All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:53
July 24, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
What was that last night?
Did you watch the debate, Snerdly?
I'll tell you what, I have an idea.
I have a for the because you know we've broken new ground.
Everybody says we've broken new ground in these debates.
So the next time a Democrats get together.
I think I think the questions ought to come from Shrek, from the little mermaid from uh from little Nemo Fish, Homer Simpson, Cartman from South Park.
Man, oh man, oh man.
Well, we're loaded with that stuff today, folks.
Uh great, great to have you with us.
We're back for another three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence.
El Rushbow, your highly trained uh broadcast specialist meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Our telephone number 800 282-2882 and the email address rush at eIBNet.com to show you how absurd this is.
In the San Francisco Chronicle today, YouTube steals the Democrat debate.
The medium and the questions are called the message.
And this is a story by Joe Garrafoli.
And he basically says here, this is a quote from the story.
The questions were more important than the answers.
And this a lib newspaper.
The format was the winner.
The answers might have included standard boilerplate from the candidates, but analysts said that the hybrid format showed the value of giving the public a greater say in questioning the public or the political uh candidates.
The difference here that the analysts are saying the big difference was that the questions featured uh feel, uh feelings, and emotion.
Uh the questions felt different, they sounded different, have a personal feel to them, said uh Sam Feist, CNN's political director, uh, on uh on Monday.
By the way, we'll have more debate analysis as the program unfolds.
The uh White House announced yesterday that uh doctors found no cancer uh in the five small polyps removed from President Bush's colon.
I I question that finding.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, uh Carl Levin et al.
Not cancerous.
Uh if I were the doctor, I would get a second opinion.
Try this headline loose dykes spur China flood fears as hundreds die.
This is why we call them levees.
In uh in this country.
Hundreds of sections of embankments along China's third longest river become loose, threatening the homes of millions of people after three weeks of deadly floods across the country.
Uh more rain's forecasts and the dikes are loose.
Now everybody's saying, whoa, this is incredible global warming.
It's horrible out there.
The UK floods, and now this China flood did a little research.
Do you know there was a great flood in China in 1931?
Well, you do now, Rachel, because I, L. Rushbow, have so informed you.
It was caused by a typhoon.
They call Hurricanes Typhoons over there, and it was estimated, we guessing with uh they didn't have categories back then, but it was an estimated to be category five typhoon.
The flood in 1931 in China killed three to four million people.
Dykes that held back the Yellow River for centuries failed.
And of course, dikes in a communist country, what can you expect?
Uh but that flood, 1931, remains the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded.
Whatever's happening in China today is pretty bad, but it doesn't compare.
And guess what?
I have a website here.
Just so happened that Charles Lindbergh was there.
He took pictures from his airplane.
He helped with delivering aid.
So there is photo evidence of this.
Uh and it's um it's just typical.
Everybody thinks everybody's historical perspective begins with the day they were born.
And everything the human condition is such, the way we're built, is that uh every generation believes that things have never been worse during its time.
Every generation thinks that things are gonna get worse, they're gonna get bad, and they've never been worse.
Uh and that's because, you know, history and history education is uh uh one of these it's it's it's an apt.
Oh, yeah.
There was a story last week that the uh that Great Britain itself, the island of Great Britain was created by a flood.
Uh glacier activity and so forth, and it eventually receded, and that gave us Great Britain.
Years and years.
I mean, this we're talking gazillions of years ago here, folks, long before there was any global warming threat, man-made, what have you.
And try this headline.
This disturbs me for reasons that you will soon understand.
Former Guantanamo detainee blows himself up.
Now, the the the we we had a capture, we had a guy captured at Club Gitmo, uh, and we released him.
He took up arms alongside the Taliban after he was released from detention.
At Club Gitmo, he has blown himself up to avoid recapture.
This, according to Pakistani security forces, Abdullah Meshud killed himself with a hand grenade after he was cornered by troops at a house in the southwestern Pakistani town of Zab.
He was uh wanted for the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in 2004.
Atta Mohammed, the head of the police in Zab said, My information is he killed himself.
Thanks be to God that only he was blown up, and our men were safe.
Uh, this, you know, this is bad for business here at Club Gitmo.
We're running a we got a thriving licensed merchandise uh business going on down there, and it's you know how to get rest and relaxation from jihad.
This guy was so terrified of heading back down there that blew himself up.
What uh Mr. Snurdon?
Uh they did.
I th I know they released him at I know they released him at the height of all of the attention on all the torture and so forth going on at uh Club Gitno.
I mean, it is it is good illustration of the kind of people that are down there and why they shouldn't be released, but we did under pressure.
All right, here's today's medical update for those of you who take statins, uh medicine to lower your cholesterol.
The heart benefits of taking statin drugs to reduce cholesterol may be offset by a slightly increased risk of cancer.
Although the evidence is by no means clear, U.S. scientists said today.
A new pooled or meta analysis of past studies involving 41,000 patients on statins found one additional incident of cancer per 1,000 patients with low levels of LDL or bad cholesterol compared to those with higher LDL.
The results will be published in the July 31st issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Richard Karris, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Wow, what tufts, dude.
Remember they did a study at Tufts once.
Yes, it's back in the 70s.
Was it the lowered the bust size the higher the IQ and vice versa?
I remember that.
Anyway, uh the Tufts University School of Medicine Research stressed that the association did not prove statins caused the increase in cancer risk, but didn't disprove it either.
Uh the demonstrated benefits of statins in lowering the risk of heart disease remain clear.
However, certain aspects of lowering the bad cholesterol with statins remain controversial and uh merit further research, he said in a statement.
Don't think the risk of a risk.
I don't think they know anything.
I don't think they don't know what they're talking about.
Throwing out these things here may do this, might not do that, could do that, maybe won't do that.
Well, be careful.
We think we do see this, but we can't be sure.
We are experts.
We are scientists.
These current findings provide insufficient evidence that there's any problem with uh LDL lowering that outweighs its.
Well, so what's the phone of the story?
If the current findings say that there's no evidence or insufficient evidence that taking a statin increases your cancer risk, then why do the story?
Uh one possibility is that the higher cancer risk in patients with low LDL reflects the fact they live longer and are therefore more likely to develop cancer.
All right, so they don't no beans.
Put it out here, scare everybody half to death.
There isn't a pill that you take that doesn't have some impact on you, because the liver metabolizes everything, you don't, I mean, hell.
Is that story going to be on the website?
Of course the story would be in a website.
Why, why why why would it?
You want to read it again?
I just tore it up.
You heard everything I had to say about it.
I can reprint it here for you if you want.
In fact, I can give you a copy of it before the website updates because I have connections.
All you have to do is come into the studio here during a commercial break, Which we have to take now.
We'll be back and to review some of the uh whatever that was last night, whatever you want to call it.
Not only am I a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, I am a national treasure, a prophet.
General all round good guy.
Welcome back, folks.
Rush Linboa, the EIB network, the president uh just concluded a bang bang speech on the progress of the surge uh in Iraq.
Uh I've been watching it uh while working here on the closed caption, but reading some of it.
And um uh just just really uh kicking butt with this speech, very upbeat and positive.
It's not quite clear.
Uh J.R. Dunn today in the American thinkers now that the surge is working, it is succeeding, and everybody is aware of it, and so how's that going to be dealt with?
It's going to be ignored, says Mr. Dunn, the American Thinker.com today.
Uh the results are being ignored now.
Virtually no media source or Democrat politician uh is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months.
Coalition efforts have uh undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near textbook example of uh uh how an effective strategery can overcome what appears to be overwhelming drawbacks, not the least of which is a major political party in the United States.
The coalition has left the treadmill in which one step of progress seemed to unavoidably lead to two steps back.
That requires some time to discover the proper strategy in any war, but it's it appears that it has been reached here.
I gave you all the details yesterday, but the Sunnis in the Shia getting together, 25 different tribes, people getting fed up with uh Al-Qaeda, even low-level Al-Qaeda members in Iraq uh becoming informants uh on the on the bad guys upset with the barbaric nature of their behavior.
Uh someday, 2006, Mr. Dunn Wrights may be seen as Iraq's 1943.
It appears that General Petraeus has discovered the correct strategy for Iraq, engaging the jihadis all over the map as close to simultaneously as possible, keeping them on the run constantly, giving them no place to stand, rest, or refit.
Uh we we will see more of this in the weeks ahead.
The jihadis have come up with no effective counter-strategy.
The old methods have begun to lose mana.
The last massive truck bomb attack occurred not in Baghdad, but in a small dialogue village that uh that defied Al-Qaeda.
An insurgency in the position of using its major weapons to punish noncombatants is not in a winning situation.
But you will look long and hard to find any of this in the drive-by media.
It isn't there.
It cannot be reported that the surge is succeeding.
So what we'll be focused on instead, ladies and gentlemen, is how the political situation is falling apart.
And not making progress and so forth.
So whatever wherever the good news is, it's like the drive-by's in a Democrat Party find a way to avoid it.
But this is uh the worst nightmare is for this news to start trickling out for the uh for the Democrat Party.
I just go to some um let's go to listen to some of this debate stuff, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll start here.
We have the questions.
We have the YouTube questions.
I don't know how many of you people watch this, but I did last night.
I was working and I was working for you last night.
I watched this, and I'm telling you it was torture because I knew the moment I heard the question, I knew what the answers were going to be.
Um there are conflicting analyses today on who scored the best.
Some people say that Hillary just cleaned up.
Others are saying that Obama really, really did better among Democrats and Hillary did because he came across as more genuine and more trustworthy.
Uh others are saying Obama blew it uh on an important uh uh national security question, which we have here.
Here's the question uh from Stephen in California.
In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bowl leadership, would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.
And here's what Barry Obama said.
I would.
And the reason is this that the notion that somehow not talking to countries uh is punishment to them, uh, which has been the guiding uh diplomatic principle of this administration is ridiculous.
Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil umpire.
And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them.
They may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, uh, but we have the obligation to find uh areas where we can potentially move forward.
Uh and uh and I think that it is uh a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.
We've been talking about Iraq.
One of the first things that I would do in terms of uh moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward uh is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're gonna have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
Why have been acting irresponsibly up until this point?
No, tell me I didn't just hear that we are not gonna be a permanent occupying force.
We are in a position to say that uh they are gonna have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the world.
Oh my god, folks, I cannot believe this.
I stood up in my chair last night when I heard this.
If Iraq collapses, Iran and Syria are gonna have responsibilities.
How is Iraq gonna collapse only if we pull out?
So if people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton get their way, we pull out of there, then Iraq collapses, then we turn it over to Iran and Syria, and they're gonna have responsibility.
And we've got to tell them about that.
I cannot.
Do you understand this is this is caving in.
This is giving away an opportunity here to establish a little beachhead of freedom in that part of the world so desperately needed, he wants to turn it over to a couple of thuggish terroring sponsoring regimes after he talks to them and tells them what their responsibilities are.
Stabilize the region?
Anyway, Mrs. Clinton decided that she had a different opinion about this approach.
I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.
I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort.
Because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes.
I don't want to make a situation even worse.
But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration, and I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy, and I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters to feel the way.
But certainly we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and you know the president of North Korea, Iran, and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
All right.
Now the the serious policy wonks will tell you here that Hillary's answer is far more substantive and weighty uh and uh and far more presidential.
But there's a problem with her answer, and it is from last April.
AP from a city in Iowa.
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy.
He said if she were president, she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.
I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences.
So in April, she said she would do what Obama said he would do.
Well, she didn't quite say she would meet with him personally.
Uh but you can see that she's got her static answer to this.
Now a lot of people think, well, she kind of, you know, she did appear more presidential.
She did appear to have a little bit more weight there and substance in her answer.
Oh, Rachel, you're nodding your head in agreement.
Uh, do you uh think Hillary's answer is better than uh Barack Obama's?
Um I don't think it's irrelevant because none of this is gonna happen.
Uh is the bottom line.
Uh I'll tell you what something I know.
Speaking of weighty and substance and so forth.
Somebody at CNN is probably in huge trouble today because there were four or five instances where there was a camera placed right behind Mrs. Clinton's Derrier.
It you forgot anything you were hearing at the time, believe me when you watched that.
I am I'm sitting here, I am still stunned and amazed at Barack Obama's answer here on whether or not he would start talking to the bad guys and our enemies.
This this business that um uh we would he'd talk to Iran and Syria, tell them they have responsibilities uh if Iraq collapses.
Barack, I got one word for you.
Lebanon.
Syria sure doesn't want to get stuck with chaos in Lebanon.
Oh, they're causing it.
They're creating it.
They're creating the chaos in Iraq, and you think you're gonna sit down and talk to Basher Assad and get him to act responsibly?
And then, furthermore, ladies and LA Times, Barack Obama says preventing genocide isn't a good enough reason to stay in Iraq.
By that argument, you'd have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now, where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife, which we haven't done.
Made these comments D AP, not in the debate.
We would be deploying unilaterally occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done.
Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea.
Now it is it worth, I think at least pointing out a key difference between the potential genocide in Iraq and the heart-wrenching slaughters in Congo and Sudan.
I'm reading here from an unbilined LA Times piece.
The latter aren't our fault, Congo and Sudan.
But if genocide unfolds in Iraq after American troops depart, it would be hard to argue that we weren't at least partly to blame.
Amen.
Exactly right.
That's what makes Barack's answer here in it in a serious substantive way so inane.
And it's not worth staying.
We would be causing that genocide just as we caused the genocide in Cambodia and other parts of Vietnam will be pulled out of there.
Pardon me for telling the truth about that, Senator Kerry.
Now, the the whole Darfer question came up last night using diplomacy in response to a question from three aid workers standing in front of a refugee camp.
Let me see if we've got that audio.
No.
There were three uh aid workers standing in front of a refugee camp in Sardin's uh uh in the Sudan's Darfur region, and it provoked a response from Biden.
Biden said, I'm so tired of this.
United States must send troops now.
Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over.
Twenty, five hundred American troops.
If we don't get the 21,000 UN troops in there, we can stop the genocide now.
When pressed on the same question, Mrs. Clinton said she doesn't support putting American troops in Darfur because we got to figure out what we're doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin and Afghanistan, where we're losing the fight to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Well, we're not.
Uh but so Hillary's thrown Darfer under the bus.
And you know why she threw Darfer under the bus?
The Kook base watching this debate last night.
That's why she threw Darfer under the bus.
Don't send troops anywhere.
The the Kook base doesn't want U.S. troops anywhere, folks, not even for needles on wheatles missions, because they don't trust the military to st uh to sit around and just disturb it food.
They think they'll start firing guns, and once that happens, the kook fringe runs for the tall grass.
But I have to disagree with the serious analysts who say that Barack's answer in the context of the debate last night and the loony tunes that had to be watching it.
And I count myself last night as a looney tune watching this, but it's part of the job.
You have to understand that's the printer going off behind me, folks.
No big deal here.
The uh the thing that that you have to understand that Barack's answer is and remember the the context of the question.
Uh Sadat traveled to Israel.
A trip resulted in peace agreement.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to separately meet with all these rogue bad guys?
So the tone of the question is can't we all just get along?
There's so much strife in the world, and it's so much horror, and it's so much anxious, so much partisan thief, and it's so much disagreement.
Can't you just get together?
Can't we even get together?
Would you talk with these people and bring us peace?
Well, Barack knows who's watching this debate last night.
The anti-war cook fringe base of the Democrat Party, and of course, all these 2900 YouTube submitters hoping and praying that their video got used.
So uh he knows who the audience.
Hillary with this nuanced answer.
Uh I don't know how well it played with the um uh with the Kook fringe audience watching this last night.
Let's move on.
More audio sound bites uh with next question.
Uh basically, one of the troops coming home.
See those three flags over my shoulder?
They covered the coffins and my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son.
Someday mine will join them.
I do not want to see my youngest sons join them.
I have two questions.
By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq?
And how many family members do you have serving in uniform?
All right, now, Joe Biden.
I have chosen to give you Joe Biden's answer because of course he has no prayer uh for winning the Democrat nomination.
Zilch zero nada.
But um I've chosen to give you Biden's answer because it's the most realistic.
The guy at least had the guts to tell these kooks what's going on.
There's not a single military man in this audience who will tell this Senator he can get those troops out in six months if the order goes today.
Let's start telling the truth.
Number one, you take all the truths out.
You better have helicopters ready to take those three thousand civilians inside the green zone where I've been seven times and shot at.
You better make sure you have protection for them or let them die.
Number one.
So you can't leave them there.
And it's going to take a minimum of 5,000 troops to 10,000 just to protect our civilians.
So while you're taking them out, Governor, take everybody out.
That may be necessary.
Number three, the idea that we all voted, except for me, for that appropriation.
That man's son is dead.
For all I know, it was an IED.
Seventy percent of all the deaths occurred have been those roadside bombs.
We have money in that bill to begin to build and send immediately.
Mine resistant vehicles that increase by 80% the likelihood none of your cadets will die, General.
And they all voted against it.
How in good conscience can you vote not to send those vehicles over there as long as there's one single solitary troop there?
He's the adult on the panel last night when it comes to this.
Telling these candidates who voted against this bill that they're they're morally wrong, and telling the audience in this debate, hey, get realistic.
You can't get out of there immediately, and there are great consequences to getting out.
The dirty little secret is, as I have told you, even if the Democrats win the White House in 08, they're not pulling out of Iraq.
In fact, New York Times today has a story.
While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American uh American command in Baghdad has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.
Classified plan represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador.
Calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad by the summer of 08.
Sustainable security is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 09, according to American officials familiar with the document.
Petraeus is developing a plan to follow victory in the surge.
Which is damn right.
Keep going.
That's the dirty little secret.
The reality here is that this is going to keep going until it's done right and until we win.
And whether the Democrats win the White House in 08 or not.
Now, this plan envisions two phases.
The near-term goal is to achieve localized security in Baghdad and other areas no later than June of 08, and to get the rest done by 09.
The uh the new approach reflects the counterinsurgency precept that protection of the population is the best way to isolate insurgents, encourage political accommodation, and gain intelligence on numerous threats.
It's a long story, but uh it it uh is very upbeat and very confident.
And uh Biden, with that answer that you just heard, uh, sealed his fate as a potential winner of the uh Democratic presidential primary season and so forth, but he took he was the only adult last night.
At least you can say that you know they don't have a plan.
It says, get the hell out.
Oh, yeah, sorry, talk to Iran and Syria and make sure that they assume their responsibilities in the region.
Talk to them.
That's Obama's plan.
The other the only other plan anybody else has get the hell out of there.
Bill Richardson, get the hell out.
All the other get the hell out.
Biden said, wait a minute, it just isn't that easy.
We've got more right after this.
Stay with us.
Uh, this next one's juicy, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome back, by the way, Rush Schlimbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up.
A uh question from um uh Mike Green from Lexington, South Carolina said, I uh wanting to ask all the nominees whether they would send their kids to public school or private school.
Here's Mrs. Clinton.
Chelsea went to public schools, kindergarten through eighth grade until we moved to Washington, and then I was advised, and it was unfortunately good advice that if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone because it's a public school.
So I had to make a very difficult decision.
But we're very pleased she was in public schools in Little Rock.
Well, really, a very difficult decision.
Very difficult.
Oh, horrible.
There wasn't anything difficult about this decision at all.
There is no way that Hillary and Bill Clinton are going to send their daughter to any public school in Washington, D.C. There is no way.
It wasn't difficult at all.
And it had nothing to do with the press.
It had nothing to do with the media.
They sent uh Hillary to Sidwell Friends, which is where all of the elites uh media, government officials send their um send their children to uh private school.
What do you mean what's wrong with DC public schools?
The main challenge they're staying alive.
Getting an education bonus.
And that's even iffy.
John in Tallahassee, Florida, we start with you as we uh get to the phones.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Thanks.
Hey Rush.
Um you know I didn't listen to that debate last night.
I had better things to do.
Uh so did I, so did I, but I had no excuse.
It's my job to watch that stuff.
Yeah, I thank you for the same.
You should be thanking me that I did I'm gonna do that now for putting up and tolerating.
But as you played the uh clip from uh the fine Senator Obama, uh my uh head about exploded as well.
Uh because uh they continue to get away with just recreating or trying to recreate and reinvent history as they've done with every other thing, but particularly uh offensive with Obama trying to uh uh evoke uh Ronald Reagan in his answer to the question about whether or not he would have uh one on one talks with the heathens that uh oppose us in other parts of the world.
And he had the nerve to utilize uh an example of uh Reagan meeting with Gorbachev as uh as as uh precedents for doing such.
And you know, what what do you forget is the fact that uh Reagan met with Gorbachev in the fall of eighty five, you know, his third year in office.
Um he called the yeah, Soviet Union the evil empire in eighty three when there was a different uh foreign minister or secretary, whatever they call that that person in the old USSR, which was Yuri Andropov.
And uh frankly, the only reason he even met with Gorbachev and Reykjavik was because he was more or less forced by folks like Margaret Thatcher.
He was against the meetings.
Um, but what he saw was exactly what our friends uh in the Democratic Party want us to do, which was he saw an appeaser.
He saw Gorbachev as a liberal as as things go in the USSR.
Gorbachev was uh an elitist uh intellectual.
Yeah, you th in fact that that one of the reasons, you know, everybody was urging throughout Reagan's first term, why don't you meet with the Soviets?
You've got to meet with the Soviets.
He said, uh, their leaders keep dying on me.
Why should I go talk to these guys who are gonna be dead in six months uh and just have to do it all over again?
I've got nothing to say to them.
He said they're going to implode of their own immorality.
We just have to sit by keep the pressure up, but we've no reason that we have to look at them as a constant presence because you call them evil empire.
They don't have to always exist.
But the liberals, of course, have to always exist.
Uh it must appease these people, balance of power, all this sort of stuff.
Finally did meet with Gorbachev and uh walked out of the meeting.
You know, he offered he said, I'll tell you what, Mike, I'll get rid of all my nukes, you get rid of all of yours.
Gorbachev said, NYT.
Reagan said, got nothing to talk about then.
Out the door.
Came back home.
And it was after that Gorbachev followed him back.
And and Gorbachev arrived in uh Washington in 1987, and that's when the Gorbasm was born.
Because when Gorbachev landed on that Ilyushin 62 jetliners, technology to build it stolen from Boeing, no doubt.
The state department, all these liberals and the drive-by media, everybody's out at the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, and that plane lands and are coming in there.
And you can just you could you I watched on television.
You can just see it's like these people are getting ready to have a collective giant orgasm when that plane door opened and Gorbachev with that birthmark, uh, which kept growing during the eighties, typifying Soviet expansionism.
You could even see the East Coast of the United States in that birthmark, Florida, a little bit of Maine, uh some of the Gulf Coast.
Uh and and they he got off that airplane that was here!
Oh my god, the world's safe.
Reagan isn't gonna blow us up.
Reagan's not gonna blow us.
He's safe.
Oh that Gorbachev got here and they had their big summit and so forth.
And wasn't long after that, Soviet Union um uh ceased to exist.
Glasnost, Paris Droika, and uh and all of that.
And what Reagan never backed down from was the strategic defense initiative.
See, you're right.
Um Obama is trying to tell these uh lame brains that made up this audience last night that we uh got rid of the Soviet Union by telling them to go away and that they said, okay.
That's you guys are bad.
You should not exist.
You should disband.
And uh and and Obama wants this audience that watched last night think that it was diplomacy.
Well, it wasn't diplomacy, it was the threat.
And the Soviet Union understood we could do it.
The threat to build SDI, strategic defense initiative.
They knew they couldn't keep up.
They knew it would render their nuclear arsenal uh worthless.
They knew we could do it because we are the United States of America.
And so it was over.
And it didn't come about uh by virtue of diplomacy.
Uh so you're right, Obama.
And I had this thought as I was listening to it.
Uh let's see.
Works Pennsylvania is it York, Pennsylvania, or what is it?
I don't know if my glasses like York, Pennsylvania.
Well, it said it's got an S on there, so I've never heard of York's.
Uh anyway, Teresa, welcome to the EIB network.
Yes, it is York, Pennsylvania.
Uh regarding Hillary's comment about um about sending Chelsea to pu uh private versus public school.
Yeah.
Uh Amy Carter went to public school and the press left her alone.
I just remember the first day of school picture, Roslyn waving from the steps and Amy pulling her inside.
He went Amy Carter went to public schools in Washington.
Yeah.
I think that's right.
That's absolutely right.
Yeah.
So I don't know what the you know, well, granted, the press had changed a lot between 1976 and 92, but I you know, I just feel like that that was not a valid reason.
Of course it's not a valid reason.
It wasn't, it was it was it was it was Clintonism.
It was a lie.
They never once considered it.
They never once considered it.
Not only was it that they didn't want her to go to the turmoil of public schools and all that sort of stuff, there was prestige.
Yep.
Associated with getting your kid into Sidwell Friends.
Don't think that didn't matter.
Teresa, thanks much.
I appreciate it.
Julie in Wellington, North Carolina.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Um first of all, I just was curious who you thought came out on top last night or did anybody.
That's a dangerous question to ask when Chris Dodds in the panel.
Um, you know, he was ultimately on top and on bottom during the waitress sandwich days with uh Ted Kennedy.
Right.
Back at La Brasserie, which is no longer open.
Um who came out on top?
I think I uh it's hard.
I don't know.
I be it's hard for me to watch this debate with the mindset of a Democrat voter.
So uh it it uh it's it's Hillary.
I mean it doesn't it's it's it's Hillary.
I d I don't think Barama Barack Obama landed a big enough punch to I don't think Edwards stood out at all.
I think Edwards um didn't think probably Hillary.
No nobody nobody took her out, so she had to Well that's what kind of how I look at it too.
I mean, I'm a conservative, but my husband and I are big political junkies, so we we tend to follow everything and uh I I feel like overall, you know, she's got it in the bag pretty much.
But um secondly, I just wanted to quickly point out yesterday when you were talking about women, um, not necessarily voting for Hillary just because I guess just because she's a woman.
Yeah, yeah.
Um, unfortunately, that's not my experience.
I'm I'm running into a lot of women.
▲
Export Selection