Third hour now up and running on the Rush Lumbaugh program.
Always great to be back behind the golden EIB Mike.
My thanks to everybody involved, Kit and Mike and everybody at EIB, of course, for getting me through these shows, as well as Brendan back here and Jess and the rest of the gang that makes this program somewhat more palatable when El Rushbo is gone.
Is he playing golf with the Nance tournament?
Was that what the interview was about Friday?
Okay, yeah, that's right.
Jim Nance's book.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, but I know that I thought I read once where Jim had a big golf tournament or a benefit golf tournament.
Anyway, regardless, Rush is out at a charity golf event, which is a great way to raise money, by the way, using someone has known as Rush Limbaugh for a great cause.
He'll be back on Wednesday.
The contact line, as always, stays the same, however, 1-800-282-2882.
Your comments on that final point on the Republican problem, then I want to touch on a couple of topics and get to Lawrence, this segment, who's been waiting ever so patiently.
Look, you are never going to persuade a liberal to vote for a Republican just by mimicking a liberal.
I mean, think about this for a moment.
Do you know of one single liberal that hates George Bush because of his muscular foreign policy, which is the right thing to do in many cases?
Who hates George Bush because of the tax cuts?
Do you know of one single, single liberal who's going to say, I hate that Bush?
But you know, I think I'm going to vote for him because of the Part D Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Yeah, that did it for me.
Oh, that and his addiction to oil line.
Yeah, that, no.
If people are looking for big activist government, they're going to go for the real thing every time, a liberal Democrat.
So not only is this Republican shift by the rank and file elected Republicans, except for a few conservatives in the House, we know who they are, don't need to be named.
This big shift is not only bad policy, it's bad politics.
And especially on the environment, when the evidence keeps rolling in that far from having a global warming crisis, notwithstanding what Prince Charles says, I don't know about you.
When I'm thinking about climatology, it's either Dennis Kucinich or Prince Charles.
Those are the two sources I go to.
Maybe you go to other people.
I don't know.
But you hear what he said.
Prince Charles says, we've got 18 months.
How long have they been saying that?
Earth in the balance was what?
The early 90s?
We had a couple of months, couple of years.
Earth was in the balance.
Inconvenient truth.
We got to act now or else.
Now Prince Charles says 18 months or something?
You want to know why they have to do this?
They got to get their regulations, their world governance scheme, their caps and trades in now before we go into the next little ice age, and they all have egg on their face.
Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic, according to a federal meteorologist, Tom Knutson, reported in a study released over the weekend.
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise.
NOAA has praised this guy's work.
One particular hurricane meteorologist, Chris Landsey, and he's been out front on this for a number of years, says, I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes, the evidence for changes is pretty thin, pretty tiny.
Now, how much more evidence are we going to get?
We're fast approaching, you know, this.
If you're a liberal global warming scaremonger, pretty soon I expect them to say, hey, look, don't listen to those nasty conservatives.
You're going to believe me or your own eyes.
Because your own eyes are telling you, certainly in 2007 and 2008, one of the coldest, coldest springs on record.
I think the month of April was one of the coldest in the 20th century, according to NOAA.
The bottom line here is the evidence is not in.
Now, I know what the critics say or the global warming types say, well, you know, in a perfect world, all things being equal, in a vacuum, you increase greenhouse gases, why you get warming.
And that's true.
But all things are never equal.
Ocean currents differ.
Water vapor differs.
Clouds differ.
The only way you can get a catastrophic conclusion is to take these computer models and throw in all of the feedback has negative feedback, assuming all of the things that warming or more CO2 will generate will add to warming when many of the feedback are negative feedback that will counteract warming.
And they simply don't include those in all too many models.
So that's why you've got this dichotomy between what the observed temperatures show and what the models say they would be showing.
And you remember when we did just list the polar bear.
I love this.
I love this.
Wall Street Journal, May 15th.
Although the global population of polar bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today, computer modeling shows a significant population decline.
Well, there we go again.
So we've got an actual doubling of the population.
And here's a news flash.
