All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
August 28, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You guys want to hear a really weird story?
I mean, this is this is really weird.
I'm going through the paper today, rapidly.
You know, I'm doing a national radio program.
I'm kind of thinking I probably should try to find material to do the show.
And I'm scrolling through the TV listings, which is really desperate.
You're never going to find anything in the TV listings that would make for a talk show topic, but I see a special on PBS tonight.
They have this program, POV.
Have you ever seen that show?
They have documentarians do documentaries.
Supposedly, it is not infected with the normal bias that PBS has.
I don't know if it does or it doesn't, but tonight's biography tonight's documentary is entitled Libby Montana.
New York Times, in a small town in the shadow of the Northern Rockies, hundreds of people are sick or dying, all from exposure to asbestos.
The town of Libby, Montana.
This POV documentary investigates one of the country's worst cases of community poisoning from industrial pollution and the high price of striving for the American dream.
Libby, Montana.
So Now here's the weird thing.
There is a restaurant in a community just outside of Milwaukee, and the name of the restaurant is Libby Montana.
It's the exact same name as this community.
Now your initial thought might be that the owner named his place after Libby, Montana.
No.
His wife's name is Libby.
His favorite place to go on vacation is Montana.
So he names his restaurant, Libby Montana, which is the same thing.
You're okay, fine.
Where's the internet?
The weird part's still to come.
The guy who owns the restaurant, Libby Montana, is Mark Metcalf.
He's the guy who played Niedermeyer in Animal House.
He also played the Maestro in Seinfeld.
Remember the uh character that walked down the street pretending to conduct the orchestra?
That was the same guy that played Niederweyer in Animal House.
His name is Mark Metcalf, and he owns this restaurant in Milwaukee called Libby Montana.
It gets even better.
Last year, some kids that were graduated graduating from a snooty private high school.
You've heard of this one.
You've heard of university school.
Chief of staff of this program's from the area.
University school is probably where your parents wanted you to be able to go, and you you never had any, yeah, you're a White Fish Bay High School guy.
You had no hope of getting into university school.
Well, the university school kids are really, really smart.
They're they tend to be really, really rich, and therefore they're probably really, really obnoxious.
So this joint, Libby Montana, is owned by the guy that played Niedermeyer on Animal House.
So they get their parents to book the restaurant for a graduation party.
The party's a toga party, which was the thing that they did in Animal House, and they trashed the place.
Same name as this community that has the asbestos problem.
Um this is a problem now, what I'm going to tell you about, and I know you don't care.
And my goal here is to make you care because this is a really big problem.
We've got a mess developing in this country, and it deals with who the next president of the United States is.
This process is all screwed up.
And it's not just chaos.
It's beyond chaos.
What they have in Iraq functions better than the way we're going to choose the 2008 president of the United States.
It's been getting worse and worse every four years, and right now is out of control.
It used to be that most states had their political bosses get together and they decide who the delegates would be, and they go to the convention and choose the president of the United States.
It worked that way kind of until about the 1950s.
Then a number of states started holding primary elections.
Initially, there were only 10 or 15 of them, and New Hampshire was always the first.
My own state of Wisconsin usually went second or third.
And those states would hold primaries, and they ended up having a whole lot to say about who the nominee for the party for the political party would be, because the candidate that would win in the primary states, well, the bosses in the other state, their delegates would simply go and support that Candidate.
So you had every state that then wanted to get in on the action.
And in about the 1980s, all these states that in the past held caucuses that only involved party leaders started scheduling presidential primary elections.
Because they wanted to be involved too.
Now, virtually everybody has a primary.
The only primaries that matter, as we've learned over the last 20 years, are the first few.
The candidate that wins the first few wins the nomination.
It's worked that way pretty much since about 1968.
You win New Hampshire or Iowa in the next couple of states afterwards, you've got the nomination sealed up.
This is why the political candidates spend so much time focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire because they're so influential.
So you've got now 48 other states that are watching Iowa and New Hampshire and to some extent South Carolina, which goes third, essentially choosing the two candidates for president.
And a lot of people have asked, and I admit this is a legitimate question.
Why should Iowa and New Hampshire get to pick?
Why them?
Those states aren't really typical of anything.
Iowa is a predominantly rural state.
The biggest city is Des Moines and it doesn't have any urban problems or issues.
New Hampshire's just a small state in the Northeast.
They're not really representative of anything.
So these other states have started moving their primary dates up.
They want to be earlier.
They want to be significant too.
