right next to a black guy.
Gosh, I thought about turning it down because I didn't want him to think I'm a racist.
And that's what led to our poll.
Their story was not about a poll anyway.
They're just trying to cover it.
But the truth of the matter is, this is a news organization that was totally unaware this song existed for two and a half months until they read a newspaper story on it sometime Sunday morning or Monday morning at 3.15.
And that's what they didn't do any investigation, no research to find out what is this?
They accepted a video on YouTube as source authority.
I mean, everything about journalism that is wrong, these people did it.
And it is an example of drive-by.
Let's stir the pot out there today.
This could be really, really good.
Exactly.
And, you know, there was a guy yesterday who said it's more than just sloppy journalism.
He said these people purposely went after you.
And, you know, as I listened to the comments that they were making and this faux concern that they had in their voices of, oh, you know, as if it's like, poor Rush, he's going over the edge.
You know, can we call him, find out what's going on?
I thought, stop the fakery.
You people are doing exactly what you want, which is a hit piece.
Right.
And they could have called, and they never did.
Yeah, exactly.
So anyway, that was my praise.
What's the bone to pick?
Okay, well, I called about six months ago after the Michael Richards incident, the guy from Seinfeld.
Oh, yeah.
And, you know, there's a lot of, he was being referred to as a racist at the time.
And I live here in San Diego, and we are routinely referred to as racist if we are against, for instance, 20 million people sneaking over the border and taking over the schools.
My kid yesterday tells me that he's constantly being called a gringo in school, being teased.
And so I called up, and I was in tongue-in-cheek.
I was going to say, you know, Rush, can you help me figure out whether or not I'm a racist if I'm opposed to such things?
And one of the things I asked Bo Snurdly, I said, for instance, am I a racist?
I've got 30 seconds, so if you can get...
Okay.
I said, am I a racist if I'm against any group in which nine out of ten of them vote for the exact same party?
And he said, them?
Them?
No.
Sorry, we don't want that tone on this show.
And I thought, you know, you've had Rita from Detroit on here so many times with her blue-eyed devil race.
Yes, But Rita, do not, do not compare yourself to Rita X. I'm going to ask Snerdley.
I get the details of it, but don't take that personally.
Please don't take it.
It was not meant that way at all.
Okay, folks, got to take a break planning our next Al Sharpton parody song here.
In the break, we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection