June 15, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What are we going to do about Mississippi Senator Trent Lott? What are we going to do about Senator Lott?  You remember when he got into trouble with the Strom Thurmond comment?  We're out there defending the guy. The White House threw him overboard. All kinds of Republicans were throwing him overboard. Talk radio came to his defense. Trent Lott is now one of the engineers of the Senate immigration bill, the amnesty bill, and they're trying to bring this thing back. The amendments are being kept under wraps. By the way, I understand Lindsey Grahamnesty, senator from South Carolina, is going to propose an amendment to build the border fence.  (Laughing.)  $4.4 billion!  The government spends that much on rubber bands every year.  Well, maybe not that much, but you get the point.  Senator Lott is out there saying, "The problem with this is talk radio, and it's a problem that's going to have be dealt with."  Now, what does that mean?  When I hear a United States senator say that what I do for a living is a "problem" that the government has to "deal with," you can interpret it any number of ways.  He's either saying, "Well, we're going to have to come up with our own ways to overcome them," or, "We're going to just have to wipe them out." What does it mean?  The real question is: How are we going to deal with Trent Lott?  What are we going to do about him?  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I want to spend a little time here on Trent Lott's comment that talk radio is running the country.  What is talk radio?  Talk radio is the greatest democratic forum in the country today.  It is truly diverse.  There are more ideas, there's more back and forth, there's more so-called diversity. There are all kinds of great things to say about it.  Talk radio is the American voter.  I bet most of the people who listen to talk radio are voters.  That's what bothers Trent Lott.  Well, who should be running the country?  I don't mean making the day-to-day decisions, but go look at our founding documents, and all that jibber-jabba about governing with the consent of the governed.  This is a battle between Washington and the people now.  This amnesty bill, when you strip away all of the extraneous stuff this is a battle between Washington and the people, and they know it.  So you got a Republican talking about talk radio the way liberals talk about talk radio, which tells you (it tells me) what the real objective of most elected officials in Washington is anyway. It's to perpetuate themselves and their jobs and to spend money and maybe not -- well, yes. It would be in that order.  The reason talk radio is "running the country" is because the people who are voters in this country are listening and involved and are passionate.  Talk radio may be informing you, but it's not making you a robot, and you're taking action on your own, and these blowhards in Washington are hearing from you, the American people, and that's what bothers them -- and we are being blamed for you being informed, and that should tell you something.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Trent Lott: "Talk radio is running the country. We're going to have to deal with that problem," he said.  You need to really think about that.  Well what is he talking about?  The people that he's actually complaining and whining about now are the ones that tried to defend him when everybody else was throwing him overboard when he made those joking comments at a tribute to Strom Thurmond.  Folks, I want you to think of something.  The notion that people freely expressing their opinions on radio is a "problem," should scare every one of us that loves liberty.  The notion that people freely expressing their opinions in e-mails and phone calls to their elected representatives is a problem should scare every single person who loves liberty.  This is the exact sort of thing -- people expressing their opinions is a problem -- that gave us McCain-Feingold, a government signed, government passed and the president signed assault on free speech, the First Amendment, during campaigns.  Trent Lott is a Republican.  He has thrown his hat in with John McCain on this because McCain defended him, too, during that episode.

You know, I was kind of surprised because Lott loves to stick it to President Bush any time he can because of the White House lack of support for Lott during the Strom Thurmond thing.  So the bottom line here is that this is frightening stuff.  I mean, it's one thing to hear it from liberals and Democrats.  We hear this from them all the time.  But the idea that a Republican now joins this mind-set -- and believe me, I don't actually think he's the only one.  You're good little voters when you sit out there and just shut up. Show up on Election Day. Send your money in. Send in your donations. But you're getting uppity out there, folks, when you start telling them how to do their jobs.  By the way, the latest Rasmussen poll -- they're still going to try to bring this thing back -- 20% of the American people support the bill. Only 20% want this.  Pure and simple, it's only 20%.  "They prefer smaller steps," this is a Rasmussen poll, "with the focus on enforcement."  They're working overtime to bring this back and get it done.  Oh, you gotta listen to Dingy Harry here.  This was this morning on the Senate floor.  Listen to this.

REID:  I also want to indicate to all senators and staffs, it's Friday, and now I understand, Mr. President, we have indicated we might have to work weekends, and I know this causes a lot of distress to folks.  But everyone should know that to complete this bill and to complete the immigration bill will require next weekend, without any question, next weekend, Saturday and Sunday.

RUSH: Aw!

REID: Senators should understand that this is the real thing.

RUSH: Awwww!

REID: If we're going to finish these two bills, which both the Republican leader and I think is absolutely mandatory, essential, that senators should be advised that next Saturday and Sunday -- which means the preceding Friday, which is a week from today and a week from Monday -- we'll have to be in session.  We only have two weeks left in this work period, and I hope we don't have to run into the Fourth of July recess period, which is only one week long.

RUSH:  Awww, folks, they're going to have to work weekends!  Oh ho-ho! They might have to work weekends in order to get this done. Oh, how horrible.  Maybe you could go out and hire some "illegal Americans," Dingy Harry, to do some of the staff work on weekends so that you don't have to. I mean, you obviously don't want to work weekends. A senator working on weekends is a job you don't want to do.  There are plenty of illegal Americans who will "do jobs that Americans don't want to do."  Hire them! Make them temps. Make them interns or whatever. Show them the inner workings of government, Dingy Harry, and bring 'em in and let 'em give you weekends off.  They can certainly help.  You know, it's interesting. When one million illegals protest, they're called "activists."  When one million African-Americans protest or supposedly 19 million, or -- yeah, one million (nineteen, that's Calypso Louie) they're called "activists."  When presidential candidates go down to Selma to recreate a memorial, it's activism.  When millions of talk radio listeners protest, they're called...what?  A problem!  They're called a problem.  Now, when 20 million talk radio listeners protest, that's a problem.  They're a "problem" that has to be "dealt with."  So you see, ladies and gentlemen, will never be called activists.  

People who get called activists, why, there's virtue to activism!  Why, there's virtue to getting behind your cause and putting action behind the cause, and getting personally involved in it -- and when you do it, it ain't activism.  No, it's a problem. It's a problem that has to be dealt with.  I'll tell you, I don't think that they know. If they think they got deluged last time, they have no clue what's going to happen after Trent Lott's comments, and they start doing this stuff and bringing this stuff forward with amendments that have yet to be revealed, amendments that are being kept "under wraps," is the term right now. These elected officials think that they got heat before? I don't think they realize what they're going to get now, but keep in mind what Dianne Feinstein said. In her 15 years in the Senate, she's never heard more racist, hate-filled commentary than on this issue, the phone calls and e-mails she got on this issue.  So the effort to demonize you is on, and I think Lott was trying to do the same thing: demonize you.  When you demonize talk radio you're demonizing the audience of talk radio. You're being demonized, and the reaction these people are going to have is, "Hey, look, it's just a bunch of angry hotheads full of racism and bigotry, nativism, and so forth.  We don't have to listen to these people. We don't have to listen to what they saying." That's what's being set up.  

Now, this thing is going to come out in the Senate. They're hell-bent on getting this done, and the White House put a lot of pressure on them, by the way. That's the pressure that's working on the Republicans.  This is going to be a battle at a time, one battle at a time.  If it wins passage in the Senate, you ought to prepare yourself for that.  I wish it wouldn't, don't misunderstand, but it's then going to go to the House and it's going to get revved up all over again.  The Senate may finish this before their precious July 4th recess, but the House isn't.  The target date on the part of the proponents to get this done is the fall, August, sometimes before the August recess or a little bit after that.  So that's really the time frame on this for the whole thing to get done.  So even if it's not stopped in the Senate -- and I'm not giving up on that, don't misunderstand. I'm just pointing out to you that it's gotta go to the House next, and then if the procedures are followed, there's a conference committee between the two, and it's no sure bet in the House.  A lot of  House people don't like it. Representatives are up for reelection every two years. Members of the House are far more attuned to the thoughts and opinions of their constituents than senators are, because senators are not reelected every other year. They're reelected in six-year terms, as you know.  You know all this. 

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

NYTimes: Senate Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/washington/15immig.html?ei=5090&en=8cbf54f3cc157012&ex=1339560000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1181919960-N1fpxkz+ECK076ifwTKmzQ

Rasmussen Poll: Voters Want Smaller Steps to Immigration Reform With Focus on Enforcement

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/poll_voters_want_smaller_steps_to_immigration_reform_with_focus_on_enforcement  

June 26, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the list of the Republicans who voted for cloture today. In alphabetical order they are...

Bob Bennett of Utah
Kit Bond of Missouri
Sam Brownback of Kansas
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Norm Coleman of Minnesota
Susan Collins of Maine (No surprise there.)
Larry Craig of Idaho
Pete Domenici of New Mexico
John Ensign of Nevada (That's really curious to me because this is the guy who's in charge of reelecting Republicans to the Senate, and finding new candidates and fund-raising.)
Lindsey Grahamnesty of South Carolina
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (No surprise there.)
Jon Kyl of Arizona (No surprise there. He's carrying the bill for the Republicans.)
Trent Lott of Mississippi (No surprise there.)
Richard Lugar of Indiana
Mel Martinez of Florida (No surprise there.)
John McCain of Arizona (No surprise there.)
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (It will be interesting to watch him.)
Lisa Murkowski from Alaska
Olympia Snowe from Maine (No surprise there.)
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (No surprise there.)
Ted Stevens of Alaska (No surprise.) 
George Voinovich of Ohio. (I don't know if he cried before the vote.) 
John Warner, the southern gentleman from Virginia.

So those are your names of the Republicans who voted for cloture and revived a dead bill.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

AP: Immigration Bill Advances in Senate

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q0MC6O0&show_article=1

RushLimbaugh.com May 25, 2005: I Made Voinovich Cry Over Bolton

September 7, 2006

My friends, it's time to face a hard, cold fact. Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do. They've been killing us for decades. So it's time to stop pretending these terrorist incidents are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger. This threat is not just going to go away because we choose to ignore it. Some say we should try diplomacy. Yeah, well, tell me, how do we negotiate with people whose starting point is our death? Ask them to wait for ten years before they kill us? When good negotiates with evil, evil will always win and peace follows victory, not words issued by diplomats. But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic.

Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us; when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it; when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation to defeat Islamofascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops in the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale. Let there be no doubt about this: America will prevail. We're the same country that survived a bloody civil war, defeated the Nazis and the Soviets. Each generation has a responsibility to the next, our generation will not disappoint.

END TRANSCRIPT 

March 7, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Frontenac, Missouri, near St. Louis. This is Barbara. You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. You are absolutely right to say that our country is in serious trouble and that liberals are trying to destroy it. But the only reason why they are succeeding is that conservatives are allowing it -- and there is no way America cannot figure out this problem and fix it. It only requires people who believe it can be done and will do it. You have stated on air before that you, for one, have the power to affect political change in this country, and not through elective office. I want to know when you are going to use that power you have and do something about our situation, other than what you are doing -- which, although is valuable, is not going to stop the liberals. We know, for instance, that it didn't stop the Democrats in our last election.

RUSH: You're like the third caller we've had the last two weeks telling me that I'm not doing enough.

CALLER: You're not. That's why we're saying it.

RUSH: Yeah? Well!

CALLER: And the only reason is, Rush, because of the power you have admitted you have.

RUSH: Mmm-hmm. What are you doing?

CALLER: I'm calling you and trying to encourage you to use the power you have that I don't.

RUSH: Okay. I've gotta come up with a response to this. I've gotta take a time-out here because it’s time to make profit here on the EIB Network.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, so the question is on the table from the last caller, Barbara in Frontenac, Missouri. Barbara is the third call in maybe three weeks, in the recent past, suggesting I should be doing more and demanding to know what I'm going to do using the power that I have. Of course, the implication is I'm not doing enough -- and in some minds I might not be doing anything. Now, I sit here (just so you'll know my perspective on this, so we can maybe have a starting point) and say, “What more do you people want?” In 1988, this country was a conservative wasteland. Our president was leaving. We had CNN. We had ABC, NBC, CBS. We had the New York Times, the Washington Post, the news magazines, and that was it. Here I came, storming onto the scene! Look what's happened since. I gave you a Republican Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. What were you doing before I came along? I gave you a Republican Senate. I gave you a Republican president in 2000 and again in 2004.

What more do you want? Obviously what I have given you is not enough. I have spawned an entire conservative cable news network. I have spawned an entire new media from blogs to talk shows. There are people who have failed in television and radio and stand-up comedy who are now going into radio. Everybody from Whoopi Goldberg to you name it, thinks they have to go into radio in order to have impact and make a difference -- and why is that? It is because of me. There is an entire alternative media now that people are able to rally to and get alternative news from, spawned by me. Is it my fault the Republicans who won the House in '94 didn't know what to do to keep it? Is it my fault a number of you Republicans wanted to "teach Republicans a lesson" last November and voted for a bunch of Democrats or didn't go out and vote for Republicans?

It's my fault?

I have said over and over again on this program that I am a radio host. I am a media figure. I am not an activist. There are many talk show hosts who have tried to be activists and they've gotten some publicity out of it so they get even more oriented towards it. Back when I started this program, there were people that were urging you to send in your ExxonMobil credit cards torn up and cut in half to show them a lesson. I have never done that. I have never given out phone numbers to members of Congress or anywhere else. I've always thought, "If that happens, it should happen genuinely because you have the passion to take the initiative to do it on your own." I have not treated you like a bunch of serfs, as if I'm the Pied Piper. I don't want to turn this program over to activism. You will stop listening to it if I do because it won't be interesting. Activists have their role, but it's not in media. I'm talking about the kind of activism you want. Maybe I could write a couple more books, but do you realize how crowded that market is? I did that first, too, and everybody else followed along. I guess I could write a couple more books. Do you realize how crowded that market has been? Everybody and their uncle is writing conservative book after conservative book after conservative book.

Why should I become a follower when I was the leader? Maybe I should do more speeches. I reach five million people every 15 minutes here. (interruption) What, you think I should be doing more speeches? Snerdley thinks I could be going out to college campi and doing more speeches. It's a possibility. I will grant that we could be doing that, even though I don't like it. Sometimes you have to do things that you don't like to do, although in life we all strive for various things and I've gotten do you great place in my life where I don't have to do anything I don't want to do now. Of course some people might hear that as, “Oh, no! That's just horrible.”

Well, you’re misunderstanding the point. How many of you get up every day because you have to and go to work, versus because you really want to and love to? How many of you have to do all kind of things that you really don't want to do because you have to? I've had to do it, too. There are still those things. I get invited to places I don't want to go and I show up. I get phone calls from people who want to come over and I wish they wouldn't, but I say, “Come on,” because I don't want to be mean. The other day I had to actually put some dishes in the dishwasher because the staff was off. So we all have to do things. (I'm just kidding on the last one. I actually did it.)

