All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
August 29, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Headline, Democrats say they will press Gonzalez inquiries.
He's got.
They want hearings anyway.
We're still going to get to the bottom of whether or not Attorney General Gonzalez was truthful with us.
He resigned.
What is the point?
What do you want to do to him now that he's resigned?
Do you want him to resign again?
Maybe if he keeps issuing resignation statements every day.
The reason that they want to press forward with these inquiries is that that's all they want to do with their power in Congress.
You wonder why the Democratic Congress approval rating, what is it, 18%?
It's because they don't even have their own side happy.
If you if, and for some of you I realize it doesn't require any imagining, imagine if you were a Democrat and your party had just gained control of both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Wouldn't you want them to, you know, maybe do something?
You've got all these Democratic candidates running for president right now.
They all have their agendas with regard to health care, foreign policy.
They've got position papers on everything.
We've got to deal with the fact that there are two Americas.
We have an economic structure in this country that rewards the rich at the expense of the poor.
We need to do this with regard to energy.
Well, why doesn't the Democratic Congress do any of that?
Why don't they pass a health care plan?
They want to socialize health care.
Why not do it?
They've got the formula, just go watch Michael Moore's movie Fatso or whatever it was called.
Come back and pass it.
They don't want to do any of that because when you actually do something, when you enact something, it can be criticized.
You can find flaws in it.
All they want to do with their power controlling one third of the government of the United States is to investigate George Bush and obstruct George Bush.
If President Bush should get another appointment in the United States Supreme Court, they'll hold it up.
That's what they'll do.
In the meantime, they're just going to conduct hearings looking into this, that, or the other thing, and implying that the entire administration is all screwed up.
Even if the administration was all screwed up, wouldn't you think that there'd be some greater purpose in having control of the Congress?
They aren't doing anything.
I'm a little surprised that their base isn't getting more frustrated with them.
What are they even attempting to do?
We can go back to the entire immigration issue, and which all the heat was put on President Bush.
Why, this is a terrible failure of the president.
He was unable to get any immigration legislation passed in the Congress, though he's captive to the right wing, they wouldn't let him pass anything.
What the Democrats control the House, the Democrats control the Senate, they can pass anything they want to.
If they want to liberalize immigration laws, if they want to toughen immigration laws, they can do it without a single Republican vote.
They don't want to do that.
They don't want their own immigration plan to be out there because there'd be things in it like in it that some people wouldn't like that could be criticized.
So they just want to keep holding their hearings.
There's no upside in this for them.
While they may be enjoying the difficulty that they're giving President Bush and the headaches they're causing for him.
They may not be aware of this, but Bush can't run for a third term.
He's not going to be on the ballot next year.
And as we get closer and closer to the 2008 election, President Bush and what's going on in his administration is going to move farther and farther away from being the center of attention of the American public.
They're going to actually start thinking about issues.
In the meantime, the Congress is just going to keep holding all these hearings on Bush.
In a way, while this is annoying, it's good.
A, it isn't playing well.
And B, I just as soon have them hold a bunch of worthless, useless hearings that don't accomplish anything, rather than run around and do what they actually believe in and start screwing up the country.
Thank God they haven't passed legislation to socialize health care.
Thank God they haven't passed their version of immigration legislation.
Thank God that they haven't acted on all of their desires.
They can't even figure out how to stop the war in Iraq that they all claim to be opposed to.
So as I said, while it's annoying that every day you turn on the television, you see one more Republican, one more member of the administration being grilled, and 98 more subpoenas being handed out, in the end, they not only aren't accomplishing anything, they're wasting their time.
You know, it's possible, and I know most pundits don't think it's going to happen.
It's possible.
They'll lose either the House or the Senate next year.
I think the House is more possible than the Senate.
There's a problem with almost everybody up for re-election being a Republican in the Senate.
Let's suppose they lose one of these houses.
They may regret that they didn't do anything with the power that they had.
Yesterday's program, I always love it when I get to sit in for rush and talk about something that everybody else in the media talks about the next day.
I could claim that I'm driving all of this.
It's probably coincidence.
We talked on yesterday's program about the real, I think it did it in the third hour of the show, the real problem developing with all of these states that are trying to move up the dates of their presidential primary elections.
It's gotten to the point where I think it's now a 50-50 prospect that Iowa will actually have to move to December of this year.
New Hampshire has a law that says that we will go seven days before any other state has its primary.
