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 Pact, ever-exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds Rush Limbaugh program Running America.
Ladies and gentlemen, as many things, well-known radio raconteur, general all-round good guy, harmless, lovable little fuzzball, and of course the most listened to radio host in the country.
Great to have you with us.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, 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 go south on us, so we put a new power supply in there, and that went south on it.
That's wrong thing.
That upsets people in South Carolina and Alabama.
And I don't mean that.
It just bombed out on us.
So we were trying to send emails last night and we're bouncing back to you.
We didn't change the address.
We got a backup power supply, a backup server that's handling the loan.
We got about 10,000 a day on this in that account.
Well, in a 12-hour period, it's actually more than that in 24 hours.
Anyway, cloture vote coming up on the immigration bill.
This is the bill where they need to get 60 votes to effectively shut off debate on the process.
And it's not always guaranteed, but if they get the 60 votes, it is an indication that the bill is going to pass.
And a lot of people do not understand the processes of the Senate under normal circumstances.
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 offer their expert opinions on various aspects of the bill because it was negotiated in secret and they tried to ram it down everybody's throat, which they're really still trying to do.
Now, the bill failed, didn't get 60 votes.
In fact, it didn't get anywhere near 50 votes last time it was tried.
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 offering all kinds of crazy amendments now.
They're offering promises to 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 has been added here is a proposal that would force illegals to return to their home countries to apply for legal status.
This is the Z visa.
They would have to go back.
And this amendment, by the way, has been moved by Senator Lindsey Gramnesty.
And 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, exhaustively and thoroughly performed by your competent United States government.
So this Washington Post story on this actually went out and polled the illegals who are hiding in the shadows.
And they polled them, and they said 37% won't go for it.
Am I reading this right?
Is that what happened?
What is it?
Last week, the first ever poll of illegal immigrants who were hiding in the shadows.
83% of the 1,600 undocumented Latinos surveyed told the polling firm Ben Dixon and Associates that they would pay the thousands of dollars in fines and fees.
But if they also had to return to their home countries, participation rates would drop to 63%, according to another poll commissioned by New America Media, a consortium of ethnic news media.
So this is the kind of thing.
And by the way, not only Lindsey Gramnesty, but John Kyle and Mel Martinez of Florida, who's out there posing with Senator Kennedy all over the place.
I don't understand these Republicans.
For example, there are seven Republicans who could go either way.
And these seven Republican senators could stop this thing in its tracks.
I'll give you the names.
Kit Bond of Missouri, Richard Burr, North Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada, more about him in just a second, Judd Gregg, New Hampshire, and Orrin Hatch of Utah.
And Jim Webb.
You have to throw Webb in there because Webb campaigned against amnesty, running against George Allen, and he voted against cloture the last time.
So he needs to be consistent here.
Not that he will be.
He could turn around and start playing a Washington game and want to become an insider here, but it'd be totally contradictory.
And that, of course, would not be a surprise.
Now, what's interesting, John Ensign was a member of the Republican freshman class in the House in 1994.
He's now senator from Nevada, and I've met him a couple of times.
He's an extremely great guy.
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 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 their base and those people who will contribute to Republican senators will do.
So this is going to be interesting to see how he votes on this.
So you've got Bond, you've got Burr, and I know that Burr's office, well, I'm sure that all of these people's offices have been melting down in all forms of media, be it fax, be it email, be it telephones.
Now, the way this cloture stuff works, just to go through the procedure for you, if cloture passes, if they get 60 votes, see, the 60 votes, as his Senate rule says, filibuster.
Anybody can filibustering the bill.
They don't have to actually go through the filibuster.
They say, we're filibustering this.
And to stop the debate, to stop the filibuster, they need 60 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're going to do a filibuster.
Now you don't.
You just signal that you're filibustering this, and everything comes to screeching halt.
So if they get their 60 votes today, after that, no more than 30 hours of debate 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 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.
And he's one of the opponents.
So as I say, if they get their 60 votes on this, it is conventional wisdom that the bill will end up passing.
But if the Senate doesn't get the votes today, it's dead.
It's dead.
Muerto.
Well, to try to bring this back a third time, I mean, they're going to have to make some significant changes in it to bring it back a third time.
We're told that, of course, we're going to take, as I mentioned yesterday, this first step is we're going to get the border sealed.
First step, not actually do it, just say that that's the first thing we're going to do, as I went through yesterday.
Something interesting happened in the House.
The GOP House caucus was meeting this morning around 10 o'clock.
And I got some whispers here that the Republican House caucus 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 Denji 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 the plank, you guys.
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 Senate Republican counterparts, though I don't know how many of them actually care about doing that.
Running a little late on the vote, which is normal, was scheduled to start some of the procedural votes at 11.50 about 25 minutes ago.
Anyway, let's take a quick timeout.
We'll come back and get on with all the rest of the program right after this.
El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all concerned, Maha Rushi, running the country.
Running America.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the cloture vote has started.
We'll keep a running tally of how it goes as it unfolds.
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 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.
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 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 miles drive.
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's show, Joe Scarborough is doing the early morning show on PMS NBC.
His guest was Pat Buchanan.
We have two soundbites.
Here's the first.
In this issue, you have a guy like Rush Limbaugh, who has an extraordinary influence with the grassroots, coming out and saying, you know what, we're just not going to 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.
Rush Limbaugh is 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.
Buchanan tried to get in there.
You just didn't hear him.
He makes it into the conversation of this bike.
It is indeed, Joe.
And look, Limbaugh's 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 travel a lot.
What does he say?
We've got to do something about talk radio.
Yeah, isn't that amazing?
These are the guys.
I love it.
I'm not going to be able to do it all 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 have come to the issue.
And so we're being talked about all over the place, 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 cloture votes started, literally begging.
Because they, you know, 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 immigration proposal this country has put forth in his 43 years in the Senate, going back to the 60s.
And, 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.
So he's out there begging these seven Republican senators whose names I gave you earlier to come on and vote for this because the Democrats don't want this bill passed.
Well, they can't get 60 votes.
In fact, they're even lamenting the fact that Tim Johnson, who had the cerebral hemorrhage, can't vote on this.
That's how close it's going to be.
It'll be fascinating to watch.
But again, folks, if this happens, if they get cloture, and by the way, just to show you, 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 is 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 revenge or whatever you want to call it out on people you think did not do the right thing at the ballot box the next election.
But this New York Times story, labor coalitions divided on immigration overhaul.
Who are labor coalitions?
Would somebody tell me what political party are labor coalitions a member of?
They are members of the Democrat Party.
So 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 immigration 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 is extremely important, says Tamar Jacoby, immigration expert at the Manhattan Institute.
For this bill to pass, they probably need 80% 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 60 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 its 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 the AFL-CIO's hostility surprises me.
So the hotel unions, the service worker and farm concerns are tossing the AFL-CIO under the bus here.
So there's division on the Democrat side.
And of course, the story reports the division, but it doesn't report that this is division on the Democrat side.
This says the Democrats may have some problems getting the votes as they are needed.
But if this standard reporting, the headline would say, Republicans divided, as the headlines have so stated.
Where are we going to go first here, Misters?
Do you want to start in 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.
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 a lot of folks in my community were integral in getting 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 engendered this kind of public outcry was the Dubai 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.
Now they're not listling.
All this outcry and all this grassroots opposition that you described is summer.
It's having its effect.
I mean, I'm not saying it's not been helpful because it has, but there are still a group of people in the United States Senate who don't care, and they're going to ram it, if they can, down our throats, come hell or high water.
Well, Rush, I'll tell you, with 80% of the American people against this bill, it really makes no sense that they do not realize that, you know, if they don't represent the American people, next year is going to make last year look like a walk in the park.
You're talking about the Republicans.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, that's what's confusing about this.
You would think that they would know it, and you would think that they would at least be trying to massage this, you know, rather than insulting us.
Well, you don't know what's in it.
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.
They really are.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about it.
Hey, Donovan, you need to redo that and add, and also running America.
Just got to keep.
By the way, I have my list of things later on in the program that I'm going to 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 trying to work it all out.
Bocajava.com, Boca Java Coffee and tea, cocoa, great stuff.
Had it this morning, in fact.
And they just joined us today as a new sponsor, and I forgot to single them out, so I'm doing that now.
And I just, I want to point out to you folks, this program, look at our sponsors.
We got coffee.
Allen Brothers, beef.
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 and every one of them.
I want to also thank Rich Lowry today, who's the editor at National Review.
He has a syndicated column today on this whole fairness doctrine, the attempt by this liberal think tank that's run by John Podesta, Clinton's chief of staff in the White House, referring to a structural imbalance in talk radio, which we delved into in great detail yesterday.
But it's rare when somebody gets it and then nails it.
And Rich Lowry has done it in this piece, and I just want to thank him.
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 report of the Center for American Progress on the structural imbalance of political talk radio marks the latest phase of liberaldom'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.
Now, the conclusion Rich draws, and we'll link to this at rushlimbaugh.com, is that the structural imbalance is 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 no's.
So this bill has achieved cloture, which means debate has been stopped.
