All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:03
October 30, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi.
How are you?
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
No graduates, no degrees, the learning never stops.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Rush, I got a question I want you to ask your official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer.
Because I mentioned that Dr. Spencer sent me a little note today that the uh lack of hurricane activity over the past two years could lead to super hurricanes down the road.
Uh, because hurricanes have a natural cooling effect on the oceans of the world because they churn it up.
Uh the churn factor will bring cold water that's deep up to the surface, thereby cooling surface temperatures and so forth, and this dissipates heat uh from the oceans, which is good.
Yeah, then Dr. Spencer at the end threw in this fact that uh, of course, all of this lack of hurricane activity means the oceans are not being cooled, which means we're getting ready for supercanes.
So a couple people sent me emails.
Look, would you ask Dr. Spencer how it can be that uh that the uh absence of hurricanes gonna lead to super hurricanes when Florida went for years and years and years without a hurricane, uh despite rising sea level temperatures.
Dr. Spencer was sort of joking about that, folks.
His point was his point was that hurricanes are not just invented by God to kill and destroy people and things.
Uh hurricanes have a natural beneficial uh atmospheric and climatological effect on the overall uh what would you say uh ecology or or climate of the uh of the planet.
Uh Mr. Snergley has also requested that I repeat my monologue on class envy uh and so forth.
Perhaps I will, but I don't want to do it today.
Well, we'll we'll save it.
Uh it does belong in every textbook in high school and college econ 101.
I wasn't taught it.
Uh I wasn't taught that the monologue about 25 minutes ago.
Uh I had to learn it on my own.
I mean, I look when I say I wasn't taught it.
I mean at home, it the the you know, the whole theory capitalism was explained to me, but I mean in schools and so forth, the the uh the the very basic and elementary explanation for capitalism was not laid out in front of me in an easily understandable way, which is what I just did in a brilliant monologue of twenty-five or thirty minutes ago.
But before we uh do that again, I I want let me go to the alternative minimum tax.
I've got a theory on this.
You know, Charlie Wrangell proposed this massive, huge tax increase, one trillion dollars.
And he just is a trial balloon, and it's Mrs. Clinton's tax increase, and I don't care what anybody thinks, and she's trying to distance herself, and Pelosi's trying to distance herself from it.
But this is the they floated this and they had no intention of this being passed this year or next.
This is for 2009 when they win.
But there's this little uh glitch in there, the alternative minimum tax.
Charlie Rango wants to get rid of it.
He's got about a week, week and a half to do it uh before the IRS uh says we it's too late because we'd have to reprogram the computers, and we need to be able to do that by the first week of November to get ready for the next tax collection season.
So the alternative minimum tax uh, you know, captures a bunch of money from people from whom it was never intended to be captured.
Uh and uh the the rich, it was a soak the rich tax, and look what happens.
The alternative minimum tax is another microcosm for exactly what liberalism is.
The alternative minimum tax, the original idea was to capture taxes from wealthy people who, using the tax code, it didn't pay any taxes.
And now we're on the verge of it entrapping twenty million Americans who are not rich, who are not wealthy, quote unquote.
And it is uh it's you know, people are starting to uh make it a political issue, campaign issue, so Wrangle wants to be the guy to try to get rid of it.
And a couple sound bites, and then what I've been thinking of is maybe we should take the pain of the AMT for this year only for the sake of long-term gain in the form of sensible uh reform on this.
This is last night on the News hour with Jim O'Lara, the uh fill in hostette was Margaret Warner.
She said, even though you unveil this big tax overhaul, really what you're focused on now is a one year fix for the AMT.
I think it's gonna cost what?
Sixty-five billion?
You want some tax increases to pay for it?
We know how to do it.
The big issue that we're going to find is that I hear from the Senate side that they just want to borrow the money and act like this just didn't happen.
And the same way President Bush barred the trillions of dollars for the income tax cut that he had, that they want to extend this in order to temporarily put off the alternative minimum tax.
We have to remove the $60 billion tax increase off of $123 million people.
We know how we want to do it.
I'm waiting to hear how they intend to do it.
Boy, I tell you, this is so rich.
It is just so borrowed the trillions of dollars to pay for his tax cut.
You have to understand the mindset of a liberal Democrat.
The mindset of liberal Democrat isn't all money is Washington's.
All money is Washington's.
And what you end up with at the end of the year is what they have decided to let you keep from what you've earned.
The government will never ever do with less.
There will never be cuts in the size of government or in the total budget that government spends every year.
There will only be increases.
And so if the if we're gonna if we're gonna cut the alternative minimum tax, which collects sixty-five billion dollars from people who were never intended to pay it anyway, then why should the government get it back?
It was never intended, quote unquote, uh to be uh uh collected from people who are now paying it, but that's not how they work.
Here's the second question, she said.
Well, look, uh, we're going into an election year.
Tell me how you think this issue, both the AMT and your proposal for broader tax overhaul is a factor in the elections.
It's gonna be something uh that's gonna really be a flag that the Democrats carry.
Well, it would be a good flag, it'd be a great banner.
It's talked about simplification, incentives for economic growth.
But to get back to the AMT, the temporary problem, no matter what is said, there's only one question.
Are you going to borrow the money in order to give this sixty billion dollars of relief, or are you gonna raise the money by inequities in the tax system and balance it out?
We say we've done enough borrowing.
$65 billion, the $60 billion was never yours, Charlie.
It was never intended to be yours.
If you're going to give it back, give it back and cut some spending somewhere along the line.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I, uh your host, your guiding light, have never supported any tax increase.
Never, never, never.
But with this alternative minimum tax and the tax increases that it'll bring to 20 million odd families, I'm beginning to wonder if the pain for one more year might be worth the gain.
Now, I know this may sound to you like I'm supporting a tax increase.
I'm not supporting something.
I'm thinking out loud here.
The AMT was created by liberals.
The AMT has been supported by liberals.
The AMT has been approved by liberals, and it turned into a near disaster by ex-President Clinton because it was expanded to include family income that was never intended to be included under the AMT.
Next year, if it's not changed, the alternative minimum tax will affect not the handful of citizens it was intended for, not the three million that it now affects, but well over 20 million largely upper middle class families, will be affected by the AMT next year.
That's why there is such a push now to try to do something about it.
Because in truth, elected officials know in an election year, if 20 million upper middle class families all of a sudden find themselves paying far more in taxes than they ever intended and planned to based on a program that was never intended to entrap them, there's gonna be hell to pay at the ballot box.
You know, Ernest Hollings used to say there's a whole lot of lessons we can learn out here.
The class warfare crowd would finally learn that plans to soak the rich end up soaking them.
This is why I'm thinking there might be some value in this.
The AMT was a soak the rich plan, and look who it's gonna soak.
It's gonna soak middle and upper in class uh upper uh income families.
Never intended to, right?
Liberal idea.
Look at who it's gonna hit.
The blue states, the people in the blue states would learn a lesson about liberal incrementalism.
First you're told the plan is really great and it's really nice.
And it's only gonna target those evil rich people.
And then over the years it turns very unnice.
Turns very mean.
And it starts to entrap you when you thought only the rich were gonna suffer.
You end up suffering too.
For one reason.
Liberals invented the tax.
The Clinton crowd, dense as they are, would learn what a slick politician he really is.
He, you know, he he he should have, and he could have, prevented this in his 1993 tax increase plan.
But he knew he'd be long gone before reality hit.
And yeah, liberals want the money, but they want control over people's lives as well.
Which brings us now to the greatest lesson of all in this.
The liberals made a mistake when they first wrote this up by not indexing the tax to inflation.
So the money that it projects as it's going to collect, to put it bluntly, is ill gotten.
In the real world, they would just eliminate this because it's unfair.
It is it's starting to uh entrap, and I'm using that word on purpose.
It's starting to entrap people it was never intended to entrap.
They would say they're sorry.
They say the program's gotten out of hold and move on.
We're just gonna cut it.
Okay, so it's sixty-five billion dollars.
Eat it, government.
You got a trillion over over a trillion dollars in the budget of play.
Over three trillion dollar federal budget.
Eat the sixty-five billion.
Don't sit there and tell us how you got to raise taxes somewhere else to make up for this.
Eat it.
Sixty-five billion is a percentage of three trillion.
Do without five bucks for a year.
Oh no, no, no, no, no.
Can't can't do that.
But see, they've already committed the money.
They have virtually spent the money they didn't have, and now they admit that they didn't deserve.
That's what Wrangle is saying.
Okay, so do they roll back the spending as they should, or do they raise matching funds by pulling all the same tricks?
Do they go out and play class warfare, make it sound good until incrementalism sinks in, have sneaky little fine print that won't be apparent until they like Clinton leave office?
You want to fix it for one year, Mr. Wrangle?
Fix it forever.
He just wants to fix it for one year on an election year.
See, this is why I ask, would the pain of this tax increase be worth the gain?
Would the pain of a bunch of people learning how soaking the rich soaks them be worth it during an election year?
Would it?
It's something to think about.
I don't know if it would turn the blue states bluer or turn some blue states toward the red, but all of America would learn the rule of liberal politicians.
The rule of liberal politicians is they make a mistake, you pay.
They make another mistake, you pay.
They make another mistake, you pay.
The decent thing to do is to just can the thing.
Perhaps the greatest lesson of all.
The AMT was a mistake that must be ended.
They weren't entitled to this money, but they already spent it.
They spent it all.
They haven't collected all the money yet that they have spent it all, we're running a budget deficit.
It would be a learning experience, I think, for the blue states who think that a two by four across the noggins of the class warfare crowd this could end up being that.
A pocketbook lesson for the blue states and their love of more spending.
Let's show the blue states, and let's let's show some doubting Thomas's maybe in the red states.
What liberal soak the rich really means.
The AMT was designed to soak the rich.
It's gonna get twenty million Americans next year who are never intended.
Let them, is it worth them feeling the pain that learned the lesson?
How liberal legislation on tax policy works.
An amazing, amazing story here.
This is Scott Rasmussen and Rasmussen reports.
Senate heated public opinion by rejecting Dream Act.
Having been burned once, the senators were much quicker to capitulate when the Wet Dream Act, a more limited immigration proposal, was brought up for a vote last Wednesday.
The measure failed to generate enough support to even begin a formal debate, which is fine with most voters.
A Rasmussen reports national phone survey found that only 22% of voters support the proposal introduced by Senator Dick Turbin.
Fifty-nine percent of all voters oppose the DREAM Act concept.
Republicans opposed it by five to one margin.
Unaffiliated are opposed by a three to one.
That would be the famous independents.
The uh moderates.
Democrats are a bit more evenly divided, 31% in favor, 49% opposed.
But Nancy Pelosi's party certainly doesn't provide a base of support for the DREAM Act.
The uh Rasmussen Report's national survey also found that just 16% of voters believe that the children of illegal immigrants should qualify for in-state tuition rates at colleges and universities.
Seventy-one percent disagree.
Now the question is asked here, or the headline, Senate heated public opinion by rejecting DREAM Act.
And so the question you could ask here uh, do they really get it now?
Uh ladies and gentlemen.
After the boondoggle that was amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform, after the people in Washington saw what happened, they still went out and tried to get the DREAM Act.
It's not a matter of whether they get what we want or not.
It's a matter of what they think they can get away with.
The Democrats need those illegal immigrants as voters.
They need the children of illegal immigrants granted citizenship so they can vote in a couple years.
They need them in universities and high schools and so forth, so they can start propagandizing them.
I'm not joking about this.
That's why they tried it.
Of course, it doesn't matter.
They have to get these votes.
None of them matter whether they get it.
What they're now plotting is how can they do it again and somehow get it past everybody.
Because there's no way they couldn't have gotten it the first time around.
After the massive, massive rejection of the amnesty bill to come back three months later with a much smaller approach called a DREAM Act.
Uh they're not listening.
In terms, not listening to what we say in terms of being guided by what to do.
They are they know full well that the nation, look at these numbers, opposes this three times now.
It's just for them, for the Democrats, it's a it's simply a matter of how how can they maneuver this and to get this into law without anybody knowing about it.
Uh, because they need these votes.
They need this new bunch of victims.
They need this new influx of people to become future Democrat voters.
David Rockford, Illinois.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Uh I'm a long, long time listener, a longtime student of the uh of the institute.
Good.
Uh the reason I called was that uh as I listened to you uh talk about Diane Feinstein's kind words about uh the president today.
I thought, you know, that just doesn't sound right to me.
And it occurred to me that maybe it's calculated.
Uh because of the the low ratings that Congress has.
Uh it's interesting that possibly they're going to ride the coattails of the president's higher ratings.
Uh, uh, so to speak.
Um, well, you may ha I wouldn't go I don't think he's got high enough ratings to coattail on.
Uh what what what David's talking about here is that Bush invited Nyan Feinstein to fly with him on Air Force One to San Francisco to Southern California last week, look at the fires.
And he went back to the back of plane where she was sitting and sat there for two hours talking foreign policy with her.
And she said, I I found the discussion extraordinarily positive.
I came away with a very different view about him.
Uh, And as far as his performance on the ground in California, it was a wonderful thing to see to be candid.
I saw a warm, caring human being.
This reported in the San Francisco Chronicle.
I guarantee you she's not up.
I don't know.
I don't think she's up for election next year.
I have to double.
No, no, she just got re-elected.
Okay, that's right.
Okay, so she's got she got a grace period here to be nice, but I'm going to tell you something.
The left-wing lunatic fringe doesn't want to hear this about George W. Bush, and they certainly don't want them capitalizing on his popularity.
Talent on loan from God.
How's Stumpy doing in there?
Stumpy's still flitting around and being in a debt's good.
All right.
Welcome back, folks.
You know, the um the uh Nobel prize-winning scientist, James Watson, went out there and said that Africans are dumber than people uh elsewhere and so forth.
He's quit now.
He's resigned whatever he was doing.
Lawmakers, including uh Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, have taken thousands of dollars in campaign money from him.
Mrs. Clinton and Senator Chuck Schumer requested a $900,000 earmark in June for the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, where James Watson served as Chancellor before resigning last week after apologizing for comments that suggested that people descending from Africa aren't as intelligent as those from Europe.
Federal campaign filings show that Mr. Watson was donated or has donated more than 70 grand to candidates in their political causes, including a total of three grand to Mrs. Clinton's campaign on May 17th and June 25th.
Two days later, a Senate committee report showed that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer earmarked $900,000 for Watson's lab.
Earmarked AMT.
You want to pay for the AMT, get rid of some of the earmarks.
900 grand to this guy's lab.
And you know the guy just had to quit the lab because of what he said.
And two days after she got a $3,000 presidential campaign donation, that earmark happened.
The uh majority of Mr. Watson's donations over the years have gone to Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who has, and by the way, Senator Harkin, I don't know about the intelligence of Africans, but whatever it is, yours doesn't match them.
Harkin has received more than $30,000 from James Watson, the disgraced Nobel winner.
Mr. Harkin's chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor Health, Human Services, and Education.
A spokesman for Mr. Harkin yesterday said the earmark is not likely to move ahead, partly because of the furor over Mr. Watson.
Yeah, there'll be an overall reduction in earmarks in the Senate bill as we go to conference.
It was uh jointly decided uh by the senators that a view of recent news this project should not be included, said Harkin's spokeswoman Jennifer Mullen.
Oh, Mrs. Clinton.
And Chuck Schumer with an earmark for this clown after taking campaign donations.
Now, I'm sure you're all familiar with the controversy in New York State over driver's licenses for illegals that the governor there, Elliot Spitzer, just wanted to ram down everybody's throats.
And of course, some people say, we're not gonna do this.
I don't care where you go in this country.
Illegal immigrants getting away with breaking the law.
When the state is gonna storm your house and take your baby that's five weeks old and take it away for six days to give it some blood tests.
And yet let illegals walk scot-free, give them driver's licenses, let them into college.
The American people are not gonna put up with this.
If the if law or state authorities, as federal or state authorities, have the energy and the impetus and the time to go into people's houses and take their five-week-old babies from them of six days to go test, they can certainly do what they can do to enforce the law on illegal immigration.
So Spitzer proposes this driver's license thing for the illegals that all hell broke loose.
So he's come up with an alternative plan.
Three types of driver's licenses, including one for illegal immigrants, Has everybody talking except the state's Democrat senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.
Uh Spitcher's a Democrat.
He announced over the weekend he'd struck a deal with federal homeland security officials to create a three-tiered state system of driver's licenses.
In doing so, New York agreed to adopt Bush administration goals on tighter ID security, but Spitzer stuck to his much criticized plan to allow illegals to get licenses.
Now the the license debate is uh, you know, hardwired.
Issues like immigration and terrorism, civil liberties.
Um simply be too radioactive for either a presidential candidate like Clinton or a powerful senator like Schumer to comment on.
For years, Clinton and Schumer seemingly couldn't stop talking about the government's looming border ID rules.
Now it's different.
Now here's my this this story, the reason I'm sharing it with you is not really about New York driver's licenses.
What is amazing to me about this is how Mrs. Clinton gets to be quiet when she wants to be quiet.
This is her state.
The fact that she's a presidential candidate only adds to the fact she should be asked about this.
The fact that she's a senator from the state of New York and is not being peppered by the press.
What do you think of the governor's plans here for illegal immigrants getting driver's license?
She's it's amazing how she's able to skate.
And here, this is an associated press uh story, David uh Barrett.
Um may simply be too radioactive for either a pr well go ask her.
Well, he may be too radioactive.
You expect her to come out and make a statement on it?
Go ask her.
She'll say it's a state issue, but she's a senator.
And illegal immigration is a national issue, and she's running for president.
She doesn't have an out here.
They just won't.
She Well, uh what, she supported Spitzer?
Uh imagine if you what did you say?
She Oh.
Oh, in the last general election she supported Spitzer.
I know that.
Well, of course she's going to support support Spitzer.
He's a Democrat.
She's not going to support anybody else.
I but she hasn't supported him on the that's not the point.
The point is she's given a pass.
It's too radioactive for her, writes the AP.
Man, oh man, oh man, what I have loved over several occasions in the last eighteen years for you Doomkoffs in the in the media to think certain issues were too radioactive for me to talk about.
Good grief.
Woman doesn't have to say diddly squat about anything, and she doesn't.
Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.
You know, the people of Argentina elected uh the the next Evita.
What's this babe's name?
I don't even.
The drive-by's are just ecstatic.
The drive-by's think that this is an omen, whereas Segaline Royal failed in France.
Christina, whatever in Argentina has prevailed.
So we have a uh a montage of yesterday and this morning of people from Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, uh whole bunch of people here talking about the election of uh this Christina babe uh to run Argentina.
I've long thought that there were parallels between Argentina and the United States when the movie Vita came out.
I always thought that that applied to Hillary Clinton.
Some call her the Hillary of Argentina.
And voters in Argentina get a package deal.
New president of Argentina with some striking similarities to Hillary Clinton.
She's been first lady, a senator, and a lawyer, and now she is president of Argentina.
The couple is sometimes referred to as Argentina's answer to the Clintons.
Comparisons to Senator Hillary Clinton, a former first lady, now running for president.
This is being compared to Hillary Clinton.
Is often referred to as a Hillary Clinton of Argentina.
Boy, they get hold of something and they just won't let it.
So here's the conventional wisdom because Argentina elected this uh Christina babe.
Why that's a that's Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton's aren't expecting yay!
Hillary Clinton is he and this they're the Argentina's version of the Clintons.
Oh, is it uh such a beautiful thing?
And of course, it doesn't mean diddly squat because the people of Argentina aren't gonna vote here.
Well, some of them aren't.
What do you mean you get my drift?
This is just Brian, wake up in there.
This is just this is uh I th this is just hilarious.
Late night, eh?
Cleaning up from the Halloween party over the weekend.
All right, so uh you have, and how about Kondraki, they're saying at the beginning, I always thought that when the movie came out, that that applied to Hillary Clinton.
Vita was about a Vita.
Now there might have been Madonna stayed starting a starring role there.
Might have been an attempt to make this about Hillary Clinton, but whatever.
This is this is drive-by media, conventional wisdom, pack mentality, groupthink, all now falling in line with what this election means.
Here's Ken in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Rush, uh, just an honor to be sitting at the feet of the professor all these years.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, you know, you're gonna have to write another book, uh, see I told you so, because you're gonna be proved right again when what you've said about Hillary Clinton all this time comes to pass.
Uh, this morning I was listening to Wisconsin Public Radio, and uh they had a straw poll on this morning.
Now, these are people from all over the state.
Uh, eighty-one people got through to cast their vote for any of the presidential candidates.
The far-out winner was Dennis Kucinich, with about twenty-one percent of the vote.
Next came Hillary with sixteen, but you know what?
In that one hour, I heard probably three, four women cast their vote for Hillary.
Most of the women who called in that show this morning were for Kucinich uh or Obama.
Uh, and the few for John Edwards.
So not only is Hillary not the anointed one that the media would make her out to be, she is not the anointed one among women either.
You said this uh eighty-one people.
Eighty-one people called in in an hour's worth of time.
Yeah, I uh I have to tell you something.
That's that is just pure anecdotal.
There's nothing scientific about that.
Uh, which is why, you know, I don't I don't take polls of uh or uh calculate the opinions of people that call here and then refer and then try to say that with certain extrapolations we can conclude that this represents a mindset.
Uh one of the things that'll happen in a pla especially in a place like Wisconsin.
And let me ask you a question here, Ken.
I'm uh need a brush up on my geography.
How close is O'Claire to Madison?
Uh we are about uh a good three-hour drive.
Okay, so you well, uh Madison, you know, is is uh pretty liberal.
Yes.
Uh, what would you say O'Claire is?
Uh we are we are pretty liberal up here, too, although certainly not.
I I guarantee you that when you when you have a rate a local radio station doing a poll, all right.
Who do you want to be president?
The fringe of the fringe, the lunatics of the lunatics will be the ones to call when you told me that Kucinich got the most votes.
That disqualified this as having any real meaning whatsoever, because Kucinich has as much chance of being nominated by the Democrats as Hillary Clinton has of giving James Watson the three thousand dollars back that he donated to her.
Mitt Romney on Hannity and Combs last night is really, really upset Clinton Inc.
This is what he said about Hillary Clinton.
She's never run anything.
She's never had the occasion of being in the private sector running a business or for that matter, running a state or a city.
She hasn't run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern.
The government is not a place for the president to be an intern.
That's the word that has upset Clinton Inc.
Intern is now a dirty word.
Thank you, Bill Clinton, this morning on MSNBC Live, correspondent uh correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, interviewed Howard Wolfson, uh, one of Clinton's minions.
And uh uh Andrea said, uh so this is not the first time he's used the word intern in reference to Senator Clinton's alleged lack of qualifications.
So it's an intentional point.
Do you think he's trying to provoke her by using that?
I think it's unfortunate.
You know, Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States Senator.
She has represented this country abroad in dozens and dozens of countries.
She's been a an advocate for families and children, one of the nation's foremost advocates for families and children for 35 years.
And so, you know, Mitt Romney wants to engage in a campaign of insults, so that's his choice.
Americans want to hear issues and ideas and not these kind of insults.
Yeah, well, it well, let's hear some issues and ideas.
Instead of these platitudes and everything else, insults from the Clinton war room, Clinton Inc., inventing the politics of personal destruction.
It's unfortunate.
It's just terribly unfortunate.
You know, Hillary Clinton's a two-term United States Senator.
She's represented the country abroad in dozens of dozens of funerals.
And she's been an advocate for blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Moving on to Rudy Giuliani, London Berry, or Londonderry, sorry, at New Hampshire last night, a campaign rally, a portion of his remarks.
You're asking me overall, do I think the mission in Iraq is the correct one?
I think without a doubt it is.
And I think the Democrats are going to change their mind about it again.
Hillary and Edward voted for taking out Saddam Hussein.
And Hillary was enthusiastic about it.
She has since changed her mind.
And I think Edwards has apologized for it.
And she hasn't apologized for it, but she said it was a mistake, but it was George Bush's mistake.
I guess he got her to vote that way.
Right.
Victory has this uh thing about it.
You know, people want to be part of it.
Uh here's a new radio ad Giuliani is running, by the way.
I had uh prostate cancer five, six years ago.
My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it in the United States.
My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only forty-four percent under socialized medicine.
You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat.
Government has never been able to reduce costs.
Government never increases quality.
We have the best health care system in the world.
We just have to make it better.
That's a new radio ad.
Rudy hitting on all cylinders here, uh fired up against the uh the Democrats.
Uh so anyway, I wanted to share this with you before the uh the program perspired today.
Reading, Pennsylvania.
Rob, I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Fine, thank you.
Yeah, it's Reading, California.
Reading, California.
Way to go, Snerdlies a little typo in there.
Must be worried about Stumpy.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Hey, um, I just wanted to make a comment about uh something about the last hour thing.
Uh wartime presidents are the only ones who are remembered and that have a they have a legacy.
I had a caller that said this.
Oh, okay.
And and what he said was that uh the the uh peacemakers do not get remembered that conquerors do.
Yes.
Well, anyway, if um there is an exception.
If you uh uh mention the name of Thomas Jefferson, people would probably know who you're talking about.
Some.
Yes.
Now he was not a wartime president, but uh he was remembered for the Louisiana purchase, uh Lewis and Clark expedition.
And um anyway, my point is uh, you know, have a have a vision for the future of the country, and do something about it and make the country better for people, and you'll have a fine legacy.
Well, okay, I understand.
There have been uh many presidents have had great legacies without winning wars uh and getting involved.
What this guy's point was that Mrs. Clinton, being a liberal Democrat and being the first female president, might feel the need or see the need uh to prove that uh uh a woman can hand a woman can handle these serious foreign policy things,
and he was afraid that she might just be sending the military all over the world on mission after mission after mission, uh in order to prove herself uh uh over the objections or the the uh the conventional wisdom uh that that people might have of a woman as uh as a peacemaker, a problem solver, a nurturer, uh, rather than somebody that could take somebody out.
But I don't think that anybody would ever, ever associate nurturing with with Mrs. Clinton.
You just nurse Ratchet did not nurture, she abused.
That's it, folks.
Sadly out of busy broadcast moments, but there are many more to come twenty one hours from now.
It's been a sheer delight, a blast being with you.
▲
Export Selection