6.12.2003
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Galen] [edit]
[ABC News]
[Ad: Insure dot com]
[Ad: GM Certified Used Vehicles]
[ABC News]
[Ad: Scotch-Brite Sponges]
[Promo/Ad: Palm Springs Film Noire Festival]
[Ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
Rush opening promo
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Galen] [edit]
Yep, nine years today, folks. Nine years. Should have been fourteen, of wedded bliss, today, ladies and gentlemen. On May 27th. Anniversary date of El-Rushbo and the lovely and gracious Marta. We dated for five years before. Should have been fourteen, it's nine. It may as well be fourteen, for all the happiness that redowns.
Greetings, friends, welcome. You are tuned to the EIB Network. This is Rush Limbaugh, and we are coming to you live from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies after a long weekend, happy to be back with you. The telephone number, if you'd like to join us, be on the program today; 800-282-2882, and the email address; rush@eibnet.com. Lots to catch up on, some things that have happened since we were last here on Friday. It was a pretty eventful weekend, and there' s a lot of stuff out there.
I want to start here with a little bit of a "see, I told you so." Richard Benedetto's politics column in USA Today this morning; the headline in this piece: "Democrats Plan to Unseat Bush - Accentuate the Negative." It's a huge El-Rushbo "see I told you so". Benedetto begins; "It should be crystal clear now that the Democrats are basing their entire campaign for winning back the White House on two hopes; one, the economy stays in the doldrums, and two, that the war on terrorism goes badly. "In either case," writes Mr. Benedetto, the result would not be good for the American people." My friends, home run city here. So, in other words, the Democrats whole rationale for unseating President Bush is shaping up as a negative message. "See how miserable this guy's made your life? Get rid of him." It could work if everything Bush touches turn out to be a flop. But it could fail if things go reasonably well, and the majority of voters see no reason to change leaders.
Where have we heard all of this before? This not uncanny? Why, it was just the last time we were here, last Fri - We were talking about how the American people see no need to change leadership right now. To borrow a favorite Democratic phrase, It's a risky scheme, yet they show no sign of straying from the playbook. Heh hehehehehehe. Hubba hubba hubba.
Every weekday, Washington is bombarded by a fuselage of relentless attack - fusillade, if you prefer - relentless attacks against the President and his policies emanating from Democrats on Capital Hill. And every weekend, the verbal assaults continue in places like Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, as the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates take to the campaign trail to make their case. In the capital on Thursday, we got a chance to see the contrast between the Bush style of campaigning and the way the Democrats seem to think it should be done.
Earlier in the day, or early in the day, the President motored to the halls of Congress to hail a compromise agreement reached between Republicans and Democrats on the tax cut. Bush didn't get everything he wanted, Democrats - Yes he did. I mean, that's the bottom line, he did. But we've already talked about that. Bush didn't get everything he wanted. Democrats didn't prevail on some things they wanted, but the President preferred to take a positive approach. Shortly afterwards, Senate Democrat leaders met with reports to offer their view. It was uniformly negative. Tom Daschle said, "Republicans have done a triple back flip over the high board, and they've created a belly flop that all of us are going to feel. They're destroying the fiscal policy of this country, tax cut by tax cut." And he goes on to quote some of the more negative comments of Democrats.
But the point is, here, that it just, it's now in the mainstream, folks. The observations made by your host on this program, day after day after day, now show up in a column on politics by Richard Benedetto in USA Today. Now, the President yesterday, um
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Galen] [edit]
The President landed at Arlington National Cemetery. Just like he landed on the aircraft carrier. And I wonder if Robert Byrd was wondering about all the costs of the President going to Arlington National Cemetery to visit quote-unquote, the troops. I mean they got mad when the President went out to the aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and now they are very upset -- well, they should be if they are going to be consistent - they oughta be upset that Bush went to Arlington National Cemetery, went to visit the troops. Troops who have paid the ultimate price and are in the grave.
I wonder if there is back room strategizing going on as to what plan the Democrats ought to connive because of what the President did by visiting Arlington. Here's what he said, and this is, this is an amazing statement, and you contrast this with anything you hear from Democrats today. This is just from his Memorial Day speech, and it is so true, and this is so eloquent.
And there is nothing the Democrats have said or can say that equals it. I don't think the Democrats, this current crop of Democrat leaders today - I don't think they have this in them. I mean, I really don't think that this is in their fiber. The President said; "In every generation of Americans, we have found courage equal to the tasks of our country. The farms and small towns and city streets of this land have always produced free citizens who assume the discipline and duty of military life. And time after time they have proven that the moral force of democracy is mightier than the will and cunning of any tyrant."
Is there a Democrat out there that you can conjure, that you can think of, speaking this way? At Arlington? In this - I mean, brevity is the soul of wit - to have this sort of a tribute. And to make a truthful statement; "Every generation of Americans". One of the great things about freedom is that every generation of Americans produces enough people who will make a free decision to assume the discipline and duty of military life. And when called to serve and called to combat, they go. It's just something - The older I get, the more in awe of people who volunteer to join the armed forces I am. It's just something terribly unique and they are worthy of all of the citations and the praise they get.
Meanwhile, the Democrats - One of the beauties, ladies and gentlemen, of leaving the TV on, at least down here, after "Meet the Press" on Sunday, if you leave it on long enough, you'll come across the Chris Matthews Show. Chris Matthews - well, he does, he has a show on Sunday, in addition to his Hardball show during the week. And yesterday Chri- or Sunday, Chris Matthews had some Democrat hopefuls on who attacked Bush on the war and homeland defense. And he asked them, what do they know? "
You're attacking the President on all this, what do you know?" And the fact of the matter is they know diddly, ladies and gentlemen. They got their marching orders from Carville, Greenburg and Shrum. Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff interviewed Chuck Todd from The Hotline, and I don't want to go through the whole transcript here, but apparently there is a new memo out from Carville and Shrum advising the Democrats on what to do. It's basically a talking points memo.
Chuck Todd from The Hotline said, "Yeah, it's talking points more or less, and they're talking about - They do this poll, and then they use it, saying what do Democrats need to be talking about. And they really focus in not just on the domestic issues that are obvious, like the economy and education, saying that Democrats can do well on those issues, but on security issues.
And they're saying - make the argument that Democrats almost need to come out stronger, sounding stronger than Bush when it comes to domestic security and terrorism in order to close the gap that exists. That there's no chance the Democrats are gonna have if they are at all seeming like they are not pro-security at all. Now, two things about this: Why are we messing around with candidates? Why don't we just run the middle men? Why don't the Democrats just nominate Carville and Shrum? Or Shrum and Carville? Because it seems these two guys
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Galen] [edit]
all Democrats are getting their ideas from. They send this memo out and you want to hear a follow-up to it? We have an audio soundbite, this is Joe Biden, who appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert on Sunday, also on with Jay Rockefeller, Pat Robertson, Chuck Ha gel. And Russert says, "Senator Biden, this is the fourth time the country has been placed on orange alert. Is there a risk that people become too accustomed to that?
Biden; "I think there is a risk of that. I also think there's a risk that the American people think we've done more than we have to deal with our domestic security needs. I mean, we're talking about Iraq, anthrax, like every day. We've had plans in place for a long time. The agency has said three years ago that - two years ago that anthrax and rail would be a possible target. We have two tunnels where you have 350,000 people a day in the tunnel, no ventilation, no lighting, no anything. We have a 900 million dollar plan already in place, already done.
We're not funding it. The people think the 106 nuclear power plants are being protected. They're not being protected. We're not investing the money that we're supposed to invest, which would be good, by the way, to invest just for infrastructure all by itself, to boost the economy, but also to deal with things that I think American people think we're doing. And besides that, we're stretching out our 600 million dollars that are being spent by local law enforcement every time we go on this code alert. Since we've been on it, federal government's not reimbursed them. It's a national problem, and I think our priorities are a little backwards in terms of lower investment of our money."
Rush; Well, it looks like Biden's read the memo from Carville and Shrum, and I'm sure McAuliffe's is in there, the Forehead, and Stan Greenburg. So, here's Biden putting forth the Democrat 2004 election pitch -- homeland security's a mess, so we haven't spent enough, we're not doing enough on homel - Now, I can't remember the - Well, I guess this is somewhat of a common Democrat complaint. To quote, "the President hasn't done enough on homeland security", but that's based on one thing. They're just waiting for the next attack.
This is a Biden speech setting up a future attack so the Democrats can say; "See, see, we told you. He's not doing enough. There's not enough being done about this, blah blah blah blah." Meanwhile, what do they propose, what do they offer, what have they done to get on board, to be a part of this? They've done nothing but tear down, as witnessed and confirmed by Richard Benedetto's piece in USA Today as well.
So, all these problems are due to the tax cut. We're gonna get attacked. We're gonna get exposed the next time we are attacked. All the Democrats need now is the attack, and Carville, Shrum are urging these guys; "You guys better sound like you care more about national security than even the President does. Because if you don't, you're never gonna close this gap." So it appears, my friends, that this memo is being read.
We've gotta take a quick time out, here, as we're off and rolling. The EIB Network continues right after this.
[Ad: General Steel Corporation]
[Ad: Liverite at Liverite.com]
[Ad: Z-Max]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part two
00:35:00. [08: Galen] [edit]
Mr. Davis has it? I am seriously - This has to be seen. I am seriously thinking - I've never done this before. I am seriously thinking. I haven't decided yet, but I'm seriously thinking of posting the Victor Davis Hanson interview on the website. This is stuff that people need to see.
At any rate, U.S. News and World Report has - I mean Bin Laden's fortune is gone. These people - there was one intercepted terrorist was overheard on a conversation begging for eighty dollars. I mean, they are, according to U.S. News and World Report, Al Qaeda is really just been demolished. And it's not because we were distracted by Iraq. It's all part of the same war. Iraq, the war on terror, Iraq, axis of evil, North Korea. It's all the same war.
And Bush has been very plain and clear about that. You know, if it means attacking countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, then that's what must be done. If it means using covert means to topple regimes, that's what the war on terrorism dictates. The administration should use its judgement, based on the best information it has to do what it thinks must be done to win the war, but "go slow" is not a coherent response in the midst of war.
I'd like to remind Senator Biden and the others, during World War 2, we had to fight in more than two countries, there were entire regions of the world where war was taking place. We were fighting in the Pacific theater at the same time we were fighting in North Africa and Europe. We were fighting in jungles, deserts, mountains and fields. We were in rural villages, small towns, major cities.
And you would never have heard a politician during that war urging the President to go slow. Go slow is not a policy, nor is it a strategy. It's an excuse for doing nothing. It's an attempt, and it isn't going to work, but you have to take this for what it is. I'm not worried the President or anybody is gonna listen to this. What this is worth, folks, is understanding where the Democrats are coming from. I mean, they'd love it if the President would listen to this. But the point of this comment's not to influence the administration.
The point here is to try to change the minds of the American people. That we're trying to bite off too much, and we always do, so much at one time. And if we bite off too much, then there's going to be an area that we don't cover. And that area we don't cover is going to come back and bite us. It's just another way the Democrats are trying to cast Bush as incompetent. But back to the fundamentals of this.
It is obvious - Iran's obviously building capacity for nuclear weapons. They are a terrorist state. They're harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. They're funding Hezbollah. Look, we've know from the [sp? beginnch] why Bush put Iran in the Axis of Evil. You don't fight a war on terrorism without dealing with them. Iran. And I don't hear any suggestions of solutions coming from Biden or the rest of the Democrats. All I hear is fear-mongering, appeasement, finger-wagging, finger-waving and trying to make fun of various Bush policies. I don't hear one proposal. Their one idea. I don't hear one solution being mentioned by any of these people.
Andrew in Boston, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the EIB Network.
Andrew: Mega-dittoes, Rush. This is from somebody who's a [Sp: Subtanese ?] conservative up here in Boston.
Rush: Yes, good to have you on the program, sir.
Andrew: Thank you. One thing I want to say, I saw "Meet the Press" and, I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Biden, some of the things he was saying, in that, you know, I mean, it is that they're crying "wolf", or it's they're going to be crying wolf in the sense that I don't think we're doing enough for national homeland security or anything. I think some of the measures that have been put out are jokes - the duct tape, and what have you. And like I was saying to the screener, I mean, you know, go to a Red Sox game, the security is a joke. I work in the Prudential Center up here in Boston, there are fire drills every day. The people don't even care about them any more. And you know, it is crying wolf. On that point, Biden was right. But then, I also hear with you, I don't hear any solutions coming out of them, either.
Rush: Well, let's get, yeah, I understand, but, let's focus on what you think Biden is right about. Are you judging what we're doing on homeland security by whether or not you feel safe at a Red Sox game? I mean, how do you know what's being done at these events?
Andrew: You know what? When I walked into that Red Sox-Yankee game last week. I walked in, they patted me down, and the lady felt a huge thing in my pocket, which was my cell phone. Didn't do anything, let me walk right through, didn't ask me what it was, take it out
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Galen] [edit]
or anything.
Rush: Are you a terrorist?
Andrew: of course not.
Rush: Well, it must be rather obvious then.
Andrew: What's obvious to them may not be obvious to somebody else. I'm just saying, you know, there could be a lot more that could be done.
Rush, interrupting: Let me ask you this: Has there been, has there been an attack on this nation's soil since September 11th?
Andrew: Thank God, no.
Rush: I wonder why?
Andrew: I agree with you. I totally agree with you, but -
Rush: You can't be agreeing with me and agreeing with Biden.
Andrew: Well, maybe I fell into their scare tactics, or what have you, but -
Rush, interrupting: See, that's exactly right! I want to applaud you for having the courage to admit what has happened here. Negativism is a powerful magnet. Negativism will attract a lot of people, who think, "Something's going to go wrong! It's the last days. Oh, no, we're doomed." It'll attract millions. Why do you think that people get rich writing books on thinking positively? You go to the library or you go to a public seminar, there's not one guy out there teaching you to think negatively. Because it comes naturally.
Pessimism is something that just is part and parcel. Especially during troubled times like this. You run into somebody that thinks positively, you run into somebody that is buoyant, or in times like this, you're gonna scratch your head, say, "What kind of oddball weirdo is this?" And yet, if you look around at evidence, there is far more evidence to feel secure than there is to the other. I mean, there hasn't been an attack. We have thwarted numerous attacks, we've tracked down numerous suspects. We've gotten them off the streets.
There have been numerous arrests. I mean, the track record is overwhelmingly positive. Given what's happened in Afghanistan, status of Al Qaeda now, what we've done, managed to do in Iraq. When you stop to look at the evidence, there's actually more reason to feel optimistic about this, not that it's over. And not that there's no longer a threat. But it's clear that it's - More evidence to suggest we're doing something right here than doing something wrong.
Believe me, if these people could have hit us again, in a major way, they would've done it. You have to be careful, folks, because the Democrats entire "strategery" is negativism upon negativism upon negativism, because they know there's a market for it.
And there's an element of human nature that is attracted to it. But when you hear their negativism, make sure you also note they offer no solutions. They offer no counter-ideas. They haven't come up with their own recipe for security safety. Nope, they're sitting around waiting for the next attack, so they can pound their chests, and say, "See, we told you. Bush didn't do this right." Now then, you should ask yourself, "What did they ever suggest we do, other than spend money somewhere?"
We'll take a break, be right back. Stay with us.
[Rush Store Promo]
[Ad: Trim-Spa]
[Ad: Orrick Excel]
[Ad: Mitsubishi]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: Camelot Theaters Film Noire Festival]
[Promo: Joey English Show on KTSI 920AM]
Rush Intro
One other point here, ladies and gentlemen; the Democrats kept saying we shouldn't that we shouldn't attack Iraq because it diverts our attention, resources away from Al Qaeda, remember? That's false. It's totally false, especially as the U.S. News and World Report, the June second issue cover story makes it quite clear. However, here in Iran, we have solid evidence that regime is harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. And those terrorists were behind an attack in Saudi Arabia, killing scores of people, including several Americans.
Talking about the most recent attack in Riyadh. Those terrorists were behind the attack that killed, including Americans. And what does Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee have to say about it? Go slow. Which really means, in Biden-speak, do nothing. "Let's dialogue. Just talk, just complain. Just whine. But don't do anything else." The point's this, folks; even when we know of the whereabouts of Al Qaeda terrorists, and the identity of the regime that are harboring, Biden and the Democrats preach inaction. Inaction in Iran, just as they preached inaction in Iraq, just as they preached inaction in North Korea. They have no plans for fighting terrorism, but they are bound and determined to try to stop Bush from succeeding in that area.
Remember, anything that happens good for America is detrimental to their chances to re-acquire power. And Bush has proven once he sets out to do something militarily, he succeeds. Well, the last thing the Democrats want is another successful operation anywhere. Be it North Korea, be it Iran, be it continued in Iraq or even Afghanistan. The last thing they want is further successful news of American military power. Because all it does is illustrate how dangerous we are if they're in control, because no matter what they say, they just don't have it in them. Don't believe in the military. They don't believe in the projection of power.
The many liberal Democrats consider the projection of American power to be the evil that shrouds the world. They think it is our bigness and our military might that makes the world as dangerous as it is, and makes us as dangerous as it is, because the existence alone of our powerful military is provocative. And so they want to assure the rest of the world in their own way. That if they were ever in charge of things, don't worry, they would subort our interests to the United Nations.
