All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:43
September 5, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, testing one, two, three.
Yep.
Sounds okay, right?
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the bountiful fruited plain Rush Limbaugh here for the second straight day, despite fighting the ravages of a stupid crud.
Same sort of crud that I came back from California with last November, or last February.
Except that was worse.
That was worse.
I had to actually miss a couple days, and I had a coughing spasm so bad, either broke a rib or pulled a rib cage muscle in there.
Yeah, it was a two-week thing.
Well, this is shaping up to be a two-week thing.
At any rate, I'm not complaining, folks.
I'm just keeping you advised of what's happening here.
We are high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan.
Great to be with you.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
Something very strange happening out there.
This is not unusual that strange things should be happening out there.
You know, these sniffles are becoming, I know it's irritating, folks, but they're so frequent here.
If I hit the cough button each time I have to sniffle, I guarantee you this show is going to be shortened by about 10 minutes.
There's nothing that stops it.
And it's not, people sending me emails.
You know, this sniffing of yours is becoming a habit.
No, it's not a habit.
It's only occurring because it's necessary.
But I will do my best to limit it to as few sniffles as possible.
All right, the Larry Craig situation.
This is not about the fact he may change his mind or is thinking about changing his mind and not resigning.
It is instead something that I find incredible.
You have, what is, who, in all of modern era politics, recent politics, name for me the political figure who is most widely known for sexual indiscretions.
Who would that trigger be?
Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton is the expert, right?
Bill Clinton is the go-to guy.
When you want to find out what somebody else going through this is going through, you go to Bill Clinton.
So where's Clint?
It's all over television last night.
Larry King alive.
It's Oprah.
All these.
And not one question about the one story that has the media totally absorbed.
Not one question at all.
William Jefferson Clinton discussing everything but the news focus of the day.
and that is sexual indiscretions by, excuse me, public figures.
You know, he doesn't have, it's worth noting, I think, folks, that Clinton doesn't have the decency, the conscience, or the moral compass to avoid the public, to duck the cameras, at least until sleaze becomes yesterday's news.
He puts himself right out there in the midst of sleaze, being the captain of sleaze, knowing full well that as the captain of sleaze, he's not going to be asked about this.
And he's not.
Not one interviewer, not one journalist, not one reporter asked him what Sam Donaldson would have shouted.
In the old days, Sam Donaldson would have said, Mr. President, the Larry Craig story make you uncomfortable.
But such a reporter and such questions do not exist.
I mean, Oprah, Larry King should have asked Clinton if he had any advice for Craig to get through this troubling experience.
The one guy who could give advice on this is not asked about it.
If it were a Republican, it would be.
You remember what I told you to have ready?
Stand by, go for it.
Figured I usually do the global warming update a third hour, so I'm going to do it in the first hour today.
Wait till you hear some of this stuff.
That's buddy Paul Shanklin as Al Gore and one of our three global warming update themes, ball of fire from the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Israel bashing and climate hysteria in the European Parliament.
Now get this.
The only thing that matters here is the last paragraph of this story by Daniel Schwamenthal.
And then there was Claire Short, a member of the British Parliament and Secretary for International Development under Tony Blair until she quit in 2003 over the Iraq war.
Claiming that Israel is actually much worse than the original apartheid state and accusing it of killing Palestinian political leaders, Claire Short charged the Jewish state with the ultimate crime.
Israel undermines the international community's reaction to global warming.
According to Ms. Short, the Middle East conflict distracts the world from the real problem, man-made climate change.
If extreme weather will lead to the end of the human race, as Ms. Short warned it could, add this to the list of the crimes of Israel.
Israel, by wiping out the Palestinians, is distracting people from the real problem facing the earth.
Global warming in Tokyo.
Japanese government website crashed Wednesday as people raced to take up an offer of a half-priced McDonald's hamburger in exchange for pledging to fight global warming.
The Japanese unit of the U.S. Burger Company on Tuesday offered a Big Mac for $1.3.
That's about half a normal price to anyone demonstrating a commitment to preventing climate change.
People were asked to check up to 39 boxes on a form they could download from the Environment Ministry's website, each listing a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, blame for global warming.
We started seeing a rise in access yesterday and it surged this morning.
We're now trying to restore the system.
So apparently people recognize this for what it is.
All I got to do is check off some boxes on a form.
