All Episodes
Previous Next
July 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
July 11, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh here and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network with broadcast excellence for another hour from the EIB Southern Command, housing the distinguished and renowned Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
There are no graduates from the Institute.
There are no degrees.
The learning never stops.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Today's iPhone winner is John S. of Arden, North Carolina.
He listens to the program via WWNCAM, which is AM570 in Asheville, North Carolina.
Stand by audio soundbite number six, Mike.
Now, here's the interesting thing about today's iPhone winner, John S.
He just registered yesterday for Rush in a Hurry, and he's a winner today.
Now, this should send a signal.
Those of you who have not registered yet, you may wish to take notes, sign up right now, just go to rushlimbaugh.com, find the Rush in a Hurry banner.
It's all over the place there.
You can't miss it.
You click on that and put in your email address, and you're registered.
And it's free every afternoon, shortly after an hour, hour and a half.
We get it out as soon as we can.
But we've got to link some things to it, hyperlink some audio links.
It takes a while to put together, but it's just a rehash, a summary of the brilliant content that was heard on that program, that day's program.
And it's a heads up for what's coming on the full website update about 6 p.m. Eastern every afternoon.
So that's how you're registered.
If you registered long ago, you are qualified.
If you haven't registered, we're going to have four more iPhones to go, one a day for the next four days.
In addition to the phone, the winner gets a check from us, the good guys, to pay for two years of service, mandated, by the way, when you get an iPhone with AT ⁇ T, one year's subscription to the Limbaugh letter, and my website, Rush24-7.
If you already are subscribers to one or both, they will be extended for a year plus the $100 gift card from BocaJava.com.
So one more iPhone tomorrow, four more total.
It's cool.
I'm getting emails, people.
I couldn't wait to see if I won one.
I had to go out and get one and already getting your daily podcast rush.
This is great.
I can't believe what I've been missing.
I've been trying to tell you.
Rush in a Hurry will show you what you've been missing and give you access to certain elements of the program that are free.
So it's easy to register.
It's easy to become eligible to win an iPhone.
Cindy Sheehan, as you know, made it official.
She's going to run against Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco district in 2008.
She was on Scarborough's show today on MSNBC via phone.
And Scarborough said, now, you've been critical of Nancy Pelosi in the Democrat Party.
You made a lot of people in the Democrat Party very angry.
What did I miss?
Who has she made angry in the Democrat Party?
Who in the Democrat Party has been mad at her?
Tell me, have I missed something?
I don't know if anybody's mad at her than the Democrat Party.
Anyway, talk about, Forrest Cindy, how it's been for you to be attacked by Democrats when you're saying the same thing about Republicans when they were in charge.
Democrats have made me very angry.
Democrats have made a lot of people in this country angry.
They should be the party of change.
They should be the party that brings our troops home, and they're not.
They still, even when they had a Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats are complicit, many of them.
They're good Democrats and a few good Republicans.
But we're angry.
We're angry that they are not doing what we elected them for, and that's to bring the truth.
Tom, to bring George Bush and Dick Cheney, hold them accountable.
And I think that we have to quickly look at each person, not their party, not say, oh, we're going to give her or we're going to give him a free pass because they're a Democrat, but we're going to attack the Republican just because they're a Republican.
And I know there's some Republicans who have also governed with integrity.
So that's Nancy Pelosi's opponent coming up in the 08 elections.
Now, I had a story on Pelosi from yesterday's stack, and I didn't have a chance to get to it.
It's from the Washington Post on Monday.
Edging away from inner circle, Pelosi asserts authority.
In February, only a month after becoming Speaker, Nancy Pelosi settled weeks of threats from John Dingell, her blustery Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, by putting in writing her assent to one of his big demands, Pelosi's new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming would not infringe on his power to write legislation as he saw fit.
Four months later, Dingell appeared in the Speaker's conference room to walk through a bill that would override California's attempts to combat global warming by raising fuel efficiency standards, strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases and promote a controversial effort to turn coal into liquid fuel.
This time, Pelosi was in no mood to mollify Dingell.
The bill he was sponsoring, she said, was unacceptable.
The environmental cost would be too severe, the political cost for the Democrats too high.
These two episodes, say the Washington Post, episodes with Dingell, illustrate Pelosi's evolution from a somewhat tentative political figure, reliant on a small circle of advisors, to the undisputed leader of the House's fractious Democrat majority.
Barney Frank said Nancy now represents the majority of this caucus overwhelmingly.
But if Pelosi succeeded in uniting her party during her initial months as Speaker, she and the rest of the leadership have yet to convince the nation that the Democrats can govern.
Well, that's what this post story is all about, don't you see?
Isn't it interesting?
We get poll after poll showing Congress's approval numbers, and Pelosi's personal numbers as well as Dingy Harry's are way, way down plummeting.
And we get a little puff piece in the Washington Post about how brilliantly she's taken over that caucus and she's not letting the other guys that have been around a long time steamroller.
I guess it's a good thing that the Democrats do not get named by the drive-by media like Republicans did because, you know, delay was the hammer.
Well, this is the purse.
Nancy Pelosi's the purse.
She's out there banging these guys with the purse.
She's pursing them into doing what she wants them to do.
So we get this piece that is designed to boost her numbers and to talk about how great a leader she is.
Now, she's growing in orifice.
And she started tentatively.
Started tentatively.
The woman started thinking that she'd been elected to presidency.
Richard Thorne grins as he waves his hand under a toilet paper dispenser in a women's restroom.
The machine spits five sheets of tissue into his grasp.
A year in the works, the electronic tissue dispenser is being rolled out to the masses by Kimberly Clark Professional as it seeks to capture more of the $1 billion away-from-home toilet paper market.
The company believes that most people will be satisfied with five sheets and thus use 20% less toilet paper.
Most people will take the amount given, says Thorne.
People generally in life will take what you give them.
Oh, man.
I mean, yes, but this is, they don't look at it as the toilet paper being given.
It's something you take.
Most people will take the amount given.
People generally in life will take what you give them.
What can you only hit this thing once per hand or something?
What have you?
I'll tell you what.
I don't care what they regulate and what they mandate and what if they get rid of Porsches and get rid of Ferraris, I'm going to find a way to have one.
And I am not going to have any bureaucrat or company tell me how little or much toilet paper I can use.
I don't care if it's private or public.
This stuff is getting out of hand.
It is.
It is.
I'm close to profanity here.
I'm going to take a break.
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone on Wednesday, hump day.
All right, remember the story yesterday?
This 70-year-old woman in Orem, Utah, who was arrested and sent to jail for having an unwatered lawn.
Very, very mean thing to do.
70-year-old woman, no grass in the yard, they arrest her.
That's not nice.
And she now says she wants to move.
Since this has happened, I don't want to live in Orem anymore.
Her name is Betty Perry.
I know now that I'll never see another winter here.
She refused to give her name to an officer who visited Friday to issue a ticket for failing to take care of her front yard.
She fell and hurt her nose as he tried to arrest her.
That's just not nice.
She was taken to jail where she spent more than an hour before officials.
Designed custody was inappropriate.
The officer, whose name has not been released, has been suspended.
Lieutenant Doug Edwards said, what happened was not the way we prefer to do business, but clearly she did some things that were wrong, too.
I'm not just saying her name.
Mayor Jerry Washburn apologized to Betty Perry, said the city law requires residents to maintain their yards and keep them free of junk, but few tickets have been issued for brown lawns.
Mayor said, it's not our policy to go around here and enforce green lawns.
I want people to know that this is not American to handcuff and put somebody in jail because their lawn is brown, said Betty Perry.
She's right.
It was a very mean thing to do.
It just wasn't nice.
Here's shocking news, ladies and gentlemen.
Shocking, shocking news.
Hispanics born and raised in the United States may be in poorer health than new immigrants with higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol.
This, according to U.S. researchers, yesterday, poor, I can't stop laughing when I read this.
Poor eating habits, smoking, and a lack of exercise are all likely to blame, said the team at USC.
Actually, USC, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, the researchers looked at surveys of more than 4,200 whites, blacks, and Hispanics aged 40 or older interviewed by federal researchers from 1999 to 2002.
One possible explanation for this is that people who immigrate are healthy to begin with, and they may also have come here with better health habits.
But then they come here to this stinking rotten country and they get diabetes and they smoke and they're lazy.
So they come here in perfectly good health and this country is killing the backbone of America, the illegal immigrant population, ladies and gentlemen.
They come here healthy as they can be from their war-torn, economically deprived countries.
And they get here.
Picture of health and we destroy them.
It's a secret plot.
So researchers also found immigrants born in Mexico were taller, had better childhood nutrition than those who stay in their country of origin.
This may reinforce the idea that the healthiest people immigrate, they report in a study to be published in the journal Social Biology.
So illegals and other immigrants are better off before they get to America.
See, where was this news before the votes in the Senate?
If we'd have known this, we could have put this in the ammo arsenal and said, we're doing this to protect these people.
They're coming here and dying.
They're coming here.
First, we don't pay them diddly squat.
We make them do jobs that we elitist Americans won't do.
And now they come here and they catch diseases because they eat our rotten food.
And they drink our rotten water and they smoke our rotten cigarettes.
And then they can't get health care when the blood sugar starts skyrocketing.
And so they die.
In other health news, helping switch on an energy-burning type of fat called brown fat may offer a way to prevent obesity.
Researchers reported yesterday.
They found a gene called a PRDM16 in brown fat, but they didn't find the PRDM16 in white fat.
White fat's a type of fat found all over the bodies of most adult humans, and of course illegal immigrants who have even more of it after they get here than before they got here.
You know, it may be possible to use this gene, the PRDM16, or the protein whose production it controls to help stop people from making too much white fat, said the team at Harvard Medical School.
Also, it's a French research institute involved here.
Brown fat is present in mice and in human infants where it keeps them warm by dissipating food energy as heat instead of storing it as white fat.
In humans, brown fat, the good fat, all but disappears by adulthood.
So we've got to find a way to create the white fat in adults, brown fat.
We've got to find a way to create the brown fat.
The question is whether humans can be taken back to an infantile state in which brown fat cataracts the buildup of white fat.
Yes, you know, even in the most innocent, harmless, mildly interesting health stories, we find racism.
Racism and bigotry.
And guess, guess who the culprit is?
Even in this story, the white fat.
The white fat totally discriminates against the brown fat.
It dominates it.
It subjugates it.
It subordinates it.
It enslaves it to the point that it doesn't exist.
White superiority even in fat, ladies and gentlemen.
There's just no justice.
Scott, Jackson, Mississippi, Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush.
I wanted to make a quick comment in reference to a story you read the last hour, which reported that environmentalists wanted to ban sports cars from being manufactured.
I think that was over in Europe.
Yeah.
Specifically, they mentioned Porsche and Ferrari because they meet low environmental standards.
I think if the environmentalists really cared, they wouldn't ban manufacturers from producing these vehicles.
I just wanted to suggest that, you know, based on the principles of supply and demand, removing a supply of the manufacturer's sports cars would result in grease monkeys and shade tree mechanics everywhere coming out of the woodwork and producing their own hot rods in their personal garages that probably would meet less, if not any, environmental standards at all.
Right now, auto manufacturers can be rather easily regulated, but it's more difficult to regulate a private garage.
Now, my final point, one of two things are happening.
Either the environmentalists are not anticipating this, to me, obvious result, or they are anticipating it, but maybe they're looking forward to invading everyone's home via their garage in the name of environmental quality.
I really don't give enough intellectual credit for the latter of the two, but I wanted to see what you think.
Well, this is an eye-opening call for me because you have dealt with this in a manner that disappoints me.
Even though what you said was very intelligent and forethoughtful and so forth, it still disappoints me.
The correct reaction to this story is, screw you, to hell with you, and you telling me what I can and can't drive.
To hell with you coming into my house if I try to outdo your regulations.
Leave me alone.
My car is not destroying the planet.
Shut the hell up, you demagogue liberal creep.
I'm tired of it.
That's the answer to the story.
The minute you start taking the details.
Yes, these things do pollute.
And yes, they do.
And what's going to happen is if they shut them, screw shutting them down.
If anybody goes along with this, it's already happening.
It isn't going to be too long before you're not really going to have a choice of the kind of car you want to drive in this country because these asinine cafe standards.
All of this based on a hoax.
Now, I'm not against fighting pollution.
We're doing a great job of having our automobile exhaust improve, but we don't need to be driving around lawnmowers.
We don't need to be driving these little things.
When people get so compliant and accept the premise of something that is a hoax, accept the premise of something that's false, especially when the premise is being advanced by a bunch of socialist do-gooders who want to control every aspect of your life, the reaction is, screw you and leave me alone.
If you don't want to drive a Ferrari, then don't buy one.
There aren't that many of them out there anyway because they're pretty expensive.
The market takes care of all this.
A dirty little secret in this is that one of the side benefits even referenced in the story is that it will promote economic equality because it will prevent the rich from buying these so that the poor and the middle class don't have to be offended by seeing them drive down the street.
And next are going to come for your boats and your yachts and whatever else they think it's unfair that you have, but not everybody else has.
Ha.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, national treasure, the man running America.
You know it.
And I know it.
All right, in the Los Angeles Times, I guess what was this?
July 9th.
You know, we've talked to you about the new message maker the Democrats have glommed onto this guy named Drew Weston.
He's described here as a genial 48-year-old psychologist and brain researcher.
And the Democrats have thrown George Lakoff, rhymes with, overboard.
And Lakoff's not too happy about it, but they've glommed onto this Weston guy.
And he talked to what is described here as a rapt liberal audience about the role of emotion in politics, how to talk back aggressively to Republicans, and why going negative is not to be feared.
It was day two of the progressive Take Back America confab.
And those who had crowded into a meeting room at the Washington Hilton were about to discover why Weston, a psychology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, had quietly become the great rumpled hope of Democrats who believe their candidates should have won the last two presidential races.
Weston has spent many years training psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers.
And his major brush with fame before now had been the occasional commentary on national public radio.
In his new book, The Political Brain, The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, Weston, not affiliated with a particular candidate, lays out his argument that Democrats must connect emotionally with the American electorate and that he can teach them how to do it.
The political brain is an emotional brain.
It prefers conclusions that are emotionally satisfying rather than conclusions that match the data.
What a profound admission.
Let me read that to you again.
The political brain is an emotional brain.
It prefers conclusions that are emotionally satisfying rather than conclusions that match the data.
In other words, why?
If the data is not on your side, lie about it and make people feel good about your law.
I mean, that's how I interpret this.
None of this is new.
This is what the Democrats instinctively do.
The fact that they think they have some psychologist come in and teach them how to do it is hilarious.
This is their DNA.
And I'll tell you what else it does here, folks.
This points out why they are so determined to silence people like me on talk radio.
They can't as easily get away with all this emotional garbage when people like me are out there providing the facts in an optimistic and entertaining manner.
Well, not optimistic today because I'm highly irritable and in a foul mood, but most of the time I'm optimistic and I'm of good cheer.
And I present facts in that atmosphere.
So for their plan to work, fact purveyors have to be dealt with.
The man running America is a problem and they've got to deal with that problem.
Facts, by this guy's own admission, get in the way of the Democrats' mission.
You know, a couple of days ago, I had that article on female guilt, the Melinda Henneberger story.
All these women out there that don't really like Hillary and it's tearing them up.
They just feel guilty about it.
And so dubbed a new term, white gal guilt.
In that whole story, in that whole story, there was not one mention I can recall anyway on her policies or any disagreement on that.
It was all emotional.
All of the talk, all of the comments that Melinda Henneberger quoted were dealt with emotion.
And nobody's dealing with Hillary's candidacy.
Nobody's dealing with facts and figures and all these sorts.
It's total emotion, the inevitability.
She is owed this.
Look at what she did.
She saved the Democrat Party.
She saved a country by not leaving her husband.
She gave up a promising career as a feminist or whatever and had to trudge on down to the sticks in Arkansas to map up this guy's messes for all these years.
It's her.
That's the stuff that's driving her candidacy.
Certainly isn't her.
I mean, if you look at her issues and things that she's botched politically and lawsuits and this sort of thing, there's nothing to recommend her candidacy but emotion.
So basically, let me summarize this.
What Drew Weston is telling Democrats, and what they already think anyway, I mean, because they do this.
They really don't need to be taught this.
They're basically saying that their potential voters are idiots, derelicts, and stupid poltroons.
If it's that easy to ignore facts and cover up facts with the right kind of satisfying emotion, then you've got to be dealing with lunatics.
You have to be dealing with idiots.
Their voters are stupid.
And they need to appeal to voter emotions because it doesn't make sense to argue an issue using facts and figures.
He actually says this later on in this article.
Doesn't it make sense to argue an issue using facts and figures or to count on voters to make choices based on the sophisticated understandings of policy differences or procedures?
Oh, really?
Tell that Ronald Reagan.
Anyway, avoid the facts.
Just go right for the heart and lie.
Don't bore your constituents with facts.
Just tell them whatever makes them comfortable, warm, happy, and fuzzy.
Tell them that the people who own Ferraris are not going to be owning them for very long.
And the people that have yachts are not going to have them for very long.
And make them feel good.
Play into their resentments, play up class envy, and we'll take care of you.
Don't worry, you're pretty little empty heads.
The Democrat Party will take care of you.
And that's their message.
As I say, I'm struck with the fact they need somebody to come in and teach them.
Dave, Bellevue, Michigan, you're next in the EIB network, sir.
Hello, and welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for having me.
You bet.
Hey, I completely agree with you that the Democrats don't want to see any victory in Iraq.
And I think, I guess I want you to comment on, I think they're kind of changing their position or changing the goalposts by blaming the Iraqi government now.
And I was wondering what you thought about that.
Well, it's an interesting tack because I think somebody did get to us.
You know, you guys better stop moving in on the troops because it's not polly.
I don't care what you think of the war, and I don't care what the people that they don't blame troops for anything.
Other people are saying that the Malachi government that get this.
One of the theories running around in select Democrat Party circles is that Bush and his administration purposely gave Malachi unreachable benchmarks.
That's not possible.
Giving them the excuse to pull out when the benchmarks are not met.
But I think what the Democrats have already made their bed and they're in it.
And the bed is defeat.
The bed is surrender.
And they're under the covers and they're all comfortable.
And whoever they want to blame, it is fine and dandy.
But it will remain perfectly clear that they are the party of defeat, that they're not interested in helping the Iraqis reform that government and make it workable.
They're not interested in any success here.
I don't care whether it's the Iraqi government, the war, beating al-Qaeda.
They have no interest in success.
That is the message that I derive from everything they say, and that I'm going to keep reminding people so that they don't forget it either.
Back right after this.
And we're back.
El Rushbo, all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all concerned.
Maha Rushi.
One of the newspapers today, it's either the Los Angeles Times or maybe the Washington Post said that this interim report, the Petraeus report, pre-Petraeus report on September 15th, the interim report shows that Iraqi troop numbers and deployment have reached their benchmarks.
I don't want to be confusing about this.
It's the political dimension that isn't there.
And some are saying, well, yeah, Bush set those benchmarks so high they were impossible to hit.
Malachi, nobody could have hit them.
And that's going to be the excuse for getting out.
That's, you know, Democrats floating that around hoping that that is a rumor that takes hold and will be used to force Bush into some sort of withdrawal policy because they don't have the votes to force it in either the Senate or the House.
Now, remember, the Democrats were all over.
They were just as critical as they could be of the fact that the Iraqis were not stepping up.
The military said, the Iraqis, the training, wasn't going to remember all that.
Kerry was talking about it in the 04 race.
Well, I got the training is not going fast enough.
The Iraqis defending their own country.
Iraqis going to be dying for their own country.
Why is it only U.S. soldiers giving up our precious treasure?
Well, the Iraqis have ramped up, and despite all these claims, they had the Iraqis can't do it.
They're not going to do it.
Now they are.
And that charge at focus is not going to be available to them anymore because the Iraqis are out there dying for their country.
They are in the field.
Democrats said it doesn't happen.
Democrats said it wasn't going to happen.
Democrats said it was happening too slowly.
Now they're out there saying, these benchmarks, why?
None of them have been met.
The political, the governmental benchmarks.
Oh, they're horrible.
These Iraqis, they're not worth it.
Same refrain that they've been saying for four years.
You know, the give up caucus, the white flag caucus.
Democrats in both the House and the Senate.
Jim and Chesapeake, Virginia.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Rush, thank you for taking the call, and it's an extreme pleasure to talk with you.
This problem with the Democrats and basically the Congress failure to see what's happened before in the Iraqi theater and just Middle East in general is killing me.
I don't want to have the support to pull out and see our people have to pay the ultimate sacrifice again to take the same ground just to protect our country and our children.
What do you mean by going back?
Well, I mean, we can go back from all the way to when we send the message to Libya, to the Iran hostage debacle, to Samuel B. Roberts, the Stark, all the incidents in the area, Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks, and even up to the current areas.
It just amazing how the only thing we hear about is the unfortunate and sad loss of life for this particular encounter in Iraq over the past couple years, but they neglect to consider what happened in Desert Shield in the storm and before and after.
I've never heard them cry about this.
What you're saying is a good point, that this is a problem.
And at some point, it's going to have to be dealt with.
If we quit now, we're just going to have to deal with it in some other form, maybe some other place in a bigger theater, who knows what.
Now, that's an excellent point.
It's not going to go away.
We cannot hide and we cannot pretend it doesn't exist.
And we can't leave these people alone and expect them to leave us alone.
They're fanning out all over the Western world via immigration and other things and getting into these Western societies that they so despise.
Yeah, sir.
And Rush, it's not just, I mean, I've been in and around that theater for over 20 years of service, and it's not just there if we don't toe the line there and do what we did with Japan after we did have victory there and after we did have victory in Germany.
No, I understand what you're saying.
You're right, too.
We're going to be fighting the shores on our shores.
We're going to be fighting them here again.
Yeah, it's amazing.
That doesn't move people when you say that.
They can't fathom that.
They can't fathom what they see on television in Gaza or in Baghdad happening in Manhattan.
No, Rush, they view them as you would your neighbor.
And they are raised differently.
The lifestyle, the level of education, the value system is different than ours.
And we can't impose our value system on them.
That's something they're going to have to acquire and learn and strive for and sacrifice for by having their people take and secure their cities.
No, I understand.
I was commenting on the fact that you said if we don't fight them there, we're going to fight them here.
And when you say to the American people, well, if we don't beat them there, we're going to have to fight them here.
Most Americans are not moved by that argument because they can't imagine terrorists coming here and causing havoc day in and day out in this country and in their cities.
They just don't believe it.
They may be bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon now and then, but they can't believe that that's going to.
So that I'm just commenting on how that argument doesn't move people sufficiently.
I don't know.
How do you get more emotional than that?
How do you get more emotional?
Well, we better beat them over there.
We're going to fight them here.
Somehow that doesn't work.
It doesn't play because people don't want to consider the possibility.
See, there's still too great an opportunity here, too.
Not great and much opportunity.
There's, what's the word?
You can ignore it.
If you're in this country and you don't want to get all caught up in the horrors and the hell holes around the world and pay attention, you don't have to because it isn't happening here.
People don't stop to think why, who's doing what right.
But what if it did break out here and when will that happen?
Are we prepared to deal with it?
And we're not.
If our solution to all this is to say, well, you know, it's just those people over there, they've got different values than us, and leave them alone.
That won't bother us.
Once they find out we don't mean them any harm, not how it works, but people, too many Americans, still have that freedom, that luxury, that's the word I'm worried, luxury, to put their head in the sand and pretend that there's really no imminent threat to us.
And that's not the case.
You couple that with the distorted propaganda from the drive-by media of the Democrat Party about how none of this was even necessary.
Bush lied.
There was no reason to go over there.
Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Blah, So people in this country have ample opportunity to ignore it if they want to.
That's where leadership comes in.
And we're getting none of it from several Republican senators and zilch from the Democrat Party as a whole.
Back in just a second.
You know, that's a good point.
I'm wondering, how do you think Senator Lindsey Gramnesty dealing with the problems Senator McCain's campaign is having?
I think he's noticed it.
By the way, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Representative Heather Wilson, a Republican from New Mexico, called for comedy, C-O-M-I-T-Y.
It's not peace.
It's not fun.
If you people reel into that comedy, this is comety.
During a meeting of the Republican conference, after the minority leader John Boehner referred to Senate colleagues who've begun to favor a change in course in Iraq as wimps.
Boehner called Republican senators who are growing wobbly on Iraq wimps.
Heather Wilson declined to comment directly on what Boehner had said during the closed-door meeting, but she noted that Senator Luger's speech was one of the more thoughtful speeches that she had heard in the Senate in a long time.
Man, these guys have been there a long time.
They're worn out.
They don't have the fight in them anymore.
What are they in the 80s, 75, 80?
She added that the war and the thoughts of her colleagues about the conflict should always be taken seriously.
So anyway, this happened behind closed doors.
Somebody in there has leaked it out.
Boehner called the anti-surge Republican senators WIMPs.
Yeah, nothing wrong with that.
We like facts on this program.
Anyway, my friends, we've got to take a exit.
The program is almost over.
It's time to split the scene.
We'll have another iPhone winner to announce tomorrow.
We've got four more iPhones to go, and we'll deal with whatever happens between now and tomorrow's show when tomorrow's show starts, because show prep for tomorrow's show starts right now.
See you later.
Been great being with you and look forward to tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection