All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
June 28, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, we're back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Let's see what am I?
I'm the man who runs America.
You know it and I know it.
I'm now a generator of simplicity, according to Dingy Harry.
I'm an untamed piece of the Republican message machine.
I guess that pretty much uh covers it.
Great to have you with us, the telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at eIBNet.com.
I do have a lot of things beside this, besides this immigration stuff that I want to get to.
There's some global warming uh uh information.
I want to talk specifically about the uh the the flooding that's going on in Texas, and uh, you know, the global warming advocates are out there saying, hey, see global warming, it's out of control.
And it's not global warming, and it's not unusual.
We've had droughts and floods since we've had uh we've had planet Earth.
Uh the Supreme Court decision rejecting the uh uh assignment of uh schools based on race.
That's big.
It's not as big as you might think, but it's uh it's big.
I I have uh four more sound bites, however, on the immigration bill.
And I want to go back and play two more.
Uh the we played or play enough two that we played in the previous hour.
Uh one from Harry Reid, one from Senator Kennedy, and uh they have unwittingly set me up here, ladies and gentlemen, to explain uh the futility and the irrelevance and the lack of total necessity, at least in the in the terms of people being properly informed of the fairness doctrine.
Now, the purpose of the fairness doctrine from their side is to shut up opposition that they don't want to deal with.
But let's go back and listen to Senator Reed again.
This is from this morning on the Senate floor before the cloture vote was taken and failed.
Talk radio has had a field day.
These generators of simplicity.
Now, Ms. Mr. President, I want everyone to know.
That that I want you to remember that.
Generator of simplicity, talk radio generators of simplicity.
He has unwittingly paid me a huge compliment.
He's trying to insult me, but he has paid me a huge compliment.
And to illustrate this, let's listen to Senator Kennedy again.
This is prior to the vote, as he's ranting and raving here about all the things the illegals are going to have to do to become citizens in this bill.
And we have a process that said, look, okay, you're here and undocumented, and you're gonna have to pay a price.
We're gonna take people that are in the line that have said that they want to play by the rules.
They go and they wait and you wait and you wait and you wait and you wait, and you pay and you pay and you pay.
You pay your fees, you pay your processing fees, your adjustment fees.
You pay not over for yourself, you pay for the other members of the family.
You demonstrate that you're going to learn English, you demonstrate that you've worked here, you demonstrate that you're a good citizen, you demonstrate that you haven't had any run-on in crime.
And then maybe, and then maybe you get on that pathway with the green card, and perhaps in 15, 18 years you'll be able to raise your hand and be a citizen here in the United States.
Now, what I want to demonstrate here is a generator of simplicity.
See, the the uh what you know, I have a phrase here.
I take make the complex understandable.
So what do we have here?
We had 700 pages of absolute confusion.
Uh that a lot of people in the Senate didn't even know the contents.
Uh as a generator of simplicity, what I actually do is take all of this gobbledygook and synthesize it down to the point that it makes sense and you can understand what's really in it.
And Senator Kennedy here gives me an illustration to demonstrate or a chance to demonstrate that.
Senator Kennedy's whole point was that if the 12 to 20 million want to become citizens, look at all we're making them do.
Why they gotta pay and pay and pay and pay, fines, fines, fines, registration fees, processing fees, they gotta go back, they gotta get in line, and maybe 15 to 18 years, then they become good citizens, raise their hand, become citizens.
That's not gonna happen because it's unnecessary to stay here legally.
They don't have to pay one cent in fines unless they seek the pathway to citizenship.
And the odds that that would happen are slim to none.
And Slim left town a long time ago on this issue.
So Senator Kennedy wants everybody to believe we're gonna be hard on these people.
The whole point of that provision, by the way, was try to convince you uh we're gonna really hammer these people.
I mean, you think we're sitting there loving these people and we're gonna hammer them, we're gonna Make them pay.
We're gonna make them pay, we're gonna make them pay, but Senator Kennedy didn't count on the fact that there were people like me and others who could read the legislation and quickly ascertain that the Z visa would be granted in 24 hours, and you're legal, and that means you're permanent, and you don't have to be a citizen.
And then the simple question that we always asked, what if they don't do any of this?
What if they don't do what then?
And that's where Senator Kennedy doesn't have an answer.
So, yeah, I'm a generator of simplicity.
I take the complex and make it understandable.
And I take all the gobbledygook in some of this legislation, and I make it understandable to people, and I something like this, I think you can figure out on your own once you have access to it.
It makes uh it makes total sense.
Now, four more sound bites on this because they're all revved up about the fairness doctrine.
Uh there's no balance here.
Uh no debate.
Uh one side doesn't have a chance to air its views on talk radio.
Yesterday on the Senate floor, Republican Senator from Louisiana David Vitter and Jim Dement, a Republican from South Carolina, had some run-ins with the Senate majority leader Harry Reed during the immigration amendment debate.
And here's a montage of their reactions to the actions of Dingy Harry.
Mr. President, I asked for five minutes under the same time agreement.
For any purpose.
Oh.
I'm sorry.
I can't do that.
I would have to object to that.
A parliamentary inquiry.
Do I not have the right to reserve the right to object?
No.
How many rules are we going to change?
So these guys wanted to have their say about the amendments, and Dingy Harry wouldn't allow them to speak on the Senate floor.
Now he's exercising Senate rules.
That's fine.
But where do these guys go?
Do we need a fairness doctrine for the Senate?
Here's Vitter on the Senate floor who later said this.
Yeah, there's unlimited debate as long as you agree not to exercise any of your rights as United States Senator.
You can talk only.
You can't make a motion.
You can't try to bring up your amendments.
And Denji Harry wasn't going to stand for this, so he tried to defend his shutdown of debate.
I have tried to make these as family-friendly as possible, that is, Senate family-friendly.
I say to my friend during the early days of this legislation, amendments were offered by him and others, some of which got votes, some didn't.
That's the way the Senate operates.
Yeah, well, talk radio operates in the free market, folks, and if you can make it, you thrive.
If you don't, you fail, you go bankrupt.
Um but yet nobody's talking about regulating the Senate because its rules are allowed to prevail, as they should.
They're a private club, essentially, can make their own rules.
We're in the market, and the market makes our rules, and yet they don't like the way the market is producing results, and so they gotta regulate us.
Here's Maurice Henshey, Republican he's not a Republican, he's a Democrat in New York, I think.
Uh whatever, he's from New York, and he said this about the fairness docs.
There's internet quality here, by the way.
I don't think it's a good idea to have uh any particular media focused on just one aspect of the information, one point of view, a one philosophy.
Yeah, you know, uh, how can you say that after this particular debate, Congressman Henshey?
You had uh the leader of the Republican Party, many leaders of the Republicans in the Senate urging this, and why guess who didn't go along with them?
Um yeah, uh I'm an untamed piece of a GOP message machine.
Yeah, he's a Democrat uh 22nd district.
And it said Republican here on the Q should.
I knew he couldn't be a Republican.
Any rate, gotta take a quick timeout.
We'll come back.
Supreme Court decision.
If you want to keep talking about the immigration bill, feel free, folks, and we go to the phones.
It's all yours.
Stay tuned.
We're coming right back.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh.
Fearless.
The excellence in broadcasting network.
All right, moving on to other things.
Supreme Court today, this is pretty big.
Rejected diversity plans in two major scrual districts that take race into account in assigning students, but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances, and that's because of a concurring opinion written by uh uh Anthony Kennedy.
It's 5'4 decision here, Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment.
Uh this uh this uh decision in cases affecting uh schools in Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricts how uh public scrubal systems may attain racial diversity.
Yet Justice Kennedy wouldn't go as far as the other four justices in the five four side, saying, in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve the uh diversity.
So we gotta be we have to be careful.
Uh Kennedy writes this concurring opinion saying that this school district went too far, but at times race can be a factor.
So he pulled an O'Connor here.
Uh we won the case.
But what what Kennedy's uh opinion, his concurring opinion means is that we're not quite sure how deep the precedent goes, but it still is big.
Dingy Harry, the left has gone bonkers over this.
Harry Reed made the following statement today in response to the decision.
The Supreme Court decision in the school desegregation cases is appalling.
Ever since Brown versus Board of Education, it's been settled law that the Constitution requires racially mixed schools.
Today's decision turns Brown upside down, ignores decades of constitutional history.
If this isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is.
Folks, I love this.
This is judicial restraint that has reigned in judicial activism.
And the left knows it, and they are bonkers out there.
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, said the Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion.
Now, in a further illustration of the value of this program, what is at stake here?
What is this all about?
The notion here that diversity makes great communities, that diversity, putting people that are not like each other in whatever way, why that is what strengthens our society.
Well, is it Robert Putnam is a Harvard political scientist.
He is the author of a book called Bowling Alone.
John Leo wrote the piece here.
Very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so.
He has conducted a five-year study on diversity.
And it shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short and medium-term influence on the social capital, the fabric of associations, trust and neighborliness that create and sustain communities.
He fears that his own work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.
His study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves.
Trust, even for members of one's own race, is lower.
Altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer.
The problem isn't ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation.
He writes, in colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to hunker down, that is to pull in like a turtle.
In the 41 sites that Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust their neighbors.
It proved true in communities large and small, big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston, to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia.
In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30% of people say they trust neighbors a lot.
In ethnically homogenous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70% to 80%.
Now, he th Putnam says that the diversity does not produce bad race relations.
Rather, people in diverse communities tend to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, to give less to charity, to work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and they uh tend to huddle unhappily in front of the TV.
Quote unquote.
He adds a crushing footnote.
His findings may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.
And I frankly think that was the goal.
I I I think the left is trying to destroy the culture that the distinct American culture, and I think all this forced bussing and uh uh the the race-based quotas, affirmative action is designed to create agitation among people and gets designed to put people in situations of drama and angst, because it's it's uh it's said that you're racist or bigoted to sexist if you just want to hang around with people you like.
And what happens in these and now this this article is not about the schools.
It's about this did this study worrying about the impact on immigration and the immigration debate, and he was is afraid that his uh research would harm the uh the uh amnesty side, so he was afraid to release it.
He eventually did, but he was afraid of the outcome.
Well, point that I'm trying to make here with all this is that uh you take the school ruling today from the United States Supreme Court, and the whole point of all of this, you know, putting people together, busting them away from their homes, making sure schools have quote unquote diversity.
If it can happen in communities, it's certainly happen anywhere else.
Uh and so the idea, the whole the whole premise here that diversity works, that diversity is and you know that that's a huge liberal premise.
They love this because they love victims and they love minorities and they want to punish majorities, wherever and whoever they are.
And uh that the the the the because the majority they fear has the right to hang with who they want to hang with, to buy what they want to buy, to do what they want to do, and it's just not right.
So they want them to have misery in their lives as well, as though the majority never does have misery in their lives.
But liberalism is all about spreading misery equally, and they call that fairness or equality or what have you.
Putnam has long been aware that his findings could have a big effect on the immigration debate.
Last October he told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.
So he wanted he knew what he had, but he didn't want to release it until he could come up with ways uh to uh uh compensate for it with other suggestions and ideas.
He said it would have been irresponsible to publish without ways to correct what he found.
That's a quote that should raise eyebrows.
Academics aren't supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings.
Uh so the notion that diversity is a positive, a net positive on the way cultures and societies work has been disproven by a Harvard political scientist.
And I wanted to share that with you that have had it in a stack a couple days.
I wanted to share that with you in light of the Supreme Court decision today, because you know, race-based assignments to schools is nothing more than the left trying to achieve diversity.
Uh and whether it works or not, it's it's uh it's just judging things the way they look, not how they work.
It's judging them on their intentions and their big-heartedness and their goodness as good people rather than judging the results of what they do.
Let's go to the uh uh phones west of Boston Donald, you're uh you're up, and I'm I'm glad you held on.
I appreciate your patience.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
Help help me with this fairness doctrine.
Let me give you my assumption, and you can tell me if they're wrong.
I'll be happy to, sir.
I'm an expert on the fairness doctrine.
I'm an expert on fairness.
Okay.
First, I'm thinking that the radio spectrum is a finite resort.
And then I'm thinking that the government has claimed ownership of that with the FCC and with other international treaties.
So the government thinks that they can uh control this with licenses, spectrum, frequencies, and all that.
So why can't they allocate why can't they allocate speech as well?
Ever heard of the First Amendment.
Of course I have, but the grant is granting licenses to use a portion of the spectrum to radio station owners and broadcasters, uh and and and regulating it which they do.
Uh, you know, that's that's one thing.
Uh and much you know, many of those restrictions have been relaxed on it.
Isn't that different than But the radio operates in the free market?
The when you say the government owns it, the people own it.
That's that's the point.
They're considered public airwaves.
The people own it, not the government.
You have got to get it through your head, and a lot of you too, too, that the government is not the people.
And that the Bill of Rights was written to limit what government can do in terms of restricting the freedom of the people.
The Bill of Rights is not what government grants us.
It limits them.
I will continue on this when we come back.
Making the complex understandable is the man who's running America and has to be dealt with.
You know it, and I know it.
Generating simplicity for millions of Americans here at 800-282-288-2, email address rush at EIBNet.com.
One of the things I want to remind you all of in this fairness doctrine uh debate, question, threat, whatever it is.
Do you remember the um the Pew poll?
We've got this poll on Coco, grab this poll, put it up on the uh on the on the website either now or when we update later this afternoon to reflect the contents uh from uh of this program because remember, yeah, for a while I was saying you all are the most knowledgeable audience in all of American media.
The Pew Research Center for people to press went out and they uh they interviewed people and they asked them a series of questions, three news knowledge questions, and the most informed audience belongs to the political magazines, my radio show.
So my the the the this radio show has the most informed audience of all broadcast entities out there.
After that came news magazines, online news sources, um NPR, the Daily Show, the O'Reilly factor, the television show.
But in the uh in a list of broadcast media outlets, this program has the most informed audience.
Now, you have to understand it was the guy called and said, Is it it isn't it fair for the government to regulate speech if they regulate everything else about the federal broadcast spectrum?
Uh no, we operate in the marketplace.
Radio stations are businesses.
Television stations are businesses, and television, over-the-air television.
I don't care whether you get it on cable or not, but broadcast signals, your big network stations.
This does not include cable news channels, but your local ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW affiliate, whatever the affiliates are, they're all over the air, whether you get them on cable or not, and they too are regulated.
They are part of the spectrum.
So why shouldn't the fairness doctrine apply to them?
For example, this is a syndicated program.
I am not on a particular radio station.
I'm not an employee of a radio station.
So what would happen, the way the fairness doctrine would work is that, and it's being set up this way.
Professional complainers.
I order, like, take any element of today's show, criticizing Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy.
Within minutes, the general managers of 600 radio stations would receive phone calls from moveon.org type activists demanding that they get a chance to respond to what I said.
And I might put them off for a while, but they'd keep calling and keep calling, and if the fairness doctrine were law, they would have to grant that.
And then the station managers would say, hell with this.
We can't run a business this way.
I mean, this is this is ridiculous.
We're we're turning over the programming literally to people who aren't broadcasters.
And we're a business.
And so they just cancel all the quote unquote controversial programming, and they'd have to go back to, you know, doing things that nobody wanted to listen to, which is what happened when radio was regulated so much in the first place.
And let me remind you, you may not remember this, but you know, I've been in radio since I was sixteen.
And back when I started 1967, uh there were a number of controls and and uh there was all sorts of regulation.
Every five years, this is still the case.
Every five years, everybody owns a radio station has to get their broadcast license renewed by the FCC because they're using the public airwaves.
The public is not the government.
Don't please don't ever make that mistake.
Don't I don't want to ever hear anybody call here again and say that the government is the people.
The elected officials are representatives of the people.
But the broadcast airwaves are owned by you, theoretically.
I mean, it's it's it's it's it's ours because it's air, and we're putting stuff in the air that your signal, your radio signal can receive, and so forth and so on.
See, so because of that, managements at radio stations, both groups and individual stations, lived in fear.
Their license was not renewed every five years.
So they had to go out and make sure they didn't get in trouble.
Fairness doctrine existed.
There wasn't any controversial programming at all.
Um it might have existed in in in pockets around the country, but if it did, it was from midnight to six or nine to midnight, this, you know, this time when when radio listenership is uh is losing to television viewership.
Especially in the early days of TV when everybody's going out and buying TVs, color TV came in, so they didn't care what happened at night on radio because nobody was listening then.
Well, part of this license renewal every five years was something called public ascertainment.
And I had to do this a couple times when I was a program director at radio stations.
What it was was we'd have to convene meetings of community leaders, did it in the public libraries, you know, wherever.
And we would ascertain what they thought the radio station should be providing the community.
So if it ended up after ascertainment and we had to make detailed reports on all this, uh in fact, I got yelled at by a general manager once for arguing with some of these people uh during ascertainment.
I remember in Kansas City once uh we had a meeting in the library, and this guy was this a music station, by the way.
We were just playing music.
This guy got into, well, I want to hear more about uh public library, I want to hear more about you wouldn't believe the kind of garbage that nobody would care about listening to, these people wanted on the radio.
So at the end of ascertainment, let's say that two percent of the people that we interviewed wanted agriculture news.
Okay, well, we had to do it.
2% of the programming had to be agriculture news.
Well, I had a number of ways to do this.
You could do the morning barnyard report at 5 a.m. before everybody got up, and you could do 10 or 15 minutes of it and do enough of it every day, so that added up after seven days to 2% of the broadcast week.
Now, I had to do, even in Pittsburgh, when I moved there in 1971, this stuff was still going on.
So, and because Pittsburgh is in an ADI that includes a lot of agriculture communities, we had to do a certain amount of farm news.
Well, I'm I'm doing a morning show playing music, and the the last thing that the audience of my show cares about is farm news.
I mean, if farm news came on, bam, they'd push the button and go somewhere else.
So we had to figure out, okay, how do we do this and protect the license?
So I turned the farm news every day into a funny bit with farm sound effects and the roosters crowing and so forth, and I'd I'd make fun of the, you know, the stockyard feed prices or whatever it was, so that we could say we're doing barn news, you know, agriculture news.
It was all kinds of things like that.
You remember in the go back 20 years in radio, you'd get up on a Sunday morning and you'd turn on the radio, you're listening to some of the dullest.
Public service programming, you know, two people coming in talking about carrot cake recipes for the holiday season.
It was just absurd.
Uh and all this stuff was dumped either from midnight to six, or it was put on early Sunday morning when people were not listening to the radio.
I can remember having to run our little in my little town of Cape Girardo, there was a large religious component.
They want to hear a lot of religious programming.
So we go out, we'd buy our what we would sell, actually, hour-long programs to local preachers.
And some of them were a hoot.
You know, some of the some of this stuff was just unbelievable.
Some of them would come in and do it live.
And I would have to sit there and run the control board while these guys are preaching and sermonizing.
And I would say to them, uh, what was one of these guys?
I can't remember any of their names.
But I said, uh, I said, Minister so-and-so, do you do you do you think I am committing sin?
Remember, I'm 17 years old doing this.
Do you think do you think I'm committing sin by working here on Sunday morning rather than being in church?
I think the Lord knows, son, that there are millions of us that have a duty to feed our families early in the morning and Sundays and can't get to besides, son, you are listening to my sermons here, and you can't be in God's disfavor if that's okay, good, so I'm saved.
Uh Sunday way, all that's gone by the wayside now.
I mean, you don't you can turn on a radio on Sunday morning and list the stuff you want to listen to.
And you don't have to listen to barnyard news when you don't care about it.
And nothing against AgNews here, but I mean uh all that stuff went by the wayside because radio was losing listeners, it was losing business.
It was the television was good because television wasn't governed this way.
Television, if they put barnyard news on, uh, you know, it was it was it was part of a normal hour-long newscast and so forth that local TV stations did.
But if this fairness doctrine ever comes back, uh that's the kind of stuff that's gonna end up being back on radio.
And it'll die.
AM radio will die if it has to start ascertaining the community and all these non-broadcasters and non-professionals and professional muckrakers who want radio to die, and believe me, the whole left wing of this country does, they'll make sure that local AM radio is filled with the most worthless garbage, including their views, which has also been shown on radio to be unattractive.
Nobody wants to listen to it.
This fairness doctrine comes back.
I got off a point here a moment ago.
I'm a syndicated program.
I'm not an employee of any radio station.
And yet, local activists could go to your local station carrying this, your your EIB affiliate and demand equal time for what I am saying.
Well, okay, fine.
Then why can't we pepper television stations under the fairness doctrine?
I want equal time to what I just heard on the ABC World News Tonight.
I there tell me that that's balanced.
You tell me that the CBS evening news with Katie Kurick is balanced.
You tell me that the NBC nightly news with anybody, Brian is balanced.
Give me a major break.
And how about these morning shows that are full of pap?
You know, we could flood televisions, but the f note that the fairness doctrine is not being applied to television.
Nobody's talking about reapplying it to television.
They only want to reapply it to radio.
And it's not because they want all sides represented.
There are when I started 1988, the number of talk stations, radio stations doing talk from sun up to sundown, well, 24-7 was what was it?
Like 120.
125 talk stations in 1988.
There are 2,000 today.
There are 2,000 radio stations doing talk.
And there are leftists out there hosting shows.
Some of them are local, some of them are fledgling out there with so-called uh you know, they're national with 40 or 50 stations, yip, yip, yip, yip yahoo.
Uh you're not national unless you reach uh 75, 80 percent.
Or no, you're you're not national until you reach in advertising terms, because this is where it matters.
You're not, you're not national until you um uh reach over 90 percent, uh have the ability to reach 90 percent of the population of the country.
You know how you do that?
You get yourself on the best stations you can in the top 25 markets.
You get yourself on the best station at top 25 markets, and you reach 90 percent of the American population.
That's when you're national.
But you can't be on a station in Oshkosh and tell everybody you're in Chicago.
But that's what some of these lib guys do.
They're on stage 250 watts.
You can't hear them five minutes away from their broadcast tower, and yet they claim they're national.
And they're not.
And that's what bugs the left too.
They not only can't be heard, they can't be heard, period, because they can't get on decent radio stations.
So they want to take the free market that is determined in the one place, the one place where conservatism has found a way to forage a majority and a dominance in the free market.
They want to shut it up with the reintroduction of the kind of government regulation I was just describing to you.
And it's not for diversity.
And it's not because there are more views out there today, the internet, television, talk radio, there are more divergent opinions than there have ever been in the American media today.
And it's just about silencing one particular ideological opinion, and that's conservatism.
You are the most informed audience in all of American broadcasting, not according to me, but according to the Pew Center for people in the press.
Uh we'll have to remind them of that.
When uh the but that won't matter, but it will matter, it won't matter to them because they don't care.
That scares them, in fact.
That uh that scares them.
The answer ought to be what we need to tell them is uh the the way for you Democrats to fix your problem here with the dominance of people like me in talk radio is to find a way to make my listeners as dumb as your Voters.
Look at folks, as I have said, the left is simply afraid of debate in the arena of ideas.
When they had their monopoly throughout the broadcast and print media, they didn't have to debate opponents because there weren't any that mattered.
And they won't debate now.
Their attitude is there is no opposition.
There's no legitimate opposition.
And we're not going to go out and debate these people in the free market, even though they they tried, but they weren't actually debating.
They were just they were just making a mockery of of well, they weren't even broadcasting.
They weren't even radio people.
They didn't even know what they were doing.
They just thought that uh they would imitate what they think we do to get success here, which proves that they don't understand it.
But look at look at this analogy, if you will.
Still bouncing off the guy who called and talked about the spectrum, the radio spectrum, all the frequencies that are out there.
The radio spectrum is is kind of like the interstate highway system.
It facilitates commerce, but there are only so many interstate highways available.
And there are only so many radio frequencies available on the AM band and the FM band and all the police band, the CB band, all of that.
So on the interstate highway system, do we require that the number of supply trucks of a certain company be no more numerous on the highways than those of another company?
No.
We let the market decide.
You know, if Yellow Freight happens to be the biggest freight company out, I don't know that they are, just uh popped into my head here.
But Yellow Freight happens to be the biggest freight train freight company out there, and there are more yellow freight trucks than anybody else.
We're gonna say, we're too many yellow freight trucks out there.
We need consolidated freightways to get their fair share of the interstate highway.
No, but that's what they're trying to do with the fairness doctrine.
And the Interstate Highway system, we pay for that too, and it's public.
Same thing, the free market.
Who is next?
Joe in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate it.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
Um hey, I'm not too sure that wasn't Harry Reid calling you.
You're sure he was calling from Boston?
Hey, to my point.
Um kind of in a bind.
Um, I am from South Carolina, and Senator Graham is one of our senators, uh, unfortunately.
I know you're well traveled in the United States.
I think he owes you guys an apology, by the way, some of his rhetoric today on the uh Senate floor.
I agree.
I I'd accept this resignation instead, though.
Um basically I was one, I know you're well traveled, you're well respected, and you're well connected.
And I was wondering if you had anybody that you knew of who it falls under your tutelage or your mentorship here in South Carolina or outside that could move into South Carolina to run as a a uh Republican opponent of Senator Graham.
Oh, you mean like pull a Hillary and move from uh Arkansas to Washington, New York and become a senator there?
Sure.
Um, I'm not in the political recruitment game.
You know whose job that really is.
Mine, yeah.
Is John Ensons.
I mean, that's he runs the Senate campaign committee.
Right.
And it rotates every, I don't know, election year.
Elizabeth Dole did it last time, and Ensign is uh by the way, he changed his vote.
He was against clocher uh this time around.
Uh but he's he's not he's not gonna sit there and and make a move against a sitting Republican senator.
His job will be to help Lindsey Graham get re-elected.
I I think that's frankly the uh the people of South Carolina to to take care of.
Look at in politics there's a market too, and there's probably somebody in South Carolina saying, uh, next time Graham faces the voters and he will, uh, I'm gonna run against him in a primary.
Uh because I think I can win.
Because I think Lindsey Graham is angered enough North Carolinians.
I think we can pull this off.
I think I think the political market will produce that person.
Right.
But I don't I, you know, I I don't identify candidates.
I just try to correct them once they get elected, maybe now and then.
Uh but I I mean I that's this is that's that's that's a job of political professionals, and I'm a media professional.
Okay.
Yeah, I'd like to say I just I just think it's it's a bigger problem when it's big bigger than this immigration bill is when he ignores, you know, over sixty percent of his constituents and decides to vote, you know.
Well, that's that it it's it's it's a problem for him.
I mean, he he's gotta face the voters next time up.
And this is the price that he's going to pay for the positions that he took.
He's got to go face the voters, he's got to explain why he did what he did and face their wrath.
That's the way The um the system is designed to work.
I'm I'm running a little yeah, I still have time to say.
Be back in just a second.
Don't go away.
We come back in the uh the next hour.
I want to explain to you people part of what this uh Pew Center for the People the Press uh sorry, that we, by the way, is now posted at rushlimbo.com that shows you are the most informed audience in broadcast media in America today.
▲
Export Selection