All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 29, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, I'll tell you, one thing I'm not going to do is stand in line for one.
Everybody's asking me, folks, if I'm going to get an iPhone, and I'm not going to stand in line for one, and I haven't found anybody to go pay to stand in line.
One of the things that I've been reading about, one of the drawbacks is the network they use for data, the Edge Network.
But you know what's happened today?
The Edge Network from AT ⁇ T has mysteriously doubled in speed.
Hi, folks.
Rush Limbaugh Friday.
You know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And you know the drill for Open Line Friday when we go to the phones you own the program.
I am Rush Lindbaugh, the man running America.
The man generating what?
Simplification?
That's right.
Generator of simplicity.
Yes.
And untamed piece of the GOP message machine.
Great to be with you, folks.
We're zapped here.
It's been an incredible week.
We're all tired here, but we're going to make a go of it getting through the next three hours of Broadcast Excellence.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Big iPhone unveiling today.
This has to be the biggest launch of a techno gizmo that there's ever been.
It just has to be.
I bet they run out of them.
I bet they don't have enough of them made, distributed.
They're probably run out of it.
Although they're going to let people buy two, a maximum of two.
And I've been looking at it.
I have, you know, I'm a techno geek.
I mean, I love having the latest stuff, but I don't use the phone.
You know, the problem with having a phone around is that people will call you.
So, you know, I use these portable devices for email.
Very seldom do I surf the web on these things.
And I have a BlackBerry and it's got the Edge Network.
And I've never noticed it being particularly slow, but everybody's talking about how slow it is.
But I don't roam the web with my little personal portable device that's strictly for email.
But all of a sudden today, AT ⁇ T, which owns and operates the Edge network, people are reporting that their throughput speeds, when they do scan the web, browse the web.
Whoa, it's speeded up all of a sudden here.
And jobs in the Wall Street Journal, Steve Jobs said, eh, don't worry about the Edge network.
It's going to be fine.
These phones also have Wi-Fi, which means if you have a wireless network anywhere in your office or your home, if you go to a coffee shop, it has it, that it'll take the place of the Edge network.
So it looks pretty cool.
That seems to be the only problem people were having.
I had some people complaining about the keyboard, but you get used to that in three or four days.
It's going to be interesting to watch what all happens with this after all the hype.
At any rate, I must admit now I'm getting a little bit more excited about it than I was even yesterday afternoon.
Last night I read about all this stuff, and then today, seeing the Edge network is doubling in speed, I said, hmm.
So our techno geek here is going to go stand in line up in New York where he lives.
He's got to go to an AT ⁇ T store, and they're not allowing lines to form there until 4 o'clock.
So he's going to stand in line.
He said, if you have a chance, pick one up for me, and I'll reimburse you.
And he said, no, no, no, no.
I'll get it for you with all that you've paid me and all that I've overcharged you.
I owe you this phone.
So things work out.
If you just be patient.
All right.
We have to talk about what's going on in London.
We've had a number of near-misses over there with cars that are planted with explosives.
The law enforcement authorities over there are doing yeoman's work that evacuated in Hyde Park.
It's just a reminder, folks, of the world in which we live.
And of course, they're saying, right, international elements are involved.
Coy, that's right.
International elements can't bring ourselves to say what's on everybody's mind, and that is that this is the religion of peace, al-Qaeda or a related group.
Now, I'll tell you, there's a little story.
So a lot that's been happening.
I just found this out this morning.
For example, things have been going on here while we've been focused on the amnesty bill.
The House of Representatives passed legislation.
I guess it's legislation.
They passed a bill on Wednesday affirming that global warming exists.
So now legislation can apparently supersede science.
Global warming exists.
The House of Representatives has said so.
But another thing that went on, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments from inmates at Club Gitmo who want to challenge their detentions in federal court.
The Supreme Court's agreed to hear a pair of cases that it had rejected in April.
The justices over the objections of the Bush administration agreed to review a lower court decision that set a 2006 law validly barring federal judges considering so-called habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners at Club Gitmos.
The court is going to hear the cases in its next term, which begins in October.
First time in recent memory, the court has reversed itself and agreed to hear a case that it rejected earlier.
Now, you talk to anybody that watches the court, talk to anybody in the legal profession, and they'd probably all tell you that court probably would not have reversed itself on this and agreed to hear the case unless something had happened behind closed doors to make people think that they're going to reverse themselves and they're going to do this.
What's amazing about this, when we're going to give them habeas corpus, we're going to essentially give them U.S. constitutional rights.
These are prisoners of war at Club Gitmo.
And this is on the day that London is going through what it's going through and reminding all of us of the never-ending possibility that something like that can happen here again.
It's mind-boggling.
And of course, we can trace one of the problems of this to something as simply simple as public relations.
What a friend of mine is speculating here is that John Paul Stevens has convinced Anthony Kennedy to come all the way on board on this, and that's why the court has agreed to hear this case.
Now, you may be saying, well, what's the what, Rush?
Well, these are not U.S. citizens, and if you bring them into the United States legal system, then once again, you're prosecuting the war on terror as a crime rather than as a war.
And it takes us back to the way the Clinton administration was dealing with this.
Club Gitmo is a good story to tell the way it has helped us gather intelligence on people who are hell-bent on killing.
But we've allowed the Club Guitmo story to be the legal straits of the detainees, not the intel that's saving Americans.
Once again, the people at Club Gitmo are almost being treated like illegal immigrants.
For some reason, we feel a need to apologize to them.
For some reason, we feel that we've got to make it right with them.
And so the storyline, the action line of what's going on at Club Gitmo has focused on, oh, how sorry we must be, how unfortunate it must be.
Oh, this is bad.
How can we do this to these wonderful little people?
You know, one of the questions that people probably ask, and this leads to the PR problem.
Okay, we've had these people down there for a number of years.
Club Gitmo has been open and has served as a resort escape from jihad for many, many moons.
That's given me a thriving merchandise business down there.
But people, even on our side, occasionally would say, well, what do you say to the argument that after several years, we've probably gotten all the intelligence we could wring out of these guys, so the need for intel is no longer a good reason to hold them.
So why are we holding them?
And what that indicates is a totally flawed understanding of how intelligence gathering works.
And it's not the fault of people who ask that question.
It's a perfectly reasonable question.
They've been doing it for years.
If we've had them that long, we've probably gotten everything from them we're going to get.
The reason that this question sounds reasonable is because there hasn't been a proper explanation of how intelligence gathering works from either the people at Gitmo or in the administration.
The war on terror goes on whether you want to be involved in it or not and whether you want to admit it or not.
And military people, intelligence operations people, law enforcement people continue to capture new terrorists, seize new evidence.
If you have cooperative intelligence sources, and many of these Gitmo detainees have become cooperative, I don't believe all these stories about torture and duress.
You keep going back to them and you keep saying, okay, who's this?
Explain to me what this document means.
Is this new stuff that we found indicate the planning of an attack?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And this isn't brain surgery or limited to the world of counterterrorism.
A friend of mine was doing mafia cases in New York in the 80s and 90s.
They had mob turncoats who continued to be used as sources for information for over 10 years.
It's like they become your expert sources for explaining how things work from the inside.
In fact, they're the best experts because they really were inside.
And so is the case with these al-Qaeda types down at Club Gitmo.
And I think if somebody would just take the time to explain how this works, explain how intelligence gathering works, that it never ends.
And that as you add new people to population, you've got people that you've converted, you've spun, whatever, you've got them on your side.
They're acting as informers.
Who's this guy?
Who's that guy?
So the question to you, okay, let them go or give them their rights or whatever.
And we've had them down there for too long, misunderstands the whole process, but it's understandable people would misunderstand the process because it's not being explained.
Instead, Club Gitmo is a legal black hole or it's presented as a torture chamber rather than an intelligence success story.
And it's one of the frustrating things about this administration.
They've had a lot of success stories that they just don't publicize or explain.
And this is, you know, this story would not have been anywhere near the top of the stack today were it not for what's going on in London today.
And the idea that the Supreme Court may now grant these guys habeas corpus in the midst of what's happening in London today can drive you nuts.
Did you know that there was a Democrat candidate debate last night or forum or what have you?
It was on PBS.
I had no clue.
I literally, did you know the Democrats had a debate last night?
You did, sternly?
Well, why didn't you say something about it?
I had no clue.
Well, it's the same old stuff, but this was a giant pander fest.
It was hilarious.
Joe Biden was up there telling the blacks who were watching on television in the audience that black men, hey, no, no, no, it is not unmanly to wear a condom.
And it's not unmanly to get an AIDS test.
Barack and I got an AIDS test.
And Obama said, whoa, what is this?
And he had to come back, correct himself, well, yes, but I got my AIDS test in public over there in Africa with my wife, Michelle.
Hillary worked very hard not to get into the southern accent pandering that she did down in Selma.
But I was stopping here.
Can you imagine presidential candidates talking about it's not unmanly to wear a condom in the past?
I mean, the standards here have just sinking lower and lower and lower.
We've got all of that.
Plus, ladies and gentlemen, Al Gore has canceled all personal appearances for the next six months.
He was supposed to do a global warming speech, I think, in Taipei.
And the organizer in Taipei said, well, the agency that we used to book Al Gore said they've canceled all of his appearances in the next six months.
Something about his presidential run that he's thinking about.
Yet he's out there, you know, full of denials.
We have lots of stuff, plus your phone calls.
Looking forward.
And we got a post-mortem on the immigration bill that was sent down to defeat yesterday.
So a lot coming up.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
All right, we have some audio sound by two from the Drive-By Media explaining what's going on in London today and why.
We have three of them.
First up is the Pentagon correspondent for CNN Barbara Starr.
You know, since Iraq, it's really the case that this type of very basic bomb technology has really spread around the world.
A rock is where this... I should have known...
Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize to you.
It's because I'm exhausted and tired today.
I should have known that what's going on in London today has to do with our presence in Iraq.
Why, if we had never gone to Iraq, these clowns would have never invented the bomb.
Do you realize that?
This is the first time these kinds of bombs, these IEDs, are being used.
Oh, I know terrorists have been strapping themselves with explosives for decades and blowing themselves and other people up.
But did you know that since we went into Iraq is when this stuff really started happening?
I should have known this.
Why, what's happening in London today would not be happening if we had not gone into Iraq.
Up next, ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross.
All of this comes just three weeks after what was described as an al-Qaeda terrorist graduation ceremony with suicide bomb teams dispatched to the United States and Europe.
Based on the early sketchy details from Scotland Yard, this car bomb was potentially lethal, but relatively crude.
The great concern now is that if it is al-Qaeda, something which is still not known, but if it is, there would likely be other vehicle bombs in the works.
Oh, I have no doubt that there are other vehicle bombs in the works here, there, and everywhere, just weeks after an al-Qaeda terrorist graduation ceremony.
And of course, Al-Qaeda wouldn't be recruiting new terrorists if we weren't in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda would have just gone away and been hunky-dory about the situation they find themselves in the world.
But it's because we were in Iraq.
We are in Iraq, ladies and gentlemen.
All this came up.
It won't be long, I will bet you before the end of the day that some kook, either on cable TV or some blog, actually says this whole thing was a stunt, that Bush set this up in order to distract people's attention and to set up the idea that we're still in the war on terror.
Because Reid and Pelosi, by the way, I'm going to introduce another get out of Iraq bill soon.
They just relentless.
They don't go away.
Finally, Gene Mazerve, CNN, newsroom this morning with Tony Harris, who said, as we continue to watch this situation in the Park Lane area of London, the Department of Homeland Security, how concerned is that department over the possible threat that terrorist groups might turn to car bombs as a way to target some of these what we call soft targets like nightclubs in the United States.
I'll tell you, frankly, Tony, there's a great deal of surprise that it hasn't happened already.
Likewise, surprised that there haven't been suicide bombers in this country already.
And of course, as has been mentioned repeatedly, these techniques have been perfected in Iraq.
There's been concern that they would migrate from there elsewhere.
Also, there's the fact of the internet, the fact that you can log on and get very specific information about how to do all sorts of nasty things.
And that has allowed people elsewhere on the globe to benefit from the knowledge being gained in Iraq.
These things are being made in Iran.
We all know this.
I'm sorry for laughing, folks.
It's one of these giddy days, but the ridiculousness of this reporting continues to marvel.
Of course, the Libs are over the top over the Supreme Court decision yesterday.
Some of the quotes, Hillary Clinton, these decisions take away the right of local communities to ensure that all students benefit from racially diverse classrooms.
Recent evidence shows that integrated schools promote minority academic achievement.
They can help close the achievement gap.
Ted Kennedy, today's decision turns back the clock on equality in our schools.
Don't know how it does, but he says so.
The Reverend Jackson, the premise is laid for the resegregation of America and the denial of opportunity.
Inheritance and access will not be counterbalanced by equal protection.
Now, all these people are just beside themselves because what really has been dealt a death blow in this decision yesterday, not quite a death blow, but a pretty serious strike, was Brown versus Board of Education, a 1954 landmark Supreme Court decision that integrated the public schools.
Juan Williams has an amazing column today in the New York Times saying it's about time Brown v. Borden Williams went by the wayside because it's not applicable any longer.
American culture and society has evolved to the point that it's a relic.
And he also makes the point he conducted a number of interviews with Thurgood Marshall, who was the NAA LCP Legal Defense Fund lawyer in Brown v. Board of Education, who then became a Supreme Court justice.
And he said that Thurgood Marshall told him, as he was a justice on the court, the purpose of Brown was not to integrate schools.
The problem was that the white schools had all the money.
That's where all the expense was being, all the money was being spent.
And the black schools were getting by on used books and falling down buildings.
So we wanted the integration just to have access to good education.
It wasn't about race.
It wasn't about mixing people.
What's happened is since then, you know, the Libs and the Teachers Union and so forth have run the schools.
We talked about the flight from cities that's occurring in this country over the last 50 years.
Much of the civil rights community is actually resegregating itself.
But the schools have more money than they've ever had.
And education scores, however you measure them, are continuing to plummet on average in most parts of the most parts of the country.
Anyway, quick timeout.
Be back and continue here in just a sec.
America's real anchor man with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
And we are here on Open Line Friday.
And remember, by the way, Open Line Friday, you don't have to talk about what I want to talk about.
Monday through Thursday, you do, but on Friday, you can bring up anything you want.
So when we go to the phones, and that will be soon, the show is yours.
Now, I got this sent to me today.
This was sent to me.
It's a cartoon.
And let me zoom in on it for those of you watching on the Ditto Kim.
You may not be able to read what's in the voice bubble, but you can clearly see it's a young, starving African baby.
And he is reading something.
The starving young African baby is reading a paper announcing the arrival of the iPhone.
And the young, starving African baby is asking himself, can you eat it?
So even today with one of the greatest capitalistic moves in the history of technogizmos, we still have to relate it to the starving people of Africa, ladies and gentlemen.
I marvel at how the liberals can turn anything into a statement on Africa.
Yes, Mr. Sterdley, a question.
Well, I don't know that the folks at Cupertino will even see this, but if they, Cupertino is California where the Apple headquarters are, but if they said, probably come up with an edible iPhone, maybe the SIM card you can eat, and we can ship them over to Africa.
And in addition to being phones for these people and have internet access, it could be a food meal contained inside each iPhone.
May give jobs an idea.
You never know.
Also want to talk about what happened in the House of Representatives yesterday after the program.
Three salutes to Mike Pence from Indiana.
He basically proposed an amendment to disallow federal funds to be used to reinstate the fairness doctrine, and it won big 319 to 100 something.
When the rubber met the road, the Democrats did not have the guts to vote for this.
It wasn't even close.
Here we have four sound bites because, well, actually five.
You got to hear what David Obie said on the floor of the House yesterday.
But here's Mike Pence first.
I believe what we will do in this legislation will demonstrate a bipartisan commitment to freedom on the airwaves at a time that intemperate remarks are being made by others in Washington, D.C., both within the Capitol building and within the punditocracy that surrounds this Capitol building.
This Congress, in bipartisan numbers, I trust the numbers will be large, will say yes to freedom on the airwaves, yes to the freedom of expression, and yes to the freedom of the press.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the unfairness doctrine.
And they did.
It was massive.
It was a little bit more than a symbolic vote.
And all bets are off the table if the Democrats win the presidency.
I mean, as things stand now, the FCC could reinstitute it this afternoon if they wanted to.
They have the authority to do it.
I mean, it would be subject to legal challenges and so forth, and it would have constitutional questions as well.
But nobody's got the desire to do it.
It's just these people who are talking about it.
And I want to comment on something that Dick Durbin said yesterday.
Dick Durbin said, the senator from Illinois, he said, I have this old-fashioned idea that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to decide.
And I want to go on record, and I want any of you in Illinois or any of you in Washington to know Senator Durbin.
I want you to tell him that I agree with him.
I agree with him wholeheartedly.
I too have an old-fashioned idea that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they are in a better position to decide.
It's just a shame Dick Durbin doesn't agree with what he said.
I believe what he said.
He doesn't.
Nor does Senator Feinstein, nor does Senator Kerry.
They don't believe in this both sides of it.
That's the big ruse here.
Now, follow me on this.
Take me out of the immigration debate.
Take all of talk radio out of the immigration debate and ask yourself a question.
Would you have gotten both sides?
If you think you would have gotten both sides, from who?
From where?
You might have heard the phrase comprehensive reform.
You might have heard a litany of one-sided talking points designed not to work, but to get votes.
But where would you have heard the other side?
Where would you have heard the flaws?
And what flaws?
Where would you have heard the cost?
What cost?
What would you have heard about the lack of enforcement?
What lack of enforcement are you talking about?
With a fence that will never be, the deceptions.
Would you have heard the same promises that have been made for 40 years?
The mess is worse, not better.
You would have heard the same stuff that we've been hearing over all of these years in immigration debates, and you would have not heard the other side.
Would you have learned the long path to citizenship was a trick, a gimmick?
How can I fool you today?
There was no incentive for citizenship in this bill.
I mean, as late as yesterday, we played the audio soundbites.
There was Ted Kennedy still working this deception.
You know, his idiotic riff was, well, we don't know where they are.
We're going to put $250 billion in buses and going around.
Talked about how hard they're going to have to work and how many fees and fines and so forth they're going to have to pay.
None of that was true.
So where did you end up getting both sides?
The drive-by need, media wasn't giving you both sides of this.
The drive-by media has chosen sides.
If they had done serious reporting and pointed out the tomfoolery coming from Ted Kennedy's mouth, the deception would have been dumped.
And the long wait would have been a long wait for an illegal to become legal.
And you would have bought it and you would have believed it.
You would have believed that all of this stuff about fines and stuff was true.
You would have had to dig deep.
You could have found out what bogus information was being presented.
But the point is, the irony is, the only way America can get both sides of the story is not less talk radio, but more talk radio.
We are equal time.
And I've been saying that since we first started in 1988.
We are equal time.
The dominant media had a monopoly.
All of a sudden we come along in 1988.
We are the equal time.
This just illustrates that they have no desire for both sides of the issue.
That's the dirty little secret.
It's not such a secret.
They don't want opposition speech.
They don't want opposition opinion.
They don't want to have to hassle with it.
They don't want to be bothered by it.
And they certainly don't want to have to debate it because they know that they will lose.
Now, listen to this.
This is David Obie on the House floor following Mike Pence's remarks.
The right-wing radio today looks at those airwaves as being their own private preserve.
And they're not going to give them up at all.
But don't worry.
I would not for a second want to see Rush Limbaugh moderate.
I want to see the real raw rush.
I want him and folks like him to be thoroughly and fully exposed to the American listening audience in all of their bloviating glory.
I want to let Rush be Rush.
And that isn't going to bother me if he goes on for hours and hours with his one-sided diatribes.
Everybody knows he's plugged directly into Republican national headquarters.
And so in my view, he's virtually discredited.
And I'd like to keep it that way.
How uninformed?
How literally, what a stupid thing to say of all days yesterday when the media had dubbed me an untamed piece of the GOP message machine.
But all of this is just evidence of what I have been saying.
He wants the real raw rush.
You're getting it for 19 years, Mr. Obie, and we're doing nothing but growing.
I want him and folks like him to be thoroughly, fully exposed to the American listening audience in all of their bloviating glory.
And then he continued.
He wasn't through.
He had more to say.
I think we ought to let right-wing talk radio go on just as they do now.
Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton.
I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough so that they just might become modestly influential or respectable.
Yeah, we might become modestly influential or respectable if they make us change our opinions, which is not even what the fairness doctrine does.
It doesn't make me moderate my views.
This is the guy, by the way, this David Obie that you're listening to is the guy who tried to hide the earmarks.
You know, they were going to have this new, wide open, brand new culture the Democrats are going to bring to the House.
They're going to get rid of the culture of corruption.
This is the guy who's talking about, I want him out there in all their beloved glory.
This is the guy that does everything he does behind closed doors in the darkness of night where you can't see it.
And he was trying to hide those earmarks the way he was doing it after spending bills had been passed and signed off on.
Then they would have the earmarks so that nobody could do anything about it.
And after promising to give them transparency.
So really, who has been exposed here?
It is Mr. Obie.
We've got two more.
Here's one more from Mike Pence, who followed Obie by saying this.
The bipartisan vote that I expect will be recorded today will be an encouragement to people on the right, to people on the left, and people in the center, people in front of microphones and people listening to those people on microphones, because this House will say what some in the other body are not saying, and that is, we believe in freedom on the airwaves.
We reject the archaic doctrines of the past that would have this federal government manage political speech on the public airwaves.
It is time that we come together as a nation.
We move past the archaic rules of broadcasting fashioned for a Depression-era America, and we embrace the dynamic national conversation that is the American media today.
And so Obi, said, I got to get one more lick in here, and this is what he says.
There is no prospect of any serious effort to revive the fairness doctrine, either legislatively or legally.
Stop the tape.
How out of it can this man be?
Does he not hear what Feinstein is saying?
Does he not hear what Kerry is saying?
Does he not hear what Pelosi is saying?
Pelosi vowing to push this forward.
Does he not hear this?
Or is he trying to send them a message?
And so this has really been another political exercise.
I've almost given up in expecting that substance will dominate legislative debate.
I don't really expect on issues like this to have much common sense in the House.
You get six like-minded people in this institution.
They talk to each other in the cloakroom and they think they've conducted a public opinion poll.
So all I would say is I fundamentally disagree with the gentleman who indicated that this was a highly important vote.
These guys are not distinguishing themselves, ladies.
These Democrats are not distinguishing themselves in any way you wish to fashion it or judge them.
Quick time out here.
We'll be back and continue and get to your phone calls right after this.
Okay, we start now on the phones.
We always start earlier than usual on Open Line Friday, and we'll start in Philadelphia.
This is Michael.
Glad you called, sir, and welcome.
Oh, yes, Rush.
I'm nervous, so just bear with me here.
We'll do.
At the beginning of your monologue, you ended with comments referencing their audio clips that, again, the Democrats with their tenacious, their doggedness, their relentless pursuit of their agenda.
And I'm telling you.
So, and what's wrong with that?
I mean, you've been accused of carrying the Republicans' water for...
Nothing's wrong with it.
Well, why aren't we doing it?
Well, you tell me.
I'm not carrying a Republican's water.
How the hell can you say that after this week?
And understanding such, I am done carrying their water, if you will, with my vote.
Why can't the Republicans, and this is my question, show the doggedness, tenacious, the unrelenting pursuit of their ideas.
It's not who they are, apparently.
That's not what the Democrats are doing.
The Democrats are not pursuing their ideas.
The Democrats are pursuing the destruction of their enemies.
But they're doing it relentlessly.
The Democrats, they do their pursuing of their dogged pursuit of their ideas behind closed doors.
They sneak stuff in.
They try to get the judiciary populated with people so that they are insulated from election loss.
The big difference between conservatives and liberals, or even Republicans and Democrats, is that they seek to control and expand government.
That's the base of all their operations.
It's the foundation of their belief system.
We believe in limiting it.
So we don't have this same desire to get it and control it.
They must.
And they are relentless in that.
And one of the things that they do is try to destroy their enemies.
And that's what I say they relentlessly do.
The relentless pursuit of what's right.
I'm missing it.
I'm sorry, Rush.
That's all.
But I really feel we need some.
What did I say?
I screw up as host here by ⁇ I thought I just gave you a brilliant answer to your question.
And I need now to take that and figure out why the Republican structure.
Conservatives are there, but our voice is not.
And maybe we'll just have to steal the tactic of the old playbook.
You know, some of those chapters in that Democratic playbook ain't half bad when it gets to getting things done.
So thanks for your time.
No, we all agree with you here.
I don't know how to answer this.
I get this question all the time.
Why aren't our guys like their guys?
Well, you know, this is an interesting thing.
Mr. Sturdley just said to me that what I should have said to Michael of Philadelphia was, hey, the conservative voice was just heard and the immigration bill is dead.
Let me tell you something.
I don't know this, but I'm going to guess that one of the things that caused so few Democrats to support this was that they were hearing from people that scared them.
And that would not be conservatives.
I think they were hearing from union people.
I think they were hearing from a whole bunch of Democrats.
The opposition to this spanned all lines of demarcation and spanned all boundaries.
I'm sure all three sexes were calling.
I'm three all religions were calling.
I'm sure that all ideologies were calling.
And I think that it was quite a display.
Now, I'm guessing about that.
And I'm sure that the majority of the phone calls and faxes, letters and so forth were coming from so-called Republicans, conservatives, and all that.
But for the Democrats to have caved on this stuff and for Dingy Harry not to have been able to corral his own people, which is the story on that immigration bill in many ways, they had to be hearing from people that genuinely scared them.
I mean, Dingy Harry and Feinstein, those people wouldn't care if people in this audience were calling them.
But if people that they rely on for votes, you know what was in it?
Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill and one other freshman Democrat who aren't up for re-election until 2012 voted against cloture.
I mean, they could have easily gone along with what Dingy Harry wanted, but McCaskill said, you know, I spend a lot more time looking at the way Jim Webb's going to vote on something than I do Harry Reid.
I've got this story here.
And there's also, they had all in their campaigns, which were just last year, established their positions as border security first and against all this amnesty.
And they couldn't, even though their reelections are not for five years, they couldn't just blatantly ignore the commitment they had made to their constituents.
I think they were hearing from a lot of people on their own side of the aisle as well on this.
McClatchy newspapers NBC poll.
More than half of Americans say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
We'll have the details and some debate sound bites from last night.
The Democrat, what did they call it?
The All-American Presidential Forum on PBS.
Sit tight, folks.
▲
Export Selection