All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
June 26, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, it's interesting.
They may actually have this cloture vote on the immigration bill while this program is taking place.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It is the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by Leaps and Bounds Rush Limbaugh program, running America, ladies and gentlemen, as uh many things.
Well-known radio raccoon tour, general all-round good guy, harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Uh and of course, the most listened to radio host in the country.
Great to have you with us.
The uh telephone number if you want to be uh on the program today, 800-282-288-2, and the email address, rush at eIBNet.com.
That address, by the way, was down last night.
We had a power supply in our server farm goes south on us, and we put a new power supply in there, and that went south on it.
Well, that's wrong thing.
That upsets people in South Carolina and Alabama, and I don't mean that.
It just dip it bombed out on us.
So we uh uh trying to send emails last night and were bouncing back to you.
We didn't change the address.
We uh we got a backup uh power supply, well, backup server that's uh handling the loan.
We got about 10,000 a day on this in that account.
Uh well, in a 12-hour period.
It's actually more than that in 24 hours.
Anyway, cloture vote coming up uh on the immigration bill.
This is the uh the bill where they they need to get sixty votes to effectively shut off debate on the process, and it's not always guaranteed, but if they get the sixty votes, it is an indication that the bill is going to pass.
Uh and I you know a lot of people uh do not understand the processes of the Senate under normal circumstances.
The uh this bill has not gone through the Senate's normal procedures at all.
There have been no debates, no committee hearings, no experts to come in and uh offer their expert opinions on various aspects of the bill because it's been it was negotiated in secret, and then they tried to, you know, ram it down everybody's throat, which they're really still trying to do.
Now the bill failed, didn't get sixty votes.
In fact, it didn't get anywhere near fifty votes last time it was tried.
Uh, and for all intents and purposes, it was dead, but I warned you.
I told you that they would revive it.
And they have.
And they're uh they're offering all kinds of crazy amendments now.
They're offering promises to uh Republican senators.
Okay, look, go ahead and vote for this, and we'll let you add an amendment to this thing.
One of the things that uh uh has has been added here is uh uh a proposal that would force illegals to return to their home countries to apply for legal status.
This is the Z visa.
Uh that they would have to go back.
Uh and and this this amendment, by the way, has been moved by Senator Lindsay Gramnesty.
And it uh it will it will tell the illegals that you have to go back, you have to touch back, get your Z visa instead of presto getting your Z visa after 24 hours of enduring a horrendous background check.
Uh exhaustively and thoroughly performed by your competent United States government.
Uh so this this Washington Post story on this actually went out and polled the illegals who are hiding in the shadows.
Well, and they pulled them, and they said 37% won't go for it.
I am I reading this right, is that what happened?
Um, uh, let's see, what is it?
Last week in the first ever poll of illegal immigrants who are hiding in the shadows.
83% of the 1600 undocumented Latinos surveyed.
Told the polling firm Ben Dixon and Associates that they would pay the thousands of dollars in fines and fees.
Uh but if they also had a return to their home countries, participation rates would drop to sixty-three percent.
Uh, according to another poll commissioned by New America Media, a consortium of ethnic uh news media.
So this is the this is the kind of thing that, and by the way, the uh not only Lindsey Gramnesty, but the John Kyle and Mel Martinez of Florida, who's out there posing with Senator Kennedy all over the place.
I don't understand this these these Republicans.
For example, there are there are seven Republicans who could go either way, and they these seven, these seven Republican senators could stop this thing in its tracks.
I'll give you the names.
Kit Bond of Missouri, uh Richard Burr, North Carolina, John Enson of Nevada, uh, more about him in just a second.
Judd Gregg, uh, New Hampshire, and Orin Hatch of Utah, and Jim Webb.
You have to throw Webb in there because Webb campaigned against Amnesty, uh, running against George Allen, and he voted against cloture the last time.
So he needs to be consistent here.
Not that he will be.
Uh he could turn around and start playing a Washington game and uh want to become an insider here, but uh it'd be it'd be totally contradictory, and that of course would not be a surprise.
Now, what's interesting, uh did John Ensign was a member of the Republican freshman class in the House in uh 1994.
He's now a senator from Nevada, and I've met him a couple times.
He's an extremely great guy.
I've I've enjoyed his company when I've been with him.
But John Ensign is running the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
John Ensign's job is to get Republicans elected and re-elected to the United States Senate in the 08 elections.
And uh that that means he's in charge of fundraising, essentially.
He's out there in charge of fundraising for Senate Republican candidates.
So he's got to be, I would think, extremely sensitive and aware of what uh the base and those people who will contribute to Republican senators uh will do.
So I I this is this is gonna be interesting to see how uh how he uh votes on this.
So you've got Bond, you got Burr, and I know that Burr's office, well, I've got I'm sure that all of these people's offices have been melting down in all forms of media, be it facts, be it email, be it be it uh telephone.
Now, the way this this cloture stuff works, just to go through the uh procedure for you.
Um if if cloture passes, if they get sixty votes, see the sixty votes is his Senate rule says filibuster.
Uh anybody can some filibustering the bill.
They don't have to actually go through the filibuster to say we're filibustering this.
And to stop the debate, to stop the filibuster.
They need sixty votes.
It's just a Senate rule.
And it hasn't always been this way in the Senate.
Happened some time ago, but it hasn't always been this way.
You used to have to really do a filibuster if you were going to do a filibuster.
Now you don't.
You just signal that you're filibustering this and that everything comes to screeching halt.
So if they get their 60 votes today, after that, no more than 30 hours of debate may or may occur.
No senator can speak for more than an hour, and no amendments can be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the uh to the debate.
And this stuff has already been altered because, like today on the floor of the Senate, Jeff Sessions only got four to five minutes.
Uh and he's one of the one of the uh one of the opponents.
So, as I say, if they get their 60 votes on this, uh it is conventional wisdom that the bill will end up passing.
But but if the Senate doesn't get the votes today, it's dead.
It's dead.
Muerto.
Well, it's I mean, d to try to bring this back a third time, I mean, they're gonna have to make some significant changes in it to bring it back a third time.
Uh it's it's we're we're we're told that uh, of course, we're gonna take, as I mentioned yesterday, this first step is we're gonna get the border seal.
Uh first step, not actually do it, just say that that's the first thing we're gonna do, as I as I went through yesterday.
Something interesting happened in the uh in the House.
The GOP House Caucus uh was meeting this morning around 10 o'clock, and I th got some whispers here that the uh the Republican House caucus uh is going to vote today on whether to release a one-sentence statement expressing opposition to the Senate immigration bill in its current form.
Now, this is important because if this happens, if a sufficient number of House Republicans come out with an official statement saying they oppose the bill, Nancy Pelosi won't bring it to the floor.
You've heard Dinji Harry say, this is the president's bill.
This is a Republican bill.
Pelosi is not going to have this bill pass the House without a significant number of Republicans taking the heat.
Because that's what they want to happen here.
So if the House Republicans do this, the message to their Republican Senate brethren would be don't bother walking to plank, you guys.
Vo and don't vote for a bill that's going to anger your constituents, especially when it doesn't have a chance over here in the House.
So you could have House Republicans trying to do two things.
A stop the bill, and B save their their Senate Republican counterparts, though I don't know how many of them actually care about uh doing that.
Uh running a little late on the vote, which is normal, was uh scheduled to start some of the procedural votes at eleven fifty, about twenty-five minutes ago.
Anyway, let's take a quick time out.
We'll come back and get on with all the rest of the program right after this.
L Rushball, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concern, Maha Rushi, running the country, running America.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the uh program.
The cloture vote has started.
It will keep a uh running tally of how it goes uh as uh as it unfolds.
Uh the th there's a story here out of Albuquerque that just is laughable.
Vehicle barrier built on wrong side of border to be removed is the headline.
Part of a vehicle barrier along the U.S. Mexico border was erected in the wrong country.
Soon will be removed and rebuilt on American soil.
Federal officials confirm Monday.
I mean, this is a Keystone cops.
Yesterday we've we learned that there's a bunch of tunnels from Tijuana over to California, right under border control checkpoints.
And they didn't know the tunnels were there until recently.
Uh U.S. Customs and Border Protection Spokesman Michael Friel told the Associated Press, we respect our international boundary, and we want to be good neighbors.
We want to move quickly to ensure that we place the vehicle barrier where it should be, which is north of the border.
This uh barrier is 17 miles west of Columbus, New Mexico, built in 2000 by the Joint Task Force North out of Fort Bliss, Texas.
It encroaches into Mexican territory between one and six feet south of the border along a one and a half mile stretch.
Well, no wonder they can't protect the border.
They don't even know where the border is.
Build a damn barrier on the wrong side of the border?
Today on Joe Scarborough Show, Joe Scarborough is doing the early morning show on PMS NBC.
His guest was Pat Buchanan.
We have two sound bites.
And this issue of a guy like Rush Limbaugh, who has an extraordinary influence with the grassroots, coming out and saying, you know what, we're we're just we're not gonna support this, Mr. President.
You're losing us.
I think, and again, a lot of people like to go, you know, they say all this garbage about Rush Limbaugh.
Russland's one of the most powerful forces still in American politics.
And when Rush Limbaugh tells his 20 million listeners a week, hey, this is a bad deal.
Mr. President, I stayed with you all along, but you start calling me a bigot because I oppose this bill, you're losing me.
That has a huge impact.
I think that makes the difference.
And they continue the conversation.
Uh Buchanan tried to get in there, you just didn't hear him.
He he makes it into the conversation of this bite.
It is indeed, Joe.
And look, Limbaugh is enormously important.
He's a pace setter.
He's one of the great great forces of conservatism in the last decade.
And this is why I tramp a lot.
What did he say?
We got to do something about talk radio.
Yeah, isn't that amazing?
I love for Bush on the Iraq issue.
But you're right.
They are all now, because they are in touch with their listeners, and many of them have been attuned to this issue.
And uh, have come to the issue, and so we're being talked about all over the place, uh, ladies, which is par for the course.
New York Times story, labor coalitions divided on immigration bill.
By the way, Dingy Harry begging for votes, begging for Republican votes today before the closure vote started, literally begging, because they you know, the the Democrats, this is their bill.
I mean, they've got the president, but this is a Ted Kennedy bill.
Ted Kennedy is the godfather of every emigration proposal this country has put forth in his 43 years in the Senate, going back to the 60s.
Uh, and uh you know, Bush wants this, and Dingy Harry's out there trying to say this is a president's bill, this is a Republican bill.
Uh uh so he's out there begging these seven Republican senators whose names I gave you earlier, uh, to come on and vote for this because the Democrats don't want this bill pass.
Well, they can't get sixty votes.
Uh in fact, they're even lamenting the fact that Tim Johnson, who had the cerebral hemorrhage, uh, can't vote uh on this.
That's how close it's going to be.
It's um be fascinating to watch.
But again, folks, if this happens, if they get clocher.
Uh and by the way, just to show you, I've I I go I went ahead, I lit the one o'clock victory cigar before the vote started.
So I am confident, but I'm not worried if we lose this.
Because if we lose this, it's going to go to the House and the same thing's going to happen.
This will just be one battle in the war that may be lost, but the war will continue.
And you have to have that attitude about it.
And then you take your, you know, revenge or whatever you want to call it out on people you think did not do the right thing at the uh ballot box the next uh election.
But this New York Times story, labor coalitions divided on immigration overhaul.
Who will who are labor coalitions?
But somebody tell me what political party are labor coalitions a member of.
They are members of the Democrat Party.
So you you'd never see a headline in the New York Times Democrats divided, but that's what this is.
Now that President Bush has rallied Republicans to try again to reshape the emigration laws, supporters of the effort have a new worry.
When the bill returns to the floor, probably next week, opposition from labor unions could doom the bill's prospects by putting pressure on many Democrats to vote against it.
The labor opposition, this bill's extremely important, says Tamar Jacobi, immigration expert at the Manhattan Institute.
For this bill to pass, we probably need eighty percent of the Democrats, if not more, to support it.
And if unions are what pull them off the bill or make their supports off, that's a serious threat to the bill.
Now you might be confused.
What do you mean the vote next week?
This is just a cloture vote.
If they get the cloture vote, if they get sixty votes, then the actual bill will be voted on next week.
And that's what this story is saying.
Hey, there might be a big problem next week when the actual bill comes up because the Democrats are divided here.
The labor unions specifically are divided.
Supporters of the bill say that the AFL CIO, in opposing the legislation, is focused on protecting the gains that it's mostly middle class members have made in pay and benefits over the decades.
Frank Shari, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum Liberal Group supports the bill, said uh the AFL CIO's hostility surprises me.
Uh so the uh hotel unions, the uh service worker and farm uh concerns uh tossing the AFL CIO under the bus here.
So there is there's division on the Democrat side.
And and of course the story reports the division, but it doesn't report that this is division on the Democrat side.
This is the Democrats may have some problems uh getting the votes as they are needed.
Uh but if this uh standard reporting, the headline would say Republicans divided, as the headlines have uh so stated.
Uh where are we gonna go first here, uh Mr. Do you want to start in uh St. Mary's Ohio?
We'll do that.
Laura, you're up first on the EIB network today.
Hello.
Hi, Rush, how are you?
Fine, thank you.
Good.
Thanks for all you do.
Well, you're more than welcome.
I appreciate your saying that.
Um, you know, a few folks in my community are calling this immigration bill, they're renaming it to the 9-11 bill because they believe that if it passes, it's going to be the second attack on America.
And uh a lot of folks in my community were uh integral in getting the pre excuse me, the president elected.
And we knew we disagreed with him on this when we worked so hard to get him elected.
We just wish that he had been as tenacious with Social Security reform or vouchers or making the tax cuts permanent.
I tell you I've been involved with grassroots for many years.
I've never seen such a visceral reaction to any other issue.
It transcends gender, generations, and on the grassroots level, Rush, it transcends party affiliation.
Yeah, we've made that point here.
The last thing that came up that that engendered this kind of public outcry uh was the do by ports deal.
But interestingly, on that, the Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate both were in a race to see who could be the first to kill that bill because of our reaction to it.
Well, I was actually in favor of it, but the majority of American people were opposed to it, and they were totally responsive there, and they were having mad dashes to the microphones to claim credit.
Both parties had people doing it to shut down that proposal.
Uh now they're not listening.
They're there the the what the all this outcry and all this grassroots uh opposition that you described is uh summer, it's it it it's it's it's it's it's having its effect.
I mean I'm not saying it's it's not been uh helpful because it has uh but there are still a group of people in the United States Senate who don't care, and they're gonna ram it if they can down our throats, come hell or high water.
Well, Rush, I'll tell you, with 80 percent of the American people against this bill, it really makes no sense uh that they do not realize that you know if they don't represent the American people next year is gonna make last year look like a walk in the park.
Uh you're talking about the Republicans.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well uh that's what's confusing about this.
I I uh you would think that they would know it, and you would think that they uh would would uh at least be trying to massage this, you know, rather than insulting us.
Well, you don't know what Senate.
You haven't read it.
Well, tell us.
If you know what's in it, tell us.
I still like my idea.
No Senator Left Behind Test.
Find out if they know what the hell's in this.
We will be right back.
Stay really are.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about it.
Hey, Donovan, you need to redo that and add and also running America.
Just gotta keep by the way, I have my list of things later on in the program that I'm gonna make happen since I'm running America.
Welcome back, my friends, talent on loan from God.
I forgot to mention we had a new sponsor today, and working with these people for many, many moons uh trying to work it all out.
Book a java.com.
Book a Java coffee uh and tea, cocoa, great stuff.
Had it uh this morning, in fact.
Uh and they we they just joined us today as a new sponsor, and I forgot to single them out, so I'm doing that now.
Uh and I just I want to point out to you folks, this program.
Look at our sponsors.
We got coffee.
We Allen Brothers, beef.
Uh we got huge cars, Cadillacs, all the things that are supposedly not good for us.
Rule the roost in terms of our sponsors on the EIB network, and we are proud of it, ladies and gentlemen.
Proud of each each and uh every one of them.
I want to also thank Rich Lowry today, who's the editor at National Review.
He has syndicated column today uh on this this whole fairness doctrine, the the uh the the attempt by this uh liberal think tank that's run by John Podesta of uh Clinton's chief of staff in the White House, uh referring to a structural imbalance in talk radio, uh, which we delved into in great detail yesterday.
But uh it's it's rare when somebody gets it and then nails it.
And Rich Lowry has uh has done it in this piece, and I just want to thank him.
Uh here's how it starts.
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk radio pioneer has been called many nasty things before, but never a structural imbalance.
That's the fancy term a liberal think tank uses to characterize his success and address up its proposal for counteracting that success through new government regulation.
The uh report of the Center for American Progress on the structural imbalance of political talk radio marks the latest phase of liberal's grappling with conservative talk radio.
First came the attempts to create a liberal limbaugh, Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al.
It fell flat.
Then an entire left-wing network, Air America was founded and foundered.
So there's only one option left.
If you can't beat them and you won't join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them, which is what's happening.
Uh now what the conclusion Rich draws, and uh we'll we'll link to this at Rushlinbaugh.com, uh, is that the structural imbalance uh is uh talent.
The structural imbalance is talent.
Oh, we're just getting the tally here on the cloture.
Well, they got their 60 votes.
They got 64 votes, 35 noes.
So this bill uh has achieved cloture, which means debate has been stopped, the filibuster is over.
Stennett uh Senate is in recess uh till 2.15 this afternoon.
So the closure vote passed.
The fireworks now begin because this is not the bill was not voted on today, folks.
Now, as I say likely uh to pass since it got sixty-four votes today, but any of these people could change their mind, try to have it both ways.
Uh any is some of these Republicans could change their mind next week when the actual bill is uh is debated.
There's not much debate allowed.
Uh it's very restrictive on how many amendments can be uh can be offered.
But uh they're gonna be they're gonna be celebrating this vote today, but the real vote on the real bill is uh probably going to be uh next week.
So I guess I lit my cigar uh prematurely today.
I was just trying to create uh good karma.
But this is gonna the they're gonna hail this as a as a huge victory.
They're gonna say the amendments that were allowed uh is what uh turned the tide, and the senators are gonna say, well, those amendments they were there because we heard the American people.
The American people didn't like this automatic um switch from uh illegal to legal in 24 hours.
Now these people have to go home.
We all know that's not gonna happen.
When this thing finally happens, if it does, we know they're not gonna go home.
Uh that nobody and it thirty-seven percent say they won't anyway.
Uh what are we gonna do?
The enforcement measures are simply not here, and hell, we're building a border fence on a uh the border uh the vehicle barrier on the wrong side of the border anyway.
Don't even know where the border is half the time.
So it's um be fascinating.
Oh, and here's something else.
I want to warn you people about this.
The uh the drive-by media will now revel in the fact that talk radio ultimately is powerless.
Talk radio failed to defeat this bill.
Talk radio, despite everybody's fears, is really irrelevant because the bill passed never get ready for and when they say that, folks, it's as they will, I want you to understand that they're also saying it about you.
Because talk radio's audience is simply the American voter.
American citizens who are interested, passionate, and they care.
You care about the outcome of events and the future of your country.
People that uh I'm sure we have some people listening that don't vote for the vast majority of the people involved in this.
Why the scares Washington is because you're voters.
And so you you will you will be lumped in with the uh you won't be called irrelevant.
It's just small.
It's uh you're just uh loud and you're very vocal, but you're really not that big.
And this vote proves it.
This vote establishes it.
Now I mentioned all of this just so that you can uh be prepared for it.
Don't take it.
No, you know, d I mean make it make you mad, uh, but uh let it fire you up.
But understand it's just rhetoric, and it is not the case.
We know we've seen the polls, 76, 80 percent of the American people on all sides of whatever lines you want to draw, uh oppose amnesty, which uh which this bill is.
Anyway, I I wanted I wanted to thank Lowry, Rich Lowry from uh National Review because a great piece.
Uh and I want to do something at the same time with this.
You know, it's it's one thing for Rich Lowry to come uh to the aid of your host.
And he nails it in his piece today.
But it's an entirely different thing for Mrs. Clinton to speak out for El Rushbo.
And Mrs. Clinton did speak out for Rush Limbaugh.
Now she doesn't know it, and she didn't know she was doing it at the time.
But let me illustrate for you.
Let's go back this Sunday, Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace talking uh with Senator Feinstein, and he asks her this question.
Would you revive the fairness doctrine?
I'm looking at it as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think um 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 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 uh 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.
That that bite yesterday just blew me away because unfortunately talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
There ought to be an opportunity to present the other.
So there have been numerous opportunities.
They just haven't worked.
And by the way, if you factor national public radio in with all this, there is balance.
But of course, they throw that out.
Um, there have been problems, it's growing.
I don't believe in fairness.
She believes in fairness and she wants to define correctness.
Okay, so there's Diane Feinstein who wants the fairness doctrine.
She wants fairness.
She she she thinks there needs to be some kind of regulation here to limit the ability of conservative talk.
Now let's go back to Mrs. Clinton, April 28th, 2003.
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say we are America that we have a right to debate at disagree by that administration.
Mrs. Clinton was uh trying to redefine patriotism there as disagreeing with the administration.
They were in a big argument here.
But I mean, you put these two bites back to back, and what do you have?
You have two United States senators, one of them wanting to shut down debate, want to end debate, want to have restrictions and regulations.
You got Mrs. Clinton screaming like two ex-wives rolled into one about how we cannot stop debate, we will and you start screaming and so forth.
Now, if our if our senators, uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh are as level-headed as they claim to be, and not as fat headed as they appear to be, what they would see is that we need not less conservative talk radio, but more.
I have, and I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained finger.
Latest flash poll from the Rasmussen reports group.
And this is a poll asking people which party uh is stronger on a number of issues.
National security, Democrats 46, Republican 43, plus three advantage for the Democrats on national security.
On taxes, Democrats 47%, Republicans 42, a plus 5% advantage for the Democrats.
Where is all this unfairness?
Where's all this damage?
Where is all of this slighting of liberalism and Democrat Party philosophy in the media?
If the Democrat Party, the poll of average Americans, is said to be five points better than Republicans on taxes, and 46% of, you know, up 3% on national security abortion.
Uh Democrats 45, Republicans 38.
That's a seven-point spread.
The economy, get this.
Democrats 48%.
Well, look at I'm just going to give you the issues who went to the numbers, because the Democrats hold at least a plus three all the way up to a plus twenty-seven net advantage on health care.
57% of the American people say Democrats would be better doing it.
30% say Republicans, education, 50 to 35, all of these things.
National security, taxes, abortion economy, ethics, and corruption.
Forty-three percent Democrat, 32% Republican.
That's another 11-point advantage that the Democrats have.
So you go through these things.
The war in Iraq, immigration, education, and by the way, on immigration, get this.
The people of this country say that the Democrats are better suited to deal on the immigration issue 47 to 33.
That's a net 14 points advantage in a Rasmussen poll for Democrats.
So the point here is where in the world is all of this unfairness.
If the American people, as discovered by the Rasmussen report polling group, have expressed a preference for Democrats in virtually every one of these issue areas, then what's the problem?
We need more conservative talk radio, not less.
But just look at the polls as I just did.
But uh, and and doesn't the left love to look at polls?
The unfavorable ratings for the economy.
Unfavorable ratings for the economy.
Well, there it's enormous and dead wrong.
And who sells that bill of goods?
It isn't us.
We're out here trying to tell you how great the economy is and how optimistic you ought to be and what the opportunities for affluence and prosperity and achievement are.
And yet, the vast majority of the American people, or a good decent majority, think the economy's in ruins.
Well, who's telling them that?
It ain't us.
Uh how about this?
The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.
How many people in this country think that?
The bottom line is the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes.
Who's telling them that the rich are not?
So just what does Diane Feinstein want?
Does she want more voices to tell you the rich don't pay their fair share, more voices to tell you that the war is lost?
She want more voices to tell you that America's to blame for everything wrong with the world.
I mean, if you want to know how unreasonable and illogical, I mean maybe irrational, this hush rush flap is.
Look no farther than global warming.
Does the left really need somebody to take the other side of the global warming issue?
Let's see.
We got Laurie David, we got Cheryl Crow, we got most of Hollywood.
We got Al Gore's documentary that propaganda documentary being shown mandatory to thousands, if not millions of Hascruel and junior hascral students.
