Summary Mon 3/8/93
John Switzer
for Monday, March 8, 1993
by John Switzer
NOTE: This is being posted to both alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
alt.rush-limbaugh and thus you may see it twice if your sysadm
aliases the two newsgroups together. Since most sites don't
support both groups, this double-posting appears to be
unavoidable, however, if anyone has any ideas on how to avoid it,
please let me know. Thanks - j...@netcom.com.
This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1993 by John Switzer.
All Rights Reserved. These summaries are distributed on
CompuServe and the Internet, and archived on CompuServe and
Internet (cathouse.aiss.uiuc.edu). Distribution to other
electronic forums and bulletin boards is highly encouraged.
Spelling and other corrections gratefully received.
Please read the standard disclaimer which was included with the
first summary for this month. In particular, please note that
this summary is not approved or sanctioned by Rush Limbaugh or
the EIB network, nor do I have any connection with them other as
a daily listener.
******************************************************************
March 8, 1993
LIMBAUGH WATCH
March 8, 1993 - It's now day 48 of "America Held Hostage" (aka
the "Raw Deal") and 126 days after Bill Clinton's election, but
Rush is still on the air with 572 radio affiliates (with over 15
million listeners weekly) and 207 TV affiliates (with a 4.0
rating). His book has been on the NY Times hardback non-fiction
best-seller list for 25 consecutive weeks, with over 2.2 million
copies sold, and has once again regained the number one spot on
the Los Angeles Times best-seller list. However, the book has
fallen to number two on the NY Times list; Limbaugh Watchers
anxiously await future indications of Rush's continued decline.
NEWS
o The February 27th issue of the Economist reports that the
appearances of "chickens" and "Pinocchios" during President
Bush's campaign stops last year were coordinated by a four-person
"counter-events" unit of the Democratic National Committee. The
group, which reportedly spent $120,000 of DNC funds, coordinated
their work with the Clinton campaign in Little Rock, although the
Clinton campaign repeatedly denied any involvement with the
group's activities. One Economist reporter who saw one of the
chicken suits hanging in the closet of the Clinton campaign's
Chicago headquarters was even told by Clinton staffers that "his
eyes deceived him."
The Democrats admitted that they had a "mole" in the White House
who provided them with details of President Bush's schedule, so
that the appearances by the chickens and Pinocchios could be
properly coordinated. The DNC, however, still refuses to explain
how the campaign got a copy of President Bush's convention speech
in advance, claiming that this "remains a mystery."
The counter-events unit also infiltrated Republican party
organizations by sending over Clinton campaign sympathizers to
work as "volunteers." The Economist reports that "this, we are
told, is how 50 witches came to be admitted to a Bush rally on
Halloween night, just before the election."
o City Council members for Carpinteria, a sea-side
community about 10 miles south of Santa Barbara, will vote
tonight on a new ordinance that would make it illegal for minors
to possess Magic Markers or cans of spray paint. The ordinance is
designed to reduce graffiti, and would also require city shop
owners to keep these materials behind the counter.
o State assemblyman Jack O'Connell (D-Santa Barbara) is
sponsoring a state bill that would require antifreeze
manufacturers to add a bitter-tasting agent to the liquid.
O'Connell, whose bill follows the death of a California condor
that died after drinking a pool of antifreeze, says that his bill
is necessary in order to protect the state's children and animal
populations.
MORNING UPDATE
It's bad enough when symbolism over substance is the guiding rule
for the federal government, but it's even worse when symbolism
takes over a large percentage of the nation's populace. For
example, the latest craze is holding a bake sale to reduce the
federal deficit. One elementary school raised $130, while another
raised $200, and Clinton not only took this money but applauded
the school children and encouraged others to follow suit.
Now it seems that everyone wants to jump onto the symbolism
bandwagon, including good capitalist types. The chairman of
Eskimo Pies just announced that for the next month, five cents of
every box of Eskimo Pies sold during the next month will be
donated to the newest American charity - the US Treasury. This
will raise at most perhaps $50,000 to $70,000.
The problem with these things is that they do nothing towards
achieving the main goal of reducing the deficit, but people still
seem content with their symbolic gestures because these gestures
make them feel good. By doing such things, people can feel like
they matter and are a relevant part of this nation.
However, if Americans are serious about holding bake sales and
such to reduce the deficit, then they should want to make sure
their efforts actually work. Why not set up special deficit
reduction trust fund and deposit all of these donations into it?
Then the government would be told that it doesn't get this money
unless it cuts a similar amount from spending. Only by doing this
will all of these symbolic gestures really do anything
substantive about the desired goal.
FIRST HOUR
Items
o Rush received a letter from Dorothy from "somewhere in
America" who suggests that since President Clinton loves FDR so
much that his administration should be called the "Raw Deal."
Rush likes the idea and will continue to use it.
o George and Leslie Brett are the proud parents of a nine-
pound, 8 ounce boy, Jackson Richard Brett, who was born today at
7:22 a.m. in Kansas City, MO. Brett told Rush that the Bonnie
Raitt song "Let's Give Them Something to Talk About" was playing
when his son was being born.
Rush congratulates the Bretts and their five-hour-old boy; he
points out that Jackson Brett will undoubtedly become a "real
man," of which there are far too few in America. Rush knows that
the NOW gang is even now quaking in its collective boots since
they will soon have to take on yet another "real man."
o A listener suggests that when Rush in the future takes
calls from Clinton supporters that the callers be required to
pass a simple IQ test. For example, they could be asked "when was
the War of 1812 fought?" or "in what year was the 1990 Budget
Deal signed?"
o A few days ago Rush talked about the White House's new
caller comment line which allowed the public to express their
opinion on four aspects of Clinton's economic program. Rush
called the number on his show and then gave out the phone number;
he didn't ask for people to call, but simply was trying to help
the White House out by publicizing their new way of communicating
with the American people.
Rush hadn't thought this would be a problem since the purpose of
the phone number was to get the opinion of America on these
issues. Thus, the White House should be glad that Rush helped to
get the word out about their new phone system. However, a Dallas
TV station reported last weekend that because Rush gave the
number out, the White House is disregarding the results from this
phone system. Evidently, a lot of votes against Clinton's plan
came in, so the White House decided to invalidate it.
Thus, this is how the White House works - they will continue
their public call-in poll as long as only liberals know the phone
number. As soon as people opposed to the President's plan start
calling in, though, the White House will invalidate the poll
altogether.
o Greg from Lancaster wrote Rush to recall how during the
Republican convention President Bush in his acceptance speech
mentioned the idea of a check-off box on federal income tax forms
to reduce the deficit. People would enter a "donation" to be
applied to the deficit, and the IRS would add up all the numbers,
and not only would that amount of money be applied to the
deficit, but Congress would also be required to cut spending by
that amount.
This plan was met with all sorts of derision and ridicule by the
Democrats, media, and all sorts of critics. However, now these
same people are applauding the idea of having a bake sale for the
deficit. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy exists
among those on the left.
If people really wanted to reduce the deficit (without attacking
the main cause of the deficit, which is the government spending
too much), then the tax form check-off box is a far better
approach than having bake sales. There have been some good
stories in the papers about the bake sale idea, and many
listeners have written Rush with their own thoughts. He promises
to talk more about this later in the show.
*BREAK*
Items
o Rush warns the callers to today's show that he will ask
them the following question: "How much will the federal debt
increase in the five years of Clinton's economic plan, according
to President Clinton himself?" Rush is more interested in what
people's impressions are about this, and therefore doesn't want
callers to look it up.
o In an editorial last weekend, the Washington Times
figured out that the Bureau of Public Debt collects an average of
$1.5 million a year in donations from "public-minded citizens"
who want to help reduce the deficit. Assuming that this amount is
raised each year by elementary school bake sales, it would take
"only 2.8 million years" to pay off the national debt, assuming
that there are no interest payments made during this time.
Rush points out that mankind may not even be around this long,
given the threats that exist from the automobile, styrofoam,
asteroids, supernovas, etc. He states he is not "rubbing this
stuff in," but is only trying to point out a few facts. This, of
course, means that Rush is the "cold shower" who is daring to
show the truth to people who would prefer to ignore reality so
that they could feel good.
That notwithstanding, Rush also points out that if a bake sale
takes in $150, this will run the government for 4.3 milliseconds
(4.3 x 10^-3 seconds). "It's nothing, folks," Rush states. "This
is not even a belch," as the federal government spends $9,012 per
second, which is $570,776 per hour.
Mrs. Vide Whistler of Pennsylvania also points out that although
Rush was close, he "missed the bull's-eye." She would like to
know what gives a school teacher the right to speak for 30
third-graders, "who have no concept of what a federal deficit
really is. These kids can't add or subtract past four digits, and
they've got no idea of what political gestures are or that
they've been manipulated."
Mrs. Whistler thinks this is not education, but rather
indoctrination. She doesn't like how more and more projects are
inappropriate to kids' age levels; teachers ask uncomprehending
children to solve world problems and then claim this is
"education." The kids, however, are not being taught what the
real problems or solutions are, but only that their "solutions"
are wonderful.
Rush knows some people may think he is taking these things too
seriously, but he doesn't agree. Too many people think that this
sort of thing is great, but if you teach kids wrongly that their
"solutions" are really solving problems, then they are not being
properly educated. Plus, politics in all this is inescapable,
especially when children are being taught things which support a
political agenda.
Kids are being raised to think they have helped to solve a
problem, but in reality they haven't done anything about it.
"This is what leads to little liberals," Rush adds.
*BREAK*
Phone Ted from Davenport, IO
Rush asks Ted the question of the day, and Ted guesses that the
national debt will increase by about $100 billion. Ted was at the
local library and saw an article about Rush in a two-week-old
paper. Some other readers, obviously biased against Rush, had
defaced the paper by writing their own comments over the article.
Ted thinks it's obvious these people haven't heard Rush for
themselves at all, so he wonders how Rush deals with critics such
as these who really don't know him or his show.
Rush says that there's two basic ways to examine this sort of
criticism. Rush is concerned about "doing the right thing" and
about being honest and open, and he admits that personal
criticism used to hurt him and make him mad. Generally the
criticism that is levied against Rush is about the type of person
he is, and it is never accurate; people accuse Rush of being
mean, heartless, cold-hearted, etc. and Rush at first didn't know
how to react or respond to these sort of remarks.
Rush then started to realize that because he speaks the truth and
skewers liberalism's sacred cows that he is a major threat to
liberals. He is very threatening to liberals, especially as Rush
has a lot of confidence about himself. Liberals react with
paranoia and act as if Rush wants to enforce his way of thinking
on everyone, even though it is liberals who want everyone to
think exactly as they do.
When he realized this, Rush was able to ignore the personal
criticism. On a professional level, though, Rush is divided as to
which way he should react. On the one side, there's the "GM"
reaction, which is to fight back hard and destroy or discredit
the criticism totally. On the other side, there's the idea that
you should not respond to demeaning and meaningless criticism
such as these personal attacks.
Since Rush tries to keep focused on his audience, he thus doesn't
worry too much about these critics, especially since the
criticism has not hurt him professionally at all. The way he's
been dealing with these things recently can be illustrated by the
column which William Raspberry recently wrote which claimed Rush
was a "bigot" who throws "raw meat" to his listeners.
Raspberry was deluged by mail from readers who were both fans of
his and Rush, and because their letters were well-written and
thoughtful, Raspberry decided to listen to Rush's show for
himself. He then wrote a second column which apologized for his
earlier remarks, stating that although he and Rush had differing
opinions, Rush was not the nazi-like bigot he originally thought.
A Seattle columnist also recently wrote a "mea culpa" column like
this, displaying what Rush now calls "the Raspberry effect."
Thus, most of the vile criticism which is aimed at Rush is from
people who haven't listened to him for themselves. The best way
Rush can fight this is with his audience; when Rush is being
accused of being a nazi hate-monger, this means his audience is
likewise as well. Rush's audience doesn't like being classified
this way, so they respond. The critics realize they were wrong
about who Rush's audience is, and thus come to the conclusion
that they were wrong about Rush, too.
Another example of mindless criticism is the review of "Falling
Down" by Caryn James in the New York Times. James writes:
"These things can happen to any of us, but would any of us
respond to these things by beating a Korean grocer, shooting a
Latino street gang, stabbing a neo-nazi, terrorizing a Whammy
Burger restaurant, and using a rocket launcher to blow up a
construction site? Even if we were having a really, really bad
day, would any of us do that? Well, the characters' response to
crime and what he just did implies `don't blame me, I'm the
victim,' and there's an audience for this opinion.
"It's the attitude that Rush Limbaugh promotes on his radio show
and in his book `The Way Things Ought to Be.' Just as Mr.
Limbaugh says in his book that the homeless should bear some
blame for their condition, so the Michael Douglas character rails
against a vagrant and snarls at him to get a job. Like Mr.
Limbaugh, the film is smart enough to use satire instead of logic
to make political points.
"A man who asks the Michael Douglas character for money says `I
haven't eaten for days,' though he happens to be holding a
sandwich. When the Douglas character shoots up the Whammy Burger,
he has reason to be annoyed. He wants breakfast and he's three
minutes too late."
Thus, according to Caryn James, Rush's audience is full of
reprobates who are just itching to blow up a fast food
restaurant, beat up the homeless and Korean grocers, and blow up
construction sites. This is according to an elitist film critic
of the NY Times who also believes that Rush is getting rich by
actively encouraging this sort of behavior.
"This is patently absurd," says Rush, who thinks James' column is
totally irresponsible. It's obvious that James has not bothered
to read Rush's book for herself or listen to his radio show for
any length of time. However, she isn't alone - even the director
of this movie said on NPR's All Things Considered that he didn't
think his movie was inflammatory, even though its trailers ask
the audience "don't you wish you could do this, too?" The
director then stated "if you want to be enraged, listen to Rush
Limbaugh."
Thus, the director of this movie and an elitist movie critic
think that Rush encourages this sort of physical action against
one's social enemies. Rush has never done this, yet this is what
some liberals really think. What Rush finds interesting about all
this is that when he casually mentioned the movie last week, he
was deluged by letters from listeners who hate this movie. Thus,
the movie is supposedly based on Rush Limbaugh listeners, yet
almost none of his listeners think the movie is worthwhile.
Rush says that if this criticism of him were true, he would be
bothered. However, since these charges against him are baseless,
he's not going to worry about them, especially since he has his
radio show, TV show, book, and newsletter to speak for him. In
particular, the March issue of his newsletter has not one word of
hate in it; only love and good thoughts.
James' review, though, proves that the left think that Rush's
public in particular, and the American public at large, is full
of barbaric fools and dolts who can't be trusted to think for
themselves. This is why liberals are needed in government, so
that they can take care of these people from cradle to grave.
Rush adds that it is not the type of character Michael Douglas
plays in this movie - laid-off defense workers - who are out
there committing the crimes.
*BREAK*
Phone Randy from Bakersfield, CA
Rush asks Randy how much the federal debt will increase because
of Clinton's plan, and Randy says $250 billion a year. Rush finds
this strange because Clinton claims his plan will reduce the
deficit. Randy congratulates the Bretts, especially since today
is his 36th birthday. Randy also thanks "Mr. Clinton for
abrogating my First Amendment rights by discounting my opinion on
his White House phone line."
Rush laughs at this and is amazed by how the liberals are
assaulting his listeners - first, a NY Times movie critic writes
that they are all on the verge of becoming violent psychotics,
and then the White House doesn't think they are worth listening
to in the slightest. Randy wonders if a a class action suit could
be brought against the White House for this.
Randy also saw the movie "Falling Down" last weekend, and it was
obvious to him that all of the problems and violence occurring in
the movie were the "direct result of the women in the movie."
Rush hasn't seen the movie and asks Randy to explain. Randy says
that the reason Michael Douglas went nuts is because his wife
wouldn't let him see his daughter.
Rush says that James writes about this - she makes a big point
about how the Michael Douglas character was such a bully that his
wife had to get a restraining order against him. Randy says that
in the movie the wife is explaining to a cop that she has a
restraining order against her husband. The cop asks if the
husband ever hit the wife or child, and the woman replied "well,
no, but he could have!"
Rush finds this interesting and points out that this seems to be
the whole point of the liberals' paranoia - "you people could act
like this." He adds that he would also like someone to explain
why the "Crying Game" is such a popular movie, because he can't
figure it out either.
*BREAK*
TV Guide is reporting that the Cartoon Network has the same
average ratings as CNN, but the Cartoon Network has been on the
air for only six weeks or so.
*BREAK*
SECOND HOUR
Items
o Rush recalls that he first noticed actress Mimi Rogers in
the 80s series "Paper Dolls." The next time he saw her, it was in
the movie "Someone To Watch Over Me," which is one of Rush's
favorites. Last week, Rogers was in an NBC movie and there was an
astounding media blitz surrounding it.
Rush was impressed at this level of coverage, so he asked Kathie
Lee Gifford about Rogers, and Gifford replied that Rogers was a
"feisty gal." Last week Rush was flipping through the channels
and when he hit the Disney Channel he saw her in a movie about
horses and disabled kids. Rush was surprised because this didn't
seem to be the sort of movie Rogers would normally be in,
especially since Ed Begley, Jr. was her co-star.
However, he then saw a newspaper story of Rogers attending a
benefit for the Brazilian rainforest, and he realized that "she
had to be a leftist babe." This would be in keeping with Begley's
environmental activist agenda, and Rush was saddened to see that
one of his favorite actresses was firmly ensconced on the left.
o "Rich Dick Rich" of the EIB Institute's Memory Division
sent in a report about imputed income. Rich says that if
President Clinton is going to use imputed income for homeowners,
then why isn't it used to show the true income levies that
America's poor families really have? After all, if imputed income
is going to skew the income levels of the middle class, why not
do the same for the poor, to show just how generous America is to
its citizens?
Thus, every form of public assistance to the poor should be
included when assessing the income level of the poor. Rush isn't
attacking the poor and those on welfare, but he does want to show
how generous a country America is.
o A letter from Larch of Bridgeport, CT reports that
Bridgeport is considering banning ski masks because they are used
to commit crimes. Rush adds that he saw a report recently that
stated most bank robbers use masks of Reagan and Bush while they
are committing their crimes, so why not ban those as well?
o The St. Louis Riverfront Times has a "Street Talk"
feature which asks people in the street a question, and then
shows their replies and pictures. A recent question was, "Who's
funnier - Rush Limbaugh or Sandra Bernhard?" Danny Bonaduce,
problem child actor, said "Rush Limbaugh by far - he's not nearly
as masculine, but he's funnier." Similarly, all five of the other
respondents choose Rush over Bernhard, although some of them did
so because "Rush is so unreal" or because "Rush is ludicrous
because he believes what he says."
One woman who is news director for a St. Louis radio station did
add that "Bernhard thinking she is gorgeous is really funny, too.
She's a dog, and her thinking she's pretty is almost as funny as
Rush Limbaugh thinking he's smart." Rush points out that he
didn't say this; it was a woman working for a "maggot-infested,
long-hair FM station."
Rush points out that this is not good news for Bernhard since
she's a comedian who is trying to be funny, but nobody evidently
seems to think she is succeeding.
o Brian from Lincoln, NB recalls that Clinton explained
away the breaking of his promise about not raising taxes on the
middle class by saying it would be "irresponsible for any
President not to respond to changing conditions." This basically
gives President Clinton license to lie at any time, since he can
claim that he has to break his promises in order to respond to
"changing conditions."
However, Brian is willing to take Clinton at his word, so he asks
if it is responsible for Clinton to insist on a spending stimulus
package "in the face of a burgeoning economic recovery." Rush
agrees - it's irresponsible for Clinton to hang onto his stimulus
package when the current economic condition no longer justifies
it. Rush reminds the President of his own words, that people
"must have the courage to quit."
*BREAK*
Phone Larry from Plainville, CT
Larry says that when he was in third-grade 20 years ago, his
class used part of their classroom to make products, which they
then sold at recess. They saved the money, added on to their
store, and at the end of the year threw a big party with what
they had left. Now, though, it seems that third-graders are being
taught to make something and then just give it away. Thus, these
children are being taught the basic tenet of liberalism at an
early age - that you give away everything you work for.
Rush does think the way these grade school children are being
taught is a bit irresponsible, and he thinks Mrs. Whistler's
letter about how these kids are being indoctrinated hit the nail
on the head. Rush applauds the kids' desire to help, but they
should be taught the realities of what they are doing and to
search for the real solutions to today's problems.
Phone Gary from Panama City, FL
Rush chastises himself for not asking Larry the EIB question of
the day, so he asks Gary what Clinton's plan is supposed to do to
the national debt. Gary thinks Clinton has said the debt will not
increases, but he doesn't believe that; he thinks the debt will
really increase about $300 billion a year over the next five
years.
Gary is a retired Air Force colonel who wants to make Rush look
good by talking about capital gains. He bought a house in Alabama
in 1978, which was about when Carter and his Democratic Congress
started indexing entitlements. Gary would like to sell this house
now, but he refuses to do so because he would end up paying far
too much "in contributions to Mrs. Clinton."
Gary says that the gain in his property's value due to inflation
alone is about $130,000, and if he sold it now, he wouldn't
realize any real gains, thanks to taxes. However, if capital
gains were indexed for inflation, he would sell, as would many
others - "property would start moving like crazy." Rush agrees,
and promises to talk more about this after the break.
*BREAK*
Rush says that Gary was talking about how most of the appreciated
value of his house has come from inflation, and as such is not a
real gain. If he sold the house now he would have to pay capital
gains taxes on the gains due to inflation, resulting in a major
loss. If capital gains were indexed for inflation, though, Gary
and others homeowners wouldn't be penalized for inflation.
"It's only fair," Rush states, a sentiment now much in vogue
since the Clinton administration seems intent on a "relentless
pursuit of fairness." Clinton, however, has rejected the indexing
of capital gains, but Rush suspects that eventually the Democrats
in Congress will do it when they are convinced that they can get
all the credit for it.
Once this is done, Gary and other homeowners will be able to sell
their houses without incurring a punitive tax rate, and therefore
pay taxes only on the real appreciation of their property. This
will result in an incredible amount of home sales, helping the
economy greatly. Many people begged President Bush to do this via
executive order in early 1992, but he decided against it.
Phone Jerry from Patuxent River, MD
Jerry is an enlisted man in the Navy, and he's concerned about
how the Clinton administration's massive defense cuts will hurt
him and others in the military. It's not just the base closings,
but all of the other budget cuts. Rush says that Clinton claims
he'll take care of the displaced military personnel with
"retraining" programs.
Jerry has little faith in these programs, and Rush suspects he is
justified in his pessimism. Rush admits, though, that there is
one fun aspect of the current flap about base closings, and
that's watching Democrats who for years have called for massive
defense cuts scuttle around now trying to make sure that their
piece of the country isn't touched.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, for example, was complaining yesterday
that Clinton's base closings will unfairly hurt California, a
state which is suffering a near 10% unemployment rate already,
thanks to previous defense cutbacks. Feinstein was probably one
of the many Democrats who thought that the budget could be
balanced by cutting the "evil" defense budget, but now that the
reality is hitting home, she's backpedalling furiously.
These people are finally learning that defense cuts don't cut
needless weapons systems or waste, but rather are cutting out
people's jobs and livelihoods. In particular, defense cuts hurt
people who have volunteered to serve their country, and perhaps
die for it. Jerry says that this is his point - he enlisted into
the Navy and signed a work contract to stay in the Navy for so
many years.
Now, though, the draw downs are coming down the pike, and many
people who are close to retirement are scared of what will happen
to them. They fear that they will be forced out, won't be given
any retirement benefits, and after 14 or 15 years spent in the
military, will be left out in the cold.
Rush points out that people such as Jerry are victims of the
liberal stereotypical thinking that considers defense to be
always evil and always wasteful. Rush has pointed out several
times that the defense budget is the largest single social
program in America; 60% of the budget is spent on people -
housing, feeding, training, and otherwise taking care of them.
Rush adds that this social program is unique in the federal
budget because it's not a giveaway or entitlement. The people in
the military are performing a vital task - serving their country.
However, liberals think that cutting defense means getting rid of
tanks, missiles, planes, etc. But significant reductions can't be
made in defense without putting a lot of people out of work.
The Democrats have thus decided that they would rather not spend
money on the people in the military as much as they would like to
spend this same money buying the votes of the middle class. They
have worked long and hard to convince the nation that the
military budget is the only place left that can really be cut.
This is why it's so great to see these Democrats running around
and complaining about the base closings; they aren't complaining
about losing planes or submarines, but about losing jobs. Rush
feels for those who have worked so hard in the military and are
now facing the budget knife, but he and so many others warned
against this.
The Democrats, though, rejected these criticisms by claiming they
would solve the problems of displaced military workers by some
mythical retraining programs. To date nobody knows what these
retraining programs are, where they will be held, or what they
will teach the fired military veterans.
*BREAK*
Phone Connie from Austin, TX
Connie gives "burglarized dittos" because her home was ransacked
three weeks ago. She would have faxed Rush some news, but she
kept his fax number on her computer, which is one of the missing
items. Rush gives her the fax number (212-563-9166) but warns
that it won't do her any good since the fax line is busy all the
time. The only way to get through is to put your machine on
automatic redial, and even that is no guarantee.
Connie says she used to be a "wild-eyed, LSD-dropping, pot-
smoking, tree-caressing, hitchhiking, animal rights activist,
pro-choice radical." She is 45 years old now, and was in this
state for "three quarters" of her life.
She started changing her ways several years ago, though, after
she found Rush's radio show and God, although not necessarily in
that order. She says that lost a lot of her "pro-lib pals"
Austin, which she calls "Nuevo Moscow."
She comments that her former liberal friends are incredibly
arrogant and don't believe they ever have to consider
alternatives. They feed on themselves and on what the liberal
media tells them. They are basically a mutual-appreciation
society and can't believe anyone of substance can legitimately
disagree with them.