But I have some questions for you, who are out there wondering why I'm not "doing more." Are you going out and supporting your state and local party with money or time, or are you saying, “I'm not contributing another dime to those people until they start acting right.” Well, what are you doing to make 'em act right? If you're not donating and if that's a way, I understand that. Are you supporting people who are running? Are you talking to friends about these issues? Are you trying to spread the word in your own circle? Do you work at polls? Do you vote? I understand the perception that I have a lot of power, but I'm going to be very honest with you people about something, and I expect some of you not to believe this. When I come in here every day or when I'm sitting at home thinking about the program tomorrow (this is just me, and it's always been this way) I have no conception of power here. Some people are oriented toward amassing it and acquiring it and using it, and I'm not. It doesn't cross my mind. This is a fine line. I know I have the ability. I'm going to say one thing, in fact, along these lines.

One thing that concerns me -- and I mentioned it earlier in the program -- about my 'power," quote, unquote, that has advanced itself here is influence over a large number of Americans. People who listen to this program had a number of their ideas validated and got active and got invigorated. They listened every day, and some lives changes. Some liberals' minds have been converted and so forth. There's no question that there's a power. But that's not why this takes place. That's not the objective. The objective here is just to share my passions and tell people what I think. But I don't go home every day and say, "Gee, did people believe me today?" or, "Did I get so many converts?" and consider myself a failure if the answer is no."How well did I do what I'm supposed to do?" every day, is how I judge myself. But the one thing I've always said is I consider myself to be in the arena of ideas. I'm in the arena and I'm competing and there are all kinds of other ideas out there: libs, moderates, communists, socialists. They're all out there.

I wanted to be in the arena of ideas and compete because, I have always said, the American people get the government they want by virtue of the election. If the other side wants it more than we do, they're going to win it because some of us aren't going to vote for whatever reasons -- and then we sit around and moan and whine and complain. We get what we want for the most part. There are exceptions. Democrats think they never do because when they lose they think they've been cheated. When they win they think the American people love them. They misinterpret both. But in the arena of ideas, my objective has been to create as many educated, passionate, and informed voters as possible and get them out there influencing other voters. How many College Republican organizations are there today that would not be there were it not for 1988? How many things have happened on college campuses? The Rush babies, for example. The Rush babes. All these things have happened, and there's a growing movement of people here who are more active and passionate about conservatism than there ever were before. That's been positive.

When I hear the question, “How are you going to use your power?” this is the real challenge. One of the things that concerns me is that the left is doing a pretty good job of insulating themselves from election results. They own universities. The faculty, the administration, the curriculum, they own it. They own who gets in through affirmative action, racial preferences, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They pretty much control the judiciary, the legal system. The media is another. In terms of nationwide Big Media, the left has it, and they're not subject to who wins elections. College campi, faculty and curricula are not subject to who wins elections. The legal system -- other than the appointments of certain judges -- and lawyers out there, public interest lawyers, ACLU type lawyers, are not subject to who wins elections.

So even when they lose elections, they still control the bureaucracies at state, the CIA, and the Pentagon. These are Clinton holdovers, career liberals who target those jobs for the express purpose of controlling government and amassing power. They're there regardless who wins elections. If our side wins, they start undermining it. Take a look at the last five, six years of the Bush administration. All of that is outside the arena of elections. So even when we win, we still have these liberals that are untouchable, that elections don't touch. When we get a president who is undermined by his, quote, unquote, "own administration," that leads people who supported the president who think he runs the whole government to say, "Well, there must be something wrong with this guy if his own people are trying to sabotage him," which is not the case.

So the real question is: What do we do about entrenched liberalism that is out of the reach of elections? That is the next area of important focus. I'm not saying we should take elections lightly. They still matter. Don't misunderstand. I don't know what I can do, for example, about Republicans who win elections and then go to Washington and act like wimps and wusses and refuse to stand up for themselves and refuse to govern on the very concepts they campaigned on, other than vote 'em out, other than get rid of 'em when they won't play the game according to the rules set by the aggressor -- which in war you must. As somebody said earlier today on this program, he's getting tired of the Bush administration turning the cheek, cheek, cheek.

Every time something comes up, they turn the other cheek. Turn the other cheek. "Hit me again! Hit me again! Hit me again! Hit me again!" (interruption) H.R. is telling me in the IFB that there are more conservative voters "checking out," meaning staying home, frustrated and so forth -- and that, of course is my fault, too. But they are. That's what happened last November. They just got fed up for a whole bunch of reasons. Hey, it's reality. People get the government that they want. Anyway, what am I not doing that I could do? The conflict here is that's always a great question because I am the one saying, "There's always something more you can do." No matter what you're doing, there's always a little more that you've got to give, and that's why this question gives me pause -- and at the same time, insults me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mark in York County, Pennsylvania. You are on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Mr. Limbaugh, it's an honor.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: You know, I'm really listening today and I'm sick and tired of people calling in and passing the buck. You do your job. You do your job every day. You inform us. You keep us informed. You tell us what's going on -- and, you know what? You get the left going. You dig 'em, and they hate it because you stand up to them and they don't like it. We on the right and all these people calling in there and passing the buck on you, they need to do their job. They need to get out there. They need to vote, and they need to write letters to their representatives and say, “What's the deal on this?” If the right side, conservatives, Republicans, if they were half dedicated as the libs are on the left, we wouldn't have the majority of the houses Democrat.

RUSH: See, now, that also is very interesting because this is a great way of looking at it, and it allows me, permits me to give you a great definition or explanation of the difference between libs and conservatives. You made the point that the liberals are really committed, and if the conservatives would just be as committed and dedicated as the libs are, then we wouldn't have this majority. Here's the difference -- one of the differences, at least, and a large one. What are the liberals committed to? They are committed to power over people. They are committed to running people's lives. They are committed to the assumption that people are incompetent, and they are committed to controlling government to run people's lives.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: Conservatives are not. Conservatives do not think government should run people. Government should get out of the way as much as possible.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: So for conservatives to battle libs for the government is already a bit a contradiction. When conservatives get hold of the government, the idea is to slow it down.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The problem is that once you get there, as an elected official and find out the amount of money you get to play with, and all the people coming to you offering you all these things if you'll spend it on things they care about, it is seductive, and it can soften even the most committed. None of that happens to the left, because that's the game: to get your hands on that money, to spend it as much and as often as you can in controlling people’s lives with new laws and regulations and dealing with "social injustice." The liberal view of government is one that's entirely opposite of the conservative view of government. So conservatives say, “Well, I gotta get hold of this government to restrain it," but the bureaucracy is not easily restrained, and it's populated, as I just said, with leftists.

They are there regardless who wins the elections. Porter Goss is an example, but any number of them are out there. Look at what happened to Condoleezza Rice with those defamatory cartoons and other things when she goes over to secretary of state. They set out to try to destroy her over here. It takes rare people to put up with it. I'm just trying to spell out the scope of the problem here. I'm not suggesting it's impossible by any stretch of the imagination. Those of you who have listened to me regularly know that "impossible" is not in my vocabulary.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right. Well, I have to do the video podcast and the Morning Update after the show, and then I'm going to go home, and I'm going to ponder further uses of my power -- and yours.

END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

June 27, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Jack in Palm Desert, California, I really appreciate your patience in holding on.  Welcome to the program.

CALLER:  Well, thank you, Rush.  I just had to call.  You're so eloquent when you describe the dangers of liberalism.  You've even been eloquent when you select the Trent Lotts who have betrayed the Republican Party.  Even our president has turned his back from listening to the people who voted him in office.  I just ask one question of you.  We don't have a true conservative running for president.  Giuliani is a fine man, but certainly no conservative.  McCain is certainly not a conservative.  Why is it, I ask, then, we never hear Jim DeMint? Is he a conservative?  Or Tom Coburn, is he conservative, in the image of Ronald Reagan?  Possibly not.  I don't know for sure.  But certainly someone has to speak and encourage other candidates to get into the fray, and we don't have a conservative, that I can see running.  Possibly you could encourage...? I don't know if that's within the rules of the game.  But since you run America...

RUSH:  There are no rules in this game.  

CALLER:  (Chuckles knowingly.)

RUSH: That's what people have to learn.

CALLER:  Well, all I know is I'm scared to death because whomever a Republican nominates -- and God willing, he gets elected -- is he truly conservative?  I have to say no.

RUSH:  Well, this does point to a larger problem.  You say perhaps maybe I or somebody else could encourage somebody who we think is out there not in the race that most closely resembles Reagan.  For somebody to run, they have to want it themselves.  That fire has to be in your belly.  Running for president is so grueling, and it's a media anal exam, and they're out there. Fred Thompson has not even announced, and they're out trying to destroy him, and they're trying to destroy Giuliani now.  Of course they've been trying to destroy Mitt Romney, just as they destroyed George Allen in the Senate race.  Allen, if I may say so, Allen was somebody I was hoping had the potential that you're talking about.  But the Washington Post took him out in the Senate race against Jim Webb, and that probably is an indication that it was going to happen at some point, if not then, but this is one of these things where you have to deal with what you get, and sometimes we get paralyzed by Reagan because we have our fond memories. Reagan was as close to perfection as we can get, and if we measure everybody else by that standard, and of course most everybody's going to come up short because there was only one Ronald Reagan.  Look, I understand what you're saying, and I have the same frustrations about it that go a little bit deeper than just that we don't have a Republican candidate. 

Within the Republican Party itself, there is an ongoing effort to minimize and diminish the power of the conservative wing of that party, because they're embarrassed.  The country club blue-blooders don't like them.  It will take a candidate who can relate to people in a conservative way to fire up the base and again dominate in a Republican Party.  I don't know who it would be.  There will be somebody to come down the road eventually, but this immigration bill, some of these other things that are happening out there, if one of these guys you mentioned or somebody who you haven't mentioned is looking at this, there is a vacuum that is being created here for just the kind of candidate you suggested.  It's just a little late now for filing dates and getting involved in these races.  Newt Gingrich is out there, and he's vacillating back and forth as to what to do.  People have pluses and minus thoughts on Gingrich, too.  But we will begin the quest -- and, of course, I know that you will understand this, Jack, and I don't mean this to sound wrong.  The obvious candidate here is me, but I wouldn't stand a chance.  All it would take would be the first commercial: "Feminazi. He's the architect, the author, the creator.." (interruption) That's right. I already run the country, so I don't need to take the pay cut of running for politics. Look, I really appreciate what you said. You're very nice, and I'm not trying to laugh at it.  You make some excellent points.  This is why, folks -- what Jack said here, by the way, is why -- you gotta stay involved in this and this will go a long way to producing the kind of candidate that you all seem to miss, that there is this void in now.  A lot of people are of the same opinion.  Again, look (sigh). I get frustrated having to say these kind of things, but things are what they are, and you can sit around and wish for something different, but wishing and hoping? You know, hope never did anything.  Hope may help you if you fall down in a well.  You may hope you get out for a couple days, but hope ain't going to get you out.  Wishing has its value, has its place, but it doesn't accomplish anything -- well, not really. Passion and... I don't want to get too deep with this because I'm way long here and I might miss a commercial break, and that would get me in trouble.  

END TRANSCRIPT

November 19, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mark in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.  Am I reading that right?  Welcome to the program.  Don't have my glasses on so I couldn't really read it, but I guessed and got it right.

CALLER:  Yes you got it right, dittos, long-time listener, 24/7 member, and fellow talk show host inspired by you, my friend.

RUSH:  Well.

CALLER:  Been at it for five years on the Internet, think I've got the biggest show on the Internet, and I've got a big question for you.

RUSH:  All right, ask away.

CALLER:  All right.  The question is this.  I think the most conservative candidate that we have for president is Duncan Hunter, going through his website, listening to what he's got on the news, his different interviews and stuff, I mean he definitely meets the conservative agenda head on.  And we're just not hearing a lot from him.  And we're not hearing a lot from him, from you.  And I'm wondering, sir, do you have any plans in the near future for interviews with him, for talking to him on the air?  I mean, I did hear, you spoke about an e-mail update you got from him the other day, but other than that it looks like the best candidate here is not getting pushed by the strongest conservative people.

RUSH:  Well, here's my answer to your question.  I'm asked this a lot and historically I have not gotten involved in primaries, because if I had any of these people, and they have all asked to come on this show, and I respectfully say no, because I'd have to ask them all back.  And I really don't look at this program as a campaign vehicle during primaries.  Among other things, I, frankly, Mark, I have the belief that political candidates have a duty to get noticed themselves.  It's an unfair process in terms -- Mrs. Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton is strictly there because she didn't divorce her husband.  In fact, she's strictly there because she married him.  If her last name weren't Clinton, she'd be the dean of some all-girls' school in Albania touring villages at night and doing whatever you do in a village at night, when you run an all-girls' school.  She's just benefiting from conventional wisdom.  In the case of Rudy, the reason Rudy is getting a lot of attention is the northeastern bias in the media.  The northeastern bias in the media wants two northeasterners to run.  

Even some of our conservative journalist friends who are headquartered and work in the northeast, in New York and Washington, are willing to overlook, in some cases, the lack of genuine conservatism in some candidates because they're from the northeast.  They have a geographical bias because of where they live.  People in the northeast think it's at that it's the heartbeat and the pulse of the country there, and the rest of the country is flyover country and all of that.  So it's tough to get out of the bottom tier.  You need a really humongous debate performance, and you need an early announcement in some cases when you're going against somebody that's going to benefit from all the conventional wisdom, the media and others.  But I sit and watch until one of them surfaces because that's what their job is to do, not mine.

END TRANSCRIPT

December 17, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We go back to Eureka, South Dakota, this is Charlie.  I'm glad you waited, sir.  Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER:  Rush, thank you very much.

RUSH:  You bet, sir.

CALLER:  I am totally honored and humbled by being able to wish you, sir -- the supreme conservative commander of the world -- mega dittos and Merry Christmas.

RUSH:  Thank you very much, and the same to you, sir.

CALLER:  I have a number of things about Mike Huckabee that I really, really love and I'd like to push one really neat idea.  When my kids were in school, I told my children that if your science teacher wants to talk about evolution, you raise your hand, you stand up, and you say, "Sir, if you want to think that you came from apes, my father has instructed me to let you think that, but the Hoffmans do not, sir," and Mike Huckabee's conservative response to the creationism on national television to millions and millions of people, just put fear into the hearts of all the liberals who want to think that there is somebody else out there besides God running our lives.

RUSH:  All right, I'm very curious.  I'm glad you called, Charlie, because you're an avowed, committed Huckster, and I want to ask you, what is it primarily about Mr. Huckabee, Governor Huckabee, that excites you?  Is it that he's a Baptist minister, former Baptist minister, and is saying things that resonate with you on matters of like you just said, creation and God, is that the primary reason he's  attractive to you?

CALLER:  Really what I'm attracted to, Rush, is he is kind. He is thoughtful. He is the quickest man on his feet with the correct answers that I think have a moral basis, better than all the other candidates.

RUSH:  What all do you know about his policies and the things that he did as governor, the things that he said policy-wise during his presidential campaign?

CALLER:  I do not know a lot about what happened in Arkansas.  I -- I know that he took on the Clinton machine and he beat them.

RUSH:  Well, okay.  I actually think he's a populist like Clinton is.  I think one of the ways he was... In some states, and Arkansas is one of them, they're really not Republican or Democrat. They're populist in a lot of ways, and Clinton mastered that.  I think Huckabee did, too.  I think he was able to win the same way in Arkansas that Clinton did, with populism.  He's under some fire right now, Charlie, for something. A little piece he wrote in Foreign Affairs, which is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I want to read to you the opening two paragraphs and just get your reaction to it.  I'm not trying to put you on the spot -- and if you'd rather not, I won't -- but, if you'd like to hear them, I'll read them to you and get your reaction.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  This is the only two paragraphs.  "The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised. American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world, but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests."  What's your reaction when you hear those two paragraphs?

CALLER:  I would have to say that I would agree with the latter part, being that I don't think it's in our best interests to follow what the UN is doing.  I think we should be autonomous from that.

RUSH:  Well, that's the Law of the Sea Treaty, but he didn't just attack the UN.  He aimed at the Bush administration, and he said it's an "arrogant bunker mentality that's been counterproductive at home and abroad." He also said that America, "like a high school student: If it is modest about its abilities and achievements and generous in helping others, it's loved."  Now, I think there's no more generous country in the world than the United States.  I don't know what he means by that.  

CALLER:  I agree a hundred percent, and I would say, too, though, to that, the decrease in deaths in Iraq today would be a firm commitment to that we are following the correct path and George Bush did do the right thing by going in and taking Saddam out.

RUSH:  So Huckabee writes this piece basically savaging the Bush administration's "arrogant bunker mentality."  Now, one thing I know, I remember back in the '92 campaign, Ross Perot came along, and I had my instincts. I had misgivings about it from the get-go, and I shared those misgivings, and I tried to talk the Perot people out of it. "You people are being fooled. He's not even serious about wanting to be elected. There's something else going on here. I'm going to get to the bottom of it and find out."  I found out what it was.  When it looked like he was going to win, he pulled out, then he got back in.  He basically gave the election to the Democrats and Bill Clinton.  But what I remember is that all during that period -- when I was so intense and so purposefully desirous of trying to get the Perot people to see the light -- they didn't want to see it. They were like cultists, and I learned that you cannot talk cultists out of their cult.  You just have to let 'em see it for themselves in the time it takes for it all to unfold, and I think with Huckabee, I don't think his people are cultists, don't misunderstand.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  But I think there are two or three things about him that have drawn people to him, that are going to make them overlook some other things that ought to raise some red flags.

CALLER:  Okay.  I would have to agree and state that he might be trying to work his way towards the middle, which, in America today, I think if you're going to try to get 54, 55% of the vote and become president, you need to be closer to the middle than the outside.

RUSH:  Well, now, what is the outside?  Is mainstream conservatism the outside?

CALLER: Uhhh.

RUSH: See, Ronald Reagan didn't move to "the middle."  Ronald Reagan got two landslides on straight, down the middle conservatism.  It wins nationally every time it's tried.

CALLER:  Right.  Right.  I would say the conservatives today in America aren't out there on the fringe.  We do have compassion. We do need to take care of people who are less fortunate than us, but we also can't give money to the government --

RUSH:  No.

CALLER:  -- expecting them to do it.  

RUSH:  Conservatives have the compassion to tell people less fortunate than us how to change their circumstances, how to educate them, how to teach them.  Because we believe, as conservatives in the full potential of every human being, based on how much that human being wants it, and that's what we try to do. We count compassion by how many people don't need federal assistance anymore.  

CALLER:  I agree.

RUSH:  That's our definition of compassion.

CALLER:  I agree.  We get up everyday. We have one thing that we need to work on. That's our own attitude.  We can either make to or break it --

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  -- in the first five minutes of the morning.

RUSH:  My only point to you is that -- and I'm not going to repeat what I did with Perot, because it's not going to work.  The only thing I'll say to you is, "I think if you dug deep, you would find..." Well, you admitted it. You think Huckabee is "moving to the middle," because he's moving to the middle, he's abandoning what?  The right.  He'll stick solid on certain things on the right because he knows that he is attracting a portion of the population based on religious and moral and ethical values, which is fine, but on some of these other areas that also define conservatism like taxes and so forth, he doesn't have the pedigree.  But I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.  No, I don't even think about it. I'm not trying to talk you out of it. I'm not attacking you because I know you can't, because you called here and you think he's the one true conservative out there because of the things that matter a lot to you, he's right on the money on them.  So we'll see what unfolds in the few short weeks ahead to when we finally get nominees for both parties.  In the meantime, Charlie, thanks for the call.  It's great to talk to you.  Thanks for enduring my, quote, unquote, "challenge."  You're a gutsy guy. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Pete Wehner, who used to work in the White House (he was on Karl Rove's staff, number one behind Rove) has a piece today on Huckabee.  It's at National Review Online, and he also wants to take issue with the first two paragraphs of Huckabee's essay that he wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine, particularly the claim by Huckabee that we're too mean around the world; we're trying to dominate the world, and we need to be more like a top high school student, modest about our abilities and achievements, generous, and then we will be loved.  If we keep dominating people, we'll be despised, and "the Bush administration's arrogant and bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad."  Now, understandably, Mr. Wehner, is a former member of the president's staff working with Karl Rove.  So keep that in mind as I share with you just some brief comments from his essay today.  

"The fact is that the United States has sacrificed an enormous amount of blood and treasure to help other nations. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong and even offensive." This animus against the US. "We have, for starters, liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most repressive regimes in modern history (the Taliban and the Baathist police state in Iraq)." That doesn't count all the others that have been liberated over the course of our existence. "The global AIDS initiative qualifies as among the most humane and generous acts in the history of American foreign policy. We give billions in additional foreign aid, including the enormous generosity America displayed in helping Indonesia and other nations in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami ...   The United States, while imperfect, ranks as perhaps the most benevolent superpower (to say nothing of its status as a benevolent nation) in human history. Unlike past empires, we are using American power and influence for great good instead of as a means of advancing oppression.   

"Beyond that, the belief that if we are modest and generous we will be 'loved' by other nations, and that anger at America is based on our attempts to 'dominate,' is both naive and foolish. Some nations (like Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and others) will oppose us because they are totalitarian states that hate our efforts to curb their ambitions and advance freedom and self-determination.  They are not the loving kind.  Other nations (like France under Jacques Chirac) will oppose us because they can’t stand the idea of a unipolar world and want to counterbalance it. And other nations (like [the ChiComs] and Russia) will oppose our efforts to end genocide in Darfur and keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons because of their economic interests.  Memo to Mike Huckabee: Sometimes we are despised for all the right reasons" -- Pete Wehner.  That's just an excerpt from his piece at National Review Online today. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I got something for you to think about here before we go to the break.  If you really want the world to love us, really want the world to love us, stop foreign aid. Just cut 'em off! You'll see every country on this planet look at us with love, affection, open arms. They'll come begging on bended knee.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm serious, and I remember proposing this way back in the early nineties: a drastic change to foreign aid.  We have two lists.  We have the list of supportive, good countries, and we have the excrement list -- and if you're a country, you don't want to be on the excrement list.  How do you get on the excrement list?  Very simple.  All you do is trash us.  You run around, and you criticize our country, you criticize our president while you're taking billions in aid from us, you get on the excrement list, and you get cut off -- and you don't get off the excrement list until you've done two years of praising this country and thanking it and so forth.  I guarantee you, it will never happen, but it would make us the most loved nation on the face of the Earth -- until about a year after they get off the excrement list, then if they start trashing us again, then we'd have to put 'em back on the excrement list, and we'd have to have the guts to keep doing that. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is No-dra in Palm Desert, California, or Nah-dra.  How do you pronounce your name?

CALLER:  Nah-dra. [Spelled "Nodra."]

RUSH:  Nah-dra.  I got it right the second time.  Welcome to the program.

CALLER:  Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

RUSH:  Same to you.

CALLER:  Huckabee, there is a [George C. Scott] movie that was made quite a few years ago. It was called The Flim-Flam Man.

RUSH:  (laughter) Yes.

CALLER:  That's Huckabee.

RUSH:  I thought you were talking about Elmer Gantry for a second.

CALLER: (laughing) Well, probably that, too, but anyway, it's a movie. He's a water diviner and he keeps double-talking everything and everybody looking for his water, and that reminds me of Huckabee.

RUSH:  What do you have against Huckabee?

CALLER:  What?

RUSH:  What do you have against Huckabee?

CALLER:  What do I have against Huckabee?  He says one thing one time to an audience and another thing to another audience.

RUSH:  Like?

CALLER:  In Arkansas he raised taxes. Everything that he could tax, he raised, and now he's telling people he doesn't believe in raising taxes.

RUSH:  Even though he's done it as governor?

CALLER:  Even though he's done it as governor.  So that --

RUSH:  Well, who is your candidate out there, Nodra?

CALLER:  Me!  No, I don't have one. (laughing)

RUSH: (laughs) We all think we could be doing better jobs than these guys are!

CALLER:  (laughter) Probably, right now.  But the other thing Huckabee is a minister in a church.  Would we elect a Catholic priest?

RUSH:  Well, he's "former."

CALLER:  You're never a "former." I mean, once you're a minister, you always have that Word behind you and that feeling behind you, and would you elect a rabbi as a president?

RUSH:  Would you elect a first lady?

CALLER:  If it was the right one.

RUSH:  Yeah, okay. (laughs)

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: I thought I'd trip you up; you're too fast for me.

CALLER:  Well...

RUSH:  By the way, what's the weather like out in Palm Desert today?

CALLER:  Sixty.

RUSH:  Sixties.  Is that normal for this time of year?

CALLER:  Yes.  Probably December and the first part of January are our coldest months.  Now we start warming up to 70 and 80.

RUSH:  Well, cool.  I hope you have a Merry Christmas, as you said at the beginning, Nodra.  Thanks so much, I have to run because of the constraints time and the very complicated programming format.

CALLER:  Have a good day.

RUSH:  You do the same. 

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• National Review Online: The Problem With Pastor Mike

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjgzMzYzY2Y1ZjAxNTg5YzAzNzY2MjMwOWYxNWM0ZTc=

• AFP: Republican Hopefuls Squabble Over Bush Foreign Policy

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071216204336.mrr2owf4&show_article=1