All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
June 26, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
For those of you watching on the Ditto Cam wondering what it is that I am moving and grooving to here, I was listening to Music Maestro Barry White.
And what am I going to do with you?
Anyway, we're back.
We've got another full hour of today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
I am El Rushbo, Rush Limbaugh Running American, Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
Serving humanity simply by showing up, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I have figured this out.
I figured out what happened today.
Oh, and I have an update on what the House Republicans are going to do.
They're still meeting.
Well, they're going to meet later this afternoon.
The odds are, I guess, a little better than 50-50.
They're going to come out with this statement disapproving of the legislation in the Senate.
But more on that in just a moment.
The cloture vote today was simply a vote to start debate on amendments, stop the offering of amendments, and start debate on the amendments.
And that debate is procedurally allowed for 30 hours.
The Senate's going to reconvene here in about seven minutes.
The 30 hours will take us to Thursday.
The real cloture vote is thus Thursday.
Now, the vote today was 6435.
All they needed was 60 votes to stop the offering of amendments and open the debate process on these amendments that were offered.
These amendments were allowed.
The White House and Ted Kennedy and Dingy Harry Reid got together.
It's, okay, we're going to need to do something to get some Republican votes.
They want some amendments.
So we'll let them offer their amendments.
Now, the thing about this, two things about this.
I can understand why a number of Republicans might say, all right, look it.
I'm going to go ahead and vote to shut down the amendment process so we can start debating the amendments.
I don't want to be seen here as somebody opposing debate on the amendments.
And I can clearly see, not clearly, but I can also see a number of people saying, all right, while I'm willing to vote for the debate process on the amendments to begin, it doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for the bill.
So I'm saying it's possible that enough of these Republicans could turn around Thursday and vote against cloture, depending on how the debate process on these amendments goes the next 30 hours.
Now, my suspicion is that this whole thing with the amendments is a sham, and it was done purposely just to get some support from Republicans.
The idea that the amendments, a significant number of them will pass, is I'm dubious about that.
But anyway, that's what happened today.
So some of you angry at your son.
I'm not making excuses for them.
I'm honestly, after digging into this during the program, I do show prep and show performance at the same time.
And what I think I've figured out here is that this was a process by which they want to be seen as encouraging debate on the amendments, shut down the opportunity to offer them and move this thing on.
30 hours of debate, then the real cloture vote on Thursday.
And so there's still all kinds of time for you to be heard if you are so inclined.
Now, I mentioned earlier at the beginning of the program, the Republicans in the House were considering issuing a one-sentence statement, essentially telling their Republican brethren in the Senate, you guys don't do this because we are going to officially stand in opposition today.
We're all going to sign this one-sentence statement.
And so you don't have to walk the plank here.
You can vote the right way for your constituents and be off the hook.
That did not happen this morning.
However, it may happen later this afternoon.
House Republicans are set to vote on a measure this afternoon rejecting the Senate immigration bill sometime after the cloture vote, which happened, I guess it was over about 12.30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
Representative Peter Hookstra, who is from Michigan, a Republican from Michigan, offered the resolution in a closed-door meeting of Republican House members this morning, and a lot of them were surprised.
They were eventually forced to postpone their vote because not enough members were in attendance, but they are expected to address the question later this afternoon when more Republicans show up.
Roy Blunt, the Republican whip, said, clearly many of our members have problems with the Senate bill.
So the resolution is largely symbolic, but it would signal widespread displeasure of the Senate bill, just as they had into the cloture vote for real, the real cloture vote on Thursday.
The single sentence in the Hookstra proposal is this.
Resolve that the House Republican Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill.
The reason why it's symbolic is because it doesn't constitute an actual vote.
And if the members of the Republican caucus don't sign it individually, then of course they're not officially putting their names to it.
It'll be put out in the name of the entire Republican conference, so Republican caucus.
So we'll see.
But that could signal big problems when the bill gets to the House.
There are many battles in this, as I keep saying.
Also, I want to go back to the call we had from the Ukrainian immigrant, the legal Ukrainian immigrant, who offered his own theories as to why the votes are happening the way they are, because senators have far more concerns, geopolitical concerns in our hemisphere, revolving around oil and Hugo Chavez, the stability of the Mexican government and so forth, that they can't dare talk about, that they guys offer as their reasons.
You know, we've gone back and forth trying to understand this for, I don't know how long, ever since this most recent incarnation of the bill in the Senate came up.
Now, we all know that on the surface of things, the things that we could figure out just on our experience guided by intelligence, that the Democrats simply see these people that are flooding in here as new victims, new members of the welfare state, requiring the government to grow larger and larger and larger, taxes to go up so that the redistribution of wealth can take place, creating as many dependents as possible,
and then eventually getting them legal and getting them as many of them in citizenship as possible so they can vote for Democrats, because that's who they'll vote for.
Republicans, on the other hand, you've got a bunch of different lobby interests on the Republican side of this.
One of them is big business, Chamber of Commerce, they like the cheap labor.
There's another element of this, and I remember mentioning this to you probably six weeks ago now, maybe a little longer than that.
What's happening here largely is that we need they're flawed, by the way, in their reasoning here, but it's the old argument about saving Social Security.
We all know, if we choose to believe it, that Social Security has an end point where it's going to require the taxes of one worker to pay the retirement benefits of one retiree, and that's going to require a tax benefit that workers will, or tax rate that workers won't pay.
You're not going to go convince 20, 22-year-old people today that in 30 years their tax rate's going to be 75%.
They're not going to pay it.
They're not going to work.
They're going to join a welfare state.
And it'll all break down.
Congress doesn't have the guts to take on social security reform and really reform it.
It's the third rail of politics.
You've heard that.
That's the fastest way to cause yourself to lose an election.
Actually, it's the second way, the second best way to now cause yourself to lose an election.
The first best way is voting the wrong way on this immigration bill.
But the influx of all of these people, the theory is: look at all these new taxpayers, because whether legal or not, it doesn't matter.
They are paying social security taxes.
Even if they're on an illegal card, Social Security card with an illegal number, the money is still being collected.
Now, do the businesses that are hiring these people pass it on to the government or not?
Probably not in the case of illegals with forged numbers, because it's a quick way to be identified as hiring illegals, and it's a risk that some businesses don't want to take.
That's what's flawed about all this.
But the theory is that these people coming in will contribute all this new income because we've been aborting ourselves.
We got to throw this in the mix, too.
Since 1973, I mean, run the numbers: 1.3 million abortions a year.
We've aborted 40 million potential Americans.
40 million taxpayers who would be in the workforce, producing income, generating wealth, and paying Social Security taxes.
Our replacement birth rate in this country is not what it should be.
It's a little low.
So the fastest way to get bodies in here is to allow these illegals that want to come in, come in, and pay their Social Security taxes and put off the day of reckoning on Social Security for another bunch of generations to deal with and not have to make the hard choices now.
And I think that's a factor, too.
The problem with it is, it'll all fall apart because these illegals that are coming in and will be allowed in if this thing ever happens are going to be net drains on the whole safety net because the low wages they're going to be paid will not allow them to fend for themselves in enough areas.
We're a compassionate country, and so they'll have the free dental care, the free health care.
They've got all this stuff.
And guess who's going to be paying for that?
You will.
And the liberals love that ultimately because that's just more taxes.
That's more bigger government.
That is a greater redistribution of wealth.
And believe me, liberals, if they could wipe out conservatism as a viable alternative ideology, they would love to be able to do it.
And if you bring 45, 50 million people in here that automatically vote Democrat, and you can create a minority that votes 90% Democrat like African Americans do, then you can effectively end the existence as a viable force of Republicanism or conservatism or what have you.
Those are all the Democrat motivations, which makes it even more puzzling why the Republicans don't see it and they're falling for it, which leads them to, well, clearly they're dumb.
So there's got to be something else going on here that we don't understand.
But I wanted to review the whole thing here because the vote that comes up on Thursday is another actual cloture vote, which I, when the show started, I didn't know there was another vote on Thursday.
I saw Mark Krikorian's post at National Review Online, which bells and whistles was, whoa, whoa, what is this?
Okay, then I started delving into it and finding out what's up.
Now, the Chinese story, when we come back, stay with us.
All right, welcome back.
Let's go to the phones.
They got some anger raging out there and at me, your harmless, lovable little fuzzball host.
This is Edgar in Nashville.
Hi, Edgar.
Yeah, okay.
Thanks, Rush.
I'm sitting here listening to you.
I don't get to hear you a lot.
Edgar, slow down just a little bit so I can understand.
I'm sorry.
No, it's not your fault.
It's mine.
But I just need you to slow down a little bit.
I will try to do that.
Let me say this.
You said you had show prep and then you had show performance.
In your show performance, you have just pooped in your nest and made really, I think, kind of a fool of yourself by telling us that these people that voted for closure examined their conscience, did not want to stand in the way of amendments or debate on the amendment.
That is soft spirit of the First Order.
Anyone that voted for closure voted for amnesty, you know it.
I know it.
Your informed listeners know it.
And you are coming forward with this stuff about these people doing, there is no way this thing is going to pass in the Senate.
We know it today.
We know it right now.
And you will not call these people's names.
All you've got to do is this.
Wait a second.
Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold it a minute.
I'll ask you a question.
Come on.
Name the senators that voted for closure last time and didn't vote for closure and voted for closure.
Voted for closure last time.
That's because it's two different kinds of closure.
It's what I'm trying.
I'm not justifying what they did.
You're getting all upset here.
You call here and tell me I just pooped in my pants, and I haven't done that since I was one and a half.
You did today.
I did not.
I'm just trying to.
We do analysis here.
You want to know what I really don't see why they would vote for closure today on these amendments, specifically because none of the amendments put security before amnesty.
I agree with you about this.
It's a done deal, Rush.
What do you mean it's a done deal?
I mean, the amnesty's coming out of the Senate.
You know it.
I know it.
Your informed listeners know it.
Well, I tried to tell you last week.
I said.
It's based on this vote today that you're defending.
I'm not defending the vote for Crank.
Call their names.
What are you listening to?
I'm not defending the vote, Edgar.
Rush, Rush.
Rush, you are.
I am not.
I am the wrong guy for you to get mad at here, Edgar.
I am running America.
Yeah.
Well, I tell you what, I'm about, I'm going to vote against you next time then.
Now, in all friendship here, because I called you since 88 when you came on.
But listen, start calling the names and getting behind.
We've got to.
We're going to put them on the website.
We're going to do that.
Let me tell you.
Edgar, let me just because you've misunderstood here.
Yeah.
This was a big vote today.
Yep.
And those who voted the wrong way will not be forgotten, Edgar.
Call their names today.
Snurgly, get the names.
There were seven Republicans here, and five of them went the wrong way.
And I know who they are.
All I'm trying to tell you is, depending on how this debate goes, some of these guys, it's their amendments, like Kit Bond and Lindsey.
Well, we know where Gramdus is going to be.
It's entirely possible they'll change their votes on Thursday.
I know you.
No, no, no, no.
That's not going to happen.
You know it, and I know it.
I don't know it.
Otherwise, I wouldn't say it.
If I thought it wasn't going to happen, I wouldn't say it.
Rush.
Now, I agree that there's people that voted for closure today that will vote against the bill.
That's their lie to get out of being accused of voting for amnesty.
And it's not an out.
You know it, and I know it.
Am I wrong?
Well, no.
I've told you what this whole amendment thing was.
The amendment thing was essentially a trick by the Democrat leadership and the White House to give these recalcitrant rhinos, as you call them, something to latch on to and make a false promise.
Okay, you want your amendment?
We'll give you your amendment.
I just last hour said these amendments are never going to pass.
No, they're not.
And they're going to have a vote.
And you know they've got the votes.
When they bring it up, it's going to pass.
You know it, and I know it.
Well, the bottom line is the bill was revived today, and it was dead before today.
And you see, you see no justification for it being revived.
The reason it was revived was insider Washington politics.
These guys are hanging on for as many goodies as they can get in exchange for their votes.
What in the world here am I saying, Edgar, that's got you all upset with me?
I'm just trying to explain to you.
You're defending these people.
I was not defending them.
I told you I could.
No, what I said was, I can understand why some of these guys might think that there is safety in voting for clothing today because they don't want to be seen voting against debate.
You give me a break.
That is sophistry.
It's not sophistry.
That's brilliant analysis.
I'm not agreeing with them.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying it's a possibility.
There's a lot of guys voting for closure today are going to vote against it, but they know that it's a done deal and they were paid to do it today.
Yeah, well.
You know it.
I know it.
You're in former listeners, and I hope somebody else will call and tell you that.
Oh, yeah, I thought you said my former listeners.
No, no, no, no.
You're really.
You've got a lot of listeners, and I'm not going to hang out.
I'm going to keep listening to you because I cuss you every now and then when I hear you.
But you're my friend.
I appreciate everything you're doing.
But you've got to get off this drinkingist Republican party cooler.
You have to look at the full body of evidence of my work here, Edgar.
And here I say one thing in the last three months about this, and you're willing to throw out the two months and 29 days of what you know I said.
You got one day here where you heard me say in one segment something that you've misunderstood.
Rush, I'm a portrait artist.
I'm in my studio all day.
I listen to talk radio.
I watch about six, eight hours of talking to his on TV.
I know what's happening in Washington.
Not maybe as well as you do, but I know and you know what happened, and it's a done deal.
And the guys that voted for closure today.
All right, look, Edgar, okay, let's move me on that point.
What are you going to do next if it's a done deal and there's nothing to be done to stop it?
What are you going to do next?
Call another talk radio and complain, I guess.
Well, no, we've got to.
There is no other talk radio, Edgar.
That's what you're asking.
And what are we going to do?
Why do you want to complain?
What are you going to accomplish by complaining?
Oh, maybe I should just fold my tent and forget about it.
That's what you're doing when you're pronouncing it with no chance of killing this.
You folded the tent.
If anybody, I ought to be calling you and chewing you out and accusing you of pooping in your pants because of fear.
Because you're giving up here.
I'm not giving up.
One thing.
Talk radio can do this.
Start naming instances in Republicans and ferret these people out.
Call their names, just like the media.
Call their names consistently ongoing.
Hagel, talk about.
I'm losing my confidence in my words here.
I know.
I've said all I know.
You're not losing your confidence, but everybody knows Chuck Hagel's on the wrong side.
Chuck Hagel, that's not one of the names I need to mention because nobody would be surprised by that name.
Edgar, I've enjoyed this immensely.
Thoroughly have.
I appreciate your phone call.
I got to take a brief time out here.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
And we are back serving humanity and executing assigned host duties flawlessly here on the EIB network.
Rush Limbaugh, the man running America.
You know it.
And I know it.
800-282-2882.
All right.
I have another theory out there about this vote today.
I'm afraid that I'd send Edgar over the edge if I mentioned this theory.
Now, let me just throw it out there and you digest it as you will.
And I know that somebody's going to say, well, you're trying to defend what these traitors did.
And look, the bottom line is the bill was dead, and there was no need to revive it.
But they did.
The bill was dead, and it has been revived.
And it's been revived on the basis of this amendment stuff.
Now, let's take a look at two senators, the senators from Missouri.
Claire McCaskill, the Democrat, voted no on cloture.
Kit Bond, the Republican from Missouri, voted yes to bring it all back for another round of discussion.
Why?
How do you explain this?
Well, my astute, experienced, analytical political mind has come up with a possibility.
It's worth getting the Democrats on record about this.
And this is something Claire McCaskill, I mean, she could be forgiven for wanting to avoid going on the record on this.
Every senator, we talk about the Republicans here, but I'm telling you, every senator knows they read polls and they live and die by polls, and they know full well that 76 to 80 percent of the American people are opposed to this.
The Democrats have succeeded in getting this portrayed as a full-time Republican bill because the White House is pushing it.
But it's a Ted Kennedy bill.
Ted Kennedy and McCain are the authors of this bill.
McCain, a rhino.
They've been portrayed here as being the ones that the Republicans have, being the ones fully responsible for this.
Remember, Dingy Harry said, this is a Republican bill when he killed it, when he took the bill off the floor.
It's a Republican bill.
This is the White House bill.
I urge the president to get his people going.
Nancy Pelosi will not let this thing pass the House without a whole lot of Republican votes because I'm telling you, folks, they're trying to do a bunch of things here, and one of them is destroy the Republican Party and conservatism and so forth.
This is war.
This is what politics is.
This is not the first time this kind of objective has been.
I mean, I think what Bush and Rove were trying to do, frankly, with this at the beginning, I misguided as hell, but I think one of their efforts was to do as much structural damage a Democrat Party, make them a minority party for as far out in the future as possible.
They just miscalculated on the way to do it using the immigration bill.
So what happens here, well, let me ask you, how does it help any Democrat to be on record opposing any amendments which may be sensible, like that offered previously by John Cornyn of Texas?
His amendment would have barred illegal immigrant felons, including child molesters and drunk drivers, from obtaining any of the benefits of citizenship and would have sent them back.
And that amendment failed.
Bond offered an amendment striking the path to citizenship.
And if his amendment fails, he says he's going to vote against cloture.
That's what he says now.
So there's a possibility they want to get the Democrats in on that.
I think, folks, these people are not stupid.
You may think that they're blind and dumb, but they're not.
They know full well how you feel, and they're fully mindful of this.
And I think in terms of the Republicans know full well, the Democrats are getting off scot-free on this.
But still, at the end of the day, all of this could have been avoided, and all of this extraneous analysis could be unnecessary because the bill was dead.
And it was unnecessary to revive it.
None of these amendments put security first.
The amendments that have been offered, they're amnesty amendments.
And the whole thing was a trick anyway.
I think none of these amendments are going to end up passing and being part of the bill.
So at the end of the day, it was dead.
It's been revived and there was no reason for it to be revived.
But if you're trying, like I always do to explain why people in politics do what they do, and I'm just throwing out these possibilities here.
Sorry, Edgar.
He's probably racing the phone to call me back, say, all right, that's it.
Never listening to you again.
Here's Dave in Gurney, Illinois.
Dave, welcome to the program.
Glad you waited, sir.
Ditto's rush on this hysterical historical day on your show and especially in the Senate.
Actually, I'm going back to the beginning of the show.
You did, you mentioned a poll of illegal aliens.
Yes.
Okay, now my point, I was waiting for you to make this observation, but this point I make is a perfect example how you taught me to observe, assess, and evaluate about the poll of illegal aliens.
How did the pollsters find the illegals to ask them, and then how were they allowed to ask them if they are illegal?
Well, look, remember now when I read this, I was laughing myself silly.
Yes.
Because those are obvious things.
We keep hearing the illegals, Ted Kennedy and even the president talks about how we need to get these people out of the shadows.
They've been out of the shadows for who?
They show up by the millions and protest and wave their Mexican flags.
The media can find them all over the place to poll them, and yet law enforcement can't.
Exactly.
It speaks for itself.
It's laughable.
Just like yesterday, we found out that they discovered a tunnel from Tijuana into Southern California, right under the Border Patrol checkpoint.
They didn't know it was there for years.
And yet these are the people who tell us that, yeah, we're going to find these people who shouldn't be here.
We're going to have 24-hour security check and we're going to find out all of them, whether they're good or not.
We're going to ones that are not good.
We're going to send it.
It's all a joke.
The whole thing is.
Exactly.
And then authorities are not able to ask that same thing, you know, whether they're illegal or not.
Yeah, well, the real, of course, that's obvious.
The real funny part about that story was, I mean, it's mind-boggling.
Let me go back and get the story.
It's a Washington Post story.
And what did I do the other thing?
I got to put it all at once.
Yes, it's just stand by here and I'll have it in mere moments.
Yes.
Because I want to read this passage as it's written in the New York Post.
By the way, have you seen this story on the Drudge Report of this guy over in Germany who lives with big cats, lives with tigers and lions and leopards?
And they got pictures of this.
This guy's a dead man walking.
He just doesn't know it yet.
We'll link to it at rushlimbo.com later.
You can see it.
GOP backers offer immigration bill change.
Lindsey Gramnesty from South Carolina has moved an amendment that says illegals must touch back.
They must go back to their home countries to get Z visas instead of Presto.
The current legislation is that after the president signs a bill 24 hours later, a background check on all these people, Hardy Harhar, and then they're illegal, not citizens, but it doesn't matter.
They only pay the fines in this bill if they become citizens.
And there's no requirement that they become citizens.
All they want is legal status anyway.
They're going to get that within 24 hours.
So Lindsey Gramnesty moves his amendment that says illegals have to go back home to get their Z visas instead of Presto.
So the two polling companies went out and talked to 1,600 illegal citizens.
And of the 1,600, 37% said, oh, we're not going to go for that.
No, no, no, we're not going back home.
And the Washington Post reports this.
It's comical.
It's surreal.
37%.
Oh, we're not going to go for that.
It's like telling anybody else that commits criminal activity, look, we're going to give you a pass here, but if you want amnesty from your crime, you're still going to, I'm not going to take that deal.
I want full-fledged amnesty.
I want it 24 hours.
Oh, okay.
And then we write a story about what they want and don't want.
Michael in Austin, Texas.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Wow, thank you, Rush.
Hope I don't blow this one.
Wait, How could you blow it?
Well, there was a lot of other things I would have rather have talked about, but I heard the guy from the Ukraine talk about the geopolitical potential of this.
I hate, I'm not, I don't want to be a nitpicker here, but it's Ukraine.
There's no the or the in front of it.
I just, it's, we're an educational, informative program here.
He was from Ukraine.
Okay.
Well, I think this goes back a lot of it to the Cold War.
I don't think originally it was.
A lot of us held our nose with Bush and the way he's always saddled up to the illegal alien community around here.
But in the last two years, it's like he's thrown open the doors.
And I think his reasons for doing it are far different from the Democrats.
And I don't think we really know what his reasons are necessarily.
You've got Russia that's basically fomented the Middle Eastern terrorists and their allies with Iran and a non-aggression pact.
They will defend Iran, supposedly, if anyone goes against them.
You have China with North Korea, and they also have control of the Panama Canal.
You have Hugo Chavez down in Central America, and you've got a half a dozen people going on these talk shows with all sorts of different scenarios about potential nuclear weapons going off on the shore, you know, on the coastland or in America, and also potential EMP devices going off.
Maybe he knows something.
Bush knows something that we don't.
Maybe he's concerned that we're going to have a flood of just the masses from the south of the border in the middle of a bunch of chaos as our enemies orchestrate some form of attack against us and wants to engender a lot of support with those countries by allowing a large number of their citizens to go in there and have roots in there.
I mean, it's something, it would have to be something so big that, you know, maybe he's got some piece of evidence he's sitting on it.
I don't, look, I admire listening to people's thought processes because I admire people who think, and I admire people who are not robots.
But on this, I respectfully say that that is a bit of a stretch.
That we, if I heard you right, we want a flood of illegals so we have allies if al-Qaeda and the Russians and the Iranians decide to nuke us.
Man, if we're going to depend on illegals and I don't mean in joining the army, I'm talking about creating goodwill so we have allies.
We may as well just re-elect Kerry and have him do the global test.
We may just turn over our whole sovereignty to what the rest of the world thinks.
I don't think with Bush that's what it is.
With Bush, he's devout in his faith.
And I really think you've got second-term presidents and they're concerned with legacies.
I don't know to what extent he has that concern.
Not certainly as strong as Bill Clinton did, but I do think that with Bush, it's probably a more simpler explanation than it is complicated.