Rush agrees - liberals love to talk among themselves and feel
free to criticize others such as Rush without bothering to
actually listen to them. Connie says she has been converting
people to Rush by first telling them what Rush says and then
telling them who said it. She adds that she and her converts love
Rush dearly.
Rush thanks Connie for calling and notes that EIB normally tries
to have callers who talk about the issues. "We seldom have
callers who want to talk about me," Rush states, "but now and
then Mr. Snerdley determines that it's wise to let some doting,
fawning caller through, just to change the pace. I always
disapprove of this, but he thinks it should happen now and then
to keep things balanced."
Phone Harry from Philadelphia, PA
Harry has been appalled at how James Carville has been able to
continually keep the Republican party on the defensive and off-
balance. Rush says that since Carville and other Clinton campaign
staffers came back to work for Clinton, the White House has been
totally driving the nation's political agenda. Rush has to wonder
how Carville, Myers, Stephanopoulos, and all the other Clinton
spokespersons can say what they do, but they do a good job of it.
Harry says that Carville is the best political mercenary he's
seen, and he wishes that Kemp and Bennett could reverse Clinton's
use of "sacrifice" and push for a budget freeze; then the US
should help Boris Yeltsin establish a real Russian democracy so
as to prevent the world slipping into anarchy. Clinton is meeting
with Yeltsin next week, but this is more of a move to keep the
Republican party off balance than anything which will result in
substantial support for Russia.
Harry thinks Kemp and Bennett would stop preaching to the
converted and instead try to get the initiative back. Rush says
he was talking to some people last night about this, and will
talk some more about what was discussed after the break.
*BREAK*
Rush thinks the essence of the problem faced by conservatives is
that they aren't getting their message out to "non-believers."
This is a difficult thing to do since the essence of conservatism
is that the individual is directly responsible for their own
future and prosperity. Too many people right now, though, are
comfortable walking around with their hands out, expecting
something from the government.
To win these people over, conservatives have to not only get them
to accept a totally new philosophy, but to totally change their
behavior as well. If this is to be done, it requires a real
leader who can inspire others; it's a lot easier to tell people
how much you will be able to do for them, as Bill Clinton is
proving. It's much tougher to tell people they will have to take
control of their life, and provide for themselves.
This is the basic conservative message, and unless it is stated
powerfully and inspirationally, it will not be heard. Liberals on
the other hand tell people that the government will take care of
them and do all sorts of things for them; liberalism doesn't
require the people to do anything for themselves. However,
conservatism is worth it because it is the only satisfying way to
live.
*BREAK*
THIRD HOUR
Items
o Rush has to admit that the Limbaugh Letter gets better
with each new issue. Few people at EIB have time to reflect on
their past work, as they are usually busy with the next project
in the pipeline. When one issue of the newsletter is done, nobody
has time to sit back and read it because they are already
starting on the next issue. Similarly, Rush rarely watches his
own TV show, except perhaps to see how well his ties go with his
shirts.
However, last Saturday Rush got his copy of the March issue of
the newsletter in the mail; he admits he was surprised to find he
has a subscription and hopes that it is a complimentary one. But
since he was up until 4 a.m. Saturday night, he started reading
the Limbaugh Letter and was surprised to find he couldn't put it
down. "It's just damn good," he remarks.
Rush praises editor Diana Schneider for doing an outstanding job
in putting out one great issue after another. In particular, Rush
was impressed by the George Gilder interview which is in the
March issue, and adds that seeing something in print is quite a
bit different than viewing it on a computer screen.
Rush says he is mentioning all this because the next issue of the
newsletter will contain an interview with Dick Armey, ranking
Republican in the House of Representatives. Rush says that not
only does Armey make some brilliant statements in the interview,
"but the questions I ask are some of the best questions you have
ever seen in an interview."
Rush, however, does not want to be too self-congratulatory, and
once again praises Diana Schneider for her work, especially her
editing of the interviews and the layout of each issue. He points
out that although he is editor-in-chief, Diana Schneider is
managing editor and Susan Moran is the general manager. Thus,
although EIB is often attacked as being a sexist, male-dominated
organization, the Limbaugh Letter is run by two women.
Rush adds that he has seen only a few complaints about the
newsletter. Most of those are that each issue isn't long enough,
but one reader complained that the date on the masthead should
read "March, 1993 A.D., Year of Our Lord" instead of the more
godless "March, 1993."
o A Reuters story out of London reports that many men are
keeping secret the fact that they are regularly being beaten by
their wives. A story in London's Esquire magazine says that
violence by women against men is growing in both the US and
England. While abusive men use their fists, "woman employ common
household items such as knives, scissors, sauce pans, lamps, and
baseball bats."
Several men interviewed for the article claimed they had lost
their jobs because of their wives' abusiveness, with one man
being fired because customers were uncomfortable that he always
came to work with a black eye. One man reported "she would beat
me with pots and pans, take a carving knife to me, and once she
stubbed a cigarette out on my face."
Rush bets this vile man had it coming to him since everyone knows
that women aren't naturally predisposed to violence. The story
also says that only 20% of the battered men divorced their wives,
so evidently the "battered wive" syndrome which causes women to
remain with their abusive husbands also exists for abused
husbands as well.
Researcher Malcolm George of London University is working on a
survey of 42 abused husbands and said that the typical abuse
relationship lasted 7 years, but the period of abuse was usually
6 months. The study says that violent women were not motivated by
a desire for control as are most violent men; instead, the women
"were often suffering from medical or psychological effects, such
as PMS."
Rush is not surprised at this since PMS is caused by "men who
don't understand." He adds that this study shows why his idea of
the First Calvary Amazon Battalion should be immediately
implemented; with 52 battalions of women, the US would always be
able to field a deadly force of women on PMS.
o Justice Byron White may soon retire from the Supreme
Court according to a report in yesterday's Washington Post. White
has denied the story, but the liberals are already rubbing their
hands with glee at the prospect of putting one of their own on
the Court. Among the names already being discussed are Governor
Mario Cuomo and Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense
Fund. Interestingly, Edelman is one of Hillary Clinton's closest
friends.
o Rush recalls how Clinton recently stated he would not
support any tax increases until he got spending cuts. Rush at the
time said that Clinton would find a way to finagle a way out of
this promise, given that the spending cuts Clinton had already
proposed were not scheduled to go into effect until well after
his promised tax increases.
Rush was soon proven correct about this because George
Stephanopoulos stated that this meant Clinton would sign only
bills which contained both spending cuts and tax increases. This,
of course, is meaningless since Congress has always promised to
implement the spending cuts they've passed, but this never seems
to have happened.
Today's Washington Post reports that this is nevertheless what
Clinton plans to do; their story is headlined "Spending Cuts
Mixed With Tax Increases for Easier Passage." Clinton and
congressional Democrats "are borrowing a page from the Reagan
Revolution" in the hope they can pass Clinton's tax program
"before critics have time to pick it to pieces." Congress
therefore will begin this week accelerating the process of the
federal budget, and will include both spending cuts and tax
increases in their bill.
Rush points out that this is not "a page from the Reagan year,"
but yet another Democratic attempt to fool the people into
believing they will get spending cuts justifying tax increases.
In reality, these new spending cuts will be no more substantial
than those that were promised to Presidents Reagan and Bush.
*BREAK*
Phone Joe from Batavia, IO
Joe congratulates George Brett and his wife, and he bets Brett is
flying higher than any substance, "illegal or legal," could
otherwise bring him. Rush says that when he talked to Brett this
morning, Brett commented that the feeling of fatherhood is
nothing like he imagined it would be back during his bachelorhood
days. Joe agrees that it's an indescribable feeling, and he and
his wife are anxiously awaiting their second child. Rush finds it
amazing how life goes on - the swinging bachelor who was George
Brett back in the 80s is now a die-hard husband and father.
Rush gets back to business by asking Joe what he thinks are
Clinton's figures for how much the national debt will increase
once his program is passed. Joe bets that the debt will increase
$400 billion a year, but Rush wants to know what Joe's impression
is of what Clinton is saying. Joe says that Clinton is claiming
the debt will go down, but this can easily be disproved by
looking at the facts and figures.
Rush says that Joe should be more "compassionate" instead of
attacking Clinton and his plan by using the facts. After all,
shouldn't Clinton's plan be given a chance? Joe admits he is a
realist who can see the handwriting on the wall for Clinton's
economic program. Joe is a farmer and thinks that entitlements,
including farm supports, will continue to increase. Plus,
Clinton's energy taxes will increase the cost of doing business
for farmers, which means that Americans are going to start paying
a lot more for their food.
Rush agrees, but says these energy taxes are most repugnant
because they are an attack on American freedom. People's mobility
will be limited, yet few Americans are thinking about such things
yet. Instead, third-graders are being taught that bake sales will
reduce the national debt.
Rush explains that the reason he's asking callers what they think
Clinton is saying about the national debt is that Clinton is
selling his plan by promising the middle class that they won't
have to pay that much for his program. He is claiming that
because his program will reduce the deficit, the middle class
will get back a lot of what they are paying in new taxes.
Interest rates will drop and the economy will grow, according to
Clinton, all because the deficit will be reduced.
Thus, the only reason to support Clinton's plan is that it will
reduce the deficit. Clinton, however, has already stated how much
his plan will reduce the deficit and national debt. Rush, though,
doubts that when he reveals what Clinton has said that it will
make much difference to all of those who insist short-term pain
is inevitable.
*BREAK*
Phone Jim from Zelienople, PA
Rush asks Jim what he thinks the national debt will be after 5
years of Clinton's policies. Jim bets that the debt will increase
because "Congress runs the country, the President is a
figurehead." Rush wonders how this can be since they are all
Democrats - after all, isn't this why Clinton was elected, to get
rid of government gridlock and to work together with the
Democratic Congress for a more prosperous America?
Jim says he is not a Clinton supporter, as he voted for Perot,
but he's curious why Rush continues to "bash Clinton." He thinks
that Rush and everyone else should just get on with their lives.
Rush doesn't think what he does is bash Clinton; he rather
criticizes Clinton and suggests alternatives. Plus, Clinton is
the President of the United States and is in the news every day;
why shouldn't Rush be able to talk about him?
Jim wonders why the same thing wasn't done to "Mr. Bush"; why
didn't people relentlessly attack him and not let the pressure
off? He doesn't think the critics of President Bush were as
savage and relentless as the current critics of Clinton. Rush
can't believe anyone could think this - the Democrats and their
friends in the media lied about President Bush throughout 1992.
Furthermore, the Democrats not only lied but willingly let the
economy go south so as to win the White House.
Jim doesn't have a problem with this because "Mr. Bush was too
interested in overseas activities more so than his own country."