So as these states jump now from March to February and some are now moving into January as Florida is doing, every time some state moves and gets close to New Hampshire, New Hampshire automatically moves earlier.
New Hampshire is determined to keep its status as having the first actual primary of any state in the nation.
And then there's Iowa.
Iowa has a law that says we go eight days before New Hampshire.
New Hampshire has a primary, Iowa has a caucus.
While New Hampshire has the first primary, Iowa has the first anything.
So you've got one state with a law that says we will have a primary seven days before anybody else, and then you have Iowa that says we'll be eight days before that state.
So as New Hampshire keeps being pushed back by states that are jumping forward, that's pushing New Hampshire back, which is pushing Iowa back.
The political parties themselves are beginning to realize that this is crazy.
That we don't even have a process that you can plan for anymore, and we're going to be choosing the nominees for the two president for the presidential election nearly a year before the race, even if no state moves from this point forward.
You're going to have more than half the delegates to the conventions chosen by February 5th.
That means you will be nine months away from the general election with the nominees of both parties known.
I mean, you talk about political fatigue.
This country is going to be so sick of those two candidates, they're going to be beating up on one another for nearly a year.
And that's if there's no change.
If these dates keep being moved up as states keep moving their time and every state wants to be early because they want to be important.
They want the candidates to come into their state and they want to be the center of attention.
They want their people to be the ones that have an in, you know, have input into this very important decision.
If we have this thing decided in January, and if Iowa actually has to move all the way to December, you've got a system that's just melted down, and the political parties are finally beginning to grasp this.
The Democrats are telling Florida that if you move into January, we won't seat your delegates at the Democratic Convention.
Now, New York Times reporting today that the Republicans say that they will punish states that hold primaries earlier than the current schedule.
What they'll do is take away half the delegates to the convention of each of these states.
So they're trying to do something, but I'm not sure it will work.
Let's suppose you take away half their delegates.
If you hold a primary election on January 15th and only two other states have held their contest by that point, even if there are no delegates, some of the candidates are going to show up because they're going to want an early win.
You saw that straw poll they held in Ames, Iowa, a couple of weeks ago.
Several of the Republicans ran in that.
Mike Huckabee is saying he's now a major player because he finished second in a straw poll.
Well, there's no delegates, there's no anything associated with that.
I do think the parties understand they've got a problem here, but they are struggling in trying to figure out just what it is that they can do about that.
My name is Mark Gelling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Have you ever heard of that condition called shaking leg syndrome?
People have tremors, their legs shake.
Restless leg.
What if Larry Craig has that?
To uh Texas and Sharon, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Yes, Mark.
It's nice.
Nice to talk with you.
Nice to have you.
I uh I think the Democrats need to remember that uh it was mad Republicans that put them in the position they're in right now, and they have done nothing.
And that when it comes time for the uh uh primaries and so forth, that uh I think Fred Thompson has been very smart in what he's done, and that I think the base of the Republican Party will come together, and uh that uh it will take shape and we will have something to look forward to.
Well, I agree with you.
There is among a lot of Republicans, and I talked about this yesterday on the program, just this sense of defeatism about the 2008 election, they don't want to think about there being another election.
I look at it as a baseball team that lost the game on Monday, you look forward to Tuesday's game because you can get it right back.
I think that there is no reason for all this pessimism and gloom and doom among Republicans.
First of all, Democrats have done nothing but beat up Bush.
Bush is a non-factor in the 2008 election.
He won't be running for president.
There will be a Republican who is going to be standing on his own out there, like him or not.
He's going to be there and he's going to be the sole focus.
Nobody's even going to be thinking about Bush.
As for the Congress, what?
They're going to run against Bush again?
They're going to those will be Democrats who will be running for re-election, not election.
And the Republican SNIT that existed in 2006 isn't going to be there anymore.
It's going to be a very, very different scenario.
Here's the other thing, Sharon.
Their field of candidates for president that they're also happy with is pathetic.
Thanks for the call.
Let's go through them, in fact.
The front runner is Hillary.
What are her credentials to be president of the United States?
I'm serious.
What are they?
This is a woman who everything she has achieved in her life has been because of her husband's coattails.
Would she have possibly ever been put in in charge of federal health care policy if she wasn't married to the president?
Could she possibly have moved from Arkansas with a stop off for eight years in Washington, D.C. and suddenly moved to New York and claim she could be their United States Senator unless she happened to be married to the president?
And since she's been in the Senate, what has she done?
I'm serious.
What is she do you associate Hillary Hillary Clinton with?
Is she a leader on Social Security?
Is she a leader on Iraq?
She a major player in the Democratic Party on terrorism.
How about Medicare?
The only issue you associate With her to this day is still health care dating back to her failed attempt in 1993 to socialize the entire thing.
Let's add the fact that half the country can't stand her.
Her negatives are still right around 50%.
And here's the other thing.
She's going to try to run for, presuming she gets the nomination.
She's going to try to run for president doing something that no one who runs for president does anymore, and that is run around without your family next to you.
They always bring their spouses along.
Let's suppose Hillary gets the nomination and wins everything in February, and she's the presumptive nominee.
She's now has nine months to tour the country and campaign.
Do you really think Bill Clinton's going to tag along for nine months letting Hillary give all the speeches while he stands behind like the proud husband?
Well, that's what spouses have to do.
That's what Laura Bush had to do.
It's what Hillary herself had to do when Bill ran.
So she's going to be doing this in a very unorthodox fashion.
There's always a first time for everything, but usually what happens is what normally happens.
It's going to be too weird of a campaign.
There's a lot of reasons to think she's not going to be able to pull it off.
Now let's go to Obama.
He's been a member of the United States Senate for what?
Two years.
Before that, he was a state senator in Illinois.
And not even in leadership, not even a particularly important member there.
He is very closely linked to a man who is under federal indictment, Tony Rezco, a guy for whom his law firm did legal work, and a guy who bought the property right next to Obama's house, an empty lot, and paid the same amount of money that Obama paid for the property that had a home on it.
Raising serious questions about whether or not Rezco actually was buying the property for Obama.
Then every time Obama now tries to speak on an issue pertaining to national security, he comes across as an amateur who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The only appeal he has is the fact that he is a well-spoken black American.
That only goes so far.
If Barack Obama was white, would he even be in this race at all?
No.
There's really nothing there.
He's the Oprah candidate.
By the way, Oprah's backing her.
She has a great sense of communicating with people, but nobody thinks of Oprah Winfrey as an American intellectual.
That's all Obama is.
Then you've got Edwards, the guy who I used to predict was going to win the Democratic nomination.
He's degenerated into total vapidity.
The guy has become a joke.
He's a punchline.
He's the guy who has the multi- the what?
The $500 haircut.
He's the guy who talks about the two Americas while he's living in a mansion.
He's so weak that he can't even attack his opponents anymore.
He has to send out his wife to do it.
Every time a negative statement is made from the Edwards campaign about Hillary or Obama or anyone else, it has to come from Elizabeth Edwards.
John Edwards is so weak and so vulnerable he has to have his wife make the attacks because everyone knows no one's going to fire back at her because she suffers from cancer.
This is what he's reduced to.
That is a weak candidate.
Now look at their also brands.
Chris Dodd?
Come on.
What's even the point of Chris Dodd running for president?
He's the candidate of the leisure suit.
He's like four decades too late.
Joe Biden there, done that.
How many times does Joe Biden run?
Eight, nine, ten?
Yeah, he's the Harold Stassen of the Democratic Party.
He not only has no chance of winning the nomination, 99% of American Democrats don't even know he's running.
Dennis Kucinich, he's a nut.
You do have Bill Richardson out there, the one Democrat who I think could win.
He has a pretty good resume.
He served in a presidential administration, he's been a governor.
He comes across as being moderate, he's from south of the Mason Dixon line.
He does have a personality that doesn't always translate well in television.
He apparently has a temper.
But he's the only guy in their party who seems to have even minimal qualifications to run for president.
And while things may look good for them now, and they have all these people that seem to be attractive.
There's really not a lot of there.
There's no real gravitas.
There's no substance.
These are not strong figures.
And I'm telling you, when you're talking about nine months of focus from February through November, that lack of experience and lack of substance and lack of qualifications is going to start showing up.
I'm Mark Delling sitting in the rush.
See that Katie Couric's going to go to Iraq.
What is it?
Part of a USO troop or something?
I mean she's she's not actually going to pretend to do any reporting there, is she?
I don't know.
I want to conclude the point that I was making about this Democratic field running for president, which I argue isn't as strong as it appears.
And when someone does win here, they're going to have a very weak candidate for president.
As contrasted with the Republican field, the Republicans don't seem to like almost everyone running, uh, is an extremely well-qualified substantive person.
If you take a look at what the Democratic agenda is right now and what they're going to try to run on, it's essentially retreat and socialism.
They don't want to engage Iraq.
They clearly don't want to engage Iran.
They don't even like the term war on terror.
The great global threat of our time is something that they want to back away from.
In the meantime, on domestic policy, they want to governmentalize everything.
They want to socialize the health care system.
They want to require that every American company do this, that, and the other thing.
Retreat and socialism, they're in the wrong century.
I'm telling you, this is exactly what led to the communist revolution in 1920.
The Russians were tired of being beaten up on the international stage, and they felt as though the government should run every this is I mean, this is Jack Reed.
This is Warren Beatty in the movie Reds All Over Again.
They are literally 100 years behind the times.
They are trying to do to the United States, but the communists didn't.
You find a difference between Democratic Party policy now and the Russian communist revolution of the late teens.
Find even one issue in which they're not on the same side.
There's a new Zogby poll out now.
Majority of Americans, 54% believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq.
However, two-thirds of Democrats, 66% say we've already failed in Iraq.
That we have lost.
As I said, the party of defeat, retreat, and socialism.
You'd love to ask them.
If we've lost in Iraq, who's won?
Has al Qaeda won?
They're turning tail and running away.
Have the Sunnis won?
I guess not.
The Shiites don't seem to have won.
Their government is shaky as we speak.
For someone to lose, that means somebody else has to win.
Pretty hard for me to figure out who the winner over there is.
St. Louis, Missouri, and Frank.
Frank, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
And I do want to talk about uh Washington and corruption, but first a pot shot at Hillary.
Do you think she gets those communist outfits from that Sioux guy?
Are you referring to her clothing?
Yeah, you know, the ones that always look like they're Mao clothing.
I mean, isn't it?
I mean, don't there is that kind of Nehru jacket sort of look that she has where the collar is kind of tucked up.
I'm sure the finest fashion minds that New York has to offer is in charge of that wardrobe.
I'm sure there are all sorts of messages that are being sent with the way that she dresses.
Well, I just brings back the memory of Bill Clinton going to uh Russia for college when at that time nobody went to Russia for college.
That's a whole nother story.
But I want to do want to talk about corruption in Washington.
I do think that this corruption in both parties, and I think the American people are getting very cynical.
You see the low ratings of Congress right now.
And uh don't forget McJoh McCain and the Keating Five, and we can go back on both parties.
I wonder if the nation is getting ready for a third party movement.
Maybe not in 2008.
I'm not sure what I'm saying.
As long as I've been alive, people have been saying is America ready for a third party movement.
The problem with it is the political parties are so they have such an infrastructure in every state, it's real hard for a third one to get to get going.
What I do think is likelier is a third party candidate.
For example, Perot got reasonable vote totals.
The two times that he ran for president, he was in the high teens the first time, I think a little bit lower the second time around.
He but that was entirely based on him.
What was the name of his party, the reform party?
It was created for him and died the moment that he left it.
So you I think you've got the potential for a third party candidate or even an independent candidate.
It's real hard to create one around a movement.
The libertarians have tried this.
You know, the the problem with it is that they're running on ideas rather than personalities.
Very few people, when it comes to voting for president, say, I'm voting for the Democrats, or I'm voting for the Republicans.
They usually identify by an individual.
I do think, though, and I'm not which is why I'm not disagreeing with you here.
I do think that next year, because of these things I've been talking about, how long the campaign is going to be, with both nominees known by the end of January, early February at the latest, you're going to have such fatigue.
You're not only going to see all the ads from the independent groups and the parties themselves nonstop for month after month after month pounding on one another, finding all these every negative associated with both of those people is going to be out there.
People will be so sick of them by the middle of the year, by summer, that you do set the stage for a third party candidate to come in.
You know, Bloomberg, the mayor of New York has talked about it.
I don't know that he's the right guy.
But someone like Lieberman running on a ticket with maybe McCain offering themselves up as centrists as an alternative.
Well, I'm not too far to the left, I'm not too far to the right.
There's a possibility that something like that, that could happen in 2008 just because we're going to have all the cable channels all over this race.
Talk shows like this one all over the race.
People are really going to be sick of it.
And a new face that steps in, say in the summer, I think might have a chance of going somewhere.
And there's some history to that.
You know, Perot did step in and get 19, 20 percent of the vote the first time around.
It's possible to draw this.
And you get to 35 or 40 percent, you probably win the election.
That could happen, I think, in 2008, but it would be likelier to be something that would revolve around an individual candidate rather than a political party.
One more thing, Mark, can I?
Sure.
Um the the the I think there is an unease, and I'm talking about Joe Six Pack out there, middle class America about our jobs leaving the country, the free trade, the NAFTA superhighway that's coming that nobody talks about.
It's coming.
And and I just hope the Democrats don't co-opt that because Republicans are running away from conservative populism.
Why can't they get back to Pat Buchanan, America First, Conservative Populism?
What is wrong?
And it ain't Fred Thompson and it ain't New Gingrich.
Well, I think the answer to that is that a lot of people who are conservative don't agree with you about it.
Well, the free trade is killing us.
Yeah, I know I know.
I I I don't quarrel with that.
I don't consider myself a free trader, but I consider myself to be a realist.
The fact of the matter is is that everything's made in China right now, and it's going to continue to be made in China because they can make it more cheaply over there.
And we're we're not we're not going to be able to seal ourselves off from the rest of the world.
Now, what you refer to is the potential for the Democrats to grab an issue like this with outright demagoguery.
But the problem is is that, and I don't think they're ready for this.
They aren't ready to win.
You've seen that with regard to the Congress, that Congress hasn't done anything since they took office in January.
When you have a Democrat who becomes president, what was the movie?
Um I think it was called The Candidate Who Played in that.
Was that Redf was that Robert Redford?
They got in and after he won he looks at the advisor.
Okay, now what?
The Democrats, when they're going to have to actually deal with terror and deal with health care and deal with global trade and deal with all of those issues, they don't have any real ideas because they've spent the last eight years ridiculing and ripping George Bush.
And as I said, and this is the reason why I think that they are not shoe-ins in 2008.
They can't run for president in 08 running against George Bush.
He isn't going to be on the ballot.
They can't even run against the administration because Cheney, his vice president, isn't on the ballot.
The person who does run is going to be someone other than Bush.
Thank you for the call.
Now, were I advising the Republicans, and I guess I am, I'm shooting my mouth off now.
Consider this advice.
If I were a Republican running for president, I would listen to what that last caller said.
Now I don't agree with him necessarily on some of the issues pertaining to trade.
But there are a lot of people out there who consider themselves conservatives, who don't feel as though they're being spoken to.
And they don't like what's happened to a lot of the Republican Party.
They particularly don't like how many Republicans who came in as reformers instead became establishmentarianism, establishment established you know what I mean.
They became part of the problem rather than the solution.
The year marks, the use of congressional perks, the getting in there just to bring more pork back to the district, getting too cozy with lobbyists and special interests.
That attitude is out there and it's real, and I, for example, share it.
If I were the Republican candidate running for president who gets the nomination, I would be willing to publicly go out and attack my own party.
There's no reason not to do that.
And it's not something people are used to hearing.
Because as we were talking about before, you don't elect a political party to be president.
You elect a candidate to be president.
Now let's imagine it's Fred Thompson who I happen to like, but it could be whomever the Republican nominee is.
Get up there and say, you know, there's been abuse in Congress on both sides of the budgeting process.
They've used earmarks and special appropriations to waste money on junk.
My party, the Republicans did it, and they may be as bad or even worse than the Democrats at it.
But when I get in there, I'm gonna put draw the line on the sand with my own party.
No more earmarks, no more special appropriations.
The Democrats have done it as well.
There are a lot of negatives right now right now about the Republican Party, but they can be erased by a candidate.
Republican is just a word.
The party itself becomes whatever the leader of the party makes it.
Want proof of that?
Reagan.
Reagan transformed the Republican Party.
He changed the entire identification of what it meant to be a Republican.
Before Reagan, the Republican Party was a Jerry Ford Party, a Nelson Rockefeller Party.
That's what it was.
Reagan made it something else.
And the Republican candidate for president this time around can do that, which is why this election is very important, and who that candidate is important.
A person who gets out there and runs, and since all of the Republicans running are men, if he who whomever he is, gets out there and is willing to divorce himself from this Albert Pross around the neck, which is the Republican Congress, the old Republican Congress, and it's being too close to special interests, and it's being a bunch of overspenders, and maybe even President Bush, who's been lousy on the spending issue.
I think you can remake that party rather quickly.
Because as I said, people don't vote for a Republican candidate or a Democratic Clinton proved that.
They couldn't win anything.
Clinton came out and said he was a different kind of Democrat.
Remember the campaign he ran?
He was going to reform welfare, he was going to kick all the lazy people off welfare.
Those were the ads he ran.
And people voted for him.
They didn't vote for a Democratic candidate, and there is no reason why it can't happen this time around, particularly if you have a Republican candidate who isn't willing, rather who is willing to divorce himself from the party structure and the current image that the party holds.
An image that in some respects is well deserved.
My name is Mark Gelling, and I'm in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
Am I taking enough calls or am I just talking too much today?
I'm doing fine.
Okay.
The executive producer says I'm doing fine.
He did, however, heckle me during the commercial break saying I shouldn't have said that everything is made in China.
And you had a ready statistic there, 14 to 17% of our GDP is made here in the United States.
It's always been that and it isn't going down, right?
Yeah, okay.
But what that does not consider is is that much of what is made here are things that have to be made here.
Many of our exports, for example, are food or technology items or things like that.
I'm not denying that we have a global economy.
And I think that it needs to be accepted.
When you take a look at what's happening in China right now, it is truly profound.
China is driving the economy of the world almost as much as we are.
It's just an enormous impact.
But it isn't necessarily all bad, and that's where I think some people make mistakes.
The car companies, the American car companies think China could be their salvation.
There isn't much of a car industry in China right now, and what is there is just taking the names of other companies.
GM thinks it can build cars in China for the Chinese market.
Chrysler thinks the same thing.
Many believe that the private equity firm that bought Chrysler, I think the name is Cerebris, did so because they think that Chrysler has an opportunity to get into the Chinese market.
China is going from a nation in which no one drove to everyone driving.
You're talking about potentially millions and millions of cars being sold over there by American companies.
So yeah, there is an export market, and it isn't all bad, the global economy that we're entering.
Wait till Africa gets into the picture.
This wiping out of African debt that was done by many of the uh nations several years ago is freeing Africa up to be the new China.
In fact, there's a story in the media today, Chinese wages are going up.
It's driving up the cost of their products.
China may not be ready for this, but there are going to be other nations out there that are going to try to out China China and undercut them.
And I think that Africa is going to be a major source of that.
These are all things that complicate these issues, so you can't just simply say that the globalization of the world is a major problem and bury your head.
It may have been nicer when for practical reasons everything that you bought in the United States had to be made in the United States, but it doesn't work that way anymore.
Let's go to Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Ray, it's your turn on EIB.
Hey, Mark, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Yes.
Um I had uh two comments back towards the uh Florida vote moving up for its primary.
The first, of course, is obviously the state they're being ridiculous moving all these elections for the primaries up because the main thing they're really going to do is disenfranchise voters, especially our military voters, like myself.
I just came back from deployment and found out, oh, I'm voting in four months.
So what was the point you were going to make about it?
The uh the second point is the uh the Democratic Party telling Florida that, oh, if you have your election uh the date that the state's paying for, we're not gonna seat your delegates.
It's like the the party.
Well, what's wrong with telling them what's wrong with telling them that?
Well, it's the state's vote, not uh the party.
That's true, but the part but the parties the parties nominate candidates for president, not individual states and not even voters.
The parties can set up whatever process they want they want, and the reason why I think the parties have to assert themselves here at least a little bit is you run the risk of some states saying, well, let's go in October of the year before.
There's got to be some standard here for this.
As for Florida, why is it that every time we have an election problem, Florida's in the middle of it?
Every single and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
We're going to be talking in the third hour of today's program about the so-called fair tax, the notion of a national sales tax to replace the income tax, a few other things as well.
I mentioned that Katie Korick is going to go to Iraq in an attempt to save her failed anchorship.
She's going to be going there next week.
This is a quote from the Washington Post.
I'm curious About very basic questions regarding living conditions, about how much fear there is in the street, about how the soldiers really are doing.
Is that war coverage?
This is news coverage for bimbos.
Can you imagine if Edward R. Murrow felt that was his mission in covering war?
How about focusing on whether or not the terrorists are being driven back, whether or not the Sunnis and the Shiites are rejecting Al-Qaeda and whether or not we're achieving some military goals?
No, I want to see if there's fear out there.
▲
Export Selection