If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

You told a 7 year old girl that this country no longer has the hope and promise that it once had; and that is why you are running for president. At what point in time was the promise of America greater? Give me some specifics (not generalities) of what exactly was better and why the promise of America was greater at this time.

You spoke of how few people are managing to make it to the middle class and how so many are struggling today. Should life be easy? Should a person not have to work long and hard to achieve success?

You spoke of global warming melting the ice caps, and some have said this past week that there is a 75% chance that the Arctic ice caps will be melted within 5 years. Do you believe this? Are you willing to put a substantial water on this to back up your opinion?

Before the surge, when our troops did not appear to be making any progress in Iraq, Obama called for a quick withdrawal, on a 16 month timeline (after he found out that our troops could not be withdrawn en masse in one month). While the surge was begun, and things looked good, Obama called for our troops to be withdrawn within 16 months. Now, where it appears the surge has worked and our troops are at pre-surge levels (did you read that story anywhere?), Obama is calling for a 16 month withdraw timetable.

I believe that it was Bill Kristol who observed, “Even a broken watch is right twice a day.”

Anne Coulter, when explaining why talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative, explained, “You have a built-in audience of people in their cars driving to some sort of job.”

Obama presents a very bleak view of the future to a 7-year-old girl, unless he is elected president. The first is Obama’s comlete answer and the second is commentary from FoxNews by Hannity, Colmes and Huckabee.

Homelessness, in 2006, our most recent figures, is down 12% (or, 30%, depending upon the source and from when this is determined). So, who will get credit for this?

Apparently, since October of last year, the Enquirer has been running stories about an illicit affair which John Edwards has been involved in (these stories were being written while he was a viable presidential candidate).

Someone says that someone else said that John McCain might be spending too much time with a female lobbyist (not even that he is having and affair with her), and this is front page news, posted 8 or so years after the fact, once McCain became the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.

Today, 9 months after a real story based upon an affair Edwards has had comes out, based upon more facts than the McCain hit piece, this story is finding its way into the mainstream news.

One of the few things where my liberal Democrat mother and I agree on is, this Democratic primary is not over yet, and Hillary could still be the Democratic nominee.

Here’s where we are: Hillary has the popular vote and Obama has the electoral vote (which is dependent upon the super-delegates). It should be plain as day that, come election day, Obama is going to lose big time, during a year when Democrats should be winning Congress and the White House.

If Obama suddenly finds himself dissed on the 1^st ballot, with Hillary the Democratic nominee in Colorado this fall, there will be riots in the streets.

So, which way will the party go? To maintain party unity, to keep a majority in the Congress, the super-delegates will probably go with Obama, even though he will lose (the Congress will probably remain in the hands of the Democrats by slightly wider margins).

Hillary would prefer to start being the president in 2009. However, her backup plan is, become the Democratic nominee in 2012, where she is even more likely to win. If Obama is trounced in the 2008 election (which he will be), he will not be the nominee in 2012, not by a long shot.

No riots and a 2012 victory is what the Democratic party will want. The Clinton’s want that nomination this year. I believe the Democratic party will win out; but I do not count out Hillary Clinton.

McCain needs someone to jumpstart his campaign, someone who is energetic, intelligent, and who will be a “WOW” factor. Let me suggest Mary Matalin. She is brilliant, personable,, photogenic and has been involved in politics for a long time. She will gobble up a good portion of the Clinton supporters.

Even more interesting is the always-fascinating James Carville—where will he come down in this race?

Oprah had a special on education this week. The first segment dealt with two schools, in the same general area (15–25 miles apart, if memory serves), and one is the poor Black, inner city school and the other is the rich white school in the suburbs. I guess the lesson here is, more money and better equipment in the schools automatically means a better education.

Oprah did not bring her own experience into the mix, when she was taking her purse to a number of different schools, speaking to a number of young Black American students, whose view was, “Sure, rich black lady, give me Nike’s and an ipod; don’t talk to me about college tuition.” She took her money and founded a school in Africa where the students appreciated what she was doing.

Anderson Cooper wandered through another school with his flashlight, and showed us lavatories which could no longer be used, leaking ceilings and roofs, and a large stack of work orders which were being ignored. Some gal, on Oprah’s show, just beamed, when she was able to tell us how, the kids saw these problems and it just made them feel bad, like no one cared about them, and shut down, academically speaking.

