Rush Limbaugh Program - July 10, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:19

July 10, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hiya, folks, and welcome back.
	It's great to have you with us.
	This is the Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations daily.
	And that's no mean feat.
	Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, by the way, I want to apologize to all of you who have been on hold since we started.
	They've been on hold for over an hour now.
	We're going to get to the phone calls in the second segment of the program.
	Very quick.
	I really do appreciate your patience.
	The number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
	Another iPhone awarded today, given away, this time to Lauren N.
	She is from Orange, Connecticut.
	She listens to the EIB Network and WELI in New Haven, 9.60 a.m.
	So that's five down of five to go.
	Ten iPhones are giving away.
	This is number five.
	We'll give one a day, give one away every day until they're gone.
	In addition to the iPhone, you get a check from us, just under $1,500 to cover the two-year service contract with AT ⁇ T that's required.
	You get a one-year subscription to Limbaugh Letter, a year subscription to our website.
	If you have that already, we'll extend it.
	And a $100 gift card from Bocajava.com.
	Some of the most amazing, unique coffee that you can get out there.
	$100 gift card for every iPhone winner.
	So how do you register?
	Very simple.
	We have a flash email that we send out every afternoon after the program called Rush in a Hurry.
	It is a summary.
	It is, you know, folks, this is really a brilliant ploy on my part.
	Let me explain this to you.
	The Rush in a Hurry is a summary of this program.
	In modern media today, it's all about controlling the message, your own message, rather than having it shaped and formed and taken out of context by these so-called watchdog groups and critics and so forth.
	So this is a way to get into the hands of hundreds of thousands of people.
	A little summary, it's actually little, it's a detailed summary of the contents of everyday program.
	This is free, by the way.
	You sign up at rushlimbaugh.com.
	Just find the Rush in a Hurry banner, put your email address in there, and you are registered.
	You'll be possibly drawn.
	Your name will possibly be drawn to win an iPhone and the other prizes that go along with it.
	But it's a way to manage the message.
	As you people know, this program is so effective that the way it's countered by enemies and critics is to distort and lie about what is said on this program.
	This puts, if you didn't hear the program on a daily basis or that particular day, you get the Rush in a Hurry flash email and you'll know the essence of the entire contents of the program, even some hyperlinks that will allow you to listen to select segments of monologues.
	And it's just a prelude to the full update of the website every afternoon around 6 o'clock Eastern Time.
	So just go to RushLimbaugh.com and sign up for Rush in a Hurry.
	It's free.
	There's no obligation whatsoever.
	And you'll be eligible for one of the five remaining iPhones.
	The drawing, next one will be in the morning.
	We'll announce it on today's or tomorrow's program as soon as we start.
	There's more evidence out there to back up a long-standing theory that smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease than people who do not use tobacco products, according to research reports that were released yesterday.
	In fact, they're finding all kinds of great things about nicotine.
	They're breaking down nicotine and finding ways of using it to deal with other things because it does trigger positive things brain chemistry-wise, serotonin and dopamine and these sort of things.
	The apparent protective effect of tobacco against Parkinson's disease has been observed for years, but a University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health report said that a new review of existing studies seems to confirm it.
	Long-term and current smokers are at the lowest risk for Parkinson's disease.
	Always love passing along news like this because they don't know what the news on smoking is.
	Kill you, it's stupid, it's dumb.
	Well, smokers, I'm telling you, deserve a medal of honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, because smokers are single-handedly funding child health care programs in this country.
	All right.
	This headline, women drawn to men with muscles.
	Muscular young men are likely to have more sex partners than their less chiseled peers, according to UCLA researchers.
	All these people at UCLA, they're working hard.
	They're working on studying smoking and nicotine and now muscled guys.
	Their study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that muscles in men are akin to elaborate tail feathers in male peacocks.
	They track females looking for a virile mate.
	Women are predisposed to prefer muscularity in men, said the study author David Frederick.
	Now, this sounds like common sense.
	But I've, well, recently, but I think I've read not too long ago that women don't like these kinds of hunks because they're so self-absorbed.
	All they do is think about themselves and they look in the mirror sort of like actresses.
