All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 13, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
August 13, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got it.
I'm on it.
Mike, by the way, soundbites 10, 21, and 22.
Get them ready out there.
Greetings, folks, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity.
Simply by showing up, I am America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at eibnet.com.
Actually, 10-11-21-22 is what it's going to be on the audio soundbites.
All right, now let's look at this headline.
Clinton a drag.
Democrats fear her negatives.
This is Ron Fournier in the Associated Press yesterday.
Looking past the presidential nomination fight.
Democrat leaders quietly fret that Mrs. Bill Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom of the ticket.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country.
She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
Now, wait a second.
I have been saying this for I don't know how long.
I think Mrs. Clinton's going to redefine negative turnout, but I thought I just heard George Stephanopoulos in Audio Soundbite 7 say that it's the White House view that Hillary Clinton is got lots of negatives and that Hillary Clinton is going to give Republicans a chance to win the White House back or keep the White House, win the House of Representatives back.
Stephanopoulos, the brilliant analyst for ABC who came from the Clinton White House, all over Good Morning America today saying this.
Yet here's Ron Fournier in the AP yesterday saying it's Democrats.
In more than 40 interviews, Democrat candidates, consultants, and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Mrs. Clinton strikingly high, unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
We're talking here about the likability factor and the lack of it.
I'm not sure it'd be fatal in Indiana, but she'd be a drag on many candidates, said Democrat State Representative Dave Crooks of Washington, Indiana.
Unlike Crooks, and that's with a capital C, by the way, most Democrat leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York Senators' campaign.
Well, they've heard about the testicle lockbox at a Democrat side of things, too.
They expressed admiration for Mrs. Clinton.
Some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination despite privately held fears.
Well, it's simple to figure out.
They fear reprisals.
That fear will trump everything.
Yeah, we're going to work for her.
Fear reprisals if we don't.
This is Clinton, Inc.
And the Democrats know as well as anybody the power and the reach of Clinton Inc.
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democrat congressman from the West, locked in a close reelection fight, said Clinton as a Democrat candidate, most likely would cost him his seat.
Now, what do you think is going on here?
What in the world?
Why run this story on Sunday?
Well, anytime.
What is the point of this story?
This is AP, folks.
This is the drive-by media.
I'll tell you what I think it is.
I think Clinton Inc. has heard about all this, and I think Clinton Inc. is behind getting this story out as sort of a warning to these guys.
You go ahead and think I might hurt you.
You go ahead, but you better be there, support me in the end or else.
Just like poison ivy is going to skyrocket with all carbon dioxide in the air.
If we don't fix it, you might be joining the carbon dioxide in the air.
You have a different theory, Mr. Snerdley?
Yeah, it is a puzzling.
It's a very puzzling thing.
But the thing that is true, I need to start a new list of undeniable truths of life.
Number one on the new list would be nothing that happens with the Clintons is a coincidence.
And this story is not a coincidence.
And I'd sort of reject, I'd have to think about this a while, I'd sort of reject the idea that the drive-bys are turning on Mrs. Clinton, fearing that she can't win.
It's not what the story is about.
They think she can win, but she's going to hurt the rest of the party on down the ticket.
A strategerist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democrat Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Mrs. Bill Clinton.
The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular, said Andy Arnold, the chairman of the Greenville, South Carolina Democrat Party.
I think Hillary's someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't.
Yes.
Called negative turnout.
Republicans are upset with their candidate, said Andy Arnold, but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls.
Now, they went and talked to Mark Penn, the pollster and strategerist for Hillary.
He said, yeah, all the negatives on her are out.
There's a phenomenon with Hillary because she's a frontrunner, because she's been battling Republicans for so long.
Her unfavorability rating looks higher than what they'll eventually be after the nomination and through the general election.
But get this: what Fournier, the writer, adds after that is this.
What the Clinton campaign doesn't say is that her edge over a potential Republican candidate is much smaller than it should be, given the wide lead the Democrat Party holds over the GOP in generic polling.
Now, something's happening out here, folks.
And this is just the tail end of the story on Democrats today that I've got all these stories in the stack.
Well, I'm going to have to figure this out and try to get to the bottom of what this is all about.
Obviously, the poll numbers that they have are true.
This generic ballot thing, though, is the generic ballot is worthless.
These wonks rely on the generic ballot, but you start attaching names to the generic ballot, and the whole generic ballot thing, the results of that poll go out the window.
