All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:26
June 25, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it does.
I mean, it figures that something here would be broken and not fixed when I get back.
I got some audio sources bleeding here in the main program channel, folks, but the audio volume of the main program channel is covering the bleed, so it's not a problem.
Greetings.
And great to be back with you after a week's hiatus on several different golf courses in the great Northeast.
I am Rush Limbaugh, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, America's anchorman, real anchorman, all of that.
You know the drill.
Great to be back.
Telephone number here, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.com.
Really, there's not too much to say about last week.
Just play golf.
I mean, that's it.
What do you want to know?
What else is there to know besides that?
I hung out with some friends, nobodies that you have never heard of.
Well, okay, the courses went to Martha's Vineyard.
A good friend of mine, Owen Larkin, owns the course.
We played Standwich in Greenwich, Connecticut, went up to Vermont and played a great old course called Equanic.
Yeah, went to Vermont.
I'd never set foot in Vermont.
I'll tell you what, for the trip into Martha's Vineyard and the trip into Vermont, we had to arm up EIB1.
We put some chaff on there in case the liberals saw the tail logo and open fire on it.
In fact, we're on the golf course at Martha's Vineyard with two military jets are flying over.
And Owen Larkin was like, oh, they have found you.
Those planes have probably been dispatched by Senator Kennedy.
He may be in one.
Nope, wouldn't fit.
Where else do we go?
See, Country Club of Fairfield played that a couple times.
That's Fairfield, Connecticut.
But this time, there were no dinners with Connecticut people complaining and whining about the New York Times.
So that was cool.
Let's see, where else do we go?
Well, we finished on Saturday at Marion outside Philadelphia and then Pine Valley across the Walt Whitman Bridge from Philadelphia.
Those two of the finest courses in the country.
And Marion's going to host the U.S. Open, I think, in 2013.
It was a great time.
But that was it.
I mean, there was, well, I did.
I flew down to Naples on Wednesday.
I had to give a speech to the Missouri Automobile Dealer Association.
So we played the course in Greenwich, Connecticut, Sandwich, and finished there about 2.15, had to hustle home to do the shower, shave, shine routine, hopped a plane down to Naples, gave the speech and got back.
And the next day, where do we go?
I don't know.
The days all run together, but it was just golf.
Played well some days, not so well others, but it was a lot of fun.
Look at this.
Study says, and by the way, folks, it's three hours now.
Just stay cool.
We're going to get to the Trent Lott stuff.
We're going to get the Fairness Doctrine stuff.
I mean, I go away for a week and a whole left ramps up trying to get rid of me.
It isn't going to happen, but they're all flirting with it and talking about it.
We'll get to that.
Immigration, of course.
The early thinking is, and I got to tell you this, just have to be honest, the early thinking is that the Senate bill is going to pass this week, that they're going to achieve cloture.
They're going to shut off debate, which is not a guarantee it passes, but it's very likely.
What's happening is that the White House, you know, it's really interesting in Missouri, too.
Kit Bond will not say how he's going to vote on this.
Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, says that she's probably going to vote against it.
What the White House is doing here is the White House Lott and Lindsey Gramnesty are trying to convince Republicans to vote for cloture in exchange for letting them have their own amendments.
Lott wants an amendment in there.
For example, it would eliminate green cards.
In his mind, it would eliminate amnesty.
And he says, if they'll let me have that, then I'll vote for it.
So the White House is trying to tell these guys, okay, we'll give you your amendments.
Most of the events will be killed, and the bill could then likely pass.
So we'll just have to wait and see.
It's got to go to the House if this all happens.
A fight is still new, folks.
It's still young, and there's plenty of time to deal with this.
We'll get to all the details as the program unfolds here.
But look at this headline: study says eldest children have higher IQs.
That means the firstborn.
Well, that's me.
I am a firstborn.
Brian, are you a firstborn?
Nope.
Knew it.
Dawn, you are firstborn.
Oh, that's surprising, but that's just kidding.
What about you, Snerdly?
You're not the firstborn.
I may make this a requirement when I hire new staff members.
Because listen to this.
Here's something.
This is what really caught my attention the story.
Firstborns have won more Nobel Prizes in science than younger siblings.
That gives me a leg up over Al Gore because he's not the eldest in his family.
He had an older sister.
So, you know, feeling renewed optimism on the whole Nobel Peace Prize thing.
The Supreme Court today, with a very, very smart decision, 5-4 decision, Anthony Kennedy, by the way, on the majority side this time, they're calling him a conservative now, which basically gets rid of the provision in the McCain-Feingold bill that prevents issue ads 30 days before primary and 60 days before a general election.
And what was in McCain-Feingold was so odious.
All you had to do was mention an incumbent's name, and you couldn't run the ad, even if you weren't advocating.
The bill assumed that you were advocating for or yet you couldn't do it.
It was, you know, McCain-Feingold, the real way to look at that was that it's just the incumbent protection act of whenever it's passed.
You remember the little brouhaha and the contra-tempts that erupted the week before I left down in South Florida, the Broward County Commissioners, led by Stacey Ritter, who, by the way, still has not sounds angry as she can be, even though I acknowledge that she's a babe.
At least from the neck up.
That's all I've seen.
But anyway, as you know, the vote finally passed and they reluctantly agreed to stay on our Blowtorch affiliate down in Miami, WIOD, for Hurricane News.
And I try to tell these idiots in this commission: if you really want to deal with me, just announce press conference every day and say that, you know, do three-hour press conference on, uh-oh, it's going to be really hot today, sun warning South Florida, and then announce what's your preparedness features.
Well, lo and behold, from the San Jose Mercury News 10 days ago, scientists to warn public of danger on hot days, San Jose officials have partnered with the National Weather Service to better understand exactly how hot, humid, and sunny it needs to be in the South Bay for lives to be at risk.
Unbelievable.
When they launch a heat health watch warning system later this month, officials hope to be able to alert the public whenever a potentially lethal heat wave is headed toward the South Bay.
During such an event, emergency services coordinators would open up local cooling centers, civic buildings with air conditioners for anyone needing to cool down.
The warning system will use an algorithm that looks at several factors such as air temperature, humidity, and cloud cover to determine if an alert is needed.
Meantime, we can't factor the sun in to our calculations of man-made global warming.
Scientists to warn public of danger on hot days.
Do you realize we're just a bunch of children in these people's views?
You know, I've got a column here in the stack, and I can't remember right now who wrote it, but I'll find out because the guy deserves credit.
You know, the Brett girls running around out there talking about his two Americas.
And this guy says there are two Americas.
There's the Politicians America, and then there's the people who work in America.
And the Politicians America is an America of legislation, regulation, limits, nanny state behavior, entitlements, welfare state, which destroys that segment of America.
And there are details on how that has happened coming up on the big program today.
And then there's the real America where things are fine and growing.
And thankfully, the real America is still the one propelling the whole country.
But the politicians America is one in which they have the power and the control.
And they're, of course, always attempting to acquire more of it.
Let me take a quick timeout.
We'll come back.
And I want to deal with this first and get it out of the way.
This Feinstein yesterday on Fox News Sunday, looking into the fairness doctrine, Trent Lott, talk radio running America.
We have to deal with that problem.
He was also asked about this yesterday on television.
So we'll get some audio soundbites of that coming up.
And we'll get to your phone calls as well.
Here again, the number: 800-282-2882.
Sit tight, and we will be right back.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
There never are any mistakes.
That's because my accuracy rating now documented to be almost always right 98.7% of the time.
A little news here about an upgrade we've made at rushlimbaugh.com, our stellar website.
Coco and the gang at the website spent the week last week while I was absent.
Oh, email.
Did you see any global warming damage on the golf courses?
Let me tell you something, folks.
It was cold.
It was 55 degrees in rain up in Vermont when we played on Wednesday or Thursday, whatever, Thursday it was.
At night in Connecticut, it got down to the 50s with it was freezing.
Summertime has not yet arrived.
Maybe it will later this week, but it had not arrived.
It was Martha's Vineyard actually was the warmest place we were in the most humid.
I mean, it was even, it was great in Philadelphia yesterday when the, like, well, Saturday, Sunday, low 70s, or high 70s, low 80s.
But I mean, there was no damage in global warming because there wasn't, there hadn't been any warming up there yet.
We haven't experienced it, which reminds me, have you seen on Drudge this story, Where Are All the Hurricanes?
Well, here we are, June 25th.
Where are all the hurricanes?
The very fact they're doing a story entitled, Where Are All the Hurricanes So Early in the Season shows that hurricane season is nothing but a bunch of overhyped weather anymore.
There never are a lot of storms in June, even though we say hurricane season begins June 1st.
God didn't say it.
We say it.
But it's just absurd.
And it's like this news out of San Jose.
Got to warn the population when you might die from a hot, humid day, as if people don't have the brains to understand it.
All right, Trent Lott.
