All Episodes
Previous Next
July 17, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
July 17, 2009, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you, sir.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Rush.
Thank you for tolerating me today in the fill-in chair.
Mark Davis out of WBAP Dallas Fort Worth.
Rush is back on Monday.
Grab a little three-day weekend.
In the meantime, we find ourselves in the middle of a Friday show dominated by, of course, the topics of the week, healthcare and Judge Sotomayor.
Let's get right back to your calls pretty quickly about that.
I just want to mix in what we always do anywhere in the talk show world, and that's talk about stuff that's big, you know, right out of this morning's news, right out of today's headlines.
Terrorism is always scary, but when you have hotel lobby video of stuff blowing up, it's like, wow.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Bombers posing as guests attacking American luxury hotels in Indonesia's capital set off a pair of blasts Friday after evading hotel security, smuggling explosives into the Marriott and assembling the bombs in a room of the 18th floor, where an undetonated device was found after the explosions.
The bombers had stayed at the hotel for two days and set off the blasts in restaurants at both hotels.
The blasts killed eight people, wounded more than 50.
At least eight Americans were among the wounded.
Can I just spend one moment defending the language here for a sec?
This is so little, yet little things mean a lot, okay?
God bless Fox News.
All right.
Can we establish that from the get-go?
God bless Fox News.
They report, we decide, except when they decide to play with the language.
For some bizarre reason, and maybe some of y'all can help me out with this.
Suicide bomber fell out of favor.
What was ever the matter with suicide bomber?
It is a descriptive term.
And I don't think it was just Fox News, but some folks decided that that was somehow a compliment.
Somehow it mitigated their evil.
And they decided to start calling them, we're getting tough now, folks, homicide bombers.
Once again, wrapped in the main premise of God bless Fox News, may I reach out to my friends over there and say, guys, stop jacking with the language.
Homicide bomber is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Any bomb that kills somebody is a homicide.
Suicide bomber exists as a term to differentiate from Tim McVay.
Tim McVay sets the bomb, drives away, not a suicide bomber.
These guys blowing themselves up on purpose, those are suicide bombers.
The language exists to clarify thought and communicate a thought.
There's a difference between someone who bombs something and leaves and someone who blows themselves up and stays.
I believe it adds to, I think the person willing to blow himself up involves, that's a, I mean, it's all the willingness to kill others.
They have that in common.
Tim McVay and these guys had the intent to kill others.
They had that in common.
But these guys, for whatever reason, were willing to blow themselves up too.
Now, that doesn't make me feel better about them, worse about them.
At no point have I gone, oh, well, suicide bombers, that's better than Tim McVay.
So I don't even know where this absurdity ever came from.
But Over at Fox News, they report, we decide they do the fair and balance thing, which they are simply by comparison to ABC CBS CNN.
Fox News's news, news content is not conservative.
The opinion shows, I mean, you're going to get Hannity, you're going to get Beck, you're going to get O'Reilly, you're going to get this, you're going to get that.
Those are conservative opinion shows, just like the ravings of Olbermann and Ed Schultz and Matt Allen and all of that.
Those are liberal opinion shows.
You get conservative opinion shows, liberal opinion shows.
That's great.
The bias issue is always fought over news content.
Anyway, I digress.
The whole point here is that as they go about their yeoman's work at Fox News, stop jacking with the language.
If somebody's a suicide bomber, they're a suicide bomber, okay?
There's nothing wrong with that term.
In fact, it is a useful term.
It helps distinguish between people who blow themselves up in the process and those who set the bomb and seek to survive it.
Thank you.
I feel much better.
It's 1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-282.
What I actually intended to spend those last couple of minutes doing, which I'll now shorten up so we can get to calls in this first segment.
The thing that occurs to me here is that it is still an extremely dangerous world.
I know, I hope that no one ever totally loses sight of that.
But we as Americans in particular have such short memories and such short attention spans that it's possible to have a little time go by.
I mean, that's why everybody bailed out on the war.
No more 9-11s by 2003?
Score!
We're dancing in the streets.
Everything must be fine.
No need for that nasty, messy, expensive war.
Come on, everything's fine.
They haven't had any more 9-11.
Well, it is our historical illiteracy and our blindness to the evil that populates much of the world that endangers us most.
And every once in a while, terrorists do us the favor of reminding us that they are still there.
They have done so today in Indonesia, which is, by the way, the biggest Muslim country in the world, and where they've had a nice run of stability, a recent election that didn't appear to be tainted.
That's always nice.
I get all tainted against what measure and backdrop.
But every once in a while, and sometimes it'll be in a Muslim country, sometimes not, witness Britain and Spain.
But if we lose sight of the fact that even though Al-Qaeda is splintered and on the run, that they are still out there and they still have bombs and people willing to blow themselves up and others, what do we call them?
Suicide bombers, thank you.
That if we grow too cavalier about this, if we grow too self-satisfied in our own safety and the safety of places around the world, that is the atmosphere into which they strike.
That is the gap of opportunity that they will use.
Indonesia was a perfect place to do this from the terrorist mindset because they'd, you know, recent election, no post-election rioting, you know, some economic stability by Indonesian standards.
Perfect place.
And I'm not saying that we all have to, you know, run around with our eyes bugged out, condition red, condition red, top DEF CON at all times.
But if we grow too comfortable, that is when we endanger ourselves.
And I wonder, and I know I have company, if the one-party rule that we have in the United States of America is sufficiently concerned about things like this.
Oh, I know they'll give lip service to their concern.
You know, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who seems quite muzzled lately.
I know she's had a speech or two here and there, but wow, is she the least visible Secretary of State in recent history?
And gee, why might that be?
There's a whole nother topic.
But there's saying terrorism is bad and we are against terrorism.
There's saying those things, and then there's doing the things necessary to fight it.
Closing Git mode doesn't fight terror.
You know, failing to properly bolster what we have done in setting the stage for stability in Iraq.
That's not fighting terror.
Failing to speak the very word terror, to admit that it exists in order to placate the Arab street.
That's not fighting terror.
So I just wonder.
I just wonder.
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
Let us, you know, if I tell you I'm going to Akron, you might think, fantastic, another Ohio call.
This is up in Northeast Colorado, I'm given to understand.
Nice tiny town in the Rockies.
Joyce, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis, how are you?
Hi.
I just wanted to say that about the health thing, they've got the $700 or $800 billion in there for bike pads and gym places and lights.
I just, if I had a choice, which I don't, I'd like to spend that money on making those people sick or well that were sick instead of buying all that stuff.
Yeah, if we've had hundreds of billions of dollars lying around rather than have it go to pet projects in Obama voting districts, if there's something that we need to spend on health care, if there's some additional government spending necessary in health care, that would seem a more worthy destination.
I don't want to spend it on health care.
I'm trying to.
Healthcare is fine the way it is.
I mean, I don't.
Exactly right.
But that's exactly where I was going to go.
In fact, let's go a step farther and say not only do we not have to spend the money on the so-called stimulus, we don't have to spend a whole lot of government money on health care either.
That the solutions to every healthcare problem we have lie in the private sector, lie in an honest marketplace, lie in more sensible regulations, lie in tort reform, a thousand other things that we can do with the relationship between patients, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, solutions which, like so many other issues, environmental, various other things, don't require an enormous outlay of taxpayer money.
Okay.
And with that, she shrugs and eggs.
Oh, that was tremendous.
Could you hear that?
You're not wearing headphones, I'm guessing, in the limbaugh audience.
Maybe some of you are.
Did I wear her out?
That was tremendous.
I'm sorry, Joyce.
I thought we had achieved some harmony there.
And yet, after I was done, in what seemed like pregnant silence, you could hear go, well, all right.
I'm tickled.
Let's pause.
Let's get back.
See what happens next.
See if the next caller is somehow more satisfied with what I'm doling out here on this Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
1-800-282-2882.
Go to rushlimbaugh.com.
I'm Mark Davis, at least for this hour, filling in.
We'll see what happens next.
Speaking of our next hour, or maybe even before this one's through, I may not be able to restrain myself much longer.
You've seen some attention paid to it.
This week in history is an amazing, amazing thing.
40 years ago, right now, there is really only one thing on people's mind, and you either know what it is, good for you, or if you don't, you soon will.
We'll stick that in here somewhere as well on the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in.
We'll continue in just a moment on the EIB network.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show for a Friday.
I'm Mark Davis filling in from Dallas-Fort Worth at WBA Payton.
And whatever station you're listening on, happy Friday, and I hope you have a fantastic weekend.
And on Monday, when everybody reconvenes, Rush will be here.
Okay, in a moment, Steve, I'm coming to you in New Jersey.
You got a China question, and I've got locked and loaded some audio of, I've made mention of the questions that Judge Sotomoyor has answered and the ones that she has not answered and how sometimes even those are more telling.
Well, when she was questioned about the Second Amendment, well, you just have to hear it to believe it, and in just a couple of moments you will.
But the first thing you're going to hear, let's go to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, because Carl was going to help me out with something that I just never got.
All of a sudden, somebody figured that there was something the matter with the term suicide bomber.
And the folks whom I otherwise admire so richly at Fox News started using the completely dunderheaded homicide bomber.
Carl, help the fill-in guy out.
How are you, sir?
Not too bad, Mark.
Good.
Okay, I'm an Iraq veteran, and we started using this when I was over in theater, term homicide bomber, because you'd have people using the term suicide bomber as propaganda trying to make people feel bad for these murderers who go out and blow themselves up.
Let's pause right there.
In what way?
First of all, anyone feeling bad for these people is an idiot, so I don't know why we would change the language to play to that.
Secondly, let me just, okay, we may be getting somewhere here because the last thing I want to do is quarrel with a military term.
How does the term suicide bomber or one's status as a suicide bomber make it more sympathetic?
How does that make it?
I mean, help me.
It doesn't make any sense to me, but some of the propaganda, especially over in the Middle East where dying, you know, for the jihad is such a big thing.
All right.
Then follow me here because I'm starting to understand a little bit of this, but it still doesn't change the truth.
The thinking being, if one is in the Middle Eastern general public, that the bomber who sets a bomb and runs away has a certain commitment to the task, but the bomber willing to blow himself up, wow, he must really feel strongly about it.
Is that sort of how the logic would go?
That's part of the logic.
Okay, well, then trust me, because time is short.
I understand that.
That doesn't make it...
Why would we play to that?
I don't care if the suicide bomber gets more props back home at the coffee shop at Hezbollah headquarters.
I don't care.
And I don't think the military or American journalists should change the language because of that.
That's insane.
A suicide bomber is a good term.
It enables you to know, you as a soldier, me as a radio guy, to know, was this somebody who set the bomb and ran away?
Or somebody who blew himself up?
We can then think of that person whatever we like, but the term has meaning.
The job of language is clarity.
And you don't go jacking around with that because somebody has some weird thought that actual accuracy somehow gives props to extremism.
That's crazy.
I understand.
I agree with you, but we're not dealing with rational thinking people like that.
No, no, no, I don't understand.
But here's the thing.
So what is it the job of rational people to do?
To stay rational.
You don't go changing the language because some people use it to a sinister end.
You don't go changing anything in the way you fight.
Just to take a walk to a different thing, there are ways in which we've wanted to, there's sometimes I've wanted Republicans to be tougher, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And I get the answer back: well, we can't do that because some people won't like it, because some people will portray us as racists or portray us.
I don't care.
Do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may.
In the language, say the right word and let people do with it what they will.
That's all.
Carla, the most important thing, let's not bury the lead here.
God bless you, sir, for your service and for what you did for the country.
When did you get home?
I got back in 06.
And how long did you spend there in the war?
I spent 12 months over there, and I'm getting ready to head to Afghanistan here shortly.
Are you really?
Well, I got to tell you, and I don't ever seek to speak for an audience, but I think I could probably get some amens on this.
For the service that you have already given us, we give you our unending thanks and for what you are continually willing to do.
There's something special about somebody who'll go once.
There's something really special about the guys who go twice and more.
So God bless you and thank you because what you're doing gives me the freedom to sit here and do this show about big topics like war and peace and the Constitution and little tiny topics like word usage.
You're my hero, man, and thank you very, very, very much.
Well, thank you, sir.
Love you, brother.
All righty.
Okay, 1-800.
Well, I'm glad we picked that up.
I don't know.
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
You know what I'm going to do?
You got 60 seconds rather than give a call a short shrift.
For those of you that didn't know what I was talking about, about recent history, about this week in history, 40 years ago, yesterday was the launch of Apollo 11.
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, riding a Saturn V into Earth orbit and then shooting out of Earth orbit to head to the moon.
Today is the 40th anniversary of their second day.
Tomorrow will be the 40th anniversary of their third.
Sunday will be the 40th anniversary of their fourth.
And then Monday.
Somebody make sure Rush mentions this on Monday.
Either a gentle nudge from a caller or whatever, or maybe his own research team.
I believe Monday is the 40th anniversary of the most amazing feat in human history.
Maybe not the best thing we've ever done, establishing freedom for the downtrodden, curing diseases.
That's probably the best things we've done.
But the most amazing thing, human footprints on the moon, 40 years ago, this week.
I sure hope you haven't forgotten.
And if you weren't alive, bone up and learn a little bit about what America, about what humanity can do when it commits itself to an amazing, amazing goal.
Mark Davis in for Rush.
Be right back.
Very proud, very grateful to be filling in just for this one day.
Rush is back on Monday.
Hope you have a great weekend ahead, whatever you plan on doing.
I'll tell you what I plan on doing.
Go on to some calls.
Some folks have been waiting.
Let's take them off hold and give them to the nation.
And then the audio from the hearings in which Judge Sotomayor was asked, hey, does that constitution that you will be sworn to uphold, does it contain a right to personal self-defense?
See, silly me.
That strikes me as a kind of a yes or no question.
But apparently I'm mistaken about that.
We'll see.
I'll get to that here in a second.
First, let us head to East Brunswick, New Jersey.
And Steve, Mark Davis in for Rush.
Thank you very, very much.
What's up today?
Hey, how are you doing, Mark?
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Thanks.
And you're doing a great job filling in for Rush.
Last year, when you were filling in for him, I asked you a question, and I was just wondering if your response is still the same given the change of the circumstances.
The question was, in other words, with all the national debt that we have and personal debt that we have, are we selling ourselves out to China?
And I would just, you kind of were not concerned about that.
And I was just wondering, hey, hey, hey, don't misinterpret the fill-in guy.
I actually remember when we spoke, and what a blessing it is to have memories of past conversations filling in on Russia's show.
You were enormously concerned.
I don't think I'm, I don't know if I'm less concerned or differently concerned in the following way.
I wonder if we should even be dealing with them at all.
I'm a big fan of the Reagan policy of speak truth to evil.
However, those who have decided to engage with China by dealing with them, having business relationships with them in order to sort of drag them out of the darkness of the communist cave and into a free market world where their own people will demand more of the freedom that relationships with us will give you,
there are ways in which one can say that that has worked, that the China of 2009 is enormously different than the Stone Age place that Nixon helped open the door to 30, 30-some years ago.
However, it remains an evil regime.
It remains not just a political philosophy, but an economy that is our chief rival.
And I wonder, like you, about when you visit a store and everything is from there, it helps us by being affordable.
It hurts us by empowering them and probably disadvantaging our own economy.
So I think so far we're on the same page.
When you phrase it this year, as I think you did last year, quote unquote, selling out to China or mortgaging our future to China, my answer then and my answer now is not necessarily.
I believe there are ways to interact with a modern yet still very communist China.
There's a reason why Rush calls them the Chai Coms.
That's so that you can always remember exactly what they are.
I think there are ways to interact with them that are smart.
I think there are things that we can do so that we'll never be a level playing field because that would involve every country having the same trade laws.
That'll never happen.
I'm not a protectionist, so you'll never get that from me.
So I think there are ways that we can proceed in a relationship with China that does not rise to the level, to the panic level of selling out to them, mortgaging the future, et cetera.
Let me give you the floor back and let's chat.
What's your thought?
I totally agree with you.
I'm all for free trade and all that.
The only concern I would have is what if one day they come to collect the mortgage?
How do we handle that?
Well, because that tend the good, well, okay, you never want to be in hock, you know, in your own country or in a relationship with another.
And if there's anything I've probably talked myself out of doing, it's saying the following sentence, that would never happen.
I probably would have said that about the government owning GM.
I probably would have said that about spending trillions of dollars to get out of a financial crisis.
That'll never happen.
And now it has.
So never say never.
But the Chinese are enjoying the status quo too much.
The fantasy, which is what it is at the moment, at least, the dark fantasy of them bringing us to the knees of economic ruin by calling in all of these chips and debt and all of that, takes away the engine of their own progress.
And that is our money.
Right now, the engine of Chinese progress is largely fueled by American entrepreneurship, American businesses, American tourism, a fairly civil relationship with America.
If we are somehow ruined, what have they gained?
And then I think the last thing, and I'll give it right back to you for the last word.
I don't ever, they say never, say never.
And this is not me saying never.
Let me phrase it with precision of language.
I don't believe that America is going to go away because of something China does.
Do they have it within their power to deal an economic blow to us?
Yes.
Do I believe sufficiently in American resiliency that we can survive Chinese whims?
Yes, I do.
Fair enough.
I mean, that's definitely something for me to chew on.
And I thank you for your time and the answer.
My pleasure.
Thank you, man.
Thanks for having me.
I surely will appreciate it a lot.
Let me go back to the original thing.
I mean, because I know for the last three, four minutes there, I've sounded like I have found a way to cope with the status quo.
We are dealing with the Chi Comms.
Are the fill-in guys required to say that?
I gladly do.
We are dealing with the Chi-Cons.
The Lord knows they're dealing with us.
And that's where we are.
And it's not going to change.
So we can pound our fists on the table and bang our heads against the wall, or we can find a way to navigate these waters smartly and not quote unquote sell out to the Chinese.
Now, what does that mean?
I love Walmart.
Okay.
It's not just a Tourette's moment.
It's just, wow, he changes topic quickly.
Nope, I'm going somewhere with this.
One of the reasons I love Walmart is I save a bazillion dollars a year by shopping at Walmart.
Now, every time I go in there, and I also love buying American, and I really try.
I really, really try.
I'm thrilled when I look at something I want and it's made in the USA.
If it's kind of a coin flip, or even if I have to drive an extra mile or two, or there's a place I know that stocks up on American products, I gladly do that.
But you know what?
Sometimes I'm walking into Walmart and I need $200 worth of stuff, you know, stuff for the yard, groceries, things for this, stuff for that, stuff for the household.
And I know the vast majority of what I've got in that basket is from China.
Wow.
Oh, how I wish it were not.
But it is.
I'm saving a bunch of money.
And so I, and to that extent, I am a willing accomplice to this ongoing thing.
But you know what?
So are you.
So are almost all of us.
So what do you do?
I mean, What is the way out of that?
And we all talk such a good game.
We all talk such a good game about buying America and about this and about, and many of us do.
I do.
And I know many of you folks are doing so too.
American cars, American this, American that.
But the solutions that would really deal the that would really say something to the speak truth to evil, the refusal to deal with them in certain ways.
Are you ready for the stuff?
Are you ready for that $200 trip to Walmart?
We've all made it.
You know what the definition of a $200 trip to Walmart is for me?
When I go out with a list that contains $50 worth of stuff, because I always see stuff I need, and it winds up being just instantly $200.
Well, let's have that trip turn into $350.
And you talk to me about the principle of dealing with China.
Let's have protectionism.
Let's say that what we're going to do is we're going to put a tariff on stuff coming in from other countries because how in the world can we deal with them?
We have American labor costs and they're throwing everybody what kind of pittance and rice they may be getting in some Chinese factory.
How do you deal with that?
Well, hey, here's a way to level the playing field.
Let's put a tariff on all this incoming stuff.
Well, that just sounds great.
You see how many minutes that lasts when goods that millions of Americans want are suddenly enormously more expensive because America put a tariff on them.
Our own people did this to us.
See how long that lasts.
We can all get together and pump our fists with glee on getting tough with the Chinese.
And boy, believe you me, there are ways in which we do need to, probably more having to do with their partnership with other evil regimes around the world than the pair of shoes at the mall.
But talk is, I'd say talk is cheap.
Not on this show.
It's not.
Anyway, talk is one thing.
Talk is talk is talk.
Action is action.
And sometimes you can say things and stand for them and they sound great.
But when you take a look at the consequences of what would happen, do you know what kind of rioting we'd have in the streets if we did some of the things that everybody talks about doing and getting tough with China?
Let's have tariffs.
Let's do this and let's get rid of Walmart and do all these things or the places that stock a bunch of Chinese goods.
Sounds wonderful.
And let that happen and let that trip to that trip to Walmart or wherever.
Let the $200 of stuff that you need to get this weekend for some backyard party you're having at your house.
Let's have that go to about $350 in this economy and see how happy people remain.
But to get back, I know I got a break.
As ambivalent as I might sound, and I am coping, I am talking about ways to navigate the field as it is actually striped.
And this is a very weird thing to use just to show you that that doesn't mean that I have in any way grown distant from the evil of the communist regime that runs China.
We're supposed to just feel great about Yao Ming.
I'm sorry.
I can't do it.
He plays down the road for me in Houston.
And that's not like I want him to have more injuries or the Rockets to lose all 82 games in their schedule or anything like that.
But if someone immigrates and they leave China to come here and live here and be an American citizen, some of my favorite immigration is when people bolt from communist regimes to come be a part of America.
That's not what this guy's done.
He's glom and we'll take him because he's nine feet tall and you know and can shoot.
I hate that.
At some point, an American basketball coach, God was it down.
Let's not throw him under the bus.
An American basketball coach went and coached the Chinese team.
What are you doing?
Or it was an assistant coach or a coach or something like, what are you doing?
And I know that's just on the athletic field of competition.
Two goofy examples from basketball.
But whatever we do, and whether it's trade or whatever, let's never lose sight of the fact that while the Soviet Union is gone, there is another evil empire around, and it's China.
And it's China.
And God bless those billion-plus people.
I wish for them to be ruled by a better government.
I don't define all the Chinese people by the evil of their government, but that government is evil.
Don't ever forget it.
And anything we do about them, with them, in regard to them, should be done with a brain full of the truth of the immutable truth of that statement.
All right, here's another immutable truth.
Boy, am I late.
More of your calls in a moment on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in.
Be right back.
It is the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in.
Let's get right to some phone call action.
We're in Los Angeles.
Don, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark.
How are you?
Oh, Mark, great being on with you.
Great job filling in.
Very kind.
You know, all the talk about Sotomayor, I mean, it's certainly warranted, but I'm more concerned about Attorney General Eric Holder and this continuing vendetta trying to get, you know, Mr. Cheney and, you know, trying to start a witch hunt to go after the people that were defending our country for eight years.
You know, all these torture allegations.
There's no shortage of what should we be worried about most.
The plate is so full.
Let's give proper time to what you've described.
It's offensive enough that the Attorney General seeks to criminalize policies that he and the president politically disagree with.
But if there's anything that just adds a certain extra spice to my anger, it's this notion that the president can do nothing about it.
The attorney general is independent.
I can't stop him.
Well, rest assured, if Eric Holder does this, it is with the absolute and thorough approval of President Obama, who seeks to straddle the fence and seem so above it all, so forward-thinking while his Attorney General goes on this witch hunt.
If it happens, it is absolutely with President Obama's full approval because he, too, seeks not just to win elections and change policies he disagrees with, but to criminalize the behavior of those he disagrees with.
Well, gosh, you know, that's so right because Mr. Obama, the American answer to Hugo Chavez, he's trying so hard to like smile and say, oh, well, you know, I want to look forward, knock backward, but gee whiz, nod wink.
If Eric Holder wants to do it, that's okay with me.
And it's just so scary.
Well, I, you know, Mark, I really think it's going to backfire because it's going to be like Iran-Contra all over again.
They're going to succeed in making the heroes heroes.
People are, I mean, Dick Cheney can take care of himself.
Mr. Yoon can take care of himself.
Just give them a platform.
They'll turn that docket into a barricade where they can stand up on top of it and shout to the American people what they did, and they'll come out of it looking a lot better than the Obama regime.
Well, Vice President Cheney, former VP Cheney, certainly did, you know, when he went a few rounds with President Obama just out there on the speech and talk show circuit.
So I hope they don't get that opportunity because if they do, it means the witch hunts are on.
I'd rather they be resolved in a series of speeches, talk shows, and newspaper columns, whatever.
Don, I need to scoot.
But before I do, can I just share one thing with you?
Anybody ever tell you you sound like Robert Bork?
No, but that's probably the greatest compliment I've ever gotten.
No, I mean it.
You could probably do phone messages or something like that, although that's probably illegal.
But I offer that as a compliment, not just to your pipes, but to your clarity.
So thank you very, very much.
With that, we'll pause again, come back, and have room for another person or two before this hour is done on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis, Phil and M. Be back in a moment.
It is the Rush Limbaugh Show on a Friday.
We're very nearing the end of the second hour, and I mean very.
So, for calls, get right to you after we get into the beginning of the next hour.
And in fact, given just this minute or so with which to conclude, I've always believed as a talk show host that if I say something that I should back it up.
So, I just told Don in Los Angeles that he really sounds like Robert Bork.
So, I'm now going to back that up by playing some Robert Bork audio, which also serves to remind us what Robert Bork thinks of this nominee, Judge Sotomayor.
I don't take Sotomayor's protestations that she's entirely governed by law.
Seriously, I don't think she is.
And I think the statement she's made and the ruling she's made show that she's not governed entirely by law.
There you go.
See?
Told you.
All right.
And with that, let us cruise into this final hour of the Friday Rush Show.
Rush is back on Monday, included in this hour what I promised you before, Senator Tom Coburn, also a doctor out of Oklahoma, talking to Judge Sotomayor about the Second Amendment.
More of your calls, of course, on a wide variety of things.
Actually, there is more Tom Coburn news.
A Wall Street Journal piece makes reference to something Senator Coburn did suggesting that the Senate demonstrate leadership by requiring that every member of Congress go into Obamacare.
We'll talk about whether that's just a useful stunt or something that is particularly praiseworthy.
And also, as promised, we're going to do a little bit of a trip into the time tunnel, remembering this week in history and the magnificent journey of Apollo 11 happening 40 years ago this week.
▲
Export Selection