I mean, they uh the that that movie is being taught and seen more than the Gettysburg Address.
And yet, they say that there's an imbalance, a structural imbalance in the media in this country because of conservative talk radio.
We need more of it, folks, not less.
And this is just my way today of illustrating that what these people are all about is just stifling any dissent because they don't want the aggravation of having to fight it.
Just a couple more sound bites and I grab a couple more phone calls here.
Uh yesterday, last night, CNBC's Cudlow and Company, Larry Cudlow was talking to uh one of their frequent contributors, Jared Bernstein of the E uh Economic Policy Institute.
Uh uh you gotta hear this.
Uh Cudlow says in the marketplace talk radio, the liberals have lost badly, and on the internet, in the era of new media, everybody has a shot at it.
I was much closer to where you and think a lot of people were when they first heard this, and then I read this amazing report by the Center for American Progress, which uh has in its headline that 91% of commercial radio is conservative, uh, in terms of commercial talk radio.
Ninety one percent, nine percent is liberal.
That strikes me as curious, and it it sounds like a market failure.
I grant you that in the war of ideas, it certainly sounds like the conservatives are kicking butt.
Although in the internet, where the price of entry is really quite low, as you just said, it's pretty even.
So I'm worried that there's a market failure here, and if you read that CAP report, you you might feel the same way.
And so Feinstein may have a point.
Market failure.
You know what market failure is?
Market failure is when liberalism doesn't triumph in the free and open exchange of ideas.
So that's market failure.
There's no such the market doesn't fail.
Markets work.
It is regulation and restriction that put constraints on the market and lead to the market not producing reality.
This is so Feinstein Feinstein may have a point in this Center for American Progress is just a Lib group, and a guy that was involved in this organization used to be an early investor in a whole bunch of liberal talk shows, probably uh probably lost his shirt and is feeling a little guilty and mad about it at the same time.
Um I don't know what the barrier that prevents liberals from getting into radio is.
There's no barrier, there's no market failure, there's no fence.
We haven't constructed a fence that says liberals, you can't get into talk radio.
They've tried the drive-by media's pumped them up like you can't believe, giving them all kinds of puff piece free publicity.
They failed.
It's not market failure, they failed.
But this is how liberals think.
Now, Cudlow came back with this.
Commercial radio is losing grant.
Okay, I'm on commercial radio and I love doing it Saturday mornings, but it's losing grant.
The internet is not your fault.
And the iPods and all the rest of it.
That's where the Libs have much chances they can get.
They've lost in the marketplace of commercial radio.
I mean, this stuff is aimed at rush for limbaugh, isn't it?
At the end of the day, this is limbaugh envy.
Well, he got one thing right in this comment, but the idea that commercial radio is losing ground.
Uh maybe, I don't even know if this is true.
But let's just say, let's say the commercial radio itself as an industry is losing ground, whatever that means.
This show ain't.
So why don't you're on commercial radio, but we are not losing.
It's just the opposite.
Why in the world are they trying to shut us down if we're becoming inconsequential and uh irrelevant?
Um, Frank in Cincinnati, let me let me squeeze you in here before we have to go to the uh break real quick.
Hello.
Yes.
Hi, it's Frank from Cincinnati.
Yeah, hi, Frank from Cincinnati.
Welcome to the program.
Well, thank you very much.
Uh uh Rush, I'm just uh I'm just curious.
Is somebody making a list of all the people that are voting here?
Oh, yeah.
So that we can uh know who not to vote for next time.
Oh well, wait a minute now.
Wait a minute.
Yes, we're gonna we'll have we'll have the roll call and we'll put it on on the website so you can vote who to vote and know who to vote against if that's what you want to do.
But the real vote.
This was just to move the the the bill forward.
The real vote will be next week.
And it it I'm telling you, folks, it's not a lock just because of this vote today.
It is not a lock.
There's still there's this is the battle goes on.
Uh but yes, we'll publish the names of those 64 who voted for cloture.
You think if the liberals had a 91% market share in talk radio that they would call it a market failure?
They'd call it mainstream, exactly right.
We'll be back here, folks.
▲
Export Selection