For those of you in Rio Linda, a generic ballot is the drive-bys calling you up and saying, you prefer a Democrat or Republican in the White House next year.
And the generic polls show Hillary not nearly as well, the generic polls show that the Democrat Party is just far and away, but when you attach her name to it, it plummets.
So they're obviously concerned about this because these are the kind of people live and die on the basis of polls.
Audio soundbite time.
Let's go back to me.
On this program, last Friday, said this myself.
Here you have a classic illustration.
You have a problem.
You know exactly what it is.
You don't dare say it.
Political correctness.
If you say it, you're going to get a knock on a door from the Reverend Jackson.
And right behind it, your back door will be the Reverend Sharpton.
And nobody wants to put up with that.
So the situation continues to fester.
And at the end of the day, you blame people like Ronald Reagan and George Bush for it and Republicans in general.
Conservatives because they're racists.
Talking about the shootings in Newark, New Jersey, and the people of that town being fed up with the lack of basic civilized behavior in that town.
It's a blue town in a blue state.
Democrats have been running it for years.
And of course, Democrat programs have been in charge of fixing all this stuff for years.
They've done nothing but make it worse and exacerbated.
What I was saying here was: at the end of the day, you just blame Republicans.
You blame Republicans, but Bush blames Reagan, cold-hearted, caring, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes, all this sort of stuff.
So, blame Republicans.
That was the theme for what happens in Newark.
Let's go to World News Tonight.
Last night on ABC, anchored Dan Harris's report on the violence in Newark.
Amid the anger and the horror in Newark tonight, there are a lot of questions about how to stop this violence that so often impacts children.
These murders have provoked rage.
Many criminologists blame the Bush administration for focusing too much on terrorism and cutting funds for law enforcement on the street.
The message from the federal government to the states is really on crime, is that you're on your own.
Well, so what?
It's local crime for crying out loud.
So what?
You're on your own.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't like that.
She doesn't like the fact that it's an on-your-owned society.
I'll tell you Newark proves that it doesn't take a village.
In fact, if you rely on a village, you're screwed.
You get the golden shaft if you rely on the village.
But there you have it.
Blame the Bush administration.
Insufficient funding.
Bush collapse, bridge collapsed.
Blame Bush.
I know this guy was arrested because illegal immigrant.
They let him go.
I know he's an illegal immigrant.
He was arrested before, had a rap sheet.
They let him go.
These blue states and these blue towns are the ones that are trying to make it possible for the illegals to live there, get paid on our Social Security and Welfare Net, and this sort of thing.
But just see, I told you so, is the only reason that I air the two bites.
Brief break, back with more after this.
You know, ladies and gentlemen, it's often said that conservatives like me are sexists and have a absolutely describe this, an objectifying view of women, that we see them as lesser in some way.
And yet, it seems to me it is always people who are not conservatives who have this attitude.
I have an unbelievable audio soundbite.
This is from last night on, well, no, I think it was Friday night.
Because last night was Sunday.
I don't know.
They had a hardball last night.
I think it was Friday.
Whenever it was, it's recently.
And Chris Matthews had on Erin Burnett, known on CNBC as the Street Sweetie.
Now, we on this program have aired a couple of audio sound bites from the Street Sweetie, praising her journalistic credentials and work in various analyses of the economy.
And it's always been extremely professional.
We have not remarked on her appearance.
We have not objectified her in any way.
We have treated her here as a consummate, or as the NBC style manual used to require you to say, a consummate professional.
Did you know that, Mr. Snerdley?
Way, way back in the old days, well, NBC, back in the old NBC radio days, they had a style book and you were required to pronounce it consummate as opposed to consummate.
It works either way.
But regardless, we have treated her as a consummate professional.
We haven't even been reduced to calling her an infobabe.
And we do that affectionately anyway on this program.
But I want you to listen.
She was doing a report on the stock market on Friday night for Chris Matthews on Hardball, and they have this exchange.
Could you get a little closer to the camera?
What is it?
Is it coming closer?
Come in closer.
Really close.
What are you talking about?
I'm just kidding.
You look great.
Anyways, thanks.
Aaron, it's great to have.
Look at that look.
I don't even know.
I'm going to have to go look at the tape here.
I know.
No, you're being slow back.
I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
You're a knockout.
So I guess she had finished a report, and he said, just move closer.
I want to get a closer look at you.
You're a knockout.
And she has no clue.
She thinks that there's something wrong with her camera shot, her camera angle, so she's trying to fix it because she is a consummate professional.
I mean, who's doing the objectifying here?
What does this remind you of?
Could it be this that happened December 20th, 2003 on ESPN during a televised football game between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets?
I want to kiss you.
I couldn't care less about the team struggling.
What we know is we can improve.
Chad missed Chad Pennington, our quarterback missed the first part of the season, and we struggled.
We're looking to next season.
We're looking to make a noise now.
And I want to kiss you.
Thanks, Joe.
Yeah!
Huge compliment.
Susie Colbert there, the sideline reporter for ESPN, interviewing Joe Namath.
So Matthew has had his Joe Namath moment.
Who's next on this program?
Wilder, Vermont.
Jay, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thanks, Rush.
I'm going to take you back way back to healthcare for a second.
All right.
You mean you're going to talk about life expectancy in our country being down because experts say we don't have universal health care?
No, just the cost of health care.
Right.
I don't have current information or data, but this was true several years ago.
And it's very interesting.
I think you'll be interested in it.
I hope so.
In Japan, they have a substantially lower health care bill as a percent of their GDP.
Yeah.
But they spend a considerable, substantial, higher percent in their health care bill for pharmaceuticals.
In other words, it would appear that the more you spend on pharmaceuticals, the lower the health care cost as a percent of GDP.
And by health care costs, you mean going to the doctor, going to the hospital, treatment, and that sort of thing.
Exactly.
So the Japanese are more drugged up is what you're saying.
Well, yeah, but they're positive drugs, not negative drugs.
You go to a doctor in Japan, and I've never done this, but I'm told you're apt to walk out of his office with about five prescriptions.
You have to?
No.
But they prescribe.
They're just apt to walk out with five prescriptions.
In other words, our doctors really, you know, you almost have to drag a prescription out of them.
I have to tell you something.
I don't know if that's true.
I mean, you say it was some years ago.
I don't have any clue, but I just tell you, let's say it is, hypothetically, let's say it is true.
And let's say that somebody in this country in a position of power said what you just said, the national press conference, well, of course our life expectancy is not what it could be.
There are 41 other countries ahead of us.
One of them is Japan.
And what's the difference?
Japan's GDP, percentage of GDP devoted to healthcare costs, is much, much smaller than ours, but the Japanese people spend far more in pharmaceuticals than the American public does.
So the answer to our health care problems is more prescriptions.
You would have a tsunami of people across this.
There would be a wave of panic because big drug is despised in this country.
The popular conception is that healthcare costs are so high because of big pharmaceutical rapes people left and right, and they don't care whether people live or die.
All they want to do is overprice their drugs.
And we're trying to get legalized imports of drugs from Canada here because of this.
So even if that's true, reality says it wouldn't have a prayer in this country if somebody said that's the way to get our health care costs down with more prescriptions.
John and Ford Lauderdale, welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush.
Hey, big fan.
I was curious of one other part of the Valerie Play case I just never hear discussed anywhere in the media.
What's that?
Colin Powell.
Armitage has stated that the day after the Novak column, he did the right thing at that point and immediately notified his boss, Colin Powell.
Yeah, that's true.
I'm the leaker.
That's true.
That's true.
So you'd think the next thing for Colin Powell to do is immediately notify his boss, but months later, Bush is still saying he doesn't know who the leaker is and appointing a special prosecutor.
What did Colin Powell do with that information, and why is no one curious?
Well, that's a great, great question.
And I can only surmise.
But I think at the root of this is that Colin Powell is a Washington insider.
He is a man who very much cares about his reputation with the power elite in Washington, which is run by the left, socially and professionally.
Media and so forth, the media craft and maintain public images.
There was a huge problem in the White House with leaking.
All their war plans, all kinds of things, foreign policy ideas ended up on the front page of the Washington Post, ended up on the front page of the New York Times.
Colin Powell was also, you know, I felt, I think he felt angry over the fact there were no weapons of mass destruction after his presentation of the evidence before the United Nations Security Council.
So I could only surmise that there was just no love lost there.
I think, in fact, we've had quotes on this program.
I forget this guy's name, but Lawrence somebody, Colin Powell's chief of staff at this, yeah, that's right, Lawrence Wilkerson.
This guy, some of the things he said about the Bush administration, this is Colin Powell's chief of staff.
Rival what you would read on the kook fringe left-wing blogosphere out there.
John, so I know Armitage, I think Armitage and Powell both disagreed with the whole Iraq war policy and plan.
And I just think there was a lot of friction there.
So, I mean, I understand that's Colin Powell's point of view.
See, the ear-splitting tone.
Hang on.
I'll get your comment after the break.
BB.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, despair, out of control, poison ivy, and yes, even the good times.
Back now to John and Fort Lauderdale.
You were going to say before the commercial break interrupted.
Yeah, I was wondering, I mean, I can understand why Colin Powell was the biggest, would support Armitage rather than throw him to the wolves, but since the Armitage admission, I haven't heard anyone in the press even ask Colin Powell.
Well, of course that was.
That's why I told you.
Jeez, you're making it hard on me out there, John.
You're making it hard.
Why do you think they're not?
Let me ask you to answer.
Oh, I know why they're not.
They like Colin Powell.
Oh, it's more than that.
Yeah.
More than that.
And they cover off of they would rather go after Rogue and Libby.
No, it's not even at that.
Well, of course, that's true.
But so would Powell.
So would Powell.
So would.
I'm trying to whisper this so nobody hears me.
So would Powell.
But that's still not the answer to the question.
But if you know the answer, you're curious why they didn't talk to Powell about it, why they're not asking him about it, yet you know the answer.
Yes.
So why are you curious when you shouldn't be?
I guess I'm wondering why he hasn't been forced somewhere to put on the record what he did with the information.
Have you ever asked yourself why wasn't Armitage subpoenaed before the grand jury?
Why wasn't Joe Wilson?
Why wasn't this plain babe?
Why wasn't she subpoenaed?
How come their stories were never challenged by Fitzgerald?
How come he believed everything they said and made it the basis of his investigation?
Hmm.
Well, for the obvious reason, they had a target before they started an investigation, and they weren't going to let the facts get in the way.
That's true.
But in Fitzgerald's case, I think it's not quite that.
I think he's a big appointment special prosecutor.
Can't sit there and say, there's nothing here.
You got that power.
You got all that money.
Go spend it.
Come up with something.
And that's what he did.
As to why do you, why do you think that the Washington Press Corps likes Colin Powell?
Because he's very moderate to liberal on social issues.
No.
No?
I mean, that's part of it.
No, Ever heard of protecting sources?
Okay.
All right.
There I've said it again.
Got it?
I understand.
All right.
You called the right place.
I hope I am here tomorrow.
Adam in Huntsville, Alabama.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
You bet.
This is my first time to actually make it through.
I've been listening for, oh, I'd say approximately about a year.
Well, welcome to our audience.
Well, thank you very much, sir.
Actually, interesting story.
I wanted to call and tell you thank you just for opening my eyes to things.
I was raised a staunch Democrat from a big-time Democrat.
Well, not really big-time family, just everybody in the family's a Democrat.
Yeah, most of them didn't know why.
They just were.
Yes, sir.
I think basically my grandparents being from there of Teddy Roosevelt.
That's it.
New Deal.
You got it.
But anyway, I just wanted to tell you thanks.
A buddy of mine, Scott, told me to start listening to your program.
Of course, me being the liberal I was at the time, I just, you know.
Being the liberal you were at the time without even having listened, you hated my guts.
And just from all that I'd heard, I figured, well, I'm probably not going to like it, but I'll give it a chance.
So I started listening, and I started listening to your arguments, your points of views and such, and realized that, you know, it makes a lot more sense than the bunk I was believing at the time.
At any rate, I just wanted to tell you.
Well, I appreciate that.
I think this happens all over the country every day.
I think people like you, who grow up basically indoctrinated, dare to one day take the plunge and expose yourself to something that is presented with reason and common sense and analysis like I perform on this program.
It starts making you think for the first time about what you've been feeling all those years.
And when you start thinking, and you start applying actual analysis to feelings, it's the feelings that are going to get challenged.
By the way, I thought he said FDR, days of Rose.
He was talking about Teddy Roosevelt.
And I do.
I said Teddy.
That's what I'm saying.
Caller said Teddy.
I thought he meant FDR because that's what I said New Deal.
But just chalk it up to the cochlear implant.
I just didn't hear what he said.
Anyway, Adam, welcome to the audience.
It's great to know that you're out there, and I'm glad you called.
Who's next?
Where are we going next here, Sterley?
Well, no, we just talked to this guy.
You've got to move the red line.
All right, Joe in Pittsburgh.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Good to talk with you.
Nice to have you on the phone here, Joe.
Well, thanks.
Hey, Rush, the story you were talking about earlier on Hillary's negatives, I agree with you that nothing happens by coincident with the Clintons.
I believe that story was released to motivate the more radical base of the Democrat Party to whom she can't appeal.
She cannot be a moderate and appeal to that part of the base in the country.
I mean, she's coming off that moderate stance, but she's drifting more and more left.
Nevertheless, you may have a point.
The story is to motivate the base because they know that the Hillary candidacy is going to bring Republicans out to vote in droves against her.
Exactly, exactly.
And the Democrat base right now is not thrilled with Hillary.
But after the primaries are over and she's the nominee, where else are they going to go?
So I don't know that that's it.
She doesn't need them to win the nomination because she's leading it in that.
That appears to be a fait accompli.
But it's still an interesting theory, trying to motivate their base.
It's still got some devastating quotes in this story, though, and it is a hell of a hell of a way to motivate.
I mean, this sounds like an accident.
We just lost a guy.
Cell phone took a dive?
Sorry about that out there, Joe.
We lost you.
But I'm sure you're still on the radio on.
The point is that some of these quotes are devastating in this piece about Mrs. Clinton and make it look like she's, I mean, that headline, Clinton, a drag?
You never saw this about Bill Clinton.
You never saw these kind of headlines about Bill Clinton.
I know Clinton a drag.
I did a double take and a pause when I first saw it.
Let me use the occasion of this to get some of these other stories I have about the Democrats in the stack.
This is a funny one in the nation from Alexander Coburn, how the Democrats blew it in only eight months.
Now, the nation, you know, far-left fringe publication, Hurricane Katrina van der Hoovel is the editor over there.
Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a confidence rating of 14%, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than the Republicans scored last year.
The Democrats control the House.
Nancy Pelosi could have stopped this bill.
The surge in the money for the military budget could have stopped this bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to, but she didn't.
The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the Democrat base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.
That's right.
There's starting to be a fallout out there because these idiots on the left, these kook fringe bloggers and these Democrat base voters, actually think that the mandate for the 06 November elections was get out of a rock.
And it wasn't.
That election was about two names, Mark Foley and Macaca.
Mark Foley is why the Republicans lost the house.
A little dissatisfaction among Republican voters for Republican incumbents.
I don't deny that.
And George Allen lost in the Senate because of the Macaca thing.
They went out there and the Washington Post led the hit parade on George Allen.
And this guy, Coburn, all upset over the fact that they haven't nailed Gonzalez.
They haven't gotten us out of Iraq.
They haven't nailed Gonzalez.
Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said on a YouTube debate in South Carolina he'd be prepared to meet with all these dictators around the world.
The pundits whacked him for demonstrating inexperience.
Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men.
Says it's like a bad thing, I guess, to murder these bad guys.
Anyway, a piece of just funny, we'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
But here's the last line of the last paragraph.
Just as their poll numbers are going down, bushes are going up by five points in Gallup from early July.
People are beginning to think that the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times.
Now, that sentence is funny.
The professional journalist here writing this, I'd have to point out the surge is working because of our military, and the reason the people think it's working is because it is.
Reality is reality.
But this guy, Coburn, who, by the way, is fabulously correct on global warming.
He is fabulously right about that.
The hoax that it is, the religion that it is.
But on this, the New York Times has nothing to do with people thinking the surge is working.
I mean, this piece came out before the New York Times wrote that we can't get out of Iraq.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine the apoplectic results that occurred on the left-wing fringes of our society when the New York Times, oh, we can't get out of there?
Just trying to provide cover for the Democrats because, like I told you last week, somebody, there's an adult somewhere, media, Democrat Party, wherever it is, that knows they were heading to Macovernization.
They were heading to a landslide defeat.
Nobody in this country wants the U.S. military to lose.
Nobody in this country wants the country to lose.
The Democrats got it through their head we'd already lost.
Bring the troops home.
It was a political achievement for them if we lost.
And somebody had to say, you guys are nuts.
You guys are destroying yourselves.
And so the New York Times on yesterday and today with two different stories, one an editorial about how it can't get out of a rock now.
It's going to be there for a long, long, long, long time.
Now they cover it by saying Bush has botched things so bad that it's our responsibility to take it.
But this is a seismic shift, a seminal moment, if you will, ladies and gentlemen.
And it's got to be to give Democrats cover to come back from over the cliff where they have to do this.
But that's just going to, you wait to see what that does to the base.
If the theory is that the AP is doing this story to really pump up the base for Hillary Clinton because of her negatives out there in B So High that she's going to gin up a big Republican turnout, wait until the base.
It's bad enough the New York Times has caved.
Now, if the Democrats take the lead and accept the cover, there might be a mutiny on the fringe part of the Democrat base.
Not a mutiny that they're going to go anywhere else.
I mean, they'll go insane.
They'll elect Cindy Sheehan over Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco.
I know they're already insane.
They'll just, yeah, that's a good point.
I have to come up with a new word to describe the total loss of mental capacity that is no doubt happening now.
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
And as usual, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
This is Carl in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you called, sir, and welcome to the program.
Dittos, Rush, how are you?
I'm great, sir.
Thanks.
Good.
I stand before you corrected.
I fell into the trap last week when those several Marines who were pilloried for being part of the massacre in Haditha were let go because guess what?
No evidence, except, of course, the ravings of people who were terrorists.
And I kept waiting for Congressman Mirtha to step to the microphone and say, you know, when I called these guys murderers, I may have overstated it.
And when I was listening to that caller a couple of callers ago that wanted to know why Colin Powell wasn't held to account, it really clicked in my head.
No one is going to hold these people to account unless individual conservatives and people of like mind step forward and use the weapons that are our disposal.
And those weapons are the telephone, the email, personal visits to people's offices.
In other words, even though most of us are busy with real jobs, we have to find time to do the hard work of saving our country.
And maybe that's telephonetic.
I think it's as simple as that.
Well, I agree, but you keep working.
I'm handling the job of saving the country.
I got it handled.
If I need help, I'll call for it.
But, you know, I ripped Mirtha last Friday.
ripped this whole thing.
I ripped the whole...
Did you hear it?
Is that what you were?
I know you were going to call and ask me why I didn't talk about it.
Unfortunately, I didn't hear it.
Okay.
Well, it was powerful.
It's too bad.
I think it would still be, we did that Friday, right?
So it would still be probably at rushlimblog.com.
And you don't have to be a subscriber.
It's a free side of the website.
You at least get an idea.
You won't be able to listen to it.
You'll be able to read the transcript.
I unloaded on this whole thing.
And where is Mirtha's apology?
Where are people asking him?
And you're exactly right.
Democrats are not going to be held accountable, whether it's Diane Feinstein shoveling money to companies her husband has financial interest in or whatever it is.
They're not going to be held accountable.
They're the good guys.
They're on a good team as far as the drive-bys are concerned.
It's like Carl Rove.
How long do you think it'll be before NBC or CBS or ABC offer him a job as political analyst with his own show on Sunday morning?
How long do you think it'll be?
How long do you think it'll be before he ends up like James Carvel or Paul Begala as steady commentators?
They are on CNN.
Former Clinton Inc. guys.
And maybe in the Foreheads case, still is.
I don't know.
You have Stephanopoulos over at ABC.
Rick Kaplan, best friend of the Clintons, spents a lot of nights or spent a lot of nights in Lincoln bedroom now running the CBS Evening News.
I mean, when's this stuff going to?
It isn't.
It isn't going to happen.
I appreciate the call, Carl.
Thanks very much.
This is Barbara in Harlem.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, how are you, Rush?
Good.
Thank you.
I'm so glad.
Listen, I'm happy to talk with you, and thank you for taking my call.
And thank you for your program Friday.
In reference to only 68% of the, I mean, 68% of the children in Newark are being raised in a single household.
With two parents.
Well, 32% with two parents.
So that means 68% don't have two parents.
That's right.
That's right.
That's what I meant.
I mean, it's so horrible.
I had a confrontation with a church-going lady in Newark on Saturday.
And guess what?
Blaming Bush, calling him all kinds of a drunkard, blaming the police.
And I told her, I said, well, what about the single-parent households here in Newark?
What about parents taking responsibility for their children?
And she didn't have anything else to say.
Of course not.
And I'll tell you why.
Battered liberal syndrome.
The liberals have been battered by Democrats all these years, and they keep going back for more battery.
Like battered wife syndrome.
There's an explanation for it.
Did you know that Hillary Clinton cited military progress in Anbar province during the AFL-CIO presidential forum last Tuesday night?
Did you know she?
I did not know that either, but it's in the Chicago Sun-Times.
▲
Export Selection