Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show

for Monday, October 3, 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 (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 note the following disclaimer when reading and using this
summary:

1. These summaries are unofficial summaries and are not approved
or sanctioned by Rush Limbaugh or EIB, and should not be
considered a 100% accurate representation of each show. I have no
connection to Rush Limbaugh or EIB other than as a daily
listener.

2. Because this summary is not a word-by-word transcript, it is
inevitable that I may not accurately portray Rush's beliefs or
supporting points. My choice of words may also distort the points
presented by Rush and his callers. A good rule of thumb is "If
something sounds reasonable and intelligent, it belongs to Rush;
if something sounds weird or wrong, it probably belongs to me."

3. The format of this summary is as follows:

o	BRIEF SUMMARY OF TOPICS - since I haven't been able to
keep up with the indexing of these summaries, I've decided to
briefly summarize the major topics of each day's show in this
relatively brief paragraph. It will also appear in the table of
contents for each month, hopefully making it easy to find shows
about specific topics.

o	NEWS - refers to what I consider to be pertinent news
items of the day, as reported by the newspapers, radio, or TV
news media.  This news may or may not also be reported by Rush
during his show; however, I like to use this feature to keep a
perspective on current events as they happen.

o	LIMBAUGH WATCH - this feature keeps a close watch of
Rush's popularity and will notify you of the moment of his
broadcasting demise, which liberals are certain is imminent, now
that Bill Clinton is President.

o	LEST WE FORGET - Highlights from the Rush Limbaugh show
that aired two years ago.

o	MORNING UPDATE - this is Rush's syndicated morning update
which is separate from his regular show.

o	Items - these are the short bits of news or other items
of interest that Rush himself discusses.

o	Phone - this indicates a phone call.

o	Update - this is one of Rush's many updates, and
indicates which song Rush is playing. Note, though, that I may
not use the "official" title of the song, and sometimes will use
the most recognizable line of lyrics as the title.

Any other text is part of Rush's monologue.

4. Anything that appears in "double quotes" may or may not be a
direct quote of Rush, his sources, or his callers. Use the
context of the quoted statement to determine the meaning. My
editorial comments are enclosed in double angled brackets (<<>>).

5. Although I strive for accuracy at all times, because of the
length of each show (3 hours a day, 5 days a week), I cannot
check facts, figures, or names. In particular, the names of
people, places, and things may be spelled incorrectly.

6. A note is needed on Rush's sense of humor, which can run the
gamut from sardonic and sarcastic to rude and crude. Trying to
convey the spirit of spoken humor into the written word is a
daunting task, and I may not always be successful. Therefore, I
use the following conventions to identify Rush's humor: a) a
lead-in such as "Rush jokes" or "Rush injects some humor by
saying; b) using words such as "according to Rush," "supposedly,"
"allegedly" as in "The police supposedly called the theft of 500
panties `unmentionable.'" c) putting editorial comments within
double brackets as in <<Rush is joking here>>. Above all, use
your knowledge of Rush and his show, and the context of the
remarks to determine if humor is present.

DISCLAIMER: This unofficial summary is intended for regular
listeners of Rush's show and is not intended to replace or
supplant Rush's show, as if that were possible. If you find that
you cannot regularly listen to Rush's show, check with your local
station to see if they replay the show later at night. My local
station, for example, replays the show most nights at 8pm. You
can also use most VCRs to record from the radio - simply connect
an audio cable from the AUDIO IN jack at the back of your VCR to
the AUDIO OUT or auxiliary speaker jack at the back of your
radio. Then switch your VCR over to LINE mode (see the VCR's
documentation for details) and record.

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

October 3, 1994

BRIEF SUMMARY OF TOPICS: Binky the Polar Bear takes a bite out of
crime; Tim Russert goes after Rep. Newt Gingrich and the
Republicans' ten-point contract on "Meet the Press"; Tom Foley
claims Lobby Reform and Disclosure Act doesn't need to have any
penalties against members of Congress because they aren't
lobbyists; the press gets it wrong about the Republicans' ten-
point contract - it's not a promise that Republicans will pass
these issues, but only that they will bring them to the House
floor for a debate and vote; mainstream press can't conceive of a
smaller government; Clinton excoriates Republicans for being
obstructionists; Tim Russert says a highly placed administration
official told him there were those in the White House who thought
Clinton's re-election chances would improve if he had a
Republican Congress; a Republican Congress would be anything but
a do-nothing Congress; EIB has prepared a detailed response to
FAIR's list of 43 Rush "lies"; caller doesn't think Clinton can
pull off "doing a Harry Truman"; will the sight of dead U.S.
soldiers in Haiti hurt Democrats in the November elections?; if
the Brady Bill is so effective, why not use it in Haiti?;
Democrats and press seem outraged that Republicans have chosen to
stand for something; Russert claims federal spending soared under
12 years of Republican "rule," but Gingrich reminded him that
Democrats controlled the House for all of those years, and the
Senate for half of them; Rush gives sources for his story about
Sidwell Friends School students having to write an essay on "Why
Feel Guilty about Being White"; journalists could have found any
of the four sources for Rush's story about Sidwell Friends, but
none even bothered to look; caller thinks a Republican Congress
would be anything but a do-nothing Congress; Paul Gigot writes
that Democrats might be so fed up with Clinton that they insist
he not run for re-election, and should Clinton refuse, "the
Whitewater subpoenas will begin to fly"; Rush finds Uggs shoes to
be a boon in his frosty apartment; "therapy for guns" buyback
program has Contra Costa therapists offering three free hours of
therapy for each gun turned in; psychologists think they can
teach people to handle their fears "without using a gun as a
crutch"; Rep. Kent Conrad (D-ND) campaign ad claims he votes with
Bob Dole more often than he does with Clinton; Georgia Democrat
accuses his opponent of being a "Clinton Republican"; caller
thinks that Republicans have put themselves in a no-win situation
with their ten-point contract because even if they get a majority
in the House, they might not be able to deliver; balanced budget
amendment still wouldn't prevent government from forcing others
to spend their money as government wants; caller doubts media
will ever get it right about the Republicans' contract; caller
thinks media fears smaller government because it will reduce
their power and paychecks; Tim Russert writes Rush that he was
trying to get specifics about deficit reduction from both
Gingrich and Foley; problem with deficit is entitlements, which
are on "automatic pilot" and a quarter of which go to people
earning more than $60,000 a year; Paula Jones offers to drop her
sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton if he
apologizes to her by noon next Sunday; Clinton's lawyer says
Clinton was willing to say he might have met Paula Jones at the
Excelsior Hotel; caller thinks Haiti invasion is Clinton's
revenge against those Democrats who refused to support his health
care plan; caller is disappointed with Republicans' contract
because it doesn't offer much substance when it comes to cutting
the deficit; Gingrich says federal spending has to be cut at
least $750 billion over five years; entitlements must be cut, and
the people weaned from them, before the deficit problem can be
solved; Sam Nunn warns that Social Security could be $4 trillion
in debt by 2015; Social Security trust fund is a gimmick, and
most working Americans know it won't have any money for them when
it retires; Larry Kudlow has proposed balancing the federal
budget by instituting a genuine spending freeze, plus increase
for nominal inflation; Rush fears more and more Americans think
that government is supposed to do things for them; caller says
inflation is happening, and Republicans should be pointing this
out; obituary says deceased "was a graduate of the Limbaugh
institute of Advanced Conservative Studies"; Hillary is coming
out into public again, talking about health care, and press corps
is more than happy to help her rehabilitate her image.

