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
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 EIBnet.com.
I just had a conversation with Mr. Snerdley back in his office.
Snerdley is, are you confident what you told me?
Snerdley'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 closure tomorrow afternoon.
Well, we'll see.
The House is an entirely different manner, a different matter.
Yesterday afternoon, let's see.
Why don't I do it?
Well, let me give you some headlines here.
In the drive-by media.
But where is this?
Remember the thing I told you yesterday, Republicans in the House were going to vote.
Pete Hookstrew little one-sentence statement saying that the Republican caucus opposes the immigration bill currently in the Senate.
They voted on it late yesterday afternoon or day before, whatever it was.
Days are running together to me here.
And they got 100 and some odd for it.
Only 20 Republicans voted against it.
And it's non-binding.
So it's symbolic in nature, but it does get a little bit of indication.
And Nancy Pelosi said she's not going to even bring the bill to the floor unless she's assured of having 60 to 70 Republican votes.
Now, the Republicans in the House are a different animal than the Republicans in the Senate.
These guys have no power.
You have to understand something.
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 going to have any power, not real power, to lay wind control of the place back.
And I'm here to tell you that the Republicans, there are 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 going to be at risk here, at least the ones that enable it to pass if it ever does get to the House.
But I'll tell you why I kind of agree with Mr. Snerdley, and I've been reluctant in mentioning this because anytime you make a prediction about something and it's a positive prediction, it can cause people to relax and not stay as involved.
And that's not what's necessary here.
So when I tell you what I really think is going to happen here, I don't want you to relax.
I want you to pretend you didn't hear it.
But 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 is where I can't give up until I tell you to give up.
I will know when it's time to pack into chips and head offshore.
But that time is nowhere near.
We'll hate to see.
I'm not often wrong.
As you know, my opinion accuracy rating is now documented to be almost always right 98.7% of the time.
The effort 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 going to happen regardless.
And...
And I just have more faith in the structures of the country and the power of the people in this country to effectively, eventually, get what they want and what is right, the majority, in this case.
Lots of evidence in the past to recall, to cite, to back up this 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.
On the website, thepolitico.com.
Highest immigration hurdles yet to come.
GOP and House passes their resolution.
We disapprove of Senate bill.
In a conference vote, 23 supported the bill as I just told you.
Pelosi said she needs 65, 70 votes before she'll even bring it to the floor.
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-bys are not talking about the fractured nature of the Democrats on this because they're so hept 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 Lindsey Lohan still being in a remote 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 voted.
We are losing the language.
I like Swift booted better.
Not one allegation that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth charged and made against John Kerry has ever been shown to be false.
And yet the drive-bys 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 Swiftboat Veterans for Truth had truth on their side.
So you've 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.
And I'll give you details of it here in just a second.
Cohen 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 going to 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, and the immigration bill is attracting all the attention.
But if you dig deep, you can find the Democrats out there a little worried.
He said, he 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.
Does that mean 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 him 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.
In 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 1972, 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 sentiments 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.
Chaney 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 Kerry as a quivering liar.
The character attack was so bald, 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 race.
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 factor in Luger and Voinovich jumping ship yesterday.
But he goes on to get to the end of this.
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 he 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 cracks, there are fissures out there.
And I'm telling you, I think he's right.
I think they're MacGovernizing themselves.
And I think with all this attention being paid to immigration, people are not cognizant of it.
I'm sure the Washington elite is not cognizant of, like, they know how we feel about immigration.
I don't think they're on the page at all about the Iraq war.
They don't want us to lose.
If the American people wanted us out of their lickety split, you know the drill.
They wouldn't have had to buy all those votes in the House with pork.
The Senate resolutions would have passed.
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 as you know, it may not eventuate in 08, but these people, with their immigration stance, with everything else they are in the war at Iraq and their attack on 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 Colder was set up on Hardball last night, and Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of the Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards, the Brett girl, called in to implore Ann Colder to stop being mean.
They wanted her to be nice.
Stop the personal attack.
I have comments on that aspect of it, but let's just go straight to the audio.
And I want to set a couple things up.
It 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 Coulter.
And he said, you know, you said that you were joking about John Edwards and using that slur against gays, the F-word.
Oh, yeah, I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards.
That would be mean.
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.
So I've learned my lesson.
If I'm going to 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 wish that Dick Cheney had been blown up and you didn't say that he did.
Okay, did you say?
No, I quoted that.
Wait a minute.
No, I'm just saying that if he did die, other people, more 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 by ABC for some comments.
But all this fairness doctrine talk and all of this, of course, he's on cable, so it doesn't apply.
But all the mean-spirited attacks, Maher somehow always escapes these criticisms.
He always does.
So now let's move forward to last night on hardball.
During the interview with Ann Calder, Elizabeth Edwards called into the show, and it was set up with NBC that she would call in.
Coulter was sandbagged and she was set up, didn't know it, but it didn't phase her.
Chris Matthews says to Elizabeth that she called in, 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, too, 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 for these personal attacks.
The things that she has said over the years, not just about John, but about other candidates, lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.
So I want to use the opportunity, which I don't get much because Ann and I don't hang out with the same people, 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's going on here is obvious, is it not?
This is just as I had a caller the other day, you are responsible for the Hispanics in this country not voting Republicans.
You are mean.
You're not nice.
And you're hateful rhetoric.
And this is the same thing now.
This is all.
In fact, I think this has fairness doctrine implications.
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, Tom.
And you know that's not true.
And what's more, this has been going on for a while.
And I don't mind you trying to raise money.
I mean, it's better this than giving $50,000 speeches to poor just to use my name on the web pages.
But as for a debate with me, yeah, sure.
I'm asking to stop personal attacks.
No, no, you stop raising money on our web page.
No, you don't have to because I don't mind.
You did not start with that.
You had a column a number of years ago.
Okay, where your wife of a presidential candidate was calling in, asking me a letter finished.
You're asking me to stop speaking.
Stop writing your columns.
Stop writing your book.
Mate, which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, ask me about my dead son.
This now is not legitimate.
Three years ago.
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 Coulter.
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 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 the Brett 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 Coulter call in and sandbag John Edwards, just as she was sandbagged last night by Mrs. Edippers.
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 already, you know, Carrie did the same thing.
Then here came the Brett 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 and wife love their daughter.
I think they love her very much, but ah, whatever he said.
The day after this comment, the Brett girl then sent out his wife, Elizabeth, to bash the Cheneys again.
This was on the ABC Radio Network.
Jim Hickey interviewed Elizabeth Edwards on October 14th.
This comment is about Lynn Cheney's remarks about Carrie's comments about Mary Cheney.
I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences.
Well, what is this?
A little tag team actually going on here.
The Brett girl goes out and talks about what a wonderful couple the Cheneys are.
Why?
They are not afraid to speak publicly.
And then Lynn Cheney said what John Kerry said about their daughter being gay was uncalled for.
It 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.
Of course, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a vicious personal attack.
That's not lowering the discourse of American politics.
And let's go back to 2004 again, October 11th in Iowa.
This is the Brett 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 going to 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, by the way, was doing.
You know the drill on this.
They were misleading all these people with spinal injuries that only when John Kerry is president will they walk again.
Like Michael J. Fox and his ads during the last election about Parkinson's.
Same thing.
These are not nice people.
These are mean people.
And this whole episode, by the way, two things, 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 had come back or had grown.
I forget what the previous one was.
I've been watching Pat Buchanan today talk about this, and he's exactly right.
Pat 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 one more little exchange between Ann Colder 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, do you want to respond while in this conversation?
I haven't talked about this.
I think this is just another attempt.
I'm making this call as a mother.
I'm the mother of that boy who died.
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.
Well, you want to respond.
You have all the time to respond.
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 just want to wave these two pieces of paper at you when I say that it's Edwards who has been exploiting his son's death, not Coulter.
There's a link here from Front Page News.
Edwards' public success spotlights son's death.
He used it again at the end of 2003 in his own piece, Edwards' own piece called Four Trials.
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 2004.
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 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 Sheehan was 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, comma.
Edwards tells Oprah.
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.
And of course, the Edwards campaign site loves to bring it up also, a tribute to Wade Edwards.
So, and that's what that's what Elizabeth Edwards called last night about to 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 Coulter, and I want to tell you what happened.
How did she respond, sadly, perhaps predictably, with more personal attacks?
John's campaign's about the issues, but pundits like Ann Coulter 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 $9 million 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 Coulter 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.
The whole thing.
That went out from that's the best script they 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 Palm Desert, California, I really appreciate your patience and holding on.
Welcome to the program.
Well, thank you, Raj.
I just had to call.
You're so eloquent when you describe the dangers of liberalism.
And you've even been eloquent when you select the Trent lots who have betrayed the Republican Party.
Even our president has turned his back from listening to the people who voted him in office.
And 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 Jim DeMint, 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 what people have to learn.
Well, all I know is 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 said perhaps maybe I or somebody else could encourage somebody who we think is out there not in the race that most closely resembles Reagan.
They have to want it themselves.
That fire has to be in your belly.
Running for president is so grueling, and it's a media anal exam.
Fred Thompson had even announced it.
They're not trying to destroy him.
But I think, 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 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 Senate race against Jim Webb.
And that probably is an indication that it was going to happen at some point, if not then.
But this is one of these things where you have to deal with what you get.
And sometimes we get paralyzed by Reagan because we have our fond memories.
Reagan was as close to perfection as we can get, and we measure everybody else by that standard.
And of course, most everybody's going to come up short because there was only one Ronald Reagan.
But 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.
Within the Republican Party itself, there is an ongoing effort to minimize and diminish the power of the conservative wing of that party because they're embarrassed.
The country club blueblooders don't like them.
And it will take a candidate who can relate to people in a conservative way, the 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 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 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 for filing days of getting involved in these races.
Newt Gingrich is out there and he's vacillating back and forth as to what to do.
People have pluses and minus thoughts on Gingrich, too.
But we will begin the quest.
And, of course, I know that you will understand this, Jack.
And 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 running for politics.
Look, I really appreciate what you said.
You're very nice.
I'm not trying to laugh at it.
You make some excellent points.
But this is why, folks, what Jack said here, by the way, is why you've got to stay involved in this.
And this will go a long way to producing the kind of candidate that you all seem to miss, that there is this void in now.
And a lot of people are of the same opinion.
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 sit around and wish for something different.
But wishing and hoping, you know, hope never did anything.
I mean, hope may fall down in a well.
You may hope you get out for a couple days, but hope ain't going to get you out.
Wishing has its value, has its place, but it doesn't accomplish anything.
Well, not really passion.
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.
Columbus, North Carolina.
Pat, glad you waited.
You're next.
I appreciate your patience.
Oh, gosh.
There's 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'd 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.
I'm born in 1951 like you from the Midwest, originally a cheesehead from Wisconsin.
My dad was a World War II B-24 gunner and spent two years as a prisoner of war.
So there's a lot in our backgrounds that are in common.
But what I wanted, you kind of stole my topic on the first one on that guy in Lake Tahoe that didn't obey the rules and saved his house.
But 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 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.
We've lived in both states.
We're right on the state line.
And I seriously think they will run somebody against him down there.
They love Jim DeMint, but not Lindsey.
Yeah, I got a couple scenarios I'll share with you about dealing with Lindsey Graham Nesty.
He needs to be defeated in the primary and head out to L.A. and get with his buddies out there.
On the left, I mean, that's where the leftists are.
That's where he needs to go.
Yep.
Yeah, and I'll tell you, South Carolina is an unusual state.
I mean, they really are conservative.
And boy, I'll tell you, when they get ticked off, they get ticked off, and that's it.
And listening to talk radio, I listen to a South Carolina talk radio station.
And when you leave at 3 o'clock, the local guy that comes on, it's just one call right after another on Lindsey Graham.
Well, you know, the thing, you mentioned Richard Burr, and I have friends in North Carolina.
I'm a mistress, as you know, in North Carolina.
Really?
Well, you little devil, you.
Yes.
Well, anyway, you've not heard that before?
Yes, I have heard you talk about that.
I'm just thinking that lucky woman, if I didn't have such a wonderful husband.
Yeah.
Okay, so anyway, she's telling me that Burr's office is being flooded.
It's a total electronic meltdown there.
Yeah.
And that some scuttlebutt that, as I suggested yesterday, he was one of the senators, voted for cloture because he didn't want a debate to go on.
He's one of the, there's seven or eight of them, people are going to be watching tomorrow, who it is thought might change their minds and vote against cloture tomorrow.
But he's just one of countless senators that are being inundated and have been 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.
I got to really get out of here real quick.
Stay with me.
Which will be the most airheaded 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.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection