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 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.
Here to report something, you got to know it yourself.
$65,100.
Well, there was bidding during the show earlier in the week.
We're up to $65,000.
That's not an insignificant sum.
And I know what's happening here.
When I went to bed early this morning, the total was at $56,000, and I checked it this morning.
It's at $65.
So it went up $9,000 overnight.
You're right.
It does go up, but we're not around here.
What does that say?
At any rate, we got two days to go on this, and it's up to this level now that people aren't going to be adding $100 to it.
I think the big money that wants this, and it could be any number, it could be Soros, could be somebody from Dingy Harry's staff, DNC, whoever, is going to wait till the last minute to avoid having to pay more for it, because they don't look at this as a charitable donation, those guys.
Of course, we're going to reveal a winner.
We'll reveal the winner.
We've got special plans to make a public presentation about this.
Thinking about the Capital Steps.
Haven't decided on that for sure.
Don't quote me.
Maybe at Arlington Cemetery.
Don't quote me.
We got plans for this.
Working on a number of different ways to actually present the letter to the eventual high bidder.
The money, of course, goes to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, who provides scholarships for the children of Marines and law enforcement officers, federal law enforcement officers killed in action.
The auction goes for, like I said, 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 rushlimbaugh.com as a PDF document.
You can just download it El Fribo.
You don't have to give a donation.
You can if you want.
We've got a link right there at rushlimbaugh.com take you right to the MCLE website.
Yeah, you can see it, though.
The full color copy has both of the flaws.
There are two flaws on page two.
And I mentioned this earlier in the week.
We have the way it is, the way we have it is the way we got it.
And there's a little under the closing paragraph of the letter on the second page, it looks like a on ink pen, bullpoint ink mark, like some aging senator who wasn't sure where the signature line was for him made a mark.
And then there's this yellow smudge.
It looks like a highlight mark, which on page two, which we're taking bets that Senator Kennedy was eating a hot dog when he signed, and that's why it's there.
But no, you can see if you, if you, 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, you can't miss it.
Those are the only two things that are there, but they're part of it.
I mean, they add to the authenticity of the whole thing.
Now, it's not on white paper, so the copies are definitely cops.
Scott, did you figure out what the problem is with the main mail server?
Good.
Lots of things going on here today at the EIB network.
How about this story from the 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.
In 19, 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, red-headed, freckles, and so forth.
And a parent says, ah, 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 a 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 the science.
Now, this goes, you got to wonder about this guy.
He's 79 years old, so that may be one factor here.
If you think this, you got to 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 what I think.
Doesn't allow this.
This guy, 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 first break here, 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's just so bit out of shape.
She just had it.
She's blaming the Senate for this.
She's blaming this, 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 and the House Democrats have all these great accomplishments and achievements, but the Senate's slowing them down.
So she's just, she's throwing the mud over there across the chamber at Dingy Harry.
Everybody's just climbing on Dingy Harry, and they're climbing on her too, but she's trying to deflect it all.
The number of lawmakers supporting the bill, the Armenian resolution, this 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, the 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 guys passed this resolution.
You're messing with a friendly ally here.
You're using our country to get supplies materiel 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.
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 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 it's 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 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, hey, look, just go out there and 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 maybe four of them altogether.
Here's the second story about how we're winning.
Morgan Stenley, the second biggest shareholder in the New York Times company, sold its entire stake today, according to a person briefed on the 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 Riolinda.
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 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 Schulzberger 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, which is the parent of the namesake newspaper, the Boston Globe, withheld support from directors at the publisher's April annual meeting.
What this means is there's 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 going to lose control of paper.
But this little pinch is driving the price down of the stock.
This is not going to make the family happy.
This is the family's legacy.
So a little pinch may end up being in some trouble at some point, but the family is not going to lose this paper.
There's a conservative pipe dream that all this is going to lead to the family losing the paper.
They're not going to sit by and just let this continue to happen.
Another story about how we're winning.
Bill Clinton's got this book.
What's this book?
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.
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 trotting out to sell this massive expansion of the program are qualified already as the program is currently constituted.
And the president brought this up in his press conference.
Let me see.
I've got a soundbite roster here of the president.
Well, I'm looking at, oh, S-CHIP.
Let's go to 18.
President Bush held a news conference today.
This morning, 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 500,000 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 New York Times story goes on and talks about how the income limits here are what's really at work here.
You know, the federal limit is $62,000, families of four, $62,000.
But states have the permission because it's the state children's health insurance program.
States are not prohibited from setting an $82,000 income level for a family of four.
And this is just absurd.
And the president made it clear in his press conference today that This program is being taken way beyond its original intention, and it's going to cost way more than anybody ever, said I'm not going to sign it.
And so, Democrats, this has been an interesting 10 days.
They're really taking a lot on the chin.
They can't get they wanted a rock.
They can't get their S-CHIP thing done.
They couldn't do their Armenian thing.
Dingy Harry Smearletter backfired big time.
And that's why I say 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.
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, you know, I love your optimism, but I got to 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 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 on in my life.
But when it comes to the government, as anybody in the town can tell you, it's ridiculous.
Between governor, we have Rod Blagufovich is the governor here.
We have 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.
There's no way around it.
Taxes have to go up.
Well, and welcome to Democrats.
You need to go next door and talk to people in Michigan.
Why is that?
Well, that's statewide in Michigan.
You're just dealing with Chicago.
Of course, the state of Illinois is probably pretty high tax too, but we've got budget fiscal problems.
Raise taxes.
Never ask whether the government can do less with less.
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.
They're a vote going on in the city of whether or not they're going to ban smoking in all of the beaches and the recreational parks 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 depresses a person, Rush.
It makes me sad.
Well, no, no.
Look, I totally, look, I understand when your taxes go up.
I understand when your freedoms are in.
Yeah, but maybe I look, I understand when they start intruding on your life this way, and that's what I said.
When they start getting involved in the private sector and interrupting things and screwing things up there, which private sector would include you and your personal finances.
No, I didn't mean to mislead you about this.
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, Lowe, loving hearing myself say what I say because I always love hearing anybody be right.
A couple of stories, both from the left coast, one from San Francisco, one from Los Angeles.
Let's do Los Angeles first, and we'll get to your phone calls here at El Quico.
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 $74,044 a year to make ends meet.
Which, what are they saying?
That should be the new poverty line.
A person working full-time for the state's minimum wage of $7.50 an hour earns $15,600 annually.
You know, that's more than your Social Security recipients receive today.
You're going to get starting in January $13,000 a year.
But a single adult in Los Angeles needs to make $28,126 a year to live modestly, while a single parent needs $62,000, 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 $51,000, while a two-working parent family needs $74,044 a year.
The 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 all this is about.
They don't have any health care, Mr. Limbaugh.
They don't have any health care.
It's good people, but they don't have 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 need for health care reform, said Anel Grudgeta, the president of the services employees, or service employees international union local 721.
That part of our everyday life should be taken care of.
Of course, right?
Yeah, absolutely.
Healthcare should be taken care of.
Can he?
Absolutely right.
Yes.
But you can't even, at $74,000 a year with a family of four, you can't afford it.
But you could be on the S-CHIP 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.
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'd increase your annual $1,000.
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.
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 not a secret.
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, L.A.?
$74,000.
$44,000.
You need $3,000 a year more in San Francisco if you're a family of four just to pay for basic necessities.
A study released today, 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?
Ladies and gentlemen, so let me see.
Where's the health care reference in this story?
Yep, there it is.
Child healthcare.
So, read the story far enough, you'll find out what this is really all about.
Andrew in Sacramento, I'm glad you called.
Thanks for the program.
Back for the call.
Jiu-Jitsu Ditto's rush.
Thank you very much, sir.
You know, when this 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 past down at the line of scrimmage.
You're not just intercepting the past, you're actually returning it for a touchdown.
And we need a strategist like Lee Atwater to pick up on this model and start scoring on defense instead of just preventing stuff.
Yeah, you know, now 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.
Wait, this is, I've had a lot of people ask me.
I have not wanted to get into it, but you've had to call.
I've got to answer this.
I don't want to say just, yeah, good, good point, and move on.
But Andrew, hang on here just a second.
Okay.
People have asked me, aren't you afraid?
Scott, don't leave.
It's the rush at EIBNet.com account, not the RHT.
It's the RHTP county.
Anyway, how come, are you not worried what they're going to do to you?
No, I'm not.
That's the point.
I think that your desire for the Republicans to do jiu-jitsu, in order to do something like this, I don't like to say this.
I just don't like it.
You can't be afraid.
Look at on this.
What was it that gave me the foundation, if you want to say the strength, 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 just throwing it right back at them.
The second thing that you have to be able to do with something like this, in 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 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 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 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 up.
They won't report what I said.
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 I think they all see it.
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 the 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 forums 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?
You're right.
Yeah.
I think you're right.
Of course you're right.
Yes.
Well, it's just the only example of offense we've seen that I can think of is that contract with America.
And what you want to do is you've got to get on the offense.
And if the only opportunity for us to get on the offense is to pull the jiu-jitsu type move off, then we got to bust that out.
That's an excellent point, too.
A lot of people ask, why are you going 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 going to go on television to get my side of 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 line 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 going to be on defense ever, but especially on this.
So I don't go.
And with that, I think the lesson here is 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, Republicans are playing pretty good defense right now with all of these things going on.
They're showing some guts in being defensive in stopping these things.
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 going to rip them to shreds and so forth, which is a real concern for them because, 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 full of smears and lies as well.
And those things I'm not 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 if you happen to run into a bunch of liberals and when they say some of These outrageous things that you just, you don't understand how any thinking, engaged human being could possibly think about Iraq or about Bush or about anything.
I'm not going to talk to you about it.
Your premise is so out of whack.
I can't even address it.
You have no clue.
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.
And I just, this is what I don't do, which is why I don't do a lot of television interviews because I'd sit there and say, the premise your question is wrong.
Premise, your question is wrong.
Premise of your question is wrong.
Why is the premise?
Well, because I got to take a break here.
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 Murtha, 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 Murthy to say it will fail.
They underestimated opposition to a rest.
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 in error 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.
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 make targets out of 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 Mirtha out to say so.
Jack Murtha of all people.
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.
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 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 family.
That's attacking the Democrats.
She calls it hate radio.
They're going to have to learn by now that when they're wrong, and they are most, and I'm right, they're not going to be able to intimidate us into shutting up about this stuff.
They don't have their monopoly anymore.
They don't, by fiat, automatically get their way anymore.
And 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.
We may not like the plans that the Democrats are putting forward, but we are not seeing Republicans 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.
On something like this, you're right.
And see what's missing here.
There's one word here that can explain what's missing.
Can you 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 that have presented all kinds of ideas that politicians could adapt, change, support in one way.
One of the greatest ideas has 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 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, let them be competitive.
There are ideas out there.
The thing that Republicans and everybody is probably afraid of is they see these polls that 55% want free health care, and they come out with something other than that.
They don't think they're going to get re-elected.
There's just nobody standing up for conservatism right now.
Well, another exciting three hours of fun radio, real radio announcing is now concluded and in the can.
And we'll be back in 21 hours.
I have a check.
$56,100 at the eBay auction for the Dingy Harry Smear Letter.
Two days to go on that auction.
▲
Export Selection