All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:34
April 1, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hiya, folks, greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Having having more fun than anybody ought to be allowed to have every day as an adult Christmas here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There are no graduates.
There are no degrees because the learning never stops.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is L Rushpo at EIB net.com.
One one thing about about this little argument that McCain and Obama are having here over McCain's comment to stay in Iraq 100 years.
And McCain is right when he says that Obama, I don't even know what he's talking about.
No idea whatsoever.
He has no experience, national security, foreign policy.
I don't even think he has my words.
I don't even think Obama has a concept of what he's doing here.
I think I I don't think he realizes he's running for president of the United States.
Well, I think he knows that, but he doesn't know what it entails.
He doesn't know what it means.
He has no clue how his words as a presidential candidate and therefore a future president resonate around the world.
And McCain does.
You can look at it this way, make a comparison this way.
Obama thinks that he's in like a high school debate club just trying to score points in the middle of the debate.
uh And these points are, you know, snarky little points.
But he doesn't see that that what presidents say moves the world.
He has no concept of that.
He doesn't see that what a president says moves the world.
McCain is when when McCain says 100 years if it takes it in Iraq, the message is clear to every terrorist.
We're going to stay there for as long as it takes for us to kill all of you.
We are going to stay wherever we go as long as it takes to get rid of you.
That's what his 100 year comment means.
You are never going to drive the infidel out.
You are never going to get rid of us.
That's the message that McCain is sending with the 100 year comment.
What Obama says when he wants to start arguing about this, well, 100 years.
Well, we're not going to get out of there and expresses no knowledge whatsoever or understanding of our continued military presence in places like Germany and South Korea and other places.
And in the Middle East, we have a military base in a number place.
Qatar, Kuwait, not sure if we're a metal block here.
I'm not sure if we're still up.
Well, we've got the fleet.
I know the fleet, but I'm not, I'm not in Oman, but I'm not, I'm not sure if we still have the troops and uh and a presence there at the King Sawed Air Base.
But regardless, we used to, if we don't, we used to have a big, huge Air Force base in Saudi Arabia.
And of course, this was to help defend the free flow of oil at market prices and a number of other things, in U.S. interests.
And uh, you know, here's Obama and Hillary doing their best to tell everybody how fast they're going to get us out of all these places and what that does.
Uh Obama is confirming for the enemy, for everybody else, that we are a paper tiger, just like bin Laden said, that we will lose our wind.
We will we will we will we will lose our oomph and our desire.
Uh McCain, I'll tell you something, McCain was in that Hanroy Hilton longer than we have been in Iraq.
And he never gave up over there.
Obama wasn't even in the Senate for two years, and he got bored and decided to step up.
But the message that Obama and Hillary are both sending, and it's not just those two, it is the entire Democrat Party.
They own defeat.
They sought it, they proclaimed it, they were happy when they could say the surge didn't work.
Uh they were they were doing everything they could to destroy troop morale.
They were trying to build up as much anti-war fervor among the American population as possible, all the while Motivating and inspiring the enemy that we seek to wipe out.
Now say what you want about McCain, but he's not doing that.
He understands full well what we face, and he understands that the word he speaks, the words he speaks as a candidate or then as a president will move the world.
We'll have tremendous impact.
I don't think Obama has the slightest comprehension of this.
And I think the reason is that Obama's one of these liberal Democrats, when he spoiled kids that thinks everything's about him, just as Mrs. Clinton thinks everything is about her.
If you examine what these people say, be it on domestic policy or foreign policy, and I'm talking about Hillary and Obama since they're the Democrat frontrunners, but anybody on the Democrat side other than Lieberman, if you listen to what these people say about anything, you uh you you you have to you conclude that everything they say is political and it's all about them and it's all about their reacquisition of power.
It's not about American greatness, it's not about American exceptionalism, it is not about identifying the right enemy.
They think the greatest enemy they face is George W. Bush and the Republican Party, not bin Laden, not Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.
And so this is what Obama illustrates.
This is what he points out when he gets into this little skirmish with McCain and over the 100-year mark and tries to uh uh mis misportray it or mischaracterize it.
I mean, this is no longer the Democrat primary where he has to go out and simply focus on the anti-war mob and the extremists uh in his party.
Uh you know, he ought to be thinking general election about now.
And in that regard, there's a fascinating piece here by Clarice Feldman at theAmerican thinker.com, entitled Br'er McCain and the Briar Patch.
And I it's it's it's fairly lengthy, and I don't have time to read the whole thing to you, nor would I. Uh, but it's uh it's a tremendous overview of the worst thing that McCain did.
Uh that is McCain Feingold, campaign finance reform, how it was a gift for the Democrats, but it may yet come back to bite the Democrats.
Now, here's Clarice Feldman.
Uh we can just give you a couple of excerpts here.
I loathe, she writes, the uh the so-called Campaign Finance Reform Act sponsored jointly by Senators McCain and Feingold, after an unethical, if not illegal, largely sub Rosa campaign by the tax-exempt Pew Foundation.
To me, she says the Act is unconstitutional, it's an abomination, but the Democrats, who had clearly pre-arranged their end run on the Act's strictures by creating these countless 527 organizations, many of which were up and running when uh McCain Feingold took effect, no doubt figured that Senator McCain was their perfect patsy to spearhead the passage of this legislation which they could pawn off as a bipartisan clean government move.
Well, we've now had time to see it in operation, and know the 527s in fact can say and do almost whatever they choose in federal elections.
They are not to coordinate with candidates' campaigns and their actions, but no one can look at the big operations like move on and say with a straight face that this hard to enforce limitation has worked out well, meaning uh there has to be coordination, even if nobody can trace it and find it.
And so the Democrats thought that they had, you know, McCain was their patsy, let's do let's do uh McCain Feingold, we'll set up these 527s, and rather than take the money out of politics, we'll get even more money in politics with some of our new 527 groups that are not mentioned here.
It's it's every time Congress comes up with legislation like this, be it wage and price controls or whatever, there are always ways around it because you cannot write a law that uh encompasses every form of human behavior.
You just can't anticipate them all.
Now, in this case, the Democrats did anticipate setting up 527s, Republicans didn't, and we see the results.
Uh Ms. Feldman then says that the McCain Feingold Act substantially increases the power of the media, which we all knew at the time, which can say whatever it chooses whenever it chooses, uh, and which increasingly has been playing a corruptly partisan role in federal elections.
This is all true.
Uh there's more to hate about the act, of course, though.
For one thing, a loophole permits foreign money to be contributed to 527s, which can and do play a large election role when all prior legislation absolutely banned foreign money in our elections.
So foreign money is now legal if it goes into 527s, the Democrats planned this.
It was a major skunk job, and McCain fell right along with it.
But here's the thing.
This this is to get to the nut of this.
So it seems that ironically, McCain Feingold, which seemed a gift to the Democrats, may well be a briar patch that allows McCain to leap off to victory but ensnare his opposition, which thought it would hurt Republican candidates.
The theory is this.
That the creation of 527s has, on the Democrat side particularly, has created essentially organizations of out of this world, wacko nut job extremists.
From Media Matters to MoveOn.org to think progress to all of these Democrat blogs.
They're just kooks.
And the uh I think it's it's it's fair to conclude that the more the Democrat Party gets pushed off to the left, the more extreme liberal socialist wacko that it portrays itself, and the 527s make this possible, the less likely the Democrat Party is uh to prevail in any general election.
And that's where McCain may end up inadvertently being helped by being skunked by the Democrats, because what's gonna the Democrats, and we've seen this in action, rather than the Democrats try to get these 527s and these nut jobs, and these extremist kooks,
rather than bring them in line, shut them up and mainstream them, the Democrats, for the last two years or longer, have been sucking up to them, have been attending their conventions, have been listening to them in policy discussions.
Dingy Harry goes to New York and meets with a bunch of these people under cover of darkness, and I'm sure says, look, we can we're doing the best we can, you just gotta go easy on us out here.
They're scared to death of these extremists.
And uh, you know, I I've I think been fairly consistent in pointing out that liberalism, when it's properly exposed, doesn't have much of a chance in national elections.
In this case, we're not doing the exposing.
Well, we are.
I mean, the Republican Party is not doing the exposing.
The Democrats are doing it themselves with their 527s.
And so what's happened here is a decentralization of the whole fan fundraising process.
Whereas the money always used to come to the party, come to the candidates, basically come to the political establishment.
Now it's going to these wacko groups all over the place, and these people are using the money to run ads and they're and and a whole Democrats hostage.
And so uh, like the Petraya said in the New York Times.
Uh the general betrayal said this kind of stuff that the Democrats no longer can control.
Uh and so it it's it's it's gonna come back to bite him.
Now, now what's what's happened?
We got two candidates, Hillary and Obama, who have gone out of their way to pay homage to these nuts, and Barack Obama continues to do so by making a fool of himself over this McCain comment of staying in Iraq 100 years.
So Clarice Feldman's, I think it's a great point that she has.
You should read the whole thing.
We will post it at rushlimbaugh.com or link it.
It's from the American thinker.com.
You can see it later this afternoon when we update the site to reflect the contents of today's program.
How are you?
Great to be back.
Rush Limbaugh here.
Emitting vocal vibrations, rhetoric and resonance coast to coast.
When I go out and make speeches these days, folks, I usually do a little riff on the founding of this country.
And I ask the question of the audience that you've heard me ask you on many occasions, what is it about us as a people?
Less than 300 million of us in less than 230 years.
How is it that we, no different than any other human being ever on the planet, DNA-wise, how is it that we run rings around civilizations and nations that have been around thousands of years, hundreds of years longer than we have?
How's it possible?
We always go back to the founding, the founding documents, the acknowledgement that our creator endowed us with uh inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
And I go through the riff.
Life.
Oh, liberals are against that.
We can't count on liberals to ensure life.
Abortion, euthanasia.
Liberty.
Uh-uh.
Liberals are not for liberty.
They want to change whatever light bulb you drive, want to force you to drive cars you don't want to drive.
They tell you what you can and can't do with your own property.
I mean, the list is endless about the demands and the limitations on your liberty.
You can't smoke here, you can't smoke there, you can't eat that, you can't eat trans fats.
I mean, don't tell me liberals are for liberty.
Pursuit of happiness, when's the last time you saw a happy liberal?
When's the last time you saw a liberal talk about being happy?
When's the last time it was part of their agenda?
It's not.
They're enraged, they're mad all the time.
And every time I do this, there's a people in the audience who think, wow, that's that's you're really reaching pretty far.
They say, liberals don't like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Um they don't like life and liberty, but they're not for it.
I mean, they're they're they're clearly, let's put it this way.
Liberals have targeted life.
We can't count on them to defend it.
Liberty.
We have to make end runs around them and fight them to hold on to our liberty.
Happiness?
Who's in charge of the daily news agenda?
And what is the daily news agenda?
The daily news agenda is to frighten you, to anger you, to depress you, to make you angry, even without the real events in your life, which already can do that.
Price of milk, the price of bread, the price of gasoline, the price of diesel for truck drivers, you're already makes you mad.
Then you've got to turn on the TV and you listen to all this clap trap from other people saying the same thing.
They're not into happiness.
Listen to this.
If you've heard this by now, listen to this Obama soundbite.
This is Saturday in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
Look, I've got two daughters, nine year old now, nine years old and six years old.
I'm gonna teach them, first of all, about values and morals.
But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.
I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of sixteen.
You know, so uh it it doesn't make sense to not give them information.
Punished with a baby.
Now, I'm I maintain to that that the Obama people have spent all day uh yesterday and today trying to clarify this.
And what they're saying, no, no, he doesn't think that uh life is a punishment.
He does he was trying to say that he doesn't he doesn't want his girls to get pregnant and their teenage years as of but I maintain to you that when he goes off the prompter, this is exactly the this is the way he looks at punished with a baby, and he's no different than half the other liberals out there.
I mean, all during the abortion debate, a pregnancy was a disease, it was a sickness, it was an unviable tissue mass, it was male oppression, whatever.
It was all these horrible rotten things.
It certainly wasn't about the glory of life.
Fetuses represented something else.
It was a became a sacrament almost to the uh to the to the to the you know liberalism liberalism as a religion.
Abortion was the official sacrament, that's what you had to do to prove your viability.
Uh so when he comes out and says things like, I don't want my daughters punished with a baby, we're getting a little window into his soul and into his mind about that kind of thing.
How do you, by the way?
How do you get punished with a baby when you engage in the behavior that could lead to that?
What's what's punishment?
Punishment is being sent to jail for committing a crime.
Or well, you know, there are all sorts of other forms of punishment.
But a baby, he looks at as punishment.
STD as a punishment.
Uh these are consequences.
It's not punishment.
It's consequences.
And I I don't know what he's gonna tell his uh his little girls, nine years old and six years old.
Is he gonna talk to them about consequences of their actions, consequences of their behavior?
Or is he going to say something really horrible could happen to you.
You could get punished with a baby.
Would he say that to them?
I mean, they were babies.
Were he and Michelle punished?
Don't think they look at it that way.
But for everybody else, you get punished with a baby.
It's all about actions have consequences, and liberals don't want to admit that.
Nah, it's something else that they have to characterize it as.
Welcome back, my friends.
El Rushbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
One more comment about this uh Obama.
I don't want my uh my daughters punished.
Oh, the baby or an STD.
What a linkage to compare a baby to a sexually transmitted disease like gunguria, as was pronounced by my health teacher in the tenth grade.
Um, I don't want him punished.
I don't want to get a syphilis, I don't want to baby to compare the two.
This is this is precisely my point about the left's attitude about these things.
The sanctity of life, sacredness of it, uh it's that's not it's it's all life is a political thing.
Liberty, political thing, a pursuit of happiness.
A political thing.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, it is time once again here on the EIB network to turn to our official Obama criticizer, Bo Snerdly.
This is Bo Snurley official Barack criticizer, certified black enough to criticize.
I have a statement.
Senator Obama, the conversation about race that you asked your fellow Americans to have is well underway, and perhaps you can rejoin it by explaining how your former pastor, Reverend Wright, is moving into a neighborhood which is sadly exclusionary with a 1.9% black population.
Who has a dream, sir?
Or rather, what kind of dream is it when your former press pastor preaches separatism to church congregants, including yourself, and then segregates himself from the very people he's preaching to.
Are there not integrated neighborhoods in Chicago, upper class, middle class neighborhoods where there's just a hint of diversity?
Neighborhoods that look like America, sir.
Who's America is Tinley Park?
The America of Jim Crow?
Now, we expect the Clintons to live in white land in New York, Chappaqua, far, far away from black people.
But sir, is this what you endorse from your very own pastor?
We have questions, sir, about race and politics, and sir, Senator, we need answers.
Now a translation for EIB Brothers and Sisters in the Hood.
Oh, listen up, man.
Yo, we got beef.
What's up with your homie, man?
Moving into a mighty mighty it's all whitey kind of neighborhood, yo?
What's up with that?
We gave you big ups on that speech, yo.
You didn't disown Brother Wright when the press went medieval on him, even though you dissed your own grandma, yo, which wasn't all that cool.
But yo, now he turns and moves to a graded crib, no brothers, nowhere in sight.
What's up with that, yo?
The brothers and sisters banked, homeboy.
Now he's telling them to watch his behind in the rear view mirror.
What's it like, yo?
Two percent black people up there?
Does that include the living staff, yo?
Come on, man, we had your back, but you need to re-up, come clean, man.
Let the brothers know what's going on with your man.
I that concludes this statement.
And that is official Obama criticizer of the EIB network, Bo Sturdly.
Reading, Pennsylvania.
Bill, thank you for waiting.
You're next on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rice.
I wanted to ask you whether with the way the economy is being hurt by the higher gas prices and really being squeezed, and the truckers are complaining.
And when the heck is Congress going to get off its stuff and do the right thing for the uh uh optional fuel.
That is the fuel oil that's right under our nose and the uh offshore and in Alaska.
Enough is enough.
Got me.
I the the very people standing in the way of it are the people running that uh that dog and pony show on the Ed Markey committee today.
Exactly.
That's the irony of it.
And I I wish the people would just get real angry and just storm the halls of Congress and phone calls and just say, you can solve the problem.
We don't need these alternate fuels.
We have it right under our nose.
Well, here we've I've got a couple sound bites from uh from Congressman Mockie uh today from Massachusetts.
Let me find them in there.
Um number twenty two and twenty three.
And and uh I I tell uh Bill, I want you to listen to these with me.
Uh this is this is uh on the actually not from his committee, this is before the committee starters on the morning show today on CBS, and a co-host Maggie Rodriguez was talking to Ed Maki uh and she said these oil executives they're enjoying record profits while we're paying record prices.
You and a lot of Americans say that's wrong, but they're pretty steadfast to their justification.
What can you possibly say, or what can what can happen at these hearings that'll change things?
These unjustifiable profits are reflected in how little some of these companies put into renewable energy resources to find an alternative to oil and the incredible profits which the companies report, and it's time for them to come to explain to the Congress, but more importantly to the American people, uh what they plan on doing on alleviating this enormous attack upon consumers and upon the American economy, which oil prices represent.
Now, here you have uh a classic.
In the first place, Marky doesn't even understand the business.
In the second place, this business talking about taking their profits and putting into renewable energy resources.
What does he think is happening in the private sector?
There are all kinds of people trying to come up with alternative fuels and alternative ways of creating and using energy.
Big oil is doing it, that's their business.
Uh the government hundreds of billions of dollars a year in grants to people to find this stuff out.
But the point is there isn't one.
We are nowhere near finding something to replace uh oil with.
I it's it's it's absurd.
It there is sometimes, you know, I I I I say this constantly.
The most expensive, the most costful thing that we have in this country is ignorance.
Ignorance of our population costs us more money than you can possibly imagine.
It costs us in things in ways other than money.
So now everybody hates oil.
Oil is evil, it's dirty, it's filthy, it's destroying the planet and it creates profits for these fat cat oil execs.
We gotta come up with something else.
There isn't anything else.
We're trying to find it.
As long as we have a free market, we will find it.
But I'm gonna tell you, folks, let's let's say uh, as an example that today, ExxonMobil, uh BP, whatever it is, any company, or uh, you know, some little XYZ widget company puts out their press room.
We have developed an alternative source of of uh of energy.
We have come up with an oil substitute.
Uh we have to test this, but we have a preliminary testing.
This is a fabulous that it works really, really great.
Uh it's gonna initially cost $25 a gallon.
What?
$25.
Yeah.
Uh you remember when the first VCR came out, uh, 1200 bucks, after the affluent and witch rich went out there and wasted their money on them, brought the price down for everybody.
Do you think if somebody announces an alternative oil, alternative to oil today that's gonna be cheaper than oil?
Why where where's where is uh the thinking on that?
What about all the RD that it's gonna have cost people to do this?
What about all the testing?
And what about the qu do you realize folks?
Do you some of you in this audience actually think that we are going to be able, even in our lifetimes, to come up with a replacement for oil in in the quantity that we currently use oil?
Because if if if we don't, the whole thing is academic.
We just can't wipe oil out.
We just can't get rid of it.
But think of what the process is going to be to manufacture that much.
Where are the factories going to be?
Where are the warehouses going to be?
Do you realize how much oil this planet creates and has created and continues to create?
And like we're going to wave a magic wand, we're going to come up with something that replaces it.
We're going to be able to manufacture hundreds of billions of barrels a week.
Millions, let's say, millions of barrels of this stuff a week.
And for the rest of the, and then and and uh what if what if the process to manufacture this process creates pollution?
What if the whole process of creating and manufacturing this alternative?
What if itself cost takes so much energy and causes so much filth to be?
This is this is this is one of the most absurd, ridiculous, devoid of common sense pursuits that I have ever heard.
And the ignorance of so many Americans to buy into this thinking that it's just around the corner possible, and that it's somehow is going to be more plentiful, and that it's going to be cheaper, and that it's going to be cleaner, and it's going to have no pollution characteristics.
There is no utopia.
And it is the height of irresponsibility for a member of Congress, a chairman of a committee, to sit here and discuss the concept of replacing oil as though it is possible, as though it is imminent, and as though these guys at Big Oil are not doing their fair share to find it.
And I know the cost of milk skyrocketing.
And I know the cost of food overall is going through the roof.
And these price increases, increased costs are causing a lot of people to modify the way they live.
They're having to choose between do they get the same stuff they usually get at the grocery store and do less outside the home?
Or whatever.
But you have to, in examining all this, if you want to find out why prices are rising, learn a little economics.
It's not just as simple to say that these guys at big oil are raping us.
The guys at big oil don't set the price.
Just like the builders of homes don't set the price.
The market sets the price.
How many of you people have seen a house for sales sign out front for who knows how long before it's bought up?
Just because somebody says I want X for this house doesn't mean they're going to get it.
And big oil can say, I want, I want $200 for this barrel.
They're not going to get it if you can get it elsewhere for $11.
Big oil doesn't set the price.
The commodities market, the futures market and this stuff, they always get a pass.
But they play a role in establishing the price here too.
And if you think that all of these efforts to wipe out pollution and climate change are not affecting the cost of food, then you need to wake up and understand that everything is related.
If it's going to cost more for you to fill up at the pump, it's going to cost the truck drivers more to put diesel to transfer and to deliver all of these products to the grocery stores, you know, from the uh from the farm or from the slaughterhouse to wherever it all goes, it all adds up.
And all of these restrictions and all of these efforts to come up biofuels and so even the wackos are now starting to realize Time Magazine's story uh recently, even the wackos are starting to realize biofuels are causing more trouble than their than their uh worth.
Uh they're costing a lot of money to produce, the energy it takes to produce them is not equivalent to what they end up generating all this with a total smokescreen, and much of the global warming hoax is gonna have characteristics like this uh attached to it.
Uh price of rice worldwide?
And you know what, you know why this is happening?
I'm gonna I'm a little running a little long here, but I'm gonna give you two reasons.
Last August, I mentioned to you that the biggest problem that the president of China has, Hu Jintao, is keeping his his urban or his rural population rural.
He's gotta keep his rural population in the country.
If they storm the cities, hey, he's got a he's got a problem.
Twenty-five million new jobs a year he's gotta create, but there's something else that happens.
And this is happening in India too and a lot of other places.
These people who have traditionally lived in the hills, lived in the sticks, lived in the jungle, lived in the woods, are showing up to the cities.
And when they get there, they want steak instead of rice.
Or steak with their rice.
They want all the things that cities provide.
They want cars.
Well, this demand does what to price.
Be it food, be it energy, be it automobiles.
This demand raises prices.
This is one of the facts that we have to face of the uncivilized or the undeveloped portions of the world developing themselves.
I gotta run.
I wish I could spend more time in this because it's just a basic economics, but I'm way long here, so I better take a time out.
Ha, welcome back.
I I want to I want one more audio sound but here before we get out of here today, and this is um from Chelsea Clinton.
She got the question again about Monica Lewinsky.
This was at uh North Carolina Chapel Hill at a campaign event.
Uh student uh said last week you were asked a question about how the Monica Lewinsky scandal affected your mom.
Uh you responded saying that it was none of that person's business.
And I'd like to briefly say whether or not it's our business and uh and why that's so.
It's none of your business.
Right.
But I I would like to know because unfortunately he wasn't present at that time.
So uh as American people, I feel that it is our business.
Well, sir, I respectfully disagree.
I think that is something that is personal to my family.
I'm sure there are things that are personal to your family that you don't think are anyone else's business either.
But also, also, on a larger point, I don't think you should vote for or against my mother because of my father.
Now let me weigh in on this.
Uh Chelsea's not the one to ask about this.
Uh if she doesn't want to talk about it, that's fine and then.
I know some people say, hey, she's 30 years old, she's out there campaigning, and if she's going to go out and campaign, they gotta be able to answer the questions.
The person this question needs to be asked of is Hillary.
And the second person, you know who's got a total pass on this question is Bill Clinton.
If there was somebody in the whole Clinton campaign that needs to be asked this question, it would be Bill Clinton.
What does it say about your wife the way you've blamed a vast right-wing conspiracy when everybody knew that there was no vast right-wing conspiracy, that you found Monica, you brought her in there with the pizza deliveries and blah, blah, blah.
We all know the rest.
Which is history.
Uh, you know, this I understand students want the titillating um answers, but you know, there's there's a there's a better question to ask Chelsea Clinton.
Now, I and I look, I know some of you are saying, but wait, but wait, Rush, judgment.
This is a, you know, this is uh we're talking about a president of the United States, uh, potentially here Hillary Clinton, we need to know her judgment and so forth.
Fine.
Uh somebody ought to ask Chelsea, uh, what what are you what do you think of your mom's handling of national health care that failed abysmally in 1993?
Uh if any of you students out there within the sound of my wonderful and deep resonant voice, and you have a chance to ask Chelsea uh Clinton a question, try try keeping it on policy.
If you want to, if you want to dig the Clintons, or if you want to put them under the microscope, ask her about her thoughts on her mom's botching of health care in 1993 and why she's qualified to try it again when it didn't work the first time.
Um then if if you want to find out about uh about uh you know how Hillary dealt with Monica Lewinsky, ask Bill or ask Hillary.
Uh you know, Chelsea's I don't know that I mean you might want her to answer this, but I think I think there are better questions that can that could still just as easily get to the lack of competence and judgment of her mother as this Lewinsky question could.
All right, folks, that's it.
The fastest three hours in media are already gone, but I at this moment cannot wait for tomorrow's big broadcast, middle of the week, Wednesday.
▲
Export Selection