I got a Big Mac for half price.
All I got to do is pledge to do something.
The idiocy, the asoninity of all of this continues to know no bounds.
Global warming could mean more heart problems, doctors are now warning.
It's from the Associated Press, Vienna, global warming may be forcing polar bears southward and melting glaciers, but it could also have an impact on your heart.
Doctors warned that the warmer weather expected with climate change might also produce more heart problems.
If it really is a few degrees warmer in the next 50 years, we could definitely have more cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Karen Schneck Gustafsson of the Department of Cardiology at Sweden's Karolinska Institute.
On the sidelines of the European Society of Cardiology's annual meeting in Vienna this week, some experts said that the issue deserved more intention.
It's well known that people have more heart problems when it's hot.
It is?
Whatever happened to all these heart attacks shoveling snow?
Now this is, this is, uh, we'll be back here in just a second.
And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Talent on loan from God.
By the way, I need to correct something.
I was wrong.
I erred mere moments ago when I said that Bill Clinton, a leading expert on sex scandals, had not been asked about this by anybody.
He actually was on the Today Show this morning.
Matt Lauer talked to Clinton, and he said this.
Let me ask you about Senator Larry Craig.
He resigned last week amid a scandal.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct charges stemming from a gay sex sting in an airport in Minneapolis.
Now his office says they may want to rethink that resignation.
Can he survive?
Based on what you know about Washington and what you know about political scandals, can Larry Craig survive?
Well, he's legally entitled to the rest of his term.
Maybe he was carrying a little of the baggage for, you know, they decided to say nothing about Senator Vitter, and then they decided to say everything about Senator Craig.
I don't know why they made the decisions they did, but it's really this should be viewed on the one hand as a personal matter, a challenge for Senator Craig and his family.
On that level, I think we should let him work that out.
And then on the political level, it's really up to the Republicans.
They'll determine what happens here.
You know, it's interesting, Arnold, Arnold, Arlen Specter has really thrown a monkey wrench into all this.
In fact, let's just go to the top of the soundbites.
Let's go, play these things in order.
It'll be sensible.
It makes sense here if we do this in a chronological piece.
Let's review something I said.
And I like playing these soundbites of me because, unlike you people, I never got to listen to this show because I'm too busy performing it.
Do you ever stop to think about this?
I never get to listen to the most listened-to radio program in the country and the one American doesn't get to.
I'm sure I would enjoy it, but after performing it, I don't need to hear it.
And I know whether I've done a good job in it anyway, so I love going back and playing soundbites of me from previous shows, such as this from yesterday.
So the Republicans threw Larry Craig under the bus.
And you know who was driving the bus?
Mitt Romney.
This is a guy that was supporting Mitt Romney.
Just throw him under the bus like that.
This is pandering.
This is pandering to the Christian right.
This is pandering to values voters out there.
And it insults them to go this way.
All right, so we got a montage here of a bunch of drive-by media people who all of a sudden, I wonder, you know, the Larry Craig thing happened last week.
It wasn't until I got back and started being critical of some Republicans here that the drive-bys decide, you know what, there's an angle here we missed.
And that is the way the Republicans are handling this.
So I bring brilliance to the broadcast airwaves yesterday, pointing out that they threw the guy under the bus.
Listen to this montage.
The Republicans were so quick to throw him overboard.
Mitt Romney was a bit abrupt and a bit harsh the way he threw him under the bus.
Why was the Republican leadership so quick to throw this guy under the bus?
Under the bus.
They've thrown him under a bus.
Republicans acted very quickly to throw Larry Craig under the bus.
Do you think that he was pushed under the bus?
Is there a chance now the Republican leadership may put the bus in reverse and try to run over him again?
I'll tell you, the original thinking in the drive-by media, ladies and gentlemen, it's magical, breathtaking to sit here and behold.
I don't have much breath to take with this confounded infection that I've got.
Anyway, over the weekend, this has just surfaced.
Larry Craig himself made a phone call, thought he was calling his lawyer.
But he got the wrong number.
And whoever he called released the voice message.
Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense, arguing that it appears by all that he knows, I've been railroaded all of that.
We've reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on September 30.
I think it is very important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon.
And I would hope you could make it in front of the cameras.
Think it would help drive the story that I'm willing to fight, that I've got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape has that potential.
This was the morning before his press conference when he said he intended to resign.
Now, let's go to cut five and we'll go back to cut four.
Let's go to cut five and go back to cut four because I want you to hear what Specter said since he's citing Specter as his defender.
Here is Arlen Specter on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
I'd still like to see Senator Craig fight this case.
He left himself some daylight, Chris, when he said that he intends to resign in 30 days.
I've had some experience in these kinds of matters since my days as Philadelphia District Attorney, and on the evidence, Senator Craig wouldn't be convicted of anything.
And he's got his life on the line and 27 years in the House and Senate.
And I'd like to see him fight the case because I think he could be vindicated.
Well, this is not at all what the Republican leadership wants.
This is the last thing in the world Mitch McConnell and the boys want to hear.
And of course, this statement by Specter has now made Craig rethink this.
And all they want is they do want Craig under the bus, and they want to keep going backwards and forwards until Craig can't get up from under the bus.
And so this has caused some speculation out there amongst the drive-bys.
Last night, hardball with Chris Matthews, talking to ACE analyst Howard Feynman.
Matthews says, what's he up to?
He's the ranking Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What goal is he setting here?
Does he really want this guy to come back to the Senate, not pick up his stuff and leave, but fight the case, get back into the world's greatest deliberative body?
Is that the Specter goal here?
It seems to me he's just trying to create a nightmare for Mitch McConnell.
You know, there's bad blood between Specter and the conservatives because the conservatives, the evangelical conservatives, said, Specter, if you want to stay as head of the Judiciary Committee back when the Republicans had the majority, you play ball with us, you sign off on all of our nominations.
And Specter's saying, okay, two can play that game.
I think Larry Craig should get a fair.
So I think that they're halfway right here.
There's no blood lost between Specter and McConnell and the rest of the conservative Republican leadership in the Senate.
And so they go out trying to encourage Larry Craig to come back.
I don't think Craig should do it, by the way.
I realize a number of people are still upset with me for my analysis of this yesterday.
But screw it.
I'm not going to change my analysis of it.
I believe everything I said yesterday.
I believe it today.
I would say it again today as I said it yesterday if I were going to comment on it today.
Having said that, I think it's a mistake for Craig to start playing games.
If he's going to, he said he's going to resign, he should resign.
He's not going to be able to fix this stuff by September 30th.
No, I'm not.
I'll get into this more in just a second.
But I want to go back to cut four because Craig has hired a Democrat lawyer, Stan Brand, to represent him before the Ethics Committee.
And he was on today's show today, Stan Brand was.
And Meredith Vieira asked, well, what changed Larry Craig's mind?
The Senate of the United States has never taken cognizance of misdemeanor private conduct cases in the 220-year history of the Senate.
The unbroken line of precedence in the U.S. Senate for 220 years is that only conduct amounting to treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors has been subject to discipline.
If the Senate of the United States is going to begin taking up every traffic offense and petty offense committed by senators in their private capacity, having nothing to do with their office, I think the Senate needs to go into full-time session to deal with those alone.
I understand what he's saying.
That was part of my point yesterday.
But the die is cast now.
The Republicans want the guy out of there.
The Republicans seem to have a suicide pact.
They're just okay.
We'll throw away every one of our imperfect members.
We'll get him out of here as fast as the Democrats claim to want him out.
And we'll do this because we'll try to convince everybody we're clean and pure as the wind-driven snow here.
Anyway, Keith in Palm Bay, Florida, we'll grab you quickly here before the break.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, thanks.
I'm really disappointed, and especially you and Talk Radio.
Is this a subconscious thing or a business thing that we are talking about this?
In my opinion, true Americans, not even conservative Democrats, should be answering when reporters ask them this question.
This is a personal thing between him and his family and his constituents, and it's not the Republican Party's platform.
And we have terrorists, a war, and other things going on like Social Security that's been broken for 30 years in an education.
Hey, Keith, Keith, Keith, I understand exactly what you're saying.
You can't accuse me on my own show of shortchanging you and others on those issues.
We do everything here.
I am talk radio, by the way.
Get that right next time, too.
Hi, we are here having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
One more audio soundbite on the Larry Craig situation and a brief commentary, and then we move on.
And it's audio soundbite number seven.
This is Feynman and Matthews continuing to discuss Spectre and the situation with Larry Craig.
It's Specter trying to keep Craig in the Senate.
