All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
October 4, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program now documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the time.
I am Rush Limboy and I am America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, and doctor of democracy, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Great to be with you, my friends.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I'm going to get to the bin Laden Democrat comparisons in just a second, but I want to stay on a theme here, that this notion, this conventional wisdom of inevitability for Mrs. Clinton, is another one of these attempts by everybody to just get everybody in the country, as many as possible, to accept it.
But the Democrats behind closed doors or cloakrooms or wherever they huddle together are not nearly as confident about this as they are in public.
Another story from thepolitico.com today.
The 2008 election offers the most diverse array of presidential candidates in history, but this rainbow campaign will hinge on the most durable reality of American politics.
White men matter most.
We always hear, the conventional wisdom is we hear about the gender gap, how Republicans can't get the female vote.
And I have pointed out for years that the dirty little secret of presidential politics is the white male vote.
And that's why Democrats have always, they've lost, you know, the Reagan Democrats, these are white Southerners, and they lost them.
They've been impugning them ever since, making fun of their religious beliefs, making fun of the fact that they're like NASCAR, making fun of the fact that they got gun racks in the back of pickup trucks, that they hang around at beer taverns in Tennessee at midnight on Friday night and laugh at Barack Obama commercials or Harold Ford commercials, and they've lost them, and they've been desperately trying to get them back in their weird way.
That is only half of the story, though.
Every election cycle, a new slice of the electorate, suburban mothers, church-going Hispanics, bicycling Norwegians, comes into vogue as reporters and analysts study the polls and try to divine new secrets about who wins and why in American politics.
Probably the most famous example of this is the soccer moms for Bill Clinton.
The truth is that the most important factor shaping the 2008 election will almost certainly be the same one that has been the most important in presidential elections for the past 40 years.
The flight of white male voters away from the Democrat Party.
And this is something that the Politico is, they're trying to warn the Democrats about this.
There's also another, you know, I find this interesting too.
A more powerful what-if is to imagine that Democrat nominees had succeeded in narrowing the white male gap to even the low 20s instead of the mid-20s where it is.
If they had succeeded, both Kerry and Gore would have won easily.
You know, if the Democrats ever lost the black vote, they would be finished.
You know, you can play this two ways.
If the Democrats ever lost 20% of the black vote, they would be finished.
In 2008, Democrats are assembling behind a frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, with singular problems among white men.
Polls show that her support among white men is approaching the record lows scored by Democrats during the peak of Ronaldus Magnus' popularity in the 1980s.
Some recent hypothetical matchups, which are highly fluid at this stage of a contest, showed Mrs. Clinton winning roughly a third of white males in a race against Giuliani.
In the past three decades, the only two Democrats to win the presidency, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were politicians who organized campaigns around rhetorical and ideological pitches that were designed to reassure voters skeptical of liberal values.
And there's another dirty little secret, ladies and gentlemen.
And this is even more fascinating.
Do you know what else the Democrats are concerned about?
They are really concerned about whether people in this country are indeed ready to vote for A, a woman president or B, a black president.
This is from the Washington Times.
Is the United States of America honestly ready to elect a woman or an African-American president?
Not only is that a legitimate question, it is one that haunts a number of Democrats who feel they're being rushed into making a decision that'll leave them highly vulnerable in the general election.
So I've got three stories here.
They are in the Drive By Me.
Politico's Drive.
Well, they're a website.
Nobody's picking this up on television.
We've got the Washington Times here, three stories about fears deep in the bowels of the Democrat Party and of the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's election.
Now, I know that you're thinking, Rush, come on, what do you think?
Of course the country's ready to elect a woman.
Of course the country's ready to elect a black.
I don't even think that's a question, but to the Democrats, it is.
You have to understand something.
The Democrats look at people and see the things about them that set them apart from them.
They notice sexual orientation.
They notice gender.
They notice race.
They are the ones that do this.
And they're the ones that categorize people into these groups.
You know, the real question here is America ready to elect a bunch of socialists.
That's the question.
Do we want a socialist country?
Do we want a top-heavy government that's infringing on everybody's freedoms?
That's what the Democrats don't get.
And if they want to continue to look at it as a gender or race issue, fine.
And since they do, let's continue with this story, and you will find out just to what extent they are dealing with it.
Now, this piece is written by Douglas McKinnon in the Washington Times.
He has served as a press secretary to former Senator Dole.
He was in the White House and the Pentagon.
He's also an author.
For decades, he writes, my party, the Republican Party, has basically nominated a next white guy in line.
In 2000, there was really not an heir apparent.
Bush, George W. Bush, wisely assumed the mattle was nominated and elected.
During those same decades, the Democrats would cannibalize themselves until a last man standing got the nomination.
And I remember when he's talking about these debates.
I mean, Gary Hart and Walter Mondel got into an argument and debate one night about who would get us out of the world fastest.
I'll get us out of South Africa.
Well, I'll get us out of there.
Well, I'll get us out of Timbuktu.
Well, I'll get us out of China.
And it was comical to watch.
But as Mr. McKennon says, as we approach 2008, the parties have reversed themselves now.
It's the Republicans who have no next in line and must engage in protracted and ugly infighting until a bloodied victor emerges.
And while this transpires, it seems the Democrats have decided that Hillary is their next in line with Senator Obama's a close second.
Now, shouldn't this be good news for Democrats?
Should they not rejoice in the fact that for all intents and purposes, they have their nominee while we still have to engage in months of name-calling and mudslinging?
You'd think so.
But a number of my Democrat friends privately tell me it's anything but good news, being that the Democrat Party is many times held hostage to political correctness.
My friends have no desire to publicly wonder if our nation's mature enough to elect a woman or an African American.
While common sense seems to indicate that it is a subject that has to be addressed, the Democrats and much of the media seem to be doing all they can to ignore it.
But at what cost?
A recent survey by Democrat pollster Celinda Lake indicates it may well be at a very severe cost.
The internal poll showed that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama trailed Giuliani in 31 Democrat-held House districts.
Talked about this in the last hour.
That's 31 Democrat-held House districts representing almost 20 million people where Hillary, forget the national numbers here, where Hillary trails Giuliani.
Why?
Well, there could be a lot of reasons.
For Hillary, it could be that even when Democrats take a moment to think that we had Bush for four years, Clinton for four years, or the next eight, W for the next eight, and potentially Mrs. Clinton with Bill coming back for another eight, it may just be too much.
We like our royalty, but across the pond.
These Democrats may well think that ceding the Oval Office to just two families for almost 30 years is overkill.
For Mr. Obama, it may come down to something as basic as his lack of experience.
Maybe these Democrats just don't see this young senator in the White House quite yet.
Or maybe, just maybe.
It may be something as simple as the fact that a large number of voters are not ready to vote for a woman or a black for president.
The trick that pollsters now use to try and ascertain bias is to ask the voter, okay, you are open-minded enough to vote for a woman or an African-American, but what about your neighbor?
Is your neighbor open-minded as you?
Many times the response to this question will be, no way.
I know for a fact they won't for a woman vote for a woman or a minority.
Once the pollsters have this information, they usually subtract anywhere from 10 to 15 percent from the number of those who say they will vote for a woman or a minority.
As this drama plays out, my Democrat friends feel that they are being painted into a deeper and deeper corner with no escape possible.
They feel they are powerless to stop a process that'll see them end up with a preordained nominee who will lose in the general election.
This is the third of three stories about this very subject today.
Democrat women I know openly wonder if voters can get past Hillary's polarizing politics, her liberal mindset, her love of big government, her desire to raise taxes.
But more than that, they fear that not enough American women are prepared to vote for a fellow woman, and that's been my point all along.
With the great indicator being the failure of Segoline Royale in France to get a majority of the female vote as a socialist in a socialist country.
As we race toward the selection of our nominees, the media and a Democrat leadership may not want to speculate as to what role bias against a woman or a black may play in the election, but clearly a number of rank-and-file Democrats want it discussed.
More importantly, they want it addressed while they still have a chance to affect the outcome.
Douglas McKennon in the Washington Times today.
Let's go back to one of the previous stories, and that is the white male vote.
Okay, there you go, the white male vote.
Democrats have lost it, a majority for quite a few years.
You've got Democrats all concerned about whether people are going to vote for Hillary, women, blacks, vote for a woman president or a black president, so forth.
They're worried about this stuff.
Contrast this.
That's all about it.
They're worried about this.
And you contrast this with this era of inevitability we seem to be in, where Mrs. Clinton is already anointed as the nominee and practically anointed as the president in 2008.
Now, on this business about white southern males abandoning a Democrat Party, this is why It is important, ladies and gentlemen, to continue to characterize Mrs. Clinton as a woman who reminds you of your first wife, maybe your first and second wives.
And she or Nurse Ratchet or what have you.
Point is, let them focus on their race and their female issues of whether people will vote for a black or a woman, because I don't think there's any doubt.
I think it's about policy and issues.
It always is.
This is what the Democrats don't get because they can't be honest about their policies.
They can't be honest about their issues.
They would die politically if they ever told anybody what their real plans are.
So they get distracted and all this other stuff.
The real question is whether or not the people of this country in 2008 want to elect a socialist president who will install a socialist government.
Hi, welcome back, Rush.
Limbaugh, talent on loan from God.
The epitome of morality and virtue.
An excellent role model for the youths of America.
We go to Stillwater, Oklahoma.
This is Thomas.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hey, Dittos, Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, I just wanted to say the whole issue with the senators and the congressmen going to the floor to kind of continue on your point from the man earlier that was talking about the public ignorance.
It worries me a great deal when our quote-unquote elected leaders don't have the ability to even find the truth in a story as simple as that when they take about 10 minutes.
I know they have a large staff.
I know they have a lot of people working for them.
And to me, it's another form of giving aid to the enemy.
So what does that mean?
If it only would take them 10 minutes and it's been eight days and they still don't get it, what does that tell you?
Well, it obviously tells me they're telling lies on purpose.
Aha!
So it's not a matter of them knowing.
They know.
It's not a matter of them learning.
They know.
This is a political smear.
This is how they operate.
This is not about, and I've been saying this all week, it's not about truth for them.
No, but I guess the thing that bothers me about that is, yes, they're lying, but then, you know, their cover is going to be, oh, well, we didn't, you know, we didn't realize.
We didn't, you know, if it ever comes, if they ever are held accountable, they're going to act, they're going to play dumb.
Who's going to hold them accountable?
Well, I know you're trying.
They're not going to respond to me.
They're lying about me.
You think they can't use me to hold them accountable because to them, I'm lying.
I'm demoralizing the troops.
There's an institution out there supposed to hold these people accountable.
The journalism community, if you talk to them, exists to what is this silly phrase, speak truth to power.
What that means is when people who have power over other people are abusing it and lying about it, the journalism community is supposed to go to say, oh, yeah, well, we're caught you here in a couple, but they're not going to be held accountable by the people that are supposed to because they're on the same side.
Look, I'll give you an example.
Last night, I had a lot of people.
Poor Dawn came in and the first thing she said to me, not even, hello, how are you?
Gee, you look really great today.
You smell nice, the stuff she normally says.
She came in here and she said, I am never watching Geraldo Rivera or Alan Colms again.
And I had seen that last night.
And I said, I know, but Geraldo's just, it's kind of sad.
He's become a shadow of what he once was.
I've got a lot of emails about this Geraldo.
Well, he was a pretty good investigative reporter.
He was, well, back in these ABC days, he was a great investigative reporter.
He got to the bottom of things and got facts.
This, he obviously has not even bothered to take a look.
His argument last night on all this, which I'm sitting watching this, and it's all, you, maybe you people can understand how surreal this all feels to me.
The whole incident.
I'm watching this last night, and Geraldo says, well, I'm not so sure here.
I mean, there's too much ambiguity about this.
And Hannity said, what do you mean ambiguity?
Well, there's a lot of doubt about what Limbaugh meant.
There's a lot of doubt about what he said.
There's ambiguity.
He said, Russia ought to just apologize for the confusion and this would be over.
And I'm thinking, ambiguity?
Who created the ambiguity?
Here's the secret of this is, is that they create the moveon.org ad.
They run it in the New York Times, basically calling General Petraeus a liar, a traitor.
And that ad emboldens Democrats in the House and the Senate who are going to be on committees getting testimony from General Petraeus to call him a liar and a stooge and a puppet of George W. Bush before he even opens his mouth, knowing full well he can't respond to them in ways that they are speaking to him.
Then this episode, that backfires on him.
Backfires huge.
Petraeus is loved by the people in this country.
This Petraeus thing backfired on moveon.org.
It backfired on the left.
It backfired on the Democrats in the House and the Senate.
So they huddle and they come up with this plan.
When they hear me say phony soldiers, bam, almost like it had been pre-planned, just waiting for a moment to roll it out, they roll it out.
The bottom line is this.
They created the Petraeus ad and that situation of circumstance, and they created this phony soldier thing.
They create both.
The ambiguity was created, Heraldo.
There is no ambiguity.
I said what I said about specific people, made it very clear about whom I was speaking.
There's no ambiguity.
And I didn't say what I didn't say.
And Geraldo, they don't get to determine for you what I said.
And they don't get to determine what I was thinking, which they're also trying to do.
This is the loss of meaning.
So Geraldo's solution to this, beyond telling me, just apologize for the confusion.
I didn't create the confusion.
They did on purpose.
There was no confusion.
And now they're saying I said things I didn't say.
I meant things I didn't mean.
When it's clear, they took two words and amplified it now to hundreds and thousands of words for an eight-day little controversy.
Geraldo said, well, look, I don't listen to moveon.org, and I'm not going to listen to Rush.
Lumping me on the right extreme with move on on the left, which is a cop-out, Geraldo.
You're an investigative journalist.
Your job's to get the truth.
You got your own show that people are watching.
They're not going to believe anything you say anymore.
All right.
Here we are back having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, exceeding my quota today.
Don't misunderstand, folks.
I don't need Geraldo Rivera's advice.
I didn't ask for it either.
I don't need anybody else's advice.
The idea that I have to have a liberal say that what I said is okay, seeking support for a liberal as a way of justifying anything, that's baloney.
I mean, Geraldo was over there drawing maps of some military location in the dirt.
Did anybody ask me what I thought, Geraldo, when you were doing that?
No.
And you wouldn't have cared either, no matter what I had said, about you drawing maps of some military location in the dirt on television.
They all want to be me.
Don't smirk in there, Dawn.
You know this is the case.
You know it's true.
Who have soundbites?
I think I've done all the soundbites.
Well, not quite all the soundbites, but let's see.
And a couple more here I might want to get to.
But first, phone calls.
Sally in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
You got to be surrounded.
Yeah, we do what we can to keep our heads above water.
But I've got it.
You know what?
I've got a question for you, and then just a little comment on that point.
Back to your point about Clinton's prospects for getting into the White House.
The question is, to what extent do you think Pelosi is acting as a drag on Clinton's prospects?
In other words, Pelosi is a scary dress rehearsal for having a freaky female in the White House.
Santa, here's a woman saying this.
This is what scares the hell out of Democrats.
Well, not only that, I'm living in a state where we have Jennifer Grandholm, a female governor, who is sticking true to her liberal principles.
She just raised the state income tax.
She's adding a 6% services tax.
This is in the state that's the 50th in terms of growth in the union.
We have the highest unemployment.
And what are these idiots doing in the state capital?
And I've got to throw some Republicans into that, too, because they went along with her.
It's spend, spend, spend, and tax, tax, tax.
And all you have to do is look at Michigan, and you know what you're going to get if that Hillary woman gets into the White House, which I don't think she will, and I pray she won't.
Your question about, well, first, we've had so many irate Michiganders calling here since this deal was struck on Monday.
They were going to shut down the government.
But, you know, all I got to do is look at Washington.
There's revenue pouring into the Treasury in Washington.
Nobody ever expected to be pouring in it as a reason for.
It's tax cuts and it's sticking with them.
But politicians, that's there's no way a liberal Democrat, female or male, is going to do that.
Jennifer Grandholm's doing what she was born to do, raise taxes.
She's a liberal Democrat.
Now as to Pelosi, I don't know.
I thought at one point that Pelosi could be a drag on Hillary because Hillary has been trying to stay in the center, avoid substantive answers on anything, so as to avoid being portrayed as a liberal, which is death.
Now, Pelosi is the exact opposite.
Pelosi is a full-fledged liberal, is proud of it.
Now they're talking about it, but she hasn't been saying much lately.
And you may be onto something about that.
Pelosi, when she was elected, thought she was running that town.
And Mrs. Clinton saying at home, if she gets at home, she's saying, go ahead, Miss Boyle, you think you're running this town.
I'll show you who's running this town in a few short months.
I don't know whether she's going to end up being a drag.
I think Hillary is her biggest drag.
Hillary's the biggest drag on Hillary.
You know, this is about women voting for Hillary or not, and then Democrats, whether the country is going to vote for a black.
Let me say, bottom line, it's simple.
It really is about whether the country wants socialism in its leaders.
You want socialists?
You want a socialist government?
It's about this, this race stuff.
We are so past that, and we're so past the women thing.
The Brits have elected Margaret Thatcher.
The world is used to successful women leaders.
This is just the way that Democrats look at things.
Let me sternly point something out to me.
Let me use myself as an example here.
I started this program in 1988.
And all businesses, this is not a criticism of anybody.
It's an illustration.
In 1988, there was no such thing as the successful syndicated radio program in the daytime.
Additionally, there was no such thing as a radio talk show at any time that did not have guests.
And all of the experts, the people that study ratings and all that sort of stuff in radio, all of these people wished me well, but they said this isn't going to happen.
Well, of course, both have happened.
The most successful syndicated radio show in history, long form, is in the daytime, and it has no guests, rarely has guests.
And it has spawned and saved.
There was another thing, AM radio's on the way out.
No reason to listen to A.M. because FM's playing the music in much, much better quality.
Stay em static.
There's no reason to AM.
AM is thriving.
So all the conventional wisdom went down the tubes, and it went down the tubes on the power of content.
It went down the tubes on the strength of content.
Quality.
People listen to this program because it's a good show.
They like listening to it.
It offers them lots of things.
Well, politics is the same way.
We have these pollsters and these political scientists and these experts.
And look, if they're already looking down the road in November of 08, 13 months away, and they're already casting lines in the water, how this ain't going to work and that can't work.
And Hillary can't get the black vote or white vote.
Democrats can't run these two candidates because the country is still racist, sexist, and bigoted and so forth.
And that's how they look at the country.
I guarantee you, if Margaret Thatcher had been an American and had run for president at the time she was elected prime minister in Great Britain, she would have won in this country.
If, and had their timing been different than Reagan, if somebody like Justice Thomas ever wanted to run for president, I guarantee you he would win the White House.
It's about content and quality.
It's about the power of personality and leadership.
And Mrs. Clinton is not exhibiting any.
Mrs. Clinton's gone into prevent defense, folks.
Mrs. Clinton's avoiding tough questions.
She's sitting comfortably with this national 33-point lead over Giuliani.
And if you believe that, you know, then I've got a couple things I'd like to sell you.
It doesn't mean anything right now, that poll.
None of these polls mean anything.
But Mrs. Clinton is not dynamic.
She is not likable.
She does not have charisma.
And she has yet been anointed.
Now, she's probably going to win the nomination.
But that's not even a slam dunk yet because not a vote's been cast.
But she's no slam dunk for the White House.
She's not new.
She's not dynamic.
She doesn't have the power of content and personality leading her.
She's trying to hide all of that.
Well, she's trying to hide the content because she doesn't have any.
Or it's dangerous to her if her genuine content got out there.
Start the other stuff.
She really doesn't have much care.
What do you think the laugh is all about?
That's another thing that Democrats are worried about is that laugh.
They really are.
They ought to be.
That laugh is not normal.
And it doesn't happen at normal times.
It doesn't happen when there are things that are funny to laugh about.
That's weird.
That laugh is just odd.
It's uncomfortable.
And everybody has a feeling about it when they hear it.
Wait a minute.
Why is she laughing?
There's nothing funny about the question that she was just asked.
She laughs because she doesn't like the question.
A laugh is a signal to the guy that asked the question, do you like your testicles attached?
You want them in my lack box?
That's how people look at her.
This sense of inevitability.
So the conventional wisdom on so many things can be proven wrong with content, quality, the power of personality in an individual.
And that's, I mean, admit it, folks.
Isn't that what we're all looking for here?
That we don't think we've got?
That we don't think we found yet.
If you dig deep to yourself and ask yourself that, you'll find that's exactly what is bothering you about this.
Let's see.
I've got, I referenced this story earlier.
Here's a great example of Mrs. Clinton not taking on serious questions and issues and purposely setting it up so she doesn't have to.
Brent Bozell, in a piece posted yesterday at a number of places, Media Research Center and newsbusters.org.
Hillary Clinton's Sunday morning interview Blitz, September 23rd, was explored the other day on CNN's Reliable Sources show.
Why do the media pine for her so?
Michelle Cottle of the New Republic gave the typical liberal answer.
She's a celebrity.
She and Bill have passed some point where they're no longer just politicians, they're rock stars.
So to media groupies, if you're rock stars, you're rock stars.
No questions asked, and you're qualified to do whatever you want to do and get away with whatever you want to try to get away with.
There's absolutely no doubt that liberals really do think of the Clintons in rock star terms, and the objective media have not merely treated them that way with a long-running assembly line of dazzling profiles and shoe-polishing interviews.
On CNN, Washington Post reporter Ann Kornblut explained that Hillary always picks her targets in the media in a very calculating way.
When she decided to talk to the Washington Post, she picked columnists that she wanted to speak to.
She hasn't done interviews with the beat reporters, for example.
And this is not just true of the Washington Post.
It's true everywhere.
And it's worked to her benefit so far, but it's a very specific strategy.
So here's an example of a reporter who's being dodged.
Ann Kornblut will not get an interview with Hillary.
That's fine with Ann Kornblut because she thinks the strategy is masterful.
So this is allowing Hillary to assume things about herself that aren't true, that she's running away with everything.
I mean, the drive-bys do love her.
This rock star analogy of Bozell's is brilliant.
It does explain why they're treated the way they are.
Look, rock stars, that's a specific analogy.
Rock stars get away with trashing hotel rooms.
They get away with all kinds of reprobate behavior.
And they're still loved, admired, adored, and looked up to in groupy fashion.
And by gosh, that is exactly the way the Clintons are looked at.
So she's hiding.
She's gone into her prevent defense.
We have a saying in football: the prevent defense prevents one thing: victory.
Be right back after this.
Stay with us.
I'm going to get to these bin Laden and Democrat comparisons, Democrat talking point comparisons tomorrow.
Not enough time to do it now.
Let me put this on this stack over here where it'll be there tomorrow when I get in, hopefully.
Try this headline, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from, what's this from?
This is from discoverthenetworks.org.
Nuclear war between India and Pakistan could trigger mass starvation.
Really?
You mean the ones that weren't fried might starve to death afterwards?
I guess if the radiation from the nuke doesn't kill you, you can get hysterical about starving.
I just sometimes I marvel to the sheer moronity that has pervaded our journalism community out there.
By the way, I think it's funny.
Hillary Clinton goes out there.
She can pick, without objection, she can pick reporters that she wants to speak to.
Yet George W. Bush was interviewed by Juan Williams of the Fox News Channel.
He also works in NPR.
NPR refused to run one Williams interview with George W. Bush because Bush picked Williams for the interview.
But Hillary is praised for picking reporters.
This is a grand strategy that she's exceedingly doing well with.
Here's Vincent in Potomac, Maryland.
Hey, Vincent, thank you for a call.
Rush, after listening to your interview of Justice Thomas and being in utter awe of his character and feeling so proud to have him in my Supreme Court, you ended that interview, Rush, with a half hour left to go on your show.
You came back from that interview and you played the sound bites of low-voiced, monotone-voiced, heathen Reed.
And I went from feeling so proud of my country, Rush, to feeling so depressed about my country.
And Rush, may I mention the name of a blog?
The name of a blog.
Yeah, Mediareform.com, Rush.
If we take on the media, these things will stop because the media didn't come down on Reed.
The media didn't come down on Harkin.
And that's the only reason that Reed and Harkin did what they did, Rush, is because they know the media is not going to go simply to your website and listen to your show and play the soundbite.
That's true.
They've got, well, they're on the same side for crying out loud.
Although, I got to tell you, some of the television media did not pick up Dinga.
The cables did, but the broadcast nets have pretty much stayed away from this.
They covered a little bit, but it hasn't been the bloodbath.
Washington Post, I don't think, has written about it yet.
New York Times wrote about it yesterday in a typical Media Matters prepared press release, disguised as a news story.
I got a lot of requests from people to replay the Clarence Thomas interview.
Now, that interview we made available as a podcast to self-contained podcast a couple days ago, which means you can get it either directly from our website as a podcast or through iTunes.
We also put it up on rushlimbaugh.com as a free download.
Well, you can listen to it free for anybody who wants to.
You don't have to be a member.
You know, one of the things, we took his book to number one.
He finished on 60 Minutes of Sunday Night No. 5.
And by the end of Monday, he was number one on Amazon and got past Alan Greenspan.
One of the disappointing things about this brouhaha that has happened the last eight days, it has totally covered, at least on this program, a discussion of the interview with Justice Thomas and his book.
It is a fabulous book.
You talk about, this guy is exactly right.
It is inspirational.
You talk about a life of hard knocks and overcoming them and to be as humble as he remains, soft-spoken, but full of fun and good cheer.
He's got one of the most infectious laughs that you have ever heard.
The name of the book, yeah, I was just going to say, the name of the book is My Grandfather's Son.
And there are pictures in the book of where he graduated from Yale.
It's a hilarious picture.
And when he was growing up and so forth.
Picture of him as an alder boy.
Really, really, really powerful work that he wrote himself.
By the way, speaking of other books, Ann Coulter's new book is out.
Somebody get the name of the, I don't want to get the name wrong.
Somebody get the name of this real quick.
It's if liberals, something that would be Republicans.
It is hilarious.
The thing is absolutely hilarious.
I've read little excerpts of it.
She has a great column, by the way.
Her most recent column is about, she's upset too that this brouhaha with me has covered the release of her book.
If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans.
And she says things that really provoke the left, like if we took away the right, if women weren't voters in this country, we'd never elect Democrats ever again.
And of course, she's not suggesting we take the vote away, but that's how the libs believe it.
It's amazing how easy it is for her to pull her strings, their strings.
So that's if Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans.
It's Ann Coulter's new book.
There's a lot of books out there right now that are really worth getting and reading and more on the way.
I've got to take a timeout here, folks.
We'll come back.
We'll wrap it up after this.
Well, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can, all three hours soon to be taken by Armored Courier, a super secret location housing all future artifacts, well, artifacts for the future Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
It's been a gas, folks.
It's been a blast, and we'll do it tomorrow, Open Line Friday.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection