All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
June 4, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
It is I, El Rushball, from behind the golden EIB microphone here at the prestigious and distinguished and unique Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Look forward to talking to you in this hour.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
So I took a little stroll back to Snerdley's office.
During the break, I said, Snerdley, you bothered by this Putin business, Vladimir Putin threatening to nuke, aim ICBM nukes at Europe if we do our missile shield.
And he said, nah, not really.
I said, you know, this nation owes me a, well, I'm all I, ladies and gentlemen, the single lonely voice, the only voice in major media, including the drive-bys, when Putin came to office and he came over here, went to the barbecue down there in Texas, riding around in the jeep with President Bush, even uttering some English words now and then.
I sounded a warning to the nation and the world, and I said, folks, this guy is KGB.
He's a former KGB ranking commander.
He is a KGB communist, and those people do not change.
And I warned the world, I said, this guy getting his hands on the controls of the new Russia means that a return to the old Soviet Union is something that you have to factor.
And lo and behold, he's not the first Soviet leader to threaten Europe with nukes.
Brezhnev was constantly threatening Western Europe with nuclear strikes, threats, if they didn't stay in line.
And he was, of course, threatening his own bloc with much the same thing.
And then I remember, you know, Deng Xiaoping.
Deng Xiaoping was the diminutive, small chain-smoking president or head honcho of the Chikoms.
And if you notice, this country, we just seem obsessed with everybody liking us.
And Snerdley said, yeah, everybody wants to, we just want everybody to like us.
And I said, yeah, and that's because Nither Snerdley, we must redo the tentinth.
And the tenthinth igvithpika divas, we're the superpower, and we have to reduce these tenths.
We have to fill these people and we mean them no harm.
And of course, when we do that, they just chuckle and laugh.
I mean, people are who they are.
And no amount of trying to make them like us is going to accomplish anything other than making them think we're a bunch of patsies.
I mean, we like Deng Xiaoping so much, we let him smoke at the Kennedy Center when he went in there to watch some command performance or something in his honor.
Now, this Putin thing, this is not insignificant.
You know, there have been reports, and I don't know if these are true, but there have been reports that Russian military equipment was seen in Iraq spiriting away something to Syria.
And our source for this is one of Saddam's ex-generals.
The Russians were there spiriting the weapons of mass destruction out in trucks and so forth across the border into Syria.
And people have said, well, why wouldn't the Bush administration make reference to this instead of sitting there day in and day out taking it on the chin about there having been no weapons of mass destruction?
And the answer to that question, well, you know, we have a budding new relationship with Putin and the Russians, and we don't want to accuse them of anything in the world's stage.
We don't want to aggravate them and make them mad.
Same old, same old.
Now, with Putin over there starting to huff and puff about our missile shield, I just wonder if this would give Bush an opening.
It's not going to happen.
Never mind.
Idle speculation here.
When I voice it, I realize how ridiculous that it sounds.
But I alone, ladies and gentlemen, was the one sounding warnings about this guy because he's KGB.
Now, there may not be a KGB anymore, but there are KGB people.
And he's one of them.
And there's a replacement of the KGB.
I forget what the initials of it are, but there is a KGB.
And Putin is the authoritative control.
This guy's wiping people out left and right, wiping out spies that turn on him.
We write books on him.
There's something to be concerned with here.
Something else, too, that I want to make mention.
Over the many, many years of this busy broadcast, I have been sitting here minding my own business, inviting those of you to call about pretty much whatever you want to call about.
And over these many years of broadcast service, many of you have called and accused me of being a lapdog to the Bush administration, a lackey.
What are some of the terms, Mr. Snirdley, that they have called me?
Yeah, yes.
Nothing more than kowtowing to the Bush administration and so forth.
And I have noticed, yeah, carrying the water, I have noticed that there haven't been any calls in the past years, six months, nine months, year, whatever, from those of you leveling that charge at me to apologize for having gotten that wrong.