	The last thing you want to do is get involved with one of those.
	And it's the male component of that is these people are so absorbed with how they look to the degree that they become inattentive and unaware of other people.
	I think I've read that somewhere.
	Otherwise, but you know, this is, we all know that this is not really what draws women to men.
	I mean, the evidence is all over the place.
	I mean, there are plenty of flabby, worthless, ugliest people you've ever seen.
	And they've got babes draped all over them.
	Now, you tell me what it is.
	I'm not going to provide every answer here.
	Well, look, when I start talking about something, I have to come up short because once I've said something about something, there is nothing left to be said.
	Oh, more health news.
	Got a whole health stack here today.
	Doctors wonder why fat people outlive thin people after a heart attack.
	While being fat increases your chances of a heart attack, some studies now suggest a puzzling paradox.
	Obese people seem to have a better chance of surviving one.
	And scientists, i.e. experts, are stumped.
	They warn overweight people that the results should not be used as an excuse to indulge.
	We really don't want people to think that they should put on a bit of weight just to have a better chance with their bypass surgery.
	These results do not mean it's okay to be fat.
	Being fat's still dangerous to your health for lots of other reasons.
	That's true.
	So why put the news out?
	Other than to say we scientists are stumped.
	We don't have a good explanation for the biological phenomenon that's causing this, said Dr. Eric Eisenstein, an assistant professor in medicine at Duke, who led the study.
	Yeah, we need to understand scientifically what's happening in these folks before we can develop new theories.
	Could be that the, well, no, I don't feel better about having, it wasn't a whole bag, it was a half a bag of chips.
	No, I don't feel better, but I feel I came in here laden.
	Well, I wasn't laden, but I had a little guilt arriving here today.
	I had a half a bag of potato chips.
	I've been in a diet.
	I haven't been stringently on the diet since the middle of May.
	I'm probably down 55 pounds now when I started, but I was down 52 back in April.
	But I haven't been real strict with it, but I haven't blown it like I did last night with a half a bag of potato chips and some French onion dip.
	It wasn't worth it.
	No, it wasn't worth it.
	But see, the way you do this, you can't blow a diet in one diet or one day, just like you can't start a diet in one day or want to have an effect.
	So the trick is to understand that you measure your intake over the course of a week, not over the course of a day.
	See, the problem with I have so much experience is the problem is you can do what I did last night.
	You can guiltily consume half a bag of potato chips and wake up the next day and not have gained any weight.
	And if you've been on a diet for a period of time, two or three months, you could probably eat a bag of potato chips three or four times a week and not gain any weight for a week or two.
	And that's when you get fooled.
	Ha ha!
	Why?
	I've got this beat that all of us, because your body's still in a fat burn mode.
	I don't know what the scientists would call it, but what I call it.
	After a while, you start cheating like that steadily, and your body's going to switch around.
	You're going to be in a fat gain mode or storage mode, and it's all over.
	But it's that period of time that you can eat pretty much what you want, and you don't gain.
	You have to have been on a diet a while for this to happen, for your metabolism to continue going in a fat burn mode.
	And it takes a month or two at least to do that.
	What else in a health stack here before we have to go to the break?
	Oh, this is a shock.
	Truck drivers, the people who deliver our food, our cars, and clothing, have one of the most dangerous jobs in America, accounting for nearly 15% of U.S. work-related deaths, and that's only counting the accidents.
	There are also more at risk, these truck drivers are, than average Americans for a number of health problems.
	Obesity is rampant.
	Many don't bother to wear seat belts because their stomachs get in the way.
	About one in four have sleep apnea, and half of them smoke.
	Well, let's just run down the truck driver business.
	Let's just characterize these guys as a bunch of worthless schlubs.
	Unhealthy truckers.
	So the government numbers say that the trucking industry has the most fatalities of all occupations.
	I wonder why that is.
	What is their where are they?
	We have 50,000 highway deaths in this country every year.
	Where are these guys working?
	People.
	The Bureau of Labor statistics says that truck drivers account for nearly 15% of all worker deaths in the most recent data available.
	That's from 2005.
	And of those trucker deaths, 80% involve traffic accidents.
	We needed a study for that.
	One of my all-time favorite tunes in a bumper rotation is hot chocolate.
	Everyone's a winner.
	And as promised, back to the phones on the Rush Limbaugh program to Cadillac, Michigan.
	This is Martin.
	I'm glad you waited, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Rush, it's such an honor for me to speak to you as an American and also as a physician.
	I really appreciate you bringing up that issue with regard to electronic medical records.
	There's so much I could talk to you about, but I'm going to try to keep it straightforward here that I think the electronic medical records is another step towards government regulation of healthcare in our country.
	I served as an Army doctor overseas.
	My parents are immigrants.
	I have cousins who are physicians in Europe, and our health care system is the best in the world, bar none.
	That's who they compare all of their health care.
	They compare it to us, our technology, our caring, our efficiency, our professionalism.
	And I just really appreciate you bringing this up.
	I've listened to you since 1989, and it's just an honor to talk to you.
	Well, you know, I thank you.
	The U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world, has its flaws and problems.
	This is another area that the Democrat Party, the liberals in this country, the media have all, for so many years now, complained about the healthcare system that most people in this country, or a lot of people, think that it's no good and rotten and it's ineffective, inefficient, and so forth.
	And yet, the truly sick around the world come here for care if they can afford it, if they can get here.
	And of course, most of the world's leaders, if they have serious health problems, come here to one of our facilities.
	They don't go to their own countries.
	They don't go to Cuba, which our media also tells us has the best health care system around for free and so forth.
	It's absolutely ridiculous.
	But the electronic medical records, digitizing medical records, is also not just, as you say, another step in the direction of government regulation of healthcare, it's another way to have a much easier invasion of someone's privacy simply by way of computer connection.
	Now, as a doctor, let me ask you, though, about this.
	Some people in law enforcement and others are having chips inserted underneath their epidermis that contain their medical history and their medical records.
	So that they're in an accident, some kind of an emergency unconscious, the emergency room can read the data and know, for example, what drugs they're allergic to and this sort of thing.
	Do you support that?
	Well, once again, I think it comes down to privacy.
	What safeguards are there should that information be accessible to others besides an emergency medical person?
	You know, I think that would be a huge issue.
	So, you know, once again, I don't know if the privacy safeguards are in place for that.
	I think you bring up a wonderful point that our electronic medical records are, you know, there are huge privacy issues with that.
	And technology should be driven by the doctor and the patient, the doctors to perform health care better and more efficiently, and the patients if they so choose to access information on health care.
	Well, I also think patients are going to probably be more open with doctors about their past.
	Therefore, their records are going to be more complete if they trust the confidentiality.
	Start digitizing these things, and everything's on the internet now.
	It won't be long before somebody's medical records are.
	Absolutely.
	But that chip, I'll tell you why I've thought about it.
	Well, I've not thought about doing it, but the reason it intrigues me is because of my cochlear implant.
	Yeah, I cannot get an MRI because of that, because of the magnet.
	The MRI is this giant magnet, and I've got a magnet as part of the implant to keep my headpiece on.
	What if I'm in an accident and the external implants knocked off, and I end up in the emergency room, nobody knows that I've got a cochlear implant, and they have to do an MRI?
	Bam, that machine blows up, and I don't know what's going to happen to my brain at the same time because of the magnet in there with the MRI.
	And if I'm unconscious and can't tell them, and there's nobody around that knows to tell anybody, you know, that's, and I'm sure there are other people who have similar medical circumstances that if they're unconscious, they couldn't tell anybody about.
	And this chip, to me, seems a little bit more private in that somebody would have to kidnap me and read the chip.
	Now, once the doctors at the emergency room or wherever have done that, I guess that's somewhere in a record.
	But as long as that record's not digitized, it's still a little bit safer than if we're digitized everything like we're being talked about.
	The great news about this anyway is that they didn't find any greater efficiency in a test of electronic medical records.
	Didn't help them out, didn't speed things up, didn't change much at all.
	Yes, and I think that, you know, I use a computer almost on a daily basis, but once again, nothing substitutes the doctor-patient relationship, that confidential interaction we have, you know, one-on-one with our patients.
	It's so important, and we really do do it well in this country.