Now, as a means of expanding this point, and I want to go back to this caller, who was seduced. Admittedly seduced by Biden's comments that we're not doing enough to protect ourselves against terrorism in this country, by Biden's comments on Meet the Press on Sunday. My friends, let me ask you a question. I want you to answer this with all the logic that you have. United States of America, the continental 48 states is a huge area
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... as the worlds lone super power how many rich targets do you think exist in this country? Not just the nuclear power plants, things as innocuous as Universities or big industrial factories, you name it. Dams, poisoned waterways, how many targets do you think there are in this country? It's almost a number two large to quantify is it not?
Okay since we all agree on that and I know you do. Could somebody then explain to me, using all the logic at your disposal, just how we defend them all? What do we do? Somebody give me a policy. Somebody give me the plan. Somebody tell me how we are going to ensure that each one of these rich targets is ensured against attack. There is a way. (Laughing) There is a way to do it my friends. I want to know, just tell what it is. What is the strategy? What is the policy that we can undertake to guarantee as best we can, that none of those targets are hit?
Take a break, we'll be back, the lines are all full but they'll be opening up here periodically. I'm not going to answer this myself, yet, cause as you know my friends, when "I" say it there's nothing left to be said and the answer is not, "Never elect democrats again," although that would help. I mean that would be a step in the right direction. If we never elected democrats again we would be eminently safer there's no question but that wasn't the answer I was thinking.
We have all these targets. We got New York. We've got Los Angeles. We got baseball, football stadiums, all these things, nuclear power plants, conventional power plants, ports, cruise ships we got all, how do we protect every one of them. There is a way. Sorry to sound erratic here, there is a way of doing it.
We'll be back right after this.
[Promo: Rush on The EIB Network]
[ad: Eharmony.com]
[ad: Palm Springs Volvo]
[ad: Desertnetwork.com]
[ad: Red Cross]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: American Red Cross]
[promo: KPSI]
Rush: And we are back. Let's grab a quick phone call here in our remaining moments this hour. Janice, in Smithfield, Utah, hi, welcome to the EIB network.
Janice: Rush, the only way we can protect everything is to go after those who threaten us. Ah -- you can't protect -- if you spend every tax dollar we had, we couldn't protect all -- of - the - things that need protecting. The only thing is to go after those who threaten us.
Rush: Amen. You got it. First call got it. There's the answer I'm sure I hope a lot of you (unintelligible) it. We've got all these targets. If there's any of you out there think it is possible to prevent an act of terrorism in this country by guarding these targets, by identifying them all and positioning troops, people, whatever, at these places. To ensure no attack takes place, you have totally missed the boat about what the war on terrorism is.
We are doing what we can domestically to identify people who are already here that might want to do this, but the real way, the only way to ensure that these things don't happen again is what we're doing. Taking these people out. Identifying them where they are, and destroying the market place, or that cauldron that is bubbling over with the, the ideology that creates these people.
That's why this business in Iran today has taken on such importance. They're harboring Al Qaeda. They're working on nuclear power. (noisily clears throat) Um, we are in a war on terrorism. It was said by the president that it's going to go on long probably after his two terms. He's been everything - as -- honest as he can be. As totally up front as he can be about it. It's the only way, folks. There's no way. Don't tell me what did or didn't happen when you walked into Fenway Park. It's not the point. We'll be back.
[ad: Palm Springs Film Noir Festival, Rick's Café, Camelot Theatres]
[promo: Loopholes]
[promo: Kim Commando Show]
[anti-abortion rhetoric disguised as news from ABC]
[national propaganda, er, news from ABC]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Tom] [edit]
[news]
[ad: Sears Auto Center]
[ad: Nexium]
[news]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[news]
[ad: Palm Springs Film Noir Festival]
[promo: Dodger baseball on KPSI]
[promo: Rush Limbaugh show]
[intro music]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hah, hello my friends how are you. We are the Rush Limbaugh program and this is the EIB Network, I am your host the all knowing, all sensing, all caring, all feeling, all concerned Maha Rushie utilizing talent on loan from God, yeah. Telephone number is 1-800-282-2882 the email address rush@eibnet.com.
Remember the Susan Esteridge column that we pointed out on this program could not find it anywhere on the Internet other than the "Creators" website. Creators syndicate. We couldn't find it any newspaper or anywhere else. Well on the "Big Show" with John Gibson recently on the FOX news channel.
Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest host and he had Susan Esteridge on the program and he said,
FOX news -- Judge Napolitano: "Listen, you wrote this column about the Clintons, you were critical of them, it got "spiked," it didn't get printed and now you wrote another column which we all read and everybody's emailing it and then this other column you say, "I got spiked because I'm a woman, there's not enough females in the media," what's this all about?"
Susan Esteridge: "Now here's the joke. All my conservative friends picked up on this column, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and then they said "My goodness, the column has disappeared. The liberal media must be spiking the column," and the joke of course was that all the women columnists I know quickly emailed me and said, "These guys assume that when a woman writes a column the same thing happen to us that happens to them." That it'll appear in every major newspaper and the truth of the matter, Andrew, is that women don't appear in major newspapers. I mean whether it's me or Ann Coulter or whoever it is. We don't appear in all the major newspapers. I'm not playing (unintelligible) here (Andrew Napolitano saying, "But Susan.") but if you look at the numbers were not there."
Rush: This is a crazy defense. Her column was spiked. I don't care how many newspapers she's in. None of them ran it. I think she's in five newspapers, I don't care. The five newspapers she's running didn't run the Clinton column that she wrote. Now I don't' know is Maureen Dowd not a woman? Molly Ivins, is Molly Ivans not a woman? Mary McGrory not a woman? There's a lot of (laughing) there are a lot of female columnists out there, what is this?
And I have to tell you something, now this is weird, I haven't seen the second column. I see the one that nobody spi -- that everybody spikes. I see the anti-Clinton column that nobody else saw and now apparently this column she wrote answering it is all over the place and I haven't seen it. This is news to me. She has blamed this spiking on the fact that she's a woman.
I guess, well she doesn't want to take out after the papers that didn't run it. I mean she wants to get published as often as she can. I think this is kind of comical to blame it on the fact that she is a woman. I mean that's -- I can think of a whole lot of excuses that she can offer but that one. At any rate ladies -- have you seen the market today? Nasdaq's up around thirty-five and - thirty-two, thirty-five.
Rush reading unknown source: The Dow-Jones Industrial average is anywhere from 127 to 138, 135 and the truth is that stocks have jumped today lifting the Nasdaq two percent as data showing a strong US housing market an up tick in confidence fueled investors hope for an economic rebound. A report after the opening bell showed US consumer confidence landed below Wall Street expectations but still rose to a six month high in May as consumers looked forward to a turn around in business and job condition. So uhh, oh, also other data after the opening bell showed the sales of existing and new homes grew at a robust pace in April as low mortgage rates continued to fuel a firm housing market.
Rush: So you have new home sales and consumer confidence at a six time high -- six month high...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...stocks have rallied on this. Where's the misery? Where's all this misery? Where's all this pessimism? I'll tell you what this is due to folks. It was last Thursday when we signed the tax bill and passed - the tax bill was passed. I proclaimed the end of the economic slowdown. I said last week it was over and I was right. People have listened. There is a newfound economic confidence out there. All it takes is somebody taking a leadership position here. All people needed to hear was it's over so I told them, "It was over," and now people are proceeding normally as though these are robust times and they are and they're kicking off well.
So I just wanted to pass this news along to you cause it is absolutely devastating news to the democrats. Worst possible news they could get, short of another victory this time in Iran, which by the way, continue to point out here. A victory in Iran need not be military but more on that later.
Rush reading unknown source: The Supreme Court upheld the right of state workers in California to get time off to care for children or ailing relatives rejecting an attempt to scale back a law guaranteeing 12 weeks of family leave. The six to three ruling today, is a departure from the Court's line of cases that expands States rights at the expense of Federal power or laws passed by Congress.
Rush: So in essence here, the Family Medical Leave Act sort of stands, in California. Californians now can take twelve weeks off, take the dog to the vet, get time off for children or ailing relatives.
Rush reading again: State employees can sue in Federal Court to enforce their rights under the 1993 law. Justice William Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice John Paul Stevens also agreed with the out come of the case. Congress had ample and persuasive evidence that women State employees, like women in the private sector, suffered in the work place when work and family commitments clashed.
By creating an across the board routine employment benefit for all eligible employees Congress sought to insure that family care leave, would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the work place caused by the female employees and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented from this. Scalia wrote, "Today's opinion does not even attempt to demonstrate that each one of the fifty states was in violation. It treats the States as some sort of collective entity which is guilty or innocent as a body."
