5.31.2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Tom] [edit]
[terrorism threat propaganda woven into news by ABC]
[ad: Ford/Lincoln/Mercury certified pre-owned vehicles]
[ad: Insure.com]
[sports news: Anika plays in the PGA! The horror, the horror. . .]
[entertainment news: Buffy is no more! The horror, the horror. . .]
[scam news: somebody pretended to be a rich person! They're now safely behind bars. The horror, the horror. . .]
[ad: Goodyear Tires]
[promo: Rush Limbaugh show]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Galen] [edit]
[Rush Intro]
Say, Mike, I just now got the audio roster, so here, may as well do it this way. Stand by, audio soundbites; 1, 3, 4 and 5. It may go well with what I'm going to start with eight.
Greetings my friends and welcome back at it. We are here behind the golden EIB microphone. El-Rushbo and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Lucky to - Well, we're not lucky. We've had all kinds of email problems this morning, folks, and send and receive problems. All over an un-interrupted power supply that needed to be rewired. I didn't even bother to tell you about it, Mr. Snerdley, there was no point. Though we finally got this thing working and wrapped up.
I just got to thinking, it's amazing how dependent - Well, by choice, I mean, it's really not totally dependent. It's amazing how - Well, dependent would be the best word I could use now - on computers we have all become here. Not just this program, I mean so much of our lives. If you are computer literate, you know what I'm talking about. Those of you who don't mess with computers probably laughing about it. It's far worse - I mean, if the TV goes down, no big deal, who cares? In fact, that's like a little vacation. Yeah, I was one of the first out of the box, I mean, using Compuserve back in 1980. Well, I might have been the first. I was using email, Compuserve, on-line services all the way back to 1985, you know, when I was introduced to the stuff. By the late, great Norm Woodruff out in Sacramento, KFBK, so, when I started out there.
You know why I first wanted it? I wanted to get the NFL injury report, 'cuz newspapers were not consistent in publishing it. And when I found out I could have direct access to that and all sorts of other stuff on my computer, well it was a new day in the life of El-Rushbo.
Anyway, we are here, ready to go, ladies and gentlemen. Lot of stuff has piled up. Have you noticed, on the these periods of time when I'm not around. I, just since, I watched a bunch of the news over the weekend 'cuz I was preparing for my return to the Golden Microphone here today, not yesterday. But I had made it plain on - Well, actually I didn't. This is not a good point. I had not made it plain. How many days in advance did I say I wasn't going to be here yesterday? I just did it on right toward the end of the show. Never mind. I was just going to say when the Democrats know I'm not going to be here, they crank it up.
But it's not a good point. Because I didn't make a big deal about it. Well, I guess maybe it is. The word can spread. I mean they were just - it's - folks they've thrown the gauntlet down. It is - as far as they're concerned, Bush is now vulnerable on the war on terror, he's vulnerable on the economy. Bush's vote - It's over! As far as the Democrats are concerned. If you look at the news, if you spend any time at all just in information resource gathering, you get pretty pessimistic today. You - If you don't have a sense of confidence about things, and about yourself - I mean, it is really pessimistic out there today. Let's just go ahead and get started and I'll show you what I mean and I've got some of these sound bites will dovetail here.
Item, first, off the top of the stack. This is a story from yesterday. "Democrats now attacking Bush on security." It's a little review of the mindless debate these people had in Iowa over the weekend. Then the New York Times. I want to go back to Saturday. New York Times and Adam Nagourney. "Democrats say Bush is weak on terrorism." So Saturday, New York Times; "Democrats say Bush is weak on terrorism", and the Associated Press today; "Democrats now attacking Bush on security". Let's stick with the New York Times story. Democratic - think about - I'll tell you
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Galen] [edit]
it's time again to take these Democrats to task. I don't mind doing it, but we're just doing it over and over and as long as they're going to keep trying to take advantage of things the way they are, we're gonna keep holding them to account.
Oh - we decided to turn on the ditto-cam for the whole three hours today, so we started the program with it. So if you are watching the program at Rush 24/7, welcome, nice to have you with us. If you're not watching, and want to, become a subscriber. It's simple. And you'll be able to afford it soon. A tax cut will be soon in your back pocket. Even a capital gains tax cut's part of this new deal. Hey, we'll get to that here in just a minute.
Democratic presidential candidates challenged President Bush today on his handling of the war on terrorism. Questioning the administration's failure to find Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserting that Mr. Bush had failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks. First off, I saw something hilarious. I was flying home from St. Louis last night. A great time at the Joe Buck - Children's Hospital Golf Outing.
You know, I know I'm getting old. There's signs I'm getting old out there, Brian. You know, I'm 52. I think of myself as a young guy still making up for some action in high school I never got. I don't think of myself as 52. I guess one of the big bonuses of coming from the baby boom generation - our parents and grandparents worked so hard and sacrificed so much to give us a cushy life that we didn't have to grow up and face the kind of realities they did so soon in our lives. As some people like the Clintons didn't learn until they were in their 40s, that there were things larger than themselves. In life.
Most people learn that in their teen-age years, but, um, my golf cart was parked right next to Rob Dibble's. Yes, Rob Dibble, the former great pitcher for the Cincinnati "Shreds", and now an ESPN analyst. And he walked up and introduced himself to me. Now, Rob Dibble, you gotta understand. Rob Dibble's one of the - he's a throwback. Oh, some would describe him as a troublemaker. He wasn't a troublemaker. He was just a very vibrant and open personality. He's a funny guy. He's all bulked up now, much more so than when he played.
But he walked up, even, just, just just this side of sheepy, and said, "Mr. Limbaugh, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Rob Dibble." Mr. Limbaugh!? Does it look like I'm 52 years old? He approached me like I was a grandfather or something! And I'm only 52. I'm older than he is, but I'm not old enough to be his grandfather. I don't know if I'm old enough to be his dad. Mr. Limbaugh. I don't know, I just got the impression here that he was being polite to his elders. He was raised properly.
Anyway, I was flying back on the airplane. I know you thought I'd lost my place, but I was flying back on the airplane last night. I was watching news and, maybe it wasn't last night, could have been Sunday. I don't know, but there was the funniest damn thing. I could not believe it. It was on Fox. It wasn't one of these crawls, with the words moving in yellow on the bottom of the screen. It was one of these Fox news alerts with the big red banner; Fox News Alert". Oh-oh, big news, something has just happened.
Then the still graphic is "Reports are Saddam Hussein's Still in Iraq, Using Assumed Name." Assumed name! You mean Saddam Hussein's walking around calling himself Ali Akbar Abba Dabba or something? Rather than Saddam Hussein? And that's supposed to be a descri - Saddam Hussein's under a fake name? Of all things! To make news! And of all things to be using as a disguise, a fake name? You know, I could understand it, Saddam Hussein's still walking Baghdad, using Groucho Marx eyebrows, glasses and nose, but not a fake name.
Anyway, the Democrats say because we haven't got Bin Laden, and we haven't gotten Saddam, that Bush has failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks. Now let me - have I missed something? That's what I'm saying; when did we get attacked? When
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Galen] [edit]
attacked by terrorists. Did this happen yesterday when I was in the air? Did you all know anything about this?
Anybody out there knows, we pride ourselves here, ladies and gentlemen, on being on the cutting edge, here. Knowing things you don't. And knowing things before you know them. But obviously something has gotten past us here, because - Well, no, let me read it here to you; "Democratic presidential candidates challenged President Bush today - this is actually from Saturday - on his handling of the war on terrorism, questioning the administration's failure to find Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserting that Mr. Bush has failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks." Oh, further.
So, I was gonna say, there haven't been any terrorist attacks, so where's the failure? Don't worry. I'm asking you all this rhetorically. I'll get to the summation in just a moment. The candidates appearing at a labor forum in Des Moines Saturday morning repeatedly castigated Mr. Bush for what the White House has portrayed as one of Mr. Bush's chief strengths. His record in battling terrorism abroad and protecting Americans at home. The criticisms came at a week when terrorists killed dozens of people in bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Attacks that have officials have said bear the trademark of Al Qaeda. The bombings have stirred concerns about the terrorist group's persistence, even after many of its leaders have been detained or killed. And they've also re-ignited questions about whether the war on Iraq might have inflamed suicidal terrorists. They haven't. None of this - none of this is accurate. I mean, the Democrats are gonna be saying it, but none of it is accurate.
By the way, when Bush declared war on terrorism, did he declare war only on Al Qaeda? He declared war on terrorism, didn't he? You know, Al Qaeda has become a catch-all name for all terror. You know, we got brand name terrorism now - is the way this is all unfolding before our eyes. You can just hear the info-babes on TV; "Looks like it was Al Qaeda, Ted. Terror bombing sure feels like Al Qaeda, Tiffany. Well, we have no proof yet, but it has all the earmarks of Al Qaeda, Tom." I'm sure you've heard this; Al Qaeda here, Al Qaeda there, Al Qaeda everywhere, despite the fact that we've decimated them. So it appears we've got brand names for terrorism. We've got brand names for cola drinks, for hamburgers, cigarettes, automobiles.
Now we've got brand names for terror, terrorism and terrorists. The question is this; "Does it really matter if the attack in Riyadh was conducted by Al Qaeda or Al Aksa, or Al Hezbollah ? Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, is it not? President didn't just declare war on Al Qaeda, he declared war on terrorism. I mean, if Al Qaeda vanished tomorrow, war on terror would continue. War on terror wouldn't end tomorrow if Al Qaeda was said to be vanquished. If Al Qaeda had vanished yesterday, same thing. And for all we know, it might have. Why the focus on Al Qaeda? Is it lazy journalism or is it playing politics? Clearly the President's drawn a line on terrorism and this is a mission that's gonna take more than one term in office. Probably more than two terms in office.
The Democrats, on the other hand, would like to focus on one brand of terrorism, Al Qaeda, and specifically Osama. And there's one reason why; that's 2004. "Where is he? Where are they? Bush didn't get him yet, I will. Don't ask me how, but we Democrats will find Osama and we'll get him." So we have brand-name terrorism and all these mythical dangers that the President continues to expose us to. This all just fits exactly what I told you these people were gonna do, does it not?
