Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show

for Wednesday, September 28, 1994

by John Switzer

This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1994 by John Switzer.
All Rights Reserved. These summaries are distributed on
CompuServe and the Internet, and archived on CompuServe (DL9 of
the ISSUES forum) and Internet (cathouse.org and
grind.isca.uiowa.edu). The /pub/jrs directory at ftp.netcom.com
contains the summaries for the past 30 days. 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
than as a daily listener.

*************************************************************

September 28, 1994

BRIEF SUMMARY OF TOPICS: Republicans introduce their ten-point
contract with the American people; Atlantic Monthly's October
cover story is about the failure of sex education in America's
schools; the U.S. is paying Haitians to leave Guantanamo Bay to
return to Haiti, but very few are accepting the offer; Lancaster,
NY school district refuses to let girls participate in school
sports until after they have started menstruating; mainstream
media refuses to give Republicans or their contract much
attention; liberals attack Republicans for wanting to return to
the 80s and Reagan era; four Democrats insist that future Social
Security benefits must be cut; Stan Greenberg thinks Republicans
are taking a stand for big deficits and trickle-down economics;
it's outrageous that politicians are claiming the country's
budget problems are caused by taxpayers who aren't paying enough
in taxes; NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is insisting on budget cuts,
telling city officials to quit griping and cut the budget or
quit; caller thinks country has to face up to the harsh cold
realities of conservatism, and to the idea that if you're have
the freedom to succeed and reap the benefits of success, you're
going to have to accept the freedom to fail and suffer the
consequences of failure; big government and welfare state have
atrophied the "social muscle" that used in exist in society to
take care of the less fortunate; compassion should not be defined
by how many people are on government welfare rolls, but by the
number of people who no longer need such help; liberals disparage
"hamburger flipper" jobs, but all jobs are worthy and need to be
done; caller is worried that Republicans will be doomed to
failure unless they get the truth out about the 80s: that
Reagan's tax cuts nearly doubled federal revenues; caller thinks
Haitian operation is really about reinventing democracy since the
"democracy" the U.S. will leave there will be anything but a true
democracy; America's 19,000 troops in Haiti are being "helped" by
24 troops from the "Caribbean superpower nations"; caller thinks
people vote for Democrats because they are seen as helping the
underclass; Clinton administration is showing the failure of
liberalism to the people in a direct and immediate manner;
Democrats used to attack Republican Presidents for creating huge
deficits, but now are attacking Republicans in Congress for doing
this; sewer worker calls in to chastise Rush for disparaging his
profession, but Rush says he was actually paying a tribute to all
those who do the jobs that most Americans would refuse to do; EIB
will be soon introducing a new sponsor: Uggs shoes; it is
Democrats who are stopping campaign finance reform and the GATT
agreement, although the Democrats are still attacking Republicans
as being the "obstructionists"; caller thanks Rush for inspiring
him to study law, with the hope of entering politics; Republicans
want to require a three-fifths vote before Congress can increase
taxes; caller is encouraged that Republicans are taking a stand,
but liberals are still avoiding disclosing just who and what they
really are; Rush is getting warnings from listeners who vow never
to listen again if he ever allows Jennifer from Seattle on the
air again; caller is glad Republicans are engaging in "total
belief campaigning"; caller thinks Rush shouldn't be promoting
cigars or any other sort of tobacco or smoking product.

LIMBAUGH WATCH

September 28, 1994 - It's now day 617 (day 636 for the rich and
the dead, and 41 days until the November elections) of "America
Held Hostage" (aka the "Raw Deal" which has 845 days left) and
694 days after Bill Clinton's election, but Rush is still on the
air with 659 radio affiliates (with more than 20 million
listeners weekly world-wide), 250 TV affiliates (with a national
rating of 3.7), and a newsletter with over 475,000 subscribers.

His first book was on the NY Times hardback non-fiction best-
seller list for 54 consecutive weeks, with 2.6 million copies
sold, but fell off the list after Simon and Schuster stopped
printing it. The paperback version of "The Way Things Ought To
Be" was on the NY Times paperback non-fiction best-seller list
for 28 weeks. Rush's second book, "See, I Told You So," was on
the NY Times best-seller list for 16 weeks and has sold over 2.45
million copies.

NEWS

o	Republican candidates for the House of Representatives
gathered at Capitol Hill yesterday to present their ten-point
contract with the American people. The group of more than 300
Republicans declared that if they were elected to Congress in
November, they would introduce and vote upon the following issues
within the first 100 days of the next legislative session:

-	A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a 
legislative line-item veto, and a three-fifths vote on all tax 
increases.

-	An anti-crime package that would include limits on death
penalty appeals and more money for prisons and law enforcement.

-	Welfare reform that would limit recipients to two years
of benefits.

-	A number of pro-family laws, including enforcement of
child support laws, tax incentives for adoption, and an elderly
dependent care tax credit.

-	A $500-per-child tax credit.

-	A prohibition on U.S. troops being placed under United
Nations command and a "restoration of the essential parts of our
national security funding."

-	Increasing the limit on how much Social Security
recipients can earn before they would lose benefits; the current
limit is $11,000 a year and it would be raised to $30,000.

-	A capital gains tax cut and a reduction on regulations
affecting businesses.

-	Tort and legal reform, including a limit on punitive
damages in lawsuits, and giving judges the power order losers in
a civil case to pay the legal costs of both parties.

-	Term limits for members of Congress, and the requirement
that Congress has to live under the same laws they pass for
everyone else.

LEST WE FORGET

The following are from the Rush Limbaugh show on Wednesday,
September 30, 1992:

o	For weeks, Clinton supporters had been showing up at Bush
rallies wearing chicken costumes, claiming Bush was too afraid to
debate Bill Clinton. However, when Bush proposed four debates,
two of which would be done as Clinton wanted, and two as Bush
wanted, Clinton started backtracking, claiming that the debates
should be done through the Presidential Debate Commission.

o	It was confirmed that Bill Clinton was in Moscow on New
Year's Eve, 1969; he also led anti-war protests in London during
his years at Oxford. Rush noted that the only Americans in Moscow
in 1969 and 1970 were those invited by the USSR; another famous
American in Moscow during that time period was Jane Fonda. The
Clinton campaign originally claimed that Clinton had not visited
Moscow, yet they finally admitted that this was true.

o	Cole from Clinton, MD reported that Clinton was in town
that morning, yet there was almost no publicity about his
appearance. Cole went searching and found out that Clinton was
appearing at a shopping plaza, at of a rally with 2000 people.

When Cole talked to the attendees he found out that they were
Democrats who got a private phone call about the rally. Thus, it
was an event staged for the TV cameras. Rush noted this was
common in politics, but it was interesting to note how far the
Clinton campaign was going to avoid hecklers.

Cole agreed - the rally started about an hour late, and the
Clinton supporters were not very kind towards demonstrators
against Clinton. One man dressed as Elvis was thrown out bodily,
while another man booing Clinton was surrounded by "pimply-faced"
youths who threatened him and his wife.

Clinton got a number of small cheers throughout his speech, but
when he said he wanted to impose a 7.5% payroll tax on small
business for health care, the cheers stopped. Clinton lost about
half of his crowd right then and there.

o	President Bush vetoed the DC Appropriations Bill because
it would allow Washington, DC to use tax dollars to pay for
abortions for poor women; Bush called for the nation to protect
the unborn.

o	Clinton's running mate, Senator Al Gore, attacked
President Bush for causing the Gulf War. According to Gore, the
Gulf War would never have happened had Bush not bungled the
handling of the Iraq situation and helped Hussein build up his
war machine. Gore claimed that had America not supported Iraq
during the Iran-Iraq war, Hussein would never have been able to
threaten Kuwait.

This was duplicitous of Gore, however. When Iraq was at war in
Iran, the US's interest was in keeping the war going and
preventing an Iranian victory. The invasion of Kuwait, though,
was motivated by Hussein's desperate need for money to build up
his country after the war and pay back his debts.

Kuwait was selling oil at prices lower than Hussein wanted, so he
demanded that Kuwait raise oil prices and lower the country's
production. When Kuwait refused, Hussein invaded.

However, in spite of his criticisms of Bush, Gore was quick to
claim that he supported Bush during the Gulf War, but the fact is
that he came out with this support only because he was given
prime-time TV coverage. Senator Bob Dole had already revealed
that during the debate on the Gulf War, Gore came to Dole to
negotiate prime floor time for his speech at the Senate. Gore
said that if he could get prime time to make his speech about
this decision, he would then support Bush. The deal was made, and
Gore made his speech to support the war.

o	Pete Hamill's column in the NY Post commented on two
Vanity Fair articles about Ross Perot, concluding that the "H" in
"H. Ross Perot" stands for "Headcase." Maria Brenner of Vanity
Fair writes that Perot hired some private investigators to spy on
his own daughter, Nancy, while she was a student at college.
Nancy's boyfriend was a Jewish professor, which did not please
Perot at all. Reportedly, a number of news organizations were
working on this story in July, 1992, right before Perot quit.

Something else that Brenner reported was that Bobby Jo King was
fired from Perot's EDS Systems because he came down with
pneumonia related to the HIV virus. King lost all of his medical
benefits and had since died. King's family had been already
interviewed by ABC World News Tonight for a feature story, which
ABC cancelled when Perot abruptly quit the race.

Meanwhile, Ross Perot was infuriating women journalists in
general, and NBC journalists in particular, by complaining to the
NBC Dallas Bureau Chief about the rough treatment he received
from NBC's female correspondents Katie Couric and Lisa Meyers.
Perot insisted that the reason NBC's female reporters did so many
negative stories about him was because "they're trying to prove
their manhood."

o	Jack Kevorkian's attorney, Jeffrey Fieger, said the
following about Rush on EIB's Grand Rapids, MI affiliate WOOD:

"This guy who claims that he is so smart that he can duel
somebody with half his brain tied behind his back. Believe me,
you can put three-quarters of my brain tied behind my back, and
I'll talk to him about this subject anytime, anywhere, anyplace.
He knows nothing about the facts, and if he is a true
conservative and he's attacking Dr. Kevorkian, then he apparently
knows nothing about the law or true conservatism. Probably, I
think he is just, uh, frankly, I know he is - he's just a big,
fat, blowhard who's getting listeners, knowing literally nothing
about Jack Kevorkian or myself, or the representation, or the
facts of any of the particular cases."

********

MORNING UPDATE

The cover story for October's Atlantic Monthly is titled "The
Failure of Sex Education," and it's written by Barbara Defoe
Whitehead, who also wrote the cover story "Dan Quayle was Right"
several months ago for the same magazine. Her current story is
well-researched and detailed with many facts, making it all the
more devastating to those who believe the liberal myths about
sex.

Whitehead first lists what passes for "sex education" in the
nation's schools. For example, because educators believe people
are "sexual from birth," kids are taught that they are being
sexual when they hug their grandparents, and kindergartners are
taught "things grown-ups forget to tell kids," such as "the
pleasures of touching yourself." And these are just the examples
Rush can say on the radio.

Whitehead makes the case that comprehensive sex education, as
promoted by advocates such as Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, is
a "gumbo of ideas based on no known field of knowledge." She
concludes that there is little evidence that it works, given that
teenage pregnancy is up, along with the incidence of sexually
transmitted diseases.

Rush notes he himself has reported how the beginning of sex
education in 1973 correlates with the rise of increased teen
pregnancies and abortions. Rush hopes that liberals read this
article and realize that he was once again right: the most
effective "sex education" has always been and always will be
parents teaching their kids the difference between right and
wrong. "Let them do it," Rush pleads.

FIRST HOUR

Items

o	Rush notes that it still hasn't been resolved whether the
U.S. soldier who died in Haiti was a suicide, so he suggests
sending the DC Park Police to investigate. He also wonders
whether the defense budget can handle the strains put on it
recently: first there was the 21-gun salute for Aristide last
week, and yesterday there was a 21-gun salute for Boris Yeltsin.
Can the U.S. afford to give another 21-gun salute?

o	The U.S. is reportedly paying Haitians at Guantanamo Bay
to return to Haiti, but only 221 out of the 14,000 have returned.
Rush can't believe the U.S. is actually paying people to return
to their native land, so he promises to investigate this story
further.

o	Rush got a fax of a story that ran in yesterday's Buffalo
News, and it was so incredible he refused to believe it until his
staff called the paper to confirm it. The Lancaster, NY School
District has been accused of discriminating against girls by
refusing to allow them to participate in school sports until
after they have started menstruating.

According to the story, there's a New York state law that forbids
girls from participating in school sports until one year after
they start having menstrual periods. At a school board meeting
Monday night, a parent charged that the school was applying the
law in a discriminatory fashion because the school physician and
athletics director have both refused to sign waivers, as is
commonly the case at other schools in the state.

Furthermore, the state law also requires that boys must have a
certain mount of public hair before allowing to participate in
school sports, but the school is accused of ignoring this
requirement. Rush remarks that at his school, they had the PeeWee
team for late developers, but obviously this is not the case in
New York state.

o	Republican members of the House of Representatives joined
Republican candidates yesterday on Capitol Hill to unveil a ten-
point plan they say is their contract with the American people.
This contract represents what Republicans pledge to do in the
first 100 days of the next legislative session should they be
elected to Congress.

The public relations arm of the Democratic party, the mainstream
press, of course, has shown its anti-Republican bias by ignoring
this story; the NY Times found this story so "newsworthy" that
they put it on page A-16, giving front page stories to Democrats
Tom Foley and Mario Cuomo. However, what Republicans have done is
important because they are taking a stand and putting forth a
vision with this ten-point contract, in the hope that the
American people will find something they can vote for.

This contract does not mention Bill Clinton, any of his scandals,
or any of the other negatives besetting Clinton and the
Democrats. In fact, the Republicans came up with these ten points
by going out and talking with the American people, finding out
what they thought was important and what they wanted their
Congress to do.

Rush thinks the points on this list are an accurate reflection of
what the majority of Americans want, especially since it concurs
with what two ad agency execs found when they surveyed the
American people about what they most wanted to see in their
President. The executives found that the two most important
qualities that people were looking for in a President were
honesty, character, and decency, and a belief in supply-side
economics.

The ten points in the Republican contract reflect this desire on
the Republican people for supply-side thinking. The American
people know that supply-side economics worked during the 80s,
despite what the Democrats want the country to believe.

Columnist David Broder has given the Republicans some credit for
taking a stand, but the rest of the press and "liberal food
chain" are in a panic, accusing Republicans of doing all sorts of
dastardly things with this contract. Rush will give some examples
of this media bias after the break.

*BREAK*

The press is treating the Republicans' press conference and ten-
point contract as a most minor news story. For example, the NY
Times decided that there were far too many important stories to
cover on its front page than the Republicans.

For example, prominent on the Times' front page is a story on
Governor Cuomo's re-election campaign. The headline for this
piece is "So much to do - Cuomo states his case," and the pull
quote has Cuomo stating "I'm running again because I don't think
I've got enough good things down." As Rush predicted, Cuomo thus
is running against himself; having ruined the state for 12 years,
Cuomo is now saying that he deserves another four years so he can
correct what he himself has done.

Next to this all-important front page story is one about House
Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA). This story is titled "Foley starts race
of life far away from crowds," and it's all about how Foley has
kicked off his re-election campaign by going to a remote town
named Republic in Washington state. The fact that Foley went to a
podunk town in the boondocks, even though two-thirds of his
constituents are in the Seattle area, is what the Times thinks is
a piece deserving of national attention.

Ironically, the Foley piece is jumped to page A-16, where The
Times decided to put the story about the Republican plan. And
even so, the Times gives more column space to the rest of the
Foley piece than they do to the Republicans and their contract.

Meanwhile, NBC's Lisa Myers went through all of the Republicans'
points one by one, and as might be expected, she went straight to
Democrats for a response on every point, just like it was during
the Reagan and Bush years. Whenever Reagan or Bush said something
in the 80s, the media made sure to "balance them out" by getting
three or four Democrats to give a response.

However, you seldom see this kind of reporting when Democrats
propose something - when Clinton was talking about his health
care plan, the press again went to Democrats for the majority of
comment, while perhaps giving Republicans all of two seconds for
response. The press gave Democrats plenty of time to praise the
Clinton plan, and very little to its opponents.

It thus appears that the media is still intent on being the
public relations arm of the Democratic party. However, while the
NY Times thinks the Republican story is so minor that it barely
deserves space on page A-16, the White House and congressional
leadership are devoting a significant amount of time denouncing
the Republicans, their plan, and their event. They are calling it
"Voodoo Economics 2" and "a return to the Reagan era," which the
Democrats still insist was a failure.

The Democrats' "objective" and "impartial" evaluation of the
Republican plan can be basically summed up by saying that the
Republican contract "promises goodies without paying for them."
Rush notes that the Republicans are going to get the money to
"pay" for these things by actually cutting spending. These will
be genuine cuts - i.e. reductions in the amount of spending, as
opposed to how Democrats define budget cuts as a spending
increase, but just not as much as they originally wanted.

In fact, the best example this country has seen lately of
"goodies without paying for them" has been the Clinton health
care plan. No Democrats cared to explain how they would pay for
health care, nor for that matter have they explained how they're
going to pay for the Crime Bill. This is thus the same old
Democratic refrain - they're panicked and hysterical precisely
because they fear the Republicans' plan might work.

*BREAK*

Rush bets that virtually everything Republicans will propose from
now on will be attacked by Democrats as a "tax break for the
rich." The Democrats will try to play up the class envy angle,
even if the issues under consideration are term limits or
Congress playing by its own rules.

President Clinton's pollster Stan Greenberg, for example, noted
that "the Republicans have thrown something new into the mix
which does not favor their candidates. Now they have a record. Up
until now, Republicans were running against the Democrat
incumbent. Many of their challengers were just challengers. Now
they've all signed onto trickle-down economics, trillion dollar
deficits, cutting Medicare, and marching lockstep with the
Republican leaders in Congress, who, believe me, are not
popular."

Rush expects that this will be the typical Democrat refrain from
now until the November elections; Democrats will continually
complain about "tax breaks for the rich," "trillion dollar
deficits," and "trickle-down economics," as they try to convince
Americans that the evil Republicans will be doing their best to
cut Social Security and Medicare.

However, the Washington Post reports that it's Democrats who are
trying to cut Social Security. In today's edition, the Post
reports that four House Democrats - Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), Jake
Pickle (D-TX), Timothy Penny (D-MN), and Marjorie Margolis-
Mezvinsky (D-PA) - are proposing benefit cuts for future
beneficiaries so as to "save" Social Security from going bankrupt
by 2029.

The Democrats have been using the politics of class envy for the
past three years to get everything they currently have, but it's
simply untrue that the rich get rich because they take money from
the poor. Nor are the high deficits of the 80s the result of tax
cuts for the rich.

Americans basically have to start demanding that what they earn
is theirs. Every time a politician claims that Washington has
fiscal mismanagement problems because the people are paying too
little in taxes, the people should run to the polls to throw that
bum out.

America's budget problems are totally due to irresponsible
spending by members of Congress - entitlement spending is running
amuck because politicians are trying to use the people's money to
buy votes. The idea that someone making $30,000 a year is not
paying enough in taxes is outrageous.

Any time the Democrats oppose a tax cut, they are saying that
allowing people to keep more of what they earn is what the
problem is in America. It doesn't matter how much people make,
what they earn is theirs; it does not belong to those in
Washington. Yet the Democrats act as if all this money is theirs,
and that the only reason people get to keep some of it is because
the Democrats are so generous and kind.

The idea that people should be able to keep as much money as they
can, so that the people can do what they will with that money, is
what guided America up until 1913, when the federal income tax
was instituted. It's not greedy or selfish to insist on keeping
as much of your money as possible, but working Americans are
called greedy and selfish for refusing to give up 30% to 50% of
their money to Washington politicians, so that those politicians
can spend that money in the ways that will best benefit them.

But are these politicians more entitled to a worker's money than
the worker is? It's unconscionable that there are politicians who
believe this, yet Tony Coelho yesterday said that the American
people had a "big party" during the 80s, and "now it's time to
pay the bills." This basically means that Coelho blames the
American people for the huge federal deficits; he's blaming the
people for daring to keep more of their money, when in reality
those deficits are the result of a Congress that couldn't
restrain its spending.

It's not the people's fault, though, that Congress has been
spending way too much of their money. Are people more secure in
their job now and do they have more spending money now than two
years ago? But when some Republicans come along to say that the
people are entitled to keep more of the money they earn, the
Democrats call such talk "irresponsible."

It's time for the American people to totally reject any notion
that the country is a great nation because of how much tax money
is collected and spent by those in Washington. This is totally
wrong - what made America great is the freedom it gave
individuals to be the best they could be, allowing them to keep
the rewards of their efforts.

It is insulting for these Democrats to claim that the reason the
government has mismanaged its spending is because the working
populace is not giving Washington enough of their money.
Republicans have proposed both spending cuts and tax cuts, but
the Democrats insist that these cannot be allowed; the Democrats
attack Republicans for wanting to cut entitlement programs, but
it's Democrats who are talking about cutting Social Security.

The irresponsibility is not on the part of Americans "who had too
big a party in the 80s," but on the part of those in Washington
who simply cannot control their spending. The problem is not that
Americans are giving the government too little money, but this is
what the Democrats think.

*BREAK*

Rush notes that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is doing and has done many
things right in how he campaigned for office and in how he's
governing as mayor; although there are some things Giuliani has
done that Rush isn't happy with, on balance he's been doing it
right. Giuliani, though, is in trouble because he was supposed to
cut the city budget, and he hired people for the city with the
understanding that they would have fewer resources with which to
do their jobs.

Some of those hired, though, have decided that they can't do
their jobs, so they've been complaining about the budget cuts to
the press. Mayor Giuliani thus told these guys that they could
either cut the budget or quit; if they can't do the job, then
he'll find someone who can.

This is a great slogan: "cut the budget or quit!" Giuliani
certainly couldn't tell New Yorkers that they needed to "fix"
this by paying more in taxes - if he did, the New Yorkers would
tell him "cut taxes or quit." Giuliani knows, though, that the
city's problems are not due to its residents paying too little in
taxes, but to excessive taxation and government.

Giuliani has told his unhappy city employees that if they can't
handle the job, and manage the city with fewer resources, then
they should move over and let someone else come in. Those in
Washington, though, are complaining that the problems in America
are directly due to the people not paying enough in taxes; they
don't even consider the possibility that they might actually have
to cut the budget, which means actually spending less.

*BREAK*

Phone	Kate from Kent, OH

Kate says Rush yesterday raised a point she's been thinking about
for some time; while Rush was talking with a woman who said Jack
Kemp was a liberal, the woman said that the fact America was a
compassionate society was killing the country. This struck Kate
because she's been thinking about how conservatives talk about a
country that offers everyone an opportunity to succeed, but if
you have the freedom to succeed, you also have to have the
freedom to fail. This means that society, if it wants to have a
meritocracy in which people can excel, has to accept the price of
people's failure.

She notes that during the 80s she was working at a charitable
organization which suffered cutbacks because of the cuts Reagan
made in the entitlement programs. She supported that idea, but
the fact still remains that some people on the ground did get
hurt.

Rush says the people who got hurt were already hurt - Reaganomics
did not create people on the street. Rather, over $3 trillion
have been spent on the poor in Great Society programs over the
past 30 years without doing anything to solve the problem or
reducing those people's dependency on government. In fact, these
programs destroyed these people's incentives and self-reliance,
not to mention destroying the family structure.

Kate agrees, which is why she thinks people should realize that
America's culture is based on basic liberal ideologies, such as
"we don't have a person to waste" and that "all human beings are
corrigible." Rush notes, though, that human lives have been
wasted precisely because of liberalism and how it dispirits
people. He asks Kate to hang on through the break.

*BREAK*

SECOND HOUR

Phone	Kate from Kent, OH (continued)

Kate says she doesn't disagree with Rush that liberal ideology is
dysfunctional and destructive, but by the same token there are
some costs to a conservative approach, too. People have to look
squarely and frankly at what conservatism demands - if people
want government to get off their backs, then this also means that
there will be less government around to help them with their
problems.

In a true meritocracy, which is a society in which people strive
to be the best they can be without having government hamper them
or get in their way, not everyone will succeed. Some people,
regardless of the opportunities given to them, will fail, and
there are consequences for such failures.

When welfare didn't exist and when unemployment insurance didn't
exist, those who failed reaped the consequences of their failure,
with some dying because of hunger, because of poor medical care,
because of no housing. Rush doesn't think that there were that
many people who died in the streets just because government
wasn't viewed as the solution to every problem.

Kate agrees - instead of government programs, there were the
family, the church, the community, private charities, etc.
However, those parts of society have atrophied precisely because
of government. Her husband told her the other day that his
employer has a big push on for United Way contributions, but the
federal government is already taking 25% of his pay off the top,
so why bother giving to the United Way - if there weren't around,
big government would just create a new program anyway.

Kate knows people whose daughters are on welfare; the families
don't support them because these mothers can always get AFDC.
However, if AFDC weren't around, the family would step in and
help.

Rush notes that the family is also an institution under attack,
but he first wants to stress that conservatism does not mean
"small government" but "non-intrusive government." Entrepreneurs
are faced today with an incredible number of regulations, so many
that many would-be businesspeople don't even bother to try to set
up a business.

Rush doesn't know anyone who is against the government helping
those who are truly helpless, but they are against creating
helpless people, who then become totally dependent on a
government that "cares" for them. This is how compassion is
defined, and it's why there are those who believe that
homelessness exists only because "not enough people care" - what
these people are really saying is that homelessness exists only
because taxpayers aren't paying enough in taxes.

As to welfare, sociologist Charles Murray has suggested one way
to end it: simply announce that in nine months and a day that
welfare will cease to exist. Kate thinks this is a good example
of her point - doing this would result in some people being hurt
in the short time, but over time the nation would redevelop its
"social muscle," bringing back those institutions which used to
do these things before they became the sole purview of
government.

Rush notes that the liberals, though, would claim that the only
reason government has failed to solve these problems is because
not enough money is being spent on them. Liberals, of course,
derive their power by spending the money they are demanding. Kate
adds that liberals love to play on people's guilt, which is why
George Bernard Shaw once remarked "a conscience is an expensive
thing to keep."

She thinks Americans should stop feeling so guilty about making
intelligent decisions about their spending. Rush says he'll be
called cruel for saying this, but it would be far better for
society to have people striving for a better life than to have
people who don't try because they know government will help them
out. There is no fear or other incentive to make these people try
to be self-reliant and self-supporting, especially since the
country is now punishing success.

The hard cold reality, though, is that success can be defined on
a variety of levels. Everyone has their own ideas about this, and
any particular person's ideas of what success is will change over
time. Plus, there are certain jobs that not everyone will do,
such as sewer worker, window washer, and such; the country needs
people who will do these jobs, but traditionally these jobs have
been frowned upon and looked down on.

Fortunately, though, America has the people willing to do such
jobs, which is good because most Americans would not be willing
to clean a sewer, wash windows, or be a cop or firefighter. Most
people wouldn't want to work in an auto factory, and in fact GM
is having problems finding new workers right now.

Americans should be grateful for those who do the "dirty jobs"
that most people wouldn't dare do or want to do, but should
Donald Trump be punished because he decided to do something other
than drive a garbage truck? Success can be defined in many ways,
but why should that success be punished? Rush asks Kate to hang
on through a break so he can tie all this up.

*BREAK*

Phone	Kate from Kent, OH (continued)

Rush says he thinks the country is far better off with as many
Americans as possible striving for success and trying to improve
themselves, even if that means some of them will fail. As long as
the freedom to succeed remains, failure doesn't mean that
someone's life is over. There are many, many successful people
who have become successes only after repeated failures.

Every job in America, even if it's flipping hamburgers, is
important, not just because of the wage it pays but because they
also give people entry points into the economy, teaching them
what they need to move up the economic ladder into more
productive jobs.

Ronald Reagan noted once "of course, we dream of great things,
and why not? We are Americans!" Too many people, though, don't
dream anymore, and they consider America to be a land of misery
and failure. Instead of trying to establish circumstances that
allow everyone to do the best they can, they establish excuses
and rationalizations for failure, saying that only government can
solve all these problems.

Kate notes that liberals today are defining compassion in terms
of making health care, housing, and so many other things
"rights." This is defining compassion in an upscale manner,
resulting is some major disincentives for people to work for
themselves. Rush adds that when people succeed today, there is
tremendous pressure on them to be ashamed of having done better
than someone else.

Kate agrees and thinks Americans should stop being guilty about
this. People have to look at this realistically, knowing that you
can't cut back government without some people suffering in the
meantime. People need to stop assuaging their guilt and start
growing up.

Rush agrees with this, and he recalls how Jack Kemp once remarked
that liberals define compassion by how many people are dependent
on government benefit programs, but conservatives define
compassion by how many people no longer need such aid because
they've become productive, self-reliant citizens.

*BREAK*

Phone	Dan from Houston, TX

Dan fears that the Republicans' 10-point plan will be doomed to
failure unless Republicans get the word out about how tax
revenues doubled during the Reagan administration, and that the
only reason that massive deficits resulted was because Congress
increased spending at an even greater rate.

Rush thinks this is a good point, and he notes that when Ronald
Reagan took office in 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%,
but when he left office in 1989, that had become only 28% (31%,
if you include the "bubble" on top wage earners). Thus, the
country saw the top tax rates on the rich drop 42%, and liberals
have never forgiven Republicans for this.

However, even with these tax rates, the amount of federal
revenues nearly doubled in eight years. In 1981, the federal
government took in some $515 billion in revenues, but when Reagan
left office in 1989, those revenues were $985 billion. Also, at
the end of the Reagan years, 40% of all taxes were paid by only
5% of the nation's taxpayers.

Reagan's tax increases did not cause the deficits or any
budgetary shortfalls, and it would be wise if Republicans took
Dan's advice and started defending the 80s and its successes. Dan
adds that the mainstream media is not giving the Republicans and
their contract any leeway; the Democrats will continue to bash
them, so the Republicans must fight back, using talk shows and
other means to get the word out.

Rush says it will be tough for Republicans to get a fair shot in
the mainstream press, but time will tell whether they can get
their message out to the American people. Rush hopes, though,
that Republicans defiantly, brashly, and confidently defend their
record during the 80s and their ten-point contract.

Republicans have to reject any attempt on the part of the
Democrats to claim term limits will be a "tax break on the rich."
It will be a challenge for Republicans, and it can't be forgotten
that Republicans have taken a risk with this - as Greenberg
pointed out, Republicans have spelled out what they're for and
they will have to stand by it from now on. Time will tell,
though.

Phone	Charles from Washington, DC

Charles thinks the U.S. occupation in Haiti is really about
"reinventing democracy" since when the U.S. leaves, it's clear
that the government which will remain there will not be a
democracy in any real sense of the term. Rush notes that the
Haitian occupation is being called "Operation Restore Democracy,"
but as he's pointed out many times, you can't restore what never
was.

Charles adds that his father turned him onto Rush's show, but
while Rush has converted Charles, his father is still
recalcitrant. Rush promises to keep plugging away at these die-
hards and adds that America has 19,000 troops in Haiti; the rest
of this "multinational force" consists of 24 troops from the
area's "Caribbean superpowers." However, Rush admits that there
are 100 more such troops waiting offshore, just waiting until
they are needed by American forces.

Phone	Rick from San Mateo, CA

Rick says that even though he considers himself a moderate
Republican, he thinks Rush has missed the boat on why people vote
for Democrats. He thinks the Democrats are seen as champions of
the underclass, and while they have done a lot to create a
dependent class, they also have done a lot to spread more
opportunity to the people.

Rush wouldn't disagree with this except to say that this is what
people think the Democrats have done. Rick notes that he doesn't
like Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) or Barbara Boxer (D-CA),
but he voted for them in 1992 because he didn't like their
opponents and what they stood for.

Rush says it's a misconception to believe that Republicans are
opposed to equal rights, and Rick agrees, but notes that
Republicans have been reactionary in the past against the changes
that Democrats have supported. The Republicans are still too far
right for many people, especially with regards to abortion and
religion.

Rush says that Republicans are again being perceived as further
to the right than they are; it's gotten to the point that anyone
who is conservative is accused of being a racist and hate-monger.
Rush asks Rick to give him an example of what Boxer or any
liberal has done that's good.

Rick admits he thinks Boxer is an idiot, but she ran against
Bruce Herschensohn in 1992, while Dianne Feinstein ran against
John Seymour, and he couldn't support those Republicans. Rush
says Herschensohn is a fine and brilliant man, and he got so
close to Boxer in the polls that she ran a total smear campaign
ad against him at the last minute, claiming he visited a nude
bar.

Rush adds that civil rights and equal rights are supposed to be
issues that are owned by the Democrats, and blacks are those who
were supposed to be most helped by the Democrats. However, after
30 years, blacks are still angry about the same things and they
haven't gotten anything from their support of Democrats. The
middle-class blacks are abandoning the Democratic party,
precisely because the Democrats aren't helping them, but these
blacks are then accused of being "too white" and called "Uncle
Toms" or "sell-outs."

The Democrats have made some great promises but their economic
policies have done more to destroy the hopes and opportunities of
the black people than anything the KKK could have done.

*BREAK*

Phone	Jim from Grand Rapids, MI

Jim is grateful and the truth is not neutral - you either hate it
or love it, and that's why the liberals hate it. He adds that he
thinks America is getting its character back; the American people
know this is lacking in Clinton, so that's why Americans are
searching for it again and becoming more patriotic.

Rush agrees, but there's more to it than this - during the 80s
and early 90s, conservatives such as Rush would spend time
getting the word out about liberals and what liberalism does, but
the Clinton administration is doing much of that work by itself
now. The Clinton administration is one of the most liberal
administrations in American history, and the people are able to
see this clearly for themselves - they see the incompetence and
bumbling of liberalism with regard to the military, foreign
policy, etc.

You can't hide this liberalism, so the people are seeing the
failings and flaws of it for themselves; the people don't need
Rush and others to see these things for themselves, because such
things are clearly evident now - all you have to do is watch the
administration. The people are seeing what is important to
liberals and what liberalism is all about.

Clinton clearly deserves a lot of credit for this rebirth of
traditional America, in a somewhat distorted way, because when he
campaigned, he talked like a new Democrat, moving to the right.
However, when he came into power, he was unabashedly liberal. The
first thing Clinton did when inaugurated was push for gays in the
military, and whether you agree with this or not, it shows the
liberalism that is at the core of Bill Clinton.

And is commonly the case, what is important to liberals and
liberalism has little in common with the majority of the American
people. Rush thanks Jim for his call.

*BREAK*

Phone	Eric from Montebello, CA

Eric says that the Democrats have controlled the House for the
past 40 years, and they have always been blaming Republican
Presidents for being unable to balance the budget and for
producing soaring deficits. However, now that the Republicans put
together a plan to try to balance the budget, Leon Panetta has
denounced them, warning the nation that Republicans would not be
able to balance the budget even if they got control of Congress.

Thus, all of a sudden, the Democrats have shifted the
responsibility for balancing the budget from the White House to
Congress, just so that they can continue blaming Republicans.
Eric wants to know, though, how the Democrats can make this shift
so easily - how have the Democrats been able to shift budget
responsibilities so easily between the legislative and executive
branches?

Rush thinks this is a great point - for years the Democrats have
been blaming the White House for the out-of-control deficits and
for being unbalanced budgets, but now when Republicans are
getting close to getting control of Congress, the Democrats have
suddenly decided it's Congress which is responsible for such
things.

Rush praises Eric for his shrewd observation and notes that he is
proud to have Eric as a member of his audience. Rush adds that
he's going to introduce a new EIB sponsor next hour, and he
thinks it will be the next Snapple, so he encourages one and all
to stay tuned.

*BREAK*

THIRD HOUR

Rush is told that a sewer worker has called in to complain about
how Rush has disparaged his noble profession. Rush knew this
would happen, and asks if the guy's name is Norton. Actually,
though, his name is George, so Rush goes straight to him.

Phone	George from Hannover, PA

George gives dittos, but is nevertheless upset at how Rush
referred to guys who go down into sewers and clean them out. He
points out that he would prefer not to go into a radio station
for three hours a day, having to entertain the nation. Rush says
that this is his point - he thanks God that there are people for
all the jobs that majority of people never would do.

George notes that there are a lot of guys just waiting for his
job, and Rush asks why he thinks this is. George says it's a good
job with good benefits but it seemed Rush was being a bit
disparaging towards it. Rush says he wasn't, but rather was
defending work. Liberals all too often attack certain jobs as
being "hamburger-flipper jobs," as if they were worthless, but
this is anything but true.

There are a lot of jobs in this country - from sanitation and
sewer workers to firefighters and police officers that the
majority of Americans simply wouldn't do. However, there are
Americans who do these jobs, which is something the rest of the
country should be grateful for. For example, most Americans
wouldn't want to go into a sewer at three in the morning to clean
it out, but they are grateful that there are those who do.

George is glad to hear that Rush isn't impugning him or his job,
especially as the beauty of a job is in the eye of the beholder.
Rush notes that most people, including his family, thinks he has
a "piece of cake" job. George says he knows better - a radio show
host has to be up all the time and has to do all sorts of
preparation. George has to do this a little bit when he meets
with the customers, but otherwise he doesn't have to worry about
having to put on a facade and pretend he's something he's not.

Rush admits that he's fit to be tied about a lot of things today,
but he's had to put those problems aside while he's on the air.
"I'm irritable today," Rush notes, but because he's a
professional, he has to do his job without letting it show.

Rush stresses that he was definitely not trying to impugn
anyone's job, but rather praise those who do the jobs most
Americans wouldn't want to do. Sewer working is one such job, and
he bets George didn't grow up wanting to be a sewer worker.
George says his dad was a bricklayer, but he ended up being out
of work a lot, so George was determined to go into a business
where there would always be work. Since people definitely need
their sewers to be always working, he's got job security.

Rush agrees, especially since there aren't a lot of people, in
terms of the country as a whole, who want to do this work. In
contrast, a far greater number want to become a doctor, lawyer,
rock star, etc. The people who do jobs such as sewer working,
though, should be applauded because they allow people like Rush
to avoid having to do such jobs themselves.

Rush wouldn't impugn any work in America, except perhaps certain
jobs in Washington that deserve the approbation. He thanks George
for calling.

********

Last January, Rush attended the Kansas City Chiefs and Pittsburgh
Steelers playoff game, as the guest of Jamie Quirk and George
Brett. Rush flew in on Friday night, and had dinner with Brett
before retiring to the latter's home. When they got there, Brett
quickly changed into his "house shoes" - a pair of Uggs sheepskin
shoes which he said he wore all the time while at home.

You don't have to wear socks with them because of the sheepskin,
and they are very comfortable. However, these aren't just indoor
shoes, but can be worn outside, in any sort of weather.

Brett told Rush he learned about these shoes from surfers in
California, so Rush bought some himself, and his wife soon became
a convert. Rush was so impressed with these shoes that he sent
EIB's Stu Crane to hook these guys up as advertisers, with the
result that Uggs starts as an official advertiser on the EIB
Network tomorrow.

Rush thinks these guys are the next Snapple - they aren't
nationwide yet, but they have hopes to go national soon. Rush
thinks that Uggs will soon take the nation by storm, especially
since winter is coming fast, and there shoes are ideal for cold
climates.

Rush thus urges all listeners to be ready and waiting for Uggs'
first commercial tomorrow, which will include an 800 phone number
which you can call to find the nearest Uggs dealer near you.
These shoes are irreplaceable during the cold weather, but they
are great any time of the year, as Rush will detail tomorrow.

*BREAK*

Rush is always searching for evidence that will contradict the
"conventional wisdom" of the liberals and their allies in the
mainstream press. The conventional wisdom right now is that
Republicans are obstructionists who are stopping everything good
in America, from health care to deficit reduction.

Proving this wrong, though, is the fact that this week the Senate
is debating campaign finance reform, considering a bill that
would basically create welfare for incumbents. Not surprisingly,
there are opponents to the idea of creating a new entitlement
program for politicians, and it's Republicans who are being
blamed for standing in the way, for filibustering, and for
preventing cloture on the bill.

Today's Washington Post, though, reports that the "already
tattered" campaign finance reform bill "suffered a potentially
lethal blow" yesterday because Senate Democrats lost ground in
their attempt to defeat a filibuster. Senator David Boren (D-OK),
sponsor of the bill, said it was "gasping" and on "life support."

However, the setback to Boren's bill is due not to Republican
"obstructionism," but to Democratic defections. Democrats lost a
procedural vote that they had won only a week before because
although six moderate Republicans continued to vote with the
Democrat majority, the Democrats lost five of their own. Because
of the Democrat defections, the Democrats fell three votes short
of the 60 votes they needed to end a procedural delay.

The defecting Democrats were mainly conservative Democrats who
oppose any public funding of campaigns. Opponents are also
objecting to how the bill would give limited funding to Senate
candidates, but would pay for up to a third of a candidate for
the House, assuming that person stayed within spending limits.

Thus, the Democrats lost their vote because of defecting
Democrats, in spite of the help of six Republicans. So how could
it be said that Republicans are being the obstructionists?

In a similar vein, the Post also notes that the Clinton
administration submitted the GATT agreement to Congress
yesterday, but it's not known whether a "key committee chairman"
would be willing to let the Senate vote on the treaty before it
adjourns next month. However, "committee chairmen" are all
Democrats in the Senate, given that the Democrats are the
majority party, so this means that it is a Democrat in Congress
that's opposing Clinton on GATT, and in this instance, this
Democrat is Senator Ernest Hollings, chairman of the Senate
Commerce Committee.

The Post refers to Hollings as a "potentially insurmountable
barrier" to the GATT agreement in particular and to any expansion
of the rules concerning world trade in particular. Thus, it's
Democrats who are defecting and opposing their own party
regarding the Crime Bill, NAFTA, GATT, and campaign finance
reform, among other issues.

So how can Republicans be the only obstructionists, as Democrats
are claiming?

Phone	Mary Jo from Alamogordo, NM

Mary Jo heard on the NBC Nightly News last night that the U.S. is
paying Haitians about $50 Haitian dollars to leave Guantanamo Bay
to return home; this isn't much, given that $50 Haitian dollars
are worth about $3 U.S. Rush thinks the Haitians should take the
money, return to Haiti, loot a police station, grab the guns, and
then sell them back.

Rush doesn't understand one thing, though - the Haitians left
because Cedras was a thug and because Haiti didn't have a
democracy. Now that the U.S. is going to put Aristide back, one
would assume that the Haitians would be flooding back into Haiti,
but this is not the case. He thanks Mary Jo for her call.

Phone	Matt from Sag Harbor, NY

Matt is 18 and will be voting for the first time this November.
He thinks what the Republicans did with their contract was a
great breath of fresh air; he is glad that Republicans are
telling people what they stand for and what they want. He would
be surprised if liberals did the same thing, since if the people
knew what they really stood for, the people would be scared off.

Rush agrees - the liberals are doing everything they can to avoid
being seen as liberals. They are even campaigning as
conservatives right now, talking up issues such as school prayer
and family values, trying to convince the electorate that they
aren't liberals and aren't Democrats. However, should these guys
get re-elected, they'll go right back to being liberals again
when they return to Washington.

Rush asks Matt to hang on through the break.

*BREAK*

Phone	Matt from Sag Harbor, NY (continued)

Matt says that the Republicans' contract would force Congress to
approve all tax increases with a three-fifth's vote, and he
wonders why they think this particular issue is more important
than any others. Rush says that this particular point would
require Congress to approve any tax increases by a three-fifth
vote, and the reason for this is that raising taxes has become
all too easy for Congress.

Raising taxes can be and has been done stealthily, without the
people even knowing about it, and the Republicans are trying to
make this a bit harder. During the 1980s, the Republican party
was the party of the middle class, the party that the middle
class could turn to for relief from oppressive government
intrusion. The Republicans squandered this image since 1988 and
they're now trying to reclaim it, by telling America that raising
taxes should be something that is not as easy to do as it is now.

The Republicans want to make sure that the American people now
know when their taxes are raised and by whom. They are trying to
establish themselves as the party of low taxes, a party that
believes that people should keep more of what they earn, and they
want Democrats to have to work really hard in order to get any
future tax increases.

Matt thanks Rush for clarifying this, and notes that he was
afraid the Republicans were sending the message that taxes was an
issue that was more important than any other. Rush points out
that the ten points in the Republican contract come straight from
what the GOP has heard out of the mouths of Americans. Obviously,
most Americans don't think their taxes are spent very wisely, and
you'd have to look long and hard to find someone who thinks they
aren't paying enough in taxes.

Republicans are thus trying to make the point that people should
keep more of their hard-earned income and that they have a right
to do so; the GOP is also trying to destroy the assumption on the
part of Democrats that Congress is entitled to take as much of
people's income as they want. Rush hopes the Republicans succeed
with this.

Phone	Jeremy from Trenton, NJ

Jeremy is a junior in college, and Rush changed his life. When he
entered college, he hoped to go into sports broadcasting, but
after watching Rush's TV show right night, his life changed and
his dream now is to go to Congress and help destroy the liberal
machine. Rush thanks Jeremy for saying this, and asks Jeremy what
motivated his career change.

Jeremy said he had never heard anyone articulate policies as
clearly as Rush had; when he heard Rush everything clicked, as he
heard Rush clearly articulating what he was already thinking and
believing. Jeremy is now majoring in law and justice, and hopes
to get a law degree before working for the Republican National
Committee and eventually running for the House of Representatives
in New Jersey.

Rush thinks New Jersey could use another conservative
representative and thanks him for his call.

Phone	Martha from Toledo, OH

Martha says she and her coworkers can't wait for tomorrow's
commercial and want to know more now about Uggs boots. Rush notes
that Uggs does more than boots; they also have low-ankle shoes,
in a splendiferous number of colors.

Rush adds that these shoes can be worn not just in the house, but
outside, in the rain or snow, to a football game, etc. In fact,
the manufacturer, who hails from Australia, once proved this to
Rush by taking off his Uggs and pouring water on them; the water
just beaded off.

Martha asks if Uggs is listed in the stock market, and Rush
admits he isn't sure if the company is publicly traded. Martha
bets they will be soon and is looking forward to getting some
herself. Rush thanks her for calling.

*BREAK*

Rush remarks that he is now thinking of holding an "all-Uggs
caller day" at some point. He notes, though, that EIB just got a
caller, Linda from Studio City, CA, who said that she represented
100 people who vowed they would never again listen to Rush if
Jennifer from Seattle was allowed on the air again.

Sadly, Linda hung up before she could get on the air, and Rush
bets that she just got too nervous to hit the national air waves;
however, he's been hearing similar threats from numerous other
people, but Linda's was the first group complaint.

Phone	Kevin from Brunswick, ME

Kevin gives "many frustrated NFL dittos," and adds that he
enjoyed listening to Rush's tribute to his grandfather yesterday.
Kevin's grandfather died in his late 50s while Kevin was in his
early teens, and as Kevin grows older he finds he's finally
understanding a lot of what his grandfather tried to teach him.
Kevin thinks the mood of America is becoming more and more like
this.

Rush says a lot of people are searching back to an earlier time
when America was more grounded. Kevin says his grandfather had a
very direct mentality and was a very loyal person; you had to
earn his loyalty, but afterwards that loyalty was never
questioned. He thinks this is what the Republicans are doing
right now - they're telling the public what they believe in, and
this is the first time Kevin has seen them do this "total belief
campaigning."

Rush remarks that political scientists are still citing Reagan's
1980 campaign as a brilliant model - Reagan campaigned on three
main platforms: lower taxes, the defeat of Communism, and
building back the military. When Reagan was elected, this is what
he did, in contrast to how Clinton claimed during the campaign
he'd fix everything.

The Republicans have finally realized you can only go so far by
opposing the incumbent; the voters want to do more than vote
against the guy in office, they want to vote for someone and for
something. Republicans are now telling the people what they stand
for.

This is a gutsy move because the GOP would probably do well this
November just by running against Washington and by taking
advantage of the huge anti-incumbent mood among the electorate.
However, they are trying to do more, by telling people clearly
what they stand for. It will be interesting to see if this pays
off, but it's certainly what the voters have been looking for
from the GOP.

Phone	Ken from Racine, WI

Ken wants to take issue with Rush over cigars, tobacco, and
smoking. Ken is quite a bit older than Rush, and he remembers how
the tobacco companies made a big deal about how they sent free
cigarettes to America's troops during WWII, but all this really
did was turn these soldiers into slaves of the tobacco industry.

Ken remembers what it was like when smoking was common, with
people burning holes in your seats and furniture, without every
paying for the damage. Ken lost his father to emphysema, his
brother-in-law to heart disease, and his sister-in-law to lung
cancer.

The tobacco company executives, though, continue to lie to both
Congress and the American people about the dangers of cigarettes,
and the movies and TV shows continue to portray young Americans
as smokers. Women are also beginning to smoke more than men,
thanks to all the ads in women's magazines.

Ken says Rush might enjoy his cigars, but doubts that Rush would
smoke in someone's house without getting their permission first.
Rush concurs. Ken, though, has had to attend meetings with
smokers, coming home with his clothes full of smoke, even though
he's a non-smoker. Rush remarks that he sort of guessed Ken
wasn't a smoker himself.

Rush notes he's not defending smoking or the tobacco industry per
se, but he does oppose the government's approach to this industry
and their executives, treating them as if they were being
investigated by the Inquisition. Rush also opposes the
encroachments upon freedom that the "anti-smoking Gestapo"
represents.

Rush doesn't smoke where others would object, plus he smokes
cigars, which are not as addicting as cigarettes. Cigars are an
entirely different experience than cigarettes, but Ken is
certainly entitled to his view. However, while Ken has his
rights, there should also be a limit on how far he can impose his
beliefs on the rest of society.

*BREAK*

Phone	Tracy from Charlotte, NC

Tracy just wanted to tell Rush how great he is, and Rush remarks
that this is good because Tracy has only 30 seconds for her call.
Rush wishes he could ask her why she feels this way, and she
replies that Rush can call her back any time. Rush says he might
do that and thanks her for calling.

