All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 29, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, great to have you back with us for the final hour of our excursion into broadcast excellence on Friday and you know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday And the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBNet.com And of course, Open Line Friday, you can talk about anything that you want to talk about.
And you know what I find interesting today?
I should ask Mr. Snurgly about this.
We haven't had, check my memory on this, we haven't had anybody calling about the immigration debate.
We had one.
Have you gotten others that you threw overboard?
Not many people wanting to talk about it.
It's sort of like a breathed a huge sigh of relief time.
Anyway, whatever you wish to discuss, you have a question, a comment, you want to whine and complain and moan, this is the day to do it, folks, because Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things that I care about.
This is a huge career risk that only someone like I takes in big media, and that is turning over content of a major media presentation to rank amateurs like you, lovable rank amateurs.
But you are not highly trained broadcast specialists, as am I. Again, the phone number 800-282-2882.
Here, one more soundbite from the All-American Presidential Forum on PBS last night with the Tavis Smiley doing the hosting.
And they all got a question about taxes.
Do you agree the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes?
And here is a montage of their answers.
We need to get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for rich people.
I would eliminate the tax cut for the wealthy.
The Bush tax cuts.
People aren't looking for charity.
They want people paying their fair share of taxes.
I want to see the wealthy pay their fair share.
You think it's an accident that all of a sudden we wake up that the wealthy aren't paying a fair share?
We have to change the tax system, and we've got to get back to having those with the most contribute.
There you have it, Mrs. Clinton.
Not one shred's worth of difference in any of these people.
You know what the Democrat slogan ought to be?
Here's the Democrat Party slogan, particularly this group of candidates.
We've got what it takes to take what you've got.
That's who they are.
And this whole notion that the rich aren't paying their fair share, the rich they're talking about are never going to pay any more taxes than they are now.
There's no tax increase, subsidi tax increase that's going to affect the rich as they want you to think they're talking about.
It's something that we're going to stay on, folks.
This is another major education initiative from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies as this campaign unfolds.
Now, here's a story from Reuters.
Wait a minute now.
Let's see if they get these pages all screwed up here.
We're finding the second page of this.
Do I have a second page of this?
Maybe I threw the second page.
I did.
I threw the second page away, which means the second page is worthless.
Ishani Ganguli is the author of this piece.
Late starters can benefit from healthy habits.
Get this now.
Even in middle age, adopting a healthy lifestyle can lower the risk for heart disease and premature death within years of changing habits, researchers reported on Thursday.
Now, this is really good news for you young people out there because you can just keep partying on.
You can do all the so-called unhealthy things in the world you want.
And as long as when you get 50 to 55, then you start living right and you'll be fine.
Middle-aged adults who began eating five or more fruits and vegetables every day, exercising for at least two and a half hours a week, keeping their weight down and not smoking, decreased their risk of heart disease by 35% and their risk of death by 40% in the four years after they started.
The adopters of a healthy lifestyle basically caught up.
Within four years, their mortality rate and rate of heart attacks matched the people who had been doing these behaviors all along.
So we've all been a bunch of suckers.
We don't have to start young living, right?
We can abuse ourselves and we can poison ourselves.
We can pollute ourselves.
We can eat, drink, and be merry.
We can go without sleep.
As long as when we hit 55, we straighten up and fly right.
And I'm happy to look because this is exactly what I've done.
So all you people have been telling me all the years of my life that I am doing damage to myself, I have scientific research on my side that says I haven't, and you have been wasting your time.
Try this headline: Scientists believe that cats sort of domesticated themselves.
There actually is a story in the Washington Post today, research into how the cat became domesticated.
And they've actually concluded, you know, I've always said that cats have staff and dogs have masters.
Well, cats, this, this, they start out by saying your hunch is correct.
Your cat decided to live with you, not the other way around.
The sad truth is it may not be a final decision because they get mad at you, they may leave and go fear all again.
I know why my cat lives with me, and nobody can, my cat cannot open a can.
My cat cannot open a sack.
That's why my cat lives with me.
I love my little cat, as you all know.
Pumpkin is her name.
I was gone all last week on this golf trip.
And every time I'm gone for a week like this and I come back, I know there's going to be hell to pay.
I'm going to get head-butted at 3 o'clock in the morning.
I'm going to have a cat pull my hair while I'm trying to sleep and so forth.
But this time that didn't happen.
She just would not leave.
Wherever I went, that cat was at my feet.
Didn't want me to leave again.
I got a little surprised by this cat.
Cat becoming a little dependent.
She's not like a dog and serving my whims and needs and so forth.
But last night she finally got used.
I think last night she believed that I was home for good and I didn't see her.
Couldn't find out where she was.
She's out prowling the house for lizards or some such thing.
Anyway, this research says that cats have been basically domesticated for 12,000 years, but they did it themselves.
Their inescapable conclusions of a genetic study of the origins of the domestic cat, and this is being published today in Science magazine.
The findings drawn from the analysis of nearly a thousand cats around the world suggest that the ancestors of today's tabbies, Persians, and Siamese wandered into Near Eastern settlements at the dawn of agriculture.
They were looking for food, not friendship.
And what they ended up finding was these huge piles of grain, but the grain was attracting vermin, like rats and mice.
And so the cat said, hmm, these humans are giving me an automatic food supply.
They didn't care about the grain, but they ate the vermin, kept that population down, and they became adopted by the humans that loved what they were doing.
Yep, Carlos Driscoll, University of Oxford graduate student who did the work, says, we think what happened is that cats sort of domesticated themselves.
Now, this is a science report, and I find it fascinating that the words sort of are in a report on science.
We think what happened is that cats sort of domesticated themselves.
Interesting global warming story.
Oh, I've got actually two interesting global warming stories.
The first one here from junkscience.com is Steve Malloy.
Should conservatives give up the fight on global warming just as the tide is turning in their favor?
In the cover story of the June 25th National Review, software company CEO Jim Manzi wrote that conservatives should stop denying that humans are warming the planet and instead figure out how to use global warming to peel off 1% of the vote in the 2008 presidential election.
Manzi claims this strategiery could represent a principled stand for a clever candidate.
But his strategery, in fact, represents the snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory and all for relatively few votes of uncertain, if any, political value.
Manzi says that conservatives should believe in global warming, not because of liberal scaremongering, but because of the underlying physics, which he apparently doesn't grasp in the least.
All else being equal, the more carbon dioxide molecules we have in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets.
Wrong.
More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect.
It's just all part of the hoax.
But here's the money quote in this story.
For all its alleged concern about catastrophic global warming, what is the alarmist-friendly Democrat Congress doing about it?
And the answer is nothing.
Though the Senate passed an energy bill last week, it didn't dare approach the question of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
It seems that burdening the economy because of Al Gore's dubious science may after all be bad politics.
Now, the House of Representatives Wednesday did pass a piece of legislation or a statement affirming the existence of global warming, but nobody is establishing policy to do anything about it.
We're not joining Kyoto.
People that live in areas that are supposed to be destroyed by global warming are still raising property values in those areas by creating a mad dash to buy there.
You know, my idea earlier in the week of setting up betting lines, take every proposition that Gore makes in this propaganda movie of his and make a betting line out of it.
New York City underwater in 20 years, whatever it is, and then watch and see how many of the proponents actually put money on their own predictions so that they can triple their money, double their whatever, and get rich.
And none of them would.
None of them would risk their fortunes putting money behind their own predictions.
We could all get rich fast because we wouldn't lose.
We would win because there's not going to be these predictions are not going to happen.
As Gore and others lay them out.
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, subject of our morning update today, classic.
A top Dallas law firm, Thompson Knight, formed a dedicated practice recently of 26 lawyers to handle climate change litigation.
And another one, not to be outdone, Vinson and Elkins, another Dallas firm, launched a 41-lawyer climate change battalion.
And these lawyers anticipate lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming damage due to global warming.
Not to mention all the coming legal activity surrounding caps on emissions.
So already lawyers are talking with Inuits, the Canadian Eskimo tribe, who claim their island paradise up there has been harmed by global warming and are out to sue somebody, an American or Americans.
A Houston lawyer, Steve Sussman, says that melting glaciers will not make big legal waves, but you wait till the first big ski area closes because it has no snow, or wait until portions of Manhattan and San Francisco are underwater.
So you've got a bunch of lawyers gearing up here, folks.
Who are they going to sue?
If Manhattan ends up underwater, who are they going to sue?
Who are they going to sue?
They're going to sue somebody.
Think John Edwards on this.
So here's how this works.
First, liberals invent a problem based on junk science, in this case, global warming, and then they promote it via their drive-by media allies.
And then liberal politicians make laws to protect the supposed aggrieved victims, the little guys.
Then a bunch of John Edwards types descend on American companies.
The lawyers get wealthy, and then from their wealth, they donate some money back to liberal politicians, and they keep the cycle going.
And this is what's at stake here.
This is when lawyers start getting in the game to start setting up, start trolling for lawsuits.
They expect this to produce more money, folks, than those giant tobacco settlements.
Keep a sharp eye.
Follow the money and understand what's really at work.
If this is a hoax, it's junk science.
It's being portrayed as something to make you scared to death.
We're all going to die.
You're supposed to vote liberal for this.
You're supposed to make some sacrifices, pay higher taxes, drive a car you don't want to drive, live in a house you don't want to live, live where you don't want to live, use detergent you don't want to use, all this rotgut stuff.
And at the end of the day, even after doing all that, you're still going to get sued.
Or you're going to pay a price for being.
Or maybe you'll be a turncoat and hire one of these lawyers.
Big rainstorm comes, floods your house.
That's global warming.
Who can I sue?
Well, a lawyer will find somebody to sue for you.
Hello?
If big tobacco thought that they were in the crosshairs, I don't know who's in the crosshairs on this, the U.S. government, but it's going to be, it's going to be various industries who are said to be polluting.
Big oil will probably be the big target here.
Big oil, big natural gas, electricity, utilities, this sort of thing.
It's coming.
You have been warned.
Before we get back to the phones, I want to share this story with you.
It's from the Times Online, a U.K. newspaper.
And it's from, ladies and gentlemen, the Life and Style section.
And I want to tell you that the name of the writer of the story is Nicola Woolcock.
Maybe Nicola, but Nicola Nicola Woolcock.
Sue Wilkinson, 53, university professor, was married for 17 years before the relationship ended in divorce.
She has now been with her female partner, Celia Kitzinger, for the same length of time.
The couple married in 2003 in Canada, where same-sex unions are legal.
Last year, they lost a high court battle to have their marriage recognized in Britain.
Ms. Wilkinson, professor of feminist and health studies at the Lowborough University, said, quote, I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s.
I was a happy heterosexual.
I had no doubts.
Then I changed through political activity and feminism, spending time with women's organizations.
It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity, quote unquote.
This woman is admitting that feminism made her a lesbo.
Ms. Wilkinson met Ms. Kitzinger, also a university professor, through their work at the British Psychological Society.
She added, I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men.
My husband took all this very badly.
I'll tell you, I wonder why.
I've warned you people about this.
I've, I've, you know, I'll tell you when this has come up.
I'll tell you when.
During the arguments that people don't choose a gay lifestyle, I've always said, I know a bunch of women who become feminists at some point in their life and become lesbians.
The politics of it, the idiotic people they meet, they do for whatever reason.
I don't know how frequent it is.
I don't know how widespread it is, but this woman's not saying I was latent homosexual all my life.
I was happy.
I was hetero, a 17-year marriage, and everything went fine when I was teens and 20s.
But when I got in feminism, that's when we became a lesbian.
I'm just repeating what's here, folks.
All I'm telling you is that when it comes to the notion of choosing it, this woman's admitting that she did, or that she might have been influenced into it, but she's not saying that she was latent all those years.
And all of a sudden, whatever happened, the world opened up, and she saw the light.
Here's Brian, Brian in Los Angeles.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Mega Dittos from La La Land, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
No, no, no.
Well, yes, you are in La La Land.
I have to grant you that.
Sir, I'm a minority because I'm straight.
No, Don't go there.
Okay, sorry, sorry.
You're not a minority because you're straight in La La Land.
Oh, okay.
I keep hearing this commercial on the radio constantly out here about how if you change a light bulb in your house, it'd take 400,000 cars off the road.
And I just, it baffled my mind.
So I sat down and started thinking, and I'm not a very smart man, so I wanted to run this by you, and maybe you could help me out.
I'm sure I can.
The wife drives a Camry, so I base this on a Camry, not my Ford F-250 7.3 turbo diesel that I need.
I need for words.
Justify it.
You don't have to explain to anybody the kind of truck you drive.
It's a beautiful truck.
It's a beautiful truck, and you sound like a guy who'd drive a truck.
And you saw a guy who'd like that kind of truck.
You don't have to defend her or explain yourself on this program.
Yeah, okay.
Okay, no problem, sir.
Okay, the Toyota Camry, if you took 400,000 of them off the road, that'd be $10.2 billion.
So I'm going to raise that, purchase those, and take them off the road this year.
That would be like taking 800,000 gallons of oil, 240 million gallons of gas, 200,000 gallons of brake fluid, 200,000 tons of steel, 8,000 tons of rubber.
I couldn't come up with a number for roadway repair, labor, profit, or tax dollars.
But this car boasts a 400-watt speaker system.
That's 160 million watts.
That's 3.2 million watts, or 3.2 million bulbs.
Anyways, you know what I'm saying?
So if you take all this off.
Okay, Brian, hold it.
Hold it.
I've got to go to commercial break, and I just know the entire audience is intrigued beyond their ability to handle it to know what's next.
Sit tight so we can all find out.
And we are back.
Capitally sold.
Could barely hold my breath here for what comes next with Brian in Los Angeles.
So I gather what you've done, you've run all the numbers of these 400,000 Toyota Camrys that will be taken off the street if you switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Right, right.
Well, the thing is, is that I'm a young corporate entrepreneur, and I just keep hearing this commercial, and I go over and over my head.
And that last stat that I was giving you, there's a 400-watt stereo in this car.
That would be 160 million watts.
Now, in order to equal that of 50-watt light bulbs, that would be 3.2 million 50-watt light bulbs.
Now, but that's not the point because the car has four bulbs in the front at 65 watts, 65 watts, 51 watts, and 51 watts.
That would be 92.8 million watts.
Now, I know it's fueled.
It's ruining all this, but you've got to make sense.
Actually, let me intercede here.
I know what you're trying to do, but maybe you're not missing the point, but to me, it sounds like you might be missing the point.
This is a you're talking about these compact fluorescents, and one of the things that one of the proponents of the compact fluorescent light bulb is saying, and it's Lori David.
Right.
She's saying that if we would all just put one of these in our house, it would be the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the road in terms of pollution, in terms of...
They don't say that on the commercial, though.
They don't say that, and they don't say $400,000 per year, $400,000 per week, per month.
They don't say any of that.
They just say $400,000 on this commercial.
If you get a bulb, they just say if you go out and buy one of these bulbs, you'll be doing the equivalent of taking $400,000.
Well, look at the bottom line with this is that it's all a joke and it's stupid and it's idiotic.
And you're trying to have fun with it, which I understand.
But the proponents of this are actually trying to say that these light bulbs, if we all would just put one in our house, would be the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the highway.
They don't describe what kind of car.
Right, and that's even ridiculous because the sexy voice man voiceover even says that global warming is not a choice.
Oh, it's not inevitable.
It's a choice.
What is that?
What is that?
Propaganda.
Okay.
Hey, Rush, thank you so much.
Great weekend.
You do the same.
Keep calculating out there.
What kind of entrepreneurial business are you in?
Oh, I mean, construction.
Yeah, I started, I incorporated four years ago out here in Los Angeles from Cincinnati.
And I just go out it every day, six days a week, and I try my best.
Well, I appreciate that.
That's the can-do spirit.
Yes, sir.
Let me ask you this question.
Do you hire day laborers?
No, no, from day one.
That has been my biggest thing that I will not, cannot, and won't ever, ever do.
Now, I'm going to be honest with you.
That's what I'm saying.
I've had subs that I suspected, but I didn't card anybody.
Well, I appreciate your honesty on that.
We need more of that in this country.
Thank you, sir.
Brian, thank you for the appreciation.
Charles South Bend, Indiana, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
How you doing?
Good, sir.
Okay, I'm a former Nation of Islam follower to a loyal wrestling bar listener.
Wow, that's quite a transition that you've made.
Oh, very, very.
And you have been the catalyst behind it, believe me.
I mean, you just don't know how much you have influenced my life.
I mean, I was a former high school dropout.
I was homeless.
And all of a sudden, I was angry.
And I started listening to you around, I think it was 89.
I think you had a call on their named Rita X.
Oh, yes.
Rita X.
And I started listening to you around that time.
And at the time, I was going through some things, and I wanted some answers.
And at the time, the Nation of Islam provided easy answers to tough questions and the questions that I really didn't want to look at in my life.
But listening to you, I pretty much faced those questions in my life head-on.
And my life has been an improvement since.
I dug a big hole for myself, but I finally got and gotten out of the hole.
Well, we all, you know what?
We all dig holes for ourselves, and sometimes we fall in them, but there's nothing greater than getting out of the hole.
That's right.
That's right.
It's a great, great sense of achievement, and you did it yourself, it sounds like.
That's great.
That's terrific news.
Yes, and I also just wanted to let you know, years ago, you had a commercial, and I wanted to save up money to buy this program, this thing you had called Verbal Advantage.
And I remember I started listening to you, and I started writing down the words that you would say and going to the dictionary and actually expanding it, trying to expand my vocabulary.
And voila, sooner than I thought, I found out that I really didn't need the verbal advantage, that you were the verbal advantage.
Well, you're overwhelming me here.
I don't know what to say.
Thank you.
And I mean, I just want to tell you that.
I just want to tell you that you just don't know how much you've been an influence in my life.
I mean, me being a black American, with me telling people that I listen to Russ Limbaugh, I get all kind of crazy looks.
And, you know, what's wrong?
What's wrong with this man?
But Russ, Russ, I listen to what you say.
I don't hear you.
Most black America just hear you and they don't listen.
You know, that's the difference.
People hear you, but they don't really listen.
That's actually a good observation, but that's true about a lot of people.
I'm amazed when I meet some people down and talk to them and sit down and talk to them and so forth.
I find a lot of people are amazed to find out what I hear, how I listen to them.
Because most people don't.
Most people are too busy thinking about themselves.
Most people worrying, is what I'm saying, stupid, or when they're listening to somebody, how do I look?
They're looking at me real closely.
How do I look?
And they're not even listening.
And I make it a point to listen.
I'm always stunned at how people remark on it.
And I think it's true of a lot of people that they don't listen because it brings so much prejudice and bias to things, plus the fact that most people are self-focused.
And it's tough to stop thinking about themselves when other people are even talking.
So that's a prescient observation you've made.
Yes, and I just really wanted to make the point also as to why I think black America don't look at what Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton say as being derogatory.
Because Rush, most black America look at themselves as victims.
And Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton, they've learned to appeal to the weakness of black America.
And when you appeal to the weakness in black America, we've been a lot of black Americans have been conditioned to respond to people who appeal to our weaknesses, the things that are weak within us, instead of appealing to our strengths, that society must overcome those weaknesses.
Well, it's true.
It's much easier if your life is not what you wish it was.
It's much easier to blame somebody else for it or to be told that somebody else is responsible for it, i.e. that you are a victim.
You'd be okay if it weren't for X, this group or that president or what have you.
But, you know, it really, this is the thing that has always sort of puzzled me, and it actually offends me, the way they pander and look down to all of their constituent groups, not just blacks.
They try to create as many victims out of people as they can.
And they try to, because they basically look at people and see victims anyway, whether they are or not.
They see people who are incompetent.
They see people that are not capable of doing things.
So they ride into the rescue and say, we'll take care of you.
The thing that always amazed me about this, Charles, is that for however many number of years, the black community has been voting 90% for the Democrat presidential candidate.
And yet, every four years, whoever the Democrat presidential candidate is, keeps talking about how rotten life is for the American black community and citing all the statistics.
And yet, after all these years, the Democrats have been promising to fix all that and to help these people find salvation.
And yet the same complaints keep being uttered.
The same victim status keeps being cemented.
And you wonder at what point are some people going to wake up and say, these people have been telling me that things are going to get better for 30, 40, 50 years, and they're not.
Maybe it's time to look at the other guys.
Yeah, but Russ, the problem with that, the problem that black America has is that if they look at other guys, they will have to look at themselves because if they start to turn away from what they believed in, then that would ultimately mean that they would have to look at themselves.
And a lot of people, not only black Americans, but black Americans in this instance, do not want to look at themselves to actually question what's been going on because their whole foundation, their whole way of life, their whole way of thinking has been tied to this.
So for them, what I've done myself, I had to go through that process myself.
I had to question everything in my life.
Everything in my life had been a lie concerning politics and history and the way I've been taught.
And I have to really reprogram myself.
And for black America to do that, that would have to take place in order for black America to actually start to entertain the thought of actually supporting other people.
You know, that's actually great advice for anybody.
Whenever there's a problem in your life, the first place, if you have any role, you got to look at yourself.
I mean, if you're going to be honest about the source of the problem and you really want to solve it, you have to, you cannot exempt yourself from it and continue to blame everybody else.
And it's not until you do that.
I don't care whether you're black, white, Haitian, Hispanic, until you're able to do that, you're not really going to be able to confront whatever it is standing in your way.
And what you're saying is music to my ears.
It really is.
Yeah, thank you, Russ.
I mean, I just want you to know I'm a business owner now.
I have a couple of inventions I'm trying to patent and do conservatism because conservatism has pretty much opened up those dark crevices of my mind where I've been able to explore and do things that me being a high school dropout and being a former homeless man, I pretty much thought I would think I'm doing things now that I thought I would never do.
So you have been the catalyst in that and started with you.
Everything else just started to come together for me as far as information and reading about people and just opening up my mind.
And I just really want to thank you because it all started with you.
Well, I appreciate that.
How old are you, Charles?
Right now I'm 44.
44, did you say?
When did you start this path?
1989?
Yeah, 1989.
But it really didn't take hold about the 90s because I was still going through some rough times.
And right now, like I say, I have a cleaning business.
And I'm an entrepreneur and I'm doing things.
And life is just really good.
I look forward to life.
And I look forward to waking up each day, you know, having things in my mind, taking things that's in my mind to actually conceive and to achieve it.
So that's what I'm saying.
Charles, let me ask you one more question before we have to go here, and I'm going to go pretty quick because of time.
But I appreciate your thanking me and saying that this program was the catalyst.
But you do understand, don't you, that you did this.
That's right.
Yeah, I know.
Okay, so don't be afraid to credit yourself is the point.
Oh, yeah, I think.
It's not bragging, and it's not being selfish.
It's none of those.
It's not ill-mannered.
And I'm not talking about walking around and carrying a placard around the street.
But to yourself, when you talk to yourself, be honest with yourself.
You did what you did.
Oh, yes.
I remind myself of that every day.
I remind myself of that every day.
And a lot of people look at what I do as being conceited and being self-resistant.
Dana, you're just confident.
And that people that are not confident, not sure of themselves, are really put off by people who are.
They don't think anybody should be that sure of themselves.
It makes them nervous.
They lash out and blame you for having a bad attitude or an arrogant attitude when it's their own insecurities here that are causing it.
Don't let that change who you are.
I got to run.
It's great talking to you.
Thank you so much.
In fact, keep him on.
Ask him if he's got a computer.
Subscribe him to the Limbaugh letter and the website as well, because if he doesn't have that, that can only help.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Want to go back to an audio soundbite.
After that just great call from Charlie that you just heard of South Bend, Indiana, I'd like for you to hear Democrat David Obie on the House floor yesterday.
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.
There, I think it speaks for itself.
David Obie, Democrat, Wisconsin, doesn't get it.
David in Springfield, Massachusetts, you're next on the Open Line Friday edition of the program.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Megan Gittos from Springfield.
You bet.
Question regarding your Sullivan survey, the 98.6 thing.
Does that take into account you used to say a lot that you thought President Bush and maybe Carl Roe were like designing the destruction of a Democratic Party?
Is that something you still believe in, or is that something that I think that that was one of the, well, I know it was.
I just think they terribly miscalculated.
I know that this effort to legalize these illegals and amnesty and so forth was an effort to pull the Hispanic vote in a majority basis to the Republican Party to counterbalance that the Democrats have with the black vote in this country.
I know that to be, I just know it.
I can't tell you how.
I just know it.
And I never did believe it.
I never thought it would work.
Hell, we just got to pull 62, 68% of Hispanics that have been polled recently going to vote for Hillary before the immigration bill.
So I never thought it was true, but yes, I thought that's what they were out at.
What they've inadvertently done is split the Republican Party.
If you look at who they chose to align themselves with the legislation: Ted Kennedy on education, Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, Ted Kennedy on immigration.
It was.
Yeah, I mean, I definitely agree.
President Bush has done a terrible job in regards to that.
And again, it's not to knock you or anything, but is that considered part of the survey?
Do they take into consideration that you may have been wrong on that?
Or is that just?
No, they were wrong.
No, no, I mean they being a Republicans.
I mean they being the survey.
When it comes to what you said, and again, I'm a big fan of yours.
You probably don't believe half, but I am a big fan of yours.
Well, everybody is.
I mean, even those who are won't admit it are.
Right, again, used to say that Bush is trying to destroy the Democratic Party as part of his thing.
So you want to know if this is going to negatively impact my opinion audits.
That's correct.
No, because I didn't tell you it would work.
I just said this is what they're doing.
This is one of the things that's motivated.
I think there are countless other things that motivated them on immigration.
But the, believe me, you know, I have to be discreet about certain things.
I'll just tell you that when this was first proposed, whenever it might have been the first term, and I didn't buy it, emissaries were dispatched to my home.
And believe me, I got the facts and figures of how this is all going to work out.
And it just never made any sense to me.
So I'm not wrong for saying that's what they wanted to do.
They did the miscalculation, not me.
And they don't have opinion thought.
Have a great weekend out there, folks.
I'll be back bright-eyed bushytail on Monday and kick off a brand new week of broadcast excellence with you at my side.
▲
Export Selection