He made this comment actually before last week, but only yesterday did he show up on Fox News Sunday to discuss this.
What he said was, talk radio is running America.
We have to deal with that problem.
It's about the immigration bill and how the people on talk radio got the immigration bill killed.
And Lott thinks it's a problem.
So he shows up on television yesterday with Chris Wallace and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
And one of the questions that Wallace asked Trent Lott was this, let's start with a controversy over talk radio because Senator Lott, you started up quite a hornet's nest this week when you said talk radio is running America.
We have to deal with that problem.
Here was the reaction from a conservative talk show host.
Talk radio is the American voter.
That's what bothers Trent Lott.
Senator, your response.
One of the mistakes that we have made many times on legislation is it's introduced, it comes out of committee, we bring it to the floor.
We never bother to explain what we're trying to do and what is in it.
I think that was the mistake that was made with immigration.
Talk radio defined it without us explaining that there were reasons for it and that good things that were in it.
So the onus is not on them.
It's on us to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do.
Trying to slither out of the world.
Look, I've been befended by talk radio many times, and I support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left, or the middle, forever.
I don't think this fairness doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair.
So, you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory.
What a slither job that was.
He slithered out of that.
Well, I can't describe how things in my life have slithered out of my control, and keep it family-oriented.
But I'm telling you, this is just no one to be held account to this.
Oh, that's not what I meant.
So the next question, Senator, I'm not going to let you off the hook quite that easily.
You said this also last week.
I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people, don't even know what's in the bill.
Now, I talked to some of the talk radio people, and they say you make it sound like they're leading around their listeners like a bunch of sheep.
They say, look, they know what's in the bill.
The listeners know what's in the bill, and they don't like it.
As a matter of fact, I do talk radio in my own state in particular, but others, and I'm sure Diane does too.
I was doing one interview, and the talk radio host said to his credit, what are you trying to do here?
And I explained that we were trying to improve a bad situation.
And that's a summation of it.
And then he said, well, tell me four things in this bill that you think is significantly better than the current law.
So I took them off.
He said, that's in there?
I said, yeah.
See, that's the point.
It's not that they're maliciously trying to distort it.
And this is a complicated bill with a lot of moving parts.
Some of it I don't like.
You know, I'm not committed to voting for the final product.
The wheels may come off, but I'm committed to trying.
That's what the United States Senate should be trying to do.
Well, Senator Lott, ladies and gentlemen, has asked to say something to those of you in this audience as a result of this controversy.
You know what I thought about doing today?
And I'd not tell you.
I ought to just do it one day.
No, I'll tell you.
I actually thought about showing up here today with a gag in my mouth and still talking to you to speak as though I am being gagged, sort of like I used to put the condom on the microphone to illustrate safe talk or the absurdity of safe sex.
And to put the gag in my mouth, say, hi, folks, this is Rush Limbaugh, the man who is running America.
And by the way, when they say talk radio, they mean Rush Limbaugh.
One of the, coming back from Vermont on, I guess it was Thursday afternoon after we played up there, at Fox News on the airplane, and I'm watching this video of me.
They're playing videotape of me in the studio doing the program and talking to somebody about this think progress report or the Center for American Project, the John Podesta Group, that thinks that there's a big problem.
Talk radio needs to be handled legislatively.
And one of the gentlemen on the airplane, one of the guests said, why are you in this?
I said, because I am talk radio.
And he's a Connecticut guy, not sure what this was all about, reads the New York Times.
And so I'm watching this, and it is kind of surreal.
So I thought about showing up here with a gag in my face and in my mouth as the man who runs America.
But let me say this.
As the man who runs America, and Trent Lott, I don't think successfully slithered out of that comment.
If I'm running America, here are my decisions today.
And I'm going to have more decisions for America tomorrow and maybe even some the day after that.
I have decided today, as the man who runs America, to move Trent Lott from the Senate back to the House.
I have decided that tax cuts are no longer temporary.
They are permanent.
I have decided that September will be American Excellence Month.
I have decided that energy independence will be a reality and not a slogan.
Therefore, I am authorizing Anwar on a fast track and we're going to build 10 new nuclear plants starting tomorrow.
Number five, I pronounce Speaker Nancy Pelosi a failed leader of the House.
If I'm running America, all of these things and much more will be happening within days, within weeks.
The whole comment is just illustrates a bunch of things.
It illustrates their anger.
They want to ram this immigration bill down everybody's throat without anybody seeing what's in it.
That's what sort of entertains me, amuses me.
They complain that we don't know what's in it, and we do know what's in it.
It's been analyzed upside down, inside out, left, right, top to bottom.
We do know what's in it.
That's the problem.
We are responding to this on substance.
They're the ones that put this together in a dark room with no committee hearings, none of the usual procedure by which legislation becomes law was followed with this.
It was all done under the cover of darkness, and they wanted to ram this through with nobody knowing what was in it.
And precisely because we do know what's in it and what the problems with it are, the substance, the opposition is on our side in this, and that's what bothers powerful elites.
Talent on loan from God.
And we're back here in the Satellal Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I, of course, in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair.
Let's move on to the comments made by Senator Feinstein yesterday on Fox News Sunday.
She appeared with Trent Lott.
And here's the question that Chris Wallace asked.
He said, let me bring in Senator Feinstein.
Oklahoma Senator Inhoff says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio saying that there should be a legislative fix.
Both of them deny it ever happened.
But let me ask you about yourself, Senator.
You have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?
Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided.
It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole.
It's explosive.
It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.
This is a very complicated bill.
It's seven titles.
Most people don't know what's in this bill.
Therefore, just to- Stop the tape a second.
Stop the tape.
We do know what's in this bill.
But if you believe that people don't know what's in it, tell us.
Go debate somebody about the details and the substance of this bill that we can all watch so that we can all learn rather than trying to ram this all down everybody's throat.
I'm getting tired of hearing we don't know what's in the bill.
And I'm really getting tired about this.
This is nothing, you talk about hyperbole.
This is nothing more than mindless twaddle.
It is cliché after cliché after cliché.
What is happening here, folks, this continues to reverberate from the loss of the media monopoly that Democrats and liberals in this country had all the way up till 1988.
And they can't deal with the competition.
They can't deal with alternative points of view.
To them, there are no alternative points of view that are legitimate.
And so they should not even be given an opportunity to be expressed.
And in order to convey that oppression to people, they say, well, it just creates extremists who are uninformed on things.
It's explosive, as though what happens in the Senate and the House chamber and everywhere else is not.
But I mean, this is the government overturning or trying to do away with speech that they don't like.
This is the elected official, the political class, particularly the left-wingers, the Democrats, trying to eliminate things they don't want to hear, largely about their views or themselves.
So cut to the next bite.
Go to number 11.
Now, the question that he asked her point blank was: so would you revive the fairness doctrine?
I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side.
And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
But the argument would be it's the marketplace.
And if liberals want to put on their dawn talk radio, they can put it on.
At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.
Well, apparently, there have been problems.
It is growing.
But I do believe in fairness.
I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people.
I don't think she has the slightest clue what she's talking about.
When the fairness doctrine existed, there was no controversial commentary by nobody said anything.
Radio stations will not put up with constant complaints from one side or the other demanding an opportunity to respond to what just happened.
I'll guarantee what's going to happen.
If this thing ever happened, and it won't, by the way, because the industry is too profitable.
And the American people are not going to put up with it either.
But if it ever did happen, the way it works is this.
I go on the radio and I talk about Democrats, say something about liberals.
Moveon.org calls every one of my 600 radio stations, says, we demand an opportunity to go on and answer Limbaugh.
And they might do it a day or two, but then every week, if they get constant complaints, they're finally going to say, we can't do business this way.
And we don't want the hassle.
And that's the express purpose of this.
That's how this will be shut down, to get station ownership and management to do it simply because they won't put up with the hassle of supposed equal time.
Do not confuse the fairness doctrine with the equal time rule.
I know they are confusing and some people think they're the same, but they're not.
But I mean, this is for somebody like me who talks for a living to have powerful government officials say there's not balance in what I do.
I mean, the liberals have thrown whoever they think are the best at me and at all of us on the right, and they have not made inroads and they are not growing.
They can't accomplish anything.
Now we've got this Center for American Progress, and you heard about this last week.
That's John Podesta's group.
He was Bill Clinton's chief of staff.
He's a Hillary acolyte, as all these think tank people on the left are.
They're part of Clinton Inc. and put up this thing, well, it's really unfair.
We need legislation to fix this.
And of course, they didn't tell you that One of the members of the think tank, one of the study authors, I think, actually was a former investor in some liberal talk radio shows, some guy named Woodhull.
They leave all of that out.
That was not reported.
They also don't factor in the success of NPR, which has a huge audience, is very liberal.
This is not about fairness at all, as you all know.
It's about silencing criticism and competition that they don't want to have to deal with.
They don't want to go into the arena of ideas, folks.
They don't want to have debates with us about these issues because they know they can't win.
And they've demonstrated that by putting the people they think are the very best they have to offer out there, both locally and nationally, and it bombs bankruptcy left and right.
It just doesn't work.
I mean, the first guy they threw at, you remember Jim Hightower?
Jim Hightower, former state official in Texas, I don't know what he was.
Hightower, he was, and this is like 1989, this afternoon a year or two, Jim Hightower was their savior.
That bombed up.
Then they did Gary Hart, and they did Mario Cuomo.
I forget all the names.
And each one of these people got massive amounts of publicity.
New York Times puff piece profiles, of course, which I've never had.
Not that I want one, don't misunderstand.
But what is it that permits a United States senator like Dianne Feinstein to decide what is correct reporting?
Does that not scare you?
I mean, as somebody who speaks for a living, it scares me.
Who is she to define correctness?
Who is she to sit in judgment and to proclaim that there's more correct reporting?
In the meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to shut me down and all of my brethren.
They're trying to also close down Clum Gitbo and bring all of these terrorists that are prisoners into this country for the purposes of giving them constitutional rights.
They want to deny my First Amendment right to me while bringing in terrorist suspects, prisoners of war, if you will, and grant them access to the U.S. legal system as though they're citizens.
And then I'm sure you saw the story last week, a list of journalists taking sides.
MSNBC had a story about all the journalists out there that contribute to Democrats.
But who was shocked by this?
Is there anybody in America who was shocked to learn that the supposed unbiased reporters give to the Democrats more than the GOP by nine to one?
What's remarkable to me is that given the imbalance, the left still complains about talk radio, Fox News, any other outlet that doesn't pretty consistently toe the liberal line.
You know, the idea that there's no bias on the left and that the mainstream drive-by media is just what is and that's natural and normal is something that they've been trying to maintain for the longest time.
But we all know that's a lie.
We all know what the drive-by media is.
We all know they're allied with the Democrat Party and we all know that they're frustrated too.
Their circulation and newspaper circulation is down.
Their advertising revenue is down.
They're being harmed.
Their monopoly is over.
And these are Stalinist type people.
These are people who are openly saying we are going to use the power of the federal.
This guy, Maurice Henshe in New York, he's working on his version of fairness doctrine in the House.
Dianne Feinstein says she's looking at it in the Senate.
There's an argument among some people that actually, the courts declared it unconstitutional back in 1987.
Some people on the left are saying, no, they didn't.
All we need to do is reinstate it.
All we need is win the White House.
We just reinstate it.
That probably will fail, but I mean, they're dead serious thinking about this, trying to do it.
High government officials trying to stifle speech.
And it's not the first time McCain Feingold broke the mold on that.
Grab a quick phone call here.
This is Wes in Brigham City, Utah.
Hi, Wes.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hey, Rush.
How you doing, Bob?
I'm getting a little hot in here, frankly.
I don't know if the air conditioning is breaking down or not, but getting a little warm.
But other than that, no complaints.
You played good golf, hitting the ball good?
Good golf.
Say that again.
I'm just wondering if you're playing good golf, hitting the ball good.
Oh, for the most part.
Yeah, I played nine days in a row, and you'll lose it after the fourth or fifth day.
But yeah, I'm happy with the way I was hitting the ball.
That's good.
Hey, I understand your animosity and everybody else's animosity towards this bill, this immigration bill, and I understand the distrust of government.
I'm worried, very worried.
What are we going to do if there's a Democrat in the White House and they still control Congress?
Then what are we going to have?
This is not a perfect bill, but it's better than anything we're going to get.
And I've listened to Senator Kyle.
I've listened to Senator Chamliss, and by no means are they rhinos.
And I think their voting record, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, there are some positive things in this bill, and I'm worried.
See, here's the problem.
This is actually a good question.
I'm glad you're asking me this question.
You have fallen into the trap of believing that the only way to fix a problem created by bad legislation is more bad legislation, something new.
We have a problem because of previous legislation creating the circumstances that exist today.
This does not fix it.
We tried in 1986 to fix it with amnesty, and it didn't work.
And now we're trying to do it again with the same thing.
The reasons that they want this bill have nothing to do with immigration.
It has nothing to do with citizenship, has nothing to do with any.
This is not an immigration bill.
This is two things.
This is the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007 and the Democrat New Recruitment of Voters Act of 2007.
That's what this is.
But you've fallen into the trap of thinking that the only way progress can happen in this country is if the government passes a bill.
And we know we're going to get a bill.
And so rather than try to do it right, let's take the lesser of two evils.
Because if the Democrats get in and they control the White House and Congress 2008, why, who knows how bad it's going to be.
If they get in, they can change it and make it even worse.
Just because this bill's passed now doesn't mean they can't revive it and make it even worse two years from now.
We have a piece of legislation.
It's called the Simpson-Missoula Act.
And if it were enforced, if the current laws were just enforced, we wouldn't have the problem.
But this word enforcement seems to escape everybody at the federal level, be it in the new piece of legislation or the current laws that we have.
So just because you got to get rid of this notion that progress and the right thing only results when mother government, big daddy government, whatever, passes a bill.
The experience that most of us have is that just the opposite occurs back after this.
You know, I started to tell you people about an upgrade we made last week to rushlimbaugh.com, and I got sidetracked by a couple other things.
Let me explain what we did last week while I was out.
We have really, really, really upgraded the essential stack of stuff, which was already an amazing collection, a library, if you will, of conservatism and history.
But what we've done now, we've updated each category, and we've added some new categories in recent issues, like the whole controversy over Barack the Magic Negro, the little feud with Arnold Schwarzenegger over conservatism that I had, all the recent Rush to Excellence speeches are there.
We also changed the layout so that it mimics one of our home pages.
And we put in three columns, one for issues like immigration, global warming, one for specific controversies or people like Scooter Libby, Michael J. Fox, Sandy Burglar.
And then there's a rush stuff column, public appearances, the Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
You click on each category and you're brought to a page with links to dozens of articles on each topic.
Some sections now have more than 100 pages, a whole section, for example, on the fairness doctrine, as it has been discussed on this program since we began.
The new layout lets us have hotter topics up on the list when appropriate.
For example, today, stuff on the fairness doctrine is at the top.
All in all, get this.
We have around 2,500 pages of some of the best stuff that has happened on this program.
That is astounding.
That alone is worth the subscription price.
Even without the Ditto Cam and even without audio streaming of the program, even without the daily transcription review of our excursion into broadcast excellence, it really is a library of conservative thought.
And I just wanted to pass it on to you.
We were working hard last week while I wasn't to upgrade rushlimbaugh.com.
Just all you have to do is go to the homepage, rushlimbaugh.com, click the essential stack link tab that's at the top of the site.
All right, who's next?
Murray in Jacksonville, Florida.
I'm glad you waited, Murray.
Hello.
Megan Diddos from Jacksonville.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I saw that interview last night with Chris Wallace, and I got home very late and tuned in.
And I was absolutely amazed when they're trying to basically say that we do not understand, and the American public does not understand, and that talk radio is making everything one-sided.
The problem is that they don't get it.
Chris Wallace asked them about their low approval rating, and the only thing that they could say is that, well, Trent Lott basically said that, well, we're not explaining ourselves very well.
That's really what the problem is.
Yeah, but they're not.
And you notice that they're not trying to.
Where are they?
They're out there saying, we don't know what's in the bill.
Where are they out there telling us what's in the bill?
All they're doing is insulting us.
All they're doing is saying, we don't know what's in it.
Then you get Dianne Feinstein saying, well, there just isn't fairness.
What the hell is fairness?
You can't define fairness.
The whole concept of fairness is elusive, and it certainly cannot be a policy objective.
Because who gets to decide it?
And it's not a policy objective.
It's all about the parties and party power.
It's totally ridiculous.
And the American public is fed up.
And that's why they have such a low approval rating.
They're sitting there deluding themselves that they think that we don't understand.
We understand.
They're the ones that don't get it.
You talk about we want fairness in the media.
I got to tell you something.
One of the things that has absolutely chapped me over several months ago, and it's still never been brought up and never will be, is when the Chinese, the Chinese, it was on for one day, the Chinese had took one of their satellites out.
Okay.
Where did they get that missile technology?
Where did they get the – we were talking about connecting the dots.
Yeah, we know where they got it.
And if they don't get it from us, they're going to end up getting it from Dubai, which just bought the QE2 and is going to turn it into a floating hotel.
Oh, yeah.
Dubai just bought the QE2.
Anyway, look, as I said last week or the week before last, this is a great thing that's happening.
Look for the good in everything.
You people are seeing on display every day the dangers of big, unresponsive government.
These senators keep telling us we don't know what's in a bill.
We ought to have a new bill called the No Senator Left Behind Act.
Find out what the hell they know about what's in the bill.
▲
Export Selection