I think it's these are the great unwashed.
These are the huddled masses.
These are the people that want to improve their lives, that want to access the greatest country in the world because of the opportunity we have.
And he's not going to close the door on them.
He's just not going to do it.
Now, There's more to it than that.
I don't want to go into much more detail than that, but I think that obviously there's some political concerns, too.
I think there's some misjudgments, miscalculations.
I really do think that there's some Republicans who think that these people are going to end up being conservative Republicans because they're pandered to enough that we can show the people that we're nicer to them than the Democrats will be.
It's absurd.
If you're somebody who's seeking to access a relevant spot in the safety net, why would you go to the pretenders to get what you need when you can go to the real guys?
In this case, the liberal Democrats.
Anyway, I appreciate the call out there, Michael.
I got a quick timeout here.
We'll be back after another EIB obscene profit break.
Stay where you are.
All right.
Welcome back, folks.
Great to be with you, as always, holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the list of the Republicans who voted for cloture today in alphabetical order.
They are Bennett of Utah.
These are all Republicans now.
Kit Bond of Missouri, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, no surprise there.
Larry Craig of Idaho, Pete Domenichi of New Mexico, John Ensign, Nevada.
That's really curious to me because this is the guy who's in charge of re-electing Republicans to the Senate and finding new candidates and fundraising.
Lindsey Gramnesty, South Carolina, Judd Gregg, New Hampshire, Chuck Hagel, no surprise there.
John Kyle, Arizona, no surprise there is carrying the bill for the Republicans.
Trent Lott, no surprise there.
Richard Luger, Mel Martinez, no surprise there.
John McCain, no surprise there.
Mitch McConnell.
Be interesting to watch him.
Murkowski from Arkansas.
Olympia Snow, no surprise there.
Arlen Specter, no surprise there.
Ted Stevens of Alaska, no surprise.
George Voinovich.
Don't know if he cried before the vote from Ohio, but he voted yay, as did John Warner, the southern gentleman from Virginia.
So those are your names of the Republicans who voted for cloture and revived a dead bill.
Go to Staten Island, Sal.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
My pigeon to the king.
You are the king.
Hello.
Yeah, yeah, I'm trying to understand.
Thank you.
Just a comment about this talk radio stuff.
A quick thing is Cork Radio was, what's the word for ignored by all the liberal media?
They took over universities.
They took over Hollywood and everything else.
And they deemed radio as insignificant until you came along.
You took talk radio radio.
Yeah, we were.
You're right.
We were able to sneak up on them because they had all those other institutions.
Plus, they didn't think anything of radio.
It was nothing.
It was something you listen to.
That's right.
And they had the networks, and they had the newspapers.
They had everything.
But you see, your popularity stems from the fact you enunciate brilliantly the conservative position, but you're saying what the people are believing.
And there was no other avenue out there for people to have someone enunciate what they were feeling.
And you did it.
And you were brilliant at it.
And your power grew.
Wait, what was this were?
What?
What was this was brilliant at it?
I'm sorry.
You are brilliant at it.
Thank you.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Excuse me, Rush.
Sorry.
You're very kind.
I appreciate that.
And you're very perceptive.
You've come up with a new way of describing how we destroyed their monopoly.
Because they had a monopoly.
And I can't thank you enough for the nice things you said about why the program has the popularity that it does.
I'm never going to be able to adequately thank those of you in this audience for what your listenership here has meant to me and my family and all that.
I will always try, but I don't think there's a sufficient way to do it.
But I appreciate that, Sal.
Thanks so much.
We have to close it out here, folks.
I'll be back and give you a heads up on what's happening on tomorrow's show.
Well, I can tell you now, I don't know what's happening on tomorrow's show because whatever is going to be on tomorrow's show hasn't happened yet.
It's not topical.
It's current.
Stay with us.
Rush Limbaugh running America.
You know it.
I know it.
I forgot to get to the story about Marxism failing in China.
We'll do that tomorrow and whatever else happens between now and then.
Thanks for being with us today, folks.
▲
Export Selection