6.29.2003
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 1.1
[01: Tom] [edit]
[ABC news]
[ad: Insure.com]
[ad: American Express Business Card]
[ABC news: Tulia Thirteen being released soon]
[more news]
[ad: Breck shampoo]
[ad: United Family Health Care Group]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 1.2
[02: Galen] [edit]
[Promo: Laura Ingram Show on 920 KTSI]
[Intro: Rush Limbaugh Show]
[Ad: Hopson's Health Equipment Center]
Well, interesting. Limbaugh echo syndrome and see I told you so is happening all over the place. Anyway, folks, great to be back finally. I've been gone four days, and it was so jam-packed it feels like ten. But we are back here in the prestigious Attila-the-Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Was in Ireland for four days, playing golf. Must have walked 30 days on those wind-swept links courses, and got back, oh, last night about - We got back about two hours earlier than scheduled.
We landed in Fort Lauderdale, I guess it was about six. Yeah, three hours earlier, landed about six, supposed to get in at nine, which allowed me a little time to cram last night, and figure out what all had gone on. I have to tell you, this was one of those trips - if there was newspapers - I didn't see one. Television was hopeless. In most - we stayed in two different hotels, there were four channels. And most of it was American game show reruns. That was the oddest selection of channels on hotels I have ever seen, and besides, we never there, always out playing golf, golf trip in Ireland for four days.
So last night, I just came in and just crammed, and that's where we are today, so let's do this. Let me - I've put together a little stack here. Just to touch on some of these things that I came across while cramming, and then we'll go into greater detail on some of these things as the program unfolds today. Here's the telephone number if you'd like to be on the program: it's 800-282-2882. The email address is rush@eibnet.com.
I guess one of the "See I told you so"s is this business about Hillary's book. Not only were there not a million of them printed, there weren't 200,000 of them sold on the first day. And furthermore, we have learned that "Schtieman und Schtussher", the publisher themselves leaked the data to the Associated Press about the information Hillary had to say about Bill and Monica and all that sort of stuff. It comes from the good people at the Prowler website, which is part of the American Spectator group, and it actually this is from Thursday morning, first day that I was gone.
There's a - They dredged up a worker bee inside the publishing house, Simon and Schuster, who said, quote, "No way would we publish a million copies of anything, it's only necessary that we say we did." He he he heh. "Besides, where would we put one million copies of anything?" He he he heh. You mean to tell me this is news to you, Mr. Snerdley? You hadn't heard this? You mean? So, well, OK, so maybe we're on the cutting edge here. And then, this person was asked about the astounding 200,000 copies sold.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 1.3
[03: Galen] [edit]
This little worker-bee at Simon and Schuster said there's no, quote; "There's no possible way for us to know that!"
And then Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter did a column on this, a great column about this book. And apparently, the guy, there was a guy, the first guy that showed up at midnight to buy Hillary's book, at someplace in Manhattan. The guy named Patrick turns out to be one of Hillary's campaign aides. I mean this whole thing is a typical Clinton. The whole thing, and look who's corrupting, Simon and Schuster being corrupted by these people. The whole thing was staged. It wasn't a real, live book fan out there. It was somebody that was part of the campaign.
And it says here, this is from the Spectator. Let me read it to you from their web site, little article; "Simon and Schuster is thrilled with the initial sales of Hillary Clinton's book. Internal memos indicate that the feeling of good cheer will be short-lived. Part of a plan to generate buzz on the book was the leaking of some of the most sensational tidbits that had been pulled together by three ghost-writers of the former First Lady. Said a Simon and Schuster editor; 'Ah, it was really just to jump-start the sales. It's a tried and true technique.' But the editor says there are real concerns that this book won't have any staying power. All the people that really love her, and want the book have already gotten it. We know we're not going to be seeing hundred thousands of sales two weeks from now."
But the, but 200,000 the first day, come on now. It's radio stations all over the country were sending their reporters out to various bookstores, "How many Hillary books have you sold?" "Three." "Six." "Ten." I mean there's no way it adds up to 200,000 the first day. You know, they don't get away with it. It's amazing. And back, you know, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, when there wasn't this quote-unquote new media. You could run scams like this because nobody was out double-checking what these people, involved and associated with liberals had to say about things. But anyway, there you have it.
Now, the latest on the child tax credit for people that don't pay taxes. House and Senate Republicans must satisfy tax cutters while keeping an eye on the deficit when they meet to compromise on legislation expanding the child tax credit to more low-income parents. Jim McCreary, Republican from Louisiana, said we'll get it to the White House as quickly as we can. Now, White House wants it now.
And here's - tell me if this is changed. This is the last I knew about this. And my friends, I'm sorry. I mean, I really am sorry. It's not often I come to you, I wouldn't say it's unprepared. I may not be as up to speed as you are, 'cuz I mean, literally, if I had tried, there wouldn't have been time for - I didn't take my computer. I didn't want to mess with trying to get an international online connection from the back woods. I didn't want to mess with it. I wasn't in the hotel long enough to make it count, even if it was enough to get some sleep. I mean it was really literally, go go go go, so I may be a little bit behind you, but it won't last long.
The last I knew, the House of Representatives was sort of standing up to the President. Delay was, "Okay, look look, we're just not going to give tax cuts to people who don't pay them. We've got a tax cut bill. If you want a welfare bill, send us a welfare bill. If it's a welfare bill, we're not going to combine it with tax cuts." And the President says, "You get that damn bill to me and you get it to me by the Fourth of July. I don't care what it takes." The House said, "Okay, fine. We're gonna put some more tax cuts in it." And they added tax cuts for military people, and they added tax cuts for couple other things. And Bush, I guess, is at this point, "Okay, what the hell, I'm gonna sign it anyway." But the problem now is the Senate, isn't that right? The Senate doesn't like the new add-ons. And so it may not happen at all if they can't come to a compromise in conference. Is that about it? I love this!
I - What do you mean? Bush - This is crazy. This is absolutely crazy. "Rush, but Rush, 75% of the American people want thi - 75% of the American people are wrong! Do you give your kid what he wants, just because he wants it? Let's say you've got six kids in your family, and four of 'em want something. "Ok, that's what we're gonna do." Is that the way you do it? If they're wrong, they're wrong. There's a way of doing this, but my gosh, you've got people figuring out here that they can write themselves money from the Federal Treasury, and they already get - I mean it's not as if these people aren't getting anything. At any rate, both the House and the Senate bills, give low-income families access to bigger child credits by letting them claim a refund, worth about 15 percent of their income over 10,000
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 2.1
[04: Galen] [edit]
[?] The change gives bigger benefits to 6-1/2 million low-income families who make between 10-5 and less than 27 thousand. Now the House opted to make broader changes to the child credit program, and voted 224 to 201 last Thursday to extend the 1,000 dollar benefit through the end of the decade. They also make at least part of the credit available to married couples who make 150,000 dollars or more, who didn't get it in the original bill. Can you believe this? People who pay taxes were not gonna get, if they made 150 grand or more, which is you, Dawn, I happen to know, were not gonna get the child tax credit increase. But people who don't pay taxes at all were. Or are. So the House said, "Well this is crazy. So we're gonna make sure that people who make 150,000 or more also get the child tax credit."
And of course, the Senate's going; "You can't do that!"
And the House said; "Why the hell not?"
"Well, you just can't. The deficit."
"Well, what about the impact of the deficit on anything else that we do? You can't keep throwing that up in our faces. We're gonna do what's right here."
The House also gives military personnel tax breaks on their home sales and travel expenses, as well as providing tax relief for the families of astronauts who were killed in the Columbia space shuttle. Moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate said they cannot accept this bill because it deepens already record deficits.
Okay, just to see if I understand this. We can give tax credits or tax cuts to people who don't pay them. We cannot give tax cuts to people who do pay taxes, because they make 150 grand or more. We can't give the military tax breaks on home sales and travel expenses despite the fact they're the ones who save our ass every day from people who would kill us. And we're not going to - We can't take care of providing tax relief for the astronaut families who were killed in the Columbia space shuttle. It's gonna cause deficit to go up, but we can give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes. And that's where we are.
Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles "Chuck" Grassley said; "If we don't change the House bill, I don't know if there are enough Senate votes to pass." Well, the House doesn't look inclined to change the bill. I mean, it looks like they planted a tree here, and they're gonna let it grow and they's stand behind it. So, it's interesting. I like the fact that they're taking a stand here.
House leaders reject the Senate bill as a purely political answer to questions about the availability of child credits for whole families. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, said; "I'm not interested in the business of politics. I 'm interested in creating sound policy." The Democrats said they'll not back off their insistence that Republicans prevent the bill from getting lost in endless negotiations. "If it doesn't come out before July, they're gonna get a lot of heat," said Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from
Maryland. Democrats and others also pressed for the change after President Bush signed the tax cut in May that will send rebates to middle income families this summer worth up to 400 dollars. Those checks, the President assures us, will be in the mail and to you, by sometime in July. Let me take a quick time out, here, 'cuz we must, according to the programming format. Be back and continue here in just a moment.