This started, as I said, about four at four and eight years ago, when instead of holding primaries in June and May, everybody was suddenly in March or February.
So Iowa and New Hampshire had to move themselves back to January.
It's, however, out of control this year.
First thing that happened is almost everybody moved to February 5th.
The news super Tuesday, there's like 20, 25 states on February 5th.
Now some of those states are leapfrogging to coal before February 5th.
You've got Florida determined to go in mid-January.
This is causing a major problem for Iowa and New Hampshire.
New Hampshire, since they get all this attention every four years, they don't want to give up this having the first primary election.
Their law says the primary election will be whatever day the Secretary of State of New Hampshire says it is.
They put it that way so that if any state moves it's up, New Hampshire's just going to keep backing up and going earlier.
Florida says January 20th, New Hampshire's going to say January 12th, or whatever the day will be.
Florida says January 12th, New Hampshire's is going to say January 3rd.
And they keep backing up and backing up and backing up.
Well then you have Iowa.
Iowa has caucuses.
The Iowa caucuses are always before the New Hampshire primary.
Iowa doesn't want to give up its status as being the first test of all.
So as New Hampshire moves backwards, Iowa has to go before it.
If the Florida ruling stands, if the Florida primary is allowed to be held in mid-January, it means New Hampshire has to be held in early January.
That means Iowa might have to move into December.
We're facing the very real possibility that you will have the Iowa caucuses held like a New Year's Eve.
This is this is plausible.
And there's nothing right now being done, or not much at least, to stop this.
This is not the way to choose the president of the United States.
First of all, most Americans still aren't paying much attention to the presidential race, and for good reason.
They look at the presidential election as being in November of 08.
But the candidates themselves are running as aggressively as they can be, the exception of my guy, Fred Thompson, who's not running aggressively, running as aggressively as can be because they realize that the nomination's going to be decided not in June, not in May, not even in March, but in February or maybe even January, and now they face the very real specter that they may have a test in December.
Before any Americans are paying any attention at all.
If it doesn't happen this year, it's going to happen in 2012, and that is that you will have primaries in December.
Right now, there's nothing really.
Why not move to November?
I'm from Wisconsin.
Maybe I should convince our state.
Let's move to November of the year before, then we'll be before anybody.
Well, New Hampshire won't like that.
They'll go to October.
It's gotten to the point of being absurd.
Now, USA Today yesterday had a cover story on this.
The schedule now has seven states already in January, and about 25 of them in early February.
But tentative rescheduling by a number of other states who want to move up earlier.
The only entities that are in a position to do anything about this are the two political parties.
And the Democrats are actually trying to play talk tough to Florida, saying, look, if you move your date up, and I think January 29th is when Florida wants to go, if you move your date up, we will not seat your delegates at the Democratic Convention.
It's the one tool that they do have to tell a state that you can't keep moving up earlier and earlier.
They haven't used this leverage on anyone yet, but they're threatening to do it with Florida.
One of the reasons that they need to do it with Florida is South Carolina wants to be the first Southern state and they don't want Florida to mess with their timetable.
But Florida is saying, look, who are you Democrats to say that you're not going to cede our delegates?
See, Florida's got this whole thing or thinking that their votes are never counted.
2000, you didn't allow us to count our votes now.
You're going to say we don't get to vote in 2008.
They've got a hang up down there.
If the two parties got together and came up with a schedule that both could agree upon that made some sense, they could enforce it by not allowing a state that didn't abide by that schedule to participate in the political conventions.
I think you'd still have candidates tempted to go to these states where the primary election was being held prematurely but is meaningless because they'd want to have a show of strength.
You know, Florida, we're not going to seat your delegates, but you're still holding that election.
It is an election, and people are going to vote.
There's something to be said for winning it.
Same reason they had that straw poll in Ames, Iowa a few weeks ago.
But I think it would go a long way toward correcting the problem.
But so far the political parties haven't shown a willingness to work together, and you end up with this schedule that is, I think, just insane.
We're looking at choosing the president of the United States in December and January.
And then, choosing the candidates at least, having the longest general election campaign of all time.
Let's imagine the Republicans choose Fred Thompson and the Democrats choose Hillary.
And both of them nailed down the nomination on February 5th.
You've got nine months before the general election.
That's bad enough.
But if you've got states that are going to leapfrog up and move even earlier, you're talking about being into January or eight, maybe even December.
And as I said, I don't think any voters really care about this because they're not paying any attention to anything that's going on in the presidential race.
But the campaigns themselves and the candidates, they have to pay attention.
The candidate that does strong early is going to win because everything's going to happen so fast that before you blink, it's going to be over.
You're going to have Americans March 1st of next year, seeing the two nominees for the presidency nailed down, and they're going to well, when did that happen?
When do we get to vote?
It's already over.
And there's got to be some way of coming up with a structure that makes some sense because right now choosing the nominees nearly a year before the general election is nuts.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number at the Rush Limbaugh program.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm your guest host.
February 5th, which is only halfway through winter.
Here are the states that are going to be holding their primaries.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Florida has now jumped up to January 29th.
That's the same day the Democrats in South Carolina are supposed to have their primary.
They're complaining to the Democratic Party because they want to be the first Southern state, so they may end up moving earlier themselves.
In the meantime, the South Carolina Republicans are on January 19th.
The New Hampshire primary, which was supposed to be the first primary, had been scheduled for January 22nd.
But their state law says their primary has to be seven days before anybody else's primary.
So that as everybody else moves earlier, it shoves New Hampshire back.
As for the Iowa caucuses, their state at law says their caucuses have to be eight days before the New Hampshire primary.
So if New Hampshire gets shoved back, that means Iowa has to be eight days before that.
This whole thing is crazy.
Most Americans don't even know who's running right now beyond Hillary and Obama.
Hardly anybody has decided who they support.
Yet the choices are about to be made.
To Nashville, Tennessee and Shannon Shannon, it's your pro turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I don't have an accent.
I'm from Wisconsin.
That's what we say down here too.
I know.
Yeah, um, this thing about the um all these primaries coming up early, and I mean now we're you know, we're almost a half old, about a year and a half out.
I think we'll have a national primary in August of uh eight and then have the election in November.
Because now you have I mean, if you have people who are uh currently holding office, they're not able to do their job for the people.
Well, you're right.
They have to run.
You really have to get a campaign going, even if you do what Fred Thompson's doing, which is running without declaring it.
You have to run the entire year before.
So they're all running in two thousand seven before because the primaries are going to be held in early 08, and now you're looking at the possibility of this chaos with you know somebody having to go in December competing with Christmas.
So you you're right.
You have candidates that's that spend all of 07 running.
Then we finally choose a nominee and it's over before anyone can even notice.
And the worst thing is you're gonna have to put up with the longest, most bitter general election campaign ever.
And people are going to be so sick of it.
You're right.
The nominees should be chosen in August.
That still allows three full months for a general election.
But there's no real way of enforcing it.
Now you talk about a national primary election, which would be, I suppose, a solution.
There's something, I think, to be said for the current system that says you gotta go into Iowa and New Hampshire because they are relatively small states, and you have to give intense attention.
It's a pretty good testing process for these candidates.
While Iowa and New Hampshire get way too much power, they at least have it's it's a weeding out process in which candidates have to go in and individually meet a lot of people and campaign for a long time under a real real microscope.
If you have a national primary, you don't have that same kind of one-on-one campaigning.
So I think that allowing certain states to have a little bit more influence than others is a process that does work, but you're right.
Right now, it's gotten totally dysfunctional, and holding simply one national primary election would be a way of correcting it.
And something's going to have to be done because this year, it's going to be a mess, and I think it's better than 50-50 that Iowa's going to announce that they're going to hold their primary in December, and if their caucus rather in December, and if they do, there's nothing to stop someone else from saying we'll go even earlier than that.
There's really nothing that the two parties can do other than say we won't seat your delegates, and without which the states are going to say, so what?
We're going to hold it anyway.
Thank you for the call.
Dayton, Ohio, and Deborah.
Deborah, it's your turn on EIB.
Hi there.
Um I just want to say that I really enjoy your show, and this is the first time I've ever gotten through, so this must be um a God thing.
Um, but you're the first person I've heard even talking about this, and I have emailed um O'Reilly and Cafferty and a whole bunch of people.
And I'm really I I you know, I'm just so excited about Blizzard primaries that we're gonna we've had.
Well, you're right.
No one seems to even know what's going on because people aren't in the mode in which they are thinking right now about presidential elections.
It seems so far away.
There's something screwed up with a process, though, in which the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate are chosen into January, but we don't hold the general election until November.
We're going to hate both candidates because we are going to be so sick of them under the calendar we're going to be using this time around.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
As long as I'm talking about it, we are about to choose the next president of the United States.
We've got Republicans who are just convinced that the Democrats are going to win.
There is such defeatism out there, and you're just wrong.
Everybody presumes that because of what happened in 2006, you're going to have a Democratic wipeout in 2008.
It's never worked that way.
The election two years before is never an indication of what happens two years later.
Remember the great contract with America, Republican Revolution of 94?
Newt Gingrich and the uh House Republicans ran and got control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
There was a landslide with Republicans taking control of the United States Senate.
Two years later, Bill Clinton was re-elected.
It didn't mean anything.
There was no impact to it.
In 1982, the Democrats had huge gains.
Absolutely huge.
Lifelong Republican senators and congressmen are voted out of office.
Two years later, Reagan won 49 states and came within 10,000 votes of skunking Walter Mondale.
It never means anything.
Yet you presume that because of what happened and to well, what about the war?
The war is unpopular.
You don't know what's going to be going on in Iraq next year.
Secondly, do you really think Hillary Rodham Clinton can get 50% of the vote?
If she's the Democratic nominee, I don't.
I don't think she can win, and she's their front runner.
There are other candidates are all flawed as well.
You've got a lot of issues hanging over this country that are really serious, and the Republican Party is better positioned than the Democratic Party to make sense on, I think the majority of them.
So there shouldn't be all this defeatism.
No, as for who to support, well, I kind of back Fred Thompson.
I've said this in this program, and the first thing I got from the staff of the show, what do you think about your guy now, Fred now?
Well, he's spinning his wheels.
I admit that.
Fred Thompson is spinning his wheels.
This brilliant decision to not declare and not declare and not declare it, therefore staying out of the race and looming above it all while all the other dwarfs are beating each other up.
That's kind of wearing thin, and I think people are getting tired of it and they need him to get in there.
Secondly, when he's giving speeches, he's kind of muttering and sputtering rather than offering himself up as a commanding presence.
I happen to think the guy is really good.
He's the one candidate in there who I believe is a mainstream conservative, and I think he has the ability to communicate and articulate a message.
But he's got staff issues in.
He seems to have lost the momentum that he was building earlier.
If not Fred, then who?
Well, Mitt Romney, I think, is doing very well.
I think, in fact, it's going to be a Fred Thompson-Mitt Romney race.
You guys like uh you like Rudy, don't you?
Well, you think he's winning.
He's not winning.
He's leading the national polls.
So what we'd as I established with an earlier caller, we don't have a national primary.
They vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, none of which are particularly well suited to Rudy Giuliani.
Do you know what he is?
Rudy is the default candidate.
You just put Russia's printer in my computer, you made it the default printer, right?
Rudy's the default Republican because nobody has stepped in to displace him.
I love Rudy Giuliani.
He is a national hero.
He not only held New York together after 9-11, he saved New York City.
New York City was a disaster before Giuliani.
Criminals were in control of the city, nobody was investing in the city, the tax rates were terrible, corporations were leaving.
Dinkins and Beam and all the others that preceded Rudy had run the city into the ground, and he saved it.
He did all Of those things.
The problem is that he is on the wrong side of most Republican voters, unlike half the issues that are out there.
He is not pro-life.
The vast majority of Republicans are, and they care very deeply about that issue.
You keep going back to why is he leading in the polls?
He's leading in the polls because Republican voters haven't chosen anyone else, and the only other guy that's running that they've heard of is McCain, and no Republicans like him.
So it's Rudy.
Mitt Romney is going to get more attention.
Fred Thompson's going to get more attention, and one of them is going to step in and take over.
I admit it hasn't happened yet, and this schedule is going to sneak up on voters.
Looking at the past, the candidate that was leading a year before often was very well positioned to win the nomination.
It's going to be even more so now because this stuff is all going to happen before most voters even know that it's occurring.
Now I mentioned the very real possibility that I was going to have to move back into December.
What if they did hold the caucuses on New Year's Eve?
Everybody who showed up would be drunk.
Who would they then choose?
Ron McCain.
That's McCain's one shot.
I've got to get him drunk.
Maybe Ron Paul, I don't know.
To uh to Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Greg, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Mark.
Well, I guess I'm calling to agree with you about one thing and disagree on another.
I agree with you about the vulnerability of Hillary.
I don't think anybody with 49% disapproval is anybody to be afraid of.
You know, and when somebody once uh let's stop on your point there for a second.
When a candidate has that high level of disapproval, it's almost impossible to get rid of it, especially if there's somebody who's been around for a long time.
It's one thing for a candidate to have high disapproval when the public doesn't know them.
They can then run a campaign and change perceptions.
Hillary's been around for a long, long time.
And it's not changing anybody's mind about it.
Right.
Half this country not only doesn't like her, they can't stand the notion of her being the president.
If the Democrats nominate her, they are putting the Republicans right back in the game.
I don't think she can win.
So all this Republican defeatism just is ignoring the fact that the Democratic front runner is somebody who I think is very unlikely to win the presidency.
What Southern state does Hillary Clinton carry?
None that I can think of, including Florida.
So the r so I think the Republicans are better positioned than you think.
Now, if the Democrats choose someone else, well, then the I I hope they choose Hillary.
I hope they choose Hillary because I don't think she can win.
What was the point you disagree with me on?
The process was the process of us picking our guy.
Because frankly, I am tired of having a few flinty parochial voters in New Hampshire and a few ethanol people in Iowa, you know, set up the hoops that everybody's got to jump through, and you know, solid conservatives out here in Indiana have no say.
So what I was telling your screener, what I think we need to do is three super Tuesdays, East East United States, Midwest, Western United States, and rotate them every four years.
So everybody gets a voice.
You'd need the two parties to get together on that, and they'd have to be very firm in saying that any state that doesn't go along with it, you know, we're not going to seat their delegates.
Because you know, each state has the ability to hold an election whenever they want, but the two political parties don't have to respect who's nominated.
Political parties are still private organizations.
They're not really governed by anything.
They can set the rules for their delegates to their convention any way they want to do it.
That would be one way of doing it.
And you are right.
You are right about the Democrats do what they want to do, but if the Republicans did that, you know, at least we could pick the guy that we really support.
I think you'd have to have both parties do it together, or it wouldn't have much meaning because you can't have states voting on separate days and so on.
Maybe it could, I don't know.
The point that you make, though, about the pandering that goes on in Iowa, New Hampshire is real.
We have in this country the worst possible energy policy that any nation in the world has right now.
We are switching away from an oil based product to the basis of the American food supply, corn, with this idiotic Ethanol.
It's driving up the price of everything.
Farmers who in the past were planting other crops are switching to corn because there's this massive demand for corn to meet the ethanol mandates.
Ethanol not only is a lousy fuel that pollutes more, it is derived from the principal product of the American food supply, which is corn, which starts everything.
It's the animal feed, it's everything.
Corn has so many uses.
And the reason we have ethanol is because everybody in Iowa is a corn farmer, and every candidate who's ever run for president has to go to Iowa, and they have to genuflect before ethanol.
Yes, I support subsidies for ethanol, yes, this for ethanol, that for ethanol.
We are on the ethanol Kool-Aid, and it's a disaster.
And you're right, it's because Iowa's first, and you can't win Iowa unless you outpromise everyone else as to how much you're going to mandate the use of ethanol.
This is the problem with giving a couple of states way too much influence.
On the other hand, it does allow a candidate who might not have the money to win a national primary or what you mentioned, one of three Super Tuesdays.
It does allow a candidate like that to get in there and emerge and show some credibility by communicating with real people.
For example, Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, he's doing very well in Iowa right now.
He'd never have a chance if you had 17 states voting the same day or 50 voting the same day.
There's something to be said for doing it the current way.
The problem I have with it is allowing these states to set their own dates without any oversight is creating this preposterous situation where every state's going to be voting in January or February or maybe even December of an election that will be held nearly a full year after that.
And that part really is crazy.
My name is Mark Gulling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
My name is Mark Gelling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush likes to do his news digest toward the beginning of the program, right?
I've got one.
I've got it at the end.
I do everything backwards here.
Well, there's all this stuff.
Let's start with this.
In San Francisco, and you have to love San Francisco.
In San Francisco, liberal community that it is, isn't that, didn't they like invite the homeless out there a couple of years ago or something like that?
San Francisco, they are wringing their hands because the black population is declining.
The African American population of the city of San Francisco keeps going down.
And the leaders of San Francisco are concerned about this.
The San Francisco Chronicle reporting, quote, San Francisco officials are now calling the thousands of black people who have moved away the African American Diaspora, and the mayor's office is putting together a task force to figure out what can be done to preserve the remaining black population and cultivate new residents.
Now, first of all, whenever you have a very urban area, liberal politicians always say it's terrible that there aren't more blacks who live in the suburbs.
Here you have an urban community, San Francisco apparently disturbed that blacks are moving to the suburbs.
I don't know precisely where they are moving, but in San Francisco, they are bothered by this.
The percentage of black San Franciscans is lower than the percentage of black Americans.
And in their quota-loving mentality, they apparently think that this is a problem.
Can you imagine there are other cities that have seen declines in certain ethnic populations?
Can you imagine if Detroit put together a task force to try to stop the white people from leaving?
We've got to understand why white people don't want to live in Detroit.
It'd be condemned as racist, which I think is a tip off of what's going on in San Francisco.
from...
I was going to do the Mississippi story first, but I think it's appropriate that I go to the Larry Craig story after San Francisco.
You've been getting taunts the entire show from liberals, right?
I get the emails.
Yeah, what are you gonna say about Larry Craig?
He's another one of your right-wing phony.
Larry Craig's senator from Idaho, Republican.
He pleaded guilty to charges stemming from An incident in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport.
Craig himself says he now wishes that he hadn't agreed to the deal, that he's not guilty of inappropriate behavior, but he pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge.
Dispose of the matter.
This will become a big deal because liberals in America will make it a big deal.
There is nothing liberals love more than to see a Republican or a conservative involved in some sort of behavior that implies a sexual impropriety.
When it's their own people involved in that behavior, then it's nobody's business.
We have no right to question anything Bill Clinton did, even though what he did was in the Oval Office with an employee, and he lied about it under oath.
Even though he was using facilities, public facilities, state troopers, as his personal women searchers.
We have no right to look into that.
Even though a woman made a legitimate claim or a credible claim that she was raped by him, why that's no one's business.
It's his personal business.
We should but when it's a Republican.
Never mind sexual activity, simply the impropri the appearance of an impropriety.
Why then it's a scandal and they'll be all over it.
And I understand that, and the rationale they use is the hypocrisy argument.
Well, you Republicans, you act like a bunch of prudes, so therefore you should have to live the prudish lifestyle that you always stand up for.
That's the argument that's made.
Now, Larry Craig supposedly was in a stall at the restroom of the Minneapolis Airport.
And there was an undercover police officer in the other stall.
For whatever reason, public restrooms have become pickup joints for a lot of gay people.
And they were having a major problem at this airport, so they put some law enforcement officers in there in essentially a sting, and Larry Craig got caught up in it.
He, according to the allegation, was making hand sign or signals by tapping his foot or shaking his hand underneath the stall, and the officer came around and apparently there was some suggestion of inappropriate conduct occurring.
And Craig received this citation.
I don't know if he's guilty or not.
I don't know if the guy is gay or not.
If he was behaving inappropriately in a public place, he ought to accept the consequences of that, and I don't think many Republicans will stand up and defend him.
We also won't say that it's nobody's business since this apparently was a public place.
We in other words will react very differently than if this was a Democratic public official.
You do have a leading Democratic member of the House and a committee chairman and a guy who's been there for a long, long time, who was involved in behavior far more blatant and far more illegal than anything that Larry Craig is accused of.
Thing that bothers me though is that this story says that there were hand signals that supposedly were given.
So there's no there are no signals in which you can use to look for gay sex at a public restroom.
I'm not moving.
No, I wasn't signaling at all.
I'm just, I'm just a little shaky.
New study says that for the third year in a row, Mississippi is the fattest state in the country.
Colorado is the leanest.
But the obesity rate is increasing in all states.
Any reason why Mississippi would be leading the list?
I'm from Wisconsin.
I thought we were number one in all that stuff.
Fattest, biggest drinkers.
I'm relieved that Mississippi has a speed note.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
K in O'Cala, Florida, it's your turn on EIB.
Hi, Mark.
I was wondering why are you for uh Fred Thompson?
Well, because I agree with him on most issues.
I think he is a man of integrity.
I think he's somebody who's very good in explaining a conservative position.
I think he's not the type that the type that tends to be apologetic about it.
I think he's assertive, and I think he can beat whomever the Democrats put up, and the fact that he's from a state south of the Mason Dixon line helps his electability.
Those are good reasons, aren't they, Kay?
Pardon me?
Those are good reasons, aren't they?
They sound like are you for one world government?
Am I f am I for one world government?
See, I did a good job as a guest host.
Normally the one world government types figure that any guest host is going to be an easy mark, and I held it off for two hours and fifty-nine minutes and I almost did the entire program.
Am I or am I not?
Well, that kind of depends on who's running the government.
If I were in charge of the whole thing, yeah, it would probably be really good.
Uh, my name is Mark Belling.
I'm sitting in for Russian, like it or not, you'll be hearing me on tomorrow's program as well.
Talk to you then.
▲
Export Selection