The polar bears have adapted over the millennia.
They've adapted when the Arctic was as warm as it is today and warmer and when it's been colder.
It's amazing how these bears adapt.
And we all know this in Nature, hardly a global warming denier publication.
Nature magazine published this study not long ago that the average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America expected to cool slightly over the next decade, over the next decade.
What this means is that the 0.3 degrees Celsius, 0.3 degrees Celsius global average temperature rise, which had been predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, may not happen, according to this paper published in the scientific journal and non-global warming denier publication, Nature.
I could go on and on on this.
I mean, it's just a matter of the evidence now starting to pile up because of the overreach.
Now, just imagine if we had some real leadership that wanted to take this issue on and say, not only have you been sold a bill of goods, that the warming that is occurring, and remember it cooled from 45 to 76, even though greenhouse gases were going up.
Then it started warming to 1998, and a number of astro or climatologists now believe it's plateaued at 98.
There's hardly a correlation here.
There's hardly a correlation.
But, you know, you can have someone or a leader, political leader, maybe even in the Republican Party, might come out and say, you know, not only have these people been selling you a bill of goods, but you better consider the cost.
The famous supply-side economist, Art Laffer, did the study of the cap and trade.
The cap and trade, by the way, is fundamentally a subsidy.
It says if you've got a coal-fired power plant or if you're using fossil fuels, you have to either pay a government fine or you have to pay another form of a government fine to your competition, to a solar power plant, to a biomass plant, to a windmill farm, which is, you know, which consumes so much land it will boggle your mind.
Well, I mean, look, the bottom line here is there are massive costs.
And Art Laffer says the cap and trade system could cost the average family $10,800 in lost income.
$10,800 in lost income.
The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council on Capital Formation says the United States would lose between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs by 2020 with cap and trade legislation, $3 to $4 million by 2030.
Energy prices would rise immensely throughout the economy and impose a financial cost of, what, about $2,927 per year by 2020 on national households.
This cost of global warming is not being debated, not being pointed out.
You're feeling it.
You just haven't put two and two together, to be perfectly blunt about it.
You go to the gas pump and you see it.
That's the policy.
That's the stated policy of America.
We are going to tax oil and gas.
We're going to tax refining.
We're going to keep our supplies off limits so that we can't get more on the market.
We're going to subsidize inefficient renewables.
And gee, what happens?
Oh, the price of the only thing that works, good old fossil fuels, goes up.
So people are mad, but they don't know whom to be mad about or mad at.
I know who, but they don't because there's been no leadership on this issue.
1-800-282-2882, Lawrence and St. Pete, I said I'd get to you, and here we go on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Hi.
Hi.
It's a pleasure to speak with you, Mr. Wright.
Same to you, my friend.
Did you get a chance to watch the parade of vice presidential applicants on TV this weekend?
You know, I didn't see much of that.
Kit was telling me about it, though, and it's kind of a who's who, and what can we do to counterbalance Barack.
Is that pretty much the theme?
Basically, and if you were asked, would you consider, no, I've not been asked.
I haven't thought about it, but that's why I'm on, and so forth.
But I'd like to make a prediction and get your opinion and then ask the question.
My prediction that I think at the end of the day, it'll be Jim Webb, the Chia Pet for the Democrats, with Obama.
And then I'm not sure.
Is that the Senator Webb who runs around Washington going, was that my gun?
But basically, yeah.
His big revelation this weekend is he has three tattoos, two that he can tell us about and one that he can't.
That's comforting.
We've got share in the White House, great.
Exactly.
But I wonder what you think about that.
And then what is McCain going to do?
It is the one last way for him to unite the conservatives and bring together the party and head in a new direction.
Well, let's take them one at a time.
Let's take them one at a time.
Hillary was not mentioned?
Oh, of course.
But there were a litany of people.
I'm just telling you, I think that it's going to be Jim Webb.
Well, I don't.
I'm going to counter McCain's veteran service and national security thing, right?
Exactly.
Okay, so that's where I think the safe place could be.
It could be.
Who knows?
I mean, I never make predictions, especially about the future.