[Rush promo]
[Ad: Select Comfort Beds]
[Ad: AJ Golf Videos - AJ Bonner]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 2.2
[05: Galen] [edit]
[Promo: Consumer Reports - Sunscreens and Colloidal Silver]
[Promo: Joey English]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh Show]
[Ad: South Coast Plaza]
. . .and it's late. Peter Jennings is hosting election coverage on ABC, Sam Donaldson is there, along with Jeff Greenfield. They are reliving the day and looking forward to the future. The thing about Brinkley was that he was always honest, but in this particular occasion [greement?] honest. You remember this, Mr. - Well, yeah, but unfortunately, this bite does not con - I don't think this bite has the segment where he calls Clinton a bore, but this is still pretty good. Here's the setup. Peter Jennings says; "Why don't we let Jeff Greenfield have a go at it first. And Brinkley says; "No, let me have a go at it." And there's a bunch of laughter. And Greenfield starts anyway, says, "What impressed me" and Jennings interrupts him, and says; "Let go again, David. Go ahead, what does he want to say?"
Audio clip: "I wish to say we look forward with great pleasure to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches, full of wit, poetry, music, love, and affection. Plus more god -- nuts!" [Laughter in background of clip] "The other is that"
Rush interrupts: Ted say it .
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 2.3
[06: Galen] [edit]
you're on the air. He didn't know he was on the air. What he said was that more God-bleep nonsense than has ever been said and then he went on to describe Clinton as an insufferable bore. And all the world was in a tizzy after this: "How could this have happened?" He obviously was so late at night, he didn't know he was on the air. He did later apologized to Clinton and in one of his final interviews, he invited Clinton to appear on his show. Clinton did, and he apologized.
As I said, I was invited to appear actually twice with Brinkley. The first time I don't even remember the year, but it has to be early 90s, and at the end of the year, on "This Week", the three, or four people, Brinkley, Donaldson, I guess it was George Will at the time, yeah, then they got their guest panelists. But those three, each took 20 minutes interviewing someone from that year, and Brinkley chose me. I was astounded and he said there's no one like you. There's never been anyone like you. And he talked to me about it. Was - Yeah, it was gratifying.
There are things in your life, in your career that you mark as milestones, and that was one of them for me. And I have this little clip, Cookie found it. Actually, this is a clip from my appearance on the roundtable on April 16th of 1995, it was Easter Sunday. And actually this clip is taken from our TV show. We had replayed it on the TV show, and actually that's where we took it from. Original appearance's the April 16th 1995 issue of "This Week with David Brinkley". And the subject was the Democratic Party. And there had been a guy named Nathan Deal, a Democrat from Georgia who had switched parties and became a Republican. And that was part of the discussion. And this is what I - This is 1995 and I want you to listen to this and compare it to what we talk about today. This is eight years ago. Eight years ago. Listen to how fresh this was.
[Clip:] "The national Democratic Party stands for. His constituents don't, and that's the inherent problem in the Democratic Party. They are paying attention to constituencies which are growing smaller and smaller, they're more and more on the margins, more and more fringe interests, and they're losing the mainstream. The Democrats, they do not have an agenda, they don't have a set of ideas that they are for, that they can say affima - other than the minimum wage, and to raise taxes on the rich and to try to frighten and scare people. All they have is an accusation. Every day they accuse Republicans of this falsehood or that falsehood. It's gotten to the point that mainstream conservative Democrats have nothing they can tie themselves to. Black or white."
That's eight years ago. Me on "This Week with David Brinkley", talking about the current status of the Democratic Party. And it was that then and it's even more so today. That's - I mean, it's great illustration going back eight years. They were on that track now and they've stayed on that track and it's even worse for them today than it was back in April of '95.
Stay with us, be right back.
[Ad: General Steel Corporation]
[News: KTSI News]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 3.1
[07: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[ad: 1-877-Love To Learn]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: We uhh, we found here during the commercial break the "Clinton is a Bore," comment from David Brinkley. This is election night November 5th 1996 and here it is;
David Brinkley: Among things I admire all of them most near the top is creativeness and everyone in this group has it. It shows in your work. It shows in your thinking and it shows in your speech. What you do, what you write, what you say and its one reason this group is so terrific. Uhh, Bill Clinton has none of it, he has not a creative bone in his body, therefore he is a bore and will always be a bore.
Rush: There you have it. That was David Brinkley. He was never more popular than after that. I don't care what the liberals say about his star studded career and I'm not putting down his star-studded career because it genuinely was. I'm just -- but that was a Seminole moment. You never got that kind of honesty on Television and from Television analysts particularly-- on the big networks and he came out with it. He eventually did apologize as I say to Clinton on the air. He invited Clinton to appear with him on I guess one of his final shows and Clinton did and he apologized, think Clinton accepted the apology and they went on but it was said and it resonated far and wide.
One of the -- one of the other things, my friends, that's continuing to grow as it is being bandied about is this prescription drug benefit that will be added to Medicare. Interesting story here from the Associated Press. Reporters name is Tom Raum, R-a-u-m, he writes that;
Tom Raum: President Bush has a tradition going back to when he was Texas Governor of taking a firm stand and holding fast and then making crucial concessions to opponents and then claiming victory. He's doing it now with on prescription drug coverage for older people.
Rush: The title of this story is, "Bush the Compromiser," and I mentioned -- do you remember the "Big Theory,"...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 3.2
[08: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...the "Big Theory," as espoused by me on recent weeks, in recent weeks on this program. This is in essence, what this is and what the -- to synthesize for you if you missed it, what the "Big Theory," is. The "Big Theory" is that the President is simply taking democrat issues away from them and then passing them and claiming credit. Not all of them, twenty, thirty percent, forty percent of what they want and then claiming credit for it and the policy behind this is to expand the republican base to include people who want big government.
That's why there's no talk of limited government. That's why there's no talk of government getting smaller because there's an effort to realign the parties here and one of the -- one of the strategies is being employed here is to go out and get a portion of the population, not all of it. It doesn't take all of it, just go get a portion of population that wants government to be involved in there lives and you -- if you succeed in that then you've put a real dent in the democratic party.
It would be the equivalent if, not that this is going to happen, but if the republicans get say five to seven percent, just five to seven percent of the black vote that would end the democratic parties majority. I mean that would deal them a blow that they'd have a tough time recovering from.
Well this is partially what's going on here with the Medicare program, the whole restructuring of Medicare, adding a prescription drug benefit to it, that the tax cuts here for people who don't pay taxes, things that you wouldn't normally associate with a "conservative president." They're being done for political reasons and that is to expand the Republican Party's base and to in effect denude the Democratic Party.
There's a long term goal here and what ultimately is in store I have no idea cause if the objective is to acquire a much larger party and more power as represented by more House seats, more Senate seats then do you find it's, "Okay, now we're bulletproof, we're veto proof, we're cloture proof, we're filibuster proof," then do you really go for what you believe or is this it? I don't know. I have no answer to that and won't for a while until we see it if they're able to bring this off.
Tom Raum: Bush's willingness to compromise contrasts starkly with his well-cultivated image of stubbornness and unyielding determination. The President previously engaged in major turnabouts on his educational legislation as we've chronicled here, on certain tax cuts, on the creation of Homeland Security Department and on a Commission to investigate the September 11th attacks. Now the President's original prescription drug proposal would have forced elderly people into HMO's and other private care plans to get the full benefit. That's what he campaigned on in 2000 but Bush last week, lined up with Senator Kennedy behind new legislation that would give the same Medicare prescription drug benefits to those in private plans and under Medicare there by no distinction.
Rush: See, the original Bush plan was to steer Medicare patients to the private sector for good reason. Bring down costs, number one and number two to de-emphasize government. That's the original proposal and he stuck with it and stuck with it and stuck with it. Now, it's crunch time and in order to get it he's going to have to compromise with the democrats and get rid of that element that would send prescription drug patients, Medicare patients to the private sector. They're going to stay enrolled in the full government run Medicare get the same benefit they would have gotten ergo the government remains big, the prescription drug benefit to Medicare grows Medicare to the point, my friends, it will be the single biggest increase in social spending in forty years. The Presidents prescription drug plan will be the single biggest increase in social spending in forty years and he's a republican.
Tom Raum: Bush has all but made the proposal his own, even prodding Congress to get it to his desk by July 4th. President said, "Congress must understand that we got a problem with Medicare. They ought not politicize the issue," he said this to a Connecticut audience of senior citizens last week.
Rush: As this writer points out, again this guys name is Tom Raum. He says, " Never mind that the democrats have been pushing this idea for years," and that's the whole point, folks. The democrats have been pushing this idea for years and now it's exactly what I...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 3.3
[09: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...the "Big Theory". The President proposes his own version of the plan, which de-emphasizes the government role, which sends people to the private sector, which brings down the cost and all that and then when the tough times arrive and get going they realize they might not get there, go back to the original proposal the democrats, "(unintelligible) my idea," and in the process claim credit for it. Sort of like Clinton did with the Welfare Reform and as long as he's willing to claim credit for it, then voters will get the idea that he is, this is (unintelligible). This is compassionate conservatism. This is why so many of us reacted the way we did because conservatism doesn't need a modifier but you put compassionate in front of conservatism and here now we know what it means.
Compassionate conservatism means we're going to run the government in a way that will make you think we're democrats and so we're going to steal some democrat votes here. We're going to get some of these democrats interested and the republican party is going to grow here not by changing peoples mind but by stealing current democratic voters who will be able to vote for republicans because they'll get the same thing as they would get with democrats and that's the.
Now, where this ends I can't tell you. I don't know if there is a deep dark say roadmap to peace plan here, meaning I don't know if the ultimate objective here is to get, as I say so many House seats and so many Senate seats that we're bulletproof and then we're going to really get serious about getting government smaller because they know we can't do it now.
Look, even though we've got a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate, they're slim. I do not have the votes to override or to sustain vetos if I have to sustain them. They've got the votes to override vetos if I make them. I can't get pass this filibuster business on the judges, I simply need more republicans here and if this is what it takes to get more republicans, then this is what it takes.
It - but as I say, I don't know if this ultimately leads to a good thing or not. But when I told you about the "Big Theory," and so forth this is exactly what it is and all you need to know is, that a republican sponsored prescription drug plan will be the single biggest increase in social spending in forty years.
Time to take a quick time out and ponder that one, back in just a moment.
[ad: Rush 24/7]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Zmax]
[ad: Westin South Coast Plaza]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 4.1
[10: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: And back having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. Back in the saddle doing that which I was born to do. It's El Rushbo the all knowing, all caring, all sensing, all perceptive, all feeling, all concerned Maha Rushie.
Here's Dave in Lafayette Indiana. Hi Dave, welcome to the program.
Dave: Good morning, Rush. Good afternoon, Rush.
Rush: Yes, good day.
Dave: I wanted to say, sounded like you were a little confused as to whether this was a good thing or not and I just wanted to add that it isn't.
Rush: I'm not confused, I'm sorry. I'm not confused, I'm disappointed. I'm not confused, I'm disappointed.
Dave: No you said before you got off, " I'm not sure if ultimately this is a good thing or not," and I was calling to tell you it is ultimately a bad thing.
Rush: Well, no, no, no. I've -- let me - okay I could understand then you're reaction when I said, "I'm not sure if it's a good thing," what I - lets keep it in context. I'm not sure where this leads. See, the bottom line is that it would certainly suggest now that George W. Bush doesn't believe conservatism can attract a large majority. That disappoints me.
Dave: It is disappointing.
Rush: It -- because Regan proved that it can, Regan won two landslides with Tip O'Neil and a bunch of socialists running the House of Representatives.
Dave: Well, can I -- can I suggest that maybe where it will go is that those people that conservatives are able to win over by compromising and being more demo - or being more like democrats, those votes will be lost eventually anyway when those people realize what they've done. You have to win people over with the ideas not with a promise that they'll give you something, "Look how nice we are," that's awful and you've...
Rush: Well, see here's...
Dave: ...always been against that sort of thing.
Rush: Well, did you say that I personally have always been against it?
Dave: Yes.
Rush: Wait a minute, are you suggesting -- wait a minute, am I confusing you and you gotten the idea today that I am for what Bush is doing?
Dave: I did at first and that's what made me pick up the phone then I realized that you were sort of, you were -- it was a little bit of tongue in cheek and...
Rush: No, there's no tongue in cheek. I'm disappointed in this.
Dave: I was just...
Rush: Because I think -- I think conservatism can attract a large majority. Here's -- look, here's what I'm doing. I was - in all the cramming I've done here, 75% of the American people, it is claimed in a survey, want prescription drug benefits in Medicare. Okay now what do you do in that circumstance if you are...
Dave: You point out to people...
Rush: ...and I'm asking, Dave, let me phrase the question. What do you do and that --you got - you're President Bush or you're republican in the House and the Senate, you got 75% of the American people claim they want a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, they don't care what the hell it costs and your job is to get re-elected, what do you do?
Dave: Well, I would hope that I'd be -- that my job would not be to be re-elected but would be to lead and to explain to them that we're not a democracy, that we are a republic. A representative republic.
Rush: Uhm, hum.
Dave: ...and explain to them why I'm doing what I'm doing. That's it's a principle stand and they're either with me or against me as he says, but...
Rush: All Right.
Dave: ...you shouldn't be in office, in any office, especially president, when your goal is to be re-elected. You goal is to lead and you know that.
Rush: Uhh, no, I - let me tell you. The first job of anybody in elected office is to get re-elected. That's -- I'm not telling you that that's what I think the job is, that's what they will tell you the job is. The first job's to get re-elected.
Dave: But they're wrong.
Rush: Well, they maybe wrong, well -- I - we're dealing with reality here. That's the way they are. That's what it is that they perceive as they're first responsibility is getting re-elected and so you got - in this case 75% of the American people who want a prescription drug benefit added and one of the reasons why is that people are living longer...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 4.2
[11: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...and they need drugs to live healthier lives, it is said, that maybe another arguable thing but we'll get into that later. I mean lets face it, you can't turn on TV today without finding five commercials sometimes in thirty minutes that you need this pill, you need that pill, you need that drug, you need this drug and it's all, "Go tell your doctor you want this, go tell your doc-." Well, we're being forced by drug companies that we can't live without this drug or that drug or whatever. "Yeah, doc why haven't you told me about that. I want that stuff. Whatever it does I need it."
And so there are demands and we are free people you know, and we are a representative republic but still the majority gets what it wants. 75% American people are going to elect people that are going to give them prescription drug and those of us who disagree got to live with it and do what we can to change it. Problem is we think we have elected people who were there to go change this stuff and do as you say, educate people, inform people, use the bully- pulpit of the Presidency to maybe reverse this kind of thinking. So, you know. It's - this is still up in the air, I mean I -- we still don't know where it's going to end up in terms of how -- if it works.
Lets just assume hypothetically that it works. Lets assume this does create a whole new republican majority with a big alignment. There are risks here because if at that point you say, "Okay, now we got this big majority, now we're going to do things the way we really want." Then you run the risk of driving the people away that you have attracted on to your, obviously under false premises. Other than that , you're stuck with behaving the way you did in order to get those peoples voted and support and in essence, we had established the notion that government is here to make people's lives better at their demand or on their request or what have you.
But it is you know this is -- I hate to tell you people, I hate to remind you of this that all during the first year when it came to domestic issues, Teddy Kennedy writing the Education Bill and we're bailing out farmers three and four times with drought relief and the Farm Bills bigger than ever and all this and I'm calling into question all this and you, boy you people were mean to me. You were sending me emails and calling me names and telling me I should shut-up. That at least Clinton wasn't president anymore and I, you know, I though I lost a great familiar relationship that I had with all of you and it's now just more of the same when it comes to the domestic side.
Then -- here's -- let's throw one more little thing into the pot here for you to consider. We didn't get to where we are overnight. We got here through the, you know, the age-old technique of instrumentalism. The democrats just did a little more every year and a little more and it added on to this and added on to that very slowly so the effect was not profound, until one day after fifty years we all woke up and said, "You know what? We're close to a damn Welfare State in this country." So now it's time to dismantle it.
Well, you don't' just dismantle it overnight either, you got to dismantle it incrementally and is this -- I know this sounds convoluted. I'm just throwing stuff out there to inspire your thought, you creative people as David Brinkley said, "Is this a trick that has at it's root, instrumentalism," because if it does lead, if all of this ultimately leads to the ability to govern so as to get the big wins that you want, is it then worth it? Something to ponder.
Take a break, be back, don't go away.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad:Liverite]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 4.3
[12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Liverite.com]
[ad: Roadrunner High Speed Online (cable company)]
[ad: Unicar Honda (local)]
[promo: KPSI]
[music sting]
Rush: Here we go. Here we go. Here's a email.
Dear Rush: the George Bush that you're describing now is not the same Bush you were pitching before the election. I'm sure you don't envision yourself as a Judas, but I do. Screw Bush, and screw you, and screw the Republican Party. Now I can put you in the proper perspective. You're an entertainer, and an entrepreneur, nothing more, nothing less. If you get me once, shame on you. Get me twice, shame on me. Signed Bill Jackson, Atlanta, Georgia.
See how fragile this is, my friends? We shall plug on, and persevere. Ol' Judas here. El Rushbo, back for more, in a moment.
[ad: National Headache Foundation]
[promo: Biography for Radio]
[promo: The Satellite Sisters]
[ABC news]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 5.1
[13: Tom] [edit]
[ABC news]
[ad: Effexor XR]
[ABC news]
[ad: eHarmony.com]
[promo: ABC news]
[ad: Nationaltrust.org]
[promo: Loopholes (KPSI local program)]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 5.2
[14: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hang on, I got to get something out of the printer here, its just, it's all rolling in now. Started something, this is from the Rush Comments line, those who are subscribers Rush 24/7 website at rushlimbaugh.com have a super secret direct to me email address.
Dear Rush, Exactly what will Bush and the Republican Party have to do for you to slam their socialist policies? With the exception of the war on terror, the tax cut and a few other minor advances, everything else Bush has done socialist. When are you going to speak up? Are you afraid, you coward?
Rush: What did I just do in the last thirty minutes?
Anyway, greetings my friends, welcome back. Rush Limbaugh here, the EIB Network (laughing) I was expecting some peaceful first day back, you know, sort of wading in the shallow area of the pool, just getting my feet wet for a while and then maybe cranking it up later but here we are full speed ahead. Once again "I" am the problem. Well I'm happy my friends I get the big bucks to be the problem and to deal with this stuff so I'm happy to tackle it.
Like to welcome all of you here and especially those of you who are watching on the ditto cam. Telephone number again is 800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Here's a little interesting story too. This will just provide a little continuation to what we were discussing in the closing moments of the exciting first hour of today's program. This another AP story special correspondent;
David Espo: When democrats tried to mount an attack against Medicare Prescription Drug Program last Wednesday, prominent liberal Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts stayed away and the Party's leader Tom Daschle conceded that he might wind up voting for the bill.
Rush: Well, no wonder, it's their bill. That's why Kennedy's staying away. It's his bill just like it was his education bill. If you missed the first hour -- let me just recap briefly. Bush's original prescription drug proposal was to take existing Medicare recipients and send them to the private sector where they would get their prescription drug benefits. It was to take government out of the equation gradually and incrementally so as to devout power from the Central Government in Washington and enrich the private sector. And there by reduce costs by enabling people to go shop for the best deals on medical care and including prescription drugs and the President pushed it and pitched it and pitched it and finally he ran into brick wall.
So he went back to the original democrat idea which keeps everything in Washington as part of the existing Medicare proposal to the tune that the new prescription drug program that was originally a democrat idea that the President is now claiming credit on represents the single greatest amount of spending on in forty years. The single greatest or largest amount of spending in 40 years and so now here comes this story. Democrats tried to mount an attack against Medicare, these idiots, they're attacking it just because Bush is proposing it.
Attacking their own plan and Ted Kennedy said, "Well not me, I'm backing off," and Daschle said he'd probably support it because it's their plan. Daschle said, "Well, the measure will probably pass." Now he and fellow democrats grappled with an issue that has long leaned their way but now offers political gain to Bush and republicans in congress. There in lies the rub. This is Teddy Kennedy's plan. I hate to tell you folks, this prescription drug plan that's going to get signed into law is a democrat plan but guess who's going to get credit for it? Bush.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 5.3
[15: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... and that's by design. Bush is going to get credit for a huge government growth plan and the whole purpose here is to take power away from democrats to draw voters from the democrat constituencies.
See, the rovian plan here, it's what the big theory is all about. The plan here is not to expand the party by expanding conservative ideas and getting people to understand them and agree with them.
The plan is expand the number of republican voters by going and getting existing democrats and saying, "Hey, what you want, we've got. Listen to our plan and we're in power now and so you can be guaranteed to get what you want since we're in power. " So and Bush has a history of this going all the way back to Governor of Texas. Propose a plan and stubbornly stick with it and stick with it and if it's opposed then compromise and go with the opponents and then claim credit for the whole thing himself and that's what he's doing here.
Now, where does this lead? That's the whole question, where does this lead and I'll just put a theory out there and you feel free to nuke it and it's just a theory. Don't any, I don't want anybody out there assuming that I'm saying this is etched in stone. I'm just thinking out loud and sharing it with you.
This -- some people -- in some peoples worldview this is small stuff. Prescription drugs, Medicare -- small stuff, this is the stuff that you don't fight. This gets in your way. This gets you more enemies than friends, there's no way to win this stuff. Seventy-five percent of the American people want a prescription drug plan, don't fight it just go along with it and get them. Get them on your side because the big stuff is what you really care about.
What's the big stuff? Well, an example of the big stuff would be Supreme Court nominees, which there may be three sometime relatively soon, certainly within the next five years and lets say that you really, when you, you're Bush, you want your nominees to be Scalia types, Clarence Thomas types, there's no way you're going to get them now. Not with the currant margins. I mean even though the republicans run the Senate and run the House.
Throw the House out when you talk about judicial nominees cause they don't matter. They just don't have the votes, if the democrats are going to continue this filibuster business and if you can't figure out a way to beat them on the filibuster, change the Senate rules or whatever, then you have to just get enough republicans in there to get your votes and be able to have enough votes to sustain a veto of the democrats and basically say, "Screw them."
So you give up the little things like prescription drugs and the biggest spending plan in forty years, that's chump change, you give that up because the stuff that really shapes American life, the judges, the courts, that's what you want. So you go out and get enough people supporting you, that, when it comes time in 2004 you might get seven or eight more Senate seats on your side getting you close to sixty republicans and at the same token close to only forty democrats. Oh, that would be huge. So you do that and you get similar numbers in the House. When you get those kinds of numbers in both chambers you can "really" do things. Doesn't matter what Tom Daschle is whining about everyday, at that point, because he doesn't have the numbers to stop you.
So maybe that's it. Maybe all this is viewed just as, "Ahh, I'm not going to loose sleep over it, and I'm sorry I've got to put my Presidency on the line for something like prescription drugs when seventy-five percent of the people want them anyway. To hell with it, who am I to tell them they're wrong. I'm not going to waste my time. I don't have ten years to convince them they're wrong and I'm not going to run the risk. They're not going to agree with me anyway so to hell with it. Give them what they want. I'll buy that in exchange for my big stuff."
Now I could be as I say, "I'm theorizing out loud," now just -- a little more from this particular AP story which makes all this even more interesting;
Bill McInturff: The Democratic Party...
Rush: This is Bill McInturff, who is a republican pollster. He's talking about this whole prescription drug thing and Bush claiming credit for it as a transformational event. He anticipates that today;
Bill McInturff: ... that when Bush signs this legislation that offer prescription drugs as well as a new managed care option for the programs forty million beneficiaries...
Rush: I was going to say voters but I don't' want to be cynical (laughing) forty million beneficiaries, the democrats, here's McInturff;
Bill McInturff: The democratic Party has spent essentially a generation and a half, which would be basically thirty-five - forty years saying that the republicans were against Medicare. That's how...
Rush: ...and that's true. Republicans are against this. They're all...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 6.1
[16: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...Social Security against this. Now what are they going to say when Bush offers the biggest Medicare expansion in history? He's a republican. You've disarmed them, you've de-Newt'd them. What can they say with any credibility? They can't and I'm - this is the big theory, I'm telling you that's what's going on here. You taking issues away from these people and you're really making them irrelevant while they stand around and go along with it.
They haven't the slightest idea what's happening to them, when you get right down to brass tacks, I don't think they do. I think they are so focused on themselves and the reacquisition of their own power, they are reflexively opposing Bush, it doesn't matter what the issue is. Even on this, which is exactly what they want. They're reflex activity was to oppose Bush. Buried in this story that I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers, buried in this story is this little paragraph;
AP: This year even before the outlines of the legislation were disclosed, Daschle began work on a strategy to criticize republicans on the Medicare issue according to a copy obtained by Associated Press...
Rush: Probably via Simon and Schuster.
AP: The strategy laid down several lines of attack including the claim dismantles Medicare and spends billions to help big drug and insurance companies.
Rush: Now this is what Daschle was preparing to say before he even knew what the bill was because they reflexively oppose Bush at every turn. Doesn't matter what it is. And now they've got a prescription drug benefit that's Medicare, that's exactly what they want and they were about to reflex ably oppose it until Ted Kennedy said (mimicking Kennedy), "Ahh, wait. It's our bill." (Laughing)Anyway, one democratic strategist said if, "Bush is able to sign a bi-partisan bill, it'll take a tremendous issue off the table that the democrats have been using now for three or four election cycles." These words are those of Howard Wolfson, former executive director of the House Democratic Campaign Committee.
See, that's what this is all about. This is just taking this issue off the table. It's denying the democrats another issue. The education -- one by one, Bush is taking these issues away from them by giving them what they want and claiming credit for them, that's the key. He's getting it in the eyes of the public.
We'll take a break, be right back and continue in mere moments.
[ad: Rush Store ]
[ad: Rush for Thera-Gesic]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: Manhattan West ]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 6.2
[17: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Manhattan West]
[ad: www.NFID.org]
[Promo: Dr Dean Edell]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Rush, this is a no winner, no-brainer here. Republicans can't win fighting this. Go ahead, give these people a tax cut. They're poor and they need it anyway.
Rush: So now don't call me and tell me that this prescription drug benefit is too expensive that we ought not be doing it cause I told you last week, once you're going to say, once you're going to call here and suggest the government ought to give people money, in the form of a tax cut especially if they don't pay taxes then you cannot complain when another issue comes up where the government starts giving people money but you don't agree with it because you have all ready compromised on principle. Remember that.
Now I'm being inundated with email from people, (animated voice)"Well I think this is horrible. He can't do this. Why this is growing government." What's the difference in this, other than the amount of money? What's the difference in this prescription drug plan and giving all these people who don't pay taxes, a tax cut? What is the difference, my friends?
There is no difference. Don't give me this sunset business. There is no -- in terms of principle. "There is no difference, is there?" There's no thirty -- thirty or forty billion, my rear. It's far more than thirty or forty billion. Largest spending increase in forty years is going to be more than thirty or forty billion. I mean we spend that teaching Spanish to English kids in California for crying out loud.