Politically, this is the worst nightmare the Republicans could have.
Freddy Krueger, because he was buffaloed out of the Senate.
And now some people in principle or for political calculation or for sheer spite are going to stand up for Larry Craig's rights.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats put together a Larry Craig defense fund.
No, I mean, whoever heard of Larry Craig anyway before any of this?
I mean, students did and wonks like us.
But to now call him Freddy Krueger and to say the Republicans, the last thing that the Republicans want is that they did buffalo him out of there, folks.
There's no question they buffaloed him out of there.
And Specter, I think it's funny with a monkey wrench here.
But I happen to think, as I said earlier, that Senator Craig is making a huge mistake trying to reverse course on this.
He said he intended to resign, and he said he intended to resign because he'd be too distracted with his legal affairs to be an effective, quote-unquote, public servant, rabbit, yada, yada.
Now, neither the legal case nor the ethics case are going to be resolved by September 30th, folks, which is the date that he gave for leaving.
And if he wanted to fight off demands for his resignation, he shouldn't have announced he was resigning only a few days ago and given a reason that is as relevant today as it was then.
And that reason is he can't do his job anymore.
So, you know, I made my case yesterday, and it angered and infuriated many of you.
What's the problem?
Day said he intended to resign.
Understand that, but that was a word game.
Everybody, he said he was going to get out of there by September 30th.
And then call Bill Clinton.
It's asking, what does he mean by this?
You know, we have to start parsing his words.
I made my case yesterday for why I thought the prosecutors had a weak legal case against Larry Craig, and I'm not going to go and make this case again.
You can listen to it on my website.
He not only pled guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly charge, but the prosecutors refused to take him to trial on a gross misdemeanor charge of lewd behavior and solicitation.
And they could have if they had the evidence.
And if they really wanted to make a big case about this and stop this kind of activity at the airport out there in Minneapolis, then they should have hung the guy up to dry.
But they apparently didn't have the evidence to do that.
These are the facts, whether you like them or not.
But don't ignore them here.
But having resigned effective September 30th, I don't think he can now argue a few days later that he has changed his mind and his rationale.
As a practical matter, he has no political support left other than Spectre, and he seems to be contradicting himself regarding his reasoning for resigning, that he can't do his job.
Betty in Newport, Rhode Island.
Nice to have you on the EIB network today.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I've been listening to you, I'll preface my call like everybody else does, for all of this ever since you've been on the air.
But I think you're becoming terribly rude.
I thought you were terribly rude to Keith, the caller that called you a little while ago.
You insulted him, and he was just criticizing you.
You say often that we're not saints.
None of us are.
I think you think you are.
Now.
You can't be criticized.
You're going to come on.
Well, that's no reason to insult him.
How long has this trend do you think been going on?
Well, it's some time now.
I think you're kind of rude to some of the people that call you to tell you that they love you.
And if they want to criticize you, why is that bad?
I mean, you do make some mistakes.
You're not 100%.
I understand this, but I'm working on it.
Well, but the point is, point is his criticism.
I don't mind genuine criticism.
I can take anything.
I mean, I get more abuse out there than most public figures could ever hope to get if they wanted it.
Well, you did mind it from him.
You insulted him.
Because he was wrong.
I did not.
How did I insult him?
Well, you said next time, get your facts straight or something like that and just hung up on him.
No, I didn't hang up.
We ran out of time.
I'm the most polite host in the country.
You know that.
And I don't hang up on people.
He said he was disappointed in me, particularly in talk radio in general.
I just reminded him that I am talk radio and asked him to get that right next time he called.
You didn't say it like that.
I mean, you were just.
I thought you were rude.
I really did.
And I love you, and I listen, and so does my husband.
But there are days when I just almost have to turn you off because you just can't put up with some people, and you probably can't put up with me now either, but I had to tell you.
I think I'm doing a good job.
I've got lots of experience of this.
I'm a former husband.
Well.
Was that being rude?
No, of course not.
Oh, God.
Of course, I'm not.
All right.
Well, we're still loyal, and we will be, but please don't change.
You have taken criticism in the past.
I'm not being rude to people.
I promise you I'm not going to change.
And I'm not going to use the excuse that I'm miserable here with a horrible chest infection.
I know.
I realize.
And you know what most hosts would do in this situation?
They'd stay home.
No, most hosts would, getting a call like yours, would immediately become rude and hang up on you with great fanfare just for the showmanship of it.
But note that I am above that.
Well, I hope you feel better soon.
So do I.
And I appreciate your good wishes and your criticisms.
Well, we love you.
Thanks very much.
Bye-bye.
Torrance, California, Daniel.
Welcome.
You're next, sir.
Mr. Limbaugh.
Yeah.
Been a rush baby since I, for the last 20 years.
I don't care.
I believe my first words were Rush, actually.
Sir, I can't pull it off.
Thank you, sir.
I really appreciate it.
I just, I'm a student in Pasadena.
I'm a film student, and I wanted to let you know that you've always touched your guns, and you're also a man who doesn't really, who doesn't really back down.
And my thing that I want to know is being an artist, you are on a radio show and you say things, and people use you.
You just have that montage back there of all the things that you say.
Like we're going under the bus, and everyone's just going on about using your lingo, your words that you use.
Yeah, but let's be honest here.
Throwing somebody under the bus is not exactly a phrase I invented.
It's been around a long time.
I just happened to use it yesterday in this case, and the drive-bys did pick it up.
I mean, there's no question about that.
Well, it's good to know they're listening to you.
They'll never admit it, but we nabbed it.
We have proof on things like this.
We know they're out there.
Yeah, it's true.
Well, I've been listening to you a long time, and you actually inspired me to make a film not too long ago.
I wanted to send over a copy to you.
I guess I got to send it over to Kit or something.
Oh, yeah.
Send it to James.
Send it to Kit.
Send it to Cookie.
Send it to anybody.
Okay.
You send it to anybody, and I'll get it.
Okay.
All right.
Sounds good, Rush.
Pleasure to hear.
Okay, thanks, Daniel, very much.
I appreciate it.
How did all these people know to send you stuff?
How in the world do you know?
Who are these people?
All right, back to the news here.
What do you think of this headline?
This is from Bloomberg.
Clinton, Obama, back bigger army to blunt soft-on security slams.
Michael Dukakis' tank ride, John Kerry's Iraq flip-flop still haunt the Democrat Party.
This year's presidential candidates are aggressively working to avoid soft-on security images, keeping in mind the ridicule Republicans heaped on Dukakis for posing as a tank commander in 1988 and Kerry when he tried in 2004 to explain contradictory votes on funding for the war.
Hillary Clinton wants to add 80,000 soldiers to the Army.
Barack Obama calls for 65,000 more soldiers and 27,000 more Marines.
Joe Biden is proposing establishing local counterterrorism units in large cities.
John Edwards would double the budget for military recruiting.
All these Democrats, while striving and struggling to defeat the U.S. Army in Iraq, now claim that they want a bigger army.
They want to pull out of Iraq.
Obama wants to talk with all of our enemies, except he wants to attack Pakistan.
Hillary has no idea how to use any military except for parades in her honor and how to abuse them in the White House.
What are we going to use these things for?
What are they going to use these new?
This is typical Democrat Party BS.
And the headline is exactly right.
They're trying to blunt the soft-on security slams that they get.
And they get those slams because they are soft on security.
How could you conclude otherwise?
They are totally invested in defeat in Iraq.
And they're working.
I'll tell you what, this Petraeus report's coming out next week, and they're already working on manipulating ways to make sure that whatever is said in that report.
Bush is going to win, by the way.
It doesn't matter what they do.
Bush is going to win this again and again and again.
And the surge is going to continue going through next spring.
But they're going to do everything they can to spin this report as irrelevant or as a bunch of lies or as influenced by the White House.
There's a GAO report that's coming out first.
The Democrats are seizing on that because it has a little bit different.
General Accounting Office is coming out with a report on the surge and on progress in Iraq.
It's not as upbeat as Petraeus' report is suggesting it will be.
And so they're harping on that.
So they're making it plain, as clear as day, that they are not interested in victory here, that they are not interested in success even.
And yet, during all of this, they expect people to buy the notion that they care about U.S. national security simply because they want to add more people to the Army.
And the Marines.
I thought, by the way, that the people that joined the Army were the dregs of our society.
I mean, these people keep telling us that the members of the U.S. military did not on their luck.
They come from rotten southern neighborhoods, out-of-the-way urban neighborhoods.
There's no future there.
There's no opportunity.
There's no hope.
The only way is to join the army.
They really don't want to join the army, but it's the only way out of a horrible circumstance that living life in a country like America has presented them.
Yada, yada, yada.
So why do they want to get more people if they hate the military and they think it's such a disastrous mission and they think it's so inappropriately used?
Why in the hell do they want to expand it?
They don't.
They're just saying this because they know they are perceived as a bunch of losers, weak, inconsequential, dangerous people when it comes to U.S. national security.
Back after this.
And we are back.
Great news out there, folks.
Leonardo DiCaprio's Echo movie, what is it called?
The 11th Hour, has bombed Get This.
It's been a total bust at the box office.
18 days out there in release.
The film has grossed $417,913 in ticket sales.
I mean, why is it still out there?
$417,000 in 18 days.
Nobody is going to see this thing.
It's in fact, one Russian filmmaker, when they showed this thing to journalists, said she was the only person in the room who was awake at one point.
This movie is apparently an effective sleep aid.
It's the arrogance and the condescension of these people.
You hear about this airline, the official at Nepal, a state-run airline, they've sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bayreb, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 airlines.
Nepal, which has two Boeings, has had to suspend some services in recent weeks due to the problem.
The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu, in accordance with Hindu traditions.
Well, you know, it takes all kinds.
I mean, it's a big world out there.
And who are we to judge, ladies and gentlemen?
Who are we to be rude?
Who are we to be critical of things we just don't understand?
Those days are over for me.
I'm Mr. Tolerant now.
How about this story from Washington, D.C.?
Safety concerns after giveaway of condoms in D.C., tens of thousands of condoms provided free by the District of Columbia to curb HIV and AIDS have been returned to the health department because of complaints that their paper packaging is easily torn and could render the condoms ineffective.
Demand at two distribution sites in Southeast set up by groups combating AIDS plummeted more than 80% after the condoms in a mustard yellow and purple wrapper were introduced this year.
More than 2,000 packets a week were scooped up in mid-March, but by late May, only 400 were being given away every week.
Guess where these condoms come from?
The Chikoms.
Yes.
Mattel's had to recall third recall of toys made in China because of lead paint.
And now the Chikom condoms.
Can you imagine how upset the Chikoms are getting at all this?
You know, sitting over there.
Let me ask you a question.
Let me just ask you a pointed question.
If 9-11 had occurred in downtown Beijing and if there were two or three giant office towers bombed out of the sky by militant Islamofascists, what do you think the Chikoms would have done?
I'll tell you what would happen is there would be three hellhole fires in the Middle East, and the ChiComs would then ask questions later.
They wouldn't mess around.
Now, this kind of stuff, if we keep rejecting their goods, folks, at some point, it isn't going to be pretty.
Now, in the meantime, what do we do?
What do we do with all these defunct, flawed condoms?
Well, one thing you could do, pass them out to Mrs. Clinton for her next fundraiser.
Didn't Gary Aldrich say in his book that they used those on as Christmas tree ornaments at the White House, on the White House Christmas tree?
Inside the White House, not the national tree outside.
Here's Ann in Manhattan.
I'm glad you called, Anne.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
I'm very nervous.
This is the first time that I've called, but I've been listening to you since the late 80s.
That would be from the beginning.
Yes, and I just wanted to say that I disagree with your other caller.
I have never heard you to be insulting.
I think you are the most decent, wonderful, honorable, respectable talk show host of anyone that I have ever heard at any time.
You genuinely are a good, wonderful, decent human being.
Well, it's so sad.
I may disagree with you on something.
Like what?
Well, I just wanted to call to compliment you, and I hope you feel better.
Thank you so much.
You know what?
You know what really bothers Betty?
That's the woman you're referring to.
She's confusing.
She says I'm being rude, but what really bothers her is she doesn't understand my extreme braggadocio attempt at humor.
You know, she thinks that I'm really, really serious.
I've got a huge, just out-of-control, large ego.
And that's what I think bothers her.
And she just referred to that as being rude.
But there are a lot of misguided people who have the best of intentions, and we are tolerant of all of them here.
Back in Justice.
There's new scientific research out there, folks.
I have it right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
It says bad memories stick in our brains better than good memories do.
Now, this does not apply to me, but I'll explain the details of this research when we come back for the next hour here on the EIB network.
▲
Export Selection