Now, it's not that I'm looking for that.
Of course, I don't allow my self-image to be determined by what people think of me.
If I did, I'd be in an insane asylum long ago in a straitjacket with no hope for ever getting out.
It's not that.
It's easy for people to throw these charges around and so forth.
But when evidence exists that you have been wrong, I correct my mistakes, as rare as they are, as soon as I possibly can when I find out that I have made one.
Just a few little observations here.
By the way, Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, now officially indicted.
How many pages is it?
Is it 94, 96 pages, 16 counts in the indictment?
You know, I could be mistaken about this, and if I am, you'll be the first to know.
But I don't think that there is a rule that says when you're indicted, you got to quit.
The Republicans put that rule in.
The Democrats demand.
They were trying to show that they could be fair when they were running the House of Representatives.
If any member of the leadership were indicted, he would have to resign.
That's what happened to Delay.
But I don't know that there's any Democrat rule regarding their members saying they have to resign.
And of course, Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, is from New Orleans.
And he is the most powerful member of Congress from that hurricane ravaged city.
And we're just, I'm still sitting here wondering whether or not the Democrats in the House, the Pelosi gang, is going to run him out of there and make him resign.
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't.
I wouldn't be surprised if they come out and start saying that, well, he's the most powerful Congress in New Orleans.
They're still going through the aftershocks of Hurricane Katrina, post-traumatic stress disorder.
The death toll continues to mount.
We can't do any more damage to New Orleans by stripping from them their most powerful member of the House of Representatives.
And then, of course, it'll blame it on Gonzalez.
Well, what's his indictment now for?
They could have done this months ago.
Why are they waiting now when Gonzalez is in trouble on the U.S. attorney thing and Bush fled the country?
Didn't even have the guts to stay in town on the day the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana was handed down.
Or it could go the other way.
Pelosi could say, this is something we don't need because I want to keep talking about the culture of corruption.
I can't do that with a guy in my party that's been indicted 16 different counts.
So they're huddling right now.
And of course, the Congressional Black Caucus is going to have a say in this.
And Democrats dissed them with their debate.
You know, Democrats are not showing up at the Congressional Black Caucus debate because it's being co-sponsored by the Fox News Channel.
So they're not, you know, and then, of course, the Reverend Docs will have a say-so here, as will Reverend Sharpton, which will then cause the presidential candidates on the Democrat side to have to weigh in on this.
Could be fun.
Speaking of the Democrats, after promising unprecedented openness regarding pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.
Democrats are sidestepping the rules that they approved on their first day in power in January to clearly identify earmarks.
These are lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.
Rather than including specific pet projects and grants and contracts and legislation as it's being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it's too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Representative David Obie, Democrat Wisconsin says those requests for dams, community grants, research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall.
That's when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills.
These things total billions of dollars.
It's one of the reasons that people speculate that Republicans are thrown out because they were engaging in all this pork.
Democrats, of course, promised to fix it, but I told you back then they're not going to fix any of this.
They're the authors of this kind of behavior in the House.
They ran it for 40 years, and they're going to say they're going to make these changes, but they're not.
They also, a couple stories from Drive-By Media on how they really haven't accomplished anything, the Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Oh, we got a couple obligatory stories from the drive-bys being somewhat critical of Democrats, but that's where they're staying.
They're staying on the wire services.
You will not see these stories picked up in any of the primary or major Democrat House organs, the cable news channels that are slavish to Democrats, nor the New York Times or Washington Post.
Brief timeout.
Your phone calls next after this.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have rush limboy.
It's a beautiful thing, the EIB network.
Have you heard a story about this?
This woman that drove through a festival in Washington, injured a bunch of people.
She later was said to have been smoking crack most of the day.
You heard about that?
Did you happen to hear where she worked?
Yeah, she was a temp at the offices of Mary and Barry.
So we've gone from the bitch set me up to that bitch mowed me down.
B.I. Itch.
Sorry, it's summertime.
