All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
July 7, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at all these people walking into this Michael Jackson thing.
Do they work?
It's in the middle of the day out there.
I guess they're all victims of this Obama recession.
Think about this.
If the stimulus plan had worked, they'd all have jobs and they wouldn't be able to waste their day going to the Michael Jackson memorial.
But because the stimulus hasn't produced any jobs, they're out of work and therefore they can go watch the Michael Jackson thing.
We've got a lot to cover in the final two hours of the program.
I've been mentioning that I'm going to ask a question about halfway through the show, which will be a little bit later on in this hour.
Has the American conservative movement gotten to be too wimpy?
Is the left simply fighting dirtier and therefore more effective than us?
I want to get to that.
A few other items though for you.
I mentioned in the last hour the idiocy of the cap and trade legislation before Congress.
Admittedly, those issues, global warming, which doesn't exist, that's big stuff to deal with.
Nationalized health care, big stuff to deal with.
Congress loves to deal with the little stuff.
They love to pork barrel projects up and bring back some bridge or some stupid building back home that they can stand in front of and cut the ribbon.
They especially like it if they can name the bills after themselves.
By the way, there is uh legislation right now in Congress being proposed by a guy from my own state of Wisconsin, Dave Obey, to baning of buildings that were built with federal money after current members of Congress.
Obi's proposing that he's a Democrat.
I'm not making this up.
You can look it up.
Obi's Obi's district has a building named after him.
Hey proposes it after they named the building after him.
And he's oh, I didn't want it.
They did this because they were so grateful.
So he waits until they name a building after him and then proposes legislation to not name any got Maxine Waters all hacked off, they were involved in a shoving match, it's just beautiful stuff.
There's a bill right now they are considering, and I know that this is true because I'm reading it in the New York Times, and they don't make anything up, right?
Several members of Congress are proposing legislation asking that the TSA, that's the organization that does the airport security, the ones that do the security checkpoints, to make certain that passengers are not carrying on carrying luggage that is too large.
The airlines all have these restrictions that they put in place about how much carry-ons you can bring in and what the size can be, but a lot of people think that the airlines aren't doing a good enough job.
There are way too many travelers who are abusing it, they're hauling on their entire lives and they're sticking it in the carry-ons, they get filled, it causes the planes to delay from taking off because you have to gay check the stuff, and they want Congress through the TSA to start sizing these things and not allowing people to get beyond the checkpoint if their carry-ons are too large.
Can you imagine how long that would take?
The TSA is there to make sure that people aren't bringing bombs on the plane.
But we live in the nanny state now.
Now we want to assign to a government the task of whether or not somebody is carrying a package onto a private business's mode of transportation that is too big.
But that's not all.
Today, the Senate is opening its hearings on the BCS.
What is is there an official Rush Limbaugh program position on the BCS, the Bowl championship series?
Rush does not like college football, so therefore doesn't have a position on this.
So I don't run the risk of contradicting anything that Russia said on the BCS because Rush is so disdainful of college football that he doesn't care about the BCS, right?
Well, I speak to you as the one and only defender in America of the BCS.
I think that the BCS is absolutely perfect.
I love the BCS.
I love the fact that if a team loses a game in September, it screws up their chances of getting a national championship.
I love that rinky dink conferences don't get to pollute up the bowl games by sending out rummy teams.
I like all of that, but no one agrees with me.
Everybody hates the BCS.
So Congress is holding hearings.
The Senate is holding hearings on whether or not the BCS constitutes a restraint of trade, whether or not the large conferences are bullying over the smaller conferences by not making it all that easy for a smaller conference to get a team into the Boyle Championship series.
Is this Congress's job?
The problem is, and I trace it all back to Casey Martin.
You may recall him.
He was the very courageous golfer who had a physical disability.
He couldn't walk the golf courses.
He wanted to be able to play in PGA tournaments while riding in a cart.
The PGA, the Professional Golf Association, said no.
Our rule is you have to walk the course.
It's part of the game.
Casey Martin went to the United States Supreme Court, and they ruled that under the ADA Act, the PGA had to accommodate him.
I thought that was a ridiculous ruling.
But many supported it because they thought it was wrong that Casey Martin was being forced to walk the course, which would render him unable to participate on the PGA tour.
Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean the government ought to be the thing that fixes it.
That's how we get into this whole trap of spending money on everything.
So we have problems with the health care system in this country.
It's got to be government that fixes it.
Every time you do a government fix, you give the government more control over your lives.
The fact that we don't like everything doesn't mean that the knee-jerk response has to be to constantly run to Congress, run to the courts and try to remedy it or make it better.
And when you see Congress meddling in things like the BCS because Orin Hatch doesn't like the fact that Utah doesn't get to play for the national championship, despite the fact they've got a great team in the Mountain West Conference, you see government overreach.
And we're all guilty of it.
Robert Bork wrote a great book about this a number of years ago, and I every time I said it, I forget the title of it, in which he talked about how we've just embraced the notion of turning to the courts to make everything better.
Not understanding the costs to a society when we turn over control of everything we do to the legal system, or in this case, to the uh to the Congress.
Now the Pope is out with an encyclical today.
That's a big thing.
Roman Catholic popes rarely issue encyclicals.
I don't pretend to be a Catholic scholar here, but popes ascribe to the notion of infallibility.
It's a belief in the Catholic Church that certain papal teachings are infallible, that they come with the informator of being from God, and therefore they are to be accepted.
Many people believe that that means that everything that the Pope ever teaches on is given with infallibility.
That's not true.
It is only specifically when the Pope cites that stat that that status for a statement that it is considered to be an infallible statement.
I don't know if this encyclical falls into that category, but he's speaking on the whole notion of wealth and greed in society.
Now, far be it from me, a fill-in host on a talk show to take on the Pope.
But there are comments in here that I think need to be addressed because while I generally agree with his conclusions, he makes points that I think have to at least be, if not countered, dealt with and be put into I think proper perspective.
He titles this charity and truth.
He is denouncing according to the New York Times, the profit at all cost mentality of the globalized economy, lamented that greed had brought about the worst economic downturn since the Great Great Depression.
In the encyclical, the Pope Pope Benedict writes, profit is useful if it serves as a means toward an end.
Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.
I agree with that.
I don't believe that the profit should be a goal in and of itself.
There is a reason why we seek profits, but we can't make it the goal in and of itself, and you can't simply allow profit to destroy other things.
I agree with that.
What I have a problem with is how he then goes on and attacks the attempt to make profit and implies that that is always greed.
Quoting again from the uh New York Times report on this, the release was clearly designed to give world leaders a strong moral imperative to correct errors of the past, which quote wreaked such havoc on the real economy and make a more socially just and responsible world financial order.
The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly, not any ethics, but an ethics which is people centered, he wrote.
While acknowledging that the globalized economy has lifted billions of people out of misery, Benedict accused the unbridled growth of recent years of causing unprecedented problems as well, citing mass migration flows, environmental degradation, and a complete loss of trust in the world in the world market.
He urged wealthier countries to increase development aid to poor countries to help eliminate world hunger, saying peace and security depended on it.
He specified that aid should go to agricultural development to improve infrastructure irrigation systems, transport, and sharing of agricultural technology.
At the same time, he demanded that industrialized nations reduce their energy consumption, both to better care for the environment and let the poor have access to energy resources.
Here's where his positions come into conflict with one another.
You can't have development, be it agricultural or manufacturing, in the undeveloped world without having more pollution.
Agriculture is a major polluter.
Agriculture requires big machines that consume a lot of energy.
Agriculture requires processing the food, which is a major energy producer.
And all of this requires that somebody may be making money by selling all of this stuff.
You can't have a world in which we're going to say that nobody can make money, but we're also going to uplift the poor.
He goes on, again, and I'm quoting from today's story in the Times one of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use, not abuse, of natural resources based on a realization that the notion of efficiency is not value free.
He denounced the drive to outsource work to the cheapest bidder, had endangered the rights of workers, and demanded that workers be allowed to organize in unions to protect their rights and guarantee steady, decent employment.
Organizing in unions is the surest way to destroy steady, decent employment.
Ask the workers at GM.
Ask the workers in the American steel industry.
The Pope here is talking about the rights of workers.
Unfortunately, he's then making a political conclusion that the best way to achieve those rights is to do certain things like organize in a union, which is the surest way of destroying jobs.
The first part of the statement denounced that the drive to outsource work to the cheapest bidder had endangered the rights of workers.
But in earlier in the encyclical, he says that we need to encourage development in underdeveloped nations.
Well, what do you think?
Outsourcing to the cheapest bidder is.
If we don't send work to the cheapest bidder, low-income people and people in other countries and depressed countries will never get work.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say that all of the money and all of the jobs will go to high income workers and then say we're going to turn around and try to uplift the parts of the world that are starving.
There's no point in moving jobs to Africa and India if you're going to be paying twenty five dollars an hour.
You can do that with American workers.
The problem that I see here in the Pope's encyclical is that he presumes that you can somehow uplift the entire world, but do so without any cost or ramification elsewhere.
I strongly agree with him that chasing wealth for the sake of chasing wealth is a ride to nowhere.
Where I disagree with him is the seeming premise that wealth itself is a problem.
Wealth creates the ability to donate money.
Wealth creates the ability to make jobs.
Wealth creates the ability to outsize work to f outsource work to foreign countries whose workers have low quality of life.
All of this requires wealth.
So I don't disagree with the conclusion, but I think to automatically presume that wealth is A bad thing, and that simply snapping your fingers and paying people more money and encouraging them to unionize solves anything is wrong.
You believe I've taken on the Pope.
It's almost out of line for a talk show host to do that, isn't it?
And my name is Mark Belling.
I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Starting in the next segment after this one, I'm gonna get into this notion of whether or not the right has gotten to be too wimpy.
It's a topic I really want to do on this forum.
And there's a really, really strong piece out today that makes the point very, very well and deals with Sarah Palin.
Before we do that, however, let's take a couple of calls on the subject of whether or not one can be a good person and still pursue wealth to New York City and Tom.
Tom, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
How are you?
I'm great, thanks.
Well, thank you for having me on the show.
It's a pleasure.
Um basically I was just saying that, you know, the the Pope maybe not might not have been directing it directly to the United States, what you're saying.
Unions might be necessary in communist countries and other areas where there is tremendous amount of abuse towards workers.
Not so pretty much what originally our unions were originally created for.
Yeah, I mean, there's a defensiveness whenever you talk about wealth to presume that it's being directed at the United States.
If you want to address true evil, look at the societies like Cuba or Venezuela, where the dictators are keeping all of the means of production.
Look at Iran, where the mullahs control all of the money, yet must much of the nation remains poor even though they're an oil-rich country.
We keep looking at the United States because we're the world's great profit center.
But if you want to find real economic injustice, look at all of the places where people are given no rights whatsoever of self-determination, and that's where I think that you can see true injustice.
I wish he had said that, however.
And I wish he had spoken specifically to what's going on in countries in which people are given no rights whatsoever.
Thank you for the call.
Miami and Larry.
Larry, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
How are you doing?
And thanks for taking my call.
Uh basically, I you know, I I don't think that that he's actually trying to give a slap to uh to our capitalist society.
You know, I think uh he's just more concerned with uh reiterating the importance of the Catholic social doctrine and the importance of protecting the rights of those who don't have any and being able to lift those who are without the basic necessities of life to a standard of of living where they can go ahead and have home, have a home, and have a proper care, have an education.
Well, and it it's not it's not a matter of uh he just can't really address all of the things in one encyclical letter.
I mean, it would just be impossible to do that.
But here's the problem and and I know the whole Catholic social justice tradition and so on, but here's the problem that I have with it.
One of the great developments of the last several years, whether you agree with it or not, was eliminating much of the global debt held by the third world.
It was the big cause of bono.
You know, wipe out third world debt, wipe out the debt in sub-Saharan Africa, and you'll allow these countries to be able to develop.
And indeed, there is now a lot of industry that's going on there.
Manufacturing jobs are moving there.
Well, the result of that is there's an incredible increase in the amount of energy that's being consumed in the world.
The reason that oil went way up last year is that it's starting to occur to people that nations that hadn't been using much energy at all because they didn't have cars and roads and factories, were now using more of it.
So while the Pope talks about limited energy resources, what the point I'm trying to make is if you're going to uplift the entire world, you're going to create a greater demand on all of these things.
If you're going to stand up for workers and their rights, don't force them into things like unions, but encourage them to stand for themselves.
A lot of these things come into conflict with one another.
For example, if you move a job from the United States to a manufacturing plant in the third world, does that achieve the social justice that the Pope is talking about or not?
Because someone here lost that job even as someone else gained it.
That's why I think a lot of times these questions that often are framed from the left about good and evil when it comes to money, don't deal with the real choices and consequences of these decisions that we make here.
Money is going to flow where it's going to flow, and that isn't either good or bad.
Now I do believe the pursuit of money for the sole sake of pursuing it, what Bernie Madoff did, what some of the financial hustlers on Wall Street did in creating ridiculous derivatives in the mortgage industry, that was money that was being chased without any consequence for investors, for themselves.
It was just there.
It was part of the game.
I you're you're almost creating money as being your own god when you do that.
I accept that.
What I disagree with is this notion that you can raise the entire world by snapping your fingers without having any consequences for human beings that are surrounding you right here in this world.
I'm not trying to take this on as a matter of faith.
I just question this whole notion that you hear often from the left that we can raise up the entire world without having any negative consequences at all.
Wealth always means problems associated with it.
When we come back after the break, are we conservatives a bunch of wusses?
I'm Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
There's a very thought-provoking essay at the National Review's website, National Review Online today, written by David Cahane.
And I want to share it with the audience and then expand on it.
The point that he's making here is that conservatives simply have refused to understand that the left is playing dirtier than it ever has before.
Now he writes in the voice of being a liberal to make his point.
He's pretending that he's a liberal himself here, so you're not confused by what you're about to hear.
He writes, one of the most terrifying moments of my political life came last summer at the Republican convention in St. Paul.
I'm referring to the aftermath of Sarah Palin's outrageous acceptance speech, which whipped up the Rotary Club delegates into a frenzy of white boy fury that not even heckling by a brave code pink embed could deter.
Truly a fascist classic and one that sent shivers down our collectivist spines.
Even worse was the glaze of horror on the fizzes of the assembled heroes of the mainstream media.
Andrea Mitchell stood there gaping like a frog while the rest of the assembled Feynman's and Matthews's and Obermans scurried around like roaches when the light gets turned on.
What just hit us?
For one horrible moment.
It looked as if the carefully crafted plans of David Axarod, Ram Emanuel, George Soros, and the second chief directorate, first department of the old KGB were about to gang Aggley.
Not only were we offended at the sheer effrontery of McCain's pick, how dare the Republicans proffer this to Class A piece of Wasilla trailer trash, whose only claim to fame that was that she didn't exercise her right to choose.
Where were her degrees from Smith or Barnard?
Her internships at PETA, the Brookings Institution, or the young pioneers.
We were also outraged that the stupid party had just nominated a completely unqualified candidate nobody had ever heard of.
A first term governor of Alaska whose previous experience consisted of a small town mayoralty.
And so the word went out from that time and place.
Eviscerate Sarah Palin like one of her field dressed moose.
Turn her life upside down.
Attack her politics, her background, her educational history, attack her family, make fun of her husband, her children, unleash the noted gynecologist Andrew Sullivan to prove that Palin's fifth child was really her grandchild.
Hit her with everything we have.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times taking a beer run break from her quixotic search for Mr. Wright to drip venom on Sister Sarah.
Post funny comic David Letterman to joke about her and her daughters on national television.
Katie Couric, the anchor nobody watches, to give this Alaskan interloper a taste of life in the big leagues.
Former New York Times hacked Todd Mr. DD Myers Purdom to act as an instrument of Graydon Carter's wrath at Vanity Fair.
Heck, we even burned her church down.
Even after the teleological triumph of the one, the assault had continu had to continue.
Each blow delivered with our lefty sneer until Sarah was finished.
You know what?
It worked.
McCain finally succumbed to his longstanding case of Stockholm syndrome.
Tina Fay turned Palin into a see Russia from my house joke.
Conservative useful idiots like Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker hatched her.
And finally Sarah cried no moss and walked away.
If we could, we'd cut off her head and mounted on a wall of Tammany Hall.
Except that there is no more Tammany Hall unless you count Obama's Tony Rezco financed home in Chicago.
And it took only eight months.
Heck, Sarah couldn't even find another kid in the time it took us to destroy her.
That's the Chicago way.
Yes, my friends, it's once again time to quote Sean Connery's famous speech from the Untouchables, written by David Mammoth.
The lecture the veteran Chicago cop gives a wet behind the ears Elliot Ness while they sit in a church pew.
You want to get Capone?
Here's how you get him.
He pulls a knife, you pull a gun.
He sends one of yours to the hospital.
You send one of his to the morgue.
That's the Chicago way.
If you just think of us, liberal Democrats, as Capone, you'll begin to understand what we're up to.
And we just put one of yours in the morgue.
I don't know why I'm telling you this, but maybe now you're beginning to understand the high stakes game we're playing here.
This ain't John McCain's log rolling senatorial club anymore.
This is a deadly serious attempt to realize the vision of the nineteen sixties and to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
This is the fusion of communist dogma, high ideals, gangster tactics, and a stunning amount of self-loathing.
For the first time in history, the patrician class is deliberately selling its own country down the river, just to prove a point that yes, we can.
This country stinks and we won't be happy until we've forced you to admit it.
In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it's much more than that.
We're not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition, not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daly, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II.
Not just the party of Kendall Agent two oh two Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy, along with his wife during the Carter administration.
Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is.
A criminal organization masquerading as a political party.
If you had any sense, you would start using our tactics against us.
After all, you have a few lawyers on your side, sue us.
File frivolous ethics complaints against all our elected officials until, like Sarah, they go broke from defending themselves.
David Patterson would be a good place to start.
Challenge the constitutionality of BO two's legion of fill in the blank czars, none of whom have to be confirmed.
Or even pass a security check.
Let's slip your own journalistic dogs of war, assuming you have any, to find Barry's birth certificate, his college transcripts, whether he applied to Occidental as a foreign student, and on which passport he traveled in 1981 to Pakistan with his friend Wahid Hamid for starters.
You might also want to think about interviewing New York literary agent Jane Deistow, who A. contacted the totally unknown Obama in the wake of an adulatory New York Times piece in 1990, and B. got him a
$125,000 advance for a memoir that C. he couldn't write, even after a long sojourn in Bali, which D. got the contract canceled, whereupon E. Deistow got him $40,000 from another publisher, following which F. the book finally came out to glowing reviews, and G. Obama fired her.
Wouldn't she have an interesting story to tell?
Of course, you won't.
You're too nice, too enamored of history and tradition to realize that the rules have changed.
Remember, I live and work in a town where hello he lied isn't a joke.
We men of the left are perfectly comfortable lying, cheating, and stealing.
Hello, Senator Franken, in order to attain and keep political power.
Not for nothing is one of our mottoes, by any means necessary.
You see, we're the good guys.
And for us, the ends always justify the means.
We are literally shameless.
Which is why Bill Clinton is now a multimillionaire and Elliot Spitzer is already on the comeback trail.
In Sololinski's Rules for Radicals, the fourth rule is make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
This is the book that reset Rodman and BO2 grew up reading and continue to live by.
If you don't understand that's the way we see you as the enemy, then you're just too dumb to survive.
Remember that for us, politics is not just an avocation or even just a job, but our life.
We literally stay awake nights, thinking up ways to screw you.
And one of the ways we do that is by religiously observing Olinsky's rule number four.
Did Sarah stand for family values?
Flay her unwed mother daughter.
Did she represent probity in a notoriously corrupt one family state?
Spread rumors about FBI investigations.
Did she speak with an upper Midwest twang?
Mark it relentlessly on Saturday Night Live.
Above all, don't let her motivate the half of the country that doesn't want his Serene Highness to bankrupt the nation, align with banana republic communist dictators, unilaterally dismantle our missile defenses and set foot in more mosques than churches since he has become president.
We've got a suicide cult to run here.
And that's why Sarah had a go.
Whether she understood it or not, she threatened us right down to our most fundamental, meritricious, elitist sneering, snobbish, insecure, diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders bones.
She was, after all, a normal American, the kind of person you meet in flyover country, the kind that worries first about home and hearth and believes in things like motherhood and love of country the way it is, not the way she wants to remake it.
What you clowns need, in other words, is a rules for radical conservatives to explain what you're up against and teach you how to compete before it's too late.
Luckily, since I care about money even more than I care about politics, I have just a book in the proposed I have just such a book in the proposal stage, currently making the rounds of various publishers, assuming any of them are wise enough to take me up on it.
And yes, this time it really is personal.
That's an essay that appeared today on National Review online, nationalreview.com by David Cahane.
He speaks in the voice of a liberal.
He's not a liberal, he's a conservative.
He's making the point that we conservatives don't get it.
That we don't understand, for liberals, the politics of personal destruction really is their tactic, that they are willing to do anything in order to survive.
He argues that Sarah Palin scared the left more than anyone that the conservative movement came up with since probably Ronald Reagan.
And that's why they had to destroy her.
That's why, after the November election, when normally the losing vice presidential candidate is forgotten, that they kept hammering.
That's why they played so mean.
Because for them, winning means the chance now to do all of the lefty things they ever cared about.
And since those things are so important, they'll do anything to achieve them.
And you conservatives are too dumb to fight back.
Thank you.
That's his premise.
I pretty much agree with them.
Do you?
1 800 282882 is the telephone number on the Rush Limbaugh program.
My name is Mark Dunning.
I'm Mark Delling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
If I could come up with one example to make my point here, it would be Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
You know, he's running around doing these shows, apologizing for people like Rush who say things that may upset people.
We have to be the nice party, not ex not not offend anyone.
The Democrats never worry about that.
Have they ever worried that they would look like they were too mean to Sarah Palin?
They don't.
And I understand it is very, very difficult to tell people who are decent and believe in a sense of fair play, that they har have to start playing in a way that they perceive is indecent.
But what's happening right now is you see people on the left literally trying to destroy anyone that is in their path.
It's the reason why when Rush had his problems, they went after him with such venom.
It's the reason why when any of us who are conservative ever have a problem or a misstatement or a slip of the tongue, they try to destroy us.
That's the game they play.
It is ridiculous that Sarah Palin has had 15 ethics investigations and that no one has looked into why Tony Rezco, a convicted felon, bought an empty lot next to Barack Obama's house the same day Barack Obama bought his property.
It is ridiculous that conservatives never hammered on that throughout the campaign, and it's ridiculous that we drop it now.
When you consider the piddly little stuff that people on our side have to deal with.
All right, to the phones and the Bronx.
Vinny, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, Mark, uh pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
I uh I agree with the premise of that brilliant.
I I don't agree with its conclusions regarding Sarah Palin.
I believe she's going out, going to campaign for future conservatives in the House and in the Senate, and she's gonna she's gonna put a lot of people over the finish line and she's gonna make an IOU an IOU level.
Whether she did or she didn't, the point he was making is their goal has been to destroy her.
Their goal has been to make her a laughing stock.
Their goal was to delegitimize her.
I mean, the the uh John Ziggler who I talked about on yesterday's program did this brilliant piece in which he uh went up and interviewed people and read to them a bunch of the idiotic statements that Joe Biden made over the last several months and asked which asked people on the street which vice presidential candidate do you think said these things, and they all said, well, that had to be Sarah Palin.
In other words, they were able to characterize a woman who is not stupid as a dimwit.
That's the tactic that they are that they use, and our side just isn't as good at it as they are.
The only people who try are the taught show hosts.
I I I agree with you a hundred percent.
You kind of stole a bit of my thunder uh when you brought up um Chairman Steele, essentially walking around saying to ignore uh Sonia Sotomayor's racist tendencies and just concentrate on her uh uh judicial rulings.
You can't.
Not when not when she is so blatant about it.
Uh when Newt Gingrich turns around and retracts his words, um, that is a uh that is a sign that is conservatism is uh has put its head on the ground.
I think what we need to ask ourselves to you know to to uh carry to uh grab a line from the uh WWJD bumper sticker, what would Jesus do?
Ask what would the liberals do?
And I'm not suggesting becoming as morally debased as them, but if conservatives aren't willing to use the same tactics that liberals do, they're going to keep winning.
I'm Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
If Sarah Palin had a prostitute living in her house up there in Alaska who is running a prostitution ring out of the house.
Would she have ever gone anywhere?
Yet how many Americans even know that about Barney Frank?
If they don't know it, it's because our side hasn't been telling them them about it.
How many Americans know about the relationship between Barney Frank and Franklin Reigns when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were going under?
If they don't, it's because our side isn't trying to destroy Barney Frank with that information.
To Mike in the People's Republic of Madison, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, Mark's next talk to you.
Thank you.
I think that uh there was uh that that Palin was basically handcuffed.
And when she stood up for herself against Letterman or against John Kerry for the comments he made, you know, she was told that she needed to pick and choose her fights and not go after these people.
She was I mean, she was demonized by the right and the left.
She was.
She was handcuffed.
You're exactly right.
It is very, very hard once you are on the defensive.
And that was the point that Cahane was making in his piece, that our side needs to do a better job of putting their side on the defensive.
Because I can guarantee you of something.
They fall apart.
I mentioned Contessa Brewer of MSNBC almost falling apart when somebody dared to throw some of her stuff back at her when she was asking about Sarah Palin.
We have got to be willing to be more aggressive.
You can use the term playing dirty, you can use the term playing mean.
The point that I'm making is if one team is playing by one set of rules and another team is playing by another, that other team is going to win.
▲
Export Selection