All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:14
November 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I know.
Late arriving show prep.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
It's El Rush Baugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, a thrill and a delight to be with you.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, here are the details on the Ninth Circus ruling on fuel standards.
The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals today threw out planned federal fuel economy standards for many SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks.
They ruled that the standards, which were to go into effect next year, did not properly assess the risk to the environment and failed to include heavier SUVs and trucks, among several other deficiencies the court found.
The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by 11 states and environmentalist wacko groups who had argued that federal regulators ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions when calculating fuel economy standards for light trucks.
The new mileage standards announced in March of 2006 required an increase in average fuel economy for all passenger trucks sold in this country from 22.2 miles per gallon to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.
Filed last year, the suit sought to force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recalculate its mileage standards from scratch with carbon dioxide emissions taken into account as a major factor in the agency's analysis.
So let me try to translate this.
The Supreme Court ruled not long ago that the EPA had the authority to act universally nationally on these kinds of standards, not just the National Highway Traffic Safety, whatever it is.
And this is a push to tie the federal government's issuance of CAFE standards to global warming.
And so while it basically adds up to the new mileage standards, it's not stringent enough for these people.
Now, this Ninth Circuit happens to be the most overturned circuit in the country.
So we'll just have to wait and see if this, because it'll go to the Supreme Court now, and we'll see what happens if they decide to take it.
There's a new video ad for Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton, it says here, this is Breitbart.com storage AP, Bill Clinton developing a sideline as a top performer on his wife's comic web videos.
First was the Sopranos send-up with a former president lamenting the lack of onion rings at the hometown diner, but now there's a new video for young Iowa voters reassuring them that participating in the state's cauckey on behalf of Hillary is simple.
It opens with Clinton huffing on a treadmill, envisioning a double cheeseburger.
And the point, exercising is hard, an announcer in tones.
And then they cut to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and his wife Christy, both Clinton backers, doing the twist.
And the announcer says the dancing is hard.
And they cut to Hillary's famous off-key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.
The announcer says singing is hard and then says caucusing is easy.
And two teenagers appear on screen to explain that anyone of voting age by next year's general election can caucus in Iowa.
Caucusing, they say, is all easy.
So the new video out, Clinton trying to act funny and so forth.
Here is the real question.
Ladies and gentlemen, Somebody needs to ask Bill Clinton this question.
Bill, why would she vote, why should we vote for this woman, your wife, if you yourself felt you couldn't be loyal to her during your long marriage?
Why should we be forced to pledge loyalty to this woman, Bill, when you wouldn't?
Well, what's wrong with that, Dawn?
Is that not a legitimate question?
I'm going to get in trouble from who?
How am I going to get in trouble for this?
He's out there campaigning for his wife.
He wasn't loyal to her.
By the way, where's Monica Lewinsky in this commercial saying?
Interning is hard.
Caucusing is easy.
I'm serious.
That's a perfectly legitimate question.
Why should we be loyal and devoted and so forth when he wasn't?
He knows her better than any of the rest of us.
I got a fax from Duncan Hunter here, Republican presidential candidate and ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee in the U.S. House.
Dear Rush, the Iraq funding bill that the Democrats passed last night includes one of the most devastating provisions ever passed during a military conflict.
Page four of the bill states this.
None of the funds may be used to deploy any unit to Iraq unless the president has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.
Today, our military operations at Iraq involve dozens of units moving across the Iraq border every 24 hours.
These units may be aircraft called from an aircraft carrier off the coast or the air base in Turkey or special forces, SEAL Ranger teams, special explosive teams, or any of a number of other specialized reaction forces.
Thus, the Democrat notify and wait for 15 days provision will, should it become law, endanger our troops in Iraq by prohibiting supportive or reinforcing units from coming to their aid in a timely fashion.
In this war against terrorism, targets are acquired which present only small windows of opportunity, sometimes involving minutes, some involving hours.
For the Democrat leadership to require 15-day waiting periods for reaction forces is a remarkable disservice to every American in Iraq.
And he sent along the relative language from page four of the legislation, which I just read to you.
This is frankly amazing.
And we've got some soundbites in the roster today of Pelosi and Dingy Harry talking about their latest bid to secure defeat.
Congressman Hunter does not say this in his facts to me, but ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that provisions like this and everything else they've been doing are oriented toward losing, particularly now when we're on the verge of victory.
And the Democrats cannot withstand that politically.
They cannot allow that to happen because they have gone so far over the cliff on this that there's no way that they can share any credit or even any of the joy in victory.
They are trying to sabotage it, and this is going to come back and bite them.
I'm quite at a loss here to describe the emotions I'm feeling in trying to analyze this.
Never have seen anything like this in time of war in my lifetime.
And I doubt that anybody else alive today has either.
And the idea that this is going to benefit them and help them, they think this is going to help them.
Believe me, if the attitudes of the American people en masse were to lose, we would have lost.
Just like the attitudes of the American people totally opposed to amnesty and there is no amnesty.
I mean, they're going to keep trying, obviously, but the bill was defeated.
If the Democrats really had the support of 72% of the American people for getting out and for losing, we would be out.
They would have the guts to defund it.
They'd have the guts to actually pass these resolutions that they propose.
They'd have the votes to override any presidential veto if the people were behind them.
They think the people are behind them, but they aren't.
This incessant, over-the-top devotion and play to their wacko base is, trust me on this, it is going to hurt them big time.
And they're afraid of them.
You know, the moveon.org and these groups out there threatening, especially candidates in the House of Representatives, you don't do the right thing on this, we're going to find candidates to run against you, and we're going to run ads against you.
And we're going to make sure that you lose.
And we're going to get some anti-war Democrats in there if we have to get you out.
It's a little personal fear of these groups actually being able to defeat them next November.
It's also fundraising, but it's also illustrative of they just, they don't give a rat's ass about the country.
They just don't.
They don't care about the U.S. military.
They're happy.
Their joy will be if we lose this, if they can secure defeat.
Ponder that for a moment.
Be right back.
Half.
Welcome back.
Get back to the phones here in just a second.
Please be patient.
If you are waiting on the hold, two-thirds, two-thirds say they'll do it for a year's tuition, and for a few, even an iPod touch will do.
That's what New York University students said they would take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential race.
A recent survey by an NYU journalism class found only 20% said they'd exchange their vote for an iPod touch.
66% said they would forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU.
Half said they would give up their right to vote forever for $1 million, but they also overwhelmingly lauded the importance of voting.
It's a bunch of young people, but I got to tell you something.
What does this?
What is the first thought that came to my mind is, no wonder all this rock the vote, MTV voter registration stuff that the Democrats engage in every year ends up not being a factor.
Funny, that vote has a price, and so forth.
I think this is kids being funny and so forth.
You know how many, how many, how many students would give up the right to vote for a facelift Gail in San Diego nice, to have you on the EIB network?
Hello hey Rush hi, hi there.
I'm calling about your, what you were talking about earlier, about your article by Parker, and I'm not a feminist, I'm actually a teacher in California losing the education battle.
Parker's article says that women you know, you mentioned that women wouldn't vote or would vote for Hillary because men were degrading her regarding her looks or whatever.
If, if women hear men degrading or laughing and making fun of her appearance And her attire and her demeanor, that will force a bond between women who will then vote for her because, you know, women can think that of her, but don't let men say it.
Well, I have to disagree with that, Rush, just because I think women in general have way more common sense than that than to vote for a woman for that reason.
I mean, we may listen to it.
We may listen to the men who are saying it and say, oh, my God, that's terrible that you said that about Hillary.
How dare you?
We may stick up for Hillary in a group of men who are talking that way about her.
But I'll tell you this, Rush, that would not influence me or any woman that I know to go in the voting booth and vote for her because I think women have way more sense than that.
Women can see right through Hillary Clinton.
The women I know, we can see exactly what's going on with Hillary Clinton.
And that is why I would never vote for her.
And I just really recently have even gotten into politics.
I've never been really that interested.
But I started listening to your show.
I started taking a little bit of an interest and, you know, not being happy with the education system in California.
And I've become really interested in all this where Hillary is concerned because I am a woman.
And it's not that I would not love to see a woman in the office, but it wouldn't be her.
And the reason is just for that reason, because I can see through her, and I know a lot of women can.
Therefore, I don't agree that anybody I know as a woman, as an intelligent woman, would vote for Hillary for that reason.
Wait a minute, bro.
You keep saying women I know.
And I would agree with you that Kathleen Parker's column did tend to make women monolithic in this regard.
But have you ever, you remember the New York Times art critic by the name of Pauline Kahle?
No, I don't.
Well, back in 1972, when Richard Nixon won in a landslide, Pauline Kahle has gone down in history for saying this.
How in the hell did Nixon win?
I don't know anybody that voted for him.
Well, and I understand what you're saying.
But, you know, women just are very intuitive, Rush.
Yeah, but I think.
Wait a second.
Gail, look at.
You are an intelligent and educated woman.
The women early on, according to polling data, that were attracted to Mrs. Clinton were the uneducated and poor women.
And they're making a move that Clinton can't, those women, the educated women on the Democrat side, were actually floating towards Obama early on.
It's done some shifting in it since.
But, you know, women who are not educated, not intelligent, and they're poor, might not look at this the same way you do.
Well, then even if they just look at the fact that she was married to Bill while he was holding the highest office that you can hold in the United States, he blatantly cheats on her in the office itself physically.
And he just lets that go.
I mean, I don't care if you're educated or not educated, if those uneducated women's husbands did that thing.
And the women, Gail, the women I'm talking about, wish that it had been them married to Hillary that he was cheating on.
Yes, Dawn, it's true.
And even some educated women, I'll never forget this Nina Burley babe, who at the time wrote for Time magazine, who said she would give Clinton to Lewinsky just because he's kept abortion legal.
I mean, a lot of women in the 90s were just dreaming that they could be in Hillary's place, even if he was cheating on her.
The real question, as I asked, needs to be asked of Bill.
You know, you're out there telling everybody to vote for Hillary, but you weren't loyal to her.
Why should we be?
I still don't understand how I'm going to get in trouble for this.
It is.
Oh, really?
That?
Oh, I'm finally being honest with here.
That's hitting below the belt.
Is what I did just.
Does that statement where I'm asking Dawn here?
Does that evoke sympathy for Mrs. Clinton?
Right?
Okay, Dawn says, I still wouldn't vote for it, but I just don't think you need to say that.
I think it, I think it's brilliant.
Yeah, if I, you know, I'll only get in trouble if Tim Russert asks that question.
But nobody's going to ask Clinton that question.
I'm putting it out there for people to think about.
No, you know, nobody's going to ask him that question.
My God, that's a brilliant question.
To think I'm going to get heat for that.
It's not even about Hillary.
That's in defense of Hillary.
It's always about.
All right.
All right.
That's always about the woman, and they want to know what about him.
What about what about me made him cheat?
Well, see, viting my tongue because I know the answer to that question.
What about Hillary made him cheat?
Marion Wichita, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
I've been waiting a while, and I can't believe how many topics you discuss in an hour and a half.
It's amazing.
Thank you very much.
All of you have been on hold that long.
Yes.
Get after Schnerdley.
Well, wait, I'm going to say something to him.
That's outrageous.
Well, it is because I think I have a good story for you, and it was all your fault that it happened to me.
I was driving down doing running errands and listening to you.
It was about three weeks ago.
And you were talking about Harry Reed, and you were getting the hugest kick out of him because he used your term of endearment, dingy Harry, on the Senate floor.
And that just knocked you out.
So you were laughing, and I was listening to you, and I was following this big white SUV.
And I couldn't see around him, and he was going the same speed I was.
So finally, I pulled up beside him, still listening to you.
And finally, we got to a stoplight together, and I was laughing right out loud because you were laughing so hard.
You were thumping your hand on your desk like you do when you're really tickled.
So this guy rolls down his window and indicates to me I should do that.
So I rolled down my window, and I thought, boy, he's mad at me because I, you know, was trailing him behind and pull up beside him.
He said, you must be listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I said, well, how did you know that?
He said, because you were laughing right out loud, and so was I.
Oh, wow.
And he pumped his arm in the air, you know, like that's a great story.
And your sense of timing is flawless.
To Trumpet fanfare, folks, it means that we got an update coming up.
And we're going to go back to the archives for the update.
It's a Barney Frank update.
And that's our Barney Frank update theme because Barney Frank has endorsed Hillary Clinton as the excuse me a minute here.
The headline says it all.
Barney Frank, colon, Clinton best equipped to advance gay rights.
Both openly gay members of Congress have now endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democrat presidential nomination.
Barney Frank said he is convinced that Hillary Clinton is the candidate best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness, and equality no matter who they are or who they love.
That, my friends, is a strapping endorsement.
That is a no-doubt about it endorsement.
I want you to hear these audio soundbites from President Bush today that happened about an hour ago announcing all these new things to try to ease the traffic crunch over Thanksgiving.
We have two bites.
Here is the first.
One of the reasons we have a sense of urgency about this issue is that these problems that we've been discussing are clear to anybody who has been traveling.
Airports are very crowded.
Travelers are being stranded.
And flights are delayed, sometimes with a full load of passengers sitting on the runway for hours.
These failures carry some real costs for the country, not just in the inconvenience they cause, but in the business they obstruct and family gatherings they cause people to miss.
We can do better.
We can have an aviation system that is improved.
And that's what we're talking about.
I think one of the things that amazed me about this was here's the president standing in the White House today waving a magic wand.
We're going to fix this.
I'm fed up with all this.
I'm fed up with the delays.
I'm headed up to all these complaints.
I'm tired of the news with these people stranded on airplanes on runways for four and five hours.
I'm just going to fix it.
I will be eager to see.
I hope it does get fixed.
Here's a list of some of the improvements or things that they're going to change.
I want to announce a series of preliminary actions to help address the epidemic of aviation delays.
First, the military will make available some of its airspace over the East Coast for use by civilian airliners this Thanksgiving.
These new routes will help relieve air congestion from Maine to Florida for nearly five full days surrounding the holiday.
Second, the FAA is taking new measures to head off delays, a holiday moratorium on all non-essential projects so that the FAA can focus its personnel and equipment exclusively on keeping flights on time.
The FAA is also partnering with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reduce bottlenecks in the New York metro area, which is the source of most chronic delays.
Third, the Department of Transportation and the FAA are encouraging airlines to take their own measures to prevent delays.
Airlines have agreed to make more staff available to expedite check-in and bordering, to set aside extra seats and even extra planes to help accommodate passengers affected by cancellations and delays.
They agreed to bring in additional ticket kiosks and baggage handling gear, as well as rolling staircases.
Fourth, the federal government is using the internet to provide real-time updates on flight delays.
People in America have got to know there's a website called fly.faa.gov.
It's where the FAA transmits information on airport backups directly to passengers and their families.
He also made a big point about the airlines facing consequences if they don't get people where they're headed on time.
Right now, if you miss a flight and you bumped off a flight because you're oversold, they've oversold the plane.
It's two hours before you get your next flight, you are compensated with $400.
They're going to double that.
Proposal is to double that to $800.
Of course, we're going to get more skycaps.
We're going to get more skycaps.
You're going to have more ticket kiosks, have more baggage handlers.
Of course, that's the thing about this.
I'm still trying to get my arms around my reaction to this to be able to express it to you because the problem's been around for a long, long time, and people have been complaining about it for a long, long time.
Nobody's really done anything about it.
So, here is the president of the United States.
This is the equivalent, folks, of fixing potholes in terms of what his job is.
But you know what they say about mayors who get the potholes repaired, they get re-elected.
I think that if Bush actually pulls this off, if he is able to alleviate all this travel crunch, you know, this really bothers people.
And if he's able to get out in front of this and make this work this Thanksgiving, this is the kind of real applied, visible government success that people want to see.
And if this works, I know he's not on the ballot, don't misunderstand, but it's going to help in a lot of ways.
Now, I know there's some other things that those of you who travel a lot commercially and go through these terminals would like to have that the president didn't mention.
Better seats in the airport lounges, more sockets for laptops, charging stations for mobile phones, soundproof rooms for screaming kids so you can get them the hell out of there.
You know, but they can only do so much.
This is not about comfort in the terminal because the idea is to get you in and out of the terminal as quick as possible, get you on your airplane, get your airplane to where you're going as quick as possible.
And if they succeed in doing this, mark my words, this is going to foster more goodwill with people than a lot of these nameless, faceless programs that get discussed on a daily basis.
All right, back to the phones to San Francisco.
This is John, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning, Rush.
Hi, John.
Or good San Francisco morning to you.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, are you familiar with a movie called Oklahoma Crude?
It was released back in the 1960s.
No, I'm not.
Okay, there was a great line in there which I think describes Senator Clinton perfectly.
Jack Plants says to her that's just like a woman.
She wants to be treated like one of the boys.
And when she is, she cries.
See, it's movie lines like that that gave us Eleanor Squeal and Gloria Steinem and started the feminist movement.
Be that as it may, I think it describes Senator Clinton perfectly.
Wants to be treated like one of the boys, and when she is, she cries.
Yes.
Who else was in this movie?
Do you recall?
Yeah, Fade Dunaway and Jack Plants and George C. Scott.
Wow, what a cast.
What's the name of this again?
Oklahoma Crude.
Oklahoma.
Was it a good movie?
Fairly good.
I think maybe it rates about two and a half or three stars.
Any oil spills in it?
Yeah, actually, there was.
Faye Dunaway's oil well struck oil, but it was just a pocket and then petered out.
She had to she was trying to be driven off her land by the big bad oil barons, which were represented by Jack Plants.
And that line came up when they were physically abusing her.
Physically abusing her in a movie in 1960?
And that's why she began crying.
