All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
October 17, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's coming up.
Give me time.
It's a three-hour show.
Did you mention this?
Did you mention that?
Right as the theme music starts.
Hey, I gotta check the I gotta check the eBay page because it's being hounded by staff.
Hang on just a second here.
Well, I don't trust you to tell me the truth about it.
All right, we're still at $65,100.
You're gonna report something, you gotta know it yourself.
$65,100.
Uh well, there was bidding during the show earlier in the week.
We're up to $65.
That's that's not an insignificant sum.
Uh and I I know what's happening here.
It was when I when I went to bed uh early this morning, uh, the uh the total was at 56-1, and I checked it this morning as it's 65.
So it went up $9,000 overnight.
You're right, it does go up, and we're not around here.
What does that say?
Any rate, we got two days to go on this, and it's up to this level now that the people aren't going to be adding a hundred bucks to it.
Uh I I think the the the big money that wants this, and it could be any number, it could be Soros, could be somebody from Dingy Harry staff, DNC.
Uh, whoever uh is gonna wait till the last minute to avoid having to pay more for it than because they don't look at this as a charitable donation, those those guys.
Of course we're gonna reveal a winner.
We'll reveal the winner.
We get special plans to make a public presentation about this.
Thinking about the Capitol Steps.
Haven't decided on that for sure.
Don't quote me.
Uh maybe at Arlington Cemetery.
Don't quote me.
We got plans uh for this.
Working on a number of different ways to actually present the letter uh to the uh to the eventual high bidder.
The the money, of course, goes to the uh Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, who provides scholarships for the children of Marines and law enforcement officers, federal law enforcement officers killed in action.
Um the auction goes for, like I say, another another two days, but we've made a copy of the letter, full color copy of Dingy Harry's letter plus all three signature pages available at Rush Limbaugh.com as a PDF document.
You can just download it.
Il Fribo.
You don't have to give a donation.
You can if you want.
We've got a link right there at the Rush Limbaugh.com, take you right to the M. Clef website.
If you want to.
Um Yeah, you can see it though.
The the full color copy has both of the flaws.
There are two flaws on page two.
And I mentioned this earlier in the week.
Um we we have the it it we the way it is, the way we have it is the way we got it.
And there's a little under the under the uh the closing paragraph on the of the letter on the second page, it looks like a an ink pen.
Bullpoint ink mark.
Uh like some aging senator who wasn't sure where the signature line was for him.
Uh made a mark.
And then there's this yellow smudge.
It looks like a highlight mark, which uh on page two, which we're taking bets that Senator Kennedy was eating a hot dog uh when he signed, and uh that's why it's there.
But no, you can see if you if you really, depending on the size of your monitor, you don't have to enlarge it to see the yellow thing, but if you do enlarge it, uh you you can't miss it.
Uh those are the only two things uh that that are there that uh but they're part of it.
I mean they add to the authenticity of the of the whole thing.
Now it's on, it's it's not on white paper, so the copies are definitely cop Scott, did you figure out what the problem is with the main uh mail server?
Good.
Lots of things going on here today at the uh at the EIB network.
How about you g this story from a UK independent?
One of the world's most eminent scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary controversy.
Started last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people, and the idea that equal powers of reason were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, according to this scientist.
He is a pioneer in DNA.
He has won a Nobel Prize.
Well, duh.
Name is James Watson, Nobel Prize winner for his part in the Unraveling of DNA, who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for his speaking tour at venues, including the Science Museum of London.
He's 79 years old.
He's a geneticist.
He reopened this whole thing about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies toward African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when testing suggests the contrary.
He claimed that genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
And that they will be different by race.
Now this is not his first brush with a controversy.
In 1997, 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.
He later insisted he was talking about a hypothetical choice which could never be applied.
Oh, I have often wondered what's going to happen when gene science progresses to the point that they're going to be able to tell you not just that your kid may be gay, but it's going to be fat, torn to obesity, redheaded freckles, and so forth, and apparently, I wouldn't want to bring a child into the world like that.
You're going to see the fastest turnaround from pro-choice to pro-life.
If they ever find this gay gene, if there is one, you wait.
And this guy alluded to it here.
People like him are trying to find it.
That's what the geneticists do.
He later insisted, of course, he's hypothetical choice.
He also suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos.
He argued in favor of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that stupidity could one day be cured.
He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying people say it'd be terrible if we made all girls pretty.
I think it'd be great, he said.
This guy won a Nobel Prize.
I guess he got a Nobel Prize in uh in the science.
Now, this goes.
You gotta wonder about this guy.
He's 79 years old, so that that may be one factor here.
If you think this you gotta be careful who you say this kind of political correctness does not allow this kind of, hey, this is what I think.
I'm in this business, this is my business, genetics is this is what I think.
Doesn't allow this.
This guy, I have they ever taken a Nobel away from anybody.
I'm not aware of it either.
By the way, folks, before we go to the uh the first break here.
Uh this is so cool.
This is so, so classic.
We are, folks, we are winning.
I don't care what anybody says, we are winning.
In fact, I've got two stories to illustrate how we are winning.
Here's the first.
Chances of a U.S. resolution calling the mass killings of Armenians that began in 1915 genocide eroded dramatically yesterday as sponsors dropped off in droves.
Senior Democrats urged Pelosi to abandon her support.
The number of lawmakers supporting, and they're not going to have the votes to override the president's S chip video either.
And so Pelosi's, she just so bent out of shape, she just had it, she's blaming the Senate for this.
She blaming the not the not the Armenian thing, but she's blaming the Senate for not having the guts to do anything.
Everything over there is languishing.
She's got all these great contributions that she's made as speaker in the House Democrats, have all these great accomplishments and achievements, but the Senate's slowing them down.
So she's she's just she's throwing the you know the mud over there across the chamber at Dingy Harry.
Everybody's, everybody's just climbing on Dingy Harry, and her climbing on her too, but she's trying to deflect it all.
Uh the number of lawmakers supporting the bill, the Armenian resolution is genocide thing, slipped below a majority as four more withdrew from the legislation.
The White House opposes that this is the thing that nobody will convince me otherwise, that the Democrats of leadership of the House did this as a way of interrupting supply routes to the troops in Iraq.
This is the thing that Turkey has said.
You you guys passed this resolution.
You're messing with a friendly ally here.
You're using our country to get supplies material to the troops.
We're going to attack the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Screw you.
This is how you treat your allies.
And the president says, don't do this.
They said we found some alternative supply lines and routes, but so forth.
But silly to do this.
Nobody will convince me that this was not a stealth way, a cowardly way of affecting negatively the success happening in Iraq vis-a-vis the surge.
Because everybody is now acknowledging it.
The death tolls are down, Al Qaeda is on the run.
And the Democrats politically cannot afford victory.
They cannot, they cannot afford the perception of it.
They are so invested in defeat.
They can't share in a victory, and they know they can't because they've never been on the side of winning.
So if we do win, or if there's really positive news, there's no way Democrats with credibility can say we helped.
We supported it.
They can't show up at any of the ceremonies welcoming the troops home because they've tried to undermine them.
So this was a stealth way, and it's falling apart, and it's falling apart because we had the guts and the courage to tell the American people what this was all about.
There's a reason why a bunch of Democrats are dropping off this thing like flies.
And that is that there are some adults somewhere in that party who know it's suicide to be associated with turning around victory in the middle of it, or altering the success that is taking and turning it negative.
There's a price for that that they don't want to pay.
So what Pelosi has been advised to do, senior Democrats, get this.
Urging Pelosi, who, by the way, who has a large population of ethnic Armenians in her district, just to declare victory with the committee votes and move away from the issue.
And they this first was passed in a committee, then it goes to the full house, and that's where it's been bottled up.
They want, they look just going to declare victory.
You got your committee vote, declare victory, and then move on.
This is not a victory.
This is another public humiliation.
This is another defeat for Pelosi, who made a big deal about trying to lead her House Democrats to get this done, and she can't get it done.
Okay, here's another story about how we're winning.
And actually, there's a there's uh maybe a there's maybe four of them altogether.
Here's the second story about how we're winning.
Morgan Stanley, the second biggest shareholder in the New York Times company, sold its entire stake today.
According to a person briefed on the transaction, a transaction, this sent the stock price at the New York Times Company to its lowest level in more than 10 years.
That would be a decade for those of you in Rio Linda.
The person declined to be identified because Morgan Stanley hasn't made the sale public yet.
Traders with knowledge of the transaction said that Merrill Lynch and Company sold New York Times stock worth 183 million dollars in a block trade.
Now it has been known that Hassan El Mazri, the managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, has unsuccessfully challenged the Schultzberger family's control over the New York Times through super voting shares that give them control over the board.
Shareholders owning 42% of the company, uh, which is the parent of the namesake newspaper to Boston Globe, withheld support from directors at the publisher's April annual meeting.
What this means is there's two two classes of stock, as I understand it at the New York Times.
The family owns one class, and nobody else who owns any of the other class has any votes on the board.
And so they're not gonna lose control of paper.
But this little pinch is driving the price down of the stock.
This is not gonna make the family happy.
This is this is the family's legacy.
So little pinch maybe end up being in some trouble at some point, but I the the family will is not gonna lose this paper.
There's a conservative pipe dream that all this is gonna lead to the family losing the paper.
They're not gonna sit by and just let this continue to happen.
Um another story about how we're winning.
Bill Clinton's got this book.
What's this book?
Um giving.
Clinton has a book on charity, which is basically how you give to him so that he can give to charity, so that he can look like he cares.
And there were 750,000 copies of this book in the first printing, ladies and gentlemen, it has sold around 56 or 57,000.
The book has tanked with 750,000 copies, so at least 650 to 700,000 unsold.
Eh, eh, eh, eh, eh, eh.
And there's another one, the S Chip program.
Even the New York Times.
Children's health bill dispute turns to income limits.
This story is all about admitting to the facts of my argument and a lot of other people that we've been making here that the people that the Democrats are trotten out to sell this massive expansion of the program are qualified as the uh already as the program is currently constituted.
And the president brought this up in the uh in his press conference.
Let me see, I've got a I've got soundbite roster here of the uh of the president.
Uh well, I'm looking at no S chip.
Let's go to 18.
Uh President Bush held a new news conference today that this morning, uh he really he really ate Pelosi's lunch in this press conference, by the way.
But here's what he said about the S chip program.
I made it abundantly clear why I have vetoed the bills.
I find it interesting that when Americans begin to hear the facts, they understand the rationale behind the veto.
First of all, there are 500,000 children who are eligible for the current program who aren't covered.
And so to answer your question on how far I'm willing to go, I want to provide enough money to make sure those five hundred thousand do get covered.
That ought to be the focus of our efforts.
And I look forward to working with the Congress if my veto is upheld.
To focus on those who are supposed to be covered.
Yeah, so the and the New York Times story goes on and uh talks about how the uh uh the the the income limits here are are what's really at work here.
You know, the federal limit is sixty-two thousand families of four sixty-two thousand, but states have the uh permission, because it's the state children's health insurance program.
States are not prohibited from setting an eighty-two thousand dollar income level for a family of four.
And this is just uh absurd.
And the president made it clear in his press conference today that you know this this uh this program is is being taken way beyond its original intention, and it's gonna cost way more than anybody ever said I'm not gonna sign it.
And so um Democrats this has been an interesting ten days.
They're really taking a lot on the chin.
They can't get they want an Iraq, they can't get their S chip thing done, they couldn't do their Armenian thing.
Dingy Harry Smear letter backfired, big time.
Uh and that's why I say they're they're they're it's almost like the Republicans are more effective when they're in the minority.
It's not that we're getting anything good done.
I understand we are preventing a whole lot of bad stuff.
And I've always maintained the Republicans were in the minority for so long they were much better at being in the minority than they were in the majority.
Anyway, that's for another time.
People have been patiently waiting.
This is Brian in Chicago.
Hello, sir, and welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
And uh, you know, I I love your optimism, but I gotta tell you, from a guy coming from Chicago, I'm mad as hell.
You were talking earlier about people being happy and upset with their being happy and upset with their with their you know personal lives.
Yeah, yeah.
And me myself, I'm perfectly happy with my life.
I do love my city of Chicago.
I love the lake, I love everything going out in my life.
But when it comes to the government, as anybody in the town can tell you, it's it's ridiculous.
Between governor, we have Rod uh Blagufovich is the governor here, we have uh uh Todd Stroger in Cook County, and then of course Mayor Daly in Chicago.
And it seems like whenever problems come up, the only possible answer is we need to raise taxes.
There's nothing else we can possibly do, nothing else can be cut, no way around it, taxes have to go up.
Well Welcome to Democrats.
You need you need to go next door, talk to people in Michigan.
Why is that?
Well, that's statewide in Michigan, you're just dealing with Chicago.
Of course, state of Illinois is probably pretty high tax, too.
But I I the we got budget fiscal problems, raise taxes.
Never ask whether the government can do less with less.
Never never take that into account.
It's just these are Democrats.
This is what they do, this is how they do it.
Asking for more money, Bay, there's uh there's a vote going on in the city uh uh whether or not they're gonna ban smoking in all of the uh uh the beaches and uh and the recreational parts in the city.
I'm not a smoker myself, but still all I see is taxes going up and people's rights going away.
And it's it it depresses a person, Rush.
It makes me sad.
Well, no, no, I look I total look at uh I I understand when you when your taxes go up and I understand when your freedoms are in cr I Yeah, but maybe I look at I I I I understand.
When they start intruding on your life this way, and and that's what I said.
When they start getting involved in the private sector and interrupting things and screwing things up there when the private sector would include you, uh and your and your personal finances.
No, I I didn't mean to mislead you about this.
I know I know exactly your frustration, and I share it, and I wish more and more people would because getting rid of these kind of people from elective office is the only way it's going to change.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Hell Rushbow, Lowy loving hearing myself say what I say, because I always love hearing anybody be right.
A couple of uh stories, both from the left coast, one from San Francisco, one from Los Angeles.
Let's do let's do Los Angeles first, and we'll get to your phone calls here at Ilquico.
Uh poverty line out of touch with costs, advocates say.
A report by the California budget project estimates that a two-parent working family in Los Angeles needs $74,000 a year to make ends meet.
Which what what are they saying?
That should be the new poverty line.
A person working full-time for the state's minimum wage of $750 an hour earns $15,600 annually.
Oh, that's more than your social security recipients receive today.
You're gonna get starting in uh January, $13,000 a year.
But a single adult in Los Angeles needs to make twenty-eight thousand one hundred and twenty-six dollars a year to live modestly, while a single parent needs sixty-two thousand dollars, according to the California Budget Project, a policy group behind the report being released today.
A two-parent family in Los Angeles with one working member needs fifty-one thousand, while a two-working parent family needs seventy-four thousand forty-four dollars a year.
The uh report.
Calculated.
Calculations are based on families who do not receive health care through employment, rent rather than own real estate, and have a car.
Ah, you see, if you read far enough here, and you don't have to read very far, you see what's really uh all this is about.
You gotta heavy health care, Mr. Limba.
They don't have any health care.
It's the bad thing.
It's good people, but it's any health care.
We need Hillary Healthcare.
What this is all about.
Plain and simple.
The standard of living envisioned is more than a bare bones existence, the report says, yet it covers only basic expenses, allowing little to no room for extras like college savings, vacations, or emergencies.
The report really points off the uh need for health care reform, said Anel Grajeta, the president of the services employees or service employees international union local 721.
Uh that part of our everyday life should be taken care of.
Well, of course.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
That health care should be taken care of.
Can they?
Absolutely right.
Yes.
But you can't even at 74 grand a year with a family of four, you can't afford it.
But you could be on the SCIP program.
If the Democrats got their way.
See, this is so insidious.
Out of the San Francisco Chronicle, a Bay Area couple with two kids can't make it on $50,000 a year.
And of course, we start out with an example.
Maria Frias thinks of herself as middle class.
She works as an office manager for Bay Area Legal Aid.
Damn.
Get a real job.
She draws a salary of about $27,000 a year.
Her husband Ricardo drives a laundry truck and takes it about $26,000.
Well, have him work for legal aid.
You you'd uh you'd you'd you'd increase your your your your annual thousand.
But all they can afford is a $750 a month one bedroom apartment in San Francisco's Excelsior neighborhood.
They sleep in the same room as their daughters.
Uh there are two of them.
They have no phone, and Frias has to set aside about $400 a month to pay off credit card balance that went into collection.
So hard.
I'm falling behind.
Hard truth is that $53,000 a year doesn't cut it anymore in the Bay Area.
Tens of thousands of working families in the region, even those with what many would consider decent paying jobs, find a modestly comfortable.
This is this is not a secret.
You know, everybody talks about real estate prices and so forth.
They have been higher in San Francisco than even in New York at times in the last 15 or 20 years.
It's just totally ridiculous.
A family of four in a Bay Area with two working adults must earn $77,069.
What is it in LA?
$74,000 $44 is a $70.
You need three grand a year more in San Francisco for your family of four just to pay for basic necessities.
A study released today calcul.
Oh, well, looky here.
It's a California budget project again.
Why it's in two different newspapers.
Now, granted, it's a California story.
Isn't this amazing?
Uh, ladies and gentlemen.
So uh well, let me see.
Where's the health care reference in this story?
Yep, there it is.
Child health care.
Read the story part up, you'll find out what this is really all about.
Andrew in Sacramento, I'm glad you called.
Thanks for the program.
Doc for the call.
Jiu Jitsu Ditto's rush.
Thank you very much, sir.
You know, when this uh phony soldier thing started, I thought it was going to be another good example of how Republicans are great on defense.
And what you're showing is this new model of how you can not just block the pass down at the line of scrimmage.
You're not just intercepting the pass, you're actually returning it for a touchdown.
And it's it we need a strategist like Lee Atwater to pick up on this model and start scoring on defense instead of just preventing stuff.
Um you've you've you've you're raising a can of worms here because you know, I don't like talking about myself.
Listen to you.
We love you out here.
No, but wait, this this is I've had a lot of people ask me.
Uh I I have not wanted to get into the but you've had a call, I've got to answer this some.
I don't want to say just, yeah, good good point and move on.
Uh but uh Andrew, hang on here just a second.
Okay.
Uh people have asked me, aren't you afraid?
Scott, don't leave.
It's the rush at EIB Net.com account, not the RHT.
It's the it's the RTP county.
It's the R it's anyway.
How come are you are you not worried what they're going to do to you?
No, I'm not.
That's the point.
I think that you know, your your desire for uh the Republicans to do jujitsu, in order to do something like this, you this is I don't like say this.
I just I just don't like something.
You know, you know when the You can't you can't you can't be afraid.
Look at on this.
What was it that gave me the foundation, the if you want to say the strength, the the impetus, the drive, the ambition to do it.
There were two things.
A they were lying through their teeth, demonstrably so, they were wrong.
I didn't do anything, other people made up something I didn't say.
They said that I said it.
These guys all bought it and go to the Senate floor to denounce me.
They are attempting to disrupt my business.
I am not going to sit here and let that happen.
I'm also not going to sit on the radio and start whining and moaning about it and so forth.
We had the chance to get that original letter.
This is this is just throwing it right back at them.
The second thing that you have to be able to do with something like this.
My case, I've got 20 million people who are willing to support me and sustain me through All of these controversies, they have not been affected by all of these lies and distortions and smears.
So I'm confident that what I do here is going to be understood and supported, and I'm also confident, which with well, the confidence is what allows me to go into this thing without being afraid of what's going to happen.
Now, when you talk about Republicans in Washington, I think that one of the big problems that they've had is that they're afraid of it backfiring because they don't have the media on their side.
I can't tell you, and this is understandable.
I can't tell you the number of times Republicans have said I'd be I'd love to go out there and say X about whatever Democrat idea, but I won't get covered.
I'll call a press conference, the media will show they won't report what I said.
And and in large part they're right, but there are ways to overcome that.
See, I have an advantage.
I don't need the media to report what I said.
I am the media.
I am the record.
So uh I don't I think they all they all see it.
There's there's another, Andrew, there's another aspect of this that has a bit of a downside, too.
And I think that this was a little on display in a campaign, the November 6th elections.
I think that a lot of Republicans, elected Republicans, have begun to rely on the fact that talk radio is going to take the Democrats on for them, so they don't have to.
Now, I didn't want to say any of this, but I figure I had to say it to you since you brought it up and you called about it.
Andrew.
Yeah.
I think I think you're right.
Of course you're right.
Yes.
Well, it's just we the only example of offense we've seen uh that I can think of is that contract with America.
And what you want to do is you gotta get on the offense, and if the only opportunity for us to get on the offense is to pull the jiu-jitsu type move on, then we gotta we gotta we gotta bust that out.
That's an excellent point, too.
A lot of people ask, why don't you go on TV to explain this?
Because I would immediately be on the defensive.
I've got nothing to explain.
They're asking the wrong people to appear on TV.
Now, I'll go on TV now to explain the auction and so forth, but last week I'm not gonna go on television to get my side to this.
There aren't two sides to this.
There is what happened.
And the other side, if they want to say there is one, was a total lie and made up.
Well, if I go on television and accept the premise that there are two sides to this, I can't help but be on defense.
And I'm not gonna be on defense ever, but especially on this.
So I don't go.
Uh and uh uh with with that that I think the lesson here is we we've got to stop accepting the premise of so much of what the Democrats and the Liberals put forth policy-wise or whatever, because the reaction is always on the defensive.
And frankly, you know, uh Republicans are playing pretty good defense right now with all of these things going on.
Then they're showing some guts in being defensive in stopping these things.
Uh but when you have your chance at power, when you win the majority, you've got to be able to go on offense and implement some things.
And I think they still remain a defensive attitude, largely brought on by fear that the media is gonna rip them to shreds and so forth, which is a real concern for them because uh, especially in the House, they run for re-election every two years.
And the media can create stories that create opponents' opportunities for on TV ads that are that are full of smears and lies as well.
Uh and those things I'm not uh shackled by, because I'm not an elected official.
But I think just start just it's it'd be a fun thing for you guys to all try in your social circumstances where you, if you happen to run into a bunch of liberals, uh and when they say some of these outrageous things that you just you you you don't understand how any thinking, engaged human being could possibly think about Iraq or about Bush or about anything.
Just I'm not gonna talk to you about it.
You're your your premise is so out of whack.
I can I can't even address it.
You you you have no clue which rather than argue with them from a defensive point of view, when you do, when you let them set the premise and establish the subject that's being debated, you're automatically granting them superior position.
Uh and I just this is what I don't do, which is why I don't do a lot of television interviews because the I'd sit there and say the premise your question's wrong.
Premise your question's wrong, premise of your question is wrong.
Why is the premise?
Well, because and it didn't I gotta take a break here.
I'm I'm way long, folks, but sit tight.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Well, look at this.
Look at this.
From the AP just 19 minutes ago, Representative Jack Mertha, a prominent Democrat, said Wednesday, his party's leadership underestimated opposition to a resolution on Armenian genocide and conceded that such a vote would easily fail.
Look who they send out to make this announcement.
They send out Jack Mertha to say it will fail.
They underestimated opposition to a that's not what happened, folks.
Well, that probably is pretty accurate.
What's happened on this is it's almost a repeat without quite the fanfare of defeating the amnesty bill.
People heard about this and flooded Congress.
I probably was uh in error uh earlier when I said that there were probably some adults in the Democrat Party that realize what they're doing.
I think they got hammered again on phones and in the email.
Yet you know I keep telling you that they have no idea how they're perceived.
They have no idea what people really think of what they say and do.
This is another glaring example.
They thought that they could get this done.
They still live with this notion that they do have their monopoly.
Even though they they they uh uh make targets out of uh members of the media, the new media that they oppose, they still act as though they have this monopolistic ability to get all this stuff done.
So the Armenian thing's dead, they've sent Mertha out to say so.
Jack Mertha of uh of all people.
It's like it's like Pelosi.
Pelosi on this S chip thing.
She talks about hate radio, and she actually the AP carried her water in this story about hate radio.
Uh and they quote me from October 8th when I said this family owns a house in a neighborhood of homes valued in the 400,000 to 500,000 dollar range.
They send the kid out to lie.
He's 12 years old.
They'll use anybody, they'll corrupt anybody to get where they're headed.
That's who they are, folks.
That's not attacking the kid.
That's not attacking the uh the family, that's attacking the Democrats.
She calls it hate radio.
They're gonna have to learn by now that when when when they're wrong, and they are most, and I'm right.
I am not they're not gonna be able to intimidate us into shutting up about this stuff.
They don't have their monopoly anymore.
They don't buy fiat automatically get their way anymore.
And it those days are over.
Unless they decide to try to do something about it.
Barbara in Austin, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
I've called because I have some concerns about the lack of Republicans stepping up to the plate to articulate their positions about health care.
Uh, we may not like the plans that the Democrats are putting forward, but we are not seeing Republicans uh clearly stating where they stand and how they would deal with health care issues.
I just do not believe that an ostrich position is an effective strategy.
Uh on something like this, you're right, and see what's missing here.
There's one word here that's miss that they can explain what's missing.
Can you uh take a quick stab?
Tell me what you think it is.
No.
Conservatism.
Conservatism is fine.
Nevertheless, we have a huge issue here, and to ignore it.
No, I agree.
I'm saying conservatism provides the guideposts, the pathway for the alternate position on this.
There are plenty of positions, plenty of brilliant conservative scholars and experts in public policy and have presented all kinds of ideas that politicians could adapt, change, support in one way.
One of the greatest ideas been floating out there for the longest time is medical savings accounts.
Let the process begin where the customer, the patient, is in charge of what his health care costs for average ordinary medical treatment, doctor visits and all that, and get it.
Let him keep what he doesn't spend for his family at the end of the year, and I guarantee you you'll have people shopping for the lowest prices with doctors and the doctors of let them be competitive.
There are ideas out there.
the thing that Republicans and everybody's probably afraid of is they see these polls at 55% want free health care, and they come out with something other than that, they don't think they're gonna get re-elected.
There's just nobody standing up for conservatism right now.
That's what Well, another exciting three hours of uh of fun radio, real radio announcing, uh is now concluded and in the can.
And we'll be back uh in 21 hours.
I think we're st I have a check.
Sixty fifty-six thousand one hundred dollars at the eBay auction for the dingy Harry Smear letter.
Two days to go on that auction.
▲
Export Selection