All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
October 22, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show, now documented to be almost always right, 98.8% of the time.
I am Rush Limboy, and this is Broadcast Excellence, performed and executed by me daily.
El Rushbo, your highly trained broadcast specialist, don't try this at home.
Oh, by the way, the phone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to join us.
Now, folks, I want to say just a little bit more about the unfairness, the inaccuracy, whatever you want to call it, the drive-by media of the Harry Reid smear letter auction with my matching donation now generating $4.2 million to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
In anybody's judgment, that's huge news.
That's especially since it involved a skirmish between me and the Senate majority leader.
The amount of coverage that this has received, especially accurate coverage, is such you could put it in a thimble.
Well, maybe a syringe, but certainly nothing larger than that.
But the point is, why do you expect anything different after all of these years, especially with stories in which I'm involved?
I'm not portraying myself as a victim by any stretch, so don't misunderstand.
It is always this way and has always been this way for conservatives.
Reagan does not get credit for ending the Cold War.
Gorbachev does.
You want decent press, or do you want to smash communist Russia?
Tax cuts do not get the credit for creating mountains and mountains of unexpected revenue pouring into the Treasury.
You want buzz and credit for tax cuts?
Or do you want a roaring economy with flush federal coffers and lower tax rates?
Now, on that one, I understand the importance of getting it out to educate people as to what happened, but people are living this.
Press is never going to give this to you.
The press is never going to acknowledge that any aspect of conservatism works.
They're just not.
They look at conservatism as an aberration.
It's a bunch of kook weirdos, NASCAR types, southerners who are conservatives.
Dunces like Ronald Reagan have these expectations, want to be satisfied by the buzz as opposed to the results is misplaced priority.
This program, its efforts, are either ignored or misrepresented by the drive-by media constantly.
You want Accolanger, you want the largest radio talk show in the history of modern radio and $4.2 million going to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
I've evolved, ladies and gentlemen, it's an old adage, but I apply it to myself constantly.
And that is success is always the best revenge.
Triumphing over these people is always the best revenge.
And make no mistake, they know it.
They know full well what's happening.
The fact that they don't report it is quite indicative of just who they are.
You can sit there and take, but Rush, it's not fair.
There is no such thing as fairness, folks.
It's an elusive concept.
I defy you to define it in a universal sense.
I know the dictionary can try, but somebody tell me a universal definition of fairness that's applied across the board today in American politics or culture or society.
It's elusive.
It's like Potter Stewart, the late Supreme Court justice, said, well, I know pornography when I see it, but I can't define it.
Same thing with drive-by media coverage.
You know journalistic malpractice when you say, well, we can describe it, by the way, and we do.
And that bugs them at the same time.
Now, let me give you an illustration.
Last Friday, the Los Angeles Times ran a huge, huge story on some of the suspicious fundraising that's going on for Mrs. Clinton in, of all places, Chinatown in Manhattan.
Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry Street, a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls.
It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins cluttered and clustered by the front door.
And again, not too far away at 88 East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujinese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain basement clothes.
All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate, Hillary Robin Clinton.
Dishwashers, waiters, and others, whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers, are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into the Clinton campaign treasury.
In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000.
When Senator John Kerry ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
Mrs. Clinton already has $380,000.
At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in East Wa.
Those dishwashers, waiters, and street stall hawkers are part of the reason.
And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategery, mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.
Now, this is a long story, and there are countless personal examples of people that make $500 a month giving Mrs. Clinton $1,000 and $2,000 donations.
Just adding up and adding up and adding up.
When I read the Los Angeles Times piece, I said, this is going no further.
The L.A. Times also wrote a scathing multi-part series on questionable land deals involving Dingy Harry back in the 90s.
Went nowhere beyond the Los Angeles Times.
Maybe some Las Vegas papers touched on it, but I mean, it went nowhere else in the drive-by media.
Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said that they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to.
In some cases, donors said they felt pressured to give.
Well, what does this sound?
This sounds like the same kind of people that were associated with Norman Chu.
Like the Paw family out there.
No money, lots of pets.
Giving all of this money.
It's obviously bundled and so forth.
And look at the connection.
Chinese.
You go back to the 90s, these things just kept repeating themselves.
The fundraising scandals with the Riottis and their lipo group.
You had Pauline Kanchanilak.
You had Charlie Tree.
You had Johnny Chung.
You had a guy with ties to the People's Liberation Army of China.
John Wong, well, not Wong, but this other guy had ties to some Shikom, had ties to the People's Liberation Army, and he was gunrunning into the United States, and he was funneling money to the Clintons.
Charlie Tree, who owned a Chinese restaurant at barbecue place in Little Rock while the Clintons were down there as co-governor walked in one day for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund with money orders totaling, what, $250,000 I had to give those back.
There is obviously a Chinese connection.
Now, my point with all this is it went no further other than today in the Washington Post.
Dishwashers for Clinton.
Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.
That is as scathing as it gets.
I just finished, you and I just together just finished raising $4.2 million for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation based on a letter filled with lies and smears from the Senate majority leader.
That story barely, other than on CNN, which got it right by far, barely causes a ripple in the drive-by media.
Nor does this Hillary story other than this Washington Post editorial.
Donors whose addresses turn out to be tenants or tenements, dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks goes on to list the details I just shared with you.
And then they say this opening of the second paragraph.
This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment.
What a benefit of the doubt overwhelms its judgment for credit.
How in the world, when you know you're not going to be held accountable, can it be an error in judgment?
This is a pretty crafty and smart move on the part of Mrs. Clinton and her team because they know nobody's going to hold her accountable for this.
And the Post editorial is a glittering example of it.
Zeal for cash overwhelms judgment?
This is not about judgment.
I said once, folks, we need to put yellow crime scene tape around Clinton campaign headquarters.
You tell me that this is legit.
They review here Clinton's 96 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious.
But Mrs. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and its environs.
And they mentioned that she's raised 380 grand.
By contrast, John F. Kerry did raise $24,000 in the course of his entire campaign.
And then they say the alternative, the campaign says, would be to prevent those with foreign-sounding names from participating in the political process.
But there's another alternative to strengthen a vetting process that seems geared more toward justifying the acceptance of checks than toward uncovering problems.
Again, whoever wrote this editorial for the Washington Post, I have to tell you, why in the world should the Clintons change what they're doing if there's no political price to pay for this?
Why in the world?
See, this is the thing.
You talk about, I know full well that we are not going to be treated fairly and accurately by the drive-by media.
The Clintons know full well that people are going to look the other way.
And that even if a story like this does emerge in the LA Times, everybody else is going to ignore it.
So these two stories, you know, the dingy Harry fundraising letter, 4.2 million ignored, this story also ignored.
And then when the Washington Post does touch on it, zeal for cash overwhelms judgment.
I mean, you talk about looking the other way, the benefit of the doubt, and ignoring the obvious.
Now, I have another question.
Why didn't McCain Feingold fix this problem?
Do you remember what in the early days of McCain Feingold, what the primary impetus was in selling it to the American people?
That too much money had led to corruption.
That these were good people in Washington, the salt of the earth, your neighbors.
And they go to Washington for the express purpose of doing their civic duty and serving their country.
And they get there, and in the process of being there, why all this money corrupts them and turns them into bad people.
So McCain Feingle comes along.
We're going to get the money out of politics.
Right.
All kinds of loopholes remain, and now people who can't afford it and don't have it are donating money they don't have.
And no eyebrows are raised about this other than in the L.A. Times and the Washington Post.
Hey, you know, it just a zeal for cash is overwhelming their judgment.
Come on, folks.
We know, you and I know that somebody is walking around Chinatown, handing out money to these people and then sending it back in their names.
It's not their money.
They don't have it to begin with.
Not in these amounts.
Same kind of thing that was happening with Norman Shu.
And it's of no interest whatsoever because this could be bad for Mrs. Clinton.
Quick timeout.
I got to make some money here.
EIB Profit Center timeout, obscene profits, by the way.
Back in a second.
Okay, now let's see if I understand this.
In Chinatown and other Chinese neighborhoods, in the Bronx and in Queens, dishwashers, people who live in tenements, can afford, ladies and gentlemen, to donate $1,000 and $2,000 campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton, but they can't afford health care.
No, you and I are going to have to pay for that.
But they can somehow come up with $1,000 or $2,000 for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
Is that not just cute?
Isn't it just a beautiful thing?
To the phones, Dorothy in northeastern Pennsylvania.
You've been waiting a long time.
I appreciate your patience.
Great to have you here, Dorothy.
Yo, El Rushbo.
Hi.
Mega Dittos.
I wanted to let you know you've made the funny papers.
Well, that's not unique.
Are you familiar with the Doomsbury cartoons by Gary Trudeau?
Oh, well, of course, but I haven't read one in probably 20 years.
Well, get the one in today.
Oh, there's one today.
Want me to read it to you?
Sure.
Well, I normally don't let listeners read because they're not trained professionals and they sometimes sound monotone, which is boring.
Well, I would.
Give it a shot.
I was a telephone operator, and they used to compliment me on my voice.
So maybe I'll be okay.
Well, okay, let's give it a shot.
Let's see if that experience helps out here.
Dana, Rush Limbaugh has been smearing the kid who urged the president not to veto the S-Trip bill.
It's one thing to Swiftboat a grown man, but isn't it a bit beyond the pale to attack a 12-year-old boy?
And then the answer is, well, in fairness to Rush, we'd like to see proof that this kid's only 12.
He looked 13.
And then at the end, the guy says, so you're on board.
And the reply is, and if he is 13, what else is he lying about?
This is just childish.
This is just childish and immature, and it carries...
Yes, but you're in good company.
He rips the Republicans and the president all the time.
Trudeau is a giant, giant library, probably collecting these $1,000 checks from the Chinese in Chinatown for Hillary Clinton.
Well, I knew that.
He's married.
Isn't he married to a lady that used to be on NBC?
Yeah, Jane Pauley, who used to host the Today Show.
That's Gary Trudeau's wife.
I can't hold that against her.
But look, look, this is the latest, folks.
The smear letter didn't work.
The phony soldier thing.
I'm telling you, they are running against me.
I don't say this with ego.
It's just, it is what it is.
And it's going to be this way until the Republicans have chosen a nominee.
I change minds.
I change hearts.
This is not to be permitted.
And of course, this is just another attempt.
I told you there were going to be more of these things.
I never attacked the kid.
Nobody on our side attacked the kid.
What we did was point out how the Democrats exploit people like this.
There was some accurate reporting of the finances of the family involved because don't forget the whole argument about the S-CHIP program was that Democrats wanted to expand.
Now, folks, this is key.
The Democrats wanted to expand the current, it's been 10 years running now, state children's health insurance program to include not just poor children.
They wanted to include families of four up to $62,000 a year and then give states the option to include families of four up to $82,000 a year.
And they wanted to raise the age of a child to age 25.
So they got hold of the information that this kid and his sister were in a car crash, and they wrote a script for the kid to use answering President Bush's Saturday radio address not long ago.
And they sent the kid out there to say that George Bush must be reprimanded, and he must not win this because the little kid said, I want kids in my condition to be able to get the health coverage that I got.
Well, dirty little secret, the current structure of the program is what got this family the health care coverage it needed.
Somehow, it did not need to be expanded.
So they send the kid out to basically say that if Bush doesn't go along with the Democrats' expansion, future automobile accident victims like this kid and his sister will not get coverage in hospitals because they won't be able to be insured.
That was an out-now lie.
Now, I don't think the 12-year-old is figure sophisticated enough to know all of this.
And I doubt that he wrote his own words.
We're talking about a 12-year-old.
Now, maybe this, in their minds, constitutes attacking a child, but what this is really all about is, is what it's always about.
They come up with a plan designed to fool people, to misrepresent something, to lie about the president, his proposal.
They come up with this elaborate scheme to use a child.
It's sort of like the Michael J. Fox thing.
You're not supposed to attack a victim.
A victim can enter the political arena, but he cannot be attacked when he goes political.
And I'm not putting up with this anymore.
I didn't attack the kid.
I attacked the whole plan that the Democrats had to lie to the American people.
And they got upset.
They used to get away with this, dragging all these injured people up on stage at their convention.
John Edwards saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again, for example, if John Kerry were elected president.
So when you attack the Libs, what they used to be able to get away with with their monopoly, they got to come back and try to destroy you.
And we're back, talent on loan from God.
By the way, one minor correction, a New York Post has also done an expose based on the L.A. Times piece of Mrs. Clinton and her screwy fundraising in Chinatown.
And here's a little bit of what the post said.
A search at Chinatown donors by the Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.
Shin Kei-Ching is listed twice in federal records for giving 1,000 donations, $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17th.
But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids, and skin disease.
It's interesting that a clinic for STDs, hemorrhoids, and skin disease would be giving Mrs. Clinton campaign contributions.
But that's where this guy's address and two of them $1,000.
It's more bill style, I know, but hey, you know, two for one, you get them both at the same time.
No one at the address of the clinic for STDs, hemorrhoids, and skin disease ever heard of a Shin Kei Ching.
Another donation came from a Shi Ken Chang on Canal Street, but the address listed is a shop that sells knockoff watches and other stolen goods.
The sales clerk there did not know the donor, Shi Ken Chang.
Shou Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13th.
Contacted yesterday, she pulled the post that she had written a check, but it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, G-U-O, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council.
Wang told the post that Zhuo had repaid her for the $1,000 donation.
Well, that's how this works.
This is the Paw family all over again.
Such straw donations are strictly prohibited by federal law.
So we've got knockoff watches.
We've got stolen goods.
We got phony addresses.
We got campaign contributions coming from clinic where they work on STDs, hemorrhoids, and skin disease.
We've got the ChiComs once again involved in the Clinton campaign.
So it has spread beyond the LA Times.
The New York posted a little on it, but at any rate, it's just amazing.
Okay, I've been asked to go over these names one more time to keep the name straight so we don't get confused on who's who.
Is that for the future?
All right.
The first one is Shin K-Cheng, C-H-E-N-G.
He's listed twice federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17th.
That's the one that came from the address for the clinic for the STDs, the hemorrhoids and the skin disease.
And nobody there ever heard of Shin Ke-Ching.
Now, the next name is Shi, C-H, or S-H-I-H.
She can, with a K, She-Kan Chang on Canal Street.
But that address is the place they sell a knock-off Rolexes and other stolen goods.
Sales clerk there did not know Shi Ken Chang.
Then there was Shao Yen Wang, H S I A O Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, gave Clinton a thousand bucks on April 13th.
When she was contacted, she said, Yeah, I wrote a check, but a guy named David Zhuo, G-U-O, gave me and repaid me the $1,000.
That was totally illegal.
Folks, the FBI ought to be on this like fried egg in fried rice.
The FBI ought to be on you.
This is profoundly illegal.
This is not skirting the edges.
This is not bad judgment.
And the Clintons would once again say, well, we didn't know David Juo was doing all this.
We can't vet everybody.
Really?
You know, once, maybe so.
Twice?
Pattern.
Three times.
We have a trend, folks.
And this trend is a lot longer than just three episodes or incidents.
This started back in the mid-90s when the Clintons are in the White House.
Don in Renton, Washington.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
It's time to call those bastards at the New York Times to account.
You need to just sue the heck out of them.
You know, the Harry Reid letter, the way they covered that?
That's deliberate, willful, malicious.
I think even though you're a celebrity, you got a good case.
Can't do it, public figure.
Well, I think when you do it deliberately with malice, I think you can.
Looked into it.
It's not worth the trouble.
Well, I think it is because this story has enough, you know, the first paragraph, first sentence or two, out-and-out lies.
Some have said, yeah, they skewed wrong on the first paragraph.
This was an out-and-out lie in the first paragraph.
But for example, they have enough things factually correct in here, but they're out of context.
So you run around and sue people for leaving things out of context.
For example, they take a slam.
They take a big, big aim at the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
They call Jim Kalstrom and they ask Kalstrom, what are you going to do?
Oh, this is great.
We're going to have a meeting on Monday to figure out what to do with all this.
And then they end quoting him as, but we're not a political organization.
Now, the implication is that Kalstrom's not telling them the truth because I was involved in this and I'm a political guy.
So they are attempting to impugn the reputation of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
But this is who they are, folks.
Yeah, but Rush, let me just point out one more thing that even though maybe the lawsuit won't go anywhere, it still is a means to get this information out where more people will hear it.
More people will see what a smear that was by Harry Reid.
And maybe they'll start to get a little educated, even though it's kind of a waste of time to sue them.
You know, I hear you.
I understand the frustration.
You're upset that it's not spread beyond where it has, but that's the nature of the beast today.
My impression is, folks, that it has spread way beyond just this audience, because I think this audience is growing exponentially last week.
And as many of you, and Don, you're one who know the truth, and you run into people who read the New York Times or the Reuters story about this, you're able to give them the facts right off the bat.
The truth of this is far more widespread than you would think.
And just because it doesn't appear in the New York Times doesn't mean that it isn't.
I mean, I was, I've checked email all weekend long.
You're about the gazillionth person that's livid at the New York Times, about the gazillionth.
You know, I've got, there's a big New York Times front page story today by Jim Rutenberg on the Drudge Report, a profile of the Drudge Report.
And it basically is how the Drudge Report seems to be in the midst of a good relationship with the Clinton campaign and some of the Republican campaigns, and how the Clinton campaign is funneling stuff to Drudge and the others are and so forth.
And when I heard this was coming, I thought, well, it's going to be another in a long line of criticisms and smears of Drudge.
I read this thing, and it's the exact opposite.
It now praises Drudge for his reach.
Without saying so, they almost admit that the Drudge Report has far more influence on journalists and other Americans than the New York Times does.
Don't actually say that.
But here's the real secret.
And I won't let too much of the secret out, but this is my opinion.
The reason the New York Times gave a positive, almost puff piece-type review of the Drudge Report is because they think that Drudge is in league with the Clintons in helping get her story out.
They think the Clinton campaign's got a line there.
They can leak stuff to Drudge and Drudge or run it.
It's harmful to other Democrat candidates, harmful to other Republicans.
And so Drudge is now a good guy, as far as they're concerned.
So that's how this Drudge has been trashed and tarnished like all of us have over the course of his career.
But now all of a sudden the New York Times likes him.
Front page likes him.
You cannot miss the Clinton connection here.
Now, there's a lot of things that the New York Times doesn't understand about conservative media.
I'm not saying Drudge is not conservative media.
Don't misunderstand.
But let me just put it this way.
The thing that the New York Times, especially reporters, don't understand is the business angle of any enterprise.
They don't understand the business angle of their own paper.
They don't care about it.
The news reporters at CBS News, when Larry Tisch bought it, said, you know what?
I've looked at the books here, you guys, and we got to cut $200 million here from the news budget.
You guys are losing money.
They had a cow.
Dan Rather went out there.
We need to be exempt from the bottom line.
We are too important.
We're doing a service to the world and blah, blah, blah.
They have no clue about the business function of their own organizations and they don't care because they're not invested in the success per se.
They all make salaries.
And the only thing that's going to happen is if the enterprise they're involved in goes south, they get fired or a salary cut.
But they don't participate if the enterprise does really well.
They don't participate in the profits, most of them.
They're just salaried.
And most reporters, it's not a whole lot, particularly print reporters.
They don't care about the business side.
And as such, they don't understand this.
Like I've always told you, one of the most profound aspects of the success of this program is its business model.
From the get-go, they don't care about it.
They don't understand it.
And even if we gave them the plan on paper, they wouldn't comprehend it.
It wouldn't make sense.
These are not capitalists in that sense.
They think that this program is simply successful for one reason, that it has a host who cannot tell the truth, that you are a bunch of mind-up robots who believe the falsehoods that I tell you, and that we are all a collective bunch of nincompoop idiots.
And it's only your stupidity that allows this program to be as successful as it is.
They haven't the slightest idea.
They think everything is agenda-driven.
And so when they look at the success of this program, they see a hidden secret political agenda designed to poison and infiltrate your meager minds.
And because you are Dunkoffs, you have easily fallen for it.
They have no interest in the business side.
And I say when they examine Drudge, they couldn't care less about the business.
Because they see all these other things as potential enemies to them advancing their own agenda.
So they miss for people who are supposedly the brightest and best educated in journalism or politics or whatever.
Most of them are the most amazingly closed-minded, agenda-driven themselves with their own narratives of story after story after story.
And the worst thing that could happen to these guys is to have their narrative or their template be counted, contradicted by the truth.
That just sends them into tizzies.
And what they ultimately decide is the truth isn't the truth.
And they stick with the narrative.
The Duke rape case is one of many examples I could cite.
I know, I know, I know I said that.
And we'll do it.
We'll get to the audio soundbites from the Republican presidential debate last night on Fox at the top of the next hour.
In the meantime, this is Vince in Fairfax, Virginia.
Hello, Vince.
Glad you waited, sir.
Mega Dittos, Professor Vimbaugh.
Thank you.
Yeah, I find it kind of funny how that when the Professor Libbs wanted to have sex with their students, they consider 18 to be an adult.
But when it comes to the liberal expansion on the S-CHIP program, 25 is the age.
You know, that's pretty interesting.
Let me go back in time here to the first hour of the program.
A UCLA professor, I think his name is Abramson Aronson.
Let me find it.
Yeah, it'd be better to read the whole story.
There's always the problem.
Which stack do I put it in?
Obviously, not that one.
The bottom line of the story was that the professor at UCLA And this is in the midst of all of these stories on abuse of kids in high school and junior high and so forth.
This UCLA professor wants to establish a love contract between professor and student and say the age of 18 is an adult, and it is in law, so you get if the professor and the student in love sign consent forms, the love contract, and they agree that the grade will not be affected by the love contract in a relationship.
And if they further agree by signing a love contract, that when this relationship busts up, as it no doubt will, that the student will not hold the professor or the school responsible or accountable.
And so what Vince here is saying, isn't it interesting that 18 is an adult when it comes to love contracts between professors and students?
But the new S-CHIP program doesn't make you an adult until you're 25 when it comes to health insurance.
Philip in Beaumont, Texas.
Hello, sir.
Pleasure to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you very much.
I was watching Fox News Sunday yesterday, and they were discussing foreign policy, and there was a rush moment with Swan Williams as he referred to Mrs. Clinton as Mrs. Clinton.
And I just started to laugh.
And I was wondering, I don't know if your staff had a chance to pull that clip, but I thought it was quite funny.
Why?
What's so funny about him calling her Mrs. Clinton?
Well, you know, he's a liberal pretty much.
Well, it's on some things, but not on others.
But a lot of people call her Mrs. Clinton.
What's the.
Oh, come on.
You think that Juan Williams is doing this because I call her Mrs. Clinton?
That's what I think.
Is that what you think?
Yeah, but I think it's very possibly true.
I constantly underestimate my own influential powers.
Well, I know some other Republicans talk show, conservative talk show hosts say that, repeat Mrs. Clinton quite a bit.
Of course, you're the first.
Yeah, I'll tell you why I suggested it, too.
I suggested it because it is a reminder that she is married to Bill Clinton, Mrs. Clinton.
She's wife, wants to be president.
If it's being picked up by people out there and used more frequently, then I will gladly take the credit.
Ralph in Washington, D.C., thank you for calling, sir.
Welcome.
Hello, Rush.
Before I get to my point, I just have to compliment you real quick.
Rush, you know how you look at, love a great football game at knowing, you know, a game, for example, like the one last week, Dallas, against the Patriots, and you know how you anticipate a game like that, Rush?
Yeah.
Well, think of that in contrast to anticipating the Pittsburgh Steelers hosting the championship game against the Indianapolis Colts in snowy Pittsburgh.
Well, I just want to tell you, Rush, as part of my job responsibilities, I listen to six nationally syndicated radio shows on a daily basis.
And Rush, I got to tell you, when I hear your bumper come on every day, the pretender bumper, I feel like I'm at championship Sunday at Three River Stadium getting ready to watch the Pittsburgh Steelers.
It never fails.
It's the greatest thing in the world.
Well, I appreciate that.
Now, Rush, to my point, I have a nephew who became a Marine because of words you spoke on one segment of one single show.
Whatever you said inspired him to talk to a recruiter and join the Marines from that one simple show.
So, Rush, I want to thank you for your service to our military.
Volunteering your efforts free of charge to the American taxpayers is so much appreciated, Rush.
You know, you are more helpful to the Armed Services, Rush, in one single segment than Reed Harkin and John Kerry are in an entire career.
You know, you are absolutely right about that.
It's sad to be able to say that truthfully.
Thank you very much.
Hey, get this.
Scientists think, based on computer models, which of course are totally reliable, right?
They're soon going to be able to steer hurricanes by tossing in a bunch of junked-up granulated tire rubber into certain quadrants of the hurricane.
▲
Export Selection