The filibuster is over.
Senate is in recess till 2.15 this afternoon.
So the cloture vote passed.
The fireworks now begin because this is not, the bill was not voted on today, folks.
Now, as I say, likely to pass since it got 64 votes today, but any of these people could change their mind, try to have it both ways.
Some of these Republicans could change their mind next week when the actual bill is debated.
There's not much debate allowed.
It's very restrictive on how many amendments can be offered.
But they're going to be celebrating this vote today.
But the real vote on the real bill is probably going to be next week.
So I guess I lit my cigar prematurely today.
I was just trying to create good karma.
But they're going to hail this as a huge victory.
They're going to say the amendments that were allowed is what turned the tide.
And the senators are going to say, well, those amendments, they were there because we heard the American people.
The American people didn't like this automatic switch from illegal to legal in 24 hours.
Now these people have to go home.
We all know that's not going to happen.
When this thing finally happens, if it does, we know they're not going to go home.
37% say they won't anyway.
What are we going to do?
The enforcement measures are simply not here.
And hell, we're building a border fence on the border, the vehicle barrier on the wrong side of the border anyway.
We don't even know where the border is half the time.
So it's going to be fascinating.
Oh, and here's something else.
I want to warn you people about this.
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 it.
And when they say that, folks, 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, I mean, I'm sure we have some people listening that don't vote for the vast majority of the people involved in this.
Why this scares Washington is because you're voters.
And so you will be lumped in with the, you won't be called irrelevant.
It's just small.
You're just loud and you're very vocal, but you're really not that big.
And this vote proves it.
This vote establishes it.
Now, I mention all of this just so that you can be prepared for it.
Don't take it.
I mean, make you mad, but let it fire you up.
But understand it's just rhetoric, and it is not the case.
We've seen the polls, 76, 80% of the American people on all sides of whatever lines you want to draw oppose amnesty, which this bill is.
Anyway, I wanted to thank Lowry, Rich Lowry from National Review because a great piece.
And I want to do something at the same time with this.
You know, it's one thing for Rich Lowry to come 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 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 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.
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.
Well, 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 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 Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Well, Mrs. Clinton was 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 senators, ladies and gentlemen, 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, 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 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, a 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.
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 that went into the numbers because the Democrats hold at least a plus three all the way up to a plus 27 net advantage on health care.
57% of the American people say Democrats will be better doing it.
30% say Republicans.
Education, 50 to 35.
All of these things.
National security, taxes, abortion, economy, ethics, and corruption.
43% 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.
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.
And doesn't the left love to look at polls?
The unfavorable ratings for the economy?
Unfavorable ratings for the economy.
Well, 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 is in ruins.
Well, who's telling them that?
It ain't us.
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 Dianne 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 wants more voices to tell you that America is to blame for everything wrong with the world.
I mean, if you want to know how unreasonable and illogical or 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 Lori David.
We got Cheryl Crowe.
We got most of Hollywood.
We got Al Gore's documentary that propaganda documentary being shown mandatory to thousands, if not millions, of Haskruel and junior Haskruel students.
I mean, 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 soundbites, and I grab a couple more phone calls here.
Yesterday, last night, CNBC's Kudlow and Company, Larry Kudlow, was talking to one of their frequent contributors, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute.
You got to hear this.
Kudlow says, in the marketplace of 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 has in its headline that 91% of commercial radio is conservative in terms of commercial talk radio.
91%, 9% is liberal.
That strikes me as curious.
And 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 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 thing, 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, and 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, well, he lost his shirt and is feeling a little guilty and mad about it at the same time.
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 to drive-by media has pumped them up like you can't believe, given them all kinds of puff piece-free publicity.
They failed.
It's not market failures.
They failed.
But this is how liberals think.
Now, Kudlow came back with this.
Commercial radio is losing ground.
Okay, I'm on commercial radio and I love doing it Saturday mornings, but it's losing grab.
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 end at Rush 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 maybe, Nate, 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 I don't care what commercial radio is doing and we'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 irrelevant?
Frank in Cincinnati, let me squeeze you in here before we have to go to the 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.
Rush, I'm just curious.
Is somebody making a list of all the people that are voting here so that we can know who not to vote for next time?
Oh, wait a minute now.
Wait a minute.
Yes, we'll have the roll call and we'll put it on the website so you can vote who to vote, know who to vote against if that's what you want to do.
But the real vote, this was just to move the bill forward.
The real vote will be next week.
And I'm telling you, folks, it's not a lock just because of this vote today.
It is not a lock.
The battle goes on.
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.
We'll be back here, folks.
▲
Export Selection