	It always can be improved, but, you know, that's a hallmark of great medical care, is that live interaction with the patient.
	I agree.
	Couldn't agree more.
	It's a good news report that we got today.
	Martin, thanks for the call.
	I appreciate it.
	John in Churchill, Tennessee.
	Glad you waited, sir.
	You're next on the EIB network.
	Meghados, Rush.
	Thank you.
	What's the chances of RFK Jr. going through all his grandfather's trust and doing all the divestiture of all those crummy capitalist companies that have been providing income to his family for the past year?
	You know, that is an excellent point.
	I had not thought of that till I saw your call board or call up on the board here because here's old RFK at Live Earth on Saturday.
	We played the audio sound bites of this in the first hour, basically calling American corporations treasonous because they're not supporting America.
	They're not supporting global warming.
	They're raping country.
	And so he named ExxonMobil and the Southern Company and a couple of others.
	And that would be an excellent thing to do.
	Find out what's in the Kennedy Trust, all the investments in all these companies and so forth, and they own a bunch of things as well, in addition to just have investments in them.
	How many generations of Kennedy kids is the Kennedy Trust supporting?
	Tell me, Rush.
	Well, I don't know.
	I don't have access to the Kennedy Trust.
	That's just like Bill and Hillary complaining about ExxonMobil and it turns up in their stock portfolio, hypocrites.
	Exactly.
	Well, they all are.
	How about all the pharmaceutical stocks Bill and Killery owned?
	Well, they're getting in on the rush before they all lose value.
	They're selling short.
	Well, that's speculation now.
	I understand that in a trust, though, they don't have access to, they don't control the activity there.
	No, but who's ever running it for them knows what there's going on?
	Perhaps true.
	So what you're saying is if Hillary and Bill start trashing the drug industry, then somebody running their trust could go out and sell the stock short because they figured the Clintons are going to run the price down.
	What would be any slicker, Willie, than that?
	I'm amazed, sir, at your level of suspicion involving these two great Americans.
	Well, I know.
	But, you know, I've been around the block.
	You know, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night, Rush.
	And I'm from Chicago originally, so I understand how some of these Democrats work when it comes to dealing.
	I think, I'm not sure.
	I think at one time the Kennedy family got the import duty on almost every bottle of scotch that was brought into the country.
	Legally and illegally.
	I know the old bootlegging days back from the patriarch of the family.
	It's an excellent point.
	Excellent point.
	Robert Kennedy Jr. divests some of the stuff in the trust, and he might have to rely on a few more donations to his public policy think tank.
	A lot of people helping out now.
	Hey, Rush, why don't you try a medical bracelet?
	A medical necklace.
	Nice try, folks.
	You're not going to catch me wearing a necklace.
	And I don't wear bracelets.
	I like freedom.
	I don't like that stuff.
	Anyway, you know, there's a distant, vague memory that is waffling around inside the deep, dark gray cells here, crevices of my mind.
	It says that Kennedy Trust owns oil companies or stock in oil companies.
	I look that up.
	That would be rich if that's true, and I'm pretty sure that it is true out there.
	Here's Neil in Overland Park, Kansas.
	Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
	I appreciate your patience, too.
	Well, Rush, it's great to talk to our leader.
	I saw your picture in Golf Digest, and I was wondering, do you use the interlocking grip or do you prefer Varden?
	Do I prefer Varden?
	Yeah.
	I know.
	The Varden.
	Overlapping.
	Very good.
	Now, wait a second.
	I didn't know the issue was out.
	Is this the one with me in the interview on the back page or the back of the magazine?
	Yes, sir.
	Full page.
	Good picture.
	Yeah, I know the picture's good.
	The guy came in here, took the pictures.
	This was about a week, maybe 10 days before the U.S. Open when they came in here.
	But I didn't know that the magazine was out.
	I am a subscriber, so I guess I'll get it at home sometime soon.
	That was great.
	Really great.
	Well, what about the interview?
	I mean, the picture's a picture.
	We all know I look good.
	What about the interview?
	How did that read to you?
	It went pretty good.
	I think he could have asked you some better questions on other courses you play, but otherwise it was pretty good, I thought.
	I enjoyed it.
	Good.
	I'm glad to hear that because it was a lot of fun doing it.
	And they were thinking about.
	I don't want to put them on the spot here, but they liked it so much, they were thinking about doing a two-parter.
	Was that right?
	Yeah.
	Did they allude to part two coming next issue?
	No, they didn't.
	Well, they must have changed their mind.
	I would ask you one more question.
	Yeah, which one's tougher, Wingfoot or Augusta?
	Which is tougher?
	Wingfoot?
	Well, I'm an 18.
	I mean, it's hard.
	They're both just as tough.
	Depends.
	If you play Wingfoot when it's ready for the open, it's impossible because of the rough.
	And the fairways are narrow.
	And Augusta does not have, they got one cut, you know, of, they don't even call it rough.
	You're not allowed to call it rough at Augusta.
	It's the first cut.
	But I think for people, you know, the greens at Augusta, look, they're both so difficult that it's impossible to make a distinction.
	The way to look at this is it's great to play both of them.
	It's just a fabulous experience to play both those courses.
	And, you know, they're a great challenge.
	And it's an honor to be able to play at both of them.
	But I guess, I don't know.
	I think I've played Wingfoot a lot more, and so I know it a little bit better, and I have scored better at Wingfoot than I ever have at Augusta, but I've not played that many times at Augusta.
	I'd have to say that I don't want to say, because they're just as tough.
	At my level of play, any golf course is tough.
	None of them are easy.
	Mike, Deerwood, Minnesota, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
	Hello.
	Hello, Rush.
	Thanks for having me on your show.
	It's great to talk to you.
	Thank you, sir.
	Appreciate that.
	Yeah, say, I have a get out of jury story, jury duty story I'd like to share with you.
	I was.
	Can I take a guess as to what it might be?
	Yeah, you can go ahead and try it.
	I think you probably just mentioned that you a Rush Limbaugh listener, and they excused you.
	No, I took a little, I was a little more creative than that.
	I used the liberals' own rules and regulations against them.
	How so?
	I was notified in three separate letters.
	The first two letters, the first two times I was notified, they canceled on me.
	And what irritated me is that in the letter, they stated that they were going to pay me $20 a day, and if I didn't show up for jury duty, that they were going to charge me with a misdemeanor.
	So I thought to myself, well, $20 a day, well, that's not minimum wage.
	So I called down to the county and I asked them, I said, how come you guys don't have to pay me minimum wage to come down there and work for you?
	And they said, well, I don't know.
	So I got a hold of the court administrator and he didn't even let me ask the question.
	So I was kind of, yeah, I was really irritated by then.
	So I went on the OSHA website and I filed a complaint.
	I explained to OSHA that the county was threatened to charge me with criminal activity if I wouldn't go work for them for less than minimum wage.
	Well, I got a contact a while later and they were kind of dumbfounded.
	They were telling me that, well, we don't handle this sort of thing.
	I said, what do you mean you guys don't handle this?
	I said, you're telling me that if I was an employer and I threatened somebody with financial repercussions, if they wouldn't work for me for $20 a day, you're telling me that you guys wouldn't put me in jail as fast as you could.
	And they were just kind of reeled back on their heels.
	And I've never heard from the county since because I put that court administrator's name right on the complaint.
	You named the court administrator.
	Yeah.
	So I basically, I mean, you know, the liberals like OSHA.
	They like all these regulations.
	They like the minimum wage.
	So I used it against them.
	So if they would have been willing to pay me minimum wage, of course I would have showed up.
	But, you know, I mean, the court system, here they are, you know, they want you to go down there and base your decision on the law when they themselves are willing to follow it.
	The people who are running the courts.
	I have to say, this is pretty brilliant.
	Very creative.
	The only thing I'm confused about, and it's irrelevant to your story, but you got three jury summonses.
	And what did you say, the first two?
	They canceled them on you?
	Yeah, yeah, they called me the day before I was supposed to show up and they canceled.
	And the third one, they also did that, but I wasn't going to take the chance of not having my ducks lined up because the first two, I mean, the first one I got, I immediately thought of that.
	And, you know, with all this illegal immigration nonsense going on, you know, here the government wasn't enforcing those laws.
	You know, I was going to hold them.
	You guys are going to enforce this one.
	Good.
	You know, the minimum wage.
	Now, how long ago did all this happen and you haven't heard from them?
	The last I heard from them was in May.
	Oh, and like within six weeks, you know, six weeks prior to that, that's when I got, you know, three, you know, like within six weeks prior to that, I got three summons.
	Let me warn you to be very careful.
	Don't doubt me here.
	There hasn't been enough time gone by since May for you to rest assured that you will not hear from them.
	I know, I know.
	At this very moment, they are plotting how to deal with you.
	You're in the computer flagged as a troublemaker.
	Yes, yes.
	Proudly so, I'm sure.
	That's another thing I was counting on.
	Well, you'll hear from them again.
	You will.
	Well, I got a little bit better excuse now.
	I'm working down in Tampa, Florida, and I'll be down here till probably the end of October to build on a construction project.
	Wait a minute.
	What do you do?
	You're working in Tampa.
	You're not vacationing in Tampa.
	No, I'm working.
	What do you do for a living?
	Construction superintendent.
	Construction superintendent.
	Well, good.
	All right.
	Well, I appreciate the call.
	This is a funny story.
	I can just imagine these people being thrown for a loop at OSHA.
	OSHA getting a call about the legal system.
	Peter, Middleville, Michigan.
	You're next on the EIB network.
	Hello, sir.
	Mario Fuente Zeno, Rush, longtime listener.
	Thank you.
	Multiple-time caller.
	It says you're the country.
	When are you going to declare that Congress needs to get their act together and tell the rest of the country we need to be calling our senators and congressmen to make this tax cut permanent?
	Well, you're asking me as the man who runs the country when we're going to do this?
	Absolutely.
	Well, see, now, let me ask you, why are you waiting for me?
	You already have the gumption and the awareness, and I think you're expressing the desire to call.
	I didn't urge people to call during the immigration debate.
	They did it on their own.
	This tax business, I interviewed Jeff Sessions yesterday after the program for the upcoming issue of the Limbaugh letter.
	And I said, we talked about immigration and his heroic work in defeating the bill.
	And I said, what's the next thing on the horizon?
	What's the next big thing in the Senate?
	He said, well, it's hard to say just one thing, but he said that people need to be on the lookout for the budget that the Democrats have proposed.
	It has got tax increases like people will not believe all over the place.
	In fact, the Democrats are not even going to try to do anything about the alternative minimum tax before the 08 elections because they're afraid that they will fail.
	The alternative minimum tax is going to be a tax increase.
	They're going to get rid of it on certain people and raise taxes on the rich.
	And they're afraid that they don't have the votes yet to do it.
	And so they don't want to lose going into the election.
	But if they win things, if they win in 08, you can make book on the fact that they're going to start raising tax rates back up all that they can.
	And it's not for revenue generation.
	We're already drowning in revenue compared to what everybody thought would be rolling in.
	A capital gains rate reduction to 15% is causing people are having to get out of the way at the Treasury Department for all the dollars rolling in.
	The same thing with the income tax receipts, the economy booming 4.5% unemployment.
	There are a lot of taxpayers at lower rates that are therefore creating an aggregate amount of tax revenue that's larger than any expert predicted.
	I wonder why this always eludes them.
	The Democrats, they're not worried about raising money.
	That's not what it's all about.
	With them, it is control.
	It is social architecture.
	It is the illusion of punishment.
	They run around and say they're going to raise taxes on the rich, and you think that the rich are all these people on the Forbes 100 list and all the Fortune 500 CEOs, and that's not whose taxes are going to go up.
	Those people will have their lives structured so that their income is not quote-unquote earned income, as in wages and salary.
	Taxing the rich is a giant misleading fraud.
	But Senator Sessions warned of some of these things that they want to do.
	You know, making tax cuts permanent is something that does need to happen, but it's going to need Republican support.
	There are even some wavering Republicans on this.
	But when the time's right, this will all evolve.
	And you'll know when the time's right because I will tell you.
	America's real anchorman, national treasure, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity simply by showing up.
	800-282-2882, San Francisco Chronicle, Edward Epstein, writing, Senate Democrats, increasingly restive over the war in Iraq, plan to force a series of votes starting today, aimed at either changing the course of President Bush's policy or embarrassing Republican members over their continued support for a wall the public has soured on.
	They've done this over and over and over again, but this time, Dingy Harry says that things are going to be different.
	He says, we want there to be change, and it should not be a fig leaf.
	These things are going to be different this time.
	A draft of the interim report of whether the Iraqi government's met its performance benchmarks circulated Monday among government agencies, and it concludes a government in Iraq has met none of its targets for political, economic, and other reform, said an official who asked not to be identified to the AP.
	Another report, this one from General Petraeus and ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker, on how Bush's troop increase strategy is working is due by September 15th.
	But as I told you yesterday, Dingy Harry and the Republican Senate defectors say they don't want to wait until then to change Iraq policy.
	They don't want to wait until General Petraeus reports in September for all of the obvious reasons.
	Now, the strategy of the Republican Senate leadership as Democrats seek votes on anti-war amendments, still not clear.
	Of course, it's not clear because they're undecided what their strategy ought to be.
	But let me give you a couple realities here, folks, and listen to me on this.
	Reality number one is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are running Congress.
	And they have been running Congress twice as long as the General Petraeus plan has been in place.
	Reality number two is that public support for Congress has collapsed.
	Have you seen the latest polls?
	I don't care what the president's numbers are.
	They are what they are.
	The congressional numbers are even worse.
	Do we not think, ladies and gentlemen, that it may be time for new leadership in Congress?
	Perhaps maybe Senator Reed should be replaced and Speaker Pelosi should resign.
	Congress needs a new direction.
	Take every argument they're using to get us out of Iraq, ignore Petraeus, deny his plan the time to work and so forth.
	Turn it around against him.
	The current leadership of Congress has failed.
	They've failed to live on their promises.
	They've failed to set the country on the right course.
	They've failed to gain the support of the American people.
	They're a total political failure.
	As a matter of fact, during their leadership, Reed and Pelosi, the American people have rejected, overwhelmingly rejected their leadership.
	Anybody who has lost faith in General Petraeus has to be disgusted with Reed and Pelosi.
	If the Petraeus leadership can be judged in, what is it, two or three months now?
	The Reed and Pelosi leaderships had two or three times as much time and is clearly accomplished zilch.
	Zero.
	Nada.
	Nothing except a whole bunch of political stunts.
	Armani suits, grandchildren on the knee, a big mallet, 100 hours on the road to nowhere, secondhand smoke legislation, secondhand mirrors, minimum wage, a bunch of chicanery, supposedly getting rid of earmarks, but not really doing it, and America gets it.
	Disapproval of the Reed-Pelosi Congress has collapsed, 37% to 24% after only six months.
	Well, if we're not even going to give Petraeus the full length of time he was promised and assured, and we're going to pronounce it a failure already and a collapse of leadership and there's no political will and support and the Iraqi people haven't met their benchmarks.
	Well, neither the hell of Reed or Pelosi.
	They haven't met one benchmark.
	They haven't done one thing.
	The support for the U.S. Congress in this country's not just plummeted.
	It has totally collapsed.
	So using their line of reasoning and thinking, we need new leaders in Congress, and we need them now.
	The Democrats are the ones that need a new plan, and they need the new plan now, folks.
	I just love stories like this.
	A Texas state lawmaker, a Democrat, who opposed a law giving Texans a stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force, shot a man at the house he is building in Houston, the police said.
	Lawmaker Representative Boris Miles told the police he was fixing a leak in the second floor of the house on Sunday when he heard a noise downstairs, saw two men trying to steal copper wiring.
	He confronted them.
	One threw a pocket knife at him.
	Mr. Miles, former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the leg.
	Give this guy the Feinstein Award, ladies and gentlemen, for utter hypocrisy.
	So the guy wants this perfect Democrat, liberal, want to reserve special common sense behavior as rights for yourself, but deny them to all of the plebes, the great unwashed, ahoy paloy, if you will.
	A brief time out here.
	We'll be back.

▲