Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show

for Monday, October 17, 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.

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

October 17, 1994

BRIEF SUMMARY OF TOPICS: car thief wins right to worship Satan in
jail; Rush uses his cigar to give a detractor at football game
the "Nelson Rockefeller wave"; NY Times and Washington Post
conclude that Clinton and Congress are having problems because
it's the people's fault; NY Times thinks Congress is more open
and less corrupt than at any time earlier in history; NY Times
concludes that founding fathers did not envision a population
that's as active in politics as the current one; liberals'
arrogance results in their blaming the people for problems in
government; Washington Post thinks Americans are schizophrenic
and hypercynical, not to mention ill-informed, towards Congress;
Jay Rockefeller doesn't think the voters are any bargain either;
Rush getting used to the idea of losing his hair; Thomas Mann
suggests that a Republican Congress could save the institution,
after its decades of Democratic control; NY Times asks how much
is Clinton's fault; caller thinks public is mostly to blame for
problems in Washington because it is too easily swayed by
politicians such as Clinton; the people are not to blame for
bills written as poorly as the Lobby Reform and Disclosure Act;
Gwen Eiffel remarks on "Meet the Press" that "the Republicans
might take control of the Senate, but I don't think the House is
in danger"; only 250 people show up for President Clinton and
Hugh Rodham $10-a-head fund-raiser, but Clinton collects $1
million for Senate candidates at $5,000-a-plate dinner;
Philadelphia papers endorse Harris Wofford, as well as vilify
John Santorum, who they say is "scarier than a zombie triple
feature"; Ted Kennedy objects to ad that shows him huffing and
puffing, sitting on a park bench; Gov. Jim Campbell (R-AK)
attacked for implying that his opponent is a philanderer by
comparing him to Clinton; Saddam Hussein attacks Clinton for his
weakness, indecisiveness, infidelity, and crooked financial
practices; caller thinks voters haven't done too good a job in
holding elected officials accountable; federal sunshine laws were
passed to inform the public, but now those in Washington think
the public is getting too informed; caller thinks Republicans
should focus on informing the public via TV commercials and ads;
caller doesn't think Rush sets a good example for the youth of
America, given that he smokes cigars, allegedly calls Democrats
"liberal slime," and makes fun of people's appearances; caller
thinks media is angry that the people aren't buying their
propaganda anymore; if Republicans win big in November elections,
then the media's attacks will continue with even more force;
crowd of 70,000 show up in California to protest Proposition 187,
which would restrict benefits for illegal aliens; letters to Wall
Street Journal refute Hillary Clinton's charge that her
detractors oppose her only because she's a powerful woman; people
are hostile towards Hillary because of her arrogance; Hillary
ignores the fact that her ideas matter; popularity of Governor
Christine Todd Whitman shows that people aren't afraid of
powerful women; caller thinks that the flap about benefits for
illegal immigrants misses the larger point that a lot of citizens
are getting these benefits, too; October 11th issue of Wall
Street Journal discusses economics of immigration, legal and
otherwise; Californians are tired of the federal government
telling them that they have to spend billions of dollars on
people who are breaking the law; caller notes that if Republicans
win big this November, it will be thanks in large part to the
fact that Clinton was elected in 1992; more court appointments
are being made, but overall court makeup hasn't changed because
most of those being replaced are Democratic appointees; caller
finds it incredible that Americans are even debating the issue of
whether illegal aliens are entitled to benefits, especially more
benefits than American citizens.

LIMBAUGH WATCH

October 17, 1994 - It's now day 636 (day 655 for the rich and the
dead, and 22 days until the November elections) of "America Held
Hostage" (aka the "Raw Deal" which has 826 days left) and 699
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

The following are from the Rush Limbaugh show on Monday, October
19, 1992:

o	The McKenzie Global Institute found that US workers were
number one in world-wide worker productivity, thanks to
competition, deregulation, and lack of protectionism. The
report's authors, all long-time Democrats, were flummoxed when
they came to their conclusions; they admitted they were surprised
"at the extent of the US lead." Rush noted, however, that this
showed that the policies of Reagan and Bush had made America #1
in consumer choice, quality, and efficiency.

o	Time magazine had a feature article on Rush, but instead
of putting him on the cover, as was their original plan, they
bumped him for the 5,000 year-old "Ice Man" discovered in the
Alps.

o	Rush had been in Kansas City over the weekend, and flew
back to New York on Continental. As he embarked the plane, one of
the flight attendants saw him and yelled out "Hey! Mega-dittos,
buddy!" Rush sighed about how wonderful it would be to have a
wife who would greet him that way each night.

o	USA Today had a big story on Clinton's qualifications as
Commander-in-Chief, and one pictured showed Clinton standing
alongside Brigadier-General James Drum and the National Guard
during civil rights unrest in 1980. "It's a beautiful thing,"
Rush remarked, adding that this picture was nearly as moving as
the famous one of Dukakis riding in a tank.

o	Rush got a phone call from a female friend who tried to
buy his book at a New York City book shop. The store had Rush's
book prominently displayed, but the moment the woman picked it up
a clerk came up and told her "Rush didn't write that, he didn't
write that." The clerk said the book's acknowledgments section
was "proof" of this, and he said that the only reason Rush's book
was number one was because he had millions of listeners on his
radio show who bought it.

The clerk kept badgering the woman, even to the point of
following her throughout the store, keeping up his continual
harping against Rush. The woman, not surprisingly, was
intimidated and left the store without buying Rush's book.

o	The October 19th issue of Barron's compared the Bush
administration to JFK's, and it showed that the country is not in
a crisis situation. For example, the Kennedy years (1961-1963)
had 6% unemployment, compared to Bush's 5.7% rating from 1989
through 1991, and 7.5% in 1992. Bush had 62.4% of the workforce
employed, compared to Kennedy's 55.4%.

The Kennedy administration spent 48% of the federal budget on
defense, while military spending under Bush and Reagan was only
30% of the budget. However, 59.7% of the budget under Bush was
for transfer payments, in comparison to only 29.6% under Kennedy,
an astounding difference. In 1963, only 30% of the federal budget
was used for social programs, and this percentage had doubled.

o	Jean from Wilton, CA was the wife of an unemployed
Aerojet worker, thanks to military cutbacks, but she didn't blame
Bush or Reagan for the fact that her husband and his coworkers
did too good a job - they built weapons that worked and defeated
America's enemies.

o	A letter writer reported that 260 of the companies listed
on the NY, American, and NASDAQ stock exchanges reported
increased earnings during the previous year, while 97 reported
decreased earnings. About 180 stocks had new high prices for the
year the previous Thursday and Friday.

o	Dale from Richmond, VA was selected to be an audience
member for the Richmond Presidential debates. Dale received a
phone call from the Gallup agency, and when he heard the name
Gallup, he immediately knew he was being screened for the debate,
thanks to pre-publicity about how the audience would be selected.

The pollster asked whom Dale would vote for if the election were
held that night, and he replied Bush; however, when asked if
there were a possibility that he would change his mind within the
next three weeks, Dale said this might happen. Thus, Dale was
invited to be at the debate.

Dale arrived early enough to participate in the rehearsal. During
the rehearsal, Carole Simpson went around the audience taking
sample questions; the producer, however, was coaching her as to
what sort of questions should be asked.

In particular, the producer was looking for people to ask
questions about the debate process itself. Dale, though, told
Simpson he wanted to ask Bill Clinton what would happen if there
was an international crisis and he had to send troops off to war
- how would Clinton handle those soldiers who didn't want to go
because they didn't believe in the policy?

The audience was then told that the ground rules were that if a
questioner got a microphone, their question would be selected.
However, when the microphone came his way, Dale stood up, but he
was not allowed to continue. Supposedly, the reason they didn't
want Dale's question was because they wanted the first question
to be about the debate itself.

Dale, though, felt the producers were selecting which questions
they wanted to have asked; many of the other questioners were
selected because they had questions which matched the type of
questions the producers were looking for. It was thus a myth that
the questions at the debates were randomly selected, with nobody
knowing what the questions would be.

o	A couple in Birmingham, AL pointed out that health care
in America was not in a crisis, and they were angry when they
heard Perot during the debates accuse the American health care
industry of being a pathetic system. The husband of this couple
worked for MedJet, a company that specializes in transporting
foreign nationals and expatriate Americans to America for health
care.

If the US really had such a lousy health care system, these
people would stay in their foreign lands. Instead, the U.S. was
the only country in the world in which foreign capitalists would
pay MedJet's fees so that they could get the medical care they
needed immediately, instead of waiting for their own nation's
backlogged system.

o	The Houston Chronicle reported that the day after a
five-year old German Shepherd mauled an infant boy to death, the
city's animal control office was "bombarded" by calls from people
who were concerned about the dog's welfare. Dozens of people were
offering to adopt the dog, T-Bone, so as to prevent it from being
killed. Evelyn Williams of the animal control office found it
startling that so many people were coming to the animal's
defense.

o	A campaign commercial for Carol Moseley Braun that ran on
Chicago TV first featured a picture of her opponent, Rich
Williamson, next to pictures of Bush and Reagan; this was
followed with a picture of Braun with Bill Clinton.

o	Keith Holmes, 24, of Los Angeles, was a convicted robber
who helped negotiate the truce between rival Los Angeles gangs
after the LA riots. Despite emotional pleas from Rep. Maxine
Walters (D-CA) and Jerry Brown, though, Holmes was sentenced to 7
years in prison for holding up a man in the Imperial Courts
housing project. Walters and Brown insisted that Holmes should
have a lighter sentence because "he risked his life for the
truce."

o	Sinead O'Connor was booed off the stage at a Madison
Square Garden tribute to Bob Dylan over the weekend by fans who
were still angry at her attack on the Pope the previous week on
Saturday Night Live. Even Madonna had condemned Sinead's tearing
up of a photo of the Pope; Sinead should have instead just told
the people what she thought, according to Madonna.

Sinead showed she could dish it out but not take it - when the
boos came, she started crying and then tried to sing "War," which
was the song she sang on Saturday Night Live. She then ran to the
armpits of Kris Kristofferson who consoled her by saying "don't
let the *bleepers* get you down."

Elaine Shocks, spokeswoman for the Bob Dylan tribute, was
surprised by the reaction because "the people who booed Sinead
were the same people who burned the flag and burned draft cards.
They're flag-wavers now!" Thus, Shocks was evidently expecting an
audience of flag-burners.

o	Gennifer Flowers was posing in the November issue of
Penthouse, telling a new version of her story about having an
affair with Clinton. The Boston Herald and NY Post both reported
that Flowers was claiming she got pregnant during her affair with
Clinton and had an abortion. Rush noted, however, that he
considered Penthouse to be about as reliable a news source as the
National Star.

********

MORNING UPDATE

Robert James Howard stole a car in Texas and drove it to
Colorado, leaving its owner bound to a tree. He was caught and is
now serving a 10-year prison term in a federal prison in
Colorado. However, Howard is also a Satanist and he sued the
prison for violating his First Amendment rights by not allowing
him to practice his religion.

<<The rest of Rush's update is missing because I missed hearing
it live and KNBR's dial-in recording of it is screwed up, as
usual. The following is from a news story about the case>>

A federal court agreed, with U.S. district judge Edward
Nottingham ruling that "we ought to give the devil his due,"
quoting from another case dealing with Satanism. Prison officials
had warned that the materials which Howard said he needed for his
devotions - candles, incense, a gong, a black robe, a chalice,
and a wooden staff - could threaten prison security, but the
judge said the inmate's religious rights had to take precedence.

Howard said he plans to practice "destruction rituals," which he
described as a way to visualize people's death, purging anger
towards them without doing them any harm. However, Dr. Carl
Raschke, an author of a book on Satanism and teacher of religious
studies at the University of Denver, said that such rituals are
commonly intended to kill people, and he called the judge's
decision "reprehensible."

FIRST HOUR

Rush was in Atlanta last weekend to see the 49er's blow out the
Falcons, and he thanks the Falcons for going out of their way for
him. Rush had a great time at the game, signing footballs and
caps that fans threw him; however, when Rush lit up a cigar,
someone stood up to ask "hey, Rush, who stinks worse - the
49er's, the Falcons, or your cigar?" Rush replied by placing the
cigar between his middle fingers and gave the fan a happy, little
wave - the "Nelson Rockefeller wave."

Nevertheless, Rush had a great time, especially since the weather
was beautiful. On the way home, though, Rush read the Sunday NY
Times on the plane, and as is his habit he started reading the
Week in Review section, explaining that he saves the
entertainment section for last because (as he states on the TV ad
he's doing for the NY Times) "I find their reviews to be too
opinionated." On the section's front page was a cartoon that
illustrated the front page story, which was all about how it is
the American people who are to blame for the problems Clinton and
the Congress are having.

This piece was presented as a regular news story, but it really
was nothing but the opinion of its author, Michael Weins. For
example, Weins writes the following:

"Washington is more open, less corrupt, more responsive, and more
accountable than at any time in history. Its principle problem is
not that it listens too little but that it listens, and is
shouted at, too much. The insular tone-deaf town assailed at in
hundreds of campaign commercials this autumn died about the time
Richard Nixon left office."

Later on the story asks "who can govern while all those phones,
faxes, and focus groups are yelling?" Weins also insists:

"Mass communications, talk radio, 24 hour news at one end, and
cheap telephony and computer communications at the other is
largely responsible for creating this electronic din. One of its
effects is to make legislation which passes much more complex, as
lawmakers insert and rewrite clauses to satisfy special interests
that never wrote Capitol Hill or the White House twenty years
ago, and probably did not even exist."

The story goes on to basically say that the American people now
know too much about what is going on in Washington and that it's
horrible that they are letting their representatives know that
they know. They story complains this isn't good because the
founding fathers allegedly set up the country so that the
Congress would provide checks and balances against the executive
branch, with the House and Senate providing checks and balances
on each other. However, never did the founders think the people
should care this much about their government or get this
involved.

In short, Rush concludes, this story is yet another attempt to
resuscitate the sagging fortunes of liberal Democrats, from
Clinton on down throughout America by blaming the American people
for not really knowing what they want, what they're getting, or
what they should be getting. The people are therefore screwing
things up because they're getting too involved.

Yet it was only six years ago that the press and political
pundits were agonizing about whether democracy could survive the
low voter turnouts. Dukakis had lost to Bush, and the
conventional wisdom was that low voter participation and apathy
were endangering democracy. Now this apathy has been replaced
with a very active participation, and those in Washington don't
like it.

Rush admits he was stunned by the blatant arrogance of this
piece, especially by its last paragraph:

"The founders envisioned a system of checks and balances where a
President proposed and a Congress disposed, where the lower
chamber played to the crowd and the upper chamber tempered its
passions. In the new world where everyone proposes and plays to
the crowd, and where ruler and ruled possess complete and
terrible knowledge of each other, leaders are afraid to satisfy a
few and anger the rest. It is a recipe for perpetual and mean
politics, and a cynical electorate. This is the curse of modern
government - its leaders are always running and they have nowhere
to hide."

Rush had predicted a little while ago that the press would do its
best to resuscitate Clinton before the Democrats' major losses
this November, and this is what's happening. The Times story
illustrates the arrogant condescension on the part of those in
the left who think that it's the people who are the problem. This
attitude reminds him how one guy he worked with at the Kansas
City Royals thought baseball would be a great game if you could
only get rid of the fans.

The Washington, inside-the-Beltway crowd feels the same way -
they view the country as being composed of only the Eastern
corridor (New York to Washington) and the West Coast; everything
else is "fly over country" - it's just the land you fly over to
get to the next spot worth visiting. Liberals believe all people
are incapable and incompetent, and therefore need liberals to
help them get through every part of their lives.

Now when Americans are rejecting this arrogance, liberals are
getting angry and insisting that the people are bigger fools then
ever. Weins even thinks Congress is more scandal free than ever,
but even if this were true (which it's not), it would because the
people found out about the House Post Office, the House Bank, Dan
Rostenkowski, etc. If the Congress is any cleaner than it's been
in the past, it's only because the people forced Congress to
clean its act up; this certainly didn't happen because Congress
was highly self-motivated to do so.

As Rush flew home, he mused about how he'd talk about the NY
Times story when he got into the studio today, and how it proves
how right he is in saying that the press is nothing but a willing
ally to the Democratic party. However, this attempt to blame
problems in Washington on the people is bound to backfire.

It used to be that liberals' arrogant condescension was hidden
and not easy to see, but now it's out in the public for everyone
to find. However, it's not just the NY Times, but the Washington
Post as well. When Rush got home Sunday, he was amazed to see
that the Post had a nearly identical story to that in the Times.

The Post's headline was "You think Congress is out of touch, look
in the mirror, voters, the trouble starts with you!" The story
basically says the same identical thing - both blame the people
for the problems in Washington; both think that the people are
the problem because they're getting what they want, but they're
still complaining.

Granted, it used to be that everyone thought that their
congressman was fine and everyone else's should be fired, but
even that's changing now. An Associated Press poll found that 54%
of registered voters think it's time for someone new to represent
them in Congress.

Rush will read a bit from the Washington Post story after the
break, but notes that the NY Times Sunday magazine also had seven
stories about how the people are the problem in America. One
story even proclaims that "Clinton has defects as a leader, but
there's another, underlying problem: Americans are lousy
followers!"

Rush can't believe the blatant arrogance of the established
political class, which is now attacking the governed more than he
can ever remember happening. It appears those in Washington think
that Americans are supposed to just go along with whatever
Clinton wants, just because he's such a "great leader"; however,
when Americans don't play along and become mindless zombies,
they're accused of being lousy followers. But was America made
great by a bunch of followers?

Rush has to admit, though, he can't complain too much about this
- he woke up Sunday morning wondering just what he would have to
say today, and here the press has basically written the script
for today's show.

*BREAK*

Moving to the Washington Post story, Rush reads a paragraph from
it:

"Recent polls that reveal precisely just how schizophrenic,
hypercynical, ill-informed, and often blatantly contradictory
Americans are towards Congress."

The story, written by Richard Morin, adds that in the winter of
1992, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told a group of "Washington
glitterati" at the Washington Press Club's annual foundation
dinner that "voters are angry with politicians like me, and
they're angry with you in the media, too! Well, let me tell you
something - the voters are no bargains either."

Morin follows this amazing quote by writing "truer words may
never have been spoken in this town, at least by a politician,
particularly one who plans to face the uncertain judgment of the
voters." Rush has to laugh at the outright arrogance of all this,
especially for an `unbiased' journalist to follow Rockefeller's
words with "truer words may never have been spoken."

And to say that the "voters are no bargain, either," shows the
attitude that permeates the Washington Beltway - those inside the
Beltway think they are peers of the voting public, are their
equals; in fact, those inside the Beltway actually think they are
superior to the rest of mere America. However, elected officials
are not even on equal ground with the voters, much less higher
ground.

The people of America are the power, not those elected by the
people to serve the people. However, Washington has become a
fiefdom, with those inside having evolved to a political class
that thinks they are separate and above everyone else. Not just
separate but equal but separate and above.

The story also goes on to talk about how Mike Synar, among
others, has suffered "the Wrath of the Voters," and that this
Wrath threatens Tom Foley and Ted Kennedy, whose careers are
"flagging." And all of this is happening, according to the Post,
because the voters are idiots and schizophrenics, demanding all
sorts of goodies without wanting to pay for them.

Morin then has the audacity to write "now is the time to ask
`what's wrong with the public?'" Rush knows that the voters and
American citizenry aren't angels, but he finds these stories to
be suspiciously timed, with the media trying to blame the current
state of affairs on the voters, right before those voters are
scheduled to vote once again, in an election that is expected to
hurt the Democrats.

*BREAK*

Rush remarks that you finally come to accept the fact that you
are losing your hair when you realize that you don't have to blow
dry it anymore. When you don't have to blow dry it, and it makes
no difference, you've reached the point of no return.

Rush admits, though, that this doesn't bother him so much because
he hates having to spend time preparing for the day; when he
wakes up, he wants to go, not worry about showering, blow drying
his hair, etc. Some day he'll figure out how to arrange it so
that he can shower before going to bed, and thus all he would
have to do in the morning is get dressed. For the moment, though,
the only thing he can think of is to sleep hanging from chains,
but that's probably an idea best less undiscussed.

As to the Washington Post story, Rush notes that the story is as
schizophrenic as it claims the people are. It first makes a case
for why it's proper to blame the American people for the problems
those in Washington are having, but then near the end it admits
that the people have good reason for being cynical and
disrespectful towards Congress.

The Post states that "Congress often is its own worst enemy,
offering up to a scandal-addicted media a trickle of sexual
indiscretions, fraud, wrong-doing, and misbehavior of every
flavor and type." Rush suggests that "tsunami" or "tidal wave"
would be a better term than "trickle."

The story continues on to say that the public's distrust of
Congress is "largely earned" because voters didn't wake up one
day deciding to become contrary; "people want their government to
succeed and don't see evidence that it is." Thus, after blaming
the people for the government's trouble, the article then gives a
good case as to why it's Congress which really is at fault.

Thomas Mann, director of government studies at the Brookings
Institution, though, says that part of the problem is the
"emerging cynicism industry in Washington" that is based on
attack campaign ads; this has gotten to the point, Mann notes,
that some members of Congress are even running against Congress
itself.

Mann adds that "the Democrats' domination on Capitol Hill is also
a factor:

"Republicans, who haven't controlled the House in decades, have
been shut out of power by heavy-handed Democrats, leaving GOPers
lots of idle time in which to attack the institution, demeaning
it, making it more partisan, more polarized, and increasing
anti-institution sentiment."

Mann theorizes that a Republican-controlled Congress might be
needed to save the institution, which is a curious thing to say
if the people are really to blame for the problems of Congress.
Rush thus wonders who are the real schizophrenics - the American
people or those in the press that write stories such as this.

The Post then amazingly says that Americans still support the
idea of Congress, with 79% saying that it shouldn't be abolished.
Rush, though, has never heard anyone suggest that Congress should
be eliminated.

The Post's last paragraph quotes Mann as saying that the system
has so far been able to handle the "venal forces and idiots" that
get elected from time to time, "but the real idiots and venal
forces may not be the people who are elected, but the people who
elected them. At root our problems are to be found with society,
with the public. It's so discouraging."

Rush wonders how this story can admit in one paragraph that a
Republican Congress might be what's needed to save the
institution of Congress, and then conclude in its final paragraph
that it's the people who are fault. Mann himself pointed out that
it's been the Democrats' domination and heavy-handedness which
have been creating problems, yet then says "the real idiots and
venal forces" are the electorate.

There is obviously a collective hysteria gripping the political
class in Washington, both those in office and those in the press.
They are angry that the people are upsetting the apple cart, and
all because the people are now more informed about Washington
then ever before, knowing about not just the scandals, but about
the Congress's stupid rules, such as the secret discharge
petitions which keep bills bottled up in committee.

The people know about things such as Dan Rostenkowski's claim
that he is innocent of any charges of hiring phantom employees
because he violated no House rules; Rostenkowski tried to claim
that he should not be governed by federal laws but by the House
rules. He tried, in essence, to claim he could steal because he
was a member of Congress, and in spite of this the Chicago Sun-
Times actually endorsed him for re-election because although he's
sleazy, so is his opponent, and besides, Rostenkowski can "get
things done."

The NY Times Sunday magazine has a large companion piece to this,
about "anger politics" in the 1994 campaign, and it includes five
stories, one of which asks "how much is President Clinton's
fault?" This last story accuses Americans of being lousy
followers, right after it admits Clinton has defects; yet if
Clinton does have defects, why should anyone follow him?

Is this sort of puerile journalism the readers' fault? No, nor is
government that stinks the electorate's fault either.

*BREAK*

Phone	Paul from Edison, NJ

Paul thinks the public is mostly to blame for the problems in
Washington because people are so easily swayed by politicians
such as Clinton; he is incredibly disappointed by how the voters
not only elected Bill Clinton but also supported Ross Perot, even
though most of those voting for Perot acknowledged that theirs
was a wasted vote. Nearly 63% of the public voted either because
they were taken in by Clinton's hot air or swayed by Perot's
rhetoric.

Rush says this is not the case - 63% of the American public voted
to fire George Bush, but Paul says Bush has to take the blame for
this. He also thinks that the public is too bombarded with
information today, and Bush in particular couldn't handle it.

Rush asks if Paul thinks the NY Times and Washington Post would
have run these stories had Republicans controlled Congress and
the White House. Paul says no, but that's not the issue. Every
time one side comes out to say something, the other side has its
own spin on it, and this much information is confusing the
public.

Paul listens to the news and watches the Sunday morning talk
shows, and he can't believe some of the rhetoric that comes out
to counter what Republicans say. For example, Bob Dole will
complain about how the Democrats have controlled the House for 40
years, but then the other side will come out and refute him,
either by attacking his points or by claiming that he's just
being motivated by partisanship.

Paul's cellular phone loses its link, so Rush decides to use the
Lobby Reform Disclosure Act as an example of his point. This bill
was interpreted in at least two widely divergent ways, and this
is not the voters' fault. A bill should at the very least be
clear in what it's going to do, but this one wasn't, and this is
not the voters' fault.

It is also wrong to ignore the fact that Clinton was elected out
of protest against George Bush; the people had no idea what
Clinton stood for, but they didn't care because they felt
betrayed by Bush. However, once Clinton got into office, people
started listening to him and they didn't like what they heard.

But what's most amazing is that yesterday both the NY Times and
Washington Post ran nearly identical stories about how the voters
are to blame for problems in Washington. Is this a coincidence?

Rush answers his own question by saying it probably is, which
only goes to show how predictable the liberal press is, and how
they believe the same basic thing: that it's a problem when the
public knows too much and when the public dares to get involved
with their government.

However, if this were a Republican-led government, Rush knows
that the Post and Times would not have run stories about how the
people's activism was to blame for Washington's inability to pass
legislation. Rather, the press would be praising the people for
turning into active, involved citizens. However, when it's
Democrats who are running things, the people suddenly become a
problem when they dare to express their will.

*BREAK*

Rush bets his new name for the November elections - Operation
Restore Democracy - really bugs the press. As to the press, Rush
has another example of just how they view the political
landscape.

On Meet the Press yesterday, Gwen Eiffel, NBC political
correspondent and former reporter for the NY Times, stated the
following:

"The Republicans might take control of the Senate but I don't
think the House is in danger."

So, a member of the press refers to the possibility of the
Democrats losing control of the House as a "danger." This is how
a supposedly objective member of the press reports on the
political situation.

*BREAK*

SECOND HOUR

Items

o	President Clinton was on the campaign trail over the
weekend, stumping for brother-in-law Hugh Rodham, who's running
for the Senate in Florida against incumbent Connie Mack (R-FL).
Clinton and Rodham held a rally that charged only $10 a head.
They expected thousands of people, but only 250 showed up, and if
it weren't for several busloads of kids and senior citizens,
Clinton could have shaken everyone's hands easily.

Interestingly, though, the TV coverage of this event made it
appear as if the place was packed wall to wall. A bit later,
though, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton went to Miami to attend a $5,000 per
person dinner that raised nearly $1 million for Democratic Senate
candidates. Thus, the Democrats can't draw anyone at $10 a head,
but they do sell out at $10,000 a couple.

"Now there's a party of the average Joe!" Rush exclaims.

o	The Pennsylvania Senate race features Senator Harris
Wofford (D-PA) against Republican Rick Santorum, and the
Philadelphia Inquirer has endorsed Wofford because "he's right on
the issues and right in the heart," while Santorum is the
"dangerous choice" because of "what he does not project, what he
does not reveal, what he does not reveal."

The Philadelphia Daily News is also endorsing Wofford because
he's one of the few politicians who has "actually given some
thought to the issues." The paper warns "if you want to see more
gridlock, just vote for Santorum and his programmed ilk. Then sit
back and listen to two more years of honking." Santorum, though,
Rush notes, is not only young, vibrant, and articulate, but also
right.

The Daily News, however, thinks Santorum is a "smiling, vacant
conservative in his mid-30s who is given to parroting perfect
anti-crime, anti-government, vaguely racial soundbites in the
style of the Newt Gingriches and Rush Limbaughs and Bob Doles. He
is scarier than a zombie triple feature."

Obviously, liberals everywhere are getting hysterical, and it's
ironic how liberals are the ones who insist that personal attacks
such as these are "not useful."

o	Mitt Romney is running a campaign ad in Massachusetts
that shows a huffy, puffy, sweating Ted Kennedy taking a break by
sitting down on a park bench. The Kennedy campaign and its
supporters, however, is claiming this is ad a vicious personal
attack. For example, the Washington Post complains "if a woman
were running, no candidate would dare question her personal
appearance, but when the subject is President Kennedy, or Alaska
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Knowles, looks are fair
game, and for opposite reasons."

Kennedy's campaign is claiming that Romney took a "cheap shot"
for daring to use this footage of Kennedy sitting down on a park
bench. Romney, though, noted that Kennedy's "physique is well
known to all of us," and he didn't think his campaign ad was an
attack ad at all.

Rush digresses to remark that Senator Kennedy is the first
Kennedy in office that's grown old. EIB substitute broadcast
engineer Tony Lo Bianco, who's subbing in for the suspended Mike
Maimone, nods his head, struck by the wisdom of that line.

o	Republican Governor Jim Campbell of Alaska, though, who
is 62 and of a "Ted Kennedy type stature," is running against
Tony Knowles, 51, the former mayor of anchorage. Supposedly,
looks aren't supposed to matter, but Knowles has been described
by Reuters as "tall, athletically lean and photogenic."

Campbell's radio ad, however, note that Clinton's looks attract
women, and remark on how Knowles is much the same. "But it
doesn't stop there," the ad notes, pointing out that both men
have imposed new taxes and new environmental restrictions.
"Coincidence? Or is the way it is when a guy is handsome and has
good hair?" the ad asks.

Knowles' backers are outraged at this, claiming that this ad
implies Knowles is a philanderer, something never mentioned in
the ad itself. If Knowles's supporters think that comparing
Knowles to Clinton means you're accusing Knowles of being a
philander, then what does that say about their opinion of
Clinton? Rush has to laugh at this ad, put on by a balding fat
guy, and how Knowles's campaign is responding so violently
against it. "As a balding fat guy," Rush adds, "I think this is
terrific!"

*BREAK*

Saddam Hussein has attacked President Clinton; a Reuters story
quotes the official Iraqi newspaper, which undoubtedly speaks for
Hussein, as saying "his weakness, indecisiveness, infidelity, and
crooked financial practices have been exposed. He does not have
the efficiency to lead America amid most dangerous transitions in
the world, which demand the presence of a President with
historical leadership qualifications."

Rush is outraged that this tyrant can say such a thing about
Clinton, so he angrily shouts, "Look, Saddam, he is our weak
President. He is our indecisive President. He is our philandering
President! And he is our President involved in crooked financial
practices, so shut up about it! He's ours, you leave him alone!"

Phone	David from Jacksonville, FL

David agrees with the caller in the previous hour about the
public, although for slightly different reasons. He thinks the
voters haven't done a very good job in holding their elected
officials accountable.

Rush says this might be true, but the bottom line is that for the
longest time those in Congress haven't been held accountable. Now
this is changing, and they don't like the pressure. David agrees
with that, but notes that when only 50% of the registered voters
vote in a Presidential election, that says a lot about the
public. What's been going on in Congress has been going on for
years, but still those in power remain in power, thanks to an
apathetic voting public.

Now, though, there is a large degree of dissatisfaction with the
current President, so the public is getting more vocal not just
about him but about all of Washington. Rush agrees - the anger
and discord that exists now is a direct descendant of the White
House, and not only that, voters are becoming fed up with the
arrogant attitude they are seeing every day from those in
Washington.

The voters are tired of being hung up on when they call their
representatives, and of being treated as second-class citizens
because they listen to talk radio. Rush admits that voters send
mixed signals, especially when the voters vote different ways
each election. However, for the press to claim that what has gone
wrong in Congress is the voters' fault because they know too
much, they are calling too much, and they are faxing too much,
just shows why the people are mad.

There are federal sunshine laws to inform the public, but now
that the public is getting informed, those in Washington are
angry. In particular, the press in Washington is angry that the
public is getting informed by a source other than them.
Basically, though, the public is angry at the arrogance of those
they have elected.

Phone	Ozzie from Newport Beach, CA

Ozzie thinks that as long as the Republicans lean towards the
conservative side, they'll continue to be criticized, so instead
of running scared, they should concentrate on informing the
public, especially through TV commercials. Rush showed how
effective TV could be with his October 12th TV show which
contrasted the TV commercials shown during the Reagan
administration and now. Republicans thus need to concentrate more
on TV.

Rush asks if Ozzie thinks TV commercials should be used year-
round by politicos to get their message out; would it be better
to see a State of the Union message or a spate of TV commercials
about party platforms? Rush notes that a lot of people think
there should be year-round adds.

Ozzie thinks Republicans can do a lot with such ads, such as
featuring black conservatives, who are the invisible minority
right now. These spots can be very effective in reaching
uninformed people, avoiding the biased mainstream media. Rush
finds it interesting how there are some people complaining about
all the TV ads - they're too short, they're full of sound bites,
they're negative - yet there are others, like Ozzie, who wants
more of them. He thanks Ozzie for calling.

*BREAK*

Phone	Colleen from Coarsegold, CA

Colleen says she has to disagree with Rush about how he's setting
a good example for the youth of America, given that Rush smokes
"ceegars." She says there are a couple of guys around her who
smoke cigars and debate the local youth about politics. Her
grandson was asked about Haiti the other day, and he replied that
he thought the U.S. should be in Haiti; one of these cigar
smokers called her grandson a "liberal slime," and Colleen
doesn't appreciate this.

Rush asks if Colleen blames him, and she says absolutely because
Rush calls Democrats "liberal slime," and this guy tries to mimic
Rush. Rush notes he never uses the term "liberal slime," but
Colleen insists he does. "I've heard you myself!" she insists.

Plus, Colleen says that Rush tries to make people believe he had
an "Andy Hardy upbringing," but Rush himself admitted that his
father and his friends hated LBJ and FDR. What kind of
environment is this, she asks, where people hate those who
disagree with them? Plus, Rush makes fun of Paul Simon's
earlobes.

Rush suspects that Colleen has been talking to the
parapsychologist from Los Angeles who called last week, but
Colleen insists "Mr. Limbaugh, I am thinking on my own! I think
it's disgraceful how you talk! The way you make fun of others!"

Rush says these are typical liberal cliches, but Colleen insists
she can prove every one of them. "You are so full of it!" she
states, adding that she lives in a remote area of the mountains
and doesn't get to talk with too many people, so she's not
controlled by anyone.

She just doesn't think there is any reason to point out Paul
Simon's (D-IL) earlobes or Henry Waxman's (D-CA) nostrils. "That
is not the way you discuss things, children shouldn't hear things
like that," she states.

Colleen says she has heard Rush insult people's looks, and then
people come on to say "megadittos, I'm a Christian Republican,"
but no Christian would tolerate such insults, making fun of
people's earlobes and noses. For example, she accuses Rush of
calling Larry King "eagle beak," but Rush denounces that as a
specious charge - he calls King "old lizard eyes"; it's Streisand
who's "eagle beak."

Colleen finds this outrageous and demands to know "what do you
look like, Mr. Limbaugh?" Rush says it's up to Colleen to tell
him, but he's been called every name in the book. He asks Colleen
whether she gets this outraged about editorial cartoonists and
how they portray others; perhaps Colleen should loosen up a bit
and maybe consider him a verbal editorial cartoonist.

Colleen doesn't think so because she doesn't want to see people
reduced to making insults, as opposed to honestly disagreeing
about the issues. She thinks Rush calls pro-choice people
horrible persons, for example. Rush notes that Colleen has
accused him of making insults and of fostering prejudices, yet
she has her own pent-up prejudices and refuses to accurately
portray him.

Rush does not use the term "liberal slime," nor does he say that
pro-choicers are horrible persons. If there is any show that
deals decisively with the issues, it's his; it appears that
Colleen can't decipher how his show uses comedy, so she should
listen a bit more so as to learn the difference between the
comedy bits and the serious discussion of the issues.

Besides, Rush notes, if the press can insult voters, then Rush
can tell callers "it's your fault, you don't get it."

Phone	Phil from Topeka, KS

Phil says he's thrilled to be speaking to Rush, and Rush is glad
that Phil didn't say "megadittos." Phil says he is a Christian
who reads the Bible, although he's not a religious man; however,
reading the Bible did teach him how to think for himself, and
when he first heard Rush, he rejoiced at how he heard someone
else say what he was already thinking.

Phil thus thinks that the throngs of America cheered when Rush
steps up to the EIB microphone. Rush thanks Phil for his kind
thoughts, although he doubts Colleen is cheering at the moment.
Phil adds that a couple of years ago, Japan accused Americans of
being lazy, and Phil thought it was true in that people often
just went home to do nothing more taxing than watch TV;
fortunately, though, there is an option out there now with Rush.
"Hooray for Rush Limbaugh," he exclaims, "because he's voicing
what needs to be said."

Rush thanks Phil for calling and for saying such nice things, but
he thinks there are more self-starters and more individuals out
there in America than most people think. One of the most valuable
characteristics people can have is confidence, and there are lot
of people out there who are conservative; if anything, Rush's
show is just helping them to be more confident about their
beliefs.

*BREAK*

Phone	Mike from Cleveland, OH

Mike says that the NY Times and Washington Post are really trying
to say that Americans just aren't buying the propaganda from the
major media anymore; the people aren't going to let themselves be
spoon-fed anymore. When Mike was growing up, there were three
newspapers to read, and today there is only one; Mike stopped
bothering to read that newspaper last year because it was so
biased and so insulting to any thinking person.

Mike doesn't trust the dominant media anymore, and a lot of
Americans feel this way, too, so it's not surprising that the
media is upset that Rush is broadcasting the people's voice. What
the press is hearing on shows such as Rush's is the voice of
working Americans who come up with the tax dollars that fund the
government, and these people aren't going to take it any more.

Rush recalls that he used to do a promo for EIB affiliates that
was to run on Fridays, and it had him saying "folks, have a great
weekend! Go out there and relax, recreate, without worrying about
what's going on. Don't bother reading the papers or watching the
news, I'll do it for you. On Monday I'll not only tell you what
happened, but what to think about it."

The press and other liberals had a cow about this, thinking Rush
was really trying to get people to listen only to him. It was all
a joke, though, as Rush was parodying how the mainstream press
really thinks - they believe that without them, the people
haven't a chance at figuring out what's going on. The press truly
does think that if it doesn't tell the people what's going on and
what to think about it, the people will be lost.

The press today thinks that without them the nation will crumble,
and they are outraged at how Rush was doing their job for them.
Of course, not all of the press is like this, and Rush admits he
sometimes paints the press with too broad a brush. When he speaks
about the "mainstream press," he is referring to the
Washington/New York liberal mainstream press establishment, not
the vast majority of newspapers at large across the country,
although some of them do seem to parrot the liberal
establishment's line.

Phone	Ellen from Wayne, NJ

Ellen remarks that she first heard Rush when she had turned on
the radio to hear a relative do a "shadow traffic report," and
she was hooked. She is angered at how patronizing Colleen was,
though; this woman missed the whole point about how Rush gives
solid information mixed in with a little schtick, and how people
have to laugh once in a while.

Ellen was very annoyed at Colleen, and Rush admits that the woman
sounded like the quintessential liberal, too busy wringing her
hands to have any fun in life. Ellen also thinks the newspapers
are all biased, not to mention the television talk shows, such as
Meet the Press, with its Gwen Eiffel.

It's gotten to the point that she doesn't watch these programs
anymore; if they can't give her correct information, they why
bother watching them? These shows all portray Republicans as
being nothing but evil and wrong, but she hears more evil from
Democrats' mouths. She can't wait until things turn around in
November.

Rush warns Ellen that the attacks have just started; should
Republicans win big in November, the media will increase its
attacks beyond imagining. Even if Republicans don't win outright
control but do get some ideological control, the press will go
after the GOP and Congress like it's never done before.

Rush thus hopes that should Republicans win, someone takes the
freshmen aside to insist that they stay as focused as they can,
given the examination the press will be giving them. And it's
certain that the next Republican Presidential candidate will get
the biggest anal media exam ever seen.

Of course, should Republicans not win in Congress, the press will
back off after taking a few last potshots at the GOP. However, if
the Republicans do win, the attacks against them will begin in
earnest.

*BREAK*

The Wall Street Journal did a story on Hillary Clinton a while
ago, and the letters in today's edition are all anti-Hillary;
since they tie in with what Rush has been saying about the press
blaming Americans and talk radio, he'll talk about them in the
next hour.

*BREAK*

THIRD HOUR

Items

o	Illegal immigration is a hot topic right now in America,
especially in California where voters will be deciding the fate
of Proposition 187, which would restrict welfare and other
benefits to illegal aliens. The financial cost of these benefits
if substantial, but anyone who opposes giving those benefits to
illegal aliens is often accused of being racist and lacking in
compassion.

Along with this attitude, there seem to be more and more people
who think the role of government is to provide for them and
everyone else. About 70,000 of these people showed up in Los
Angeles yesterday to oppose Proposition 187, attacking it as
racist. However, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, the
proposition has the support of about 59% of likely voters and is
opposed by about 33%.

The proposition would bar illegal immigrants from public schools,
non-emergency services, and welfare rolls. It would also require
teachers, doctors, and police to report those suspected of being
illegal aliens to immigration officials.

Yesterday's rally, though, was basically 70,000 people with their
hand-out saying "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie," and California is
already spending billions a year on services to illegal aliens,
forced to do so by the federal government. The rest of
California, though, is fed up because many taxpaying citizens
don't have the benefits illegal aliens are getting, and
California is facing huge budget deficits, even higher taxes, and
a continuing recession. Recent tax increases were so ridiculous
that they even taxed free newspapers, which was quite a trick.

Working Californians look at all this, so they're a bit irritated
at how the federal government is requiring them to support
illegal immigrants. The rally, though, was frightening in that
70,000 people thought they should be given these benefits, and
they attacked anyone who disagreed with them as being racist and
bigoted.

Liberals have gotten away with claiming that conservatives must
be bigots and racists. Rush knows people who vote liberal and
claim they are liberal, but they live their lives like
conservatives; however, they still insist they are liberal
because they think all conservatives are bigots and racists who
don't care about the "little guy."

The illegal immigration debate, though, has nothing to do with
race, but with responsibility and accountability. Working
Americans who play by the rules are fed up with having to pay
more and more in taxes, not to mention that being accused of
being racists because they don't want to support every immigrant
who arrives at America's shores.

One story Rush read said that California is spending around $2
billion a year on services to illegal immigrants, which is an
amazing amount of money. But those who oppose this spending are
still called racists and bigots.

o	The September 30th issue of the Wall Street Journal
featured a story about how Hillary Clinton was a "transition
figure" who considers herself to be the "gender Rorschach test."
Hillary is still insisting that she's opposed only because people
can't stand a strong woman who's redefining the First Lady's
role.

Of course, those who oppose Hillary don't care at all about the
fact she's a woman, but at how she has power she hasn't earned
and isn't accountable for. The letters to the editor to the
Journal all make this basic point in one way or another, and one
letter from Catherine B. Janosky, president and CEO of Global
Manufacturing of Little Rock, AR states:

"Are all women supposed to hold Mrs. Clinton in high esteem and
look to her as a `transition figure' just because she's educated
and has practiced law? Are we supposed to be impressed that she
prances around Washington as if she were an elected official?

"People are hostile toward her because of her arrogance. We don't
like the way she manipulates the truth with all her doublespeak
gobbledygook. We don't like her double standards. Why was it okay
for her to make a killing cattle futures, but medical doctors,
who save people's lives, are greedy?

"She has made comments that Americans don't really know what's
good for them and don't really understand the issues.
Totalitarian governments think this way, too. I find it most
insulting."

Thus, it's not just Rush who thinks there is an arrogance and
condescension in Washington. In fact, three of the six letters
the Journal has printed are from women. Sharon Kelley of Newton,
PA, for example, writes:

"One need look no further than her ominous government-run health
scheme to clearly see her philosophy in action. She does not
place her faith in free individuals making choices in their own
lives, as she piously states in the article.

"I am amazed that Mrs. Clinton, who is so often noted for her
intelligence and insight, chooses to ignore a fundamental truth -
ideas do matter. It's really nothing personal. The American
people are not taking issue with her because of her gender or her
unconventional role, but because she advocates ideas that do
great injury to our treasured way of life - individual freedom
and free enterprise."

Another woman compares Hillary Clinton to Governor Christine Todd
Whitman, an independent and powerful woman who won an election on
the basis of her ideas and policies. Whitman's popularity is
growing daily, and the writer thinks women like her "are the true
symbols of the ascendancy of women in America; the writer adds
that she would like to have been proud of Hillary, but instead is
embarrassed by her since she's turned out to be the classic
stereotype of the meddling wife.

*BREAK*

Phone	Steve from Albany, CA

Steve loves Rush's show although he disagrees with Rush on many
things. For example, he admires Rush's "compassion" and
"understanding" towards Californians who are bothered by
immigration, but if you're going to ship out everyone who's
taking money from the federal government and not paying any
taxes, then you're going to ship a lot of Americans, too.

Rush asks just whom Steve is talking about, and Steve says there
are at least 1 million people in New York City on welfare;
they're shipping their dollars directly to South America. Rush
asks Steve if he's saying that because there are a lot of
Americans on the dole, receiving entitlements, Rush and others
are being hypocritical in attacking just illegal immigrants on
the dole.

Steve says this is basically his point, so Rush notes that in
both California and Florida, there are a lot of illegal people,
and "illegal" means something. These people are getting a lot of
benefits that a lot of citizens don't get, and the problem is
that these people are illegal immigrants.

Most Americans don't mind legal immigration, but illegal
immigration is another matter. Steve says that it's sort of
specious to claim these guys are breaking the law; those in
California aren't talking about legalities but about how their
taxes are supporting those who don't work and don't pay taxes.

Attacking the illegal immigrants is hypocritical if you don't
attack legal immigrants and citizens as well. Rush again notes
that you can't dismiss the "illegal" part of this so cavalierly.
Plus, if there has been anyone who's been on the bandwagon for
welfare reform - not just for illegal immigrants but for everyone
- it's been Rush and his show.

Steve says that an article in the October 11th Wall Street
Journal discussed this subject. He thinks that many illegal
immigrants love freedom more than Americans do; this is why they
broke the law in the first place. Rush says that you can't just
dismiss the "illegal" aspect of this; everyone in the world wants
to come to America, but America can't absorb them all at once,
and you can't keep giving away social services to them, making
legal, working Americans pay the bill. Rush asks Steve to hold on
through the break.

*BREAK*

The EIB staff play Ton Loc's "Funky Cold Medina," and Rush
recalls that he ran into Mr. Loc in a hotel in Baton Rouge, LA
during the Rush the Excellence tour. Back then, Loc, like nearly
everyone else, had never heard of him, but Rush told him he
played Loc's songs as bumper music. Loc didn't know what bumper
music was either.

Phone	Steve from Albany, NY (continued)

Steve first recommends that Rush also use Ton Loc's "On Fire,"
which is also on the same album as "Funky Cold Medina." He then
notes that 8% of America's population is foreign born, compared
to twice that number around 1900. The Wall Street Journal had a
story about an Urban Institute study which showed that
immigration is not the real problem, but rather run-away
government spending.

Rush says this might be, but what people are upset about is
epitomized by how 70,000 people went marching the other day,
demanding to be put on the welfare rolls. These people had their
hands out, demanding that the government (i.e. working Americans)
put something in those hands.

Steve, though, says the Journal found that healthy immigrants are
less likely to be on welfare than the average native American.
Rush says that this is true to one extent, but the anger about
illegal immigration is not about any anger towards non-Americans
but about how it's become acceptable that illegal immigrants not
only can get benefits but now have a right to those benefits.

Steve says that Rush should instead go to the root of the
problem. Rush thinks he is doing this - part of this is that
there are people who think the role of government is to put
something in their hands. Steve, though, thinks Rush talks about
immigration all the time, and seems to think that the federal
government should be running things, instead of letting the
states have some independence. Since Rush says that would-be
immigrants should fix their countries at home, Steve thinks Rush
should do the same.

Rush says he has said that the U.S. can't handle everyone seeking
freedom, so they should be trying to fix their own countries. He
stands by that statement, but he doesn't support how the federal
government is requiring the states to provide services to these
illegal aliens, who are, after all, breaking the law.

Rush is not for massive welfare handouts of any kind, since they
dispirit people and create only new problems. However, he's not
anti-immigration either; there are many benefits from legal
immigrants, such as how legal immigrants take jobs that native
Americans want.

But when Californians and others see 70,000 people with their
hands out, they are not going to have much compassion left. They
have paid up for decades, without seeing any improvement or end
to the problems, and they're not going to be willing to continue
offer free services to illegal aliens. However, this doesn't mean
that these Californians are angry just at illegal immigrants
because they're angry at all those who think government should
take care of them.

Even so, though, illegal immigrants are special in that they are
illegal, they are breaking the law. In effect, 70,000 people in
California advocated that those who break the law should be
rewarded.

Phone	Linda from Syracuse, NY

Linda thinks Rush has proved the liberal columnists right this
morning by saying that the voters in 1992 fired George Bush, as
opposed to electing Bill Clinton. If the American people were
truly so angry at Bush that they fired him and hired Clinton in
his stead, then they are really stupid. If the people couldn't
see in 1992 how bad a bet Clinton was, then they obviously are
out of it.

Rush agrees with this to a point, and he recalls how when he
turned his show over to Clinton voters during the 1992 campaign
he didn't get many specifics from them as to why they wanted
Clinton. And maybe some of the voters in 1992 were stupid, but
people are waking up now.

Linda says that this just shows how stupid these people are
because Rush was telling them two years ago what they could
expect. Rush agrees to a point, but notes that Democrats tend to
vote Democrats, and a lot of Republicans sat out or voted for
Perot. Those Republicans, though, were not so much motivated by
stupidity but by principle.

Once you lie to conservatives, they don't forgive or forget.
Bush's violation of his "no new taxes" pledge, not to mention his
signing of the Clean Air Act and Civil Rights Act, among other
things, rubbed people the wrong way. They thus decided they
couldn't vote for Bush again, out of a matter of principle;
perhaps you could call this short-sighted or stupid, but it's
clear that a lot of people didn't vote for Bush, without taking
into account the consequences of that act.

Linda says she was disappointed by Bush, but the comparison
between him and Clinton was clear as day. Rush adds that Clinton
kept talking about change, and the generational change between
Clinton and Bush was clear as day, too, which might have helped
him get elected.

As to stupidity, though, liberals define it as not understanding
how great Clinton and liberals are. Liberals think the people are
stupid and lazy, and that they need liberals each and every day.
And in their arrogance, liberals think that anyone who opposes
them must be stupid.

Of course, when these same voters elected Clinton, the press
thought they were highly intelligent. Since there's a caller
coming up who thinks that Clinton's election really was for the
best, Rush holds Linda over so he can talk to both of them after
the break.

*BREAK*

Phone	Linda from Syracuse, NY (continued)

Phone	Tim from Montville, NJ

Tim thinks Republicans should be cautiously optimistic for this
November, but the Republicans wouldn't be facing such good
returns had Clinton not been elected in 1992. The Democrats'
problems are the doing of Clinton himself and his own party. This
at least seems to be the perception of many Republicans that Tim
knows.

Rush asks if Tim subscribed to the theory held by many
conservatives in 1992 that if Clinton won, it would give
Republicans a major chance to rebound and recover. Tim says he
didn't believe this in 1992, but it seems to be happening now;
after all, had Bush won re-election, Republicans certainly
wouldn't be facing the possible sweep they are now.

Rush brings Linda back into the conversation and says that if
Tim's theory is correct, then it could really mean the voters are
far smarter than anyone thinks. Linda says even if this were
true, there is still a lot of damage being done right now,
especially with the liberal appointments being made to the
courts. Even a predominantly Republican Congress can't undo these
appointments.

Rush says there are stories in USA Today and elsewhere about how
there are more court appointments being made now than in previous
administrations. However, the thing about these appointments is
that the Democrats aren't gaining a lot of judges; the judges
being confirmed are replacing other Democratically-appointed
judges, so Republicans should take heart at the knowledge that
the net increase in liberal judges isn't that great. Linda says
this might be, but the fact that any liberal judges are being
appointed for terms that will be measured in decades is something
the country really can't afford.

Rush understands this point, but notes that Tim's point is a good
one - had Bush been re-elected in 1992, Republicans would be
facing more losses in the mid-term elections, if for no other
reason that the party holding the White House typically loses in
mid-term elections. He thanks both Tim and Linda for calling.

*BREAK*

Phone	Randy from San Diego, CA

Randy has been listening to Rush for nearly 10 years, since his
Sacramento days, and he appreciates how consistent Rush's message
has been throughout that time, proving how the truth endures
while liberalism evolves. However, he doesn't appreciate being
held on hold while Rush placates the "mindless liberals who give
you a call and then waste our time."

Rush appreciates hearing that Randy is a very long-term listener,
but says his show always puts callers who disagree to the head of
the caller line. Randy says he can attest to this fact, given
that he's been on hold for an hour and twenty minutes, missing a
doctor's appointment, but he still loves Rush.

Rush hopes that Randy can reschedule his appointment, and Randy
is certain of it; since he pays for his medical services, he can
get another appointment easily; however, priorities are
priorities, and waiting for Rush is a priority. Rush says it's
kind of Randy to say these things and to be listening for so
long. Randy says he used to live in Sacramento, where he heard
Rush originally and where he owned all the Gold's Gyms in the
area. Rush is impressed but notes that Randy never saw him in one
of those gyms.

Randy adds that he campaigned for Barry Goldwater in the eighth
grade, handing out Ginger Ale, back in 1964, so he's a long-term
conservative. He recalls how Kaiser brought a labor force to
California after WWII, and a lot of them ended up working for
local, state, and federal government, resulting in part in how
the San Francisco Bay Area's liberalism and welfare rolls are
legendary.

As to Proposition 187, Randy finds it incredible that Americans
are even debating the issue of whether illegal aliens are
entitled to more benefits than American citizens. It's gotten to
the point that anyone who opposes this idea is called racist.

Rush says it is hard to recall even a previous time when the idea
that illegal citizens are entitled to more benefits than citizens
is even accepted or tolerated. Randy agrees this is mind-
boggling, and Rush thanks him for calling.