And there's more. Stay with us. More information, then the analysis you've come to know, love and expect on this program will follow.
[Rush on the EIB network promo]
[Ad: Citrical]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: Skin Zinc]
[Ad: Volvo at Palm Springs Volvo]
[Ad: DesertNetwork.com]
[Promo: Terri Parker with Desert Homes Today on Sunday at noon]
[Ad: DesertHomes.com]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...or violating an ethics policy at the very least and here Graham's out there eluding to things that are in this which may not be. Senator Jon Kyl, who is also on the commitittee -- committee has chastised Graham for doing this. Be very suspicious of this, this is uhm, almost unconceivable what Graham is doing but it fit the bill with what the democrats want. What Graham said Saturday in Iowa, "We've let Al Qaeda off the hook. We had them on the ropes, close to dismantlement and then we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the war in Iraq. We let them regenerate."
Howard Dean went on and had what he had to say and they basically, Gephardt, his two cents in, oh by, Gephardt, can't believe this, we got the audio. Gephardt is telling the story about his dad driving a milk truck again and he's telling the story about how his dad told the family if it weren't for the union and collective bargaining they wouldn't have food on the table or a roof over their head and as you know, his brother has discounted that whole story. There's a 1988 Los Angeles Times piece in which the entire story Gephardt tells has been discredited. His dad was a republican. His dad was ab -- his dad was destroyed when he found out his two sons were going to become democrats. His dad didn't want to drive the milk truck. His dad did that because his mother made him take a job. He was -- he wanted to be a real estate investment uhm, other thing.
Yeah, this (unintelligible) no other democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee agrees that there is any information that Bush is engaged in any kind of a cover-up at all. Not one democrat and yet Senator Graham's out there trying to impl -- well he is, not trying, he is implying that the things in this report that the Administration will not declassify because it does damage.
Uhm, look let me get started with this. It's going to be interrupted by the break but we have to -- we have to begin here by again striking down what is in fact a falsehood. It's time to take these democrats to task about all that they are doing. What -- let me ask this, "What have the democrats proposed to strengthen our war on terrorism?" What have they proposed? They have proposed spending more money. That's all they proposed but they don't have a plan, they don't have one -- they are week on National Security. Everybody knows it, they are week on the use of the military, everybody knows it. Who's responsible for taking -- for failing to take out Osama Bin Laden in the first place? It's a bunch of democrats and I got this great scoupe on this from Monsieur Ejaz in a interview in the next newsletter coming up.
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: FOX News]
[ABC-News]
who first asked that question? You guys...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[Promo: Loop Holes Live]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. My friends, if I have predicted it once I've predicted it twenty-five times. I have warned repeatedly and I'm trying to prepare you that the democrats are going to try to use terrorism as a campaign issue. The (unintelligible) last week I went back and I replayed myself three different Rush sound bytes making the prediction. I mean you can just see it. The -- they've -- it's not that they've been hoping that there's be another attack but they've been preparing for when -- cause they don't need to hope everybody knows there's going to be one. There are going to be a series of attacks.
Now, I'm sure that they're plan was that there'd be an attack on domestic US soil and they'd really go to town but they're so eager -- they're so eager to do this -- implement this strategy -- to go ahead and take this attack in Saudi Arabia in Riyadh and they'll run with it as, setting up what they want to do. You can just see in all their speeches. They just been waiting for the next attack to be able to say, "See we told you so. The President has been distracted. He hasn't finished the job. Got distracted in Iraq. Iraq is no big deal," and they just so eager to implement this that they couldn't wait. Here's how these people --a little montage for you from the uhh, their so called candidate forum in Des Moines on Saturday. This a little montage of how these democrats bash the President when it comes to the war on terror.
Al Sharpton: I want to see George Bush defeated not just because he's a republican but because he's wrong. He's wrong about tax cuts. He's wrong about having wars that are unjustified.
(Howard Dean?): Everybody's glad to see Saddam gone but the truth is it is a diversion. We're not safer today then we were before Saddam Hussein left.
Dick Gephardt: We are vulnerable to future attacks because this Administration has not done its job and has not increased our ability to have Homeland Security.
Bob Graham: We have let Al Qaeda off the hook. We had them on the ropes close to dismantlement and then as we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight a war in Iraq we let them regenerate.
John Edwards: When I am on a stage with George W. Bush in 2004 as I intend to be, we have a question for the American people, " Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Rush: Hey, hey that's really original. We can't wait to answer that question. Where'd you hear that one Senator Edwards? Wonder
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Galen] [edit]
anything you knew you could come up with. You know, the question will be rephrased; "Are we all better off now than we would have been had Al Gore been President?" [Hysterical crowd noises poorly aped by Rush.] And Edwards will shrink sneakily off the stage. Again, what have the Democrats proposed to strengthen the war on terrorism?
You know, it's one thing - it's like, it's like callers to a talk show. Anybody can call and complain and moan. But what do you suggest? What do you propose? It's like many hosts of talk shows, sit around, complain, and moan, whine. What do you have to suggest? Same thing with the Democrats, here. Anybody can sit there and complain, anybody can point fingers. But exactly what have they proposed to strengthen the war on terrorism?
In fact, since the Democrats raised this, let's take all the varnish off this issue. Who is responsible for failing to take out Bin Laden in the first place? Last week I talked to Mansur Ejaz, who was the man who brokered the invitation, or the deal, the offer from the Sudanese, three times, to the Clinton administration. You know Mansur Ejaz used to be a Democrat. He used to be part of the Clinton administration. That's why he was tabbed for this. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to the Clinton administration three separate times. And Mansur Ejaz will tell the whole story in the upcoming interview in the Limbaugh Letter Newsletter, the nation's most widely read political newsletter. It's - there's not sugar-coating at all. It's no amplification needed. Osama Bin Laden walks the earth today because the Clinton administration wasn't serious about dealing with terrorism.
Who rejected repeated offers by the Sudanese government? To help us capture Bin Laden? Who slashed our defense budget and restricted the CIA at the same time that Al Qaeda was launching the attacks against the World Trade Center the first time? And attacked our army barracks in Saudi Arabia, bombed the two embassies in North Africa? Blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole? Who enabled Al Qaeda to grow, to train, to raise large sums of money, to secure lethal caches of weapons and spread his tentacles to scores of countries? The answer, of course, is the last Democrat administration and the last Democrat president.
And where were all this time, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Richard Gephart and John Edwards and all the rest of the demigogs when Al Qaeda was building and strengthening itself? Well, let's go through the list.
Bob Graham was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He did not use his powerful post to do anything effective. John F. Kerry, one of the leading hazers of the CIA. He tried to tie the CIA to drug trafficking and murder. That's what he was doing at the time Al Qaeda was growing and doing its evil.
How about Howard Dean? Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, where he was too busy raising taxes and destroying the institution of marriage to be even thinking about terrorism. John Edwards, too busy shaking down various businesses as a trial lawyer in North Carolina. And Gephardt was occupied leading Bill Clinton's defense from impeachment for his high crimes and misdemeanors. So, you know, all these Democratic candidates could have done something. They could have urged their president to take terrorism seriously.
They could have been in there. Bob Graham, Gephardt to John F. Kerry, Dean, well, he was governor, and Edwards, he wasn't in the Senate for all that time, but some of these other guys, what have they done? You know, they can sit there and point fingers, they can blame all day long. But when you come to ask them what have they done, what could they've done, what are they gonna do, you get a big, fat zero.
And let's cut it even closer to the bone, shall we? Because we know the facts and the truth are devastating when applied against the left. Who is it that failed to increase security in our airports and on our airlines. Tom Daschle's wife Linda served as the deputy FAA administrator for years. She was in charge of security levels. Along with Al Gore, Linda Daschle assured the nation that they had increased airport security. Apparently they didn't increase it enough, because 911 happened. Do the Democrats really want to open all these - maybe they
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Galen] [edit]
Republican out there that will take what I'm saying and run with it. There might be. Well, they may not need any Republicans once they know. The point is this stuff is right out there for these people to be challenged with. Well, I mean, we can't effective - If the Democrats want to really play it any - See, the smart play for the Democrats would be to join the effort to rid the world of these people. The smart play for the Democrats would be to get on board and join everybody and say, "We gotta work together to get rid of these people, make the country safer." But what are they doing? Pointing fingers of blame as if they are innocent bystanders.
They're nothing more than objective observers and they've been watching all this, and they've decided Bush isn't good enough. Bush isn't doing anything. Well, if you go back to the recent past and you'll find that a lot of these Democrats could have done a lot. One of them ran the show. I mean, even Clinton's out there ripping Bush on all this now, at a commencement speech in Mississippi. Now, if these people want to open this door, they're gonna open it right into their nose again, and bloody themselves because they are not innocent bystanders.
They have not been objective observers. They have been people who have participated in sweeping the problem under the rug, and leaving it for a future administration to deal with. Just as they did North Korea, I might add. Now, it is clear that the American people know that George Bush has done something about this. George Bush has taken action. Now you might find some people who will argue about the effectiveness. Now, I think they'd be silly, but you might find some people who would do that. But you cannot find any action taken by any of these Democrats to deal with this problem when they had the chance. You just can't find it. You find a bunch of huff and puff words about Saddam Hussein in '98 from Clinton that was echoed by Daschle and all the other Democrats. But, yes the missiles launched, and that was it. Oh, Bin Laden, as we know, he's walking the street because the Clinton administration didn't want to deal with the problem.
American people know that Bush has led forces in victory, both Afghanistan and Iraq. They know that Bill Clinton did neither. American people know that Tom Daschle sought to sabotage the President's war on terrorism, including the war with Iraq. Oh, yes he did! Don't try to tell me Daschle and the Democrats didn't practice sabotage. All you have to do is go back to all of last summer, last fall, throughout the U.N. debate and you'll find the Democrats aligned with our friends the French. Damn straight they were trying to sabotage what the President wanted to do. In Iraq. That's why Daschle did a 180 recently, and told a home-state newspaper that Bush was right to destroy the Hussein regime. Told you about that on Friday. Why do you think he did that? Because the truth is the truth. And he's vulnerable in his re-election bid.
Now, two final points before we go to break:
First one is this: apparently the liberation of 24 million Iraqis means nothing to the Democratic presidential candidates. Apparently it counts for nothing. All these great progressives, these great liberals. All this compassion for human rights. Apparently the liberation of 24 million people doesn't mean anything. Nor does the discovery of the mass graves move them at all. I mean, that doesn't seem to have had any impact on them. When it comes to ending genocide and supporting human rights, the Democratic party apparently no longer believes that we have an obligation to do anything about that. But the American people do, and they always have.
Second point: Prior to the war with Iraq, these same Democrats argue that rather than focus on Iraq, we need to focus on North Korea, all right? Well, which is it? Should we have focused on North Korea or the war on terrorism? 'Cuz according to these people, we can't do two things at once. We gotta choose something and do it. But we can't do two things at once. We are not that big a superpower, we're not that great a people. We can't do two things at once. If we can't fight two wars at the same time, then why or who do we have to blame for that?
The truth is, of course, the war with Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, just as dealing with North Korea is part of the war on terrorism. I have been through this countless times. All the same war. World War II had the Pacific theater, the China theater, the Burma theater. We had the European thea - It was all the same war, wasn't it? Well, did we say, well, we can't deal with Japanese right now, we've got to deal with the Germans. Well, did we say oop, we can't deal with the Germans right now, we gotta deal with
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Tom] [edit]
The whole [uninteiilgible] -- we went to Italy. We went to the Sahara region of Africa. We went all over the place in World War Two. Did what we had to do. Can't do that now? Oh really? And why -- might -- that -- be? Is that the attitude the Democrats want to project in an era where the American people don't consider their security to be the number one issue on the plate? The Democrats really think they're gonna get a lot of votes from people by saying, "Well, we can't do both. North Korea or terrorism -- what is it?
Well -- I don't know, I don't know what they think they're doing, but they are not inspiring confidence in themselves. They are not inspiring anybody but their left wing kook-ified base. Which is consumed with hatred and rage for Bush. More than it is consumed with anything that's good and decent for the country. At -- by the way, North Korea -- guess - who enabled North Korea, just as he enabled Osama Bin Laden.
[faked gasp]
Rush: Rush actually said that?
Rush: Yes I did. That would be Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.
[faked gasp]
Rush: You can't be serious, Rush. Rush: Yes I am. Bill Clinton enabled that little pot bellied Kim Jong Il guy, and Osama Bin Laden. He helped arm Kim Jong Il with nuclear technology. It's left to George W. Bush to deal with that. And bin Laden.
If the Democrats want to use the war on terror as a political issue, so be it. They have a long and clear record, ladies and gentlemen, of dismal failure when it comes to this war on terror. They cannot be trusted. And their actions over the weekend in Des Moines do not do anything but reinforce the notion they can't be trusted. Especially with our votes. Back after this.
[promo: Pigboy web presence -- EIB network]
[Pigboy voiceover ad: Sleep Number bed]
[ad: One Price Optical]
[ad: JPL Bible Church]
[promo: Money Talk show]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Money Talk]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: All right, grab audio sound byte number 11. The Gephardt and the milk truck story, by the way, NewsMax.com has a story in fact well, they're reporting this to just -- reminding us but in The Wall Street Journal today Louis Freeh, have you seen this Mr. Snerdly? (Laughing) I mean, it just confirms everything I said to you in a blistering indictment -- indicktment to those of you in Rio Linda, of his old bosses negligence in fighting the war on terrorism.
Louis Freeh, who used to run the FBI, charged today that, the Wall Street Journal: Ex-President Clinton was so unhelpful during the FBI's investigation into the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing that he, Louis Freeh, had to turn to President Bush, Former President Bush. Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Freeh described the Clinton Whitehouse as unable or unwilling to help the FBI gain access to key witnesses in the Khobar case because it feared exposing the role of Hezbollah and it's state's sponsor Iran. The only direct -- the only direction from the Clinton Administration regarding Iran was to order the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting official Iranian delegations entering the US because it was adversely impacting our relationship with Tehran.
Rush: What in the world would we want to preserve a relationship with Iran over getting to the bottom of who blew up our people at the Khobar Towers. So here's Louis Freeh saying basically what I just told you. The Clinton Administration passed it all off to somebody else. They didn't want to deal with it.
Here's Gephardt, this is from this morning actually on CNN's American Morning, oh wait I'm reading the wrong thing. This is from the candidate forum in Iowa and this is Gephardt with the other democratic presidential candidates standing on stage with him.
Dick Gephardt: As many of you know I come from a labor union household.
Rush: Really?
Dick Gephardt: My dad was a teamster and a milk truck driver in St. Louis...
Rush: Yeah.
Dick Gephardt: every day that we were with him, he told us that because he was in a labor union we had food on the table and we had a roof over our head.
Rush: That's (unintelligible)
Dick Gephardt: My mother was a secretary. Neither she nor my father got through high school. She was a great woman. She gave me my values and she made me everything that I am and everyday in the House of Representatives I've tried to simply represent people like my parents. The hard working people like you who make this country what it is and make it great.
Rush: Whoa, where's he getting that line? Never hear about the democrats talking about any people making the country great. Democrats think government makes the country great. Ah ha, now he's - this a tribute to his mother who recently died. The - two things, Gephardt's brother plus a 1988 Los Angeles Times profile both say Gephardt's dad did not like the milk truck driving job. He didn't like having to join a union. The only reason he joined a union is cause he had to get the job. He wanted to be in real estate. He couldn't get a job in real estate. Had to drive this milk truck. His brother Gephardt doesn't remember his dad saying all these wonderful things about the union. This is strictly pandering to an audience and even after having all this pointed out Gephardt continues to tell the story.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Blue Emu]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Blue Emu]
[ad: Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel]
[ad: national Trust for Historic Preservation]
[promo: Larry King]
[station ID 920 KPSI]
Rush: Where's the time going? So much I want to do here today. We got one hour already in the can. I'll try to get your phone calls coming up as well, too, but, um, a lot of great stuff in the stack of stuff. So, sit tight, we'll be back, and continue with all the rest of it, in a moment.
[ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
[promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
[promo KPSI 920]
[terrorism propaganda cleverly disguised as news by ABC]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Shane] [edit]
[Long silence with a tone sometimes for 2:15 sec]
[News]
[ad: crditreportonus.com]
[ad: Recall Davis]
[ad: Joy Short show]
Rush intro.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Shane] [edit]
Rush intro. You see where Jason Blair, the disgraced New York Times reporter, wants to write a tell all book. And pitch a movie about his, quote unquote, "life story". Somebody will pay money you wait and see. I don't know who. I don't know who will believe it but somebody will pay the money. Hi folks. Nice to have you back. A jam packed chock full Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB network is under way. Happy to have you along. If you missed the first hour - too bad I cant repeat any of it because we've got to move forward. But it was a hell of an hour. Here's the telephone number 800-282-2882. Email address at rush@eibnet.com.
Those of you on the phones - look I know you've been there and I want, I want. You're there because I want to speak to you. If you can be patient a little while longer. Do the monologue segment then we'll get to the phones here. In ah due course. Now I got a little note here from a friend. I get these things they sound intriguing. I don't know that its accurate so I'll say that up front.
But I think it is. It's - I've seen things like it a number of times. A billion, a billion. A simple billion is a difficult number to comprehend. But an advertising adjacency did a good job of putting the figure of a billion into perspective. A billion seconds ago, it was 1959. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the stone age. A billion dollars ago was 8 hours and 20 minutes the rate Washington spends it. (laughs) A billion dollars ago was 8 hours, and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.
Hi my friends. (sighs) So predictable but I, I've got to mention it. Here's the story its from Saturday. Headline says it all. JFK - he made Clinton look like a choir boy. Is that not the purpose? Has that not been one of the whole point of releasing all this Kennedy stuff? The Bill Clinton legacy rehab tour? Story is by Barbara Davies.
It's hard to believe now that the 60 year old grandmother sitting quietly in Manhattans Presbyterian Church was once the secret lover of the worlds most powerful man. This week after nearly 40 years Marian Fonistalk stepped out of the shadows to admit she was Mimi, a mysterious and beautiful young White House intern, who once shared a bed with JFK.
And it goes on to chronicle all the things JFK did and then concludes, Bill Clinton was a choir boy (taps papers) in comparison. And the story is a total list of the things JFK did. No, there's nothing in here that nobody doesn't know. There's nothing, nothing at all.
I mean even on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most crucial moment of the Kennedy Presidency, his eyes fell on a pretty secretary who wandered into the cabinet office. The president would later need some R and R. Get me her name and number he said to an aide. We may avert war tonight.
Well this is look Clinton did the same thing there wasn't a war going on. Until he spotted Cathleen Willey. He was at some - in Virginia I think - campaign appearance. And we had it on the TV, TV show. Clinton takes somebody aside to get - what's her phone number, who's that. And it was Cathleen Willey. And one thing led to another. So anyway no there's nothing really new in here. In fact -
What do you mean JFK let terrorists off the hook? No? Well the whole point is Kennedy engaged in so much more than Clinton did is the point of the story. And we love JFK. JFK was a great president, they say. JFK was a great man. Great guy. Look at all he did. He still was able to lead.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Shane] [edit]
Rush: and inspire a nation of peoples and by comparison Clinton's (unintelligible) I'm telling you all this is, you know, what can Kennedy do. I mean nothing could sully his reputation anyway. There's not one anybody could say, you know, I can't help this is so iron -- you remember the caller from Sacramento, Karen. Here I am praising JFK for his tax cuts and she calls me and reams me, "I don't have the right because he's a democrat and I'm a republican and I don't have the right to praise him."
Here all these democrats and liberals ripping JFK in all these biographies and new stories accompanying the new biography, just making him look like an absolute, oh, I don't know what. A (satyr?). I mean the guy, they're making him look like he was anything but a cognizant leader and I'm the one getting grief for praising him.
(Unintelligible), all this is being done, don't for a minute think, this is not being done to make Clinton look good folks and I'll tell you, there's a question I have and I really mean this, there's gonna be I think somewhere in the future, the Kennedy school -- the Kennedy family is gonna honor Clinton with something.
Somewhere the Kennedy School or something and the Kennedy Family is helping resuscitate and revive the legacy of Bill Clinton at the expense of JFK. It is one of the most amazing things, they're sitting idly by and they're watching all this stuff come out about their brother, their uncle whatever, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, all for the purposes of building back up the legacy of Bill Clinton. It is just - it is amazing to me what the Kennedy family is actually doing.
Rush reading from an unknown source: Guerillas loyal to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat clashed with militants in Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp on Monday. Seven people were killed said witness and Palestinian officials. The violence is the worst in a year. Wounded at least 21 people, Lebanese photographer Mammud Zyatt from the French News Agency, was slightly injured.
Rush: Wait, five terrorist attacks now in the last three or four days and a huge attack that came on the day that Sharon was going to be meeting with this new Palestinian official which ought to show people what the Palestinians want and that is anything but peace.
You know, look, there's a -- somewhere in my stack here. I'm going to dig this out, there's a commentary from some female reporter and there are more and more of these surfacing each week. The point of this commentary or article is that the Palestinians don't want peace and the Arabs in the Middle East don't want peace. They want the end of Israel. They want the destruction of Israel and more and more of these pieces are being written because the truth is inescapable now.
There have been so many overtures for peace, there have been so many efforts made and the closer you would appear to be getting to peace, I mean, all the liberals of the world say that dialog is the most crucial ingredient to peace, do they not? They all, I mean, well clearly the most crucial ingredient to peace is victory. I mean you don't get peace until it is preceded with victory. That's the Limbaugh Doctrine but liberals thing you can bring peace around by, "Appeal to your enemy," you can have dialog, you can nurses, doctors, clean water, exchange programs and all that gobble-de-gook, think it brings peace.
Well here there's going to be a meeting between Ariel Sharon and the new Palestinian official, "Boy, what happened?" "Oh yeah, you're going to meet? Well watch this!" and attack after attack after attack, suicide bombing after suicide bombing.
Last thing that people want over there is peace. I don't care whether you call it Oslo or Camp David or Camp David two or the "roadmap to peace", the fact is that there's no Palestinian Authority there is no Syrian, the Iranians, others -- they all have groups that they back vying for power and none of them will accept a Israeli State. I mean that's what the bottom line here.
Everybody talks about establishing a Palestinian State, the real effort being made here is the destruction of the Israeli State and the fact that there's no tolerance for "that" among all these neighboring Arab Nations. I mean if we've learned anything since September 11th is that you simply cannot negotiate with terrorist. Why in the world -- we have learned this everywhere but the Middle East is beyond me, and I...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Shane] [edit]
big believer in democracy, republican government. But the conditions for democracy among the Palestinians don't exist, they're just not there. And are nowhere near being there. And the truth be known, folks, the Palestinians are not even all that liked by these neighboring Arab nations, if you want to know the truth. The Jordanians don't want the Palestinians anywhere near them. The Saudis don't want the Palestinians anywhere near them. The Lebanese even don't want them there. The Iraqis don't want them anywhere near them. And neither do the Iranians, even though the Iranians aren't even Arabs. But they don't want them. The Palestinians simply are being used as the weapon, if you will, of all these other Arab nations. It's so classically obvious.
"But Rush, you know, if it's all resulting from poverty by - If the Palestinians were just more" - I've actually heard somebody say that if the Israelis just were more generous with the Palestinians, provide the Palestinians with more aid, people would be stunned how much aid the US gives the Palestinians. And where does it all go? Swiss bank accounts under the control of Yasser Arafat and his buddies in the so-called Fatah movement. At any rate, quick break - back with more in a moment. Your phone calls are coming up.
[Ad: EIB collection of fine golf apparel and accessories.]
[Ad: Hotwire dot com]
[Ad: Blanchard and Company]
[Ad: Manhattan West - Mortgage Brokers]
[Promo: Bob Villa for updated tetanus vaccine?]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Shane] [edit]
National foundation for infectious diseases commercial Dodgers Baseball commercial Radio Station commercial Rush intro. Americas truth detector. And doctor of democracy general all around good guy. Famous radio raconteur Rush Limbaugh here. Three time Marconey award winner for excellence in broadcasting. All adds up to the fact that I'm good. And it is a good show. Hears what I was talking about the a Kennedy business Senator Edward Kennedy. This is a release form the JFK library web site. A conversation with President Bill Clinton. 2:45-4:15 PM Wednesday May 28th. It would be a week from a tomorrow.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy will introduce President Clinton who will engage in a wide ranging conversation with presidential historian Michael Beishlos. President Clinton will reflect on his own legacy. Oh really no kidding and some of the central themes related to President Kennedy including the roll of the US in the world, domestic issues concerning the advancement of right and opportunities for all Americans and the importance of public service. This will be a ticketed event a limited number of seats are available will be determined by lottery. Ah ha gambling! To get into the Kennedy thing if your interested in participating in this gambling exercise. Please leave your name contact phone number and address on our special forum reservation line they leave a phone number here. But this is what I was talking.
The Kennedy family is sitting by letting the presidency of their own brother. Whatever be destroyed or besmirched even further all for the sake of rehab of the Bill Clinton legacy. Its amazing. And George in Winston-Salem North Carolina. Hi George thanks for calling your up welcome to the program. Hi Rush mega dittoes. I just wanted to say that I think that the reason the Democrats are trashing JFK's legacy so much is because the Republicans are using him so successfully to show support for Bushes economic polices.
Rush: (making noises) You know its an interesting thought but stop and think of what your saying weather your right or wrong about the reason. Your assertion still is probably more accurate than it is not and that is. That the Democrats. Its the Kennedy family and all who are releasing all this information to this historian Bob Dalic and showing up at his bio. I mean its Democrats enabling us to learn of the interns and all the babes. All this stuff is being documented now its the Democrats doing this. I mean that assertion is irrefutable its not a bunch of republican opposition research causing this to happen. Ah and some of this stuff actually comes from, I think Kennedy Library files, Kennedy family files, Kennedy some of this stuff is classified only know to the Kennedy family and people related or involved in the Kennedy Presidency. There the ones making it public.
And in the midst of all this here comes Kennedy Library exercises with a conversation with Bill Clinton and admittedly about legacy rehab. Now the theory is (stuttering) they don't mind JFK being besmirched because Republicans are beginning to use him. If that's true these people know no bounds. There is no loyalty that counts for them. If they will purposely engage in activity that besmirches the reputation of arguably there finest, greatest President JFK next to FDR only to prevent Republicans from using some of his tax policy my gosh my friends just how cynical are these people if thats not the reason for it.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Shane] [edit]
Theirs, there has to be some reason. They've got to do this to save there party. Well see the thing is tax cuts I know. I mean its just hard for me to believe that they so oppose tax cuts. I mean I know the oppose tax cuts its not that they oppose folks. Democrats are scared to death of tax cuts. They are literally scared to death of these things. All we need is a replay of the 80s here and were not going to get quiet that because these tax cuts aren't that big but he comes back every year adding to them then they could be but if these tax cuts provide the stimulus that everybody thinks is going to happen then every Democrat theory is out the window.
If the economy starts coming back they are finished (in French maybe Italian). Its over 2004 may as well be canceled as an electoral event and just go ahead and say Democrats we just want to save our money. Were not going to run a candidate were not going to run any adds we are seeding the office of George W. Bush. We'll save up for 2008. (Stuttering) Even I my friends, even I who know these liberals like the back of my hand. Have a tough time believing. That they would, that they would purposely allow the image destruction of JFK maybe its to save there party maybe they figured this is the only thing they can do to save their party. If, if it does reflect poorly on Republicans.
Its stunning to see this. Theirs got to be some reason. They must think. They have to think that theirs nothing that can be said that is going to tear down the reputation or image of JFK. I mean that has to be what it is. Because he's martyred he is held in such hi regard and high esteem because he was assassinated. They would release even hat we don't know and theirs probably stuff we don't know a lot of that and it still wouldn't matter. So I think even the venereal JFK. Is um is, is, is worth no more than a football to be kicked around by these people. In order to save there party or to save Bill Clinton or what have you. I don't know, he could be right he could have a point. Its as good as any other reason that anyone has advanced so far.
Back here with more in just a second.
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: GM]
[News]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Shane] [edit]
News Focus on Learning commercial Sports and Weather Rush intro. It gets even better next Wednesday the JFK library is hosting Clinton. But to day the JFK Library is hosting Dalik the author. That is revealing all of this forewent stuff about JFK. The JF, this should be like the Clinton library hosting Wanetia Brudrick. This would be like the Clinton Library doing a, a, a, testament to Jim McDougal.
There bring Dalik in there. And one of the, one of the. Curator who ever it is library. Well were not really sure theirs an intern but we always want to further the knowledge of a, President Kennedy. That's the purpose of the library here well were honored to have historian Dalik here. (stuttering) To add insult to injury Daliks release of the news to hype about the existence of the intern Meme. Came on the same day the JFK Library announces their profiles and courage awards. So Dalik embarrasses them even further.
Something, something really odd about all of this. Well it appears odd to us because we wouldn't do stuff like this but there has to be a reason for it not just half hazard. Folks I hate to go back and cover territory we've previously trod. But I can't avoid this because we went back next search April 12th 2003. The National Journal story by James Barns about Gephardt. The story starts this way. As he re-introduces himself to his party's rank and file across the country. Dick Gephardt frequently begins his speeches with fond references to his salt of the earth parents and to his fathers days as a milk man.
Gephardt: As many of you know I come from a labor union house hold. My dad was a teamster and a milk truck driver in St. Louis. Every day we were with him he told us because he was in a labor union we had food on the table and we had a roof over our head. My mother was a secretary. Rush: All right that's it. That's it, that's it. National Journal here's the excerpt that's relevant. And by the way the source here is Richard Ben Cramer the historian himself. Richard Ben Cramer who a wrote an account of the 88 Presidential candidates and their backgrounds. In his book called what it takes. And in.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...Kramer's version of the story, being a milkman was Gephardt's dad's last resort. Here's the excerpt,
National Journal: The only offer Gephardt got was a job with the (Peasly?) Dairy. It wasn't forever, but his wife Loreen, "It wasn't forever," his wife Loreen told him, " but it was or it seemed forever. For nine long years every morning up at 3:00, out to rustle with the horse the harness and the ice. Big blocks of ice that the drivers had to chop at the depot and the clinking crates of milk and the damn horse ran away from him one day and he had to chase the beast all over the streets. Nine years. He hated everyday of it."
Rush: This is from Richard Ben Kramer. He -- Gephardt's dad hated this job. He literally hated the milk truck job and yet Gephardt continues to tell the story to people to curry favor with union people. It's the only job -- his wife made him take it. It's the only job he could get. He had to join the teamsters to get the job. Uhh, what wa-wa?
Oh yeah! Unions were huge. Yeah -- yeah, the horse and buggy era. Oh yeah! Absolutely. Unions, I mean that's about -- that's why Gephardt feels comfortable going back here and talk of it. The -- look, idea that his dad after, you know, chopping ice and chasing horses all over town though manure covered streets and come home and praise the union is a crock. You know, (Rush in a deep, husky voice)"We have what we have little Dick because I have a job with a union, collective bargaining, a livable wage, benefits and we have food on the table because of it. I stink because of horse manure because of it but I love the union, little Dick and you make sure you tell people that as you grow up."
It's all so typically political. Never the less this is -- this is chilling heartwarming story out of Florida about the US education system,
Unknown source: Nearly 13,000 hat schrool seniors in Florida will not graduate as scheduled this year because they failed to pass a newly required state achievement test. Some schrool boards around the state have voted to allow seniors who met all the graduation requirements aside from passing this test; it's called The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test, to go ahead participating commencement ceremonies anyway even though they won't get a diploma. Well, who - what's the -- why let them participate in the graduation ceremonies if they're not getting a diploma? "That's just to be nice to them, can't be mean."
South Florida's "black" community leaders and legislators though plan a protest this week denouncing the test as unfair to minority students. They want Governor Jeb Bush to put aside the consequences for students who fail this years test and re-examine the policies. The protesters are calling for boycotts of the Florida Larder --Lottery and the states citrus industry and it's major theme parks unless they get their way.
Rush: Oh folks, I going to zip the lip here. Doh, protestors are calling for boycotts of the lottery. What does that tell us? South Florida Black community leaders are calling for boycotts of the lottery? I -- well -- they're trying to inflict the most pain on the state. A boycott of the lottery, a boycott basically of orange juice and a boycott of Disneyworld? Huhh -- gheez (laughing) inmates running the asylum. Seniors have had five opportunities to take this test. It's a graduation test. Seniors have had five opportunities to take the test. Once as sophomores, twice more as juniors and twice more as seniors.
Unknown Source: Those still seeking their diplomas after graduation day can continue taking the test indefinitely.
Rush: Five chances to take the test. They have failed it over five times or they didn't even bother to take it. It's a requirement to get your diploma but to hell with that and so now it's a boycott of the lottery, orange juice and Disneyworld. If this is not setting up - I mean this is not- this is not high school graduates. This state is actually setting up future democrats. Fu -- okay future democrat voters. I mean, that's exactly what this program has done. Here's the test, you got to take this test. You got five chances from your sophomore to senior in high school, five chances but (chuckling) if this doesn't define the Florida voter...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...I don't know what does.
Steve in Madison Wisconsin, I'm glad you waited sir, welcome to the program.
Steve: Rush, great to speak with you.
Rush: Thank you.
Steve: Mega dittos from Madison. I have a couple comments about your criticism of Senator Graham.
Rush: What is it, to dull?
Steve: Well first I wonder if Graham were a republican would you be just as critical? And second, I think instead of criticizing him, what you should be criticizing him for is not releasing the whole report. I mean we Americans deserve to find out why 9/11 happened. This whole idea of government secrecy, confidentiality, I think if anything you ought to be criticizing him for not allowing the American people to see the report.
Rush: I think it is going to be released in a month. I think the information I have, Steve, is that it's the intelligence agencies that are holding up the release of the report, Graham is claiming that it's a cover-up, and the intelligence agencies, and I -- this may not satisfy people but the intelligence agencies are saying that there are still classified "sources" in this thing that they don't want compromised. People who's identity they do not want known for two reasons. One, they don't want these people's lives threatened, two, they're still useful as sources but they expect to release it with in a month or so.
The interesting thing to me if there were a bunch of other people on the committee joining Graham in this then I might have a different take on it but there's not one democrat that is joining him on this or saying he's got a point or urging people to follow through with his demand. And Jon Kyl, republican on the committee is actually gone so far as say, "Look, I can't talk about this because it's classified," but I can tell you that there's no big revelation in this thing. Now that's the knowledge that I have and so it's the combined knowledge I have and it's causing me to react the way I am-- you still there or did you hang up?
Steve: No.
Rush: Okay.
Steve: I hope he'll really publicize it and discuss it when it does come out cause I think if anything, it's going to be embarrassing to the democrats rather than republicans.
Rush: How so?
Steve: Well, for ten years or for eight years Clinton did absolutely nothing and pretty well set up 9/11 for happening.
Rush: Well there's a lot of people that would agree with the first part of your statement, I - as far as setting up 9/11, one thing that bothers me about this you know, we've got a whole mess of - why didn't -- weren't the dots connected and why -- did we know enough to actually stop this. I'm not to this day, heard anybody say, I mean -- it -- anybody. I don't mean people who want to hide whatever truths there might be. I mean I having heard anybody, any critic, haven't heard anybody say that there's enough knowledge that could have been assembled in time to stop this. Have you -- have you seen this?
Oh, don't give me Hillary Clinton hinted at this. I mean, give me serious people, will ya? She just held up The New York Post business with the headline - which is -- which is based on fraudulent story. I as far as serious people are concerned, I haven't seen anybody suggest that we could have known -- I -- Clinton here -- Bush Administration -- bottom line is Al Qaeda did this and the effort to absolve them. I guess it's not an effort to absolve them of responsibility but I just haven't seen anybody say that uhh we had enough data assembled in enough ways that we could have known enough to stop this and somebody said that, somebody credible and that would put a different light on it, no question.
I got to go, quick break. Thanks Steven for waiting. We'll be right back, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush On the EIB Network]
[ad: General Steel Corporation]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Stocks]
[ad: Cedar House Custom Garage Doors and Gates]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Another phone call here as the EIB Network rolls on. Ste -- Jason, sorry, Jason of San Antonio. You're next on the EIB Network. Hi.
Jason: Hey Rush, how you doing?
Rush: Fine sir, thank you.
Jason: Listen, I been listening to the show since after Gulf War one back in 1991 and in 1991 I had never sent or received an email or been online of anything like that and my point in listening to everything you're saying about the democrats is simply this. The democrats are caught in a generational vise from which they have no escape. They don't seem to realize that people like myself at work, at home wherever I might be, I can easily click on stories whether it's MSN or Yahoo and inform myself about things and this sloganeering, these stories about milk men, my dad being in the union, that has absolutely no resonance with people in my generation.
Now the people that it does have some impact on, and you know who I'm talking about Rush, the people sit around waiting for Social Security. That generation is dying. There's no nice way to put that. So the democrats are loosing some of their voters to death and attrition and they're alienating the next generation of voters and we're left fighting over the people in the middle and right now this far from the election of 2004, you've often said Rush, that when people are making idiots of themselves get out of the way and let them.
Rush: Right.
Jason: That's exactly what the democrats are doing.
Rush: Yeah, all right let's take this one by one. First, the premise that democrat voters are dying and you said there's no other nice way to say this; you could have said democrat voters are passing away.
Jason: Well, it was an attempt at what you might have said.
Rush: (laughing) No, I would argue, I think life expectancy is such that that really isn't the case.
Jason: Well it...
Rush: Uhm, I mean naturally people die every day but the life expectancy of this country is getting longer and there are more and more people -- the point is there are more and more people every day joining Social Security roles and it's not just people, you know, who are in God's waiting room. I mean the baby boom generation is soon to be joining that group of people and it's going to get huge. How old are you?
Jason: I'm 35.
Rush: Well, you're part of a generation that 's gonna face -- if something's not done about the retirement age or something's not done about the program in total, you and a lot of people younger than you are gonna face tax rates you will not pay. You just will refuse to pay in order to support the retired community and the out of work community and the...
Jason: That's my very point. I mean we talk on this show, my gosh, I got more information from your show about taxation than any other place and I've got a degree in American History from a fine University here in Texas and you know a lot us -- my rage- in my age range, 35 and so on back during the dot com bust, we thought we had, "Oh we got ..."
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Immaadd2] [edit]
Jason: ...dollars in stock options. Well we found out what 28% taxes do to something like that. We got a real life, real world example of taxation and so when the democrats are talking about tax breaks for the rich, we all think back to the those times and go, "Wait a minute, I wasn't rich when I lost 28%of what I thought I had. What are you talking about?" They're playing by the rules of 1984 and if they're not careful they're going to get the same results.
Rush: Well, I agree with that. Fact they might be playing with rules from earlier than -- I think that you've hit the nail on the head in this sense. I think the democrats do not have an accurate picture of the electorate in this country. (Talking over Jason) Well now wait. Wait a minute; the electorate's different than the population though, you know, a whole lot of people don't vote.
I think they don't have an accurate picture of life in this country, where you're absolutely right about that. They choose to see and are trying to create pictures of an America in soup lines, barely getting by, one paycheck away from being homeless and all of that sort of stuff. They're trying to create images of abject poverty with no hope in site and it's all gonna get worse because these tax cuts are gonna make the evil rich richer and I agree with you totally about the sloganeering that they're engaging in how to place this, problem is they still have willing accomplices in the press. It's amazing they go through the news just, pardon me, I hit the mike, for one weekend every word the democrats say is echoed, reverberated, amplified as though it is the way things are...
Jason: Rush...
Rush: ...within the vast majority of peoples minds.
Jason: ...but we've learned on this show. I mean I think once again my generation, I want to speak for all of us, but again -- it used to be -- I can't - I can't believe in 1991 when you know, CNN was really everything there was in alternative media that one day we would ever have a discussion about there being a conservative bias in the media.
My generation has put FOX News on the map. We believe in things being very direct, very one on one. We weren't shaped by that strong nuclear family that your generation was shaped by in many cases. We simply have a certain level of cynicism that works against the democrats. It would work against the republicans too but we've got an honest straightforward guy in the office right now.
So I mean, I agree with a lot of what you say but I'm telling you for a long time I heard you talk about generation X as kind of being, you know selfish and self focused and I think that was a big miss in reality. We're just very- very independent and good at going out and getting our own information. We start doing our homework.
The democrats start sounding like, you know, our great-great grandparents and there's nothing compelling about that.
Rush: Well (laughing) well, don't be so quick to reject your great-great grandparents. I -- they may not -- they may not deserve that form but - let's -- look, can you ha - I've got to take a break, here, can you hang on through -- cause I've got to explore one other aspect of what you said and that is...
Jason: Rush, it is every callers dream to get held through the break. Absolutely.
Rush: All right we'll be right back, stay with us. Don't go away.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Debt Corporation of America]
[ad: Genself]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: GenSelf.com]
[ad: The Photo Reading System]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Okay we're back to Jason in San Antonio. Jason, one thing you got to keep in mind, I know the democrat s look like they're targeting a group of people that are on their last legs but when Gephardt for example talks about his "union people", his milk truck driver, you understand he's searching for money right now from union big wig.
Jason: I understand he's doing what we always talk about this far out from the election. That's, you know, soliding up that base and I mean I have no doubt that that's all he's doing. I just know in the case of these clowns when it comes to national security as the debates get closer to the election and thing are happening that people start paying attention at some point someone's going to ask the question, "Okay, you disagree with the President, well, what would you do?"
And one of these knuckleheads is going to start spouting off, "Oh, I would work with our allies in the UN," and people like myself who have been following all this nonsense with the UN since before the second Gulf War, we're going to go "What are you talking about?"
Rush: Well that's great, and I know you're right about that. The question then becomes, and I mean this, "How many in your age group and younger are gonna vote, what they're paying attention to?" That really because these people you're talking about, they didn't turn out.
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[Promo: Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly]
[ABC-News]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Effexzor XR]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Hotwire.com]
[ad: American Diabetes Association]
[ad: Agua Caliente Casino]
[Rush Intro Music]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hubba, hubba, dubba, dubba and all that. We're back ladies and gentlemen making the most of every precious broadcast moment here on the EIB Network, where we say more in five seconds than your average host will say in an entire career. Great to have you back. Our telephone number is 800-282-2882; email address is rush@eibnet.com.
A lot of email in response to Jason in San Antonio Texas our last caller. Jason raised a lot of green and red flags out there. Punched a lot of buttons, by the way Jason is a 24/7 subscriber so we uhh, it follows makes sense, felt that he would be. So we've -- we've uhh, added to his subscription as a "Caller of the Day" reward so to speak, a yearlong subscription to the Limbaugh Letters.
Some of the email that Jason responded; Dear Maha, As a fellow 35 year old I can echo the comments that Jason made on what we learned over the years from EIB. It wasn't until you brought it up, that I ever heard of Kennedy cutting taxes. All through High Scrool I head teachers honest enough to say that Kennedy didn't do much, but I never heard about his economic program, in the midst of the 80"s no less, when we were replaying the same situation.
You're right about turnout though, it's hard to get people to, A) Get people to get out and vote in the first place and B) Stop reflexably voting democrat after years of people not keeping their promises. New Jersey last year was a perfect example. Every body knew what happen stunk to high heaven, but democrats like abortions so that's more important than taxes or national security. Now it's up to these voters to come out of that oft repeated conclusion or come to that oft-repeated conclusion when it comes to security, it's just not safe to vote democrat yet. That from John Harcher in New Jersey.
Uhh, then there's this from a man who is 70 -- or a woman, I'm sorry - a woman who is 71, Theresa Griffin, Tacoma Washington, Dear Rush, This caller you've put on hold is so correct listening to what he has to say, I couldn't agree more. I'm 71 years old and he's right on.
Dear Rush, from Trevor Hall in South Jordan Utah, Jason forgot one important factor. Dead democrats vote.
Rush: That's a great (laughing) they do. Uhm, so anyway Jason, and there's no question he raised some interesting points but the turnout question still is a relevant factor. I -- I've look Mr. Snerdly, I have no doubt -- Snerdly's sending me a note here.
(Reading Snerdly's note) Excuse me, when EIB started Dems were in charge of the House, overwhelmingly owned the Senate most years, it was a 60-year lock. Republicans now own the House and the Senate and the Whitehouse. Democrats had better be concerned about turn out more than us.
Rush: Oh, I think there's no question they've got big trouble in the Senate. They've got more seats to defend. There's seat that they uhh, that are up for re-election that are in trouble but I don't know, you don't want to start counting votes to far out because so many thing can happen and change. Well I - true, I know I did -- I did --I did, that's exactly right. I said that Clinton was an anomaly, everybody -- democrats thought Clinton was a trend. Clinton thought Clinton was a trend for the democrats recapturing things. Look at what happened during the Clinton years, the democrats lost 40 years of power and they still have not gotten it back.
That's why I cannot understand these people still investing in Bill Clinton. I cannot understand. I mean here in essence you've got the Knights of the Round Table meeting at Camelot, at the Kennedy Library and they're gonna name Clinton Lancelot. It doesn't make any sense unless they view Clinton as they're savior and there's nothing could be further from the truth. The democrats ought to know that Bill and Hillary have no future if the democrats win the Whitehouse in 2004, unless Hillary's on the ballot and wins it but that's not the plan. The plan is for Hillary to run in 2008 and she can't if there's a popular democrat who wins in 2004.
Anyway, we'll play all this out as events unfold before out eyes. I just don't want to get to the point here we're too overly confident. I appreciate what Jason said and he's right. I mean it - it is -- it is brutal the way he said it. That the democrat constituency...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: during the end of it's life, you see they're dying off and they're appeal is to a -- an America that is 20 or 30 or more years ago. It's as thought the democrats have never heard of the Internet. It's as thought that the democrats do not acknowledge that people are independently able to inform themselves. The democrats still are behaving, as thought that what ever is on the nightly news is it as far as what the American people get. I know they're aware of talk radio and FOX but they're, they deny so much reality, it seems and the way they conduct their political affairs that you would have to admit that when it gets down to it they are denying this. They know they got a problem but they haven't modified. I keep talking, the playbook everything in it is so old, nothings going to revise, nothing has been updated.
Anyway, bordering on - we're back up here with the stack of stuff, ladies and gentlemen. Lots of stuff still yet to touch on.
Republican candidate for Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour who used to run, have you heard about this? (Chuckle) He used to run the Republican national Committee. Haley Barbour says he will not apologize for a remark he made last week about Headstart children. Last week Haley Barbour said that some Headstart Children would be better off sitting up on a piano bench in a whorehouse, than in their own homes. On Monday Barbour said at Hines Community College in Raymond Mississippi, he supports Headstart, a federal pre-schrool program for children. Governor Ronnie Musgrove who has also expressed support for Headstart has criticized Barbour's choice of words. Barbour faces Jackson lawyer Mitch Tyner in the August 5th party primary. Muskgrove faces 4 lesser know democrats. Again Haley Barbour said that some Headstart children would be better off sitting up on a piano bench at a whorehouse than in their own homes and he's not going to apologize for it.
Rush: I thought we -- what do you mean can't we be honest --I thought we were being honest. We're reporting it. What do you mean? Mr. Snerdly wants you to know that he thinks Haley Barbour has appoli -- Haley Barbour must think he's got a point because he's not apologizing for it.
Anyway, moving on. Here's an interesting little thing. I'm sure the "libs" in the media didn't intend this to happen. It's an AP story by Jay Reeves from Orange Beach Alabama and it's all about how we don't have enough security around our oilrigs in the gulf. Homeland Security measures may soon be tangling with good fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. About four thousand offshore rigs dot the Gulf supplying about a third of the nations domestic oil and gas supply. The platforms are a vital link to the US energy chain yet they are virtually unprotected from terrorist attack.
Now that's the focus of the story but it continues. The rigs are also a favorite destination for fishing boats, which bob up and down in their shadows as anglers fight for tuna, marlin and other fish. With a sandy flat floor, the Gulf doesn't have many reefs or under-sea hills to attract fish, so these oilrigs standing in hundreds of feet of water are the ultimate lure providing cover for both bottom dwellers and the top feeders. So what's happening here, is, you got the oilrigs, (Rush characterizing a sinister voice)"and they shouldn't be there producing oil. It's polluting and it's dirty, it's filthy. Economic disaster, environmental disaster waiting to happen," also attracts a lot of fishing boats.
Why? A lot of fish are attracted to the rig. Fishing boats, point of the story, could be holding terrorists one day rather than fishermen but the bottom line -- what I -- what I see in this -- fish love oil rigs. Oilrigs are supposed to be harmful to the environment. Oilrigs supposed to be horrible. Fish love em. If we're into save the fish, if the oceans of the Gulf's in trouble put oilrigs out there, fish love these things. Now it's in the story it's just not highlighted. I think this is something probably unintended.
Jonathan Alter wrote a piece, Newsweek or MSNBC .com explaining the Jayson Blair situation at the New York Times and he has this incredible sentence in his story. "When the New York Times looses power, the US Government gains it." He's lamenting the loss of prestige for the New York Times here, because of what's happened with the Jayson Blair episode and says when the New York Times looses power; the US government gains it, so I guess he thinks the New York Times is the greatest...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...(unintelligible) power that there is. This is -- if this is not instructive my friends of how the mainstream press -- look the New York Times checks and somehow limits government power. Ahh, ahh, only when there are republican administrations or republican dominated congresses but you put a democrat in the Whitehouse and the New York Times -- any -- the New York Times is the biggest proponent of government to come down the pike.
The New York Times loves government. The New York Times promotes big government all the time. How -- the idea that a mainstream journalist would think The New York Times somehow provides the check, on government growth, is just amazing. Alter also wrote a little observation in his opening paragraph that is also mentioned in a story in the Times. Let me find this thing. Unfortunately, I put it here near the bottom of the stack. Somebody actually wrote in the story that one of the uhh, yeah, here it is.
A story by Stephanie Simon. Harold Kleenell, had to chuckle at Kleenell, had to chuckle The New York Times is reporting, on the front page no less, that her son a marine scout who had been wounded in Iraq, struggled with flashbacks, his mind wandering from images of his girlfriend back in Ohio to the sight of an exploding fireball. Story was wrenching. It was also wrong. For starters her son didn't have a girlfriend. He'd broken up with his most recent sweetheart before he was deployed to the Gulf.
His mom said -- yeah we we're laughing about it, I kept asking him about which girl will be thinking she was the girl mentioned in the story. The Kleenell's knew that reporter Jason Blair had gotten the facts wrong but they didn't call The New York Times to complain. They didn't write to demand a correction in a telling sign of how little Americans trust the press, many of the people Jayson Blair wrote falsely about, shrugged off his mistakes as more examples of sloppy melodramatic reporting.
The point is this, and there's a -- there's a "The Pew Center". Pew Research Center people in the press just 21% of the Americans believe all or most of what they read in their local papers. Only 21%, so the point is that people read The New York Times or read the newspaper, people who are covered, people who are quoted, and they see that it's gotten wrong, that it's mistaken, and they don't bother to even call or make a correction because they do not expect it to be right and Alter also makes this reservation or observation on the first paragraph of his story about what's happened to the Times and he follows it with a one word reaction. "Ouch!" But it's the truth.
More and more people don't expect to get the truth in the newspapers. They don't expect to see themselves quoted accurately and so when they're not, they don't even complain about it. It would be a surprise if a story they were involved in was covered accurately.
We'll be back, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Rush for Lumber Liquidators]
[ad: On Star Advisor]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: On Star]
[ad: One Price Optical]
[ad: Epilepsy Foundation]
[Promo: The Car Nut Show]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Something very predictable. This is from a story on Saturday: Democrats urged President Bush and his fellow republicans to back a further extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who could loose them at the end of the month. It's going to happen every time unemployment benefits are set to expire. Democrats, one of their core beliefs, told you last week, mention unemployment what do they come up - do they come up with new jobs "Noo," nothing like that. "We need to raise the minimum wage, we need to extend unemployment benefits."
Michigan democratic representative Sander Levin and the parties weekly radio address Saturday, "Today there are more than three unemployed workers for every job opening. It is not compassionate to repeatedly tell those looking for work that the answer is simply "growth" or "get a job."" I don't know that I necessarily believe this, I mean you go through the newspaper every week and look at the want ads and the classifieds and there's all kinds of jobs there. I refuse to believe that there are three people for every one of those listings. Maybe if you put three "qualified" people, but even that's a bit of a stretch.
Mark in San Leandro California, hi, welcome to the EIB Network.
Mark: Mega dittos from the bay area, Rush.
Rush: Thank you, nice to have you with us.
Mark: Well it's good to be with you. I was listening to your previous caller, I'm 34 and I'm part of the GenX generation I suppose and I've kind of gotten a disconnect with the republican party even. I like the tax cut and I like the fact that they are fighting for it somewhat even though there's moderates in the party that aren't but I see a lack of leadership among the real - republican party that wants to actually cut government and we have government expanding 4% every program even more than that...
Rush: Yep.
Mark: ... on a lot of the programs...
Rush: Yep.
Mark: ...and none of the republicans are willing to say, "Hey, let's stop this 4% growth and let's get rid of all these programs that are doing absolutely nothing."
Rush: Well its - there are some. It's very few. You're right. You could not be more right on. I had somebody...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...yesterday at this charity golf outing I was at, come up and -- I forget what specifically what the question was. Oh, I know what it was, "What do you think of the job the Presidents doing?" It was the guy driving me back to the airport after the thing was over and I -- you want just the stock answer or do you really -- are you answering this for my answer -- asking this just going to be polite cause
I don't want to take it to a harangue here. "No, no I want to know what you really think." And the first thing I said too him, "I wonder what ever happened to the concept of limited government? I don't see it. I see government growing left and right and it just burns me when I hear liberal democrats talk about all these phantom cuts that are never proposed. They are never enacted. All we do is swell the size of government 4%, 3% whatever, it does nothing but bet bigger and at the same time governments get -- government gets bigger. We are lead to believe government can never afford a penny less.
Mark: Exactly
Rush: and it's just look at -- believe me you're not alone in this in being - in being totally frustrated about -- Tom Delay is one -- last week or - some, at some point recently -- he just proposed a plan to cut 1% of government. He's -- there's waste -- there's gotta be 1% of the total budget that's waste, let's cut it. You should have seen the outrage, catcall, response from the democrats and some republicans, "Well you can't do that.
Why -- who's assuming that we -- why that's outrageous in time of economic trouble like this, to cut government 1%, who do you think you are?" You know we can't cut taxes when we are- got a 5.6 projected surplus, trillion dollar surplus, couldn't cut taxes then because we needed to save that surplus to sure up Social Security, Medicare right?
Mark: Uhm, hum.
Rush: Oh, we can't cut taxes to stimulate the economy, can't do that. We can never cut taxes, government can always grow -- not your -- your not alone in this and its not just people in your generation. I hope you don't get bored and frustrated with the effort here because it's going to - these things never stop. These battles, and it's gonna take people like you caring about it and supporting people who actually want to do something about it, your whole life probably.
Mark: Is there going to be a shift anywhere in the republican party cause I don't see it happening from lets say, like I used to be in Utah, and Orin Hatch, well it's not coming from him and he's about as conservative as...
Rush: Well here hang on, I - we got a break here coming up. We'll, we will explore that in just a moment.
[ad: Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Loop Holes Live]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Let's see, one of the rewards that Clinton is going to be getting at the JFK Library is "Profiles in Condoms," that can't be. That has to be somebody playing a joke here on the host. Found those -- back to Mark in San Leandro California. Look, you know something Mark, I'm glad you called about this. You are the second person, you're 34, and the other caller that brought up the same subject, hey, government is not getting smaller, which is the whole point.
You'd think you're electing republicans conservatives to do -- you're the second one that's mentioned it -- and I - you know, it is important that the things that, oh, we believe in continue to get passed down to younger and younger people who understand it. Now first question I have for you before we get to the discussion. At what point or how old were you -- where were you in your life when this whole subject of government, it's size and whether or not it was growing to fast or whatever? When did that become a factor to you? When did that become something important to you?
Mark: You mean how big government was getting or something like that?
Rush: No, no just the whole subject. I mean -- because my point is that, here your 34 -- 35 and I think it's great and I hope there're more people like you but what I don't want you to do is to get frustrated and say "Ahh, gheez, I - government just growing it's not getting smaller and to hell with it -- I -- not," and tune out and forget or give up the fight for it because it 's gonna take people like you to -- you know pick up and carry the torch and continue to fight for it if it's ever going to happen.
And the way to keep this and it's something worth fighting for is to always remember your kids and grandkids are going to follow you here. It's not just about -- not just about your life so my question is, At what point in your life, what were you doing or what was it that caused the whole concept of the size of government and whether it was growing of not, to become important to you visa-vie the rest of your life?
Mark: Well, I grew up during the Regan Era and you know I was kind of on the periphery of my existence but I always liked Regan I don't know why originally but then I think eventually once I started getting out in the work place and I saw how much taxes were being taken out of my paycheck as a single wage earner.
Rush: This is what I was hoping to hear.
Mark: Yeah, and not only that but I think I picked up your book. I don't know if I got this stat from your book but I read somewhere that government only spent like 28 cents of each dollar tax on actual projects as opposed - and the rest was swallowed up in...
Rush: That's the Welfare gov -- no, and your absolutely right and it's of every dollar collected...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...to fight Welfare, 28 cents goes to a Welfare recipient. 72 ce -- and this was back in the 80's.
Mark: Right
Rush: ...72 cents is administration and to pay people administering the programs and all the graft and corruption that's involved all the waste.
Mark: Exactly and that just made me so angry that I was funding such a wasteful program and if it was a charity that was trying to do what welfare does now...
Rush: You wouldn't contribute to it...
Mark: I wouldn't contribute to -- to such a crat in fact there's plenty of charities that say, "We spend," you know like The Salvation Army, "We spend, you know seventy something cents of every dollar towards "(Rush interrupts)...
Rush: That's right, it's become a selling point for charities because they know there's a greater sophistication on the part of givers.
Mark: Exactly, so now I'm working every day and I'm paying for a 28 cent on the dollar if -even if that efficient I would be surprised.
Rush: Probably the worst (talking over Mark) in the system.
Mark: We're just funding a giant behemoth that keeps sucking and sucking and never gives back really or at least...
Rush: Not only that, when you demand accountability you're called greedy or shellfish or what have you. Well that's -- look, that's good. The important thing is that -- at - it -- started to stutter here. The - there are so many factors that go into -- I believe, for example, that when Bush was running for president, he spoke of limited government. He was emulating Regan a bit. That was what really Regan is known for, limited government, down sizing it and he did his best but he never had what Bush has in terms of a republican House of Representatives. Republican running the House Ways and Means Committee, which, where all taxes originate tax laws, cuts and increases.
Mark: Right
Rush: Never had that, and yet look what he was able to accomplish and Bush emulated a lot of Regan and there was a -- that's why there are so many people like me, are disappointed in the first two years of the domestic agenda. Well then you look at the political realities. There was no way -- especially with the way Bush had set up this new tone. He was not going to fight them. He was not going to fight the Dems; he's going to try to get along with them. He was going to try to give them a little of what they wanted to disarm them and take some of their issues away from them and he chose to fight it but this has resulted in a political reality, which leads me to my next story, by the way, the political reality is that the balance of power is so close that he can't get all of what he wants, and to get even a portion of it, he has to compromise.
And while all this happens, people who are new to it all, don't study it a lot, they get frustrated and not understand why the president isn't fighting so much for all of what he wants. And then there are some of us -- doesn't even appear he's fighting at all when it comes to signing campaign finance reform, signing the education bill and there's a lot of frustration. Mark, uhh, people that are older than you, who think the same thing as you do but I just -- I just want to tell you that the way to go about dealing with this, we think, and is to give republican presidents more power meaning like minded souls to work with. Even when doing that you still have the occasional Olympia Snow.
Mark: Exactly
Rush: ...or you still have the occasional moderate somewhere out there's gonna want to, this stuff is a never ending quest and the battle right now is not so much to decrease the size of government is to just keep to from just skyrocketing out of control. I -- its -- I know it's very frustrating, I know it's maddening. I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that there is value and there are reasons to continue to stick with it and demand it of people that you vote for and support because life goes on after you. You know people are going to inherit what you leave them.
Mark: My question is, with the republican party the way it is now even - let's say --let's say in the next 2004 elections and we get even a bigger majority in the House and President Bush is in the Whitehouse, are we going to be able to see a trend after that to limit the size of government or we just going to see more of, "Oh, let's give you, you know, here's half a billion in tax cuts, thanks a lot," you know, is that some thing that's going to happen or is it going to take like...
Rush: Well, when it comes to tax cuts, when it comes to tax cuts specifically, now on that specific issue, what I have gathered is that this is something that matters greatly and deeply and I think the evidence is clear. The President comes back for tax cuts every year. What ever he gets he comes back and wants more. He may sacrifice or compromise from his original number but he always -- they're all -- they have shifted in -- it wasn't to long ago that republicans proposed tax cuts democrats proposed tax increase...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Now republicans propose tax cuts, democrats propose smaller ones but the center of gravity on tax cuts as an issue has shifted. There are going to be tax cuts despite the objections of the democrats. You have to look at that trend and you have to see it for what it is. It's positive. It may not be the big bite that you want at once but it is a certain definite trend and I think every year the Presidents going to come back for more.
So to answer your question, if in 2004 if he gets more republicans in the Senate, expands the number of advantage seats in the House, yeah, the odds are that there will be even greater tax cuts of a larger number and be more encompassing. I wouldn't even doubt that at some point down the line if this balance of power shift continues in our favor, that there will be a move toward a revamping of the tax system. And perhaps going to a consumption tax, a sales tax or a only two rates, whatever. I think there are a lot of people that are very serious about that, the balance of power now is such that it will never happen. That's why you got to keep trying to get more people who think like you do in these electoral positions -- elected positions where they can enact the things that you believe in. Sometimes they'll sandbag you and sometimes you'll elect people under what turn out to be false premises but you can't let that turn you away from it. You...
Mark: No, I'm not. I will never vote democratic for one thing, I will vote republican all the time but I just.
Rush: No the concern is that and I -- the concern is that at some point, people will just throw up their hands in frustration and say like half the people of the country already have, "To hell with it. My vote doesn't even count. I'm not even going to mother - bother with it." It's - that's the more pressing thing. I know your not going to vote democrat but if you don't vote somewhere down the road because you get frustrated, it's the same thing as voting democrat. So the -- in some races -- so yeah -- now there are other -- let's go beyond tax cuts.
There are other domestic issues that I cannot sit here and tell you with confidence that the same thing will happen that I think will happen on tax cuts. I wish I could, but I would love to start hearing, President Bush talk about limited government and I think in certain ways he has. There are a lot of people who are now expressing after it's done, shock and outrage over the size of the government and the President has talked about how he's got to get spending under control but the republicans have their role that they played it that as well. Now Bush...
Mark: ...when he does start talking about it lets say they even talk about cutting one program you -- I mean, we know the kind of human cry that comes from the democratic side, "Oh, my gosh he's going to poison the air, gonna kill children, going to starve children, going to kill the elderly ect. Ect," and that always seems to work, I mean its every time that there's been like a tax cut or even a cut in the size of how large a program grows. There's that huge out cry and everybody, "Oh no we can't -- we can't let anybody go hungry or anything be poisoned," and so government keeps growing where as the people's -our ability to sustain a government that can spend only 28 cents on a dollar efficiently that it's going to break eventually.
The government will overreach the bounds of this nation. I mean obviously we have a huge, we have a huge ability as a people to create wealth and do that but eventually the governments just going to take over all that and it's going to take like you were saying before, when the "baby boom" generation hits Social Security there's going to be such a huge burden upon working America that I don't see how we can sustain that. And how long can we go on. You going to have all these seniors clamoring, " I want my Social Security," but then there's, you have the people, "Well, I've got to feed my kids. I got to you know."
Rush: Well it's not so much the Social Security it's things like, "I demand my prescription drugs with Social Security or I demand what ever else is going to come down the pipe with it." I mean Social Security is what it is and it's not going to change. That's -- well that can't say that. Look the thing about Bush you have to -- he has proposed revamping Social Security. He has proposed outsourcing a bunch of government work and you're right, it causes cacophonous reactions but he is proposing it. That's the first step as least he is. The -- this -- founding fathers did structure this government so it moves at a snails pace and that's good and bad but it overall balances out ...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Shane] [edit]
The good side. My, my point is that with Bush in the White House. We are closer since Regan then we've, then we've been in a long time. To having any of this even be proposed. And proposing it is the first step. Leadership after its been proposed is then crucial and, and that's when you hope there will be follow threw on it. And as long as people who are in elective office know that that's what you want. You know don't, don't ever think that, that your say doesn't matter because when it comes down to it, it really does.
They'd like to have you believe it doesn't but it does. I mean even the presidents now asking people to call. There Senators and Congress men. My, my point is to you um, I've been at what I've been doing since 1988. It will be 15 years in August the changes are momentous! And for 15 years um compared to what they were from the previous 40. There all kinds of reasons to be optimistic um don't, don't get pessimistic because they seem to be happening at a snails pace. Theirs more reason for optimism here than pessimism by a factor of 5. I, I'd love to continue this to I just noticed the clock I'm a little long this segments way over time I got to run but I'm glad you called I appreciated the chance to talk to you. We will be back and continue in here in moments my friends. Sit tight. Limbaugh letter commercial Black Swan Sheraz Wine commercial Poster D commercial Cedar House commercial Wine Garden and Huff Insurance commercial Paul Harvey commercial Rush intro.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: The Department of Homeland Security just raised the -- the threat level to the orange level or "high." They have intercepts of "chatter" amongst terrorists that indicate activity is brewing out there. The State Department closed missions around the world, it's embassy in Saudi Arabia, so the threat lever has been raised to high.
AP News: The nations...
Rush: This is an AP story from Saturday, by the way.
AP News: The Nations close political balance has shifted at the top of the ticket according to pollsters as President Bush shows surprising strength in many states that'll be crucial for democrats in 2004.
Rush: Now one of these states is New York.
AP News: While Bush has clearly been dominant in national polls, a look at his position in states that are crucial to the democratic support base, makes clear the difficulty democrats face. In New York State, Bush is very popular, leads the democratic candidates in head to head match-ups in that state. In New Jersey, Bush is more popular that the Governor there, Jim McGreevey. In Minnesota, competitive state won by Al Gore in 2000, Bush is popular overall and his ratings on the war -- the war are strong and in California the President is relatively popular among Hispanics which could help neutralize democratic trend out there in California.
Rush: That's a result of the field poll and if you add their prospects in the House and Senate which are dismal. Especially the Senate, the democrats may have a heck of a time here mounting anything in 2004 given, you know, almost the static existence then as compared to now. It's tough to count on that but you --if the trends continue this will remain operable and it clearly -- I mean this is -- democrats know it. I think they're fully aware of it. They can read their own poll numbers and I think the fact that they do know it is reflected in their behavior. They're engage in abject panic, almost so anything explains the way they are behaving.
Reno Nevada, John I've got a minute here, wanted to get to you though, hello.
John: Hey Rush, dittos from Reno. Two issues that have to be addressed if the Republican Party wants to maintain control in the future. Baby Boomers are aging they tend to be conservative as they age. I'm right in the class, I'm one year ahead of the baby boomers. I'm a 57 year old Viet Nam Veteran and I know in my own mind what's going on in terms of people in my...
Rush: What do they need to do? I've got a half a minute, now what do they need to do?
John: They -- the republicans need to address Social Security and National Health Insurance. When the boomers get to this point of retirement, they're going to be concerned and they want some kind of coverage.
Rush: All right, well, get that on the table here. Republicans are going to have to -- the Social Security things already on the table. There is- at least a start, changing in fixing that. The whole concept of National Health Insurance, I don't know, that's -- there's so much demagoguery in that whole issue to fall prey to that and come up with another massive new and federal entitlement is just - the exact thing we don't need right now unless republicans decide the only way they can win power is to start buying votes.
We'll be back, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Z Max]
[ad: Black Swan Wine]
[ad: Hopsons]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Hopsons Continental]
[ad: Palm Desert Air Conditioning Company]
[Promo: Money Talk]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: There, aren't you glad I'm back. Aren't you glad I'm here? So am I my friends, this edition of the EIB Network comes to a screeching temporary halt for 21 hours. We'll be back at that time, 21 hours from now to kick it all back up again. See you then.
[ad: Decorators Depot]
[Promo: Loopholes]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[ad: Paul Harvey for Jiffy Steamer]
| 