Well, now, wait a second.
Yes.
Now, wait a minute.
No woman wants to be physically abused.
That's not what being one of the boys is.
Well, back in 1905, when this was supposed to take place, you know, things like that are going to happen.
It's unfortunate, but it does.
Did.
Did.
Well, no, it still does, but it's never.
We don't define that as being one of the boys.
Well, they did it to the boys, too.
Yeah, but the boys didn't cry is the point.
No, the boys didn't cry.
And her poor little oil will be her down.
I got to get this movie.
I got to find out.
You have to.
It's really very entertaining.
John, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
You're welcome.
Thank you very much.
You're back.
We'll be back after this.
I'm heading to the website here to see if I. Oklahoma Crude.
I'm going to say that.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from God.
I just got a note from a friend who has a whole different take on Bush trying to fix the travel system over the Thanksgiving holidays.
This is a gift to Democrats, Rush.
You don't get it.
Every time a flight's late, it's going to be Bush's fault now, since he's put himself on the line to fix it.
It's something new to blame on him.
If they have anything left, every time Gerald Nadler now gets a bag of stale peanuts on a Delta shuttle from New York to Washington, he'll want Henry Waxman to launch an investigation into Halliburton.
And if Boeing or American Airlines gave Bush any money to do this over a bag of stale peanuts on a Delta shovel.
Dick in Cootal, Kentucky.
I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
Welcome to the program.
It's Catala, Kentucky, Rush, and thanks for taking my call.
We're just downriver from your hometown.
Oh, okay.
So you're not far from Paducah, then?
That's 35 miles southeast.
Yeah, okay.
All right.
I'm a retired air traffic controller.
Which means you still have your sanity.
Oh, it was a fun job, I'll tell you.
I had 35 years of fun going to work.
I wanted to explain to you about how the altitudes are assigned above 18,000.
1,000 feet of separation up to flight level 290.
Above that, it's 2,000 feet of separation.
Oh, it is.
I thought they, well, okay.
You know.
I thought they'd lowered it to 1,000.
Maybe they're trying to upgrade the system so they can do that.
Well, I went to work for a contractor after I retired in 1989.
And just before I retired from them, they were testing going to 1,000 feet of separation.
Yeah.
What is it now?
Flight level 180 is what's the separation?
1,000 feet up to flight level 290.
Right.
And then from there, it's 2,000 feet of separation.
The reason being, everybody has to use the standard altimeter 2992.
Yeah.
And so at the speeds they're traveling, they're traveling over areas where there's a wide variance of the local altimeter.
So their altitude is actually fluctuating.
They're not flying exactly level at, say, flight level 310.
Well, because of the terrain.
Well, no, it's the local altimeter that's affecting them.
Oh, you mean, so they're actually, those guys are like a sign curve.
They're actually going up and coming down within a 2,000-foot range.
They never get closer, say, than 1,800 feet.
But there's a fluctuation because they're all on altimeter 2992.
Right, gotcha.
All right.
Now, a minor correction.
That was a minor mistake of mine.
Yeah.
Nothing really told.
No, we can't send you to jail for that.
But explain to people why who owns the even-numbered altitudes?
Well, nobody.
Well, the FAA owns them in FAA-controlled airspace.
It's just not used.
They don't assign anybody.
Well, one of the things they're going to do on the East Coast is open up military airspace to commercial for five days.
What's military airspace?
Well, there are a couple of military operating areas along the coast.
In fact, one of the facilities I worked at, I worked down in Norfolk, Virginia, and also Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center.
There are, from Virginia down, a number of military operating areas that civil aircraft cannot go into.
And they.
Are you talking about airspace?
Yes, airspace.
Yeah, okay.
And so they're going to relax that.
Right.
I got you.
Okay.
And in some cases, it causes dog legs or they have to go out of their way to get where they're going.
Yeah, yeah.
It's like you can't fly over Cape Canaveral days before or after a launch.
That's correct.
Yeah.
All right.
Look, I appreciate that, Dick.
Thanks much for the phone call.
Appreciate it.
Listen, I listen to you every day.
Well, I appreciate it.
It makes my day.
Thank you so much.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, before we have to get out of here, I must let you know that Mrs. Clinton's been in rehearsals again for the debate tonight.
Well, a big Democrat debate tonight.
8 o'clock CNN from Las Vegas.
This is the first one of these things I actually care to watch.
So I will be after I watch Oceans 13 on Blu-ray HD.
See you tomorrow, folks.
Tomorrow's Friday.
Open line.
Is that right?
This is Thursday.
▲
Export Selection