All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
October 31, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host of this program documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the time.
Hence the latest opinion audit in from the Sullivan Group, my opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, California.
You are tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
A program note, Jason Lewis will be hosting the program tomorrow.
I will, well, I'll be gone.
No, it's not a super secret meeting.
It's just something I have to do that can only be done during the broadcast hours.
Frankly, it irritates me.
A powerful, influential member of the media like me ought to be able to get special consideration.
But this industry I have to deal with doesn't offer special consideration.
And so I'm a prisoner to it, and that's why I will not be here tomorrow.
I would much prefer to be here, but I can't be.
This is one of these must-dos, and I don't have very many of those because I'm not married.
But this is one of them.
So Jason Lewis will be here tomorrow.
And I didn't want to wait till the end of the program to tell you this.
And that way you get mad.
By the way, remember that judge, Roy Pearson, the administrative law judge who lost that $54 million lawsuit against the Asian dry cleaners, lost his job yesterday, was ordered to vacate his office.
Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
But a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.
The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to him about 3.30 in the afternoon telling him to get out of the office by 5.
Lost his pants, lost the shirt, and lost the suit, and then lost the job.
Term ended in May at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners.
Since then, he's remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney advisor.
A source familiar with the committee's meetings said that Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.
Instead, the committee said that it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audio tapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found that he didn't demonstrate appropriate judgment and judicial temperament, according to a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Yeah, like right, it didn't have anything to do with the lawsuit.
Ha!
How stupid do these people think we are?
I don't doubt that he was incompetent to boot.
The $54 million lawsuit sort of indicates that.
Speaking of oddball stories, this is from Niles, Michigan.
A judge gave a 35-year-old guy probation in a case that police said involved an assault with pickles.
According to police reports, the pickle problems began when Bobby Lee Bolan of Buchanan was hanging out at his then-friend, Jody Lee's home in Buchanan on the 20th of August.
Bolan went to the refrigerator, helped himself to some pickles.
According to the report, Lee told Bolin he couldn't afford to feed everyone and not to eat his pickles.
Bolan then began yelling and swearing and stormed out.
Later, Bolin barged back into the house.
This is Bobby Lee Bolin, barged back into the house, got into an argument with Jodie Lee.
Jody Lee told the cops that Bolin slammed him down on the couch, threw two large pickles at him, and said, here are your damn pickles.
Bolin also shoved former friend J.W. Romansky, the third, and beat Lee with a telephone when he tried to call 9-11, according to the guy called 9-11 after being beaten up with pickles.
If this isn't the silliest case I've ever seen in this courtroom, it certainly's in the top 10, said the trial judge Scott Schofield.
The fact that it's silly doesn't mean it's not serious.
Defense attorney Robert Lutz said alcohol appeared to be at the root of Bolin's problems.
He got 54 days in jail with credit for 54 days served and one year of probation, all for attacking a guy with two pickles.
Ralph Nader has sued.
No, of course, I bet he did relish the sentence.
54 days, he gets credit for 54 days serve without having to serve and a year probation.
Consumer advocate, 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democrat Party yesterday, contending that officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry, who served in Vietnam.
Nader's lawsuit, also named as co-defendants, Kerry's Campaign, the Service Employees International Union, and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democrat ticket.
Now, among other things, a lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states.
It also suggests that the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Oregon.
That happened in June of 2004, preventing Nader from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot there.
Well, he doesn't have a chance here, but you know, you can only hope that he bankrupts the DNC with the action.
Somewhat doubtful.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we've been talking about Mrs. Clinton a lot today because of her really horrible performance on stage at a Democrat debate last night at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
The only thing worse was the performance of these other schlubs on stage with her, who, for whatever reason, and we could roll the dice on what all those reasons are, to probably be right about all of them, never made one serious move to capitalize on Mrs. Clinton's blundering, bumbling performance last night.
So, in keeping with the theme that Mrs. Hillary Clinton is the show today, there's an interesting piece here by Kyle Ann Shiver at The American Thinker.
Republican women too smart to fall for Hillary's ruse.
Let me just read some excerpts for you.
Last week, my hometown paper, The Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, ran an online story entitled Clinton Polster Predicts Defection of GOP Women.
Depending solely on his own internal polling, Mr. Mark Penn, public relations guru extraordinaire and Hillary's campaign strategerist, says that a full 24% of Republican women will punch their ballots for Hillary based on the emotional appeal of electing the first woman president.
Clearly, Mr. Penn is either purposefully spinning or indulging in a rather perverted, nearly delusional form of magical thinking.
We Republican women are far, far too smart to fall for Hillary Clinton's ruse.
We are not the mindless ninnies that vote with the special interest express.
We think for ourselves and vote for the candidate of our choice based on merit.
We cast our precious votes for the candidate we believe would be the best president, not the one with an emotional appeal aimed at our womanhood.
Mr. Mark Penn, I have read, is currently worldwide CEO of one of the largest PR firms in the world, Burstyn Marsteller.
He is also the president of his own polling firm and is best known for his service to Bill Clinton as pollster and political advisor from 96 through 99.
Chief talents seem to be polling and messaging with special corporate expertise in image, branding, and competitive marketing assignments.
Well, I'm impressed.
And I think Mr. Penn's been hanging out with Democrat women nearly all of his life.
Maybe doesn't know one whit about the female portion of the Republican Party.
For all of his astounding political prowess, he probably thinks that women who think like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Melanie Morgan, Sandy Rios, et cetera, et cetera, are just very successful aberrations of a sort.
And that the rest of us have done absolutely nothing all of our lives but stay home, bake cookies, and let other people raise our children while we watch The View.
I personally don't know any woman who has ever seen that show, but I hear they have some really great cat fights, and that occasionally one of the women even makes a coherent statement.
Most of the women I know have spent a great portion of their lives doing volunteer work in our communities, trying to put band-aids on the myriad of social problems that have become epidemic in the wake of Democrat social policies.
Unwed motherhood, broken families, absent mothers and fathers, broken government schools, sex education teaches nothing but how to do a great imitation of an alley cat in heat.
These mostly Republican women are still trying to make sense out of a political party that would so strenuously object to pornography filters on public library computer terminals while exposing their seven-year-olds to lessons in how to put on a condom.
These soccer moms, a phrase coined by Mr. Penn, by the way, give hours each week to crisis pregnancy centers that offer actual help to young girls whose boyfriend flunked the condom lessons, but got the alley cat impersonations down perfectly.
These conservative women are providing meals to homeless shelters and holiday celebrations and gifts for people in need.
These women are a veritable army of soldiers on the front lines of social decay, fighting not with the empty rhetoric, but with actual labor to right real wrong.
So when Hillary Clinton wails about those in our midst who have been invisible to Republicans, we women stand with our mouths agape and our consciousness fully raised in utter incredulity.
For the smartest woman in the world, she comes off as pretty darn dumb or blind.
You pick for where we're sitting.
Mr. Penn, it looks like you and Hillary don't get out of your little self-created bubble enough.
We Republican women are plumb full of emotion every time we see Mrs. Clinton put on yet another female face for the cameras.
But it isn't the kind that you ever want to be with in a dark room alone.
That's Kyle Ann Shiver at the American Thinker.
She really writes some great stuff.
She popped up there on the scene not too long ago at The Americans Thinker.
Anyway, quick time out here, folks.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Don't go away.
Hey, get this, folks.
According to a new study released Monday from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Harvard Schorenstein Center, which we discussed that, found that newspapers and broadcast TV outlets devoted far more time to covering Democrat candidates than the Republicans, and that the tone of those stories was much more favorable to the Democrats, which mirrors the results of a media research center study that was released in August.
And according to this study, those news organizations that hold themselves up as the most neutral and professional, the big newspapers, the big broadcast networks, professional National Public Radio, subsidized national radio, are actually producing campaign stories that are the most tilted in favor of Democrats, while online news and talk radio have actually been the most balanced.
The drive-bys are more biased than talk radio.
According to this is Harvard University, the Shorenstein Center there and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, claiming that the drive-by is more biased.
Now, how can that be?
I'll tell you how it can be: they don't tell you what their bias is, even though it's noticeable now.
We, of course, on Talk Radio do.
Here is Bruce in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Bruce, welcome to the Rush Lindlaw program.
It is nice to have you here.
Thank you, Rush.
How closely do you think the media establishment pays attention to your comments, in particular, its substance?
Because Russert certainly got a hold of it.
Media Matters nitpicks around with it.
How much do they actually pay attention to your comments on a daily basis?
Well, I've wondered about that.
I mean, you'd have to say it's a lot.
But at the same time, if I answer the question at the drive-bys, people in the media listen a lot to this program, then how does Media Matters get away with taking this program out of context and smearing it?
Precisely.
So I don't know how much they actually listen.
I don't know that Russert actually heard the program yesterday.
I didn't ask him.
I didn't send him a note or anything.
Somebody had to, because look, nobody was talking about this in the way I was talking about it until yesterday.
That's why I wondered if this was going to come up the debate last night.
It came up near the end of the debate, this whole question about New York driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
And there was this story yesterday in the AP, we had it on a newsday.
So it had to run in a lot of places.
So look, it could have been that anybody who read that story would have the same reaction to it I did because it was somewhat amazing.
The reporter actually acknowledging that the issue was radioactive for Hillary Clinton.
But the story also acknowledged she hadn't commented on it because it's radioactive.
And that's what blew my top.
Well, then go ask her.
Why give her a pass?
This woman gets to dictate what she talks about, what she doesn't talk about.
So it came up last night.
And, you know, as Reagan said, folks, it doesn't matter who gets the credit as long as the job gets done.
And the question was asked last night, and it was a bomb for Mrs. Clinton.
This is where Howard Feynman was talking, or no, Chris Matthews was talking about how her playbook failed her, or her playbook, the prep book.
The book's fault that she botched the answer.
This is Mary in Atlanta.
Hi, Mary.
Nice to have you with us.
Well, thank you.
After listening to the debates and seeing the polls, I'm getting the distinct impression the other Democratic candidates are trying to run for the vice presidential slot.
Because they're not attacking her and they don't want to make her mad?
Yeah.
Probably so.
And they're having a little fun raising some money along the way at the same time.
Plus, they're able to have it on their resume, former presidential candidate.
So this is like Nobel Peace Prize winner.
It'll always be something that'll crawl in graphic form underneath their picture when they're on television.
Former presidential candidate Bill Richardson.
Bill, what do you say?
Former presidential candidate, what do you think of X?
I just have the feeling that they've given in to what they see as inevitable and are trying to jockey for their position.
Perhaps.
You might be right.
I think a lot of people have your theory, but I strange.
I don't even think any of these guys are the frontrunner.
I think the frontrunner for VEEP is this Evan Bayh fellow out of Indiana.
That's what I've been hearing.
It ain't going to be Obama.
I'm going to tell you, it ain't going to be because she's not going to need Obama.
She's not going to, she gets, she kills two birds with one stone.
She's a woman and therefore a minority.
So she sets the record for the first woman to why have somebody else as the first ever as VEEP?
She's not into competition like this.
Whoever the vice president is is going to be never heard from again.
I mean, he's going to be relegated to funerals overseas and this sort of stuff.
And whatever Clinton doesn't want to do, this guy's going to get, whoever it is.
She's not going to put Obama.
She's not going to need Obama to win.
She'll pick somebody else she thinks can win.
And I don't think it'll be any of the, it ain't going to be Edwards.
It will not be Edwards.
It will not be Bill Richardson.
Who won't be Biden?
It won't be Chris Dodd.
Who else?
I forget who.
Who else is Hillary Obama?
Edwards, that's top tier, right?
Those are the three.
It ain't going to be any of those.
It's going to be Evan Bayh.
So if these people think they're angling here for VEEP, then they're making a big mistake.
Let's go back to the audio soundbites.
We still have some more.
We're up to number 16 here from the debate.
Tim Russert, Senator Clinton, would you pledge the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?
I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
But you won't pledge.
I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
But they may.
Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
That's why the Clinton camp think that Russert was belligerent and violating debate rules.
But he wasn't violating debate rules, and he wasn't belligerent.
Will you pledge to the American people Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you're president?
I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
It's not the answer, Mrs. Clinton.
It's not the answer.
Here's Edwards responds to Hillary with this.
I just listened to what Senator Clinton said, and she said she wanted to maximize pressure on the Bush administration.
So the way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution that looks like it was written literally by the neocons.
We need to make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of letting Bush, Cheney, or this administration invade Iraq because they have been rattling the saber over and over and over.
And what this resolution did, written literally in the language of the neocons, it is it enables this president to do exactly what he wants to do.
He continues to march forward.
He continues to say this is a terrorist organization.
He continues to say these are proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.
Well, they are.
It's exactly what Iran is.
Everybody knows it.
Written by the neocons.
What Edwards is trying to say here is that Hillary signed the resolution giving Bush the authority to do this.
But it's still a just, it was meager.
It was just, it was.
Guy's got to think of himself in court next time.
Amen, bro.
Amen.
And we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Now, every time we have one of these Democrat debates, we always find the opportunity to produce a montage of wacko comments made by these people.
And last night's debate was no exception.
This montage is of the candidates talking about diplomacy.
Now, keep in mind, all of these people on the stage claim to want to be the leader of the free world.
And they spoke of diplomacy last night as though it was an end, that diplomacy is how things are solved, when in truth, diplomacy exists to extend problems so that the people whose job is to solve them never get the job done, so they always have the job.
Diplomacy is fine and dandy in certain instances, but it's not how you deal with tyrants.
It's not how you deal with oppressors.
It just isn't.
It's not a magic wand that will make the world safe.
But listen, not one of these instances of the usage of the phrase diplomacy or the word diplomacy was repeated.
I prefer vigorous diplomacy, part of vigorous diplomacy, with respect to diplomacy.
Sanctions and diplomacy are the way to go.
Try diplomacy and as part of diplomacy.
Resolution which called for diplomacy, foreign policy that rejects diplomacy.
What we're trying to do is push vigorous diplomacy.
Be engaged in diplomacy, diplomacy with some carrots and sticks.
I want to start diplomacy.
We have to use diplomacy.
We've got to get diplomacy started.
It would be through diplomacy.
The key has to be diplomacy.
Diplomacy.
That's diplomacy.
We've got to focus on diplomacy to lead that diplomacy.
And finally, we need to engage in diplomacy.
Yeah, I finally need to engage in diplomacy.
And of course, these iterations, these utterances are actually simply their way of communicating to the base, trying to keep the anti-war crowd happy.
It's just more disingenuousness from these people trying to reach whoever in the audience, a bunch of pacifists.
Peter in Bellingham, Washington, thank you for calling, sir.
And next up, you are here on the EIB Network.
Hey, Raj, thanks for having me on.
You know, I have to go back to Hillary Listig, her qualifications for being president of the United States.
And it sounds to me more like she was running for a social worker.
I mean, the child advocacy and the health care, this and that.
It just didn't seem like she had any qualifications there.
Well, that's what she always.
She cites her service in various causes and so forth as representing experience.
And all that's really designed to do is to convince people that she cares.
There's a whole group of Americans that think that's the number one qualification.
Remember the ponytail guy, that idiot at the debate.
When was this, 1992?
And it was somewhere in South Carolina.
It was George Bush and Ross Perot, the hand grenade with a bad haircut, and Clinton.
And this ponytail guy stands up.
When are you going to consider us your children and take care of us?
Bush looked at his watch.
Perot was not in the camera.
Clinton leapt out of his position, wherever they were standing, but he just ran forward to this guy.
I want that question.
That's an excellent question.
And I want you to know I'm going to look at you exactly that way to me.
You're nothing but a child, and you're never going to grow up if I have anything to do about it.
That's not what he said.
It's what it sounded like he said.
It's what he implied.
So a lot of people out there that they simply react to somebody saying they care.
Yeah.
Mrs. Clinton is a.
So here's that answer, by the way, if you're wondering what he's talking about.
It's number 13.
And Hillary was asked by Brian Williams, what is your experience?
How do you respond to the former mayor of New York who says you don't have any experience?
Experience of 35 years as an advocate for children and families, as a citizen activist, as someone who helped to bring educational reform and health care reform to Arkansas, bringing the children's health insurance program to fruition during the years in the White House, my time in the Senate.
I think my experience on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, in a perverse way, I think that the Republicans and their constant obsession with me demonstrates clearly that they obviously think that I am communicating effectively about what I will do as president.
And I am trying to do that because it matters greatly.
We've got to turn the page on George Bush and Dick Cheney.
In fact, we have to throw the whole book away.
Yeah, So you're right.
She sounds like a social worker.
And that is her experience.
Look, I'm being redundant here, but her experience is 35 years of dealing with bimbo eruptions.
That's it.
And her single greatest achievement has been rehabbing her husband from an impeached philanderer to world statesman.
That has been her greatest achievement, which is a PR trick with the aid and abettance of the drive-by media.
Chuck and Iowa City, you're next on the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Well, I just want to let you in on a little Halloween happening that's going on here in Iowa.
The state revenue department has decided that pumpkins are no longer an edible squash.
They are a decoration.
And so they are now being taxed not as food since they're considered not food anymore.
But however, if you wish, you can send in a form to the state of Iowa to get a rebate on your taxes back.
So if you spend five bucks on a pumpkin, you get 30 cents back since we're in a 6% tax bracket here for sales tax.
But you got to spend 41 cents to mail the form in.
The state has to spend whatever their bulk rate is back to send it back to you, plus all the money to process it.
So that's what our new liberal governor, Chet Culver, has done for us here.
Why are you surprised?
Well, not really, but it's kind of, I guess it's more of I told you so for some of my family members.
It is.
Chet Culver.
Liberal, go to Michigan, go where these liberal governors are.
Where they do, they raise taxes.
Well, we knew it was coming down the road.
And it's tax creep.
I mean, there's a number of things that happen as far as in the state of Iowa, cigarette taxes have gone up.
All the fees have gone up.
And it's just, it's, as usual, you know, liberal game plan is creep the taxes up nice and slow.
And the next thing you know, your economy is stagnating.
Exactly right.
And what happened?
Well, I saw this story.
I saw it, and I just didn't even bother printing it out because I thought, well, we're going to have more important things today.
But since you bring it up, I just went and found the story and printed it out.
And this is from the Des Moines Register today.
The Iowa Department of Revenue is now searching for pennies in pumpkins.
New department policy this year has made Halloween jack-o'-lanterns subject to the state sales tax.
And the pumpkin growers feel like they've been tricked.
The guy's right.
The caller is right.
If you buy the pumpkin to decorate it for Halloween, then you pay a tax on it.
If you say you're going to eat the pumpkin, but you have to send them a form to the state claiming that you ate it and then get a rebate back.
So it costs you money to send the form.
And what's a stamp these days?
41 cents?
Is that what it is?
See, I have not lost touch.
I know what the price of a stamp is.
This is just, it's, I have for 18 years, 19 years into my 20th years, just railed and railed and railed against taxes, and I've warned people.
I mean, just in the most recent.
Yeah, well, they'll tax everything.
Snow, this is the point.
Look at they're going to tax tobacco to the point that people aren't going to be able to afford it, and they're taxing a program or a product that I'm not allowing people to use.
Who do you think is going to be paying and picking up the slack when tobacco taxes don't pay for the program that they're designed to pay for, which is children's health?
No, that's the poor children.
Well, you know, there's another story about that.
Believe it, I didn't want to print this out either because I thought it would be a little frivolous.
But there's a story about trick-or-treating tonight and how most and trick-or-treating, Halloween night is the hardest hit are the minorities.
The two-thirds of minorities, I forget what the numbers, but many fewer minorities go trick-or-treating than do whites.
That was the focus story.
I am not kidding.
I am not kidding.
I'm not making it up.
I saw it.
I didn't print it out because it's frivolous.
I mean, it just, it's absurd.
It's ridiculous.
But there's a reason for it.
Let's say that it's true.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that the story is true, that many fewer minorities go trick-or-treating than whites.
Why would that be?
Besides Bush, besides George Bush, you think about it.
You think about it, and I'll take a break and I will come back and we'll explore this since it's been brought up.
Hell, I suspect I forgot to mention this.
It happened a half hour ago.
The Fed did cut the interest rate a quarter point in order to protect the economy from the failing housing market is the drive-by media add-on, but they did cut it.
All right, here's the story.
It's an AP story.
You got to wonder, somebody at AP, editor, assignment editor, something, get the idea for this story.
The idea to do the story is what interests me.
Somebody at the AP assignment desk has said, you know what?
It's Halloween.
Those rich white kids are going out tonight getting candy and so forth.
I'll bet a bunch of black kids aren't going to be as fairly treated, but they're not going to go out.
We need to do a story on this.
So they went out and did a story on it.
Even in Halloween, America is a racist, mean country.
Even when it comes to the distribution of candy, there is racism.
Minorities hardest hit.
Two-thirds of parents say their children will trick-or-treat this Halloween, but fewer minorities will let their kids go door-to-door with some citing safety worries, according to a poll.
They actually did a poll.
The poll found that 73% of whites versus 56% of minorities said their children will trick-or-treat tonight.
That disparity in the survey is similar to the difference in how people view the safety of their neighborhoods, according to the poll by AP.
Lower-income people and minorities are more likely to worry that it might not be safe to send their children out on Halloween night.
Thomas Link, 50, and his family are new to their trailer park in Palatka, Florida.
He said he considers it unsafe because he doesn't know many neighbors, but he had not decided whether to let his three young kids trick-or-treat.
I'm very particular about who I let my kids deal with.
Trailer Park in Pulatzka, Florida, overall, 86% of those questioned the survey said their neighborhoods are safe for trick-or-treating.
91% of whites compared with 75% of minorities.
Well, you know, I don't know if they, if they, yeah, it's interesting surveying some guy in a trailer park in Pulaska, Florida, but what about in the inner cities?
I mean, if you, if you happen to live in a high-rise apartment building, say in New York, or out in the Queens or what, wouldn't it be simple to go trick-or-treating and never leave the building?
Just get on the elevator, knock on everybody's door, and go back to where you live.
I wonder what James Watson, the former Nobel Prize winner who was contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign and vice versa, would say about this.
He's the guy that said that people in Africa just don't have the same IQ, the same brains as Europeans do.
And that's why when you treat them the same, the social policies are they don't get it.
And of course, he's been dispatched here to the ash heap of stupid statement people.
Richard in Valley Stream, New York, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
How are you, Rush?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you very much.
I just wonder, and I think it would be very interesting if it finally ends up the way it looks like it might end up to be a Clinton versus Giuliani election.
Yes.
The Clintons have been so successful in reaching whatever they've wished to reach through various means of having the propensity for making things like files and evidence and people like Vince Forster and James McDougal disappear.
And yet they seem to be like John Gotti as far as being Teflon.
All of this stuff just slides off them and nobody is ever able to find out actually what happened and they just move on.
And I think if it's Rudy Giuliani, I have a funny feeling considering his ability to be able to investigate and research and the resources that he has available to him.
He built the New York City Police Department, which has a better intelligence agency than most countries, that foreign countries, including the FBI and the CIA, constantly make use of these resources, these databases.
Let's just cut to the chase here.
Okay, who's going to be?
Richard, what do you say?
That Rudy is going to finally dig up the dirt on these people?
I don't think he's going to dig up the dirt.
I'm sure he's got a file put away for just the right time that he could kneecap the Clintons the way the Clintons go around kneecapping everybody else.
I'm thinking that Rudy Juli Giuliani probably knows more about the Clintons than the Clintons think they know about themselves.
Well, if that's true, there's going to be a very boring campaign because there won't be any mudslung by either side.
Well, I just think if anybody is going to be capable of finally beating them at their own game, it's going to be Rudy Giuliani.
I know that's what you're saying.
I was just pretending to be a reporter.
Yeah.
It could be very interesting.
Well, you may be right.
I hadn't thought of that, but it will be.
Whoever, I don't care who the nominee is, looks like it will be Rudy, but this campaign's going to have surprises that nobody can anticipate.
It's going to be probably the predictions are it is going to be dirtier than any campaign previously.
And the conventional wisdom is always wrong.
If this guy's right, if Rudy has a file on them and they got a file on Rudy, and they're both telling each other, you play low and I'm releasing what I got in here.
Of course, the Clintons would say, you can't possibly have any more than what anybody else already knows.
So you go ahead and talk about it.
We've already had that stuff dumped on us, and we have dealt with it, Rudy.
Yes, of course I do.
Of course I believe it.
Snerdley says, do you believe we're talking about presidential candidates kneecapping people and nobody even blinks?
Snerdley, you're not naive.
The kneecapping, of course, is used euphemistically.
It is symbolic.
Let me take a brief time out here, folks, be back and wrap it up right after this.
Thanks for the call out there, Richard.
Don't go away, folks.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Attacks by insurgents and other fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops.
Iraqi forces and civilians dropped sharply again in September.
Another shocking surprise to experts dropped to their lowest level since early 2006, continuing a decline in violence since June.
But progress on political goals and Reconstruction has been stalled by weaknesses in U.S. strategic.
Oh, great, news on the front that the drive-bys and the Democrats have been opposing Iraq since the get-go.
Troop deaths.
Now great, great news.
But the political, it's just, it's falling apart, blah, Folks, it's been a blast being with you today, as it always is.
Remember, I will be absent tomorrow, not by choice, but I will be back here on Friday for Open Line Friday and more broadcast excellence.
So I hope you have a Jason Lewis will be sitting in behind the golden EIB microphone tomorrow.
Look forward to Friday.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection