All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 27, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Uh ladies and gentlemen, just one more thing here on the monologue I did in the last half hour.
I will tell you when all is lost, and all is not lost.
I will tell you when it's time to panic.
And panic is not what's called for here.
Vigilance.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the man running America.
You know it, and I know it.
At 800 282-2882, if you want to call, the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Let's had a conversation with Mr. Snerdley back in his office.
Snerdley is are you confident what you told me?
Snurley's confident this thing's not going to become law.
The immigration bill will not become law.
It may happen in the Senate.
Who knows?
Claire McCaskill, Missouri says she doesn't think it will.
She doesn't think it'll get past cloture tomorrow afternoon.
Well, we'll see.
The House is an entirely different manner, uh a different matter.
They, you know, yesterday afternoon, uh let's see, why don't I do.
Well, let me give you some headlines here.
Uh in the in the drive by media.
But where is this?
Well, that uh the the the the remember the thing I told you yesterday Republicans in the House were gonna vote.
Uh Pete Hookstrew uh little one sentence statement saying that the Republican caucus uh opposes the uh immigration bill currently in the Senate.
They voted on it uh late yesterday afternoon or day before, whatever it was, days are running together to me here.
And they got a hundred and some odd uh for it, only twenty Republicans voted against it, and uh it's non-binding, so it it it's symbolic in nature, but it does get a little bit of indication, and the uh Nancy Pelosi said she's not gonna even bring the bill to the floor unless she's assured of having sixty to seventy Republican votes.
Now, the Republicans in the House are a different animal than the Republicans in the Senate.
These guys have no power.
For you have to understand something.
They they they in terms of running that institution, they can use procedural maneuvers to block things that happen, but they really don't have any power, and they're not gonna have any power, not real power to lay wind control of the place back.
And I'm here to tell you that the Republicans are there a slew of them in the House that know damn well if they end up letting this bill become law if it comes out of the Senate, they're cooked too.
All of them are s are gonna be at risk here, at least the ones that that uh that enable it to pass if it ever does get to the uh to the House.
But I'll tell you why I I I kind of agree with Mr. Snerdley, and I've been I've been reluctant in in mentioning this because uh any time you make a prediction about something and it's a positive prediction, it can it can cause people relax and uh not stay as involved, and that's not what's necessary here.
Uh uh so when I tell you what I really think is gonna happen here, I don't want you to relax.
I want you to pretend you didn't hear it.
But I I agree with Snerdley.
I think at the end of the day, and whenever that is, this is not going to happen in this country.
Precisely because of all of you.
At some point, you, we, the people of this country are going to succeed in stopping this.
Because I think the country still works.
I think the structures still work.
Yeah, we have blips like this, but in the end, the end of the day, this this is why I can't give up until I tell you to give up.
I will know when it's time to pack in the chips and head offshore.
But that uh that time is uh is nowhere near.
Uh we'll hate to see.
I'm not often wrong.
Uh as you know, my uh opinion uh accuracy rating is now documented to be almost always right, 98.7% of the time.
The uh uh effort to to get this done is now some people think that it makes so little sense that none of it makes any sense at all the way we all understand the way the country works that the fix is in and it's gonna happen regardless.
And uh I just have more faith in the in the in the structures of the country and the power of the people in this country to uh effectively eventually get what they want and what is right, the majority Uh in this case.
Lots of evidence in the past to uh recall to cite to uh back up this this uh little feeling of confidence.
Now, I meant to get to this yesterday, and I didn't have a chance to, but there was a column in the Washington Post yesterday by Richard Cohen.
How the GOP could win.
I've got stories here in the immigration stack.
Immigration bill support slipping.
Fewer Democrats supported cloture the second time around than the first time.
The Los Angeles Times says in this story that Democrat votes make the difference between failure and success, and fewer Democrats actually supported cloture than Republicans.
That's its own problematic thing.
In the uh on the website, the Politico.com.
Highest immigration hurdles yet to come.
GOP in House passes their resolution.
We disapprove of Senate Bill in a conference vote.
Twenty-three supported the bills.
I just told you, Pelosi said she needs 65, 70 votes before she'll even bring it to the floor.
Uh the San Francisco Chronicle, fractured Democrats obscured by fight between Bush and conservatives.
Now the headline of this story in the Chronicle is Boxer's vote switch helps revive immigration bill, but as compromises on legislation pile up, odd alliance of backers starts to fall apart.
This story is about the odd alliance of Democrats.
We told you this yesterday, and it's about unions.
And nobody's reporting.
Well, the chronicle reported it locally, but I mean the drive-by's are not talking about the fractured nature of the Democrats on this, because they're so hepped up, they're so excited about the fight going on between Bush and the conservatives and Bush and the Republicans.
And of course, they're excited about Harris Hilton getting out of jail.
They're excited about Lindsay Lohan still being in a rehab.
They're all excited about the fairness doctrine coming.
They're all excited about Slick Willie saying his wife won't be swift booted.
There's another example.
We're uh voted.
We are losing the language.
I like Swift booted better.
Not one allegation that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth charged and made against John Kerry has ever been shown to be false.
And yet the drive-by say they are unfounded allegations.
And Clinton's out there saying, I'm not going to let my wife get swift booted.
And what he means to say is I'm not going to let a bunch of lies told about my wife stick.
We're going to fight back.
And that's the way Clinton Inc.
works, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had truth on their side.
So you you've got we got discord on the Democrat side, and now this Richard Cohen piece comes along how the GOP could win.
Some of you might think this is sophomoric, but to me it indicates two things that and I'll give you the details of it here in just a second.
Cohen uh is is is worried about the McGovernization of the Democrat Party, something I have told you is happening for two years because of their anti-war stance, because of their open hostility to victory, because of their investment in defeat.
They own it.
You know it and I know it.
That this is gonna come back to haunt them at some point.
It's just off the page right now because of the immigration bill.
People only have an emotional reservoir of so much content, uh, and the immigration bill is attracting all the attention.
But if you if you dig deep, you can find the Democrats out there a little worried.
He said uh starts his piece this way.
There are two ways to predict the winner of the 08 presidential race.
You can check the polls or read some history.
The polls tell you that with Bush's approval ratings abysmally low, with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular, with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate, and with the party divided over immigration, social issues, and even religion.
Now, that means Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
Anyway, the next president's bound to be a Democrat, but history begs to differ.
The history Mr. Cohen refers to is 1972.
By the end of that year, 56,844 Americans had been killed in Vietnam.
A war that almost no one thought could still be won, and that no one could quite figure out how to end.
Nevertheless, the winner in that year's presidential election, Richard Nixon, 49 of 50 states he won.
The war, of course, went on.
Just as it is hard to understand how the British ousted Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in Europe in World War II, so it may be hard now to appreciate how Nixon won a landslide while presiding over such a dismal war.
First place, he was the incumbent with all the advantages and so forth.
The second place, back then, the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think, or for that matter, as the Iraq war is now.
In 72, almost 60% of Americans approved of the way Nixon was handling the war.
But maybe more to the point.
Most Americans didn't endorse the way the Democrats would handle the war, nor the way the anti-war movement was behaving.
Nixon seized on those sediments, and in a feat that historians will be challenged to explain, characterized McGovern as something of a sissy.
In fact, the Democrat presidential nominee was a genuine World War II hero, B-24 pilot, 35 combat missions, and a distinguished flying cross on his chest.
Nixon, in contrast, had served during the war but never saw combat, but he had, however, seen the polls.
This is similar to what happened in the 04 campaign.
A Bush Cheney ticket consisted of two Vietnam slackers.
Bush had served the Air National Guard.
Channing had obtained five deferments.
Their opponent was the much decorated John Kerry.
Yet during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swiftboat Veterans Movement managed to paint Carey as a quivering liar.
The character attack was so bold, so outrageous that it of course worked.
No, it worked because it was true.
The guy's a fraud.
He's a total phony, and people were able to see it.
Now we come to the current risks.
The war is in Iraq is not or not yet an issue for Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore.
Well, of course, he doesn't he doesn't factor in uh Luger and Voinovich uh jumping ship uh yesterday.
But he goes on to let's get to the end of this.
This is the this is where history raises its ugly head.
The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security.
And it's not hard to do, Mr. Cohen.
Especially now.
The Democrats have embraced defeat.
I mean, they've already proclaimed that we've lost.
They're the best propaganda machine Al Qaeda has.
And they says it's equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way.
And while most Americans would like the war to end, they don't favor a precipitous withdrawal, and neither have they forgotten 9-11.
Will history trump the polls?
It will if, as in the past, the Democrats so wound themselves fighting the war against the war that they nominate a candidate beloved by a minority but mistrusted by a majority.
It's happened before.
So you can make of this what you will, but I mean the point is, all this talk about how confident and arrogant they are, that's true, but there are there are cracks, there are fissures out there.
And I'm telling you, I think he's right.
I think they're McGovernizing themselves, and I think with all this attention being paid to immigration, people are not cognizant of it.
I'm saying the Washington elite is not cognizant of uh, like they know how we feel about immigration.
I don't think I don't think they're on the page at all about the Iraq War.
They don't want us to lose.
Uh if the American people wanted us out of their lickety split, you know the drill, uh, wouldn't have had to buy all those votes in the house with pork.
Uh, the Senate resolutions would have passed uh uh the but those guys were not hearing from the American people on Get Us Out of Iraq.
They were hearing from their little fringe kooks in the blogosphere that comprised their base.
So uh as you know, it may not eventuate in 08, but these people, uh, with their immigration stance or with everything else they are in the war at Iraq and their their attack on uh the essence of this country capitalism, they are sowing the seeds of their eventual landslide defeat.
Cohen knows it.
We'll be back to this.
I mentioned this in the first hour.
We'll get to the sound bites now because I want to leave you hanging on this.
Ann Calder was set up on hardball last night, and Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of the uh Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards, the Breck girl, called in to implore Ann Calder to stop being mean.
They wanted her to be nice.
Stop the personal attack.
Uh I have comments on that aspect of it, but let's just go straight to the audio.
And I want to set uh a couple things up that happened on Hardball last night with something that happened Monday on Good Morning America.
The co-host of that show, Chris Cuomo, was talking to Ann Calder.
And uh he said, you know, you you you said that you were joking about John Edwards and using the uh that slur against gays.
Uh the the the F-word.
Oh, yeah, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards.
Uh that would be mean.
Um but about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack.
Um so I've learned my lesson.
If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.
Now, let's go back.
March 2nd, real time with Bill Maher.
His guests were Barney Frank, Joe Scarborough.
They're discussing comments posted on the Huffington Post, expressing regret that the supposed assassination attempt in Afghanistan in February on Vice President Cheney failed.
Here's a portion of that exchange.
I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow.
If somebody on this panel said they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn't say he did.
Okay.
Did you say quoted that?
Oh, but it's not.
No, I'm just saying that if he did die, other people would live.
The instance here was an assassination plot against Cheney, and there's Bill Maher.
And of course, nobody wants Bill Maher to shut up, although he did get fired uh by ABC for some comments.
Uh but but then all this fairness doctrine talk and all of this, of course, he's on cable, so it doesn't apply, but uh all the mean-spirited attacks, Marr somehow always escapes these criticisms.
He always does.
So now let's move forward to last night on hardball.
Uh during the interview with Ann Colder, Elizabeth Edwards called into the show, and it was set up with NBC that uh she would call in.
Colter was sandbagged and she was she was uh set up, didn't know it, but it didn't phase her.
Uh Chris Matthews says to Elizabeth that she called in.
Do you do you want to say something directly to the person who's with me?
In the South, when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it.
I'd like to ask Ann Coulter to, if she wants to debate on issues, on positions, we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today, but it's quite another matter to for these personal attacks.
The things that she has said over the years, not just about John, uh, but about other candidates, is lowers our uh our di our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.
Uh so I I want to use the opportunity, uh, which I don't get much because Ann and I don't hang out with the same people, um, to ask her politely to stop the personal attacks.
Okay, so I made a joke, let's see, six months ago, and as you point out, they've been raising money off of it for six months.
Right.
Now, what what what's going on here is obvious, is it not?
This is uh uh just as I had a caller the other day, you are responsible for the Hispanics in this country not voting Republicans.
You're mean, you're not nice.
Uh and your hateful rhetoric.
And this is the same thing now.
This is all this I in fact I think this has fairness doctrine implications.
I I actually do I think that this attitude from Elizabeth Edwards, you're too mean.
You need to stop saying things the way you are saying them.
Meanwhile, all the viciousness that comes out of the mouths of Democrats is never criticized, never mentioned.
They then have this exchange with one another.
I didn't say anything about him actually either time.
And no, you know that's not true.
And when what's more, it's been going on for two.
And I don't mind you trying to raise money.
I mean, it's better this than giving fifty thousand dollar speeches to the poor um just to use my name on the web pages.
Um but as for a debate with me, um, yeah, sure.
I'm we'll have a debate.
No, no, you stop raising money on our web page.
No, you don't have to, because I don't mind.
I did not start with that.
You had a column uh a number of years ago.
Okay, the wife of a presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking.
You're asking me to stop speaking.
Stop writing your columns.
Stop writing your book years.
Okay.
Which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's guest and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car.
It said, Ask me about my dead son.
This is not legitimate political dialogue.
It debases political dialogue.
It drives people away from the process.
The fact of the matter is it's the Edwards themselves folks who've been exploiting the death of his son, not Ann Colter.
I've got two pages here of examples, web links, quotes, the Edwards is doing this.
What I would have said is, you know, this is this is really cool, Mrs. Edwards.
Your husband doesn't have the guts to go on Fox.
He's running for president.
That's not very presidential.
Sends you out.
He hides behind your skirt.
Yet here I am with a liberal on a liberal cable network, not afraid to take your phone call.
I'm more qualified to be president than your husband.
Back in a second.
I just saw that uh the Breck girl is going to be on Hardball tonight on MSNBC.
Which begs a couple questions.
We're going to be more interested in what he has to say or what his wife has to say.
And I wonder if they'll let Ann Colter call in and sandbag John Edwards, just as she was sandbagged last night by Mrs. Eddie.
Let's go back in time, shall we?
Let's go back to our audio archives.
October 5th, 2004, Cleveland, Ohio, a presidential debate.
I think the Vice President and his wife love their daughter.
I think they love her very much.
And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter.
Now what is that?
We all, you know, Kerry did the same thing.
Then here came the Breck girl.
That was a vicious personal attack.
And it was aimed at the Republican Christian conservative base, who these clowns thought maybe didn't know that the vice president and his wife had a gay daughter.
And it's all couched in this.
I think the vice president wife love their daughter.
I think they love her very much.
Whatever he said.
The day after this comment, the Brett girl then sent out uh his wife, Elizabeth to bash the Cheneys again.
This was on the ABC Radio Network.
Jim Hickey interviewed Elizabeth Edwards on uh October 14th.
This comment is about Lynn Cheney's remarks about Carrie's comments about Mary Cheney.
I think that it indicates uh a certain degree of shame with respect to uh her her daughter's um sexual preferences.
Well, what is it?
A little tag team action going on here.
The bread girl goes out and talks about what a wonderful couple that Cheneys are.
Why?
They are not afraid to speak publicly.
And then Lynn Cheney said what John Kerry said about uh uh their daughter being gay was uncalled for, was not that was not part of the did not raise the civility of the debate.
And so Edwards' wife goes out and says it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual prep.
But of course, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a vicious personal attack, and that's not lowering the discourse of American politics.
And let's go back to uh 2004 again, October 11th, in Iowa.
This is the Breck girl himself.
If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president.
People like Christopher Reeve are gonna walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.
Now that was not being nice.
That is mean.
That is passing on information to people, giving them false hope that stem cell research, which Bush is, by the way, was doing.
You know the drill on this.
They were just misleading all these people with spinal injuries that only when John Kerry is president will they walk again.
Like Michael J. Fox in his ads during the last election about Parkinson's disease.
Same thing.
These are not nice people.
These are mean people, and this whole episode, by the way, two things, uh, two reasons why it was orchestrated this thing on hardball, they're running out of money at the Edwards campaign.
And he's not doing all that hot.
They've had two big fundraising days.
The last one was when Elizabeth had the press conference announcing that she had cancer or cancer to come back or grown uh I forget what what the previous one was, but I've been watching Pab Buchanan today talk about this, and he's exactly right.
Pab Buchanan said there's no question what this is.
This is a sympathy play.
It is a play for pity.
The Edwardses are not these weak minded, dispirited little people that can't handle hardball in politics.
This is just a sympathy play.
Second thing it is, it falls right in line with this effort to characterize conservative speech as unbalanced, unfair, mean spirited extreme.
We need to regulate it.
Here's uh one more little exchange between Ann Calder and Elizabeth Edwards last night.
An audience member said, why isn't John Edwards making this call?
Yeah, why isn't John Edwards making this call?
Well, you want to respond, we'll end this conversation.
I I haven't talked to the case.
I think this is just another attempt.
I'm making this call as a mother.
I'm the I am I'm the mother of that boy who died.
I my children participate.
These young people behind you are the age of my children.
You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues.
And I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.
Thank you very much.
So you have all the time about response.
I think we heard all we need to hear.
The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking.
No.
All right.
Now the uh uh just uh want to wave these two pieces of paper at you uh when I say that uh it's Edwards who has been exploiting his son's death, uh not Coulter.
There's a link here from front page news, Edwards' Public Success, Spotlight's son's death.
He used it again at the end of 2003 in his own piece, Edward's own piece called Four Trials.
Uh another one running for his son, Teen's death changed Edwards' life.
The Edwards press machine making an issue in 2004, acting as if they're finally opening up about it, but they were on record talking about the death of their son in 2001.
Then again in the Chicago Tribune.
2005, Edwards pretends he's finally opening up about his son's death throughout his campaign for president, and then vice president in 04.
Former Senator John Edwards in North Carolina made it clear the death of his teenage son in a car accident was off limits, not for discussion, in a political context.
Oh, they're they're the ones that have been talking about this.
But now his wife Elizabeth has sent an email to supporters voicing a connection that she shares with Cindy Sheehan.
This is in the Chicago Trib article two years ago.
As she hand was uh camped near Bush's ranch protesting the war, Edwards called on her own family's backers to support Sheehan.
And in a departure from a campaign trail silence that the Edwards has kept about the death of their 16-year-old son, Elizabeth Edwards noted that sheehan's son Casey died in Iraq eight years to the day after her own son.
And then here the Edwards are again in 2006, using it with Oprah and her dim-witted audience.
Book saves memory of son, Edwards tells Oprah.
Uh here's John again finally opening up.
It was characterized.
Finally, after all these painful years, finally opening up after his son's death.
Yet he'd been opening up for four or five years in a row.
Uh and of course, the Edwards campaign site loves to bring it up also, a tribute to Wade Edwards.
So that's what that's what Elizabeth Edwards had called last night about.
Just you know, get Ann Coulter to stop talking about their son's death and exploiting it, and she'd written about it in a column six months ago.
And then today, dear friend, last night I had an important talk with Ann Colter, and I want to tell you what happened.
How did she respond, sadly, perhaps predictably, with more personal attacks?
John's campaigns about the issues, but pundits like Ann Colder are trying to shout him down.
If they'll not stop, it's up to us to cut through the noise.
Help us fight back.
Please give what you can today.
There are just over three days left to hit our nine million dollar goal for the end of the quarter.
If we make it, we can directly reach voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and all over the country with our detailed plans on the issues that matter.
Why do Ann Calder and other right-wing pundits keep attacking John?
Because John's bold specific plan hits them where it hurts.
Solving global warming, ending the war, building a fair economy.
John's agenda threatens everything these talking heads and their corporate cronies stand for, and they know John can win.
But we need your help to hit our goal.
Please give what you can today.
Old things about money.
That's that's that went out from That's the best script I could come up with.
Yep, that's that's that it's uh Elizabeth Edwards today, dated today.
They sent that out in a you know a blast email, and I guess they put it on their website as well.
All right, Jack, in uh in Palm Desert, California, I really appreciate your patience and holding on.
Welcome to the program.
Well, thank you, Raj.
I I just had to call.
You're so eloquent when you describe the dangers of liberalism.
And you've even uh been eloquent when you you select the Trent Lots who have betrayed the Republican Party.
Even our president has turned his back from listening to our to the people who voted him in office.
And I I just ask one question of you.
We don't have a true conservative running for president.
Giuliani, a fine man, but certainly no conservative.
McCain certainly not a conservative.
Why is it I ask then?
We never hear is is Jim Dement.
Is he a conservative?
Or Tom Coburn, is he conservative in the image of Ronald Reagan?
Possibly not.
I don't know for sure.
But certainly someone has to speak and encourage other candidates to get into the fray.
And we don't have a conservative that I can see running.
Possibly you could encourage, I don't know if that's within the rules of the game.
But since you run There are no rules in this game.
That's that's what people have to learn.
Well, all I know is I'm I'm scared to death because whomever a Republican nominates, and God willing he gets elected, is he truly conservative?
I have to say no.
Now this does point to a larger problem.
You you uh say perhaps maybe I or somebody else could encourage somebody who we think is out there, not in the race that uh most closely resembles Reagan.
For somebody they have to want it themselves.
That fire has to be in your belly.
Uh you you that the running for president is so grueling, and it's uh it's a media anal exam, and they're out uh Fred Thompson had even announced it.
They're not trying to destroy him.
Uh that I think uh and they're and they're trying to destroy Giuliani now.
And of course, they've been trying to destroy Mitt Romney, just as they destroyed George Allen uh in the uh in the Senate race.
Allen was I may say so, Allen was somebody I was hoping had the potential that you're talking about.
But the Washington Post took him out in the uh in the uh Senate race against Jim Webb, and that probably is an indication that uh uh it was gonna happen at some point, if not then.
But uh you this is one of these things where you have to deal with what you get.
And what we some sometimes we get paralyzed by Reagan because we have our fond memories.
Reagan was as close to perfection as uh as we can get, and we measure everybody else by that standard.
Of course, uh most everybody's gonna come up short because there was only uh there was only one Ronald Reagan.
But I I look at I understand what you're saying, and I have the same frustrations about it.
They go a little bit deeper than just that we don't have a Republican candidate.
We have it within the Republican Party itself, there's an ongoing effort to minimize and diminish the uh power of the conservative wing of that party because they're embarrassed.
The country club blue blooders uh don't uh don't like them.
And it it will take a a a candidate uh who uh can can relate to people in a conservative way to fire up of the base and again dominate in the Republican Party.
I don't know who it would be.
There will be somebody to come down the road eventually, but this this this immigration bill, some of these other things that are happening out there.
If one of these guys you mentioned or somebody who you haven't mentioned is uh is is looking at this, there is a vacuum that is being created here for just the kind of candidate you suggested.
It's just a little late now.
Uh for filing days and getting involved in these races.
Newt Gingrich is out there and and he's vacillating back and forth as to uh as as to what to do.
People have uh, you know, pluses and minus uh thoughts on on on Gingrich too.
But we will begin the quest.
Uh and of course, I I I know that you will you will understand this, uh, Jack, and I I don't I don't mean this to sound wrong.
The obvious candidate here is me.
But I wouldn't stand a chance.
All that did the first commercial with the word feminazi.
The architect, the author, the creator.
That's right.
I already run the country, so I don't need to take the pay cut of uh running for politics.
Look, I really appreciate what you said.
You're very nice, and I'm not trying to laugh at it.
Uh you make some excellent points.
Uh but this is why, folks, what what Jack said here, by the way, is why gotta stay involved in this.
Uh and and this this will go a long way to producing the kind of candidate that uh you all seem to miss uh that there is this void in now.
And I I a lot of people are of the same opinion, so but it's again look, I don't get frustrated having to say these kind of things, but things are what they are, and you can you can sit around and wish for something different.
But wishing and hoping, you know, hope never did anything.
I mean, hope may s you know you fall down in a well.
You may hope you get out for a couple days, but hoping to get you out.
Uh uh wishing.
Uh has its value, has its place, but it doesn't accomplish anything.
Well, not really uh passion and don't want to get too deep with this because I'm way long here and I might miss a commercial break, and that would get me in trouble.
Be right back.
Okay, back we go to the phones.
Uh Columbus, North Carolina.
Pat, glad you waited.
You're next.
I appreciate your patience.
Oh gosh, there is not many men I'd hold for this long, but for you, Rush, I'll do it.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
And when you talk about not worrying, I worry about you all the time because I don't know what we do without you.
Every time you take a vacation, I'm thinking, oh, please come back to us because we need you.
Well, I'll always come back.
I'll be back.
Good.
Um I'm born in 1951, like you from the Midwest, originally a cheese head from Wisconsin.
My dad was a World War II B-24 uh gunner and spent two years as a prisoner of war, so there's a lot in our backgrounds that are in in common.
And uh but what I want to you kind of stole my topic on the first one on that guy with um in Lake Tahoe that didn't obey the rules and saved his house.
But uh the other hot topic naturally is immigration, and you've covered a lot of that because I mean I have called senators, I have written, I have you know emailed my husband, who is normally not politically active at all, has gotten involved in stuff, and it is just one of the most frustrating things.
And I don't understand our senator from North Carolina, Richard Burr.
And I actually work in South Carolina, and so Lindsey Graham is a big hot button down there.
Um we've lived in both states, we're right on the state line.
And uh I I seriously think they will run somebody against him down there.
They love Jim Dement, but not Lindsay.
Yeah, I got a couple scenarios I'll share with you about dealing with Lindsay Gramnesty.
He needs to be defeated in the primary and head out to LA and you know, get with his buddies out there.
Uh on the left.
I mean, that's where the leftist are.
He's that's that's where he needs to go.
Yep.
Yeah, and I'll tell you, South Carolina South Carolina's an unusual state.
I mean, they they really are conservative, and boy, I'll tell you when they get ticked off, they get ticked off, and that's it.
You know, and and uh listening to talk radio, I listen to a South Carolina talk radio station, and when you leave at three o'clock, the local guy that comes on, it's just one call right after another on Lindsay Graham.
Well, you know, the thing you you mentioned Richard Burr, and uh I I I have friends in North Carolina, uh mistress, as you know, in uh North Carolina.
Really?
Well, you little devil, you know, uh you've not heard that before.
Yes, I have heard you talk about that.
All right, so I'm just thinking that lucky woman.
If I didn't have such a wonderful husband, yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So anyway, she's telling me that uh the that Burr's office is being flooded.
It's it's a total electronic meltdown there.
Yeah.
And that uh uh some scuttle butt that uh as I suggested yesterday, he was he was one of the senators voted for cloture because he didn't you know want a debate to go on, but uh uh he he's one of the there's seven or eight of them people are gonna be watching tomorrow who it is is thought might uh change their minds and vote against uh against cloture tomorrow.
But he's just one of countless senators that are being inundated uh and have been for for weeks and weeks and weeks.
And whether they claim not to care about it, folks, ultimately they do.
Thanks very much for the call out there.
Uh uh, I gotta really get out of here real quick.
Stay with us.
Which will be the most air-headed interview tonight.
Chris Matthews and John Edwards or Larry King in Paris Hilton.
The guests get the same kind of haircut.
So you can't judge it on that.
▲
Export Selection