All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:07
June 18, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh, and I am having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, which means that you are too.
This is the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Rush Limbaugh program on over 600 great radio stations in this country, where we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
Here's the phone number, and we're going to be getting to your phone calls quickly in this hour since I didn't get to any yesterday.
And I'm going to be out Thursday and Friday.
We've got Mark Davis here tomorrow and Jason Lewis on Friday.
I'll be back on Monday.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
You know, the Mississippi River, it's it's it's uh really swollen out there.
It's swelling up, threatening all these levees uh in Illinois and Iowa, now down to Quincy, Illinois, and approaching Hannibal, Missouri.
We all know where the Mississippi River ends up, don't we?
Where does the Mississippi River end up, Brian?
Where does it end up?
It ends up in New Orleans.
That's exactly right.
The Mississippi River ends up a flooded Mississippi River is going to end up in New Orleans, and when it does, you are going to see an entirely different kind of coverage from the drive-by media when the Mississippi River is just, you know, a day or two away from reaching New Orleans and the Delta.
They're gonna go nuts out there.
We've got one more uh audio soundbite here from Barack Obama as we uh conclude our little discussion here on the uh president's proposal today to lift the executive order prohibiting drilling and exploration off the continental shelf and in and war.
This is Obama yesterday aboard his uh his campaign plane.
Most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price of oil by a few cents.
So this is not something that's gonna give consumer short-term relief, and it is not a long-term solution to our problems.
The guy is an idiot.
He is just an idiot.
He is locked into this position because he's a leftist radical Democrat.
The have you ever noticed who is it that really makes things happen in this country?
It's the entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs of all stripes, all sizes, create business of all sizes.
They're a wide range.
And who is it that always sets out to punish them and destroy them?
Liberals, the American left, absolutely right, Brian.
I can read your lips in there.
Good going.
Just it's it's just to me.
What does Obama want?
Barack Obama wants you to suffer.
Barack Obama wants higher prices on fuel right now.
Barack Obama wants a windfall profits tax right now.
Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes, by the way, right now.
He wants to raise capital gains taxes right now.
He wants to raise Social Security taxes right now.
Obama wants you to suffer.
The Democrat Party wants you in pain.
They want you angry, and they are willing to block any remedy to this problem in order to keep you suffering and in pain and angry.
Obama wants prices up.
He wants your income down, and he wants taxes up, ladies and gentlemen.
This business.
The most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price by a few cents.
He's getting that from Chuck Schumer, but Chuck Schumer's contradicting himself.
The world's going nuts here over the fact the Saudi's gonna pump an additional 800,000 barrels a day, and war would give us a million, and everybody's talking about massive 30 to 40 dollars a barrel off the market price if we just add a million dollars a barrel.
But nobody's saying cents except the Democrats.
So Obama says offshore drilling will only save a few cents.
Repealing the gas tax, it'll only save a few cents.
Offshore drilling, it'll only save a few cents.
And war, it'll only save a few cents.
Everything's only a few cents.
How much does changing your light bulb save, Obama?
Here's a Democrat talking point on this, a montage.
This is Senator Barbara Boxer.
Senator Claire McCaskell of Missouri and uh to Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Representative Peter DeFasio, a Democrat from Oregon.
Bet you didn't know that there are 31 million acres leased in the Gulf of Mexico that the oil companies have not drilled.
The oil companies have sixty-eight million acres already under lease they're not using.
So why just give them more acres?
We have sixty eight million acres that can be drilled.
Come on, guys!
They are not developing what they have now.
There's 20 years supply out there.
They haven't developed it.
Well, even if this is true and it isn't, could we ask all of you Democrats why?
Could it be you?
Could it be that there are so many ridiculous, stupid environmental obstacles in their way?
Could it be that there are so many taxes waiting upon them put in place by you?
Could it well be that you are the ones impeding them?
But I don't even accept the premise.
Here are the numbers.
As you just heard the congressional Democrats are claiming that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres and are not tapping federal leases they own.
Here's some facts for you on this.
And this is from the Institute for Energy Research.
Now, the Institute for Energy Research is a energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation.
Great people.
The reality is that 97% of federal offshore areas are not leased.
97% federal offshore areas are not leased.
94% of federal onshore areas are not leased.
Right now, only 15% of the outer continental shelf acreage is even available for leasing.
With domestic oil production in the U.S. declining since 2000 to the lowest level since 1947, it is clear that we need to tap more domestic oil.
The oil companies have paid money for the leases they own in addition to an annual fee.
So it would make no sense to leave them dormant and not drill for oil or even test to determine what oil capabilities are there, particularly at a time of 130 dollar oil.
companies have every incentive to explore, tap the existing leases that they have.
It's just a series of lies, things, Misrepresentations by the Democrats.
They want you mad.
They want you suffering.
Republicans versus Democrats, conservatives versus liberals, rightists versus leftists, however you want to put it.
Because it is clear who is on the side of the American people, who's on the side of independence, who's on the side of liberty, who's on the side of lower prices.
And it ain't the party of the so-called little guy.
It is not the Democrat Party.
Get this next soundbite.
We're going to get the phones after the...
After the break here.
This is uh yesterday in Taylor, Michigan.
Christian Broadcast Network News, senior national correspondent David Brody interviewed Barack Obama.
And Brody says Michelle Obama has come under criticism from some conservatives because uh some comments that they suggest she's unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, and outside the mainstream.
This is unfortunately become a habit in our politics, where anything's fair game, and we just make things up about people.
The fact that people have tried to make her a target, based essentially on a couple of comments in which she was critical of what's happening to our American dream and the enormous difficulties that people are experiencing difficulties that she hears directly as she's traveling across the country.
I think is really distressing.
And you know, I I've said publicly before, and I'll say again, I think families are off limits.
I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue.
And if I saw people doing that, I would speak out against it.
And the fact that I haven't seen that from John McCain, I think is a deep disappointment.
Oh McCain won't criticize people who are criticizing my wife.
Why?
Look, McCain's got a lot on his plate, Senator.
What why is it McCain's responsibility to announce these people besides Senator Obama, you and I know both who got this whole thing's on.
We know what you're talking about.
You're talking about the tape.
The rumored tape.
The whitey tape.
Which nobody's ever seen.
Doesn't exist.
I'm not trying to spread the rumor.
He knows what we're talking about here.
That's what he was talking about.
And we all know that it was a Democrat blogger that started that whole thing, Larry Johnson, who was working for the Clinton campaign.
That's who started this whole thing.
And he knows it.
And why it's up to McCain or any of us to denounce this liberal blogger is beyond me.
Let's see.
Oh, you I mentioned this yesterday.
I had the scoop on this from Bill Salmon, but I want you to hear this.
There's a Barack Obama campaign conference call.
Bill Salmon of the Washington Examiner says to the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam.
Should bin Laden have the same rights that were granted by the Supreme Court last week to other terrorists.
Most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price of oil.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights.
Okay, so here's John Kerry, an advisor.
By the way, real change here, right?
An evolutionary, new, never before seen mindset enlightenment.
And here's John Kerry.
I've told you, losing in a Democrat Party is the biggest resume enhancement you can have.
So here's Carrie saying, yep, damn right.
Obama gets the same constitutional rights as anybody else.
Next up, Richard Clark.
Another hack.
Certainly not new, something, certainly not fresh, certainly nothing enlightened.
And he chimed in on the uh very same question.
If he were to be brought back, force the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus.
But fifth, terrorists have routinely in the past, prior to this administration, been successfully captured around the world and prosecuted, including in the United States.
With the exception of one participant in the World Trade Center attack of 1993, they were all found, all brought back to the United States, all given their rights, and all convicted, and they're all locked up in Supermax in Colorado.
That is an out and out falsehood.
That is an out and out lie.
And we went through the details of this yesterday, but again, the point is that Holbrook well, Holbrook, too, but this is Richard Clark.
Yep, damn right.
Bin Laden gets constitutional rights.
So this is new.
We're gonna go back to the Clinton era way of fighting the war on terror in the courts.
You know, we indicted bin Laden in 1998.
We still don't have him, do we?
We did get, we did indict some uh, you know, the blind shake and some of his cohorts for the 93 World Trade Center bombing, and yep, put some of them in jail.
And look at all the terrorism that happened after that.
See, the thing about this, that these are supposed to be the best and the brightest minds around.
John Kerry, Richard Clark.
The fact is, the legal approach, the indictment approach, it only happens after they've done their dirty work.
After they have committed a terrorist act, and if we're fortunate to catch them, only then.
Does their policy matter and does it stop terror?
Nope.
No way.
It's nothing more.
These people are incompetent.
They cannot be put back in charge.
You can see what happened all during the 90s with a buildup.
But I just wanted you to hear this.
Barack Obama, the enlightened one, the Messiah, with brand new policies that never have more before been seen, wants to bring back retreads from the past, the Clinton administration and a failed presidential campaign to put an exclamation point on the proposition that yes, if we capture bin Laden, damn straight, he gets an ACLU lawyer, he gets Miranderized or rights read to him, and he gets constitutional rights in the United States of America.
One more thing, and we're gonna go to the phones.
You might have seen the news yesterday that Al Gore's home is now using 10% more electricity after taking all of these energy Saving steps that he highly touted one year ago.
We have therefore proof from Al Gore that we need to drill for more oil.
We have proof that conservation does not work.
Thomas Liffson at the American thinker points out that the morality play on offer from these environmentalist wackos and their media buddies says that we can't drill our way to cheaper oil prices, but that conservation and new technologies for alternative energy are the answer.
Thus we should all be thankful to vice perpetrator Al Gore for proving that even in a high profile demonstration project, these solutions will not work.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that Al Gore's home in Nashville has increased its energy use by ten percent in the past year.
This is in the face of proudly announced and expensive energy saving steps.
Stop the ACLU cites the Soros funded Think Progress site.
For information here, Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residents, including signing up for 100% green power through green power switch.
They've installed solar panels, they've used compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
And it didn't work.
His usage went up ten percent.
So now that Al Gore has proven his measures are ineffective, it is time to drill offshore.
It is time to drill an Anwar.
It is time to mine coal.
And to start on nuclear power plants.
Al Gore, by the way, is not going to join Obama on the campaign trail.
He's not going to subject himself to questions on global warming.
He will not debate.
What are you got what are you laughing at in there?
What just tell me what's so funny?
Is my hair out of whack or what what just what is so funny?
Just mm-hmm.
Oh, you're not laughing at anything happening on the program.
Okay, so you're paying attention to something other than the program in there, and that's making you laugh.
All right, back to the phones.
Not back to the phones.
We got to go to the phones.
We'll start here with uh with Mike and Bend, Oregon.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Uh Mr. Limbaugh, it's an honor, sir.
Thank you very much.
Um I'm not a highly educated guy, so maybe you can help me out with something.
Uh didn't uh the threat of Star Wars technology uh from uh President Reagan and the showing of funding for that uh from Congress.
Didn't that uh start the dismantling of communism in Europe?
It it was the final straw.
It really wasn't the it didn't start things, it was the final straw.
This, by the way, you're you're exactly right, according to Lady Thatcher, who you know, I've spoken to her several times about this personally.
I've heard her give lectures on this, and she said that the Soviet Union knew that when we announced the strategic to defense initiative, Star Wars, they knew.
I mean, they they were overstill.
They were a third world country with a first-rate military.
They could not keep up with us.
They did not have the ingenuity, they didn't have the entrepreneurism, they didn't have the freedom to create something like that.
They could not keep up with it.
And they just and they realized so what that what they try to do, Gorbachev tried a bunch of things.
Glasnost and Perestroika tried to hold on to the communist infrastructure while granting a little freedom here, a little freedom there, and it fell apart on them.
And Star Wars technology may never have even existed, but the threat is what uh is what started that process.
Exactly right, sir.
This may be apples and oranges, but wouldn't the solidarity of our country uh with the president in a Congress that shows that we are going to drill, that we're going to go after our own oil.
Uh wouldn't that bring the price of oil down like tomorrow?
I mean, the last thing OPEC wants is for us to produce our own oil.
Uh and the fastest way for them to slow us down would be for them to drop the price of oil so that we would not be so interested in drilling for our own oil.
Well, but see, nobody's in charge of dropping the price of oil or raising it.
Too many market factors that really make the price of oil what it is.
But theoretically, um I assume that, yeah, they would be very alarmed if there were much greater supply coming on the market, regardless where it came from, because it it is going to have a downward uh put downward pressure on the price.
For those of you in Rio Linda, let me speak your language, uh, it will lower the price rather than downward pressure.
Uh I also think that simply if if we did unite and uh congressional and approval with the president sign a legislation, yep, we're gonna do this.
I do think that it would uh uh immediately impact the oil markets in a positive way with uh with a whole lot of confidence because it would mean more supply.
You know, it's always the lack of supply of a necessity that causes unease uh and sometimes panic.
It causes disquiet, it causes nervousness.
I mean, you what we're talking about a need here.
You know, we're not we're not talking here about a you know a shortage of uh paper clips.
We're talking about a shortage of supply, necessary supply for just to maintain current levels of use and even growth of oil.
And that's gonna make a lot of people nervous.
And uh, if if people uh figure out that uh the world's banding together one way or the other to go get more of it, it will no question have a a very uh very positive effect.
But uh OPEC would not, but first place, they're not the cartel.
OPEC is not the cartel that they were.
They don't they they not every oil producing country is a member of um of OPEC.
The um if if there's a well, there is a cartel, but uh the the problem is that the the oil cartel today is not producing any.
The oil cartel is people standing in the way of uh of production.
At any rate, brief timeout, folks.
We'll be back.
More of your phone calls on the other side of this obscene profit timeout.
Back to the audio sound bites.
Lots of noise from the mouth of Barack Obama once again on his campaign plan yesterday, goes right to the Democrat playbook and says, Don't lecture me on terrorism.
This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq that has caused us to be hugely distracted from the war if we do have to fight against terrorism, and it's exactly that failed foreign policy that I want to reverse.
Strictly cliches, right out of the Democrat Party playbook.
Folks, one of the things that's bothering me here is that this...
This is just juvenile.
I'm I'm trying here.
I'm aware that being too critical of this guy can evoke all kinds of sympathy for him.
Everybody, everybody really pounding Obama, he's such a nice guy.
All he wants to do is a good country, he's safe to change and everybody and I don't I don't want to create this kind of sympathy, but I tell I listen to this stuff, and I I am going nuts over this.
This this is supposed to be a smart man.
What we're fine, this man is not an independent thinker at all.
This is dogma.
Clint, yeah, Clinton changed it up a little bit from speech to speech, but this is nothing but Democrat Party leftist anti-American dogma.
And I'm I'm caught between two vices.
I want you to understand, or I want to tell you, how just brilliantly naive and truly dangerous this is, but at the same time, I don't want to come across as another thing.
Can somebody explain to me why it is with every, every Democrat first lady possibility we have to do a makeover?
We didn't have to make over Laura Bush, we didn't have to make over Nancy Reagan, we didn't have to make over Pat Nixon, and we didn't have to make over Betty Ford, and we didn't have to make over Barbara Bush or Laura Bush, but every day we had to make way at 14 different images a day.
From bacon cookies at home to nurse ratchet.
And now they got Michelle my Bell Obama, the big New York Times story to how we got a repackage her.
They've gone out and hired some cutter babe to come in and be your chief of staff and spokesman.
And I'll tell you the the answer to that is because they can't afford to let them be who they really are.
They will offend and just and they will just they will offend as many people in this country as anybody could possibly do, and so they have to bring them in and basically say, look, you can't be who you are, or we're sunk.
So we're gonna put different clothes on you.
We're gonna make you speak a different way, we're gonna give you some words not to use, we're gonna tell you to smile all the time, and we're gonna really have you tell everybody how you came from dirt.
You came from the wrong side of tracks.
You came from nothing.
And you don't even have much now, but you've come farther from where you started than anybody ever expected that you would.
Every damn potential first lady and the Democrats have they got to do makeovers.
Anyway, I did not lose my place here.
This is the same kind of fear mongering that got us into Iraq.
Fearmongering that got us into Iraq.
Have you ever heard of 9-11 senator?
We have not abandoned the war on terror.
We're in Afghanistan.
We have routed the Taliban.
We have not been distracted whatsoever from the fight against terrorism.
Senator Obama, it's your party.
It is your party that has stood in the way of fighting the war on terror.
It is your party along with you, Senator, who have assured the American people we can't win it.
You've been out there saying this war's lost, we haven't even gotten bin Laden.
And now you call this a failed policy?
Failed foreign policy you want to reverse?
You want to reverse victory?
Here's the next bite that's to say he's still on the same plane.
I wish this plane would land somewhere.
These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11.
In part because of their failed strategies.
We've got bin Laden still sending out audio tapes.
And so I don't think they have much standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9-11.
Audacity of this inexperienced rookie to sit there and say things that these are the same guys that helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq.
Senator, what in the world have you done to prevent another attack on this country?
What policies have you supported?
What policies have you authored that have prevented an attack on the United States of America?
Would you also explain to me, Senator, what impact, what economic, what destructive impact does an audio tape from somebody claiming to be Osama bin Laden have?
How in the world, Senator, do you proclaim a failed policy on the basis that bin Laden is still making audio tapes?
What is it, sir, about audio tapes that scares you?
What is it about audio tapes in Bin Laden or Zawahiri that make you feel intimidated?
Would you rather have them sending out a bunch of meaningless audio tapes or hijacking airplanes?
Would you rather have them get killed and knocked off in a rock and have their numbers dwindled and their spirits lowered?
Or would you rather have them sending out audio tapes?
This this is this is dangerously irresponsible.
This is this is this is this this you can't just say that this well, what's that presidential campaign?
He's gotta say something opposite of Republicans.
He may be a presidential campaign, but dammit, this is the United States of America.
And we got a Democrat Party presidential candidate who is doing everything he can to reverse, to reverse the policies of victory, to reverse the policies of national security.
And he calls them failed policies.
You know, I want to go back to something.
And I'll go back to your phone calls.
It wasn't too long ago in this very program.
We played audio sound bites from the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam and Richard Clark.
Well known.
White House terrorism advisor, both Clinton and Bush 43.
And they both agreed with the premise.
Oh, yeah, yeah, indictment's a way to go.
The legal system.
Bring bin Laden to court.
If he were captured, damn right.
We bring him to court, we give him a lawyer, and uh we get an indictment, and uh, yeah, that's what Supreme Court said is what we want to do.
You talk about a failed policy.
That's a Clinton policy to fight the war on terror in the courtroom because you only do that after you've been hit.
It's not preventive in any way.
And these guys want to do that.
Well, let's let's let's take this to some logical steps using the U.S. court system.
We capture Obama.
Osama.
We capture Osama.
Wherever he is, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
And we bring him to the United States.
And we assign his trial in Manhattan because the indictment that's on his head since 19.
By the way, you think he's scared of the indictment on his head?
So we bring him to New York, put him on trial in Federal District Court in New York.
Do we assume that he's innocent until proven guilty?
If there's a trial.
Yeah.
We have to, folks.
If we're going to give these guys constitutional rights, Osama bin Laden's going to be brought in here under the presumption of innocence.
Now stick with me on this.
And then a lawyer's going to go into the case here, and a lawyer's going to have fun with this.
There's going to be a trial.
What if he's found innocent?
What if bin Laden is found innocent on some technicality?
Or what if the evidence is not sufficient to meet the criminal standard?
The criminal standard.
He's presumed innocent in the courtroom after all, right?
Is that true?
You want this?
Vote Obama.
You want these people brought in under the presumption of innocence?
As a matter of fact, somebody ought to ask Obama this question.
If we capture Osama bin Laden and we put him on trial, do you believe, sir, he should be presumed innocent?
Somebody ask Obama this question.
Because it's a damn good question.
Bill Salmon, next, next time, next time you're on one's conference calls, Bill, ask the haughty John Kerry or Richard Carkas or whoever's on the conference call with you.
Ask him.
Based on your last conference call, I can't get on these conference calls.
So Bill's my plant.
So I said, Billy, ask him.
Should Obama be presumed innocent if captured and brought to the U.S. for trial.
Osama.
Osama.
I got my Ted Kennedy hat on today.
It's Osama.
We're talking about Osama.
Should Osama be presumed innocent in a U.S. court?
Should there be a trial?
Now for the rest of you, you don't think so?
Can you imagine that circus?
Can you now?
But with all that, here is the PSD resistance.
If, ladies and gentlemen, Osama bin Laden brought to the United States under these new Supreme Supreme Court rules, as supported by the haughty John Kerry and Richard Clark and everybody else in Obama's foreign policy apparatus.
We bring Osama in under the presumption of innocence.
Somebody explained to me why we are trying to kill him.
Why have we sent out special ops, SEAL teams, drones?
Why have we sent the best we've got into those mountainous regions since 2001 to kill Obama if in our court system he would be presumed innocent?
And why is it that so many Democrats, low these many years, have proclaimed a war on terror failure because we have not killed Obama?
Osama, sorry we killed Osama, we haven't captured Osama.
But it's okay to nuke the guy on the battlefield.
Why are we trying to kill Osama Bin Laden if he will be assumed innocent in an American courtroom?
Yeah, back to the phones.
I was uh looking at something here back on the computer, but uh we'll go back to the phones, Rush Lynn bought a Dayton, Ohio.
This is Will.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Hey, it's great to be here, Rush.
Uh been a big fan since uh I became politically Aware when I was twelve years old, I think uh I think the the stuff you do is great.
Uh I think it's a shame that you're probably gonna get a lot of crap for that Obama slip you just made.
Yeah, but did that sound like I made that slip on purpose?
Well, no, of course not.
Well, of course not.
I'm not the I'm I'm not the first guy to make that slip.
Hell, I'm Ted Kennedy's made that slip.
It was it was purely uh you know I've I've I've said Obama about a gazillion times more than I've said Osama in the last six months, and that's the explanation for it.
It just I'm not gonna look at they can't that doesn't matter.
If they give me crap, they give me crap.
They've been giving me crap, you know, I've got I've got crap cannon back.
Does it doesn't matter?
But uh the reason why I called is I I had called earlier when you were going on the uh the tirade about uh how Obama is not gonna be anything more than Jimmy Carter's second term, and you know, the Obama people are sitting there saying, well, uh McCain is just gonna be uh Bush three and you know, all that crap.
And to be honest, I think we need to, you know, I don't think that's fair to the predecessors.
I think we need to uh we need to address the candidates for who they are and not you know, not try, and I know the Dems are just trying to bring this up because you know they want to keep uh Bush on the ticket because you know they think everybody hates Bush, which I'm disappointed in and in George Bush.
I am, but uh, you know, I don't hate him.
I think he's done a lot of good, you know.
All right.
Let's let's let's let's stay focused on your suggestion.
Your suggestion is that we be a little bit more detailed, say about Obama than simply saying, hey, it's just gonna be nothing more than Jimmy Carter's second term.
Right.
And I think I think Obama has the potential of being way more dangerous than Jimmy Carter ever was.
That'd be that'd be hard to do.
You know how I grew up you you're how old did you say you are now, uh, Will?
I'm I'm 28.
Twenty-eight, so I'm I miss Jimmy Carter completely.
You know, I grew up Yeah, yeah, that's right.
You don't know then.
You did not live through it.
I know what you mean by by by uh uh it could be worse uh than than Carter.
But let me explain why this is done.
Now we know why the Democrats are saying Bush three, they want Bush on the ballot.
The Democrats hate Bush.
The media hate Bush.
They think, therefore, most Americans hate Bush.
So if they can turn McCain into Bush, then you know they're dim wit voters, that's all they'll need, they think.
They're misunderstanding Bush is not hated.
He is unpopular.
A lot of his unpopularity stems from the fact he's disappointed people on his own side, but not fighting back and not defending himself against some of these outrageous attacks that he's undergone.
But nobody dislikes the guy.
The reason for Jimmy Carter, too, uh, and by the way, that was not how I started out explaining uh Obama.
We have dissected as much of Obama's policies as possible.
Every time he opens his mouth and says something that's just naive, ignorant, stupid, dangerously wrong, or whatever.
I explain in great detail why.
But there's also this notion, the concept here of communication, the concept of persuasion, and the concept of illustration.
Shakespeare said it, brevity is the soul of wit.
Now there's somebody like you, you're 28, so you were born in uh 19 uh 1980.
Well, Carter was gone and you weren't old enough soon enough to have any direct recollection of what those years of his were like.
But for people that are older than you are, to say Jimmy Carter's second term.
Those who live through it do not want to do that again.
It is a simple way and a brief way of getting people to start thinking about who Obama is.
I agree with you, got to back it up with in-depth analysis and commentary of his policies.
Which happens here regularly.
Uh, I get I get calls uh Will now and then from people similar to you, and basically what you're saying is can we stop at the labels?
Can we just can we just stick to the substance?
Well, the problem is labels work.
A Marxist is a Marxist because he's a Marxist.
A leftist is a leftist because he's a leftist.
A communist is an SOB because he's a communist.
A conservative is a current conservative because he's conservative.
It gets a little bit more nebulous when you start talking about Republicans and Democrats, because there's all kinds of Republicans, a couple kinds of Democrats.
But again, it's not labeling.
It's accurate description.
And the uh the art of communication, persuasion, uh uh uh motivation, this sort of thing, those are those are key elements here in how one tends to convey honest impressions and opinions of others and their policies.
I appreciate the call.
We've got a brief timeout.
We'll be back uh after this is a windfall profit uh timeout break here, folks.
Uh countrywide six and audio sound bites from the repackaged Michelle Obama from the view today, where uh Whoopi Goldberg wet herself.
▲
Export Selection