The youngsters, Crumb Crunchers out of school.
Mary in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
1961 Baby Boomer Dittos, right?
Well, thank you.
What month are you born?
July.
Well, I'm six months older than you, which means I'm more mature.
And wiser.
Thank you.
You're very kind.
Well, I went to a Republican fundraiser this Saturday, and I have not heard such vitriol in one place directed against the President since Cindy Sheehan was camped out in Crawford.
W was there a particular candidate that the fundraiser was for?
Was this the party?
It was a candidate.
Well, it was for our wonderful Rob Bell, who's our delegate to the House of Delegates here.
Oh, yeah.
He wrote the anti-Kilo law and got it through.
Terrific guy.
Virgil Good was there.
We love him.
And besides being angry at the President, we're looking for a replacement for Senator John Warner, too.
And it's the final straw with these rhinos.
All right.
So when you hear about or read the Washington Post story today that says you and I are just bunch of Yahoos and all the noise that you saw at this fundraiser, it's just a small majority of people.
In fact, most of these candidates and senators are hearing that people are turning around on this.
They're going to get this passed.
It's really not a loud but very small bunch of yahoos out there that are making noise on immigration.
How does that make you feel when you hear that?
Well, I'm hoping that the JSK incident will get the non-yahoos in the country turned around, including the president.
I mean, these were immigrants and Muslim immigrants.
And we've got to, the one thing on everybody's mind, first of all, is to enforce the border.
And nobody's fooled around here about guest workers, et cetera, et cetera.
Virgil Good thinks that it's conservative to say that the number of immigrants will go up 20,000 with anchor babies, that it's going to be more like 30 or 40,000.
It's really a scary thing.
We are a very patriotic group.
We've been behind the president with the war on terror.
And because of that, we put up with his arm around Ted Kennedy with the education bill and all that stuff.
The immigration bill is too important.
It's security.
It's our children's future.
It's really got us up in arms.
And I think it's pretty widespread.
Well, that's the impression I get, too.
But the story is out there that it's not widespread.
And in fact, whatever passion there was on it is cooling down now.
And people like you are even changing their minds.
That's what these senators told the Washington Post.
Yeah, you're changing your mind, though.
They expected to get holy hell out there during the Memorial Day recess, and it didn't happen.
That's what the Post says.
They found out that people are cooling down on this.
A more reasoned view is taking hold.
And they need to be smooth sailing for this bill this week.
That's what the Post story says.
And they've got polling data out there, but if you look at Deep in the Atturbals, the polling data doesn't support the contentions.
But nothing new about that.
Mary, thanks much.
Moving on to Cookville, Tennessee.
This is Jerry.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hey, how are you doing, Rush?
Fine.
This weekend, Senator Lamar came into town.
Mar Alexander?
Excuse me?
Lamar Alexander, you mean?
Yeah, Senator Lamar Alexander.
And I guess he kind of thought it was going to be this little chit-chat deal.
And he talked a little bit.
And it was kind of a self-promotion deal, like most of them do.
And one woman, she told him, she said, Senator, she said, we have no faith in the leadership.
If you guys aren't going to enforce the laws we have now, why should we believe you with a new laws?
Another gentleman wanted to know why they allowed Larasa to help write the bill.
Another man wanted to know why we could not speak as a group, and he answer as a group afterwards instead of just going up one-on-one where you couldn't hear him answer.
And then I asked the crowd, can I see a show of hands who support this immigration bill?
No hands went up.
How many people were there?
I figured about 150.
And then I asked, can I see a show of hands of people who oppose it?
And everybody in the room raised their hand.
And what did Senator Alexander do when he saw all this?
Well, he kind of looked shocked, to be truthful.
And when I did get to speak with him, I told him that if he votes for this, I will not vote for him ever again.
I told him I supported him in the past.
I think you're a good man, but you're wrong on this.
And he told me that this bill will help strengthen the border to get new border patrol agents.
And I said, well, the agents who do their job, like Agent Campion and Ramos, they do their job.
They go to prison.
The drug dealers walking free.
And I said, this is bowling.
Not this border secure business.
I saw some, I wish I could remember where this was.
Do you know that even as we speak, they are cutting the number of agents on the border?
Not just agents, but all kinds of security people.
The guards being pulled out of there, something like that.
It might have been National Review Online where I read this.
And everybody was perplexed.
I mean, here you're trying to sell a bill, and you're telling people, you're wrong about security, and you're wrong about amnesty.
We're going to really beef up the border.
And this isn't amnesty.
You start pulling people off the border.
It was perplexing to many people, thought it was a lousy sales technique.
Well, it'll be interesting to see.
I, frankly, on this, and I think it was indicative here of the Washington Post story, I'm going to ram this bill through the Senate, get it out of there, and take it to the House and see what happens there.
This is one of those instances where he listened to you and he heard what you had to say, but I think people are committed to it.
I don't think you're going to be able to talk about it.
We'll have to wait and see.
But this post story is going to give these people all kinds of cover here today, folks.
You have to understand that it's going to give them all kinds of, oh, look at this.
The opposition's dying down.
They're even coming around to seeing it our way.
It's just a bunch of people out there, really loud voices, not very many of them.
So the message is going out.
Don't be intimidated by these yay who's that are screaming bloody murder because there aren't that many of them.
They're just a bunch of, you know, wacko conservatives anyway.
So look at, folks, there's, you know, people, why do you think Hillary Clinton 80% chance?
Because of what's happening in the Republican Party right now, there's going to be, I hate to use the word war, but I mean, there's going to be a battle within the Republican Party for who controls it.
You know, who defines it and who shapes it, the country club blue blood types or the conservatives?
And make no mistake about it.
The country club blueblooders have resented the conservative dominance of their party for as long as Ronald Reagan brought it about.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out here.
An EIB obscene profit break is next.
Be back at you soon.
I just read something on the Politico website that I don't believe I just read.
Now, I'm going to read this to you, but I want to issue to you a warning that if you do have young children around, you might not want them to hear this.
And this is on the Politico.com website.
Elizabeth Edwards was asked about gay rights on CNN last night, and she gave some background to Bob Shrum's claim that John Edwards felt uncomfortable with gays.
Said, Elizabeth Edwards, quote, I believe that Bob Shrum brought up the issues of gays and lesbians.
And John said, you know, I come from a small southern town, Baptist, you know, honestly, he said, honestly, an abstract issue for me because he said, you know, I don't really know, as far as I know, how any gay people.
He said, Well, actually, you do.
I referred to a friend of mine from English graduate school and how we had been out.
John and I had been out for the evening.
And I saw this old friend from English graduate school when we were still a law school, and I went over and I spoke to him, and I knew that he was gay.
And I said, You know, I'm engaged.
This is Elizabeth talking about her old buddy from school.
You know, I'm engaged, and there's the fellow over there I'm engaged to.
And this is what Elizabeth Edwards then says happened: that her gay friend said to her about Edwards, oh, wow, he's awfully cute.
I might snake him if he wasn't with you.
And I told John that.
And this is where he used the word uncomfortable.
He said that made me feel uncomfortable.
So Bob correctly remembers the word uncomfortable, but incorrectly remembers the circumstances in which he said it.
All of us feel uncomfortable at someone snaking us, I guess, in the presence, trying to snake us in the presence of our fiancé.
That made him feel uncomfortable.
And John talked about that.
Okay, back to the phones.
Who wants to follow that?
Matthew in Newton, Massachusetts.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
I'm fine, sir.
When I was watching the debates last night, I got a little confused about something.
They were talking about the name of the place.
I just forgot the name of the place.
That would be Darfur, you were thinking of.
Sorry, thank you.
Darfur.
I've been on hold.
I've been on hold.
Joe Biden thinks we need to go to Darfur yesterday.
Yeah.
Well, here's.
Okay, now I got a quick question.
They want to go to Darfur, but they don't want to go into Iraq.
Why?
Well, why do you think that is?
To tell you the truth, I really don't know because if we go into Darfur, we're probably going to have military down there protecting everybody else.
But there's a simple explanation for this.
I have mentioned this on this program before.
Okay.
And you're going to, you know, people are going to smirk at it.
If you haven't heard me say this, you're going to smirk at it when I tell you what the reason is.
We have no U.S. national interests in Darfur.
So it's a perfect use for the U.S. military, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned, meals on wheels.
You know, have them go out there and do social justice work.
But if there are, if there are U.S. interests at stake, and you send the U.S. military, you're going to hear about it from the Democrats.
And we got U.S. interests at stake in Iraq.
We don't in Darfur.
But it's scary how they want to spend so much money there, and they don't want to really defend ourselves against exactly.
Exactly.
Way to go.
Spread the word.
Even though you couldn't figure out why your instincts told you something about this isn't right.
So I applaud you for that.
Absolutely right.
It's typical liberalism.
Here's more typical liberalism.
How many years did we spend talking about the spotted owl on this program?
And they tried to shut down the timber industry in Northern California and Oregon because of the spotted owl.
Well, guess what, folks?
To save the northern spotted owl, which is bogus anyway, because they said the spotted owl could only live in native old-growth forest, meaning you put up a new tree and the spotted owl knows it's new and it isn't going to go there.
Meanwhile, they were finding them nesting in the Kmart signs at various shopping malls.
But now all of a sudden, the spotted owl is threatened again.
And to save the northern spotted owl, federal authorities have listed the bird under the Endangered Species Act.
They've set aside 7 million acres of forest for owl habitat.
They've imposed stiff fines on those who harm the chocolate-colored football-sized raptors.
But the spotted owl population is still in deep peril nearly 15 years after President Clinton brokered a deal to protect its old growth habitat.
So the government has hit on another approach to saving an icon of the Pacific Northwest.
They're going to go out and shoot its cousins.
Under a proposal controversial in scientific and environmental circles, federal wildlife agents in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California will be allowed to use shotguns to kill hundreds of barred owls.
Now, the barred owl is more aggressive and it's larger.
It's not native to the Northwest, so it's an interloper.
And it has stymied recovery efforts of the meeker spotted owl in the last 20 years.
The barred owls muscle the spotted owls to their habitats and then they eat them, or they very occasionally mate with them.
The rare hybrid offspring, formerly known as sparred owl, has a very strange hoot, as one wildlife biologist put it, sort of like a spotted owl being strangled.
Critics say that the shooting proposal, it's called suppression in government parlance, is an example of the Bush administration altering scientific findings to accommodate commercial interests, in this case, the logging industry.
So what we really want, here comes Bush trying to wipe out the barred owl so that the timber industry can strange hoot is like a spotted owl being strangled.
That's from the hybrid.
When the barred owl mates with the spotted owl, it has a very strange hoot, sort of like a spotted owl being strangled.
That's what it says.
I'm just reporting the news here on the EIB network.
Now, officials in charge of the recovery plans for the spotted owl sharply dispute the notion that the final report was a blow to industry pressure to open more Northwest forests to timber harvesting.
In the owl versus owl saga, they say it's abundantly clear the spotted owls need help and fast.
And notice there's no attempt at diplomacy here.
There's no attempt to get these two different species of owl together and see if they can coexist as neighbors.
Well, some are doing it.
I mean, they are mating out there.
Some of them don't.
And the barred owl is not killing all the spotted owls.
Actually, folks, I think we have to...
What's happening here, if you have the spotted owl smaller and meeker, and you've got the barred owl horning in on its territory, and all of a sudden mating now and then with the spotted owl producing a strange hoot, it sounds like there's rape going on here to us.
I mean, hence the strangled hoot, the noise made by the sparred owl, the product of the barred owl raping the spotted owl.
So, bottom line here is to protect nature, we have to kill other parts of nature.
Because the barred owl is an interloper.
Now, you might be saying, well, so what's the big deal in protecting the spotted owl?
It's shutting down the timber business or making it tough for them.
Environmental scientists say that evolutionary argument hardly applies here.
Human interference, decades of clear cuts, and other widespread logging first caused the spotted owl's decline.
The barred owls, native to the East Coast, have begun arriving the Great Northwest in significant numbers about 20 years ago, simply more adapted to the human-altered environment.
Look at if we weren't around here and weren't noticing this, would there be a problem?
All you have here, these barred owls, they're from the northeast.
I'd get tired of living there too.
They're seeking a different climate, want a different lifestyle, cheaper property values out there.
Go out, you know, get these little babes, the spotted owls out there.
But they're kicking butt.
They're kicking owl butt out there, and so we've got to go out and protect the spotted owl.
I'm telling you, these things do not need native old-growth, pristine.
They've been spotted in Kmart signs and all over the place.
This is one of the biggest environmentalist wacko hoaxes that come down the pike in.
I don't know how long.
Back in a sec.
Big news out of South Africa.
It's a big strike going on in South Africa public sector unions.
And these South African workers who are striking over pay and benefits have a new complaint, and that's because of so hard to be on strike that they no longer have the energy for sex.
Monroe McCallopey, a regional chairman of the powerful COSATU Federations of Trade Unions, complained that work conditions are so tough that workers can't perform in the bedroom.
The harshness that we have in all our workplaces is so severe to such a point that when you get home at night, it becomes a problem expanding our families, he said.
Public sector workers are negotiating with the government.
I'm sorry, it's not that the being on strike is the problem, it's being at work.
Why haven't our unions thought of this?
This is something that would be interesting to see the ACLU or the AFLC.
I owe tribe.
Dean in Destin, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Megadidos Resh.
Thank you, sir.
It's truly an honor.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Hey, I had to call.
Get right to my point.
Jack Murtha's comment there to George Stephanopoulos.
You sound like Murthy.
You sound like Jack Murphy.
Oh, no, don't tell me that.
His comment that the 9-11 jihadis were from Afghanistan was absolutely ignorant.
That's like saying American troops training in Germany, going to fight the war in Iraq are from Germany.
These guys were 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia.
And the rest of them, I don't believe there was a one from Afghanistan.
Am I correct?
I understand.
It's the most idiotic, erroneous, incorrect, uninformed comment.
And that's saying something.
I mean, that's close to Edward saying that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker.
Yeah, it's like Saudi Arabia.
What did we ever do to Saudi Arabia previous to 9-11?
Buying their oral?
Well, what he meant was that they were trained in Afghanistan.
The source of their training and anger is Afghanistan.
And the only reason he said that was because they're held down on getting us out of Iraq and they think they can cover themselves on national security.
The Democrats do by saying, we need to be in Afghanistan.
That's where the real problems are.
The real problems are in the United States.
One of the real threats are here, as this JFK threat suggests.
But the Democrats and liberals on their websites are already saying the whole thing's trumped up and fake.
It was manufactured.
There wasn't anything to it.
So now all the terrorism is Bush's fault because he actually waged war on them instead of sending a couple of stab missiles and taking out a tent and a donkey in the pet.
I'm telling you.
Well, get ready because it's going to be that way for 10 or 15 years.
That's the way this is setting up.
Look at the story out of New Orleans today that the death toll continues to rise in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, post-traumatic stress disorder.
That's Bush.
Bush did this.
Any terrorist attack that occurs in this country for now the next 10, 15 years is going to only be because Bush angered them and brought them here by invading Iraq.
They're onto this and they are not going to let go of it.
So it's for them, I mean, the way they strategize, it's perfect.
Katrina, Iraq, whatever else they want to blame that's gone wrong in this country on Bush, even if they win the White House in 08 and they don't shape it up real fast and they don't fix the things that they promised to fix, so forth and so on.
And by the way, they will not take us out of Iraq if they win the White House.
That will not happen.
Dirty little secret.
No Democrat wants to believe me when I tell them this.
They're not going to happen, and they're going to blame Bush for that.
Bush was not honest with us about the situation on the ground.
Never mind the fact that every Democrat that matters has been over there on the ground.
So get used to it.
Bush is going to be the fall guy for virtually every problem this country faces, especially if the Democrats win the White House.
This is Lila in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's awfully nice to talk to you.
And I want to thank you for the last election.
Well, not the last election, but the Bush election, because I think without talk radio, Kerry would have won.
So thank you very much.
Well, you're very kind to say that.
Thank you.
You're very perceptive, too.
Well, I hope you think that when I finish what I've called to say, I'm asking you or really imploring you to lose the acronym Rhino because that kind of says fence sitter, and I am a pro-choice, pro-civil union Republican.
And I know, I know, but listen, I'm a Republican because Republicans have always said the individual matters and individual power matters.
And you can be an individual within the party.
And when I hear rhino, there's no fence sitter in me, Rush, or a lot of my moderate Republican friends.
We basically have been hammered over these last few years.
People saying, How can you be one of them?
How can you be a Republican?
But it is because we don't like the George Soros left-wing way of running a party.
In other words, if you don't agree totally, get out.
I think Republicans have always been defined by being free to be you and me and really believing in this country and loving our president and believing in the flag and supporting the military.
So I'm a Republican.
Wait a minute.
Wait, As a moderate, how can you support all those things?
Moderates do.
Now, Rush, now listen, I'm a moderate.
What is that?
On one end, on a moderate, one end is defined.
I'm a liberal person on social issues.
I'm a conservative on military and fiscal issues.
So it's an average.
I'm not an average person, but it's an average.
I understand.
I was just asking you to define moderate, and you did it.
Well, thank you.
Because I wouldn't be in any other party.
And I'm afraid that some very nice people will get shoved out feeling that they do feel that they are.
First place about the rhino term.
I don't use it that much.
I mean, there are a lot of people out there that use it constantly.
I know.
I don't use it very much.
And because you're such a leader, I think you can kind of disparage it.
I hope you do.
Look, I've got a problem with moderates, as you well know.
I know.
They sabotage this party going forward and becoming dominant and strengthening and doing the right things for the country.
They sabotage it.
I don't know.
I don't know how that happens because to me, we have enough numbers in moderates and conservatives to win.
When one of the groups steps out, the independents and Democrats take over.
What's happening out there, Lila, in the Republican Party, even now, and this immigration bill is highlighting it.
The moderates, who are the minority in this party, are trying to drive the conservatives out of it or to diminish their power and influence in it.
The war on conservatism in this country is not just emanating from the left.
It's emanating from the right because moderates have liberal aspects to their existence, as you just explained.
And I think the idea that we can lose, as far as I'm concerned, in the party, is a them or us attitude.
Conservatives need to lose it.
Moderates need to lose it.
It is all together believing, lose the smaller issues, and they are smaller issues to be determined by a Supreme Court.
What about civil unions?
What about pro-choice?
It's the constructivist judges that will determine that if we're smart enough to do that.
See, but the judges ought not be deciding any of it.
Well, those are questions that need to be decided.
Those are questions that need to be decided by the people in a democratic fashion.
See, you're relying on the judges to be the final authority on controversial, uncomfortable political issues.
And that's not what judges are supposed to do.
Anyway, I hear you.
I hear where you're coming from.
And it illustrates one of the problems that exist today.
I got to run because I'm out of time, though.
Enjoyed talking to you.
Look, folks, there's one fundamental reason to vote Republican now.
It's this.
It's 2007, and the Democrats are debating whether there is a war on terror.
Now, what more do you need?
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection