All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
October 7, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hiya folks, welcome back.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Fearless and undaunted, we continue to march our way through the muck and the gunk that is becoming this country under the tutelage and the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama.
Mmm, mmm, mm.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Hey, here's a headline we can't believe from state-controlled AP.
Higher taxes in health care bill.
No, that can't be because Obama said there wouldn't be.
Congressional tax experts say that Senate health care legislation would impose $29 billion more in taxes on healthcare industries than originally thought.
And this is news.
The Joint Committee on Taxation says drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and insurers would pay $121 billion over 10 years as a result of taxes in the Baucus bill.
That's compared with $92 billion originally calculated.
The tax experts said the reason is that the companies won't be able to deduct the fees from their corporate income taxes.
I don't know.
Look at all this stuff is making me laugh today.
And at the same time, it's making me furious.
Remember, last week I told you how Harry Reid was going to pull a trick on everybody to get the Senate health care bill actually over to the House for Conference Committee by attaching a merged bill.
There's two Senate bills.
There's the Harkin Committee bill and there's the Baucus Committee bill.
And he's going to take the best parts of it he likes.
He's going to merge them into one bill, attach them to some other bill that the House has already passed, sent over to the Senate that they haven't acted on yet.
And that bill will be something it'll be easy to get closure on, 60 votes.
Then they send it over to the House.
They conference it, and they send it up to Obama.
Here's Harry Reid in a September 17th interview.
We found this.
He was at the Latino Congressional Caucus Gala.
Cybercast News Service Nicholas Belasi interviewed Dingy Harry and said the Senate Finance Committee releasing the bill.
It's going to cost $896 billion.
The president said he won't sign a bill that adds a dime to the deficit.
Why do you think he'll sign this bill?
And why do you think it won't do anything to the deficit?
The bill that came out of the finance committee isn't something that is going to get the immediate approval of everybody in America or every senator, but it's part of the process.
That bill will go now to the full committee.
They will have a markup.
They'll record a bill out of that committee.
And then I will take that bill and the bill from the health committee and put it together and bring it on the floor.
That's a bill we need to focus on.
What's happening now is just part of the process.
That's back on September 17th, and that's Dingy Harry admitting it.
Dingy, and guess where I first learned of this?
Askheritage.org.
Askheritage.org is where I first learned of this.
And now we've got audio tape here of Dingy Harry admitting two-thirds of the process that will equal the trick.
Those guys are good, and they are invaluable at the Heritage Foundation.
Look at the stuff they've got here today.
The tax and spend laughter back with a vengeance.
This is a report that shows that the tax burden on families will be 8,000 a year higher per household than under George W. Bush.
That's what is in our future.
They've done all the work.
They've analyzed it.
They have figured it out.
With everything BAM's proposal and an 8,000-a-year higher tax burden per household.
And then there's another report here from a page on their website that they call the Foundry with gas prices when they surpassed $4 per gallon last summer.
It forced families to cancel their vacations.
Not only was the day-to-day driving eating up families' budgets, but it made the cost of traveling somewhere for vacation all that more expensive.
Purchasing airline tickets was out of the question for many.
If cap and trade becomes law, news could only get worse for the air travelers and the airline industry.
Get this: the most recent draft of the Senate bill by John Kerry and Barbara Boxer includes aircraft and aircraft engines in its emission trading plan.
The language tracks with provisions in a climate change bill that the House passed in June.
So that's going to make air travel more expensive, jet fuel more expensive, and it's just that's going to add, they figure $1,700 a year minimum per household in taxes if this plan ever sees the light of day.
Then this from the Heritage Foundation, also from the foundry.
It's all at askheritage.org.
According to the AMA's National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85% of its claims.
Medicare, in other words, denies more of its claims than any private insurer.
Aetna was second.
They denied 6.8% of its claims.
And Medicare's denial rate, 6.85%, is more than double any private insurer average.
And yet here's Obama running around: we've got to squeeze the insurance company.
We need competition.
The insurance companies need the competition of a government public option.
And then we find out that we already have a government public option in the form of Medicare, and they deny more claims than any private insurance company does already.
And yet there wasn't going to be any Medicare cuts.
There weren't going to be any Medicare.
If you've got Medicare, you're going to get treated.
It's all a sham.
And askHeritage.org has all of this.
$25 is all it costs to become a member, and their membership is growing.
And it is just one of the most worthwhile expenditures that you could make.
AskHeritage.org.
You go and take a look at it.
Is the U.S. preparing to bomb Iran?
That's the headline in a story here from Jonathan Carl at ABC News.
Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuke facilities?
The Pentagon's always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.
First, a little background: back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in emergency Iraq-Afghanistan war funding requests to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the MOP, Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground.
Back then, the Pentagon cited an urgent operational need for the new weapon.
Now, the Pentagon's shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the MOP, the massive ordnance penetrator.
Why do they, a little aside here, why do the government have to come up with these screwball names?
This thing, the massive ordnance penetrator, sounds like something you'd see in a porn movie.
And then the acronym, MOP.
We got a bomb and we're calling it a MOP.
It's a massive ordnance penetrator, and it just obliterates things 200 feet below ground.
And we're calling it a MOP.
The Pentagon controllers sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committee over the summer.
There is an urgent operational need for this.
The request was quietly approved.
On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded $51.9 million to provide massive penetrator ordnance integration on the B-2 stealth bomber.
So we're going to put the MOP on the B-2.
Now, this is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it's ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as in Qum or Natans in Iran.
The massive ordnance penetrator and massive ordnance penetrator integration.
MOP integration on the B-2 stealth bomber.
Now that, folks, is big.
And this is ABC Jonathan Carl just strategierizing here, trying to connect the dots out there, but it still is happening.
Yesterday, I told you about three drive-by columnists.
Let's see, one was Richard Cohen, one was Roger Simon of Political, and Bob Herbert, New York Times, all writing pieces.
This guy's Obama got a bad boat?
Is Obama prepare to lead it?
Is Obama?
Is he ready for all this?
I said this to Bob Herbert.
Poor Bob.
He's so deluded.
Bob, let me answer this for you.
Please, honestly now, Bob.
He does get it.
Obama gets it.
I don't think Obama cares.
This is all part of the design, Bob.
Why am I wasting my breath?
Bob Herbert will never believe this.
Why am I wasting my, you'll never believe it.
Well, it's not a waste.
I mean, addressing it to him is a waste.
It just, it's so tempting to try to make him understand this.
I don't think Bob gets it either.
The answer's not FDR.
The answer is not government work projects.
The answer's not stimulus programs.
The answer is not a second stimulus.
The answer's not cap and trade.
The answer's not health care reform.
How many times does this have to be proven, though?
Mika Bzezinski talked to Bob Herbert this morning on MSNBC, and they had this exchange.
I think that's a very good question.
Does he get it?
Where are the grand programs to infuse jobs into this economy?
I'm waiting.
I have a lot of sympathy for the president.
I mean, these problems he's confronted with are enormous.
I mean, he's got to deal with Afghanistan.
You know, it looked like the economy was going to fall through the floor and on and on and on.
The biggest domestic priority right now and for a long time has been employment.
I mean, I think it's a bigger issue than health care.
And I just think that we haven't addressed it with the kind of urgency and the creativity and the funding, frankly, that's required.
This is just, we had the story yesterday that the Democrats have figured out, Bob, that it's easier to pay ongoing benefits than it is to go out and create new jobs because they figured out, Bob, they can't create new jobs.
And Mika, the question you asked has a faulty premise.
Where are the grand programs to infuse jobs into America?
Excuse me, Bob.
You said he had no urgency.
We had to do the stimulus in two weeks and there was no urgency?
The stimulus was supposed to fix all of this, Bob.
Stimulus was supposed to fix all this, Mika.
That was grand.
Grand policies to create jobs.
What grand federal policy created the jobs at NBC, Mika?
What grand federal programs created the nightly news at NBC?
What grand federal programs created the network you work at, PMS NBC?
What grand federal program built Rockefeller Center where you work?
What grand federal program is going to create jobs for people?
We're not doing that.
We're lining them up in Chicago and we're passing out money.
That's a grand federal program.
It's called a stimulus.
You see, Mika and Bob ain't about creating jobs.
Obama is shepherding this downturn.
He thinks that the people getting shafted deserve to be shafted because they've unfairly benefited from an unjust and immoral capitalist society since the country was founded.
What you people are going to have to understand is this is all happening by design.
Back in a moment.
My friends, do you recall me discussing a group of people called the Center for Science in the Public Interest?
Rachel, you may not remember because it has been a while since I spoke about her.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is two anorexic people.
They are skeletal.
They have a fax machine.
They have a logo.
They are food Nazis.
They have approval from the drive-by media because they're good liberals and they're official organization and they're trying to prevent death.
And they send out these faxes warning everybody of this food or that food.
And then they embark on a campaign to ban those foods.
And it is why you cannot buy popcorn popped in coconut oil anymore in a movie theater because they said that coconut oil is the biggest artery clogger out there.
We've now learned that coconut oil is one of the most healthy oils.
I myself flip off these two skeletal nerds at Center for the Science of Public Interest.
Every time I pop popcorn now for my guests, I use coconut oil.
I search the globe far and wide to find it.
Screw these people.
They also have suggested that no more Chinese food be sold.
They haven't succeeded in banning that, but they have, they're anti-meat.
And these people, what's this guy's name?
Michael Sumpy or other.
I can't remember his last name, but they're back.
Let's see if his name is in the story.
It's not in this.
No, name's not in the story.
Center for the Science in Public Interest urges the Senate to pass a Food Safety Modernization Act.
This is two people with a fax machine.
Two busy bodies.
They're probably wacko vegetarians.
You know, a conservative vegetarian is a conservative vegetarian.
A liberal vegetarian is a vegetarian that demands you be one too.
They're militant, these people.
Now, how many of you people think that eating salad is a healthful thing and do it quite often?
A lot of people do.
A lot of people love salads.
Lettuce, greens, vegetables chopped up in there, try to be responsible to salad dressing like flavorless watercress vinaigrette or whatever gunk people put on them, but they love salads.
Leafy greens, eggs, and tuna are on the top of a list of the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the FDA according to Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Those and seven other foods account for nearly 40% of all food-borne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated food.
That's no reason to forego the occasional salad, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which authored the report.
Nor need one pass up tomatoes, sprouts, and berries, even though those foods are also on the list.
The non-profit watchdog group says the presence of so many healthy foods on such a list is exactly why the United States Senate should follow the House and pass legislation that reforms our fossilized food safety laws.
Life expectancy is rising.
We are not having food poisoning in this country.
It's not happening.
These are a bunch of busybody people who will not mind their own business.
They want to make their business yours.
And they are.
These are the kind of people that just irritate the hell out of me.
They're no different than Sebelius.
You must take this vaccine.
I have wanted to grab a vat of coconut oil and go throw it on the window at their little office where they have their fax machine.
Outbreaks give the best evidence of where and when the food safety system is failing to protect, said the Center for Science and the public interest staff attorney Sarah Klein, the lead author of the report.
They may have three people there now.
The FDA is this.
I'm reading from their press release.
The FDA is responsible for regulating produce, seafood, egg, and dairy products, as well as typical packaged foods like cookie dough and peanut butter.
Nearly 80% of the food supply, more than 1,500 separate definable outbreaks were associated with the top 10 riskiest FDA-regulated foods, causing nearly 50,000 reported illnesses.
Nearly 50,000.
Since most foodborne illnesses are never reported, these outbreaks are only a tip of the large, hulking iceberg.
I remember the, I guess we're just going to have to admit it.
Folks, someday we're all going to die.
Hard as that is to believe, difficult as it may be to deal with, we are all going to die, despite the efforts of these two food Nazis at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The riskiest foods, and number one, the riskiest food regulated by the FDA, leafy greens.
They're no different than Al Gore trying to tell you that the polar bears are dying because the ice cap is melting.
It's all a bunch of lies from some genuine lunatics.
Dave in Visalia, California.
Let's go back to the phones.
Nice to have you with us today, sir.
Hello.
Good morning, Rush.
Yes, sir.
First of all, thank you for all you've done for our country.
We really appreciate it.
I've barely scratched the surface, but thank you.
I'm glad to hear that.
Anyway, my comment was on Obama absolutely has no concern what goes on in Afghanistan or our troops.
It's nothing more than an inconvenience to his real policy, which is government health care.
And there will be no avowed action on Afghanistan until the health care is passed.
What is going on now in Afghanistan and in our Washington is nothing but a delaying action, not indecision.
Of all the things he is, he's never been indecise.
His problem is the new value-minded Democrats seem to be more aligned to the old values of our country.
They're the ones blocking the government takeover of our country.
They're the ones that still care about winning and losing war.
Name one.
Wait, wait, wait.
What value-minded Democrat?
You talk a capital D Democrat?
Name one.
No, the value-minded are the blue dog Democrats that are blocking.
The newly elected Democrats seem to have a soul.
And I'm not running down the Republicans.
Well, I know.
Republicans are irrelevant because they have no votes that matter.
Blue Dog Democrat is still a Democrat at the end of the day.
Ladies and gentlemen, pardon the inside baseball here.
I have to get a message to the broadcast engineer, and I didn't figure out what I wanted to do here before the breakout.
So, Mike, audio soundbite is going to start with 48, and then we're going to do 32 in order up to 36.
So it's 48, 32 through 36.
Fresh off our story from the Lunatics at Center for Science of Public Interest.
By the way, Michael Jacobson is the guy that founded it with two other scientists from Ralph Nader's stupid organization.
What's the name of the stupid?
Hang on just a second, Sturdley.
I got it right here.
Center for the Study of Responsive Law.
That was Nader's group.
So it's Jacobson and these two other lunatics from Ralph Nader's group started Center for the Science of Public Interest.
And now, salads are the deadliest thing the FDA regulates.
Now from Time magazine.
Alcohol abstainers, which this does not apply to you and Riolinda.
Alcohol abstainers at higher risk of depression.
Get this.
Alcohol is a depressant.
Alcohol has a peculiar relationship to happiness.
We drink to celebrate, but because alcohol works as a depressant, it ends up deadening feelings.
Not surprisingly, there's an observable correlation between alcoholism and depression.
And even though it's not always clear which leads to which, everyone knows you can't drink like a Sterling Cooper employee.
That's the TV show Mad Men.
They drink all the time.
They're even in the office.
You can't drink like those people for too long before becoming a perpetual sad sack.
But if alcohol can lead to depression, does that mean not drinking will make you happier?
A new study suggests the opposite actually tends to be true.
In fact, those who never drink are at a significantly higher risk for not only depression, but also anxiety disorders compared with those who consume alcohol regularly.
This study was published recently in the journal Addiction.
It looked at more than 38,000 people in Norway.
Of course, they're no longer there because Oprah ate Norway last week.
Researchers, led by Jens Christopher Skoggin of the University of Bergen in Norway, which of course is also not there anymore, asked the 38,000 former residents how much they had drunk the previous two weeks.
The research team also asked them various questions to measure their levels of anxiety and depression, like, what do you feel when you see Oprah outside your house?
People in the top fifth percentile of drinkers had the highest odds for anxiety, but it was abstainers who were at the highest risk for depression, higher even those than the heaviest of drinkers.
Why?
Well, one reason is that the abstainers in the study sample were more likely to have illnesses such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, and people with chronic illnesses are more prone to melancholy.
What are we to do?
And get this.
Abstainers have fewer close friends than drinkers have.
Drinkers have more close friends, even though they tend to participate more often in organized social activities.
Abstainers have a harder time making strong friendship bonds because they don't have alcohol to lubricate their social interactions.
After all, it's easier to reveal your worst fears and greatest hopes to a potential friend after an adult beverage it.
It's total crap.
Total crap, but it is in Time magazine.
And it's a study from Norway.
You know, well, where they should have done this survey is in Russia.
My God, that's all they do there.
If you lived there, that's all you would do.
Gets dark at 3 in the afternoon.
The high temperature for the day is minus 20.
There's no food in the stores.
And Vladimir Putin's got the KGB back spying on you.
All right.
Nashville, Tennessee, this is Tim.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, how are you doing?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
My wife had a hard time trying to understand why Obama's plan to spread the wealth was unfair.
She couldn't see, you know, what was wrong with taking from those who have and giving to those who don't have.
So what I did was I simplified her for her.
She's a woman that prides herself on education.
She's working on a PhD at Vanderbilt, and she's, you know, makes excellent grades.
Oh, no.
Now, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You are depressing me.
Your wife's a PhD working on her PhD.
She makes excellent grades.
Yes, she is.
And we have four kids.
No, it makes total sense that she would think what she thinks because the culture she's immersed herself in, academia, is teaching her this stuff.
Well, let me finish what I did.
Let me show you what I did.
Sorry for the interruption.
That's okay.
Let me just show you what I did to bring her around.
I said, you know, what if you made 100 on a test and another guy in your class made a 60?
I said, this guy has a felon mark and you have a high passing mark.
I said, would it be fair to take 20 of your points, bring you down to an 80, give the 20 to the guy that made the 60 and bring him up to 80 and everything's equal?
She said, no.
I said, why?
She said, because I earned that grade.
I said, well, don't you think rich people earn the money that they get?
And so she was speechless.
She couldn't say anything.
I said, I said, she's went, no, I earned it.
I said, well, think about it, baby.
I said, you're bringing a guy up from a felon grade to a passing grade.
And we're going to bring you down to his level.
I said, now, if you apply that type of example with everybody in the classroom, everybody being the dumper, nobody would ever get out of the class because everybody have a felon grade.
So she then understood the point I was trying to make.
And sometimes you have to use other examples to get other people to think, you know, try to get the point across to what you're trying to say.
That's all I want to say.
Well, you know, you did a great job out there.
I don't know so much you made her think as you made her realize.
But I need to ask you something, Tim.
Has this conversion held?
Does she still get it now that you've explained it to her?
She gets it, but she hates it.
Yeah.
Well, I'll tell you, if she goes back to class where she's studying for her Ph.D.
And she runs this story either by a fellow student or even worse, a professor, the professor will say, well, here's what you should have said when your husband posed this question.
The people who have a lot of money didn't earn it.
They have stolen it.
This is Obama's belief.
This is why they've stolen it.
They have unfairly taken what's not theirs.
They haven't earned it.
That's the whole point.
They've cheated and stealed and lied to get it.
And that's why he's going to take it from them and give them, give the money to like these poor people lining up a COBOL hall in Detroit for it.
That's what he believes.
And you got to stay on this, my man, because a professor is going to tell her that if she dares tell this story.
And the professor is going to say, well, you can't compare wealth to grades because there isn't anybody else.
You can't take somebody else's grade, but you could take somebody else's money from them while they were.
You could cheat them.
You could steal.
They'll work on her like this.
This is going to be an ongoing thing.
You did a great thing here.
A great thing.
You've taken a big giant step here.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I just appreciate she doesn't like listening to you because every time I turn the radio station in the car, she turn it off, turn it off, turn it off.
He makes my heart start rushing.
I'm like, oh, my God.
I said, it's just a voice, someone talking on the radio.
I can't stand it.
He talks too loud.
I'm like, whatever.
I think sometimes she just don't want to listen to people who are realists and they just take facts.
Look, she's got, she's like a lot of people.
She's got her worldview is safely wrapped inside a cocoon in which she lives.
And if anything penetrates it, that upsets this security blanket she's living in.
You're right.
She doesn't want it.
She does not want to be challenged with anything that would question her beliefs.
You got a huge challenge out there, my man.
Well, I'm teaching the four kids, bringing them up in the right way.
God bless you.
God bless you.
This is a great call.
I appreciate the fact that you're doing this, and I appreciate the fact that you called to tell us.
All right.
Have a good one, Russia.
Thank you, Tim, very much.
Well, sometimes just a simple little explanation like that is all it takes when you make it personal.
I meant to play this audio soundbite yesterday.
I didn't get it in time.
Nobody's fault.
We were just busy.
I have it now.
This is 2000 in Iowa at the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
It's an event there.
It's audio of Obama's safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings.
This is the guy that, you know, a 15-year-old kid approached him.
I'm having an older man is forcing his way on with sex and so forth.
And Jennings said, that's fine.
Are you using a condom?
And urged the 15-year-old to further the relationship.
And then said, later, I saw this kid come back to school and every day had a big smile on his face.
I knew I'd done a good thing.
That's Obama's safe school czar.
So nine years ago, Kevin Johnson is at this Jennings Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.
He is criticizing schools for promoting heterosexuality.
This is from a speech Kevin Jennings gave at this event in Iowa.
I find it amazing this is on the ballot for a couple of reasons.
First of all, we all know what's really promoted in our schools: heterosexuality is promoted in our schools.
Every time kids read Love Lord Juliet or they're encouraged to go to Twelve or whatever it is, kids are aggressively recruited to be heterosexual in this country, and you know what?
In 2020, the reality is that at schools could affect your sexual orientation, there would have been no gay people in the first place.
But there's still people out there who believe that, Nev.
Because you know what?
It's easy to panic people if you make them think that they're after your kids.
So he's gay, obviously, and heterosexuality is being promoted through vehicles like Romeo and Juliet.
Recruiting.
They're recruiting heterosexuals, recruiting and promoting heterosexuals in the schools.
And this guy is now Obama's safe schools czar.
We'll be back, folks.
Have a wonderful break here.
On Monday on PMS NBC, Chris Van Holland, Democrat Maryland member of Congress, I think he's in charge of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee right now.
They're still upset over my fun day last Friday celebrating Obama's failure, dismal failure in Copenhagen to secure the Olympics for the crime-ridden Chicago.
By the way, you think the IOC didn't see that video of the kid getting killed in Chicago?
Eric Holder talked about it.
It shocked the nation.
It shocked Copenhagen, too.
At any rate, pretty bad day in America.
We can't get together on amateur athletics, eh, Chris?
When you see people erupting in cheers because America lost the Olympics at places like the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh and all these places, the right-wing talk show hosts who are proxies for the Republican leadership.
And I have to say that we haven't heard the Republican leadership come out and condemn them.
We saw what happened last time they came out and condemned them.
All of a sudden, they had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh.
Now, folks, I have to continue to be amazed here because, let's see, last Friday, David Brooks wrote a piece in the New York Times saying, politicians are making a mistake.
I don't have any power.
People don't listen to me.
I mean, they listen, but they don't do what I say.
I don't change any votes.
And then he said it again on Sunday on Beat the Press and a couple other people.
And then Howard Kurtz has come out of the Washington Post and got the same facts, so echoed the same sentiment.
Why do these guys keep talking about me then?
I don't know what they're worried about.
They've been saying for 21 years how irrelevant I am.
So let's see.
Anderson Cooper 180 on CNN.
Do you realize I saw something the other day?
I just love this.
There's a show on at 3 o'clock in the morning on the Fox News channel called 3 a.m. called Red Eye.
It's on at 3 in the morning called Red Eye.
Grett Gutfield, I think, Greg Gutfield.
At 3 a.m., that show has a higher rating than CNN does at 8 p.m. with Campbell Brown.
3 a.m. outrates CNN 8 p.m.
So Anderson Cooper 180, the ferret-like columnist of the New York Times, Paul Krugman, was on with Mary Madeline.
And they, again, were debating me.
This is Monday.
I don't know why you would relentlessly and repeatedly employ a tactic that not only doesn't work, it works against you.
The liberals and the Democrats have been demonizing Rush Limbaugh for over two decades, and they've just made him stronger, and they've expanded his audience.
And the ferret-like Paul Krugman replied.
On the issue of Rush Limbaugh, he actually is over the top in a way that no major figure on the left is.
No one with that kind of influence, that kind of respectability.
Miriam was just giving him the respectability he has.
And, well, as for the strategy, who knows?
But I would say that to some extent, yeah, people are flocking to listen to them, but they're also pulling the Republican Party further and further out of the mainstream.
Republican Party is doing that all by itself.
Krugman, Republican Party is in its own tail spin and nosedive.
Mary Madeline shot back.
I don't just respect Rush.
I revere Rush.
Every time he's attacked, it spawned a lot of Rush knockoffs.
But when you drive people to these shows and they're hearing a lot of data and it's data that makes sense and it comports with their life and it's not calling them angry mobs, well, it just expands what this country is anyways.
It's a center-right country.
Krugman has amnesia that afflicts the entire left.
They have no recollection of how they treated George W. Bush.
They said, nobody in the left like me, that's true.
There's nobody nearly as talented nor as good, but he means is outrageous and irresponsible.
Here's what he said.
This was not a column about how Rush Limbaugh is a really bad guy.
This was a column about the strategic decision of Republicans, the Republican Party, to be the party that opposes anything that Obama proposes, even if it's something that by bipartisan agreement we thought was something the country had to do not very long ago.
There's none of his agenda that's any good, Krugman.
It's all destructive to the America we know and love.
You know, the funny thing is, Brooks, Krugman, these guys, you guys have to learn the Republican Party does not listen to me.
If it did, it wouldn't be in the sad shape that it's in.
We'll be back.
Don't forget, I didn't appoint myself leader of that party.
The White House did, and these guys are falling right along in line with that template.
And that's it for today, folks.
We go out with Barry White to Love Unlimited Orchestra Sweet.
Summer Sweet.
We'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection