All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:09
May 19, 2008, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, finding them on ice, you bet.
And that's May.
Uh welcome back, everybody.
Third hour now up and running on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Always great to be back behind the golden EIB Mike.
My thanks to everybody involved, uh 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 uh makes this program somewhat more palatable when El Rushbo is gone.
He's playing is he playing golf with uh with the Nance tournament?
Was that what the interview was about Friday?
No, the uh the interview was about dance.
Okay, yeah, that's right.
Jim Nance's book, I'm sorry.
Yeah, but I I know that I thought I read once where Jim had a big golf tournament or a benefit golf term.
Anyway, regardless, Russia's out at a charity golf event, which is a great way to raise money, by the way, uh using someone as uh has known as uh Rush Limbaugh for a great cause.
He'll be back on Wednesday.
Uh the contact line is always stays the same, however, 1-800-282-2882.
Your comments on that final point on uh 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 that hates George Bush because of his muscular foreign policy, which is the right thing to do in many cases?
Uh who hates George Bush because of the tax cuts.
Do you know of one single single liberal who's gonna say, I hate that Bush, but you know, I think I'm gonna 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 the congr by uh um the rank and file elected Republicans, except for a few conservatives in the House.
Uh we know who they are, don't need to be named.
If 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.
One of those those are the two sources I go to.
Maybe you go to other other people.
I 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 nineties?
We had a couple of months, couple of years.
Inconvenient truth, we gotta act now or else.
Now Prince Charles says 18 months or something.
You want to know why they have to do this.
They gotta get their regulations, their 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 uh reported in a study released over the weekend.
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise.
Uh NOAA has uh praised this guy's work.
Um 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 we're fast approaching, you know, this if if you're a liberal global warming scaremonger, uh you pretty soon I expect them to say, hey, look, don't listen to those nasty conservatives.
You're gonna 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 twentieth century, according to NOAA.
Uh the bottom line here is the evidence is not in.
Now I know what 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 while 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 neg 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 this dichotomy between what the observed temperatures show and what the models say they would be showing.
And you remember when we uh 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 twelve thousand 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 point three degrees Celsius, point three degrees Celsius global average temperature rise, which had been predicted by the UN's internal intergovernmental panel on climate change, may not happen, according to this paper published in the scientific journal and non-global warming deni 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 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 a number of uh astro or climatologists now believe it's plateaued at ninety-eight.
Uh there's hardly a correlation here.
There's hardly a correlation.
But you know, you can have someone or a leader might 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 use using fossil fuels, you have to either pay a government fine or you have to pay a another form of a government fine to your competition, to a solar power plant, to uh to a biomass plant, to a windmill farm, which is you know, which is a takes c consume so much land it will boggle your mind, even 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 ten thousand eight hundred dollars 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, three to four million by twenty thirty.
Energy prices would would rise immensely throughout the economy, uh and impose a financial cost of what uh about two thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven dollars per year by twenty twenty on national households.
The this this 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 whom to be mad about or mad at.
I know who, but they don't, because there's been no leadership on this issue.
1800, 282, 2882, Lawrence and St. Pete.
I said I'd get to you, and here we go on the Excellency in Broadcasting Network.
Hi.
Hi.
It's a pleasure to speak with you, Mr. Wright.
Same to you, my friend.
Um 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 uh uh it's kind of a who's who and what can we do to counterbalance Barack?
Is that pretty much the theme?
Well, 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 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 uh for the Democrats uh uh with Obama.
And then I'm not sure.
The Jim was that is that the Senator Webb who uh runs around Washington going, was that my gun?
Uh but basically, yeah.
Uh his big revelation this weekend is he has three tattoos, two that uh uh he can tell us about and one that he can't.
Oh, that's comforting.
We've got share in the White House, great.
Exactly.
But uh I 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 uh conservatives and and bring together uh uh the party and head in a new direction.
Well, let's take him one at a time.
Let's take him one at a time.
Uh Hillary was not mentioned.
Oh, of course, but uh uh um uh uh there were there were a litany of people.
I I'm just telling you I think that it's gonna be Jim Webb.
Well, I don't I I thought he's a web to Connor McCain's uh veteran service and uh and uh national security thing.
Exactly.
Okay, so I uh that's where I think uh the safe place to be go.
It could be, who knows?
I mean, it it's I never make predictions, especially about the future.
Uh it's hard to say.
I I think you know, Evan Bai's in there.
It depends what Barack's strategy is going to be.
I don't think it's gonna be Hillary Clinton.
The 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 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 a lot of animosity.
Now that didn't stop JFK and LBJ and all of that.
But I I think if it were Hillary, I definitely think Barack would be the the VP.
But it's not going to happen in reverse, in my uh 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 front runner 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 he could go right down the list.
So you've got a a a you know, kind of the the the rainbow coalition version of George McGovern here.
And that's probably what the tickets gonna be.
Whether Webb is gonna help that if that's him, frankly, I see this guy as a bit of a loose canon.
I see this guy is one that looks good on paper, but ends up shooting himself in the foot.
Now on to McCain.
I think you're really on to something there, Lawrence.
If McCain really wanted to rally the conservative base, which right now is ambivalent, uh 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, um the the old jokes, uh grain of truth in that.
I'm going to 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 handed over.
Uh you know, presuming an election goes the right way.
To someone that the the right trusts.
I think you'd get some energy into this campaign.
But I'm uh I'm not sanguine that that's going to happen.
Thanks for the call.
Gotta 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 Limbaugh.
I am Jason Lewis from the Northern Command.
Glad you could join us on this wonderful Monday, 1-800-282-2882.
Back to the call as 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 United uh the UN investigating the uh United States for racism.
This is this one is un I 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 what uh Sue Anna is talking about is a special human rights investigator will visit the United States this month, go to DC, New York, Chicago, Omaha, LA, New Orleans, Miami.
Aren't those democratic cities?
Anyway, uh 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 I pretty much figured.
You know, it's funny.
If they really want to go and see the the oh the interaction of race in America, maybe they just ought to focus on the Democratic nomination fight.
Maybe they ought to focus on uh 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 this orgy of identity politics in the Democrat Party.
I agree.
You know, I this comes on the heels, by the way, and I'm glad you brought this up.
It was uh 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, fourteenth 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, it can go right down the list on this one if you like.
George Washington used to hang uh 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 or brought back to the forefront.
They never never really killed it.
I don't know why, you know, we're we're funding all the U.N. special operations.
On top of that, we're paying about 22, 23 percent for dues.
At some point, Sue Ann and others, we just have to say, you know, we're not gonna sit down without preconditions at the U.N. Paraphrasing Barack there.
We're opting out.
We're opting out.
The U.S. Senate got this right when Woodrow Wilson, the first great uh world world uh internationalist, if you will, uh, when he tried to impose this on America, and they say thanks but no thanks.
I don't know of one war the UN 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.
Uh th this particular campaign uh is or they they say it's going to come about because of Barack Obama being the front runner.
Quote, from Reuters.
His campaign has increased turnout among black voters, but has also turned off some uh 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 uh 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 1800-282-2882.
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 he 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 imbr it's 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?
Uh the slippery slope here is, of course, once the court starts finding rights based on behavior and not condition, uh the sky's the limit.
I mean, sooner or later, do I not have a right to smoke uh 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, Why, 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 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 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 resurvices the way it did in 2004 in this campaign.
Anyway, back to the phones.
We go, let's try Dolores in uh Fulton, Tennessee.
Hello, Dolores, how are you?
Hey, how are you?
Fine, ma'am.
Megan Dados.
Thank you.
Listen, uh, this is not what what y'all been talking about, but I'm wondering why no one's brought up the fact that Pelosi has has uh not let the say back come and w won't let the Columbia Treaty come forward and no one's talk cease to be talking about the amendment to the 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 this um uh 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 Diane 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, yet Diane Feinstein and Larry Craig, the senator from Idaho, Sneak in, the Emergency Agricultural Relief Act has an amendment that would create this new guest worker program.
Basically what critics say is agricultural amnesty and rewarding uh cheap foreign labor, cheap uh they're gonna try to to create more foreign labor legally, at least it's legal, they're trying to do it the right way.
But they're they they 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 uh military appropriations through the summer of two thousand nine, 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.
Uh 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 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 all of everybody ripping off the program, but it is horribly abused.
So they expand unemployment 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 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 are is he appealing to people across the board?
Why isn't Hillary Clinton the front runner, you know, in the race if the economy was doing so well under the Clinton administration?
My second part of the uh question is why isn't there a more conservative um uh Republican candidate running for the White House if John McCain has you know is floating towards the middle.
Uh 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 I do think the country is suffering from Clinton fatigue.
I really think when push comes to shove, uh, even Democrats are saying, All right, uh Hillary Hillary might be a good candidate, uh, 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 don't I think in the deep recesses of their minds, 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 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, now uh you know, McCain, he keeps talking about change in his own way, and that's changing the Republican Party from conservative to to moderate, and that's keeping him uh uh abreast of Barack in the polls.
By the way, going back to Hillary, there's also one other factor you got to understand.
You cannot, short, I'm trying to think of of the most popular Marxist in the uh in the Democrat Party.
Well, short of Fidel Castro.
The point is you couldn't be left wing enough in the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of move on.org of these hardcore Fabian socialists, these left wingers who literally want to transform the social contract.
They they look at the Soviet experiment as a has just being done the wrong way, but it will work.
And so since you've got the the the absolute lunatics in charge, the George Soros crowd, um, Barack was running to the left of Hillary.
Uh Barack was talking about sitting down with our adversaries, no preconditions.
He was talking about only raising taxes to to solve Social Security, which he reiterated.
Even Hillary Clinton in a debate couldn't go that far.
I'm not gonna guarantee you I will raise taxes on people.
Because you got a lot of people in New York who don't think a hundred and twenty five thousand dollars a year between uh a household is a lot of money.
Or frankly between one worker, the the cost of living there.
And in 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 twenty percent instead of, you know, twelve point six percent 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 the the the populace on the environment.
We have let the the teachers unions, the NEA educate people on the the 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 you know M uh NPR and PBS, you name it.
All of these liberal organs run amok with Bill Moyers on his latest uh 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've got you're you're saying okay gosh, I've dug our s 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 Rushbow.
He'll be back on Wednesday Mark Davis in tomorrow.
Let's uh 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 about him before Super Tuesday.
But that's not the purpose of my call could be and McCain has pulled even uh because of some of the negative fallout I mean he was down for a number of of months here.
You know it's it's fascinating on the one hand some s observers say look Obama's going to get killed in the South where you know since the Nixon strategy, the conservatism has rained that's starting to change with the influx of people going South but the the Obama strategy is no with the African American vote in the South, I'm going to do better there than expected.
Right.
But so it's going to be fascinating to watch.
Yeah but 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 T V shows don't stop bloodying up McCain I do think they're going to convince conservatives to stay home and boy next uh two thousand nine when we hear hail of the chief President Barack Hussein Obama's going to come through the curtain and start you know appointing judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who 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 uh developments in my lifetime is this judicial activism and and uh living and breathing constitution which means there's no constitution of course but but you gotta understand are you absolutely certain McCain won't reach across the aisle he'll get a uh a a sheet of acceptable nominees and go along with the the Democrat controlled judiciary committee.
I am completely confident he will not let us down on that issue.
And I you know 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 I would love to well it goes back to my earlier point Carol.
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 two thousand and seven 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 any 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, you know, stand up and uh and show us their two colors instead of you know acquiescing.
But uh Let me 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 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, he has of course he has to reach out and do, you know, to the right.
But uh Well, I'm waiting.
All right, I'm gonna be my next email.
But uh you know, I I just you know would hate to see the the after effect of all this real than a pres President Obama.
And I know that there are a lot of people who don't have to be.
What do you think would happen?
Well, 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 uh a sort of Clinton presidency versus Republican Congress mentality and more legislation would get blocked, especially if Republicans can retain uh, you know, a a filibuster um forty seats.
Well, that's why I'm afraid we're not gonna 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 I'm just not one hundred percent 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 uh 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 uh get McCain elected.
It's his job.
And uh as a conservative, I I keep waiting for him to get 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'm eight I was eighteen.
I'm forty-two years old, but it may have to get worse before it gets better.
You see, here's here's the problem with the new the new rebranded Schwarzenegger Republican Party, and that is they 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 gotta 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 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.
And that's what this debate is about.
▲
Export Selection