LIMBAUGH WATCH

October 3, 1994 - It's now day 622 (day 641 for the rich and the
dead, and 36 days until the November elections) of "America Held
Hostage" (aka the "Raw Deal" which has 840 days left) and 685
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 nearly 500,000 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.

LEST WE FORGET

Because Rush was travelling the Rush Limbaugh show on Monday,
October 5, 1992 was a "Best of Rush" show, repeating the show
that originally aired on Thursday, August 27, 1992.

********

MORNING UPDATE

Rush would like to celebrate a hero, actually a cult hero, who is
being celebrated for his crime fighting. This crime fighter lives
in Anchorage, AK, and is named Binky - Binky the Polar Bear. In
July, Binky caught an Australian tourist who was climbing the
fence surrounding Binky's cage in the Anchorage Zoo; Binky
punished the tourist for trespassing, grabbing her in his jaws,
and administering swift justice: a fine in the form of a broken
leg, bite wounds, and losing one of her red tennis shoes, which
Binky evidently kept as a souvenir of the encounter.

Alaskans quickly reacted to this event, coming out with T-shirts
that featured a picture of Binky with the caption "Send more
tourists, this one got away." Amazingly, though, the lesson was
not learned by two Anchorage teenagers who, six weeks later,
slipped into the zoo after drinking heavily. They stripped, so as
to swim in Binky's pool.

Binky, though, again reacted with swift and sure punishment -
Binky grabbed the leg of one of the teens, who nevertheless
managed to escape with the aid of his friend. Legal charges are
pending against both teens.

More T-shirts showed up, with slogans such as "Binky for
Governor" and "Take a Bite Out of Crime." Jokes were also told,
such as how the state shouldn't punish the teenagers because "it
already has its pound of flesh." Editorial cartoons appeared
having Binky say, "Mauled teenager my butt! How about `Hero Bear
Prevents Youth from Drowning!?' "

In short, Rush notes, there is an overwhelming consensus that
Binky was within his rights in attacking these trespassers, and
people are actively coming to his defense. Rush has known that
Americans are sick and tired of crime, but this bear proves it.
Rush is glad that he's finally found some animal rights activists
with whom he can agree.

FIRST HOUR

Yesterday's "Meet the Press" was an oddity, given that Rush has
long felt that its host, Tim Russert, embodies the goal of the
unbiased, objective "inside-the-Beltway" journalist. Russert has
been notable among those in the Washington press corps because of
how he doesn't play sides, yet yesterday he viciously assaulted
Newt Gingrich, attacking him for the Republicans' contract with
the American people.

Rush had no problem with the questions Russert was asking
Gingrich, but Russert had an attitude which was very curious,
especially since Russert did not treat Tom Foley in the same way.
In fact, Foley was basically treated with kid gloves, although
Lisa Myers did hammer him somewhat about the Lobby Reform and
Disclosure Act. Myers asked Foley if he thought it was
unreasonable that this bill would fine the average American up to
$200,000 for violations, while not punishing members of Congress.

Foley, of course, saw nothing wrong with this at all, and instead
insisted that members of Congress couldn't be subject to this law
since it dealt with lobbyists, not members of Congress. The fact
is, though, that members of Congress do make deals with
lobbyists, but this bill punishes only the lobbyist, not those in
Congress.

Newt Gingrich, though, acquitted himself well yesterday while
being peppered with questions from Russert about the Republicans
ten-point contract. It is obvious, though, that most members of
the mainstream press don't know what this contract really is -
it's not a promise to do these ten things, but only a promise
that these issues will be debated and voted upon in the House,
should Republicans gain control there.

It's telling how members of the press truly dislike this contract
in a visceral sense; they just can't stomach the idea of
government getting smaller. The idea that power would be taken
from the federal government and given back to the states and the
people seems anathema to them. It is curious how the press goes
ballistic whenever you talk about a balanced budget amendment,
ending the welfare state and other entitlement spending, etc.

Russert clearly tried to embarrass Gingrich yesterday by claiming
the Republicans' contract was an attempt to return to the failed
policies of the 80s, portraying the contract as an irrelevant and
impossible idea. However, the Republicans' contract is nothing
more and nothing less but a promise to bring the ten points to a
vote.

The Republicans haven't promised they'll get all ten of these
things passed and made law. They couldn't possibly promise this,
given that not only do bills have to be passed by the House, but
also by the Senate. They then have to be signed by the President.

Thus, the Republicans can't promise the passage of any bill, even
if they get control of the House. However, they can promise that
they will debate these issues and bring them to the floor for a
vote. This is an important change from what is happening now,
thanks to how the Democratic leadership in the House keeps these
issues bottled up in committees.

So why are the members of the press and Democratic party so
fearful and hysterical about this contract and its ideas? Part of
the reason can be seen in how the press praised Rep. Mike Synar
(D-OK) after he lost his primary race a couple of weeks ago. Even
though the people of Oklahoma had clearly stated that Synar did
not represent them and that they wanted nothing more to do with
him or his liberalism, the press didn't care; they still praised
Synar as a great servant of the people, someone whose loss would
be sorely felt in the halls of government.

Synar had nothing in common with his district, which is why he
was defeated; he was a Bill Clinton liberal, and his constituents
wanted nothing more to do with him. Yet the press loved him,
proving not only how out of touch Synar was, but how out of touch
the mainstream press is.

In contrast to how Synar is praised, Gingrich is being savaged
simply for daring to suggest that issues such as term limits, a
balanced budget amendment, and spending cuts be brought to the
House floor for debate and a vote. Meanwhile, House Speaker Tom
Foley is suing his own constituents for daring to pass a term
limits initiative.

The contrast between Gingrich and Foley is clear - Gingrich wants
term limits to be discussed, debated, and voted upon, while Foley
wants to kill the idea at any cost. David Broder did give Foley
some heat for his lawsuit, but there wasn't the strong, bitter,
vindictive dislike towards Foley that was shown towards Gingrich.

There doesn't seem to be even one mainstream journalists who can
visualize a smaller government. There's not one who can even
consider the possibility of a downsized government, which means
that they all believe that the greatness of America is based on
what government can do. Those in the media think government
action and government programs are what have made American great,
and they believe it's unpatriotic to try to limit such programs.

This was an amazing thing to watch, especially since Tim Russert
is normally above this sort of thing. Russert has worked for
Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but he rarely has shown
any sort of bias; he's usually been an equal opportunity attacker
towards his guests, but yesterday he was vindictive beyond words
at Gingrich, insisting that Gingrich list every spending cut he
would make to balance the budget.

Gingrich, though, tried to make the point that the Republican
contract was about debating these issues so you could get to the
specifics, but Russert refused to listen to it. It seems that
those in Washington are getting more and more panicked and
hysterical, as they realize just what might happen in the
November elections.

President Clinton appeared in a fund-raiser in Virginia over the
weekend, and Rush will discuss that and how it ties into the
Republicans' contract after the break.

*BREAK*

Rush gives a shout of joy because "fall is in the air,"
explaining that the start of the fall season is his favorite time
of year. As to President Clinton's appearance in McLean, VA, Rush
notes that Clinton excoriated Republicans for signing their
contract with America that "pledges tax and spending cuts" should
the Republicans gain control of the House. Rush again notes that
this contract pledges open debate and a vote on these issues,
which is important because Democrats have refused to even allow
debate on such things.

Clinton, however, insisted that Republicans were nothing but
obstructionists, opposing his 1993 budget, stopping his health
care plan, and trying to stop the Crime Bill. Clinton even said
"Republicans want to stick it to ordinary Americans." This simply
is not true, but it is accurate to say that Clinton wants to
stick it to extraordinary Americans.

Clinton was right in that Republicans opposed his economic
package, but this was a good thing because it is not the best way
to get strong economic growth. However, Republicans did not kill
health care reform; it was Democrats who killed this bill, most
notably those who wrote the bill. The Clinton health care bill is
what killed the Clinton health care bill, and the people didn't
want it; furthermore, the Democrats couldn't even agree among
themselves about what bill they wanted.

As to the Crime Bill, Republicans did try to kill the Crime Bill,
but they failed thanks to some turncoats. However, the
Republicans couldn't have killed the Crime Bill in any case had
not dozens of Democrats defected from the President on it. Plus,
everyone knows the Crime Bill was a joke - this is why there were
so many stories that came out after the fact about how the Crime
Bill was too little, too late.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Tim Russert stated that he had
spoken to someone high-up in the administration who told him
there were those in the White House who thought Clinton's re-
election chances would actually improve if the Republicans did
win big in November, gaining control of the House. They believe
that this would allow Clinton to run against Congress - a
Republican Congress - calling them a do-nothing and
obstructionist Congress.

Rush thus has to wonder if the Clintons, along with Leon Panetta
and Tony Coelho, would really be willing to sacrifice 40
Democratic seats in the House of Representatives, just to
guarantee Clinton's re-election in 1996. Of course they would, so
Rush has to wonder what Democrats who are running for re-election
this year have to think about this possibility.

However, for Clinton to successfully run against the Congress in
1996, the 104th Congress would have to be a gridlocked and
genuinely do-nothing Congress. Rush, though, doubts that a
Republican-controlled Congress would really be a do-nothing
Congress.

Should Republicans gain control of the House, they would
undoubtedly go like bats out of hell, motivated in part by the
fear that they have perhaps only two years in which to get
something done. On the other hand, though, this could also help
Clinton because if he is going to work with a Republican
Congress, he'll have to move to the right, and this will improve
his standing among the American public.

Of course, liberal Democrats would mutiny immediately if Clinton
dumped them by moving to the right. Jesse Jackson would certainly
run for President again, and who knows what Hillary would do?
It's interesting, therefore, to wonder if the administration
would really invade Haiti just to put a Republican Congress in
office, in the hope of increasing Clinton's re-election chances
in 1996.

*BREAK*

Rush promises that at the top of the next hour he will discuss
the allegations made against him last summer by a number of
groups, notably FAIR. These groups claimed that Rush just made
things up and lied to make his points, with FAIR making a big
noise about its list of 43 such "lies."

Rush has been silent about this for the most part because EIB has
been working on its response to these "lies," which in reality
are, at best, differences of opinions. Yet even if they were
indeed lies, untruths, and inaccuracies, if all FAIR could do was
come up with 43 of them in Rush's six years of national
broadcasts, then what does that say?

EIB, though, is getting ready to release its voluminous 30-page
rebuttal to FAIR's charges, but during the second hour Rush will
focus on the story about how some students at Sidwell Friends
School, which Chelsea Clinton attends, were given an assignment
to write a paper titled "Why I Feel Guilty About Being White."

Rush had two sources for this story, yet although anyone could
easily find these sources for themselves if they were so
inclined, journalists have continued to use this story as "proof"
that Rush makes things up. Thus, at the start of the second hour,
Rush will go into some detail about this story, how he happened
upon it, and how the original source for it stands by their
story.

What EIB has done, though, is something that any mainstream
journalist could have done but didn't. The mainstream press just
accepted FAIR's list without question, without doing any sort of
checking whatsoever. Thus, Rush will have some choice words to
say about this and how EIB has once again been doing the job the
mainstream press refuses to do.

Phone	Bob from Los Angeles, CA

Bob agrees with Rush that Clinton would do about anything to get
re-elected, plus he thinks that what was happening on "Meet the
Press" was an example of "sweet lemons," the opposite of sour
grapes. If the Republicans did take over Congress, Clinton would
undoubtedly try to pull a Harry Truman, but Clinton is no Harry
Truman.

Bob explains that Harry Truman was confronted with a "do-nothing
Congress," and he ran against that Congress successfully.
However, Bob doubts that a Republican Congress would be a do-
nothing Congress or that Clinton would have any credibility
running against it.

Rush says the only way this could happen is if President Clinton
started issuing a lot of vetoes, and he admits he is still amazed
at how fearful Democrats are at the prospect of Republicans
bringing their ten issues to the floor of the House for a vote.
However, he agrees with Bob that Clinton would try to do a Harry
Truman by running against Congress. What he's not sure of is
whether Clinton would actually try to get a Republican Congress,
sacrificing his own party members to do so.

Bob thinks Clinton's primary objective is to get re-elected, so
he'll do anything within his power, legal or illegal, to achieve
that goal. However, Bob doubts that Clinton will be able to pull
off a Harry Truman, given that Clinton doesn't even begin to
approach Truman in terms of character. Furthermore, Bob doubts
that Clinton is actually trying to arrange a Republican Congress
for the sake of achieving a personal political goal.

Rush remarks that Tim Russert said he heard a White House
official say the administration wouldn't be disappointed at such
a thing. The election is now 36 days away, which means there will
be plenty of opportunity for some American soldiers to be killed
in Haiti, all televised on CNN. He asks Bob what he thinks
footage of dead Americans arriving in body bags will do for or to
Democrats running for re-election.

Bob says this has got to hurt them, and Rush agrees, which begs
the question of why Clinton would choose to invade Haiti so near
the elections. Bob thinks that Clinton made some deals and
couldn't avoid following through on them. So far Clinton is
pulling this off, but it's clear that as the situation
deteriorates, more Americans will be endangered; Bob thinks it's
inevitable that as time goes on, Americans will end up being
hated by all sides in Haiti, and then things will get nasty.

Rush thanks Bob for his call, and adds that there's a lot to be
learned in Haiti about gun control - why doesn't the U.S. just
pass a "Haiti Brady Bill"? If the Brady Bill is supposed to work,
then why not do it in Haiti? Instead, American forces are trying
to disarm the populace there, which should chill the bones of
every American; Haitians, though, aren't going to give up their
weapons because they are all they've got to protect themselves.

*BREAK*

Phone	Jeff from Sacramento, CA

Jeff is a former member of the military and appreciates
everything Rush has done for those serving in the armed forces.
He saw "Meet the Press" yesterday, though, and he thinks the show
is basically "three liberals attacking the conservative," and any
time a liberal is the guest, there are nothing but softballs and
jokes. For example, Senator George Mitchell was treated like a
king when he came on a few weeks ago.

Rush agrees with that - nobody in the mainstream press ever
admits that Mitchell is at all partisan or liberal, but they'll
attack men like Gingrich for being motivated only by partisan
politics. Jeff adds that his wife didn't mind Tim Russert's
questions, but thought his attitude was unacceptable, as he was
badgering Gingrich.

Jeff doesn't mind tough questions, but he thinks they should be
asked of both sides. Jeff thus would disagree with Rush that
Russert is a good journalist because Jeff has yet to see him take
on Democrats as vigorously he does Republicans.

Rush has to disagree with that because he has seen Russert come
on strong against Democrats, which was why yesterday's show was
so unusual. Rush still thinks Russert is as close to being an
"objective member of the media" that can be found, but his attack
yesterday against Gingrich was mystifying.

What is so wrong with Republicans standing for something,
especially when those things are what are listed in the
Republicans' contract? The way Russert treated Gingrich should be
the way he treats Democrats, given that it's liberals who want to
take away from the people, who want to steal from working
Americans. Gingrich, in contrast, just wants to bring some issues
to the floor of the House for a vote, in contrast to how these
issues have been stymied by the Democratically-controlled
Congress.

Russert's attitude yesterday wasn't anything different from what
you see elsewhere in the mainstream press, but Russert usually is
above that sort of thing, which is why yesterday's show, with its
visceral hatred towards Gingrich, was so remarkable.

*BREAK*

Rush notes that yesterday Tim Russert showed some charts of
federal spending, claiming it was done "under 12 years of
Republican rule." Gingrich quickly pointed out that the Democrats
ruled the House for all of those years and ruled the Senate for
half of those years. It's thus an interesting slip of the tongue
for Russert to refer to the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush
administrations as Republican "rule."

It would have been nice, though, had Russert asked Tom Foley
about how federal revenues nearly doubled during the Reagan
administration, even though Reagan's tax cuts lowered the top
marginal rate from 70% to 28%. Russert could have easily balanced
the show by asking Foley to explain how this could have happened,
pointing out that the reason there were such deficits during the
80s was because Congress spent too much. After all, if revenues
doubled and the deficits still soared, doesn't that mean someone
is spending too much money?

Rush doesn't know if anyone else noticed the attitude Russert
took with Gingrich, and it will be interesting to see if this
sort of anti-Republican sentiment among the media continues or
even intensifies as the November elections approach.

*BREAK*

SECOND HOUR

Over the summer, Rush was all attacked from all quarters for
"making it up," lying, and otherwise being inaccurate, and the
main focus of that attack was a list prepared by Fairness and
Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). The mainstream press reprinted this
report nearly verbatim, without trying to corroborate any of
FAIR's allegations at all.

This "Limbaugh Reign of Error" generated much attention, and it
is amazing how the press, such as the Associated Press, ran this
story, assuming it were true. There was no attempt at fact-
checking or at verifying FAIR's sources.

EIB didn't have any immediate response to this list, though,
because Rush wanted to present an effective refutation of all 43
points at once. Plus, there were other priorities, such as the
Clinton health care plan and Crime Bill.

Besides, Rush wasn't surprised by this attack - he predicted such
attacks against him and his listeners would only intensify,
precisely because the Democrats were losing on health care. It
didn't take a lot of intelligence to see that when President
Clinton attacked Rush on Air Force One that his allies in the
media would soon follow suit.

FAIR's list was obviously designed to force Rush to take time
responding to it, distracting him from discussing the issues of
the day, and Rush didn't want to play that sort of game. He thus
concentrated on the issues, ignoring FAIR and those others who
were attacking him, until he had the time and opportunity for a
complete refutation.

Rush knew this was risky, but he was certain that his audience
would understand just how bogus this list and these charges were.
There might be those who don't listen, though, who have been
affected by this list and its unchallenged reporting, so Rush
hopes to capture the attention of some of them.

The refutation that EIB has prepared to FAIR's list is a huge
document because not only does it address each of FAIR's charges
in turn, but it also includes voluminous and complete
documentation to back up Rush's contentions. EIB is going to
first send a copy of this report to about 100 journalists, and
Rush is toying with other ways of getting this report out to the
general public and EIB audience. <<posting on the Internet or
CompuServe is an idea>>

Rush therefore can't even begin to go through this report on the
air, so he will concentrate on just one point which seems to have
captured the special attention of those in the media. Nearly
everyone who reported on FAIR's list singled out how Rush
reported that Sidwell Friends School, where Chelsea Clinton
attends, had some of its eighth-grade students write a report
titled "Why I Feel Guilty About Being White."

Rush's source for this story was CBS, but FAIR insisted it was
untrue, saying that CBS denied running such a report and that a
Sidwell spokesman said it never happened. In truth, though, CBS
Morning Research, a wire service for radio talk show hosts, did
run the story on January 6, 1994. Rush doesn't subscribe to this
service, but he got a copy of the story thanks to the operations
director of an Ohio radio station who faxed it to him.

The sources for the CBS story were the February, 1994 issue of
Playboy and the September, 1993 issue of Heterodoxy magazine.
Rush's own research, though, found out what every journalist
could have found out for themselves had they only did their job:
that the story is true and was originally reported on July 16,
1993 in an article titled "Hillary's Friends" in the Washington
City paper, a DC newspaper with a circulation of about 90,000.

The story was written by Bill Gilford who wrote the following:

"Off the record, some parents will admit to discomfort with the
school's multicultural excesses. The eighth-grade assignment on
"Why I Feel Guilty About Being White," for example, or the
treatment accorded a sixth-grader who stood up at a school-wide
held during the L.A. riots to express his fear of the rioters: he
was later forced to apologize to his black classmates. Other
parents quietly fault the school for pandering to its black
students who nowadays are more likely to be the sons and
daughters of blue-chip lawyers and entertainment moguls than bus
drivers and janitors.

" `The world hasn't witnesses such aristocratic self-abnegation
since Robespierre was lopping off heads. It's completely driven
in part by a collection of neurotic individuals who are worried
sick about being seen as politically correct,' fumes a parent of
one of Chelsea's classmates. But these same people seem possessed
by the urge to mention at the first opportunity that their kids
got in."

EIB easily found this story, and this is something that every
journalist in the world could have done, if only they had
bothered to do their job and look for it. EIB talked to the
original reporter, Bill Gilford, who confirmed the story, as did
the paper's editor, Jack Schaeffer; both men stand by the story.
Amazingly, FAIR never called this newspaper before they issued
their list about Rush's "lies"; FAIR did call Gilford after they
ran their story, and Gilford told them the same thing he told EIB
- that the story is true and that he stands by his story.

FAIR thus knows all about this - that the story originally ran in
a DC paper, and later in three other sources; they know that the
paper, its editor, and reporter stand by their story, but FAIR
has yet to retract its accusation, apologize to Rush, or
otherwise attempt to correct their own mistake. It should be
clear to everyone that Rush did not make this story up; what he
reported had been already reported by four media sources, and the
original source still stand by their story to this day.

Schaeffer pointed out to Rush that the event at Sidwell Friends
School happened in 1992 after the Rodney King story, and that one
of the four seventh/eighth-grade classes at the school was given
the assignment to write an essay titled "Why I Feel Guilty About
Being White" or "Why I Feel Guilty." Gilford doubts that his
source for this story would make it up.

EIB asked Gilford if his paper had followed all this controversy,
and Gilford said he had and was highly amused at how there was no
controversy about this story when it first published; nor was
there any hubbub when it was repeated by Playboy, Heterodoxy, or
the CBS news service. Nobody called him to tell him he was wrong,
nor did anyone challenge the story in any way - nobody from the
city, the school, the parents, the teachers, none of the paper's
readers. In fact nobody thought much about this story "until all
this blew up with Rush."

Gilford also found it ironic that FAIR has defended Sidwell in
this, given that FAIR continually complains about how the media
is too cozy with Washington politicians and lobbyists. Sidwell is
a perfect example of this sort of relationship, as the children
of the DC elite - politicians, lobbyists, and journalists - end
up together there.

Rush notes that this is just one of FAIR's 43 points, and EIB has
put together a refutation of all of FAIR's accusations. However,
Rush stresses that he's not so concerned about the fact that FAIR
issued their report against him in the first place, but that
nobody in the mainstream media bothered to make the one phone
call which would have discovered all of what Rush has just
reported. EIB basically again did the mainstream media's job for
them, and that's one of the reason that the EIB Network, along
with a lot of similar programs, is popular with those who are
tired of the inside-the-Beltway politics.

 Nobody in the mainstream media checked any of FAIR's reports,
though, at least to Rush's knowledge. Instead, Garry Trudeau
milked this story for a week, and Al Hunt, whose kids go to
Sidwell, slammed Rush in Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago for
"making this story up." There was a genuine journalistic source
for this story, and the paper still stands by it, yet FAIR and
the rest of the press accused only Rush - not the DC paper, not
Heterodoxy, not Playboy, not CBS - of making this story up.

*BREAK*

Rush remarks that he can't wait for ABC's Monday Night Football
because the game tonight is between the Houston Oilers and the
Pittsburgh Steelers. Rush, though, isn't sure if his beloved
Steelers can come back from their prior loss to take the Oilers,
but time will tell.

Phone	Carl from Oyster Bay, NY

Carl thinks that a Republican-controlled Congress would be
anything but a do-nothing Congress, so if the White House is
counting on this to help them in 1996, they've made a major
mistake. Paul Gigot in last Friday's Wall Street Journal noted
that after the November elections, Democratic leaders might
actually tell the Clintons that it would not be in the party's
best interests for them to run for re-election.

The Clintons would refuse, of course, leaving the Democrats in a
difficult position. At this point, Gigot predicts "the Whitewater
subpoenas will begin to fly," with the Democrats finding a new
respect for Senator Alfonse D'Amato. Rush says he read a column
by Bob Tyrrell over the weekend which was very similar, and it
echoed what Rush has been saying about how the Democratic
powers-that-be must be aghast which is going on with their party.

Carl notes that former NYC mayor Edward Koch has all but endorsed
the Republican challenger to Governor Mario Cuomo, and he doesn't
support the U.S. invasion of Haiti; Koch even is referring to the
wife of Raoul Cedras as "Evita."

Rush notes that William Safire is now saying that he feels
betrayed by Bill Clinton, so he evidently regrets voting for
Clinton two years ago. However, all of these people should have
seen all this before the 1992 elections; Rush is not surprised by
what has happened, so it's curious that others would be.

*BREAK*

Items

o	Rush remarks that he proudly wore his Uggs shoes over the
weekend, even though the weather was cold, overcast, and drizzly.
Rush found the Uggs to be incredibly convenient as the cigar-
smoke attacking air filters in his fashionable but incredibly
tiny Westside apartment tend to blow the air onto the floor. The
Uggs, however, shielded his tootsies from the cold air, and Rush
wore them all day.

o	Yesterday's NY Times and today's USA Today reports that
there is a "therapy for gun" buyback program going on in Contra
Costa, CA. From now until the end of the year, anyone turning in
a gun to Contra Costa police stations will get three free hours
of psychotherapy.

David O'Grady, director of the new program and one of the 40
psychologists donating their time, proudly stated that
psychologists have "very effective programs" to help people deal
with their anger nonviolently and with their fears, "without
using a gun as a crutch." O'Grady also noted that one of his
patients, an Eagle Scout, turned in the Uzi he had bought when he
turned 18 and which he brought to school. He hoped the program
will get a good turnout from gang members, would-be suicides, and
older people who are "fearful," and he bet "we'll probably save
some lies."

Rush notes that the assumption of this program is that anyone who
owns a gun is a wacko that needs help and serious therapy. He
finds this program to be highly illustrative of the attitude that
the anti-gun crowd has - that any gun owner cannot possibly be
normal. And these guys actually think that they will get gang
members to turn in their guns for therapy; who's really the crazy
ones?

The only way this program could work is if the shrinks turn in
some psychodrugs as well. And it's interesting that O'Grady made
a big deal about how an Eagle Scout turned in his gun, as it
shows how the anti-gunners think the real problem in society is
with those who would never use their guns illegally; meanwhile,
the gang members and other criminals who are using their guns to
commit crimes aren't about to turn in their weapons for
psychotherapy.

Phone	Mike from Columbus, OH

Mike thinks Rush's comment about Foley was right on the mark -
asking Foley to do something about the deficit is like asking the
fox to do something about the chicken's wounds. Mike bets,
though, that when the Washington voters turn Foley out for suing
them, there will be a mass exodus of the Democratic leadership -
all the old-timers will scurry away like rats, trying to get as
far away from Clinton as they can, in the meager hope of
salvaging something in 1996.

Mike points out that it's already hard to find any of these
Democrats who will even mention Clinton's name, much less invite
the President to campaign for them. Rush notes that Rep. Kent
Conrad (D-ND) is even claiming in a new ad that he votes with Bob
Dole more often than he votes with Clinton, and Conrad is not
someone who's in trouble. He's been enjoying poll ratings of 70%
or so and his re-election is considered a done deal, which makes
his break with Clinton all the more telling.

The lesson of this is that the Democrats don't want to be
anywhere near Clinton, even if their re-election is virtually
guaranteed. In fact, one Georgia Democrat running against a
Republican is calling his opponent a "Clinton Republican," which
is obviously the worst possible kind of mudslinging you could
find nowadays.

Mike notes that Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) was campaigning in
Columbus last weekend, and he made the point that the Republicans
have to get a majority in Congress before any changes from the
past 40 years of Democratic rule can be made. Rep. Deborah Pryce
(R-OH) pointedly mentioned how she was given only a couple of
hours to read a very marked up and confusing copy of the Crime
Bill before being asked to vote on it, and this is not how
Congress should be run.

Rush says the House of Representatives is a corrupt institution,
and tactics such as this are how the Democrats are trying to keep
control - coming up with arcane and restrictive rules and
processes which only stop and confuse the opposition. And there
are many issues which never even get out of committee, which are
never allowed even to be debated or voted upon.

*BREAK*

Phone	Ann from Statesborough, GA

Ann thinks the Republicans made a mistake with their contract
because it put them in a no-win situation. First, they might not
win a majority in the November elections, but even if they do
win, the press will insist on misinterpreting the contract,
claiming that the Republicans promised term limits, a line-item
veto, etc., as opposed to only promising to debate and vote on
them.

Rush understands Ann's point, and asks if her fear is based on a
mistrust of the media. Ann says yes because she likes the
contract itself - it would be worthwhile to at least talk about
these issues and debate them. She doesn't really think a balanced
budget amendment would be that great of an idea, but at least it
should be discussed more than it is now.

Rush asks Ann why she doesn't like a balanced budget amendment,
and she says one of her liberal college professors convinced her
that it could put the nation in a situation where its hands were
tied. Rush notes that the problem today is that nobody seems able
to visualize a downsized government; this idea scares the heck
out of anyone in Washington, whether that be media, politicians,
or anyone else there.

Rush points out that the balanced budget amendment idea has one
big flaw, which is that while it would prevent government from
spending more money than it takes in, it wouldn't do anything to
stop government from forcing others to spend their own money on
what government wants. This is what the health care battle was
all about - people and businesses spending their money to fund a
government-run health care plan.

The Clinton health care plan was scheduled to be entirely off-
budget, thanks to the fiction of the employer mandate. Yet if the
government requires you to spend money for certain things, it's a
tax, regardless whether the money gets to Washington first.

Rush, though, doesn't think anyone should be afraid of a debate
and vote on these issues; the Republicans can't guarantee passage
of anything in the House, but they haven't done this. All their
contract states is that if Republicans were to run the House,
they would debate and vote on these issues.

Ann agrees, but she's seen how journalists such as Lisa Myers
attack this idea, being snide and cynical, taking it out of
context and misreporting it. Rush points out that this is to be
expected, given that there aren't any mainstream journalists who
can envision or accept a downsized government, so they're going
to react to such ideas with cynicism and snide remarks.

Liberals, of course, can't accept downsized government because
they live to expand government, in the belief that it's
government which makes America great; to them, America can only
become greater if government increases. Ann's are valid fears,
but she shouldn't let those fears frighten her away from debating
these issues.

Ann has one more question: "what's an Uggs?" Rush sadly notes
that the next Uggs commercial won't be coming along until next
Wednesday, so he explains that Uggs is the next Snapple - they
aren't nationwide yet, but you can call 1-800-SAY-UGGS to find
the Uggs distributor nearest you.

Ann adds that she wishes Rush would advertise cordless phones
because it would make callers' lives easier as they wait on-line
to talk to Rush. Rush muses on this idea, but notes that Uggs are
a fascinating product which he and his wife gladly use; his wife,
in fact, wears her Uggs boots all the time, saying they warm her
feet instantly, which is essential in Rush's household since he
loves to keep the ambient air temperature only slightly above
freezing.

Ann pledges to take a look at Uggs, although she doesn't think
she, living in Georgia, will have as big a need for sheepskin
shoes as New Yorkers soon will.

*BREAK*

Phone	George from Hollywood, FL

George thinks the media understands perfectly what a smaller
government means - smaller government will result in smaller
roles for the media, lessening the press's importance, and
thereby their pay. Rush sees this point, but thinks that the
inside-the-Beltway media is not motivated so much by their
paychecks but by a deep-seated belief that government is what
makes America great.

These journalists, after all, came from an era in which people
went into journalism "to make the world a better place." Perhaps
these journalists are worried about their jobs and paychecks, but
Rush still thinks that the major problem is that members of the
press have an incestuous relationship with Washington
politicians, making it impossible for them to even conceive of
reducing the size of government.

*BREAK*

THIRD HOUR

Rush just received a fax from Tim Russert, moderator of NBC's
"Meet the Press," who heard Rush's comments earlier this morning.
He says his point about the Republican contract is that "it
doesn't add up." He thinks if people are against the welfare
state, they have to be specific about how to dismantle it;
similarly, if you are for a balanced budget amendment, then you
have to be specific about what should be cut.

Russert also thinks he pressed Tom Foley on these points, and
Foley didn't answer them either. Russert doesn't believe either
party has been honest in how to solve the deficit problem, and
says all he wants is "truth in packaging" as to how this can be
done. He signed the fax "your listener, Tim," and supplied a
two-page transcript of the relevant parts of yesterday's show.

For example, Russert asked Foley why politicians couldn't level
with the American people about how entitlements are on "automatic
pilot," with a fourth of these entitlements going to people over
60 who are making $60,000 a year; half of them go to people
making more than $30,000 a year. Russert pointed out that if
entitlements were not gotten under control, the deficit couldn't
be solved; he insisted there was no such thing as a free lunch,
although both parties were trying to create this impression.

Foley's answer was to sidestep the issue by claiming that at
least he wasn't putting forth a "dishonest plan" as the
Republicans were, and he proudly asserted that he "reduced" the
federal deficit for the past three years, a charge Rush has
refuted many times on his show. Russert then challenged Foley and
Gingrich to come forth with an "honest plan" to balance the
budget by 2002, with the details clearly spelled out.

Rush thanks Russert for his fax, and notes that he has been
invited several times to be on the "Meet the Press" roundtable
segment, but so far has not been able to make most of the date.
However, he might be able to show up shortly after the November
elections.

Rush adds that "Meet the Press" is getting increasing ratings
nationwide, and he's convinced the reason for this is how Russert
hosts the show, being as balanced and even-handed as anyone could
expect. Rush stands by his perceptions of Russert, noting that
this is why yesterday's show, with its apparent bias against
Gingrich, made such an impression. Had it been anyone else in the
mainstream media, this wouldn't have been a big deal, but Russert
has carved out a better niche for himself than this.

Rush, though, can't speak for Gingrich in addressing Russert's
complaints about how nobody is being specific, but he knows the
answers he would give if Russert asked him what he asked
Gingrich. For example, the best way to dismantle the welfare
state would be to take Charles Murray's advice and just get rid
of it - tell the nation that in nine months and a day it's gone.

However, one thing that is clear is that there should be some
debate on these issues, and this is not happening now. In fact,
the only time Republicans can get their views out on such matters
is via Special Orders, when nobody except the CSPAN cameras are
in the chambers.

********

Yesterday's NY Times magazine reported that Paula Corbin Jones
will drop her $700,000 sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill
Clinton if he apologizes to her by noon next Sunday, without
making any further comment on the case for another month. Jones's
attorney said that Clinton had already agreed to admit he "may
have met" Jones in an Arkansas hotel room in 1991, and that
Clinton's lawyer, "Uncle Bob" Bennett offered a settlement last
May which Jones rejected.

According to Jones's lawyer, Bennett said Clinton made an offer
to say the following:

"I have no recollection of meeting Paula Jones on May 8, 1991 in
a room in the Excelsior Hotel. However, I do not challenge her
claim that we met there, and I may very well have met her in the
past. She did not engage in any improper or sexual conduct. I
regret the untrue assertions that have been made about her
conduct, which may have adversely challenged her conduct and good
name."

Jones, though, refused to accept this, and still insists on a
complete apology. Rush recalls that it was Arkansas state trooper
Danny Ferguson who testified earlier this year that he took Jones
up to Clinton's hotel room. Ferguson denied taking Jones into the
room itself, but he did admit taking her up to Clinton's floor.

Clinton, of course, at first denied that he was at the Excelsior
that afternoon, but Ferguson's testimony contradicts that, as
does the statement Clinton offered to make. It will be
interesting to see if Clinton accepts Jones's offer, which is to
apologize for what she claims he did to her.

*BREAK*

Phone	Keith from Louisville, KY

Keith thinks that Haiti is Clinton's "health care payback"
against those Democrats who refused to support him on health
care. He sent American troops into Haiti, knowing that the body
bags could be returning home near the November elections, and
such a sight would only hurt those Democrats at the polls. The
fact that the decision on Haiti was delayed while health care was
being debated is evidence of this; it was only after health care
was declared dead that the Haiti invasion was okayed.

Rush notes, however, that Clinton is blaming Republicans for his
defeat with health care. Keith, though, says Paul Gigot's column
last week reported how Democrats are already talking about
dumping Clinton in 1996, so there seems to be a war brewing, not
just in Haiti, but between Clinton and members of his own party.

Keith adds that Clinton is able to dictate the policies of the
troops, and he can escalate the body count at will by demanding
more house-to-house searches. Rush understands this, but he
doesn't know what Clinton will get by punishing Democrats,
especially if that action means there will be fewer Democrats in
Congress.

Keith thinks Clinton is trying to save his 1996 re-election
chances, and if that means sacrificing some Democrats now, then
so be it. Perhaps Clinton thinks he can get more Democrats back
in Congress in two years.

Rush says he discussed something similar in the first hour - that
Clinton is trying to give himself a Republican Congress so as to
increase his 1996 election chances. Keith agrees, but says the
other half of that is that Clinton is vindictively punishing
those Democrats who refused to support him on health care.

Rush finds this an interesting theory, given that Tim Russert
quoted an unnamed White House official as saying the
administration wouldn't mind a Republican Congress this November
if it would help him win re-election in two years. When he heard
this, Rush had to stop and ask himself if the Clinton
administration - Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Carville, Leon
Panetta, et al - would deliberately sacrifice their fellow
Democrats, solely for their re-election chances.

Obviously, the answer is yes - Clinton wouldn't hesitate to do
such a thing, and given that Clinton has shown he has a
vindictive streak, Keith's theory could be right, especially
since the U.S. military is as confused as they could be about
their mission in Haiti. Yet the mission is being expanded, with
U.S. troops being placed more and more in harm's way. Should the
fur fly, with some Americans being hurt, it won't be good at all
for Democrats.

Republicans have already gone on record opposing the type of
action which is going on - Gingrich yesterday warned that
disaster was looming on the horizon, but Tom Foley was defending
Clinton's Haiti policy. Thus, if all hell breaks loose in Haiti
soon, Keith could be right.

Phone	Tim from Peachtree, GA

Tim is disappointed with the Republican party and their gimmicky
contract; he's been voting since 1970, with most of those votes
going to Republicans. However, he thinks their contract has as
much substance to it as Clinton's campaign statement that he
would focus on the economy "like a laser beam."

Rush asks Tim if he's upset with the specifics of the contract or
the idea of the contract itself. Tim says it's the specifics he's
bothered about - he thinks the national debt is a major problem
looming over the nation, and he hoped for some major specifics
about how spending could be controlled.

Rush says that Gingrich addressed this yesterday, and Tim says he
heard Gingrich talk about how spending would have to be cut $750
billion over five years. However, Tim is certain Republicans know
it would be political disaster to make such deep cuts, so they
can't be serious about it. However, millions of Americans are
looking for real, genuine "deficit hawks," and Republicans aren't
accepting the challenge.

Tim adds that he has one "big gripe in life," and Rush asks him
to put his gripe on hold because a break is mere seconds away.

*BREAK*

Phone	Tim from Peachtree, GA (continued)

Tim says his big gripe concerns the budget and how nobody is
talking about cutting entitlements. The government has promised
much more than it can deliver, and this will bankrupt the country
unless the government starts backing out of its promises. All you
have to do to make working Americans go ballistic is mention
Social Security and how taxpayers could be doing a lot better for
their retirement by taking their FICA payments and putting them
in a private 401K.

People know that they aren't going to be getting any money back
from their Social Security payments. There are already stories
about how the Social Security trust fund is $650 billion in debt,
and Sam Nunn's office predicts that by 2015, this figure will be
$4.45 trillion. Some politician could get a lot of points if he
just grabbed this bull by the horns, cut Americans' Social
Security taxes, and started phasing out Social Security.

Rush points out that the reason this isn't done is because
current FICA taxpayers are not just paying for the current Social
Security benefits, but are also paying into the general fund,
given that the money which is supposed to be going into the
Social Security trust fund is actually being used to lower the
size of the annual deficit. Tim says he knows this, which is why
this is such a giant scam - it's all just an accounting gimmick
that only the federal government could get away with.

Rush says one point he has made in the past is that in order to
raise everyone's Social Security checks by an average of $12 a
month, you have to spend billions upon billions. This should
illustrate how impossible it is for the federal government to
provide everyone anything approaching a decent standard of
living.

Tim asks how Rush would solve this problem - eliminate the Cost
of Living Adjustments? Rush says no; he's planning to interview
economist and National Review editor Larry Kudlow tomorrow for
the Limbaugh Letter, and he's going to bring up Kudlow's idea of
a genuine spending freeze. A few years ago, Kudlow said that if
Congress only implemented a genuine spending freeze, where the
only increases allowed would be for inflation (about 3%), the
federal budget could be virtually balanced within five years.

Kudlow was also the one who explained to Rush several years ago
how baseline budgeting - Congress's dirty little secret - worked;
baseline budgeting allows Congress to increase the federal budget
each and every year, without regard to last year's budget,
inflation, actual spending or actual revenues received. A cut is
then defined as increasing the budget, but not as much as
originally expected.

Tim says he's a member of Warren Rudman's Concord Coalition, and
he thinks both parties are way behind the curve as far as the
deficit is concerned; neither party is addressing this issue
correctly. Everyone knows the deficit is going to kill the
country, and he suspects Americans are certainly willing for
means testing on entitlements.

Rush says the real problem is not means testing - which is needed
but wouldn't save enough money - but rather how liberalism has
created a dependent class in America. Too many Americans depend
on a government check today, and this has been deliberately done,
precisely so that entitlements would be difficult, if not
impossible, to take away.

Tim notes that Ross Perot got a huge following in 1992 "until he
started talking looney," so he thinks that if someone came along
who would talk about using sound business principles in
government, laying all of this out for the American people, he'd
sweep himself into national office. Rush hopes someone like this
could and would come along, but his fear is that a majority of
Americans would continue to vote in favor of receiving their
entitlements.

Rush admits he'd love to be wrong about this, but he's getting
more and more afraid that more and more Americans think the
purpose of government is to give them things and get them through
their lives. This means more and more Americans do not understand
how to access the opportunities that America provides, so that
they can become self-sufficient and independent.

Everything seems to have become a right today, and given how many
votes the Democrats get, it appears that there are a lot of
Americans who believe that it's their right to get things from
government. Rush would thus hope that Tim is right in thinking
that there is a rising tide of people who are concerned about the
deficit and who are willing to cut back on these entitlements so
as to fix it.

*BREAK*

Phone	John from Chicago, IL

John is calling from the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange,
which means that he records all of his calls, which is why his
phone beeps every 10 seconds, providing an interesting addition
to the EIB network. Rush says this reminds him of the old days of
broadcasting when you had to use such a beep to tell on-the-air
callers that the call was being broadcast.

John says he normally watches the news headlines come out across
the wire services he subscribes to, and one thing he's noticed is
that the head of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Laura
Tyson, consistently says that the continuing higher commodity
prices aren't a problem. However, over the past eight months
interest rates have gone up 175 basis points (1.75%), which is a
pretty major move. Interest rates are much higher now than when
Clinton took office, yet Clinton's economic program is based on
low interest rates.

Clinton, however, is still taking credit for the improving
economy, which is incredibly arrogant; the economy is very
complex, and it takes a lot more than one man to make such things
happen. Rush notes that Bill Clinton takes credit for things,
regardless whether he is responsible or not.

John says his main point is that while the economic figures are
ostensibly good right now, there is still a lot of indecision
being seen right now - public offerings for stock, for example,
are down from what they used to be. People are worried about
higher interest rates and higher commodity prices, and people are
betting on a sizeable stock market correction happening soon.

Thus, John thinks the economy is not as robust as Clinton is
claiming, especially as he's expecting some major commodity price
increases soon. The Federal Reserve is watching these increases
and seems to be basing future higher interest rates on them.

John therefore thinks that Republicans should become more
aggressive, telling the nation that there is inflation out there
in the economy right now, even though the Clinton administration
is claiming that inflation is not any problem at all. Rush
agrees, adding that the administration is very vulnerable to high
inflation, given that it has financed the national deficit and
debt with short-term bonds.

The administration did this so as to lower its debt financing
costs in the short-term, but because interest rates are going up,
the administration will face higher interest rate costs when it
refinances. This means the debt financing costs, and thus the
deficit, will soon soar, and this is why the administration is so
panicked by inflation that it reacts with near panic over good
news such as higher than expected job creation figures.

The administration fears that too much good economic news signals
higher inflation, and with it higher deficits. This
administration rolled the dice on inflation rates, and it gambled
wrong, so the country will have to pay the price.

*BREAK*

Rush comments that someone sent him an obituary recently which
actually said the deceased "was a graduate of the Limbaugh
Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies." Rush seems to be
have bitter-sweet emotions about this - sadness at the loss of a
dittohead, but some sense of joy at what could be considered the
highest compliment that could be paid to someone.

Phone	Russ from San Angelo, TX

Russ says "peakaboo Hillary" has got him confused because she's
appearing in public again. She said she was disappointed about
health care, but was going to come back fighting. Rush notes that
the White House allowed about a dozen female reporters to
interview Hillary, and they're all writing the same story, geared
to rehabilitate her image, and possibly help out her brother,
Hugh Rodham, as he campaigns in Florida.