It's hard to say.
I think, you know, Evan Bayh's in there.
It depends what Barack's strategy is going to be.
I don't think it's going to be Hillary Clinton.
The animosity between these two camps right now is amazing.
There was an article out of the Washington Post today where you've got a Hillary supporter, just absolutely livid, mother of four from Massachusetts, who says, there's just been this attitude that if you aren't voting for Barack, then you're a racist.
And I have had it with this intolerable logic.
And so there's a lot of animosity.
Now, that didn't stop JFK and LBJ and all of that.
But I think if it were Hillary, I definitely think Barack would be the VP.
But it's not going to happen in reverse, in my humble opinion.
I think he needs to, I think you're right.
I think he needs to go to the center because one thing that's happened is as he's gained frontrunner status, people are finding out just how liberal this guy is and just how weak on foreign policy he is and just how much money he wants to spend and how many taxes he wants to raise and how many borders he wants.
Oh, but you could go right down the list.
So you've got a, you know, kind of the rainbow coalition version of George McGovern here.
And that's probably what the ticket's going to be.
Whether Webb is going to help that, if that's him.
Frankly, I see this guy's a bit of a loose cannon.
I see this guy as one that looks good on paper, but ends up shooting himself in the foot.
Now, on to McCain.
I think you're really onto something there, Lawrence.
If McCain really wanted to rally the conservative base, which right now is ambivalent, he does not have it locked up, contrary to some media reports.
If he really wanted to do that, he'd do two things that aren't going to happen.
A, he would say, look, the old jokes, a grain of truth in that, I'm going to serve for one term.
I'm going to serve for one term, and I'm going to do it the right way.
This is not going to be politics as usual, like he always says, but I'm going to slash spending.
I'm going to do this.
I'm going to serve for one term.
Then he goes and finds himself a VP that would make conservatives giddy.
I mean, absolutely giddy.
I don't think that's going to happen.
In fact, I think the opposite is going to happen.
He's going to find a McCain Light.
That's what I fear.
But if he had that one term, he's going to really get something done, and then he's going to hand it over to someone, ostensibly hand it over, you know, presuming an election goes the right way, to someone that the right trusts, I think you'd get some energy into this campaign.
But I'm not sanguine that that's going to happen.
Thanks for the call.
Got to take a break.
We'll be back with more, though, when we return on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed.
Filling in for Rush Lumbaugh.
I am Jason Lewis from the Northern Command.
Glad you could join us on this wonderful Monday.
1-800-282-2882.
Back to the calls we go in Pozo, California.
Sue Ann, thanks for waiting.
You're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Hi.
Greetings, Jason.
I'm calling because I want your comments on what I heard on the news this morning about the UN investigating the United States for racism.
This one is unI don't know what's more outrageous here, what the UN does on a daily basis or the way Reuters reports it.
I haven't quite decided yet.
But what Sue Ann is talking about is a special human rights investigator will visit the United States this month, go to D.C., New York, Chicago, Omaha, L.A., New Orleans, Miami.
Aren't those Democratic cities?
Anyway, go to all of those cities to investigate issues of racism, discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance in the United Nations.
I'm sorry, in the United States for the United Nations.
And guess who gets to pay for this, Sue Ann?
Yeah, I pretty much figured.
You know, it's funny.
If they really want to go and see the interaction of race in America, maybe they just ought to focus on the Democratic nomination fight.
Maybe they ought to focus on Bill Clinton and what the Clintons have done to inject race into the Barack Obama campaign and what the Obama campaign has done to subtly and very effectively suggest that if you aren't voting for him, somehow you're a closet racist.
That's where race is playing out, this orgy of identity politics in the Democrat Party.
I agree.
You know, this comes on the heels, by the way, and I'm glad you brought this up.
It was last week or the week before.
Believe it or not, the International Criminal Court has been revived.
Do you remember that beauty?
The International Criminal Court would be a world body, presumably with an enforcement mechanism, that would look across the globe and say, we don't like the way the Secretary of Defense behaved in the Iraq war or in any war.
We don't like the way American soldiers behaved.
After all, these unlawful enemy combatants deserve Fifth Amendment rights, 14th Amendment rights.
They deserve due process, even though they're not civilian defendants.
They're not even POWs.
They're unlawful enemy combatants that have actually no legal safeguards.
You know, I mean, they could go right down the list on this one if you like.
George Washington used to hang people in military tribunals.
But I digress.
The point here is the ICC then would then have the power to prosecute American soldiers or American political officials for what they deem to be a crime against humanity.
And that has actually been kind of revised or brought back to the forefront.
They never really killed it.
I don't know why, you know, we're funding all the U.N. special operations.
On top of that, we're paying about 22, 23% for dues.
At some point, Sue Ann and others, we just have to say, you know, we're not going to sit down without preconditions at the UN.
Paraphrasing Barack there.
We're opting out.
We're opting out.
The U.S. Senate got this right when Woodrow Wilson, the first great world internationalist, if you will, when he tried to impose this on America, and they say thanks, but no thanks.
I don't know of one war the U.N. has averted other than the war on the United States and sending a UN human rights investigator into all of these American cities to investigate something as to get first-hand information.
The story, get this from Reuters, to get first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.
This particular campaign is, or they say it's going to come about because of Barack Obama being the frontrunner.
Quote, from Reuters.
His campaign has increased turnout among black voters, but has also turned off some white voters in a country with a history of slavery and racial segregation.
How about the history of the first country that decided to fight a war to eliminate it?
How about the country that righted the wrongs when other countries weren't and still aren't today?
What an amazing slam on the part of Reuters, not surprising, against the United States.
And what an amazing slam on the United States by the UN.
Why, for the life of me, we continue, we continue to fund our enemies this way is something I'll never quite get.
What?
Governor Schwarzenegger now says he's in favor of gay marriage or he's not going, he's going to uphold the state Supreme Court that found a constitutional right to just gay marriage, by the way, not polygamy, not bigamy.
By the way, welcome back, everybody.
Want to get to the calls at 1-800-282-2882?
I would be remiss if I didn't mention this, though.
Schwarzenegger at first said he was opposed to it for domestic partnership benefits.
And then, in fact, now that the court has ruled, he says, well, he's going to uphold the law, even though there's a petition drive.
This is not really about gay marriage in California.
Let me just get this in real quick.
It isn't about gay marriage.
It is about whether we are going to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy or we are going to live under the laws we, we debate, and we pass.
It is about the will of the people versus judicial activism, as the phrase is known.
There is no constitutional right to gay marriage.
And I'll go a step further.
There is no constitutional right to marriage in the California courts or Constitution, whether it's straight or gay, whether it's with you and a man, you and a woman, you and three chickens.
There is no right to the benefits that marriage bestows upon you, which fundamentally is a privilege.
How could there be right?
How can there be a right for same-sex couples to marry, but not polygamists?
If you find it that it's sort of embedded in the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, pick your favorite clause.
Well, how can it be just for gays then?
The slippery slope here is, of course, once the court starts finding rights based on behavior and not condition, the sky's the limit.
I mean, sooner or later, do I not have a right to smoke a pot?
Do I not have a right to take heroin?
Some libertarians might say yes, but it ought to be debated.
It's not in the Constitution.
We have a police power provision that the states retain.
By definition, it, it circumscribes and regulates behavior.
If you don't like the fact that California didn't have gay marriage, change the law.
Instead, they go to four Supreme Court justices who say, well, it's the Equal Protection Clause.
Nonsense.
Gays have just as many rights in California as any place.
They can marry just like you or me or anybody else.
They can marry, but they can't marry somebody of the same sex that is treating people similarly in equal circumstances.
And by the way, the Equal Protection Clause came out of the history of the Civil War, meant to make certain that blacks and whites were treated alike.
It was not meant to make certain that any sort of behavior or any sort of action somehow is equal to any other.
Otherwise, why, our criminal code discriminates.
It discriminates against people who are loan sharks.
It discriminates against people who are prostitutes or Johns.
We've got to eradicate all of that because those people, in their heart of heart, should not be discriminated against.
You see where this leads to?
It leads to judicial anarchy.
And that's the issue here.
If states want to have gay marriage, they've got a vehicle.
It's called the state legislature.
End of story.
And I just thought of that because the previous caller mentioned, what about judges at the federal level?
And that's going to be an issue.
And it'll be fascinating to see whether this issue resurfaces the way it did in 2004 in this campaign.
Anyway, back to the phones we go.
Let's try Dolores in Fulton, Tennessee.
Hello, Dolores.
How are you?
Hey, how are you?
Fine, ma'am.
Megados.
Thank you.
Listen, this is not what y'all have been talking about, but I'm wondering why no one's brought up the fact that Pelosi has not let the SAVAC come and won't let the Columbia Treaty come forward and no one ceases to be talking about the amendment to the grant funding for amnesty for farm workers.
Yeah, if this, and it's a great point, if this isn't more evidence that Democrats are not ready for prime time, well, the evidence other than the fact that a former Saturday Night Live player is running for Senate in Minnesota, but if this isn't more evidence that they're not ready for prime time when it comes to national security, as I mentioned earlier in the show, Dolores, you've got the specter of this emergency funding for the war bill coming out of the House with no war funding in it, just domestic pork.
They literally had a bill come out of the House of Representatives that was an emergency supplemental bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict, and there was no war funding in it.
They stripped that out and just left the pork in.
Now, as you point out, it goes over to the Senate.
And the Senate is where Dianne Feinstein and Larry Craig.
Oh, here we go again, isn't it?
Larry, it's your turn to bend down and pick up that fruit, not me.
Anyway, Diane Feinstein and Larry Craig, the senator from Idaho, sneak in the Emergency Agricultural Relief Act as an amendment that would create this new guest worker program.
Basically, what critics say is agricultural amnesty and rewarding cheap foreign labor, cheap, they're going to try to create more foreign labor legally, at least it's legal.
They're trying to do it the right way.
But they did that in the Senate's version of the military spending bill.
Now, what's really delicious here is the fact that in the House version of the Iraq-Afghanistan military appropriations through the summer of 2009, they had no war funding, but they had a massive extension and expansion of unemployment benefits.
You know, that bill that rewards people for not looking for work or that program that is horribly abused, and don't tell me it isn't.
You and I all know that.
I can remember when I had a real job in the family business.
There would be people to come in to apply for a job, and we'd have two lines.
Do you want to actually apply for a job or do you just want to sign up the sheet to keep getting your unemployment benefits?
You know that, and I know that.
I'm not talking about everybody ripping off the program, but it is horribly abused.
So they expand on employment benefits, and then they turn around in the Senate version of the war funding bill say, gosh, we have such a shortage of labor.
We've got to grant this alien amnesty cheap labor bill, as the critics call it.
Well, I've got a plan.
Why don't we cut unemployment benefits and everybody looking for work can go up to Idaho and hit the fields?
That might be an interesting one.
Dolores, thanks for the reminder.
Fort Wayne, Indiana, and William on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, how are you doing today, sir?
I'm doing fine.
That's good.
I have a two-part question for you.
First one is, with all of the alleged faults that Barack Obama has, why is he so popular?
Why is he appealing to people across the board?
Why isn't Hillary Clinton the frontrunner in the race if the economy was doing so well under the Clinton administration?
My second part of the question is, why isn't there a more conservative Republican candidate running for the White House if John McCain has, you know, is voting towards the middle?
That's what, you know, and I'm new to politics, so that's why I'm trying to understand if you can kind of enlighten me a little bit.
Well, I do think the country is suffering from Clinton fatigue.
I really think when push comes to shove, even Democrats are saying, all right, Hillary, Hillary might be a good candidate.
She's certainly a hard worker, all of that.
But do I really want to go back and revisit the White House or revisit those White House days?
I mean, imagine this.
Bill Clinton back in the White House with time on his hands.
I think in the deep recesses of their mind, some people are saying, nah, I don't know.
We really do need change, a break from the past.
And Barack, while not saying a thing, I mean, he's the more polished version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
He can talk for an hour and not say a single thing.
Faith, hope, change.
Well, thanks for narrowing it down for us there, Barack.
But that does play well in a marketing campaign, and that's what this has been.
And people do want change.
And he's different than Clinton fatigue.
He's different.
And that's what I think the conservatives don't get in Washington.
They need to break from their own past, I shouldn't say their own past, from the Republican past.
Now, you know, McCain, he keeps talking about change in his own way, and that's changing the Republican Party from conservative to moderate, and that's keeping him abreast of Barack in the polls.
By the way, going back to Hillary, there's also one other factor you've got to understand.
You cannot, short, I'm trying to think of the most popular Marxist in the Democrat.
Well, short of Fidel Castro.
Now, they'd probably nominate Fidel, too.
The point is, you couldn't be left-wing enough in the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of moveon.org of these hardcore Fabian socialists, these left-wingers who literally want to transform the social contract.
They look at the Soviet experiment as just being done the wrong way, but it will work.
And so since you've got the absolute lunatics in charge, the George Soros crowd, Barack was running to the left of Hillary.
Barack was talking about sitting down with our adversaries, no preconditions.
He was talking about only raising taxes to solve Social Security, which he reiterated.
Even Hillary Clinton in a debate couldn't go that far.
I'm not going to guarantee you I will raise taxes on people because you've got a lot of people in New York who don't think $125,000 a year between a household is a lot of money or, frankly, between one worker, the cost of living there.
And the way the Democrats want to solve the Social Security problem, and by the way, it's never worked in the past, is raise taxes again.
So we're going to have payroll taxes of 20% instead of 12.6% FICA taxes.
So Barack, on a number of issues, was to the left of Hillary.
And therefore, what do Democrats love the most?
As far left as you can get.
Now, I think the Republicans just have a case of no guts, a case of, look, here's what we have to do.
We have let the Sierra Club educate the populace on the environment.
We have let the teachers' unions, the NEA educate people on the false attribute of government-run schools.
We have let the nonprofits community literally operate as bastions for every left-wing group and giving them tax-exempt status.
We have let NPR and PBS, you name it, all of these liberal organs run amok with Bill Moyers on his latest diatribe, and we've done nothing.
And when you do nothing, people start to believe what the left is saying.
So now you're stuck.
Now you're saying, okay, gosh, we've dug ourselves in a hole.
Do I start and stand up against the global warming crowd, even though that position is unpopular now?
Do I start standing up for this, standing up for that?
I may lose.
Well, I'll tell you one thing.
I'm not going down.
And so you go along to get along.
And that, again, is the Republican problem right now.
17 in front of the hour.
More coming right up after this on the EIB.
All right, wrapping things up for a Monday, I am Jason Lewis in for El Rushbo.
He'll be back on Wednesday.
Mark Davis in tomorrow.
Let's try to squeeze in a couple of calls before we say goodbye today.
Carol in Westlake, Ohio.
Thanks for waiting.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, Mr. Lewis.
Thanks for taking my call.
And love Rush, and you're doing a great job filling in for him.
One quick comment to the previous caller.
Obama might not be leading if what's known about him today had been known about him before Super Tuesday.
But that's not the purpose of my call.
Could be.
And McCain has pulled even because of some of the negative fallout.
I mean, he was down for a number of months here.
You know, it's fascinating.
On the one hand, some observers say, look, Obama's going to get killed in the South, where, you know, since the Nixon strategy, the conservatism has reigned.
That's starting to change with the influx of people going South.
But the Obama strategy is, no, with the African-American vote in the South, I'm going to do better there than expected.
Right.
So it's going to be fascinating to watch.
Yeah, but the real purpose of my call was I'm a complete conservative, but I'm also a political junkie.
I don't agree with everything McCain has done.
However, if the talk show hosts and TV shows don't stop bloodying up McCain, I do think they're going to convince conservatives to stay home.
And boy, next to 2009, when we hear hail of the chief, President Barack Hussein Obama is going to come through the curtain and start, you know, appointing judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Well, let me, again, again, remember, most of the judges that will retire, if not all, will be liberal, extremely liberal.
So there won't be a net loss of seats should that come to.
Now, Granted, I would like to see another conservative on the bench.
I think that's one of the most important, important developments in my lifetime is this judicial activism and living and breathing Constitution, which means there's no Constitution, of course.
But you've got to understand, are you absolutely certain McCain won't reach across the aisle?
He'll get a sheet of acceptable nominees and go along with the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee.
I am completely confident he will not let us down on that issue.
And instead of beating up on him, why not try beating up on the do-nothing Democrats in Congress who were going to lower gas prices and come in running and have done nothing?
Try beating up on them.
I would love to hear it.
I would love to beat up on the Democrats for causing the gas prices to spike, for causing grocery prices to spike.
But tell me who again passed the energy bill of 2007.
Which party was it?
Which party voted for it?
Who's leading the charge to pass the farm bill?
Who's leading the charge?
Can you say Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa Republican?
How can you possibly, with a straight face, beat up on the Democrats in those limited circumstances when the Republicans are equally as culpable?
Well, I do think the Republicans need to stand up and show us their two colors instead of acquiescing.
Let me challenge you two on one more premise, and that's this.
The premise behind your question, you, you talk show hosts, and I've heard this before, better start circling the wagons here before we get President Obama or anybody else.
The premise seems to be we in the conservatives in the Republican Party have a responsibility to almost no questions asked, support the nominee, support our leader, circle the wagon.
What responsibility does John McCain have to earn our support?
Well, of course he has to reach out and do, you know, to the right.
Well, I'm waiting.
All right, I'm going to be my next email.
But, you know, I just would hate to see the after effect of all this result in a President Obama.
And I know that there are a lot of people who don't want to.
What do you think would happen?
What do you think would happen with a very, very liberal president and a Senate that didn't want to go down in flames along with that liberal president?
Maybe there would be more of a sort of Clinton presidency versus Republican Congress mentality and more legislation would get blocked, especially if Republicans can retain a filibuster 40 seats.
Well, that's why I'm afraid we're not going to retain that filibuster.
Yeah, it could be.
I mean, it's a fair point, and that's what everybody's trying to figure out now, but I'm just not 100% certain given the senator's record and his, I mean, he just had a two-day orgy of environmentalism in Oregon.
It wasn't exactly inspiring.
So we shall see.
Thanks for the call.
Beckley, West Virginia.
Here's Steve.
Hi.
Hi, Jason.
Thanks for taking my call.
I think we found the air apparent to the EIB golden microphone.
You do a wonderful job for Rush when he's off.
Well, I'm nowhere near Rush, but thanks for the compliment.
Well, and I wanted to say that you are right on the money.
It's not your job to get McCain elected.
It's his job.
And as a conservative, I keep waiting for him to convince me to vote for him.
And he has not done that yet.
And I may sit this one out.
And I've never done that since I was 18.
I'm 42 years old.
But it may have to get worse before it gets better.
You see, here's the problem with the new rebranded Schwarzenegger Republican Party.
And that is they don't have a clue as to how many conservatives like you are going to do exactly what you just described.
They actually think they can win with independence, and they can't.
You couldn't be more correct, my friend.
Anyway, great call.
Great point.
I got to move.
We'll be back and wrap things up right after this.
I mean, look, none of this criticism of the GOP is meant to suggest, and I know Rush feels the same way, meant to suggest that the Democrats are preferable.
It's merely meant to show the angst that you see, you know, the old phrase, who lost China when it went commie?
It's almost as if who's losing the GOP right now?
There is a battle going on for the heart and soul of the party that used to stand athwart history and yell stop.
The party that used to stand for something.
The party that used to go against the polls when the polls or when it wasn't popular.
Obviously, it would be unpopular if you're going against the polls.
We seem to have lost that.
We seem to have started to believe our enemies.
And once you believe your enemies, you are finished.