Rush: And what Scalia is doing here is attacking the creation of states a monolith, as a single entity. When they're not, they're separate and equal individual so I -- the story and I -- my memory does not help me here. I don't know -- it seems to me, my memory is that one of the features of the California version of Family Medical Leave is that it's paid. Remember the whole argument here is that, "What good is twelve weeks off if you can't afford it?" How can you take twelve weeks off, that's three months, unless you're paid," and I think in California it's paid, Family Medical Leave. Remember we were joking that, "That all right you people in California are going to be -- you're taxes or whatever are going to go up because you're going to be paying people not to work as they avail themselves, these opportunities to miss work."
Now this story doesn't say anything about that and in fact this may not even -- this maybe a separate case because it was taken to the US Supreme Court. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has upheld the right of State workers to get time off to care for children or ailing relatives and they in doing so rejected an attempt to scale back the law guaranteeing twelve weeks of family leave. So I gather this is the Federal Family Medical Leave Act that's left to stand. This may not be the California version that requires people taking the time off to continue to be paid.
Quick time out, we'll be back and continue here in just a moment.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for CLR Cleaner]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
[ad: Manhattan West Mortgage]
[ad: 1-8800 575-Well]
[ad: Desert Homes Today]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Onto Music]
Rush: And we are back, great to have you with us. Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network. Adam Clymer whose existence serve to rename a prominent bodily orifice in this country. Yeah you remember Bush was speaking to somebody, speaking to Cheney before a live microphone. They didn't know it was live and somebody pointed out Adam Clymer, The New York Times reporter in the audience. One of the two said, "Yeah he's a real," and then cited the bodily orifice and Bush and Cheney said, "Yeah, big time."
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Shane] [edit]
Then if he had this in tomorrow the democrat's identity crises. And low and behold on Monday. A holiday addition when hardly anybody is going to read the paper. The New York Times came out with The Democrats Identity Crises. And well I've gotten it here somewhere. Do I have it here? Yes! And guess what my friends. Its by Adam Climber. Its by the same guy that wrote the story for Miching about the Republicans.
And the headline for this story. Democrats take a stronger focus and money. The head line ought to read. The Democrats Seek money, money, money and maybe a stronger focus. And dateline Santa Fe, New Mexico. Democrats in the west came here in mid may to share political hopes and fears and to reassure that dissipate Bushes popularity there party has a future. Now its pretty bad when you got to get a bunch of Democrats together to assure each other that they still have a reason to exist. I mean this is under stating the point.
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "Democrats had to develop a strong economic message and a strong National Security message." He said. "The security message had to make it clear if we need to use force we do it." Now how about that. Stop and think of this now here's the Governor of New Mexico telling Democrats we need a strong national security message and we need to make it clear if we need to use force we'll do it what does that tell you about where the Democrats currently stand and where they know they stand.
With the American people. They are admitting that the American people are not confident. There admitting Richardson s' admitting that people are right when they say its just not safe to vote demo. Yeah Richardson cut taxes he took the lead cutting taxes a wanted business investment and growth in New Mexico. The Democrats glass is not half full but half empty and it appears to be leaking is the central quote. Or passage this is not a quote. This is Adam Climbers own words. So the Democrats glass is not half full but half empty and appears to be leaking. Theirs more to this story but they didn't want people to see it. It ran Monday when nobody reads the paper. We'll be back stay with us.
[Ad: Farageezic]
[News ]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Galen] [edit]
[Local News: KTSI]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
[Rush promo]
NASDAQ is up 41. The DOW is up 151. The economic slow-down is officially over. I told you. People are just waiting to be unleashed. Just waiting for some confidence spark. And that spark was provided here last week with the proclamation from on high, here, that the economic slowdown was officially over.
I gotta share with you some of the excerpts of this New York Times piece from Monday, yesterday on the state of the Democratic party. Once again, it's the New York Times. This could all be made up, but keep that in mind as you listen to this; "Democrats are composed -" They're in the midst of an identity crisis, a painful one. "Democrats are composed of an awkward coalition whose clan chiefs have not yet gotten over the idea that power is the Democrats' entitlement. And who therefore have not yet learned to sacrifice for the greater good."
Now, the translation of this is simple: The Democrats ran the show for so long they can't get used to the fact that they don't. They just can't accept the fact. They haven't gotten over the idea that power is the Democrat's entitlement. They just cannot bring themselves to do this. And they're busy trying to re-establish the natural order of things, which is Democrats running the show, and in the process, they don't know how to go about it.
"Democrats have generally spent their energy defending past accomplishments, from social security to Medicare, rather than seeking to re-focus that basic commitment to the middle class and poor, into ideas that reflect how the nation has changed since those laws were passed. After Clinton's troubles with Monica Lewinsky, he largely gave up and instead pushed small ideas like school uniforms."
There we have it, my friends, in one sentence, the Clinton legacy, courtesy of Adam Climer; "After his troubles with Monica Lewinsky, he largely gave up, and instead pushed small ideas like school uniforms." I wonder if that was part of a new Clinton class at the University of Arkansas, or wherever it was?
"As Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster put it, "My biggest problem with the Democratic Party is, we think tactically and not strategically, one election at a time. We take the issue we can exploit, but we don't take the party and say, "This is what we are about." The effect, he said, is we seem to be buffeted by what's in the political winds. A major reason was defined by Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House from '77 to '87, when he would say that in any other country, the Democratic Party would be five parties, and he meant it in ideological terms from very liberal to very conservative. By now the very conservative wing is almost completely deserted to the Republican Party, but the Democrats are still a coalition of interests, notably African-Americans, labor, feminists, and all-purpose liberals."
Well that's exactly right
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... that they have. They've got -- there's one central theme really that unites democrats and that is, "Big Government. Big, Expanding, growing Government," you can almost say socialism, is the one thing that unites all these district interests. They all believe government is where all power should reside, not with the individual but often times the constituencies of the Democratic Party are at war with one another and if they don't come together, it is an absolute mess. A veteran democratic consultant looked at the 2004 presidential field and found it symptomatic of a basic party problem. "Sometimes we're so respectful of our diversity we take completely preposterous people seriously."
There you have it my friends another -- the only bad thing is a quote that's in The New York Times. We don't really know if it was uttered but we will assume that it was.
The New York Times: Sometimes we're so respectful of our diversity we take completely preposterous people seriously.
Rush: Can I give you a couple names? Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson. Go on down the list -- some of these -- John Sweeny. I mean some of the most preposterous people in the country are taken seriously because they're minorities or certain ethnics and of course the democrats can't offend them so they have to accept and give them status.
The New York Times: Robert Strauss former Democratic National Chairman who says, "Democrats seem to win the Whitehouse only on republican mistakes like Water Gate or that of the elder Bush ignoring the faltering economy, calls last falls permanence on issues, disgraceful or performance on issues disgraceful. We didn't stand for anything, we got what we deserved, nothing."
Rush: You know he's wrong about that. These guys still think they didn't get their message out. You democrats are going to have to figure it out. You're going to have to listen and accept this. Every body does know what you stand for and it is why you're loosing. It's not because people don't know who you are. It's not because people don't know what you're positions are. It's not because people don't know what you're ideas are. It's because they precisely do know what you stand for. What you'll do if you get power and that is why you're finding yourselves on the short end of the stick.
Here's Arlen in Ottawa City Michigan. Arlen welcome to the program.
Arlen: Hi Rush, great to talk to you.
Rush: Thank you.
Arlen: I wanted to tell you that I was at that Ottawa County republican day dinner. I didn't see Adam Clymer or anybody with a press pass so I guess I would question did he really take down the information that he reported?
Rush: Do you know what Adam Clymer look like?
Arlen: I do not but I did not see anybody with a press pass on.
Rush: Well that's not the way to identify Adam Clymer. Let see, how can I phrase this? Cause it would really be interesting to know if Adam Clymer was there. Do you know the phrase, "The south bound end of a north bound horse."?
Arlen: Yes I know that phrase.
Rush: All right did you see one of those there?
Arlen: I have to say because the room was full of republicans, I didn't see any.
Rush: Okay well, I don't know -- I don't know if we can take this one testament, ladies and gentlemen, one witness has assigned that the reporter who claimed to be there wasn't. But I don't think people wear press badges to tell you the truth at events like this but never the less it's a good test. Adam Clymer is not that hard to find or spot or see. (Laughing) I better stop; I'm going to say something I'll going to regret.
Dayton Florida, Steve, welcome to the EIB Network.
Steve: Hey Rush uhh, Janet last hour...(Clicking sounds)
Rush: We lost him. Did we lose him or did we loose the phones? What's going on? Did somebody -- we lost - was that a cell phone I hope. All right we'll try James in Bangor Maine. Hello James, welcome top the program.
James: Hi Rush. Major dittos from a teenage product of the public High School system.
Rush: Thank you sir. Great to have you with us, congratulations on dialing the phone.
James: Thank you. I've got two quick points about Biden and the democrats complaining about Homeland Security.
Rush: Yes.
James: First of all, the -- they would continually move the goalposts no matter where we put the money. If we put the money towards the Amtrak they would say we're not doing enough for border security. If we put the money towards border security, we're not protecting the nuke plants. They're obviously never going to be happy and secondly I hear no mention from them about Buffalo cell we busted or out on the west coast, I forget, it was Portland Oregon or Seattle Washington where we busted some guys over there. There's no mention of these. We're making great progress here in America.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: well obviously another attack but you have to understand but -- the point -- what Biden and the democrats are trying to do is simply establish themselves as being on the record if and when there is another attack. So they can point back to their speech or speeches, quote them by verse and say this is when I said it. We've been right about it. The President has not prepared us. The President is not taking this seriously enough. President's too focused on Iraq, whatever it is they're going to say, this is what they're trying to set up.
Everything in this The New York Times piece about the democrats is pretty accurate. They don't win because of what they stand for. They don't tell anybody what they stand for. They're hoping for negativism. They're banking on either convincing people Bush has made a mistake or relying on Bush to make one. They only setting themselves up to succeed by getting people to vote against their opposition rather than for them and the way they're really hamstrung is that they do believe things and people know what those things are but even at that they don't feel confidence saying, "Well, and if you were a socialist would you go out and try and get elected in this era on that basis," I mean they come very close to it.
This hysteria against this tax cut, I guess everything they're doing is still focused on shoring up their base but can somebody- can somebody cite me an example -- I just want one example, somebody cite me an example where a politician has won an election opposing tax cuts or advocating tax increases. Now don't give me a politician that's raised taxes after he's elected. I'm talking about in the campaign. It just doesn't happen. Nobody gets elected promising to raise taxes.
Now, I'll tell you the problem the democrats have. They're out there ripping this tax cut of Bush's every day left and right and they keep pointing to Clinton as the thing that we ought to repeat and do. "We had all this economic health and robust activity during Clinton," well what do they think caused it? His tax increases. Why then are no democrats advocating we raise taxes on the rich and make it retroactive as Clinton did? Why aren't they doing that? Seriously folks, wouldn't that make political sense? If you really believe tax cuts are going to harm this country, then why not propose what you think helps? Tax cuts, why don't they do it? Cause they don't dare, cause they know they would fall even further.
The thing that's really interesting to me and I pointed this out last week, they set themselves up for doom and gloom and to benefit and prosper in those doom and gloom times, and they believe this tax cuts going to cause doom and gloom, they should be happy. They should be out there throwing parties. They should all be wearing those little clown hats out there and throwing you know the little whizzes in the air and those little bazooka bummers or whatever they do out there and throwing those little cherry bombs inside the building and having all -- just a big party because they think this tax cut is gonna devastate this economy, which is exactly what they need in order to win back their power, and yet there out there angry and decrying it and ripping it.
There's just nothing consistent about these people what so ever. I've never seen such a large group of people incapable of happiness. I've never seen such a large group of people incapable of contentment. It is -- the last time I saw it was when Mary Landrieu successfully got re-elected. Daschle was happy there for a couple of weeks and that was it and ever since then it's been doom and gloom time all over again for these people. It's not very infectious.
We'll take a break, we'll be back, stay with us.
[Promo: Limbaugh Letter]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: Oreck Vacuums]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Oreck Vacuums]
[ad: SG Cowan]
[ad: Air Force Reserve]
[Promo: Money Talk]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Into Music]
Rush: And we're back, glad to have you along for the ride today my friends. It's the EIB Network the most listened to radio talk show in America.
It's happened again folks. It's happened again.
Unknown source reads: The Boeing Company struggling financially since the September 11th attack, won a 16 billion dollar contract from the Air Force last Friday to lease 100 modified 767 jet liners for use as refueling tankers.
Rush: Okay so we are going to spend 16 billion dollars to lease one hundred 767's.
Unknown source: This is a major windfall for Boeing but critics call it a little more than Corporate Welfare. The cost of leasing the planes, which doesn't include a 4-billon dollar purchase option, at the end of the six-year lease is far higher than the cost of buying the planes outright.
Rush: This is the second time this has happened. We bought a bunch of -- we leased a bunch of Boeing jets shortly after September 11th, maybe it was right before, I don't I think it was shortly after and the least cost was far more expensive than what it would have been to buy the things outright. Same thing has happened here.
Unknown source: Senator John McCain, democrat Arizona, said , "It's a lousy deal for the Air Force,"
Rush: I'm sorry, John McCain, republican, Arizona, well I -- democrat -- anyway...
Unknown source: John McCain say lousy deal for the Air Force and for the American taxpayer. Pentagon officials contend the lease deal which will or still has to be approved by congress allows the Air Force to begin replacing it's aging KC 135 tanker fleet, three years earlier than planned and required less upfront cost than a straight purchase.
Rush: This is hocus-pocus. Once again here we have -- who ever said Corporate Welfare got this one right because Boeing is represented by a lobbyist. I want to say, "Who is that lobbyist? Oh yes, that lobbyist is Linda Daschle," the wife of the coming and sweet Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle. So a client of Senator Daschle's wife gets a sweet deal. We're going to lease the planes instead of buy them. Boeing makes out far...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush reading unknown source: than if they were purchased outright. Senator Patty Murray fellow democrat from Washington called the deal a victory for all sides.
Rush: I don't know how it is but she said, "The taxpayers win, Boeing wins and Linda Daschle wins, the Air Force wins." (laughing) She didn't say that my friends I threw it in there but she might as well have.
Unknown source: and the Air Force wins and most importantly the people who fly these planes and the soldiers who rely on them win," said Patty Murray.
Rush: In one of the few quotes on record from Patty Murray where sympathy for military concerns is uttered.
This is Steve in Daytona Florida. Hi Steve, welcome to the program, nice to have you with us.
Steve: Hey Rush, I want to tag on to what Janet said last hour. Israel is a perfect example of internal security having it's limits to terrorism because they're still being attacked and they're politically held back from fully, you know, taking care of the situation.
Rush: Yes, well I was going to get to this you've provided here the transition phone call and I -- what he's referring to, by the way, is about and hour ago I was commenting on Senator Biden's assertion that we're done nothing to protect all the target rich areas from terrorism in this country and I raised the question, "Well how do you do that?"
We could -- there are so many, it's not possible folks. It's -- well it is possible there's only one way to do it though but we cannot defend every potential target in such a way as to stave off every potential attack, unless we take out the guys capable of doing the attacks before they attack and that's what we're doing. And Senator Biden just totally ignores that as a strategy, as a tactic, looks past it.
And that's what Steve here is relating this to Israel's approach to their own domestic security problem. They are not trying -- well they are doing what they can to protect their targets but they are reaching out, so to speak, and trying to eliminate those who are attacking. What do you make of the apparent conversion of Ariel Sharon over the weekend. He has cited -- he's used the word oppression to describe the Palestinians. He has said that maybe time to move out of "occupied" territories and so forth. He's -- there are a lot of people scratching their heads. I think a spokesman said he misspoke on the occupation business but it's still out there. You have any thoughts on that? I don't mean to put you on the spot.
Steve: Well, what you compromise to keep you will loose so...
Rush: What you compromise to keep, you will loose.
Steve: Right. The little territory that they'll try to compromise to keep and give up...
Rush: yeah
Steve: of their territories you'll eventually loose because the Palestinians want it all.
Rush: Well that's true, they want it all. They want no Israel or Israeli's...
Steve: Right.
Rush: ...in addition to that. I think Sharon has officially stated that they will by the year 2005 accommodate a nearby Palestinians State and I'm telling you a lot of people are scratching their heads here over what's caused this. What has caused this? Well, yeah something like they don't know. Something -
I gotta take a break here folks, we're way close to it on time. Back here in just a second, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Math Made Easy Videos]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[ad: JPL Bible Church]
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Sadly my friends, time for the second hour of the EIB Network's Rush Limbaugh program has expired. We have an hour remaining and we will eagerly get to it in mere moments. Phone number again is 800-282-2882. Be right back. Stay with us.
[ad: Far West Ski Association -- Rancho Las Palmas Resort]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
[Promo: Larry King Live]
[ABC-News]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: eHarmony.com]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: Recall Grey Davis]
[Promo: Joy Short Show]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have and if you were me doing what I've been doing you'd say the same thing, folks. Rush Limbaugh behind the golden microphone yet another day as we approach our 15th anniversary August 1st I mean it's may 27th which is also my wedding anniversary folks. Number nine today, should have been 14 but number nine to the lovely and gracious Marta. Then August 1st will be 15 for this program.
What? What are you -- going to go anywhere special for what? Wedding Anniversary? Oh, well yeah, we're going to go home. I mean we love home. I gotta just -- we love home.
We went to the Giuliani wedding Saturday. We were -- is this what you're trying to extract out of me? Is this what you're tying to -- Yeah, we went to -- we were among the 400 V -- V -- VIP's that were invited to the Giuliani wedding at Gracie Mansion on Saturday in New York and I have to tell you something. This was just a good old fashion traditional wedding.
It took all of ten minutes, maybe fifteen. Judy Nathan now Judy Giuliani strode down the isle. She was met there by her --bride to be Rudy Giuliani. The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg preformed the ceremony, a couple of jokes that were told at the beginning of the festivities or ceremony and then it just strictly by the book. I mean it was a marriage that took place in the eyes of God.
There weren't -- it wasn't an hour and thirty minutes long. There weren't fifteen thousand auras. There weren't any of these classic touchy, feely poster vows with just, "you promise to love, honor and obey," she said yes. "You promise to love, honor and direct," he said yes. Naw just kidding, (laughing)obey wasn't in there but I mean the rest of it - it was just as traditional as it could be. It was great. It was you know it was great just to see a good old standard marriage and wedding ceremony take place that wasn't full of frou-frou and it was just you know get in there get it and get out.
We moved on to the reception, hors d'oeuvres and adult beverages took place afterwards and they you know the rain held off. It was supposed to be raining all day and all night and it was most of the day but it held off. Everybody was obviously very happy and it was -- we were thrilled to be a part of it. Got back later that night and it was up and it was cold, it was 51 degrees in New York on Saturday.
May 24th , yesterday, you know Roger Clemens went for number 300-yesterday afternoon at Yankee Stadium, 51 degrees again. You know you can't help but think global warming I mean all these people worried about global warming business, you go to New York and I'm tell you it's -- it may as well be fall there now as far as the -- no "the rocket" didn't make it, it was unfortunate too he had 75 friends there. His mother who doesn't travel well, she's got emphysema and last time she'd been to New York, the stadium I think was in 1999 but a bunch of family there and Yankees offence didn't show up yesterday and all.
They're in the midst of I think a five or six game loosing streak, so I think Clemens goes for three hundred again this weekend against the Tigers in Detroit and you know how few pitchers in major league baseball history have won three hundred games? Like 14, 14 or 20 something like that I forget the number but it's -- it is a real precious -- precious few and he will be the next in to that club.
I had an interesting email here. This is an interesting point that's bouncing off some of what we've discussed today regarding terrorism and our war against it.
email: Dear Rush, one comment , I agree that no subsequent attack on the US has proven that we have been doing a good job against terrorism.
Rush: No uhh, I mean I agree with that.
Email: but let's not get to the point that only if there is no attack are we being successful. The likelihood that something's going to happen some day, I mean perhaps when our guards let down, maybe when the democrats get control back someday. I mean it's extremely likely it's going to happen. Does that mean that we've failed?
Rush: No, I don't think so. Not if our track record has shown for years we have prevented any major attack. It's been two years already or it will be in September. It's been widely successful but a 99% success...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...foiling terror plots and keeping the country safe for years is a huge success even if one day the eventual attack does come. Now let's hope and pray that it won't but if it does, let's hope it's not a catastrophe like 9/11 but I think we play into the democrats hands if we assume that only if there is never an attack that we've been successful. And this a good point.
Let's say that sometime in the next six months there is another attack. We know the democrats are ready to pounce and call every thing we're doing a failure and that won't necessarily be the case as this point we don't need to fall into the trap of suggest- which the democrats clearly laid. I mean no question about this. The "next attack" the democrats are going to pounce, "It is an utter failure. Bush has failed miserably!" Even though everybody knows it's impossible to stop one or everyone. It's simply not possible to defend all of these targets that we have and one of the things that the democrats are saying, can I point out really the stupidity of the democrats here in a political sense.
If you listen to Biden or Daschle or any of the nine presidential candidates, any democrat, criticizing the President for being distracted on the war on terror by going into Iraq now maybe focusing on Iran and leaving Al Qaeda alone, they are suggesting the President is actually abandoning the defense of the country. The -- they been distracted -- in saying that he's focusing on Iraq at the expense of the war on terror they are in essence saying the Presidents let down his guard on domestic terrorism.
Now you have to know something politically here. You have to know that Bush knows this. You have to know that Bush knows there's an election in 2004 and you have to know that Bush knows that he wants to win it and you have to know that Bush knows the democrats are set themselves up to benefit from this. Do you think the President therefore is actually letting down his guard? Do you think this Administration is actually doing nothing when it comes to the domestic war on terrorism? That's what the democrats would have you believe. How silly is this? I mean in a strict political sense.
Now it may not be silly in the sense they're trying to convince people of this but the fact they might actually believe it is asinine and forget the politics of it. To suggest that any President after September 11th or even the series of attacks in this country starting in 93 with the first World Trade Center attack. To suggest that any President would just shrug his shoulders and forget it and focus elsewhere is to suggest utter irresponsibility isn't happen.
Well, are you talk -- well it's -- 1993 to 2000 it - yeah, okay, alright, it has happened with Clinton and we know it because members of that Administration have let it be known that he didn't care about terrorism and one of the reasons why that Clinton didn't care about it he didn't want to deal with the big stuff. He wanted to deal with school uniforms and gays in the military and all this sort of -- he didn't want to deal with the big things because the possibility they go wrong and he rolled the dice and, "So okay if I don't deal with it and it happens it's going to be less negative on me then if I make a big deal of it and it happens then I'm a big failure." Now that's a distinction without a difference but that's Clinton. I'm sure it the way he looked at it.
So all I care, yeah, but to suggest to all that's happened that as the democrats are that Bush is some how ignoring the defense of the American people that is pure sophistry. That is why the American people love this President. That's why the American people do not seek a change in leadership right now because they have utter faith and confidence that Bush is doing everything he can to protect the people of this country.
There was a story -- there's a story I think in the current issue of Time Magazine and it's all about how the democrats have lost the soccer moms and there's a picture of some babe out there, 34 years old with a little baby in the picture and I forget what her name is but she's interviewed in the story. She voted for Clinton she was a soccer mom now she's a security mom and she is totally 100% behind Bush. Now the difference between the soccer moms and the security moms, there's a big difference, the soccer moms actually had this idea that Bill Clinton cared more about them and their kids than their own husbands did.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: The security moms do not -- their own husbands are not a factor here because they know their own husbands have nothing to do with protecting the country less they're in the military. So they got utter faith in Bush and so the -- that was a huge voting block for the democrats and it's now shifted -- this whole segment soccer mom to security mom is now in the Bush camp. Now precisely because people of this country have utter faith that Bush is doing everything possible to protect the borders, the country and the people who live here.
And the democrats -- every time they make this charge that Bush is doing nothing -- they -- I don't think they realize how it's being received by people who have utter faith in what the Presidents doing. But they're not making themselves look good or attractive or anything of the sort except maybe to their own small little putrid base out there. I got -- I would hate to have to secure that base. Just think of what you'd have to compromise and do and be to attract the democrat liberal base. Uuh, my gosh, my God I don't know that I could do it and then look myself in the mirror.
We'll take a break. We'll be back because when you look at -- you'd have to bend over and grab the ankles and look through your legs backwards. Stay with us, we'll be right back.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: General Steel]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
[ad: NationalTrust.org]
[ad: American Lung Association]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Got the program observer here, Mr. Snerdly and a question. Mr. Snerdly or any of you out there, do you remember how I referred to Marta before we got married? Do you refer -- member how I referred to her -- Ahh- before we were married, while we were dating. No, not the lovely and gracious. I had a code name, code-name what. Code-name what? While you think about it we'll move on to the other areas of the news. Code name Jaguar is it! A sharp got it. Code name Jaguar, whenever I spoke of Jaguar I was speaking of the lovely and gracious Marta. Now, as I mentioned earlier,
Rush reading Israeli Radio: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told his stunned country yesterday that, "he was determined to reach a peace deal and to end thirty-six years of occupation." A word he used publicly for the first time of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The word is anathema to the Israeli right, which believes Israel has a legitimate claim to the West Bank and Gaza for both religious and security reasons. Sharon said to angry hard liners in his Likud Party, "To keep three and a half million people under occupation is bad for us and bad for them." These were remarks broadcast on Israeli Radio.
Palestinians claim all of the West Bank and Gaza for their State. On Sunday Mr. Sharon's Cabinet approved conditionally the US backed "Roadmap". The three-phrase plan begins with a halt to violence and in visages a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza in 2005. Mr. Sharon's remarks indicated, "his surprising turn around could be genuine," analysts said. The ex-general was nick-named codename "Bulldozer" for ramming West Banks settlement programs through successive Cabinets and he once argued that giving up even 13% of the West Bank and Gaza would endanger Israel's security.
In his remarks yesterday Sharon left himself a way out, he said, "What'll happen if Palestinian terror continues? Nothing. Nothing will happen. The Palestinians will get nothing," he told the lawmakers. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom also told Arab neighbors yesterday that it never would accept the return of Palestinian refugees or their descendants to it's territory under any peace settlement. "There will be no way refugees will be settled in the State of Israel," Mr. Shalom told reporters at a European Union Meeting of Mediterranean States and in Greece.
Now Laura in Levittown New York, you are next on the EIB Network. Hello.
Laura: Hi, you know I'm really upset about what's going on in Israel. I'm angry with Sharon, I feel that nobody is looking at the big picture. When you hear things like "dismantling settlements" what they're really saying is "No Jews allowed to live on Arab Land." You know there are over a million Arabs living in Israel. There's you know thousands of Palestinians that work in Israel but no Jews should be allowed. It should be Jew free and you know the new se -- and that's what it comes down to. They do not want to live with the Jews. They do not want an Israeli/Jewish State and that's really what -- I mean no matter how many land concessions (Rush interrupts)
Rush: Uhh, Laura may I be blunt? They don't want Jews to live.
Laura: and they do not want to live with the Jews. They don't. I mean there are a million Arabs, Israeli Arabs, and you know the irony is, those Arabs are the Arabs that stayed and after the war, the Arab Israeli war, Israel gave them citizenship. The so-called Palestinians are the Arabs that left that lived under Jordan and Egypt. Jordan...
Rush: Okay, okay so -- so why do you think Sharon has done this?
Laura: I don't know. I think pressure from the US. I think it's absurd to say, that you know, the Palestinians -- they want Israel to let the Palestinians work back in Israel, you know but it's absurd to say that no
Rush: Well what I'm wondering is...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Where are the neo-cons on this. I thought the neo-cons were running American foreign policy?
Laura: You know, did you ever read, "I Read an Article," by Joseph Farah, it's called, "The Worlds Collective Amnesia." It's about the Arab/Israeli war and the fact that these refugees, these Arab refugees, are the direct result of the Arab countries refusing a Jewish State. They told them to leave and then put them in refugee camps. I mean Israel absorbed -- I mean over -- there were more Jewish refugees from Arab lands they were nine hundred thousand Jews exiled after the Israeli war from and their ancestor went back twenty-six hundred years to the Babylonian Exile. You're talking Persian Jews, Iraqi Jews Israel absorbed them, they integrated them, the put them (hebrew?), they built them housing, they didn't put them in refugee camps. Why is it Israel's responsibility I don't understand. The whole thing...
Rush: Oh I think you now-now, Laura, I don't (Rush talking over Laura) I think -- no, look as educated -- wait a second now, as educated as you are on this you understand -- I mean, you know full well the Palestinians are not wanted by any other Arab country. The Palestinians are a football. The Palestinians or as Adel Al Jubair says, "The Pelistenians," the Pelestinians are a means to an end for the anti-Israeli Arab Nations of the region.
The Palestinians are not wanted in Jordan. Palestinians are not wanted in Syria, they're not wanted in Lebanon, they're not wanted in Saudi Arabia. They're not wanted in Iraq. Iran's not Arab but they're not wanted there either. They are simply -- they're homeless as, by design, so as to be able to be used by other Arab countries to get rid of Israel. "That's where the Palestinians belong. It's their place. It's their State and only until the Palestinians have it will there be peace, and blah, blah, blah."
Yeah, but you know -- I'm sure that you understand all this. I'm just curious as to people's opinions on what it is that's responsible here for what appears to be an overnight change of mind by Prime Minister Sharon.
Got to take a break. We'll be back, much more on the other side. Stay with us.
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Local News]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Local News]
[Promo: Loopholes]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Local News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair. Here is Don in New Orleans. Hello sir, nice to have you with us.
Don: French Quarter conservative dittos from New Orleans sir.
Rush: Thank you sir, great to have you on the program.
Don: Yes sir. I follow, you lead sir. Hello?
Rush: Yeah you called you have something to say?
Don: Yes sir, on the strategy or not strategy but I think the reason that Mr. Sharon is -- has come out with this position is, I think a process is already under way in the area, what I call the Levant's -- the middle -- the Israel /Pales -- so called Israel/Palestine area. I like to refer to it just as Israel but I think that a process is already under way that's going to lead to some sort of civil war between the current Prime Minister of the Palestinians and the old radicals and I think by Mr. Sharon joining in with the present Prime Minister I think he's just accelerating this process. I think this is going to result in some sort of a conflict between the new guard shall we say and the old guard and I think...
Rush: Of Israel? The new guard and old guard of Israel, you're talking about?
Don: No, the Palestinians. I think...
Rush: Okay so you think -- what confuses is you said civil war, a war - you mean a war between the Israeli's and Palestinians is now eminent.
Don: No I mean between the new guard of the Palestinians and the old guard. I've listened to your show sir for a long time and you talked about the need for some kind of resolution by conflict and I think the resolution is finally going to be between the new guard of the Palestinians and the old guard of the Palestinians. I think there's a faction amongst the Palestinians that have said enough is enough, it is time we join with our long lost cousins, the Jews, and stop all this and put an end to all this radical nonsense and these radicals will never give up. They'll never give up to there -- they're quashed and they're dispatched...
Rush: There's only one problem, look it, I must tell you that I'm somewhat dazzled by your thinking here but if there's going to be a civil war between two factions of the Palestinians and lets say we got the reformers here that's made up of this new Cabinet and this new, call him Prime Minister, Premier whatever you want, his enemies are the terrorists. Do you think the good guys that you're describing here, Palestinians have a chance against the whack'os in the Palestinian camp?
Don: Can -- are you asking me, can the new Prime Minister and his faction prevail against the radicals?
Rush: Yeah.
Don: Oh absolutely. The can prevail in time. It'll be a difficult struggle but they can prevail and I think...
Rush: Actually so what's going to provoke this civil war is Bush and Sharon saying, "Okay, we're going to go for it, Palestinian State," which is going to anger the radicals because they want no part of co-existence with Israel.
Don: They want Israel dead, radicals want...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Don: ...saddest part of this radical faction. There's two reasons -- there's one of two reasons Arafat didn't accept the Camp David accords or whatever, the Wye Plantation or whatever you want to call it. One he's either afraid of his own death, if he signed it he'd be a walking dead man or two, he wanted no part of Israel, he is --his mythology was the destruction of Israel and so he's part of the radicals. So you know this is going to end up a civil war between the Palestinians that are tired of this and want to see a better life for the children, not their children blowing themselves up in pizza parlors and the radicals that want to see the destruction of Israel and it's -- the only way it could be resolved is by conflict and it's not going to be conflict between Israel and Palestine. It's going to be conflict between Palestinian verses Palestinian.
Rush: All right Don thanks for the call, appreciate it, appreciate your clarifications of what you meant there. So that's something we have to consider. I haven't looked at it that way. That Sharon is attempting to foment a civil war among the Palestinians but they -- that's a heavy bet that the reformist Palestinians could prevail against this mad bunch of radicals as he calls them what they are who know no bounds when it comes to inflicting hostilities. It's an interesting though, I ha -- as I say, I haven't considered it. What had occurred to me here was that Sharon has to see that Bush is a man who largely gets what he wants. Bush gets what he wants.
Bush has been talking about a Palestinians State for the longest time. Sharon is in no position to reject out of hand anything Bush proposes and problem is that right after September 11th in fact the October after September 11th Bush said he supported a Palestinians State. He was the first republican President ever to say so and right after the victory over Iraq, the pressure was put on Israel to relent once again. Palestinians State and I just, look, Sharon sees no way out of this. I mean Israel's an ally but I just- you know , he can't, I guess his version or his view, Sharon's is that there's nothing to be gained here by opposing Bush. In a contest of who's going to get what they want Sharon concludes that it will be Bush.
But this is an interesting thought never the less that this could inspire or trigger a civil war against these competing Palestinian factions. Now there's a big leap of faith here for this to be anywhere near possible you have to assume that there is a peace loving Palestinian faction. You have to assume that there's a new group of Palestinians who are fed up with the current situation. That to me seems a big leap. I mean we would assume that any normal person would want to get out of the life cycle that exists there but I think it's a big leap to say that there is a huge contingent of Palestinians that are sick and tired of it and would be willing to engage in civil war against other Palestinians to bring that about. Well let's see, time will tell as always does.
This is Gidon in Queens, Queens New York. Welcome to the program.
Gidon: Hi Rush. I can't take this any more. Sharon is a person who has absolutely no vision. He's an opportunist. He took an opportunity in Lebanon in 82 and messed up the entire situation. I was there in 82, I'm an Israeli living in America for twenty years. He is the kind of person that at this point, of coarse it's to kind of too late cause he has no choice. He has to go along with Bush because as you said, Bush basically will get what he wants. To me it's seems like it's one of those, "Okay let's try one more time. Let's go all the way. Let's give the Palestinians everything they want once again and let's all watch them bungle it up and let's see how many more Jews," like you said a few months ago. "Okay tell me now how many more Jews or Israeli's have to die before we get to peace and then we'll talk." You said it yourself then. You're a hundred percent right. It's either them or us. Do you think anybody believes there is any Palestinians leader or otherwise that really believes that, "Okay, you know what we have to stop the killing because it's eventually going to be as a detriment to us." No. They work in increments...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
Gidon: ...they wait till the next opportunity so it'll take a few more generations, fine, Israel will be gone by then. They don't have...
Rush: Well, wait, wait, the only thing that troubles me here is you're saying Sharon doesn't have a vision. How can you say that with this policy?
Gidon: The only vision he that has right now is that he has kind of no choice because Bush is sitting on his back like Bush should because it's in America's interest to kind of quiet things down and try and get these terrorists, you know to some kind of a halt. But Sharon, listen, Sharon is one of these warriors, there's a myth about Sharon that he's a (unintelligible), he's a killer, he's a butcher of Jerusalem. Fact of the matter is, that Sharon is gonna try to the last day he breaths to put that (unintelligible) to sleep, so he will not take anything more of one of those really dangerous moves or courageous moves that lets say Begin would take or Netanyahu would take because he want to clear his name. Every other day somebody else in Europe or in one of these World Courts that we talk about so many times, that are worth nothing, are trying to take him to court with some more of these war crimes against the Palestinians. He's afraid and...
Rush: Well, you know, you speak -- you speak very persuasively but facts, some facts speak otherwise. The past twelve months Sharon has taken nothing from the Palestinians. Every terrorist attack has been answered with incredible force. They have (talking over Gidon) even in the Gaza, which they don't even care about, they've moved into. They had Arafat cornered. They blew up his entire building. They blew up the plumbing. I mean they -- Arafat had nothing left of his headquarters and office. It was a last minute decision that kept him from going after Arafat. What -- this has just been the last six months or so, six or nine months.
Gidon: Rush, it's only symbolism. There has not been any thing done decisively. Not one thing. Sharon and Israel could have cleaned this place up just like you know and you say all the time, "Somebody has got to win," one of the sides in order for something to happen.
Rush: I agree.
Gidon: Do you think that if Begin was there today, this would still be? There were more Jews and Israeli's killed around the world under Sharon supposed to be "The Savior of all Israeli's," than under any kind of situation in the history of the Jewish world except for the holocaust. There were more people killed during this rein of Sharon than "Six Day War" for heaven's sake. It's an outrage.
Rush: Well, but you can't lay that just squarely on Sharon. It's been happening - it happened with Netanyahu. (Rush talking over Gidon) It happened with Rabin. I mean these terrorist acts have known no end or boundary.
Gidon: You know what? When this thing quieted down, when Netanyahu was in power and Netanyahu did one thing. He put on some garb and he went to Arafat's door knocked on his door after the second terrorist attack and the last one under the year and a half under Netanyahu and he told him, "Listen here, my friend, it stops today or you're next," and...
Rush: Yeah, the good old days.
Gidon: ...it never happened again till then.
Rush: (chuckling) and I agree -- that's true. There's no -- there's no question about it. There's no question this could be solved overnight if one of these -- if everybody backed out and said, "Okay, you guys have at it and we'll be back in a couple of weeks to greet the winner," we all know what the status would be. That's what's somewhat frustrating about all this but there's some -- look Gidon, there's something you said here that doesn't jive with something that's huge in the news.
There's a story and I mentioned it earlier, the Adam Clymer story in The New York Times it didn't contain this, it's a -- but there's another story of similar strain about the weaknesses that the democrats are encountering. In one of them, one of these stories focus on the new coalition that Bush is forming among Jewish voters in America. He's just winning them over left and right and it lays at the -- it says -- the story says that one of the primary reasons Bush is enjoying such success in the Jewish community right now is his defense of Israel.
Then this thing comes along and the rug appears to be pulled out from underneath Sharon and you wonder how the Jewish voters in America, not large number, but they still are in very critical number, how they are going to react to this. The story also contain the elements of the new Hispanic alliance to republicans, which is also happening and coalescing under Bush, some of it to do with Estrada but not all of it but if there is a new Jewish coalition forming, Jewish voters behind Bush, you wonder how that's going to be affected by this. Now, liberal Jews in America of coarse are all for peaceful co-existence...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Palestinian State is somewhat puzzling to me. I've never understood it, I probably never will but they're never going to vote for Bush no matter what but there are a larger number of Jewish voters never the less who are said to be moving to the Bush camp and I wonder now if that's threatened because of what this latest -- what ever it was that -- they had to be directly spoken -- message from Powell, somebody that convinced Sharon that, look, Bush gonna get what he wants, it's a Palestinian State so I'm going to do what I have to do here to facilitate that.
Look, you know I got to go here because we're a little long. We've got a couple segments of eager, busy broadcasts left, stay with us and we'll get right to it.
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh on the EIB Network]
[ad: Black Swan Wine]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wine]
[ad: UniCars Honda]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Well there's clearly something going on here that does not meet the eye, ladies and gentlemen. Now, sometimes these things are so simple that you reject the simplicity of the explanation because this can't be that simple and it may be the case here but it just -- something to me just doesn't meet the eye. I cannot see -- I just cannot see George W. Bush selling out Israel. I just can't see it.
Now this road map for peace, yeah, what have we got here. We've got a road map for peace and supposedly Israeli's have signed on to it, the Palestinians have signed on to it and if the Arab Nations around there sign on to it then everybody's signed on to this quote -- unquote "roadmap for peace." And anybody who then violates it will come under the heading of terror...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...rist and if you become a terrorist you are a target, you're subject to be wiped out. Only problem with that is that I have never seen the distinction between Palestinian terrorism and say Al Qaeda terrorism. If we got a war against terrorism it seems that the Palestinian terror like Hamas or Hezbollah should be fair game in this war on terrorism and yet they're not, at least not from the United States. And we don't even let Israel actually deal with them. The -- look, the United States is Israel's only ally. Israel is a tiny little country and the fact is, Sharon cannot thumb his nose at Bush and he won't. So you got this road map for peace and that's the way things are going to be. Sharon can read the hand writing on the wall, he's not an idiot. He cannot buck the United States on this. So they have nowhere else and no one else to turn to so, the question continues.
I keep asking it always come back to this to me, "Why is US policy so fixated on Israel making all the compromises to make this thing work out?" I just frankly, you know, The Limbaugh Doctrine, and this two callers ago referred to it, Limbaugh Doctrine is, peace only follows victory. Peace is not the result of negotiations between conflicting parties. You don't end conflicts with words, on paper signed or otherwise. It just doesn't happen and to believe otherwise is to suggest that this will be the first time in history that real peace between two warring factions is permanently solved by virtue of words or dictates, I just don't see it and this is in the historical context.
Debra in New York, welcome to the program, great to have you with us.
Debra: Hi Rush, it's an honor. You know a couple of weeks ago there are five suicide bombings done by the Arabs. There not Palestinians. That was a made up word, a name forty years ago by Egyptian, Yasser Arafat that was thrown out of Jordan. They already have a state, Jordan, with Queen Rania who's Palestinian. It's obvious they don't want Jews to live and we will never vote for Bush again or Powell because he's forcing Sharon and Israel, Israel was there first, to take back terrorists and they are terrorists.
We've been there and we lived there when there were bombings. First of all, these Palestinians so called Arab Jordanians live quite well on the West Bank. We've been there. They have acres of land but the liberal media here called them refugees in tight places and that's because of Arafat and all the other Arab brothers oppress them. Not Israel. Not all this anti-Semitism going on.
Rush: Yes I know, I hate to interrupt you Debra because I'm out of time. I've got about ten seconds here but that's -- that is right. The economic conditions faced by Palestinians, is due expressly to Palestinian leadership, Yasser Arafat and the rest of them. Check his Swiss bank account and then check that against the Palestinian economy.
We'll be back in just a second.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Citracal]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wine]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
[ad: Camelot Theaters -- Film Noire Festival]
[ad: PopulationAction.org]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Well , we'll hold out hope here that what's happening here is that a Bush/Sharon coalition is giving the Palestinians one last chance, sort of going to pull the plug on them here once they screw this up, which will happen.
See you tomorrow folks, have a good day.
[ad: Testostezine] Dr Richard Cohen -- unable to verify
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[ad: Paul Harvey for General Steel]
| 
