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 anchor man, 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 the theme here that this notion, this conventional wisdom of inevitability for Mrs. Clinton, is it's 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 the Politico.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 uh the Reagan Democrats, these are these are white Southerners, and they lost them and they've been impugning them ever since, making fun of their religious beliefs, making fun of the fact that they're like NASCAR, uh, making fun of the fact that they got gun racks in the back of pickup trucks,
uh, that they hang around at beer taverns in Tennessee at midnight on Friday night, laugh at Barack Obama commercials or Harold Ford commercials, uh, and they've lost them, and and they've 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 uh they're they're trying to warn the Democrats about this.
There's also another, you know, this is 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.
But you know, if if 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's 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 meeting.
Politicos drive, well, they're a website.
Nobody's picking us up on television.
We 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 the black.
Yeah, that 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.
So 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, is basically nominated the next white guy in line.
In 2000, there was really not an heir apparent.
Bush, George W. Bush wisely assumed the mantle was nominated and then 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 at 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.
Well, it was it was it was comical to watch.
But as Mr. McKinnon 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 polster Celinda Lake indicates it may well be at a very severe cost.
The internal poll showed that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama trail 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 uh great indicator being the uh failure of uh Segaline 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 McKinnon 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, the majority for quite a few years.
You've got Democrats all concerned about, you know, whether people are going to vote for Hillary women, blacks, they'll vote for a uh a woman president or a black president so forth.
They're worried about this stuff.
Contrast this.
That's all that matters.
They're worried about this, and you contrast this with the uh this this this uh uh era of inevitability we seem to be in, where Mrs. Clinton is uh already anointed as the nominee and practically anointed as the president in 2008.
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 d or Nurse Ratchet or 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 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.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbo, talent on loan from God.
The epitome of morality and virtue.
An excellent role model for the youth of America.
We go to Stillwater, Oklahoma.
This is Thomas.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hey, Diddle's Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, I just wanted to say uh the whole issue with the senators and the congressman 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 it takes about ten 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 it if if it could if it only would take them ten minutes, and it's been eight days and they still don't get it, what does that tell you?
Well, it it obviously tells me they're 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.
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 their cover is gonna be, oh well, well, we didn't, you know, we didn't realize.
We didn't, you know, if if it ever comes, if they ever are held accountable, they're gonna act, they're gonna play dumb.
Who is who's gonna hold them accountable?
Well, I know you're trying.
I I'm not gonna respond to me.
They're lying about me.
You think they can't, they can't use me to hold them accountable because to them I'm lying.
I'm I'm demoralizing the troops.
I mean, they No there's an institution out there supposed to hold these people accountable.
The the journalism community, if you talk to them, exists to uh what what is this silly phrase um uh 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 and say, Oh, yeah.
Well, we're caught you here in a couple, but they're not gonna 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.
Uh 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 Colbs again.
And I had seen that last night.
And I said, I know, but Haraldo's just it's 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.
Uh well, he was a pretty good investigative reporter.
He was well back in his ABC days.
He was a great investigative reporter, and he he did he got to the bottom of things and got facts.
He went in 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 I I was I I'm 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 Haroldo 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 uh there's a lot of doubt about what Limbaugh meant.
There's a lot of doubt about what he said, and there's ambiguity.
So 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 the the secret of this is that they create the move on.org ad.
They run it in the New York Times, basically calling General Petraeus a liar, uh a traitor, and that ad emboldens Democrats in the House and the Senate who are gonna be on committees getting testimony from General Petraeus to call him a liar and a 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 they get that backfires on him.
Backfires huge.
Petraeus is loved by the people in this country.
They got the the the the the this this Petraeus thing backfired and move on.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 betrayous ad, and that's situation or circumstance, and they created this phony soldier thing.
They create both.
The ambiguity was created, Haroldo.
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 Heraldo, 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 Heroldo'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 think 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.
Heraldo said, Well, look, I you know I don't listen to move on.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, Heroldo.
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 I don't I don't I don't need Heraldo 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, uh seeking support for a liberal as a way of justifying anything.
That's baloney.
I mean, I, you know, Geraldo was over there uh drawing maps of some military location in the dirt.
Uh did anybody ask me what I thought Heroldo 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 sound bites?
I think I've done all the sound bites.
Well, not quite all the sound bites, but see.
And a couple more here I might want to get to.
Uh, but first phone calls.
Sally in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Uh, you gotta be surrounded.
Yeah, we do what we can to keep our uh heads above water, but um, I've got it.
You know what?
I've got a question for you, and then just a little comment on that point.
Um, back to your point about uh 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 has 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 Granholm, a female governor who has sticking true to her liberal principles.
She just raised the state income tax.
She's adding a six percent services tax.
This is in the state that's at the 50th in terms of growth in the union.
We have the highest unemployment, and what are these idiots doing in the state capitol?
And I've got to throw some Republicans into that too, because they went along with her.
It's 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 gonna 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, uh I've we've had so many irate Michiganders calling here since this deal was struck on Monday.
They were gonna shut down the government, but uh, you know, all I got all I gotta do is look at Washington, there's revenue pouring in the treasury in Washington, nobody ever expected to be pouring in it as a reason for it's tax cuts and then sticking with them.
But politicians, that's that's uh uh that that's no way a liberal Democrat, female or male, is gonna do that.
Uh Jennifer Granholm's doing what she was born to do, raise taxes.
She's a liberal Democrat.
Now, as to Pelosi, I don't know.
I 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 that they're talking about it, but she hasn't been saying much lately.
Right.
Uh and you may, you may be on to something about that.
Uh Pelosi, when she was elected, thought she was running that town.
And Mrs. Clinton saying at home, you know she gets at home, she's saying, Go ahead, Miss Bloy, 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 gonna end up being a drag.
I think Hillary's her biggest drag.
Uh Hillary's the biggest drag on Hillary.
You know, this this business about women voting for Hillary or not, and then Democrats, whether the country is going to vote for a black.
I mean, it's the bottom line, it's a it's simple.
It really is about whether the country wants socialism in its leaders.
You want socialists, what a socialist government is 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 start 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 it just 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 AM because FM's playing the music in uh much, much better quality, uh stay em static.
There's no reason.
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 this, we have these pollsters and these political scientists and these experts.
Look at they're already looking down the road in November of 2008, 13 months away, and they're already casting uh uh the lines in the water, how this ain't gonna work and that can't work, and Hillary can't get the black vote or white voted or Democrats can't run these two candidates because the country's 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, you know, 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 pre-vent 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'd 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 if you but Mrs. Clinton is not dynamic, she is not likable, she does not have charisma.
And she has yet been anointed.
Well, she's probably gonna 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.
Uh she's not news, she's not dynamic, she doesn't have the power of content and personality leading her anything.
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 character.
What do you think the laugh is all about?
That's another thing a 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, you like your testicles attached, you want them in my lack box.
That's how people look at her.
This This sense of inevitability.
So the the the conventional wisdom and so many things can be proven wrong with content, quality, the power of personality and individual 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've found yet, you dig deep to yourself and ask yourself that, that you'll find that's exactly what is bothering you about this.
um 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 uh in a uh piece posted yesterday at a number places Media Research Center and uh 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 colonists 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-by's 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 bag gosh, that is exactly the way the Clintons are looked at.
So she's 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 Try this headline, uh, 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 the uh if the radiation from a nuke doesn't kill you, you can get hysterical about starving.
I I just sometimes I marvel the sheer moronity that has pervaded our journalism community out there.
By the way, um, you know, 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, I'm 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.
But and that's the only reason that Reed and Harkin did what they did, Rush, is because they know the media's not going to go simply to your website and listen to your show and play the sound by the cruise.
That's true.
Well, they're on the same side for crying out loud.
Although I I gotta tell you, some of the some of the television media did not pick up uh dingy.
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 uh it hadn't been the bloodbath.
Washington Post, I 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.
Um I got a lot of requests from people to uh to replay the Clarence Thomas interview.
Now, we that that interview we made available as a podcast to uh uh self-contained contest uh podcast a couple days ago, which means you can get it either directly from our website as a podcaster through iTunes.
Uh we also put it up on rushlimbaugh.com as a free download, free, well do you listen to it free for anybody uh who wants to, you'd have to be a member.
Uh you know, one of the things I have to we took his book to number one.
He finished on 60 minutes of Sunday night number five, and by the end of Monday he was number one on Amazon.
Uh, and got past Alan Greenspan.
Uh the one of the disappointing things about this Bruhaha that has happened the last eight days, it is it has totally covered, at least on this program, a discussion of the interview with Justice Thomas and his uh and his book.
Uh it is a fabulous book.
You talk about this guy is exactly right.
It is inspirational.
This you you talk about a life of hard knocks and overcoming them.
Uh and and to be to be as uh 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 gonna say the name of the book is my grandfather's son.
And uh there are pictures in the book of uh where he graduated from Yale.
It's a hilarious picture.
Um, and and when he uh was growing up and so forth, picture of him as an alder boy.
Really, really, really powerful work uh that he wrote himself.
Uh by the way, speaking of other books, Ann Coulter's new book is out.
Uh uh 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 it's if uh if liberals something there would be Republicans, it is hilarious.
The thing is absolutely hilarious.
Uh I I've I've I've read little excerpts of she has a great column, by the way.
Her most recent column is about she's upset too that this Bruha Ha with me has covered the release of her book.
If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans.
And she's she says things that really provoked the left, like if if if we took away the right, if women weren't voters in this country, we'd never elect Democrats ever again.
Uh and of course, she's not suggesting we take the vote away, but that's how the libs believe it.
It's it's amazing how easy it is for her to pull her strings.
Uh their strings.
So that's uh if if if uh 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 uh really worth getting and 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