Of coarse it's going to hurt the deficit but you can't worry about that. If the Child Tax Credit to people that don't pay taxes wasn't going to hurt the deficit or what -- then -- that's what I'm saying. It -- you can't -- you can't be for this business of paying people tax cuts that don't pay taxes and then come out and be opposed to this prescription drug plan. You got to support both on principle.
Don't tell me the money's different cause that's not the point because each one of these things is going to have different price tags but they're all going to add up to a lot of money. And if you say one's okay, then you've got to be, in order to be consistent, you got to say they're all okay.
Now I have here Tom Freedman, now, column from last -- this one is eleventh. What is that? Thursday? Saturday? No Thursday. Tom Freedman, he writes on Foreign Affairs for The New York Times. He's tackling domestic issues here and he's proven in this column that he's as clueless on domestic issues as he is when it comes to Iraq or the Middle East...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 6.3
[18: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...he had just discussed on this program in the last thirty minutes, the Bush Administrations going to agree to this Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, largest single federal spending program in forty years. Listen to this paragraph from the brilliant Thomas W. Freedman, I'm sorry Thomas L., Thomas L. Freedman.
Thomas L. Freedman: Everyone wants taxes to be cut, writes Thomas, but no one wants services to be cut, which is why democrats have to reframe the debate and show President Bush for what he really is. A man who has not putting money into your pocket, he is a man who is removing government services and safety nets from your life.
Rush: Tom, they're only getting bigger than they've ever been. Where are you? Are you still talking to Crown Prince Abdullah here? Getting your policies for what -- how in the world can he honestly say that Bush's tax cuts are resulting in the removal of government services and safety nets from our lives? They are only getting bigger. We're not taking any safety nets away, in fact, my friends we're building more hammocks.
Ah, here's Rick in Saint Louis. Welcome sir, nice to have you on the EIB Network.
Rick: Hello Rush, hang on one second, let me just get me off the speakerphone here.
Rush: Yeah.
Rick: Hi.
Rush: Hi,
Rick: What I wanted to say was that I don't have a problem with anything that Bush is doing that you've been talking about. I hardily approve of this policy.
Rush: Okay, tell me why?
Rick: Simply because I agree with your earlier premise that they might be doing this to get a bullet proof majority and I think we need it because we have eight years of Clinton and we need to start fixing in this country.
Rush: Well, if that -- see, I -- look, that why I said that there may be some thing else at work here and these people in the Bush Administration may, in fact, be looking at something like this. Small stuff, prescription drug, Medicare, they're probably saying, "Look, this stuff going to -- we're going to spend more on anyway." They're sitting there in Washington and they say to themselves, "What is the reality if we are going to make this program smaller? What is the reality that Medicare is going to get smaller? Reality is zero. What is the real --(laughing) isn't it? What is the reality that Social Security is going to get smaller? Zero."
In fact, we continue to win big politically because the democrats keep making just that charge and yet both programs only grow, so they're never borne out, they're death Nell predictions. What are the odds that we're going to pay people who don't pay taxes? What are the odds that we are not going to come through with an extension of Child Tax Credits to people who make twelve thousand dollars a year? Zero.
"This is small stuff. Why fight it." I know that's what they're saying. "This is chump change. We're not going to get distracted by this. We're going to just get this out of the way and we're going to claim credit for it while we get it out of the way and move on to the bigger stuff."
Call that facing reality my friends.
[ad: Midwest National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee]
[ad: Genself]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 7.1
[19: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Genself]
[ad: www.Focusonlearning.org]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[ad: The Dominatrix Reloaded]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, (unintelligible) and chaos. Your canary in the coalmine at 800-282-2882, the email address at rush@eibnet.com.
Longmont Colorado, Beverly, thank you for calling and welcome to the program.
Beverly: Hello, Mr. Limbaugh, welcome home from Ireland.
Rush: Thank you.
Beverly: I'm a senior, I'm a widow, I'm a republican, I'm on Social Security and Medicare and I'm absolutely opposed to the Medicare Prescription Program as a mandatory thing.
Rush: So am I but we are in 25% minority, Beverly. The 75% of the country wants this stuff and they don't want any means testing on it and so that's it.
Beverly: I'm not sure 75% of the country want it. I know a lot of people who are opposed to it as a mandatory thing. It would be fine as an optional for people who...
Rush: Let me ask you a question on that. I don't mean to be insulting with this, I'm really not. I'm just trying to understand. You're a senior citizen and obviously this would be a big benefit, why are you opposed to it?
Beverly: Because there are a lot of us out here who feel we can afford our own drugs either through our income or through a much better private insurance plan.
Rush: Yeah but if somebody else was going to pay for them you could really afford them.
Beverly: (Laughing) I'll pay for my own thank you. I have a really great private insurance that pays for my prescriptions, a lot of people do. It was a retirement benefit, a benefit people got when they left the company or they can just afford to pay it and...
Rush: Well...
Beverly: ... I don't think that people should have to pay for our medications.
Rush: Here's the -- here- no, you've, you know, you hit on something here that's very important and it's a dirty little secret and it can be found in this supposed statistic for this -- let me put it this way. The statistic where supposedly forty million people uninsured, that's just a crock.
There aren't forty million uninsured just like there weren't 3 million homeless. Just like there weren't two hundred thousand copies of Hillary's book sold the first day. Just like there weren't one million in the original printing. All these numbers are just thrown out there and they just establish a life of their own and they're out there and if you notice the figure forty million uninsured we first heard it in 1992. Guess it's still the same figure.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 7.2
[20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...it's still the same figure. Not any higher not any lower and it's all a myth. There are plenty of people that don't have health insurance but they have coverage, the other plan.
Anyway, news update;
Unknown source: The Senate Committee here has just approved the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. All seniors will get drug coverage...
Rush: ...whether they want it or not. You're going to get drugs forced on you.
Unknown source: It is estimated...
Rush: See, this is the (laughing) this is the dirty little secret. I hate to keep using that phrase but it isn't free. This is the --I have been trying to point this out for the longest time. This is being sold as such a bill of goods because many of you seasoned citizens think this is going to come to you cost free and the estimated cost that the senior citizens themselves the beneficiaries will pay over the next ten years is one point eight trillion dollars.
There are going to be minimums, there are going to be premiums, there are going to be deductibles and all this sort of stuff but seniors are going to be paying a portion of this. The balance of this will be paid by your neighbors and everybody else, but so it's moved a step closer to reality here in the Senate and it's just a matter of time. This is a fata-complee with Bush getting all the credit for it.
Here's Rob in Akron. Welcome sir to the EIB Network.
Rob: Hi Rush, how you doing?
Rush: Fine sir.
Rob: My question is have we completely lost the intellectual debate of this country. I mean what is the guiding principal about why we are giving a prescription program to anybody. Why are we not giving them a food subsidy, or a housing subsidy or a clothing subsidy? I mean...
Rush: Well...
Rob: ...it's like a huge grab bag here.
Rush: ...be patient. (Laughing) Those things may be...
Rob: Thanks a lot. (Laughing)
Rush: They may be coming down the pike. I mean we have food subsidies called food stamps. We have housing subsidies called FHA. We've got all this stuff and guess what? It's never enough. Everybody's -- everybody wants more.
I understand totally the nature of your question and I -- you know we live here in an idealistic world where you think that the -- the whole concept of limited government is one that this nation was founded upon and that's why this stuff matters so much to people other than the fact, "It's the right thing." It's was -- it's the basis on which the government was founded. The whole Constitution including the Bill of Rights limits government, not the citizens. It limits what governments role in our lives could be. That seems to have gone out the window. There's no question political calculations are being made here.
Look I don't want to be redundant. I know the people, the "new tune in factor," on a, you know, half hour by half hour basis, is large and as I say, I don't know where this ultimately leads, I'm just telling you that to the people in Washington, this is chump change. There's no -- as far the way they're looking at it, there's nothing to gain by opposing this. There's nothing -- there isn't anything to gain by it.
I'm not saying I agree with them I'm just trying to give you their mindset. There's nothing to gain and this is small stuff compared to some of the really important things that they consider like judges, judicial nominees and other matters of policy but to some of us, this is the big stuff because somebody's going to pay for this.
You know what we're not even factoring into this, is the baby-boomer retirement factor that's going to a realization soon. They're going to start retiring and look at the demands and expectation this bunch is going to have. I happen to know because I'm one of them and there's no bigger bunch of self absorbed freeloaders in the world than the baby-boom generation.
They think God created the world for them. Think God created everything in the world for them and all they had to do was get born or grow up and they would get it. I mean it's -- some of the people baby-boom generation -- their parents and their grandparents busted their rear ends get -- sacrificed everything for their kids and did it so well that the baby-boomer generation didn't have to bother growing up till it was fifty and now it's time to retire. Soon as they grow up they retire and guess what comes with retirement?
Somebody else taking care of you just like your parents and your grandkids did. How many baby-boomers still live with their parents at age 35? And say, "Well, It's just a factor of the new life style of America. I mean it's just- it's just...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 7.3
[21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...mind boggling. Hey these people are soon to join the, "Gimme, gimme, gimme I deserve it set." They're going to want to retire earlier and they're going to want a quality retirement and they're going to want you paying for it because look my friends, I'll tell you what.
There's something that's involved in this country, I don't know where it started but say if you live to be 60 years old you have achieved something big. You have accomplished something and that means you're country owes you big time and there are a lot of people -- and that attitude by the ways, been promoted by politicians who say, "there's a big debt that we owe people who've lived to be 65."
New York I can understand that being an achievement but in most of the rest of the country it's no big deal to live to be 65 but others want to be honored for it and paid for it so they -- you just - you add their retirement benefit explosion that the baby-boomers going to put on all this.
Couple -- this does add up to big stuff to me because somebody's going to have to pay for it and at some point the people whose shoulders this is going to fall on are going to refuse because they're not going to be able to live quality lives themselves while supporting others who are just sitting around doing whatever. You know thinking how much they're "owed" because of all the great contributions they've made to America because they lived to be 55 or 60.
Fort Madison Iowa and Ted. Welcome sir, to the EIB Network, great to have you with us.
Ted: Good afternoon Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Rush: Yes sir.
Ted: Don't you think that this republican advancement of basically democrat ideas is playing into the disillusion statement going around out here that says both of these political parties really the same? That there's no difference between the two? You vote republican and they push democratic ideas when the democrats think they need votes they push ideas that are republican ideas.
Rush: I can see why you think that and I -- it'd be easy to succumb to that. Even I could find myself falling in that trap today but I actually don't. I -- these are -- these are things that definitely cloud the issue but I'll tell you would never -- you would never get anything like this tax cut with a democrat in power. You would not get anything like the defense of this country with a democrat President. Their response to 9/11, the war on terror, it's not in them.
There's a -- there's still fundamental differences and they are huge between the two parties and there's no - because there's a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. What we're looking at here -- let me see if I can come up with a way of describing this or positioning this but this is one of those small little areas that overlap that does make it look like it look like there's no difference in the two parties. This is this area of social spinning.
Admittedly a big deal to you as I know it is, could tell by your call, it's a big deal to me but there are still vast -- I mean there are philosophical differences between the two parties that still survive. I mean despite this -- despite what's going on here with this prescription drug benefit to Medicare and this tax cut to people who don't pay taxes, there's still a huge difference in the way Bush looks at this country and the way any of these democratic presidential candidates looks at the country and Bush does believe in entrepreneurism. You can see this in the tax cut. He believes in the power of the individual and he does not -- as a general rule, believe that government is a solution to all people's problems.
This is an exception because of the political need to grow his party the way his advisors and him are looking at this but there's still -- there's still huge fundamental differences. Even in the area of liberty and freedom, there are huge differences. It's just that these issues come along now and then that blur the lines and give people reason, "Ahh, there's no difference between these two," and I can understand people saying it. It's - specially in times like this but you -- just listen to any -- listen to Ted Kennedy talk, listen to Tom Daschle talk, listen to Pat Lehey or any of these democrats who are opposing judicial nominees talk and take a look at the people that Bush are proposing as nominees and people that support them.
There are worlds of differences out there. It still does matter. I mean if democrats had been elected to the Whitehouse again after Clinton who knows what kind of environmental damage they would have done to this country. They'd have signed us on to the Kyoto Protocol punishing us for our technological advancements. Who knows the damage that this...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 8.1
[22: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...out there. They might have signed us on to the International Criminal Court. They clearly, just based on the recent debate we had over Iraq, the democrats clearly want to subordinate this countries foreign policy to United Nations. I will guarantee you that there is no way any democrat would have dealt with the UN or France and Germany the way this Administration has. And the area of national defense and foreign policy is right up there at the top in terms of importance of government and it's responsibility and it is still not safe to have democrats in charge of that stuff.
I don't care what this prescription drug benefit, the Medicare, may make it look like you still can't trust the security of this country to those people. They have a different view of the world and they -- and the US role in it. They resent our superpower status. They feel guilty about it and will do anything they can to reduce our power. I mean it's -- they're -- not worthy of any trust in that regard and couple areas like that.
Quick break, we'll be back, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: On Star Advisor]
[ad: California Association of Realtors]
[ad: Genself]
[ad: Epilepsyfoundation.org]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: I give you a couple of other examples here of huge differences in the two parties. With President Bush, partial birth abortion measure will be signed into law. This is the first federal law that will actually limit abortions. This would have "Never, never happened," with a democrat in the Whitehouse. "Never!"
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 8.2
[23: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... and President is also really ticked off these big unions by outsourcing the work done by eight hundred and fifty thousand federal workers at least opening their work up to competitive bids. You wouldn't have this happen in a democrat administration. None of this.
Now that having been said, I must also be honest. I've been honest here but I mean I've got to from both sides because I don't want you people to misunderstand me in all this. I'm doing my best to assess all this objectively and honestly as I can and I'm -- in case you can't tell I'm disappointed maybe a little frustrated. I'm not to the point of throwing up my hands and calling it quits and saying, "Ahh, to hell with it!" As I know some of you are but still it's disappointing because I know the history here.
I'll give you -- I'll give you a classic example. Europe is full of formerly conservative political parties that tried the Bush "big theory" and they end up supporting more socialism. Let's say we get this bulletproof majority that I'm just -- and by the way I'm just surmising that. I'm just -- I don't know, you know my friends, I'm an outsider when it comes to this bunch. I'm no closer to these people than you are. I don't care what you think, I'm telling you the truth. I can only assess it from afar as you do and I'm trying to figure this all out and one of the things I've come up with is,
Rush making a statement to himself: "Okay, maybe they're going for a super majority to get things they consider really important done."
Rush answers himself: "Okay what's the next step after we get a so-called "bulletproof majority"?
Rush: "Well there's the rub cause once you get the bulletproof majority, item number one, job number one is to maintain it and just as I said you earlier today, "The first and foremost important job of officials is to get re-elected.""
You don' think that should be the case. They should go there and do the job followed by or executing their principal and implementing the things that they said they were going to do during their campaign and all that but once they get the bulletproof majority they got to maintain it.
Rush asking himself questions: What good is it if you don't maintain it?
Rush answering himself: Well, how did you get it?
Rush: "Humm, guess we got to do more of that to keep it." So guess what? You've got more incremental growth of government. If that's what it took to get the super majority then that's what you got to do. This is a pitfall that is waiting to happen and it's happened to a bunch of these formerly conservative political parties in Europe and presumably this would mean continuing to parrot the liberals and stealing their issues to some extent. Denying them credit for whatever you pass and you know this is not how you build a principled movement.
You might build a movement but you're not building a principled movement. You build it by confronting the views of your adversaries, competing against them, contrasting them and then wiping them out, then defeating them, not by taking a little of what they believe and co-opting it as your own and say, "Look at us. See we're nice guys too." That's what I fear is going on because only when you defeat your adversaries in the political arena with ideas and demonstrations of truth can you then implement the limited government agenda but there's no attempt to develop this kind of support.
There's no attempt here to take on these issue by issue battles and defeat them. That's not what's going on. Takes time, lot of speeches, policy initiatives and that sort of thing. I mean there was no great ground swell for the campaign finance reform bill but it was signed. It did under the cover of darkness and look at the court. I tell you -- the courts -- look at the judges that upheld it. They were republican judges, there's not --this business of, "Ahh, we're doing this for the judges," There is no guarantee you're going to get the judges you want even the ones you appoint.
I got to take a break a little long here, back in a moment.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Citracal]
[ad: Infone]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 8.3
[24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Infone]
[ad: Casino Morongo]
[ad: World Wildlife Fund]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Second hour of broadcast excellence in the can ladies and gentlemen. However there's another hour left to go on my first day back from a four-day golf trip to the wind-swept links courses on the north shore of Ireland.
Back in just a moment, stay with us.
[ad: Camelot Theater]
[Promo: The Joy Short Show]
[Promo: KPSI Home of L.A. Dodgers]
[ABC-News]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part nine.1
[25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: eHarmony.com]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Beautiful Hair Breck]
[ad: American Diabetes Association]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part nine point two
[26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Well, despite all this, the news continues to worsen for the democrats. The Dow Jones Average is up over 140 now. We are well over ninety-two hundred now. The Dow Jones Industrial Average manufacturing sector, that news is up, The Nasdaq's up thirty-one. The economy clearly rebounding since "I" proclaimed two weeks ago the economic slowdown is officially over. Your tuned to Rush Limbaugh the voice America listens to on the EIB Network at 1-800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
There are other things of coarse out there ladies and gentlemen happening while I was away and still continue to effervesce, if you will, so let's take a look at them.
From Baghdad a couple days ago;
Unknown Source: The Iraqi Guard at the entrance of the Police Academy, one of several places where citizens could surrender their illegal weapons to US occupation forces, shook his head when asked how many had met today's deadline and it's June 14th , for handing over guns without penalty. The guy said -- the guard said, "We've had plenty of reporters and no weapons have come in. Reporters didn't give up their guns and the Iraqi citizens haven't given up theirs."
A two-week weapons amnesty program designed to reduce the number of heavy armaments in the hands of Iraqi's ended with scant results. Nation-wide - Nation-wide, one hundred twenty-three pistols, seventy-six semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, four hundred thirty-five automatic rifles, forty-six machine guns, hundred sixty-two anti-tank rif -- rocket propelled grenade launchers, (laughing) eleven anti- aircraft weapons and three hundred eighty-one hand grenades have been turned in as of June 14th.
Rush: A hundred sixty-two anti-tank rocket propelled grenade launchers (laughing) turned in by Iraqi citizens. I mean how many RPG's do these people have? I mean (laughing)only one hundred and twenty-three pistols but all these other huge armaments and there seemed to be no last minute rush of people turning in their weapons to get amnesty.
This sounds like a job here for Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. These are two big gun control advocates here in the United States. They're experts in this. President Bush could do all Americans a huge favor by urging Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein to go to Iraq and stay there until every Iraqi citizen is disarmed.
In fact I would suggest this, you got this country and we're trying to tame this country and one of the problems you can't have these citizens over there running around with guns and if there's anybody who believes that, is Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. Now we know that they would like to disarm this country too, so what we need to do is send them over to Iraq and try to disarm the people of that country.
There's a pilot program for disarming America, just send them over there, the president could do a great job sending them over there, leave them as long as it takes. Until they personally -- well they wouldn't do it. They'd come up with some stupid commission but until they disarmed the whole country proving it can be done. It could be a valuable public service.
Listen to this oddball story. Iran, which by the way, I told you people about this. I was pressured. I warned you all about this and I -- we did an interview in my newsletter with Michael Ledeen about the insurrections that were happening daily in Iran. That it didn't require US military intervention. This is a revolution waiting to happen and it is intensifying. It is -- the Mullahs are so close -- ever so close to losing control over there it really - it's exciting thing to watch. I mean these people, it's not -- and of course it's being in the press, reported as students. That's not students, its professors, people of all stripes over there are protesting...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part nine point three
[27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...demanding freedom of one form or another. I'm telling these Mullahs are on the last legs. It's -- they are very precariously balanced over there and it's not -- it's still not getting a whole lot of coverage but it's getting more than it once was. But despite all that, Iran is recruiting -- get this -- this is a story from The Telegraph on June the 15th, just yesterday. Let me just read it to you.
The Telegraph: Iran is recruiting top Iraqi weapons scientists to join a dangerous brain drain from Baghdad as international concerns grow about Teheran's clandestine arms program. The pro-Iranian Badr Brigade, an Iraqi Islamic militia, is helping scientists to travel through tribal areas north east of Baghdad and then across the border to Teheran for meetings with senior military and regime figures in Iran.
Rush: Now you have to wonder here, folks, how Iran can recruit people from Iraq who are working on weapons that presumably don't exist or were never even going to be built at least that's what liberal democrats contend. How in the world can Iran be importing weapons Scientists from Iraq when there aren't any? And according to the democrats there never were any. Bush lied to us thru his teeth about this and yet Iran's trying to get hold of these scientists. (Paper rustling noise) Something doesn't jive.
Moving on the Middle East. I hate to tell you I told you - well I don't hate to -- I mean I don't want to be repetitive, I told you so's. I -- this was only a matter of time. This is one of these things that happened, pretty big, while I was gone. A leading republican lawmaker said yesterday, this Richard Lugar on FOX News Sunday.
FOX News: US forces may have to root out terrorism in the Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinians including taking aim at Hamas. Lugar who is the chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that American forces might be part of an International force to help stop attacks by Hamas, the main group behind the campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli's and other groups.
Rush: Now everybody knew this was going to happen once this "roadmap to peace" happened and then the big meeting at "Al Qaba" or "Al Qaba" however they pronounce it and these Hamas guys said, "No way." Where -- this guy Mahmoud Abass doesn't control us. We don't do what Sharon says. We don't like Israel. We don't want there to be an Israel. We don't want there to be any Jews and take this and they start engaging in more suicide terrorism and this and that.
Then we're thinking low and behold we got a one eighty. When I left town, when I left the country the President was calling Sharon out and blaming all the unrest over there on Israel, blaming all the unrest on Sharon. Sharon you got to back off. Don't defend yourself; you're destabilizing the peace process blah, blah.
Now I get back four days later and what do I find? US forces maybe joining Israeli forces to root out Palestinians terrorists. "This is big." This is huge. Hamas has said that it would reject any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Lugar said that "Such a force could be used to quell the disputes between Israel and Palestine and maybe even more important to root out the terrorism that's at the heart of the problem."
Oh really. So all of the sudden we realize that the terrorism there is the same as what we been fighting? Why I hate to blow my own horn here but how -- and it's not just me, anybody with a brain has been saying this. How-why did take so long? Is it because the "Roadmap to Peace," is in trouble? Why -- how come literally folks, how come this has taken so long to realize that these terrorists are no different than Al Qaeda or Al Schmida or who ever else. Anyway it's a step forward, it's progress.
An Israeli Army Radio reports that: The army has been ordered to completely wipe out the Palestinians Islamic militant group Hamas a day after a suicide bomber killed sixteen people on a bus in Jerusalem. Israeli helicopters killed nine Palestinians in strikes on militants after the bombing; leaving the US backed "Peace Roadmap" in tatters. Israeli Internal Security Minister said that, "No Hamas leader is safe,"
Rush: And Bush is firmly behind this. I mean when it says here, "Israeli Army Radio reports: The army has been ordered to completely wipe out the Palestinians Islamic militant group Hamas," it may sound like this is all internal Israeli doings from Sharon, but do not mistake...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part ten point one
[28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...this. These orders are coming from Washington and it's a tantamount mission as to whose putting up the roadblock to the "Roadmap," to peace. So days of Hamas would appear to be numbered if we stick to this, fact a companion story on June 12th.
Unknown Source: United States accused Hamas on Thursday of being the major obstacle in the Middle East peace and a wave of bloodshed that has thrown the "Roadmap to Peace," into turmoil. George W. Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with the president, " The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas." His comments marked a change, a dramatic change in tone from US criticism of Israel for it's attempt to kill a Hamas leader on Tuesday. Hamas has rejected Bush's plan as "too generous" to Israel and since that attack the Middle East has been engulfed in a wave of retributive violence including a Palestinians suicide bombing that killed sixteen people in Jerusalem last Wednesday and a lethal Israeli attack in Gaza.
Rush: Anyway, how quickly things turn. How quickly -- once the "Roadmap," appears to be threatened, "Oh, there's a personal investment in the "Roadmap," and now all of the sudden they're going to nail the guys who are actually in charge of it. I guess we went the extra mile. We wanted to give the Palestinians -- "Here we're going to give you a state," see the big difference here -- this is -- I read, I can't remember where, so much I've been cramming. Somebody made a good point today.
Something I read that uhh, this "Roadmap to Peace," has strange similarities to "Oslo." And of coarse Oslo was a dramatic failure but there's one distinct difference between this and Oslo. Oslo ended for the Palestinian State. The last step of the Oslo peace process was the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Roadmap to Peace establishes the Palestinian State in the middle of the process, which is the key difference because it give the Palestinians what they claim they want before they really earned it and then the effort is on both sides to maintain it and so forth and what's happened now is that a Palestinian group Hamas has basically shown it's colors.
They're not interested in a Palestinian State and they're not interested in anything that results in the peaceful side-by-side co-existence of Palestinian State and a Jewish State. They're not interested in it and I guess people are now saying, "Okay the Roadmap to Peace proved this," even thought I don't think any proof was needed but if that's what did it -- it did it. And so now the world is aligned against Hamas in a matter of four days. Just think if this would have been done years ago when everybody -- I mean this is no great realization to people. It can't be. In the meantime;
Unknown source: Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip have gone into hiding for fear that Israel might try to kill them. Palestinian sources said this last Thursday. According to the sources, most of the leaders of Hamas including prominent political figures like Mahmoud al-Zahar and the Ismail Abu Shanab and Ismail Haniya disappeared from their homes following the botched assai nation against the terrorist Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi last Tuesday. Hamas officials in Gaza City confirmed the movements top leaders were in hiding. Say they decided to take precautionary measures to protect themselves against possible Israeli retaliatory attacks.
Rush: Where can they go? Not too many places. They will be found. We must take an EIB operational pause. We'll do that and be back with much more right after this.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Rush for General Steel Corporation]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part ten point two
[29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for General Steel]
[ad: Desenex]
[ad: AdminiStaff]
[ad: Brooke Street Securities]
[ad: PovertyUSA.org]
[Promo: Laura Ingraham Show]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[ad: PoveryUSA.org]
Rush: ...it had Mahmoud Abass, Abu Mazen whatever name he wants to go by on a given day from Palestine -- the Palestinians and all these neighboring countries. I mean -- and Bush said, "Okay, all these people are for peace. Egypt is for peace. Mahmoud Abass is for peace. Israeli's are for -- anybody who opposes this is our enemy and is terrorists." Bam here comes Hamas launching their assault.
Fulfilled Bush's prediction, so to speak, but the Hamas guys are such idiots that they took what Bush said and gave him the opportunity to proclaim them as terrorists not just people engaging in terrorist activity. They're now identified as terrorists and as such, they're dead. They are the object of the war on terrorism and when Lugar talks about sending in a Third expeditiary force, US forces, that -- he's not doing that on his own either. I mean there's some consultation going on. When you talk about US Troops going into this conflict to root out Hamas, then it -- it's clear what's going on. This is what Bush set up with all this...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part ten point three
[30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: the reason Sharon went along with it because everybody knew what Hamas was going to do. We haven't yet heard from Islamic Jihad but hopefully they'll behave the same way so we don't launch a salvo on them and then whoever else wants to mount these attacks designed to stop the process of moving forward. In the process of doing that, they're dead. And that's where we are.
And we go back to the phones now Mike in Effingham Illinois. Welcome to the program sir, great to have you with us.
Mike: Hi Rush, how you doing today?
Rush: Just fine sir, thanks much for the call.
Mike Ahh, thank you for taking my call. This is a truck driving federally mandated, eighteen handicapped, unskilled labor, dittos to you sir.
Rush: I appreciate that. It's great to have you in the audience.
Mike: How was your trip and how'd you hit it when you were there?
Rush: You know Ireland's an interesting place. I was amazed at the affluence of this country just in where we were on the ground and flying over. We flew helicopters from course to course because some of them were two hours apart by car so we made the trip in twenty-five minutes or so in a helicopter and you look down...
Mike: I hear it's absolutely beautiful there.
Rush: It was -- well I understand why they call it the Emerald Isle. I'm telling you, I've never seen more shades of green in my life. It surprised me. I thought I knew what I was going to see but no it was stunningly beautiful. All these courses we played were Links courses right on the ocean, right on the coast. I never played Links courses before and the -- actually my toughest thing was the second day at Royal County Down. That's probably the worst I played. Best I played was day three and four and was booming the ball yesterday and I mean booming. We played thirty-six on Saturday and everybody got kind of wiped out...
Mike: Ahh, that's good for you there. Keeps you strong. Well what did you think about Furyk's win yesterday. Did you see it on tape?
Rush: Uhm, I didn't -- I only saw the last couple holes when I got home there were -- he -- I did see some of Thursday and Friday's rounds late night. You understand that it was on at one o'clock in the morning over there and we were up every morning at six just to get out and hit Links...
Mike: Oh, those people are real golf lovers there. Did you have a caddy each time? Did you get the experienced pad as well?
Rush: No, I carried my own bag. What do you think, of coarse I had a caddy. (laughing)
Mike: Was it nice having those old...
Rush: Yeah they were -- they were, look it, they were all -- I was --I was shocked. I really -- I was expecting something totally different. I thought the caddies would be snobs toward players that don't play that well but they weren't at all. Everybody - they were just -- everybody I met were just nice as they could be. It was the most fun I've had on a golf trip in I can't tell you how long and that's all it was. I mean golf -- golf and the discussions every day and night at dinner was golf -- golf -- golf. There's some changes in it but I mean it was just a tremendous amount of fun. It's a great place to play and Links courses, if you've never played one, are totally different. It's unlike any thing that I've ever experienced. It only can improve the game.
Thanks for the call, back in a moment.
[ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
[ad: General Air Conditioning and Heating]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part eleven point one
[31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Joy Short Show]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Rush: Friends I have received troubling reports from the nations Capitol, unconfirmed but...
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: And I'm back in the throws of broadcast excellence defined by me, a man, a legend, a way of life. Learn it, love it, live it.
All right so now many questions, what's a Links course? How does it differ from other courses. Let me just take some time now to tell you a little about the trip and do that and I'll hopefully try to answer the questions that you have in this one little discussion here.
First place and pardon the clearing the throat there, the -- there were twelve of us on the trip. Let me give you the names of the people that you will know who were on the trip. This is not to denigrate people who I'm not going to mention, the names -- just but the names you'll know were of coarse me, Dan Marino, Matt Lauer and Michael Douglas the actor and no there were no political discussions at any time, although I'm wondering if there were some people hoping that there were at some point some discussions for fireworks to start but I made sure I wasn't going to light that fuse.
It was all very sociable. Everybody was just as congenial and nice as they could be. There were a lot of tremendous people on the trip. One of the President Forbes Publications was along, a gentleman from Boca Resorts, one of the sales and marketing managers of the Breakers Hotel here in Palm Beach. David Burke was there. They got twelve of us all -- our host was Wayne Huizenga who is a - one of the nations preeminent entrepreneurs. Owns the Miami Dolphins, Blockbuster Video and he was the host of the trip, does this quite often, and no finer host is alive than Wayne Huizenga.
There's -- it is impossible not to enjoy yourself no matter where you are with him. He sees to it won't let anybody not have a good time. He's just -- he's got it down pat. He's a man who lives life to the fullest in every venue, be it work or pleasure and there're things he loves to do and there people he likes and considers his friends and he wants to do his way and he takes those people along with him as he's doing it. Making a big party and it's one of the most unique trips I've been on.
The weather -- we were all prepared and I was told, "Look, it rains every day, be prepared, in nine holes you could see every possible weather condition except snow." Everyday it was in the mid sixties. There was little wind, it never rained, it was actually hot. A Links course...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part eleven point two
[32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...Links Course is on the ocean and it's not only remarkable by the -- by virtue of it's layout and the kind of course it is but it is noted -- well, I did say layout, it's noted for it's layout. The American golf course, the first hole you start at the clubhouse and you come in the ninth hole is at the clubhouse so if you want to quit after nine you're home. And then the tenth hole is at the clubhouse and you go for your back nine and the eighteenth hole is at the clubhouse.
Links courses the first and the eighteenth hole are at the clubhouse and that's it. You go out and you're still out when you make the turn and you come back in and that's why if it starts raining you play cause you got to walk in anyway you might as well play when it starts raining. And these courses are all on the coast and of coarse the weather can be unpredictable and windy and it was none of those things this time but it can be.
They're not nearly as immaculate as American courses, not nearly as well maintained. They're not nearly as well manicured, they're not suppose to be. The rough for example, the Rough - is three feet tall and it -- if you miss the fairway -- the fairways are narrow. You miss the fairway you need a hound dog to find your ball. These caddies can find balls -- I -- you would -- never once lost a ball. I don't care where it went. Down a ravine, thirty feet up a mountain, these caddies find the ball.
I remember there's a -- one of the closing holes yesterday was a dogleg left and there's no way you can cut the dogleg. You had to hit straight out then have your second shot go into the green. My second shot was a six-iron form about a hundred and eighty yards and I pulled it left, thirty feet up the side of a mountain. Two mountains surrounding this hole and I said, "Ahh to hell with it, we're playing a four-man, to hell with it I'll pick-up you guys -- Marino was already on in two and my caddy looked at me and said, " You're not -- nobody pulls out here." You know, "What do you mean you're picking-up. Nobody picks-up." So this caddy is taking my bag and he's walking thirty feet up this mountain and finds the ball and he gets up there and he motions, "Come up here. You're going to hit this."
Now here I am, on a vacation, climbing a mountain. You know, chasing a golf ball, you know, then everybody on my team, "Yeah, you got to go hit it." I got no sympathy -- not -- so I climb up there and I, folks, if I had lost my balance I'd have tumbled over somersault down thirty feet of this mountain. Anyway I got lucky, I hit it about twenty feet from the green, almost made the par putt but I wouldn't have even gone looking for the ball. My caddy went looking for the ball toting my bag up there but these are -- but everybody I met from the hotel people to the people at the golf courses, they were just tremendous.
It was impossible not to have a good time and must have walked thirty miles maybe more in these four days. Played thirty-six holes on Saturday and we tried to sneak a peak at the US Open. I mean the US Open started, the television coverage started over there at 6:00P.M. one o'clock here -- no, 11:00A.M. here so that's like 4:00P.M. over there and we'd get in about five or six. The sun goes down at 10:00P.M. and I happened to be awake 2:30 -- 3:00 one morning and the sun was coming up and it's not dark for very long over there at this time of year and there wasn't a whole lot of -- the last hotel we stayed in did not feature - Sky TV the Murdock owned version of FOX Channel. Sky was taking ESPN and NBC feeds then putting their own announcers on it and the second hotel we stayed in only featured the coverage in their bars and restaurants, not in the rooms.
You had to leave the room if you wanted to go watch the Open coverage and I mean, most of us were dog tired at the end of every day. We're helecoptering form course to course and doing all this walking. It's hilly terrain and all that. It was different kind of golf I've ever played. I remember the first day was tough to get used to because the fairways are narrow and if you're in the rough, I mean it's just impossible. You're not even thinking par, if you hit the fairway so, unique experience.
I'm - every American golf course I play in now is going to seem easy compared to these and that's not putting down American golf courses. It's just me but I treasure the experience and everybody was in good cheer and vowed to get together again and trading business cards and, "Yeah, it's good to know you and we'll have to get together," and you know, trading cigars and all this sort of stuff so we'll see but it was really a once in a lifetime experience. I'm flattered and honored I was invited to go.
Here's John in Charlotte Iowa. Welcome to the program sir good to have you with us.
| 
