All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
July 27, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I'm sitting here watching this press conference that NASA's conducting on the two astronauts that were allowed to fly on the shuttle while inebriated, having consumed way too many adult beverages.
And I'm asking myself, how?
How do you knowingly let a couple astronauts fly drunk?
How does this happen?
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
And the telephone number for you is 1-800-282-2882.
And remember, we go to the phones on Friday and the show is yours.
I don't have to care about what you want to talk about.
That is a rule Monday through Thursday.
I will fake it on Friday.
It's always fun and exciting.
You never know what you're going to get.
And we look forward to it here.
Not just because it's the end of the week, but because it's a fun way to do the program.
If you want to go the email route, rush at EIBnet.com.
Seriously, folks, these astronauts are going to have, I mean, two of them flying drunk, allowed to take off in a space shuttle flying drunk.
Now, I don't know.
I know a couple shuttle commanders.
I have known them over the years.
Kevin Chilton being one.
He now runs Missile Command somewhere in Colorado.
Big, big, big job.
Great, great guy, too.
I'll tell you, the only thing I can think of is that at liftoff, you know, this rule that bottle to the throttle, that has to go back to the Mercury days, that whole phrase.
I mean, those guys back then, I mean, those, you've got the Gus Grissoms and the Alan Shepards, the Frank Mormons.
I mean, those guys at John Glenn's, they were, those were the modern-day Christopher Columbus.
I mean, they were going places nobody had ever been before, not knowing if they're going to come back.
And so, you know, they dealt with it in their own way.
So they had this phrase, bottle to the throttle, a 12-hour rule, bottle to the throttle.
Meaning, you took an adult beverage.
You had to wait 12 hours before the, you had to finish 12 hours before your scheduled launch.
The only thing I can think of here, and I need some experts to tell me this, this is idle speculation, but I mean, it doesn't make any sense unless they're not really flying the thing at launch.
I know that the commander lands the shuttle, takes over when it's very close to ground, but computers fly these things.
Computers initiate the roll at launch.
Computers handle the solid rocket boosters detachment after they've spent all their fuel.
There is a point in time, though, during the launch where they have to throttle back because of turbulence at the speed they're going through the atmosphere.
They have to throttle back to like 66 or 65%, if I'm not correct.
I think that's right.
And then the mission controls, okay, your gopher throttle up and then they throttle it back up all the way.
I don't know if they're doing that by hand, if they're doing it if the computers are handling it.
But at some point during the launch, they have to be prepared to take over in case they have to abandon or abort the mission and go to an alternative landing site.
The computers can't do that.
Well, maybe they can.
I don't know.
But otherwise, it makes no sense.
Now, these astronauts, were they named?
Have these astronauts been named?
NASA is still saying it's unsubstantiated here in the press.
Oh!
Oh, so it's just a report at the same time that we've got this report that some subcontractor sabotaged a computer that's headed up to the International Space Station.
Well, if they're ever named and if it is true or just alleged and they want to defend themselves, we here at the EIB network, we admire NASA and we admire astronauts.
Admire these pioneers that take great, great risks.
They're going to need a defense.
And we've been working on some things that have worked in the past, and they're worth trying in this case, should the situation eventuate.
One of the first things that these astronauts, unnamed as of now, can say is it depends on what the meaning of the word drunk is.
I mean, it's been thrown out here in the media, but I mean, what's drunk?
Obviously, didn't affect our job.
We went up there, we got back down, everybody landed safely, mission was accomplished.
It didn't affect our job.
This is a matter best left to the families of those concerned would also be another defense that has worked.
If they, you know, just attack the prosecutor.
That always works.
As an overzealous, out-of-control, booze-crazed special counsel who brought these charges to say this guy himself, he's some kind of holy roller who hates booze, hates this, and is booze-crazed.
You know, that defense has worked well before.
You could also say, you just deny it.
I never had a drink with that woman, and now I never had a drink with myself.
I just want to get back to work for the American people to fly my missions.
And you can say, everybody does it.
This is nothing new.
Everybody, look at all the airline pilots that get nabbed, flying drunk.
Oh, everybody does it.
Why are you focusing in on us?
They could say.
And then if none of this works, everybody lies about whether they had too much to drink.
Look at Brittany.
Look at Paris Hilton.
Look at Lindsey Lohen is still lying about it.
Everybody lies about it.
Why are you zeroing in on us?
It has worked in the past.
Folks, as I read this story, I feel so sad.
House members, House of Representative members are complaining that their spouses could lose their jobs, their family incomes could drop, and perhaps the entire pattern of their family lives could change if an ethics reform bill just passed by the House becomes law.
This bill would bar campaigns from employing a lawmaker's spouse.
Its backers argue that employing a spouse creates an implicit conflict of interest, tempting lawmakers to overpay, tipping off contributors that some of the largest will go directly to the lawmaker's family.
What seems an obvious conflict to some is a way of life to others.
Rhonda Rohrebacher has three-year-old triplets.
She's a work-at-home job as a campaign manager for her husband, Dana Rohrebacher of California.
She made $57,000 in the 2006 election cycle, according to a recent report by the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and crew.
Screw them.
Under the proposed ban, Rhonda Rohrebacher would be out of a job.
It's going to hurt me, said Dana Rohrebacher.
My family would be deprived of that income.
I think it's baloney.
I think it's just a way of not having to look at issues by making it a personal matter.
Representative Buck McKeon, Republican California, paid his wife Patricia $110,000 the last election cycle to do fundraising and prepare campaign finance reports.
Are there any Democrats mentioned in this story?
Page two.
Let's see here.
Barton, I can't find any Democrats mentioned in this.
Well, I want to wonder why with crew behind this.
Wasn't crew behind the Mark Foley thing?
Yeah, that's okay.
You know, this is probably the barest tip of the iceberg.
You know, it is.
If the American public had actual knowledge of the incestuous nature of modern politics, there'd be a public hanging from every streetlight once a day.
I mean, the system was not designed to give whole families employment for decades.
Maybe not run for office.
I don't know.
Solution to the problem.
And then there's this is this is this is mind-boggling.
U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday aimed at clamping down on the government's collection of telephone and financial records of people it suspects of terrorism or spying.
You heard that right.
The House passed legislation aimed at clamping down on the government's collection of telephone and financial records of people it suspects of terrorism or spying.
The vote was 281 to 142 as they approved a law enforcement spending bill for the fiscal year starting on October 1st.
The Senate's not even begun to debate this yet.
The White House has warned that President Bush would veto the bill because its overall price tag of $53.5 billion, excuse me, $2.3 billion more than he requested.
The legislation passed by the House explicitly prohibits the FBI from initiating a national security letter in a way that skirts the law.
You know, you think back, think back to 9-11 and think back in the immediate aftermath or to the immediate aftermath.
And everybody was, why didn't you know?
Why didn't the CIA know?
Why didn't the FBI know?
Well, it turns out, as we know, they knew a lot.
They were able to name these 19 hijackers shortly after the incident.
But everybody was going, why didn't you know?
And now, after that happens, the same people clamoring for, why didn't you know?
Why didn't you, are trying to stop us from knowing?
What might be happening in advance?
Mind-boggling.
Back after this.
The Alan Parsons Project.
The Eye on the Sky.
The chorus line could be rewritten.
The lyrics could be, I'm a Democrat in the House of Representatives, and I've got what it takes to take what you've got.
It's Open Line Friday.
We go back to the Fawns.
This is Roger in Fallbrook, California.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
About this matter of the ice falling from the sky and global warming.
Hey, hang on just a second.
You're on a cell phone, right?
Right.
Oh, yeah, slow down just a little bit.
I have more trouble with cell phones in my hearing than I have with others.
Okay, you know, the ice in the sky in the global warming story.
Yeah.
Whoever did that is obviously ignorant of history because I'm kind of a student of out-of-the-way knowledge, and this stuff's been going on for a century, long before there were SUVs, long before there was airplanes even, although I imagine most of it today is airplanes.
Wait a minute.
You are a student of, what did you say?
Out-of-the-way knowledge.
Out-of-the-way facts.
So you're a student of trivia.
Well, among other things, yeah.
Well, look, because you read the street history about this stuff, and it's been going on for centuries.
You know, during warm climates, during cold climates.
Yeah, I know.
Forever.
Yeah, I know, but there's some, there's some, I'm going to give you some not out-of-the-way knowledge about this.
All right.
All right.
It's funny because here you have falling block ice, and there's a, it's based on something that happened to Dubuque.
Iowa, large chunks of ice, one of them reportedly about 50 pounds, fell from the sky in Dubuque, smashing through a woman's roof and tearing through nearby trees.
Authorities were unsure of the ice's origin, but have theorized the chunks either fell from an airplane or naturally accumulated high in the atmosphere, both rare occurrences.
But we're going to get to global warming.
Well, no, this guy, they don't say global warming here.
There's a Spanish scientist, what's his name?
Jesus Martinez Frias.
And he's the guy that's chalking this up to global warming.
I see.
But here's the bottom line.
Scientifically, there is no way it is not possible.
I have this on the authority of scientists.
There is no way that large ice can grow outside of cloudy air.
You have to have cloudy air.
And these people that are reporting that balls of ice are falling out of a crystal clear blue sky, and no doubt that it happened, but it didn't just form up there by itself because it can't.
For water to form into ice up there, it must be surrounded by supercooled water, usually raindrops in the upper atmosphere that have not frozen.
Super cool means below 32 degrees, but it is not solidified.
There is no way it is impossible to keep a basketball-sized chunk of ice aloft long enough to grow that big.
It's this thing called gravity.
Even the largest hail clusters that fall from thunderstorms have extreme updrafts, maybe as strong as 100 miles per hour.
They occur with lots of other hailstones, not by themselves.
And we're not talking hailstones here.
What this scientist in Spain's theory is that more turbulence, quote-unquote, generated by climate change can do something like this is just, well, it's ridiculous.
It's just, it's fear-mongering and it's just pure panic.
There's literally no way that ice can form from a clear blue sky.
Certainly not this big, and it's not going to stay up there long enough to get that big.
It just can't.
You don't have hailstones that are that big.
Why is this?
All kinds of reasons.
Now, the thing that's probably right, and the caller agrees to it, is that you have these airplanes and you've got leaking lavatories.
The ice forms on the fuselage outside the airplane, eventually breaks off.
And by the time the ice reaches the ground, the plane's long gone.
So nobody sees the airplane.
And when it's flying at altitude, 37,000, 39,000 feet, you're not going to hear it even.
So if you're not looking up and you don't see the airplane and all of it, well, how could you if you're in your house waiting for it to get bombed by a falling blob of ice from an airplane?
You're going to look, whoa, what's up there?
The airplane's long gone.
So it becomes a mystery.
And of course, guys like this scientist over in Spain try to take advantage of people's fear and ignorance.
It's turbulence up there.
Things are happening that we cannot explain.
Has to be global warming.
Roger, thanks much for the phone call.
We're going to Durand, Michigan, and Catherine next.
Welcome to Open Line Friday, Catherine.
Rush, it's such a privilege to talk with you.
Thank you very, very much.
I am calling from Michigan, and we are now the bottom of the 50 states for our economy.
And because it's tax, tax, tax.
And then yesterday I talked with my sister in Scotland, and she read it in their paper over there how Michigan is doing so badly because of everything being taxed.
No kidding.
They're not publishing that story in this country.
That's right.
Your sister lives over there?
She's just visiting.
No, she lives over there.
She lives there.
But she'd rather be here, of course.
Well, then, why isn't she?
Why is she over there?
Oh, because her husband won't leave there.
Isn't it always the case?
But, you know, if anybody wants to see what this country would be like run by the Democrats, they've got to just look at Michigan.
Sorry, look at Jimmy Carter.
Look at the whole country back in the 1970s.
I understand what you're getting.
You got a good point there.
That's right.
But I just go back to the 1970s with Jimmy Carter.
He even did a speech about the national melee.
That's right.
That's right.
And it was three decades of prosperity that followed Jimmy Carter with the election of Ronaldus Magnus, which is something the Libs want to try to revise historically so that people will not make that association with Republicans, well, conservatives, and prosperity.
You know, I get people from, I was in Michigan this spring.
I went up there for a WJR, a Rush to Excellence tour, and drove around.
And I talked to some people, and it's always the same complaint as yours, that we're just being taxed here beyond our ability here to amass wealth and have any prosperity.
And then it's sort of like when tax revenue then falls short in the state of Michigan, they go, well, we've got to raise taxes again.
We didn't get enough of that last time.
You know, I think at the state level, it's interesting to note how many states in this country are overflowing with cash.
They're running surpluses.
The experts are stunned.
They are shocked at how this can be.
Experts are shocked and stunned at how well the U.S. economy is doing tax receipt-wise.
The deficit, $205 billion, it was going to be a monster that we were going to get eaten by and so forth, going to destroy us.
What makes it, I think, all the more important that people really pay attention to this stuff because you listen to Democrats and they're out there promising to get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
They're promising to get rid of all the things that have created more revenue to the government than they could ever dream of having.
And people say, well, isn't that what they want?
Isn't that what?
Well, they'll borrow it first.
What they want more, folks, is control over your life.
Remember, they're liberals.
They want control over you.
It's all over.
The evidence is all over to see.
Now, Hillary wants your four-year-old to go to, she wants to take over privately run preschools and have the state governments run them.
These are nothing.
You remember when Kerry was talking about the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the people were put in re-education camps?
And they've done pretty well, Kerry said.
Well, what do you think, Hillary, getting what you want your four-year-old for?
Liberals want your kids as soon as they can get them to start this liberal indoctrination.
Or think of it as re-education.
Nobel Peace Prize nominee, national treasure, a profit.
Here are the Open Line Friday edition of the Rush Limbaugh program of the EIB Network.
Let's talk about the economy here for just a second.
I just came across a piece published today at financialsense.com by Jeffrey Nyquist.
It's entitled The Coming Malays.
He said, remember President Carter's 1979 Malaise speech?
Americans were losing faith in a country's future, he said.
They were closing the door on America's past.
President Carter wanted to turn things around.
He warned that rising materialism would not fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.
He said it was a crisis of American spirit.
In response to this crisis, Carter wanted the authority to ration gasoline, form an energy mobilization board, create a bureaucracy to guarantee that we would never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977, set oil import quotas, develop solar power.
These efforts will cost money, Carter explained, a lot of money.
Now, this was a genuine Malaise.
He was right.
The country was dispirited because it was because of him.
They're coming out of Watergate.
It puts all these, it was an absolute mess.
It is not a mess today, but Democrats are trying to recreate the same mindset.
I'm taking a break here from reading this story.
Democrats are trying to create the same mindset that existed in this country in the 1970s in the midst of prosperity.
Back during Carter's days, we had the misery index to actually measure inflation and interest rates, and they were both through the roof.
It was genuine Malaise.
So he wants the authority to ration gasoline, energy mobilization board, bureaucracy to guarantee we would never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977.
I mean, you hear the Libs recycling the same arguments today.
Well, the country rejected Carter and everything he called for and subsequently enjoyed three decades of prosperity.
Carter's policy was rejected because the American people didn't want a lower standard of living.
They didn't want to forfeit their economic freedom.
The American people cling to material happiness with a ferocious animal cunning.
They don't believe in giving up or giving over to obstacles.
They want a good life.
Their materialism is fundamental.
So is their comfort.
They will reject any politician who tells them bad news.
They will reject any policy based on pessimism.
This is the lesson of the 70s taught by Ronaldus Magnus.
And he was exactly right then that this is where people are worried today.
The doom and gloom in the midst of prosperity seems to have captured the thoughts, the imagination of people, and they seem willing to embrace lame-brain ideas like global warming that will reduce their standard of living and their freedom.
They seem to be, in large numbers, accepting the notion of the bad news that's out there.
And sure enough, Mr. Nyquist writes here, what we're seeing today is reminiscent of the 70s.
First, there is dollar inflation understated by statistics.
Then there is the stagnation of the economy.
An old depressing pattern has appeared again.
We see an American president discredited.
The presidency weakened an unpopular overseas military commitment, rising oil prices, increasing government regulation, and higher taxes.
We know what happened at the end of the 70s.
American weakness in Malaise led to aggressive communist moves in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, specifically Angola, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan.
Then came the humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis.
Now, the trauma of the 70s ended with the appearance of Ronaldus Magnus in the White House.
Weathering a severe recession with steady optimism, Rinaldus Magnus shepherded the U.S. toward a period of sustained prosperity and apparent victory in the Cold War.
As we look ahead to next year's presidential race, however, we don't see anybody resembling Reagan.
The likely winner will be a Democrat, and the Democrat philosophy isn't the philosophy of Reagan.
The Republican Party has been wounded by President Bush's failed Iraq adventure.
In recent days, the polls show that three leading Democrat candidates beating the top Republican candidates.
The Republican candidates haven't found their footing.
They haven't found the right things to say.
Attempting to mimic Reagan won't work because the public mood has shifted.
The Democrat candidates can also mimic Reagan.
And in fact, as a little aside, I saw something in the news the other day about Barack Obama was spokesman saying, Reagan is our model.
I am the agent of change.
Reagan is our model.
Optimism, upbeat.
That's what Obama, that's who his campaign model is.
That's what his manager said.
Disbelief, I know, is coursing through your veins right now, but I don't think he's pulling it off, but that's their idea.
And that's how he hopes to be the agent of change.
Now, Mr. Nyquist says, the United States is no longer a healthy republic.
Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that a monster has been growing inside America.
It's the monster of political passion, misguided ideology, and moral confusion.
It's a monster born of a consumption culture whose intellectual and moral standards have been falling.
There is every reason to believe that the political criminals of the future will pose as do-gooders.
Well, they always do.
Their urge, however, will be to reduce the people to subjugation while pillaging the economy.
The clever demagogue knows how to divide and conquer.
He creates and exploits the dividing line between rich and poor, black and white, immigrant and native.
If you listen carefully, notice whether a presidential candidate appeals to goodness and justice or resentment and envy.
Goodness and justice is, well, Democrats have been doing this divide and conquer routine, pitting men against women, black against white, rich versus poor for as long as I've been alive.
There is a way to overcome it.
Anyway, he says, it's not a good thing when resentment and envy gain the upper hand in political discourse.
Those who seek prosperity at others' expense easily imagine that wealth is a matter of theft.
Through the repetition of this theme, people may gradually come to accept an evil idea.
If this idea hardens into a universal belief, the political arena can degenerate into gangsterism.
The political cynicism of our time in which all political leaders are rated as criminals logically leads to the assumption that crime pays.
really new about this.
Congress, in the days of Will Rogers, been joking about it, talking about how they're...
Nothing really new here.
It's just I wanted to share the treatment here of the issue here by Mr. Nyquist.
He says, I'll end with a quote from Gustave Le Bon.
Our epic can be understood only by grasping the role played by the mysticism of the people and their leaders.
He stated, one cannot govern a people with true ideas, but only with beliefs accepted as truths.
So there are share this with you because there are a lot of people who are concerned about falling morality, instability, the sense of angst that exists out there.
Even I think the economy is in much better shape than Mr. Nyquist portrays it here.
I know 3.4% growth in the second quarter.
Surprising again, all the experts.
And it's easy.
It's easy to become obsessed with pessimism and doom and gloom.
If folks, just trust me on this, if you fight that and try to just within the confines of your family and your friends and so forth, just be thankful for what you have and be thankful for the opportunity to acquire more, to do more, to achieve more, to teach your kids more.
The opportunities are never better and they're boundless.
But you have to go get them.
They're not going to come knocking on your door because they feel sorry for you.
And, you know, can't never did anything.
And pessimists never sold a book.
Well, not in numbers that the optimists do.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
The president talking about the economy this morning in Washington after a meeting with his economic advisors about the GDP report released today.
The president said, The world economy is strong.
I happen to believe one of the main reasons why is because we remain strong.
And my pledge to the American people is we will keep your taxes low to make sure the economy continues to remain strong and we'll be wise about how we spend your money.
Here in Washington, D.C., I've submitted a budget that will be in balance by 2012, and I look forward to working with Congress to achieve that goal.
So CNN, anchorette Heidi Collins, after listening to the president's comments, added these remarks.
Comments there from President Bush directly after meeting with his economic advisors, and we should tell you that this meeting with his economic advisors, according to the White House, was not in response to yesterday's great sell-off at the Dow Jones Industrial Averages down about 311 points, as I'm sure you well know.
We are watching those numbers for you, down about two points now.
No, Ray, we're keeping a track on the plummet.
Yes, when the numbers were skyrocketing, we didn't bother to take the time to tell you about that until it hit 14,000.
But now that there was a sell-off, now the numbers are going, we're going to keep you posted on every two-point drop out there.
The sell-off is continuing today, by the way.
Go to ABC, Good Morning America.
Co-host Chris Cuomo spoke with the financial contributor Melody Hobson.
Said, let's take a half step back for some perspective here.
We see the market go down.
Investors get worried, but what did this mean yesterday?
Where does it fit into history?
Well, even though triple-digit losses get everyone worked up, this was the seventh biggest point decline in stock market history, but it didn't even rate in terms of a percentage decline in terms of the big losing days.
The market was down about 2%, and that really puts things in perspective.
Unbelievable.
We got somebody here who wants to be Aaron Burnett.
Aaron Burnett has a monopoly on getting the truth out about these kinds of things.
And now here's Melody Hobson getting on the bandwagon.
Unbelievable.
A perspective that's accurate put forth on Good Morning America today.
All right.
Let's see.
That's it.
That's it.
We don't have a quote from Aaron Burnett.
You got to get more Aaron Burnett out there, Joe, on this program.
Otherwise, Melanie Hobson's going to be stealing some thunder out there.
It's Open Line Friday, and we wander now back to the flashing yellow lights.
Who knows what excitement lurks there?
Ralph and the Bronx.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Rush, Meghan Diddles from NYC, my brother.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Okay, listen, I'm very livid about something, but I want to make a point.
Then I have a formal request to the man that has Talon on Lowe's.
Fine and handy.
Okay.
I want to talk about Mayor Bloomberg because a lot of people that are from New York don't understand.
First and foremost, this is a liberal Democrat who ran as a Republican for political expediency, which is mendacious to begin with.
And now he wants to have what he calls congestion pricing, which is basically a commute attack.
Yeah, but didn't.
Wait a minute.
The New York Assembly threw that out, and he's livid, right?
Right.
And now he's threatening in typical liberal Democrat fashion, I can't get my way, so I'm going to, now he's threatened that if he doesn't get this, he's going to raise prices on tolls, on tickets, on parking.
So basically, stopping his feet like a little baby, like typical living.
I can't get my way, so I'm going to do that and that, that, that, that.
Well, and I'm telling you, and a lot of New Yorkers are against this, man, and he just doesn't see the light.
And I don't know how the guy got into office anyway, but it's really, really frustrating.
Well, you know what?
I think you better get ready.
This guy is making serious noises about running for president as an independent, and he may do it.
Not while I'm on this planet, not while I'm in the vote box.
Listen, I have a formal request from the man with talent on loading God.
And what would that be?
Okay, listen, listen.
I've had a tumultuous life.
I'm not going to get into it.
It'll take too long.
But I've been dying to get into radio, and I'm trying to get into broadcasting school.
And I would like to request on Open Line Friday, if I could be your man behind enemy lines in the liberal trenches of New York City to call in for five or ten minutes a week to give you the updates on what's going on in the liberal, behind liberal enemy lines.
My heart is warmed by the fact here, Ralph, that you want to participate.
I can totally understand everybody wants to be part of the biggest radio program in the country.
Of course.
And I'm honored.
And I'm honored that you actually would want to get into this business and serve humanity in your own way.
The thing is, we do not have foreign correspondents.
I'm only...
Look, Ralph, here's the way that I can't.
If I accede to this request, it's going to be difficult to say no to others that do this.
Just keep trying to call in.
Whenever you've accumulated your research and your undercover work has produced results, head for the phones and let us hear from you.
Okay, you got it.
Because I already call into the sports stations and I have a little bit of a following here.
Yeah.
I appreciate it.
Your best bet may be call a program director and say, hey, hire me.
It's happened, Ralph.
All right, listen, there's 20 million people listening right now.
Hire me because I have expertise.
No, you know what it is, Rush?
You know what it is?
I do have a lot of experience and expertise in a lot of the issues facing our time because I've been through a lot and I don't want to.
You said you'd had a tumultuous life.
Yeah, I spent a lot of time in prison.
You know, drugs, homelessness, pennilessness.
And through the grace of God, I've used my life around.
You've seen it all, and now you've gotten out of that, and you're doing well.
Yeah, well, I used to use my powers for diabolical reasons.
I now use it for goodness and humanity and for the American way.
Conservative American way.
And I'm sure you feel much better having made that choice.
Absolutely.
Well, you just keep a sharp eye on Bloomberg for us.
You got it, Rush.
All right.
I mean, keepers, don't start shadowing the guy.
You get in trouble.
Just keep a sharp eye what he's doing.
All right.
Enjoy your weekend, bro.
And I'll call in.
I'll call in and let me on.
Thank you very much, Ralph.
Great to hear from you.
This is, do we have time?
Yeah, Brian Casper, Wyoming.
Great to have you here on Open Line Friday.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
And Ditto's.
I just, real quick question, and I'll get off the phone and listen to you.
Why are the Democrats out fundraising the Republicans?
And will that change when Hillary gets after the primaries when Hillary?
What do you mean?
Who Democrats outfunded?
What do you mean?
Well, aren't the Democrats outraising the Republicans if you add up all the Republicans?
Oh, yeah, like a hundred.
Oh, you said.
Oh, why are they out?
I thought you meant, why are they on the campaign trail fundraising?
Oh, oh, oh, oh, I misunderstood.
Why are they raising more than Republicans are?
Well, there's a, I think this could represent a serious problem for Republicans and the lack of passion that they are generating amongst their voters.
The 2006 elections were not about what you think.
They were about voter dissatisfaction with Republican incumbents.
Not to mention Macaca and Foley.
Those were two big factors, too.
The Democrats are in a little bit of a momentum role.
They won the 06 elections and they're salivating and they're seething.
And don't forget, their supporters, those kook fringe-based people, have been in the wilderness since 2000, and they think an election was stolen from them.
And so they're motivated and they're empowered.
Besides that, there are Boku fat cats in the Democrat Party.
But we never hear that term used to describe them.
But hell, all of Hollywood supporting either Obama or Hillary.
Then you've got Oprah, who is supporting Obama, and she made $260 million last year.
No big, I mean, I don't care about that, but I'm just there's a lot of wealthy, filthy, rich Democrat fat cats.
You'll also note that now that the Democrats are outraising the Republicans, why the campaign finance system's working just as it was designed?
Why, perfect out there.
Well, there's nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
Nobody's worried about how much money is being raised.
Nobody's worried about is this corrupting our valiant and courageous politicians like they always worried about it when the Republicans had the lead.
There's nobody concerned that the White House is being bought here.
But I think it's strictly due to the fact lack of passion on the Republican side right now, and that's got to get fixed.
Looks like most of the Republicans are not going to participate in the CNN YouTube debate.
They want to be questioned by snowmen.
▲
Export Selection