Rush points out that Clinton is bogged down on the Haiti issue,
on the Bosnian situation, and is making a trip next week to see
President Yeltsin. Rush then asks Jim how he now feels about
Perot.
Jim says that he still likes Perot and his ideas; "I like the
bull that he slung around the countryside - anything was worth a
change." He doesn't know if Perot "is the right guy for the
program," but then Clinton is not necessarily the right guy
either. However, Jim still thinks Rush should stop bashing
Clinton.
Rush again states he is not bashing Clinton, but Jim suspects
that Rush is "upset" because there's now a Democrat in the White
House. Rush says that he is upset, but his feelings are based on
the substantive issues and policies which Clinton wants to
implement. However, this doesn't mean Rush will let his life be
ruined by these things, and he will continue to live a happy and
enjoyable life.
Rush asks if Jim would vote for Perot again in 1996, and Jim
doesn't know; he'll have to wait and see what Perot says in four
years. Jim saw Perot's recent appearance before Congress and
found it interesting. He points out that Perot doesn't always
give solutions to problems "but anything is worth a try."
Rush says that Jim's attitude seems to be one of "it can't get
any worse," but this is definitely not true. If people don't
believe this, all they have to do is wait until next year, and
see how things are after Clinton's program has been implemented.
As to Perot, Rush thinks his biggest challenge during the next
four years will be "to stay sane."
One school of thought thinks that Perot is the kind of guy who
tends to walk away from unfinished projects once they stop going
his way. These people think the reason Perot won't release any
information about the number of calls he's receiving for his new
United We Stand group is because he's not getting many. Thus,
Perot is bound to get discouraged and walk away from all of this.
The other school of thought thinks that Perot is now the driving
force in Congress, and that everyone in Washington is scared to
death of him and the power of his followers. However, this is not
true - if there is anyone who fits this description, Rush
jokingly states, "that's me!"
*BREAK*
Phone Mike from Greenwich, CT
Mike is a real estate developer, who classifies himself as a
"rugged individualist" who wants no help from government in
living his life. Although Mike agrees with Rush on 99% of what he
says, he asks why Rush criticizes Perot as much as he does. If
anything, Rush should be praising Ross Perot <<"When Johnny Comes
Marching Home" starts playing>> as the ultimate rugged
individualist, regardless of Perot's economic programs.
Rush says he certainly believes that Perot is a rugged
individualist, at least as far as his private business ventures
are concerned. Rush would have no problems with Perot if he
stayed in Dallas and concentrated on running Perot Systems.
However, his political program by and large the same as
Clinton's.
Besides, Rush doesn't think he can trust Perot anymore than he
can trust Clinton. Perot was the guy who actually told the nation
that the Bush campaign tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding
and planned to use doctored photos to discredit her. There was
absolutely no evidence for this, yet Perot tried to get people to
believe this.
Mike is not a supporter of Perot, but says Rush too often
criticizes Perot personally instead of concentrating on his
political programs. Rush says that being able to trust someone is
what the character issue is all about. Perot, after all, was the
guy who left his supporters in the lurch by quitting in a huff,
and then a few months later expected them to flock back when he
re-entered the race.
What bothers Rush is that so few people care about the lies and
deceptions perpetuated by Perot and Clinton. People seem more
concerned about how they "feel" about someone and their programs
than in the actual truth of the matter.
Mike says that Americans vote for their wallets, and people
supported Perot because they thought his wealth would isolate him
from special interests. Rush says that Perot is the ultimate
special interest, and it's still a mystery why so many people are
so much in love with him.
Rush bets that Perot captured people's feelings because he not
only told the people that they were the owners of the country,
but accurately identified the country's real problems before
anyone else did.
Mike points out that Perot got "barbecued" for saying "you
people," and Rush comments he stood behind Perot on this issue;
this is why Rush advocated changing the name of the NAACP to the
National Association for the Advancement of You People (NAAYP).
Mike starts laughing, both at Rush's comment and at the Ross
Perot theme music still playing in the background. Rush agrees
it's a bit unfair to expect callers to compete with such things,
and he holds Mike over the break.
*BREAK*
Phone Mike from Greenwich, CT (continued)
Rush says Perot does a great job at isolating and pointing out
problems, and if he inspires people to get involved in politics,
then that's a great thing. However, Rush doesn't think that Perot
has the proper temperament to be either a political candidate or
office holder. Mike says that if Clinton's plan is implemented,
the same problems that exist now will only be much worse in four
years, and this will practically guarantee that Perot will run
again in 1996.
Plus, Perot will have a different running mate, which could have
a great influence on the vote. Rush wonders how any credible
person would agree to be Perot's running mate; it would be like
having Ernst Stavro Blofeld ask you to be Vice President of
Spectre. Mike thinks Paul Tsongas would be a great choice, but
Rush doubts someone of Tsongas' stature would accept.
Mike doesn't think Perot could attract someone from the political
mainstream; he's more likely to get a well-known fringe
candidate. Rush agrees - the only person who would agree to be
Perot's running mate would have to be someone on the "fringe."
--
John Switzer | The year 2000 begins both the 21st Century AND
| the 3rd Millenium, and if you don't agree then
Compuserve: 74076,1250 | you are zeroistic and nullaphobic.
Internet: j...@netcom.com | John Switzer, founder of S.E.N.T.U.R.Y