I worked in a school where, periodically, we have problems with the air conditioning and with the flat roofs leaking. This school, at its worst physically, was when it was at its best academically. As more money poured into this school and our district, our academic standards went down. There was more to it than that, but these two things did not move in tandem together, as Oprah’s teary-eyed expert indicated they should.

Oprah, to her credit, did not use this particular show to tell us to vote for Osama, but she did suggest that we vote for the candidates which offered us a better approach to education.

Oprah praised Indiana because they passed a law requiring students to stay in school until they turn 18. As a former teacher, I can testify that having a 17 year old adolescent body in the classroom that does not want to be there is not a good thing, but a distraction. If he (or she) does not want to be there, and he is forced to be there, then he (or she) is going to act out, which disrupts the class. If you have a class with 5 or more or these types, you cannot advance that class.

1) The fact that she took her own money outside of the US to establish a school instead of offering scholarships, books, computers, etc. to an inner city school in the U.S. 2) Oprah did not talk about school choice. One of the problems with public schools is, school is a jail sentence and not a privilege. Any school with a limited enrollment, which promises special programs of any sort, generally enjoys much greater academic excellence. Schools where students just have to be there, whether they want to or not, are schools which fail. With school choice, a parent, of any ethnic background, can examine the local schools and pick the school which best corresponds with their child. School choice often means smaller schools, specialized programs or emphasis, and better discipline, as these schools can expel kids who do not want to be a part of their program. She will not talk about school choice, because Obama is against them and McCain is for them. 3) The biggest predictor of a child’s success in school is that child’s parent or parents. If these parents value education and made certain that their child understands how important education is, that child will succeed. Oprah said nothing about the responsibility of parents when it comes to failing schools (again, this is because Obama’s emphasis is upon more taxes and more money being sunk into this failing system). 4) In my state, the more that government became involved in education, the worse that education got. I can’t say if there is a direct relationship here, but I suspect that there is. 5) As we move further and further away from discipline with real and common results for specific infractions, the worse our schools become. One of the way that our legislature became more involved with discipline is by removing paddling from the school system, requiring school districts to provide alternate schools (so a problem kid could not be expelled completely from the school system) and there were negative consequences and ratings when a school expelled problem students. At one time, in the district where I taught, a student would be expelled and they would have to secure enrollment at a nearby district. This would involve mom and/or dad driving this kid to school every single day, and, even if these are the worst parents in the world, every morning, for 15 to 20 minutes, they would be alone in a car with their problem child, who has caused them a great deal of inconvenience; and this parent might, every few days, let the child know about how inconvenient this has been.

The other week when Chris Matthews interviewed former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, Matthews delivered his typical rapid fired questions to McClellan, getting him to admit—sort of—that the White House sent talking points to FoxNews and to Bill O’Reilly.

Last week former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and said the White House distributed "talking points" to friendly Fox journalists.

McClellan's confirmation of an operation inside the White House of providing comprehensive talking points to Fox News and other Conservative talk show personalities to manipulate the media and control the message regarding the Iraq War and the "war on terror" is a violation of anti-propaganda laws.

It should be obvious that Keith Olbermann hates Bush and hates FoxNews, which trounces him in the ratings night after night after night.

Actually, McClellan did not say this. O’Reilly had him on his show, and getting McClellan to make a clear statement was like pulling teeth. O’Reilly finally got an apology out of McClellan for not clearly stating that the White House did not send talking points to FoxNews or to Bill O’Reilly.

Now, where did this idea of talking points come from? Where did we the idea that politicians passed along talking points to various newscasters.

Do you recall when Bush picked Cheney as Vice President, and, in one day, almost simultaneously, every newscaster from the Drive-By Media said that the choice of Cheney gave Bush gravitas? The idea was that Bush was a lightweight, so he needed a heavyweight to back him up. It was not just 2 or 3 broadcasters who used this term to describe the addition of Cheney to the Bush ticket, but over 10. How does that happen? How do they all use the same unusual word on the same day?

Much more recently, no matter where you turned your TV dial, as long as you were on a news show, you heard these words, “We can’t drill our way out of this.” This did not come from newsmen, but it came from every prominent Democrat who opened their mouth on TV. In the same vein, we have heard, if we drill offshore, we will not get any oil for 10 years and the difference will be approximately 1 penny per gallon.

I am positive that there is a Democratic pipe by which talking points are disseminated. I would say that, at one point, this went out to various people in the media. It does not appear that these points go out to the media now, but they certainly go out to top tier Democrats. This is so that, no matter where we turn for political news, there will be a Democratic talking head giving out the latest talking points.

Now, I have no idea whether any of this occurred with the current White House. McClellan, whom I do not trust, made it sound as though there were talking points that did go out from the White House to some news organizations. If this is the case, it is an important news story. However, so far, all we have is McClellan, who gives absolutely no specifics on this topic.

A White House press release is something entirely different, and completely legitimate.

My point is, someone had to come up with this idea to begin with. The gravitas chorus suggests that this goes back to 1999 (at least), and that would have been a Democratic talking point.

Conservatives are painted by a wide brush by liberals. O’Reilly is seen as the same as Hannity who is seen as the same as Limbaugh who is seen as identical to Medved.

Conservatives tend to be, by nature, independent thinkers. This is why, during the immigration debate, there were those on conservative radio and television who seemed to be on every side of this issue. Medved liked the Bush-McCain plan, and justified it. Laura Ingraham not only ripped away at this politic, but she encouraged her listeners to call anyone that they could to protest this bill. O’Reilly has always been staunchly opposed to sanctuary cities and criminal aliens.

Tony Snow made a tour of a variety of outlets, when he was trying to sell the immigration bill, and he was respectfully but strongly opposed by many different conservative hosts.

When it came to letting Dubai run some of our ports (they would not have been in charge of security), there was a hew and a cry throughout the land from conservatives and liberals. As I recall, Medved and Limbaugh were in favor of the deal; Ingraham and Hannity (I believe) opposed it.

When it comes to McCain, it should be clear that every single one of these conservatives have problems with specific issues and viewpoints which McCain has. Medved has been on board with McCain early on; when probed, Limbaugh will say, “It is what it is.” Hannity will continually point out that he has a number of disagreements with McCain’s policies and some of the bills with his name attached.

The Democratic party has become increasingly anti-war. However, there are two reasons why I do not trust Democrats in this area: Vietnam and Iraq.

I have heard Democrat after Democrat speak about this war. I have hear Harry Reid tell me that we have lost the war. I have heard Murtha proclaim that our soldiers are common thugs, breaking down the doors of innocent people and raping their women. In every single speech that I have heard from Barack Obama, there is one word, along with its synonyms, which I never hear: victory. I don't hear him talking about success. I do not hear him talking about winning the war. All I hear from him is, withdraw, withdraw, withdraw. The war is difficult and we are doing poorly? Withdraw. We are showing progress in Iraq? Withdraw. I cannot trust a man who cannot speak about a war in which we are involved, where he cannot use the word victory.

The second reason I do not trust Democrats, is Vietnam. We lost in Vietnam because a Democratic Congress (with the support of some Republicans) cut off the funding to our troops. Millions of our allies--our friends, people who trusted us--were slaughtered like dogs in the street, because of his. Ask any liberal about it, who is supposedly concerned about human life, and they either say, "Oh well" or somehow blame this on conservatives. We have, in the past few years, come to find out from one of the top-ranking North Vietnamese generals that victory for the United States was either weeks or months away.

I marched on one peace march in my youth. I am ashamed of doing that. When I realize that millions of South Vietnamese placed their trust in the United States--in our Democracy--in me, and that we just deserted them there, and left them there to die horrible deaths, I am ashamed, ashamed of my former beliefs and ashamed of the foolish opinions which I had.

If anyone deserves an apology, it is the South Vietnamese people that we deserted, and the millions of people who died because of the United States not standing up to our obligations.

We either take our alliances in this world seriously or we don't. But the worst thing that we can ever do, is offer our aid and our blood, and then withdraw these things for political expediency.

A majority of Democrats voted for the war in Iraq. They should be ashamed for their political posturing and trying to place the war on the shoulders of George Bush alone. Congress voted for this war, including a majority of Democrats. They had a choice and they made that choice. The least they should be able to do is to stand behind what they voted for.

The largest windfarm in the world is the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center located in (hand over the heart) Taylor Country, Texas. There are 421 wind turbines with a capactiy of 735 megawatts. These turbines are spread out over an area of 47,000 acres. Personally, my house is powered by wind power, so I am not an anti-wind power guy. In theory it sounds great. You set it up, and then it starts generating power for free. The second largest wind farm in the US is on the Oregon-Washington line, with a peak capacity of less than half Horse Hollow's.

The big positives are: once it is set into motion, we have power which only requires upkeep and maintenance. Also, the land there can be used for other things, e.g., farming (in theory; making this work so that one does not interfere with the other is a whole other thing).

The big negatives are: original start up cost, the power is not dependable (the wind does not blow all of the time), and it covers a huge area.

By comparison, consider the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station which is located on 1770 acres (26th the size of Horse Hollow), producing 1167 megawatts of energy. If you want to look at the number of megawatts produced per acre of land, wind power is approximately 2% as efficient as nuclear power (I've done the math). For nuclear power, the biggest negative is start up cost. On the positive side, it provides a great deal of power which is efficient in terms of cost per KWH and nuclear power plants are relatively safe (fewer people die in association with them than with coal mining or oil drilling). Also, the power is reliable and continuous.

Currently, the largest wind farm in the US – and the largest in the world – is Florida Power & Light's Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, located in Taylor County, Texas. The Horse Hollow project operates 421 wind turbines and has a capacity of 735 megawatts.[29] Prior to Horse Hollow's completion, the largest US wind farm was the Stateline Wind Project on the Oregon-Washington line, with a peak capacity of 300 megawatts.

Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center is the world's largest wind farm at 735.5 megawatt (MW) capacity. It consists of 291 GE Energy 1.5 MW wind turbines and 130 Siemens 2.3 MW wind turbines spread over nearly 47,000 acres (190 km²) of land in Taylor and Nolan County, Texas.[1]

This plant has one Westinghouse pressurized water reactor, one of two reactor units whose construction commenced in 1973. Unit 1 was completed in 1996, and has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts.

I'm not against wind power, but if we want a quick partial solution to our energy problem, then nuclear is the way to go.

I think I am beginning to understand the conservatives. They are quite simply believers. They have their established beliefs, and when presented with facts that contradict those beliefs, they simply ignore them, stating, "I don't believe that."

Case in point is the letter about "Howard Dean and the flag" (Aug. 4). The writer states that conservatives have stayed true to the U.S. Constitution and the flag. But wait, haven't the conservatives under President Bush suspended the right of habeas corpus, passing laws that U.S. citizens can be designated as enemy combatants and therefore don't have a right to trial guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment? Also, didn't Bush illegally wiretap private phone conversations without court approval, violating citizens' rights against illegal search and seizure guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment?

Sticking to your beliefs may seem like an admirable quality, but if you keep ignoring the facts, eventually it will cost you dearly.

Several times a year, I read your newspaper and spend some time reading through your editorial pages. Just how many letters have printed bemoaning wiretapping and Bush’s suspension of habeas corpus? Have you ever printed any from another opinion? I have yet to read any.

Habeas corpus is a right which is reasonably and constitutionally applied to American citizens and not to those who are enemies of our country. A majority of Americans see it this way. We are in an unusual situation—our enemies can be tied to several countries, but they are not the army of a specific country. We are in a war which may last for several decades with an enemy which is just as real as any enemy we have faced in the past, but who does not wear a uniform and who does not align himself with a particular country. This is new, and President Bush and the Congress have been attempting to deal with this situation. Enemy combatants are going to be in prison camps for several decades because of the nature of this conflict, not because Bush is some evil person. Making our captured enemies American citizens or giving them the rights of Americans does not appear to many as the way to solve this dilemma. Frantic warnings that Bush will suddenly start arresting American citizens and calling them enemy combatants is, at best, theoretical, and, at worst, paranoid and delusional. If such a thing occurs (which it won’t), then we ought to deal with it then.

Because of this conflict we are in, wiretapping is seen by the administration as one approach to those who would do us harm. We wiretap those who have contact with those who have known terrorist connections outside of our country. The reason this is done without a warrant is because time is of the essence. The idea that this is some horrendous example of oppression is laughable. FDR herded huge numbers of innocent people and loyal Americans into prison camps during WW2, after taking away their property and possessions. If someone wants to offer up that action as governmental overreaching during a time of war, I could understand that. Whining about wiretapping those who are in contact with our enemies strikes me as quite an overreaction. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping rather tame by comparison to our concentration camps of 60 years ago.

Summary: the places we go and the people we talk to concerning this situation. McCain, although not offering up a military solution, at least knows where we go and who we talk to.

I am undecided about this. 5 Democrat and 5 Republicans are staying behind in Congree, demanding a vote on energy, which Nancy Pelosi has denied.

RUSH: I have some news that's going to anger you, it's going to chill you. As you know, brave Republicans in the House are continuing their battle to force Nancy Pelosi to bring the Democrats back to have an up-or-down vote expanding the opportunity to drill for oil in ANWR and offshore. They continue to make their points, and they continue to fight. This is an issue, as you know, as I have mentioned it to you, it's the issue that can change this entire campaign around. Americans are angry, and it's not just at the price of oil and gasoline. It is the related price increases, everything that happens as a result of that. Food has gone up, practically everything has gone up, airline transportation, everything's gone up because of the price of oil. The oil is coming down, but it's a market that's still fluid, and nobody can predict what's going to happen. And whether the price continues to come down or not, we've gotten a warning here: We need to do what we can to expand our own supply, and the Republicans in the House are doing everything they can to see to it that this happens.

However, in the Senate, there is a new bipartisan coalition called the Gang of Ten, five Democrats, five Republicans, led by Senator Lindsey Graham on the Republican side. They have just forged a compromise that basically cuts the Republicans in the House off at the knees, at least temporarily. The Republicans in the Senate have given the Democrats in the Senate everything they want, everything Barack Obama wants in an energy bill. I'll give you the details when we come back. But just because it happened in the Senate does not mean it's doom and gloom, does not mean it's over with, because the Republicans in the House are still fighting this. This is just a Gang of Ten trying to get the Senate moving on this. It's not an official Senate bill yet. It hasn't been passed there. But the Republicans on our side caved totally to the Democrat demands on energy in a way that has to have Obama doing cartwheels if he's heard about it.

RUSH: Here's Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal today, her Potomac Watch column headlined: "Republican Energy Fumble," and I just want to read some of her verbatim here for you because it's right on the money. "Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election. It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

"Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This 'Gang of 10' announced a 'sweeping' and 'bipartisan' energy plan to break Washington's energy 'stalemate.' What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

"That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go,'" if this becomes law. "The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables." It's the Democrats that are running around touting "alternatives" and "renewables." That's what Democrats want. They don't want to drill. They've got a war going on against oil. They hate oil. They're demonizing oil, when there is no replacement as we've discussed.

Now, five Republicans led by Lindsey Graham, apparently, joined five Democrats and said, okay, your bill has "$84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables," fine. We'll go along with that. "The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on ... oil companies!" So five Republicans have joined five Democrats in the Senate to agree on legislation in the Senate to raise taxes on the oil companies, i.e. (they may not be calling it this, but) a windfall profits tax. In the middle of the Republicans finally having an issue on which they could turn this election around versus the Democrats!

They're doing all of this while these brave Republicans in the House are fighting the odds in their own revolution, trying to stop Pelosi and force her back so that we can move forward on a bill that would expand drilling, five Republican senators join five Democrats and basically hand the Democrats everything they want. As Kimberley Strassel writes, "The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November. Sen. Obama was thrilled. He quickly praised the Gang's bipartisan spirit, and warmed up to a possible compromise. Of course, he means removing even the token drilling provisions now in the [Senate] bill.

"But he's only too happy for the focus to remain on the Gang's efforts, and in particular on the five Republicans providing his party its fig leaf." This is unbelievable. Well, it's not unbelievable. This is the exact kind of thing, folks, that gave us campaign finance reform. This is the impact kind of thing -- what was it, the Gang of 14 on "the nuclear option," regarding judicial nominations -- I cannot explain it to you. I would leave this to Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss. Some of these guys, I do not understand the tone deafness that they're exhibiting here politically. I do not understand how they cannot see what a winning issue they have. Plus, I don't understand why in the world anything Democrats want to do is attractive to these Republicans. Raising taxes on oil companies, spending most of the money on alternatives and renewables, banning drilling in the most productive areas?

This is inexplicable. But the Republicans in the House have not signed on to this. This is just ten Senators of that come up with this compromise. The effort here -- Ms. Strassel is right, the effort here -- is to have a competing bill in the Senate so that nothing on this gets done before the November election, and because the difficulty will be in getting both bills to the floor and getting a compromise version passed, and then go to conference. It's too much to happen before the election 'cause they're not going to be in Washington that much, because everybody's going to be out on their own reelection campaigns. But, aside from all that, it just befuddles me. (sigh) I read this this morning, and said, "This cannot be true," and yes, it can be. We have a bunch of coward Republicans scattered around both houses of Congress.

We've got a bunch of Republicans who have been trained by the presidential nominee of their party that the way to advance yourself with the media and in Washington social circles is to agree with Democrats. This is just mind-boggling. We'll keep you posted on any further developments.

RUSH: So we've got Lindsey Graham, we have John Thune -- I'm just stunned at this. Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker, and Johnny Isakson, along with five Senate Democrats, unnamed. Doesn't matter who they are, they always hang together. They've gotten everything they want here. As Kimberley Strassel writes, "McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a 'bipartisan' effort on energy." See, this bipartisan garbage, every time there's bipartisan garbage, our side caves in. You know, they asked Jesse Helms once, why didn't he compromise more? He said, "If the argument is between freedom and tyranny, why the hell should I give away anything?"

If I am for freedom, why should I give away anything? Not saying this is freedom versus tyranny but gosh, folks, if this keeps up we're going to have tyranny, well I think we do, in terms of property rights and any number of things. So here's a bipartisan effort that McCain didn't support. This one included drilling, limitations on drilling, and McCain wants to open up drilling, it's become his issue, and these five Republican senators last Friday just nuked it, at least in the Senate. "His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more." That was McCain's out. That's why he didn't support it and these $84 million of taxes are on Big Oil. Well, that $84 billion, whatever it is, is going to be spent on renewables and alternatives. "The 'bipartisan' Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue 'negotiations' straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him. Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year." And as Kimberly Strassel concludes, "That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority."

It's inexplicable. Don't ask me. Your guess to this is as good as mine. You can start with stupidity. You can start with selfishness. You can start with I don't care about drilling in the Republican Party; I care about my standing with the media. You can have all of these various explanations, and as I say, the Democrats, if you go through the headlines today, are just in all kinds of disarray.

RUSH: Now, this deal, by the way, this Gang of Ten deal, get this. I talked about some of the regulations in this bill that are onerous. Try this. This deal would allow drilling if -- if and when -- the EPA and PETA and states and cities and counties and the ACLU clear the way.

It would put up more barriers to drilling, which is what the Democrats want, because they want no drilling, period. Five Republicans go along with it.

RUSH: Moraga, California. Great to have you here, Stewart. Thank you for calling.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I'm calling you on an iPhone that you generously gave me last November, and I am taking the opportunity to thank you for it. I tried to send you a card, but it got bounced back. I wanted to comment today on Lindsey Graham. It's really ironic that he's doing to John McCain exactly what John McCain did to George Bush, which is organizing a bipartisan group of senators or cut 'em off at the knees.

RUSH: Yeah, this did catch McCain by surprise, because it put him in a very ironic situation. McCain has made his bones being the bipartisan guy, working with the other guys, so here's Grahamnesty (who is McCain, Jr.) and I think he sees this is how McCain got to be who he is. So Grahamnesty says, "Okay, I'll try it," and in the process, McCain is saying, "Lindsey, he-he, he-he. (snickering)" So McCain, the only way he could oppose this, is, "I'm not for tax increases, and there are too many tax increases in this bill. That's not the way." But it just took the issue away. Well, it hasn't done it yet because the bill is not passed in the Senate. It's just an indication we've got these five guys. By the way, another explanation. I left off the most important thing to look at. "Folks, I can't explain it. You can make up whatever explanation you want. They're stupid; they want good coverage in the media, whatever it is." Follow the money. Follow the money. Well, in this case, follow the money. Use your imagination, campaign contributions, lobbyists. They're not up for election this year. They don't face serious opposition. The answer to almost every question, particularly in politics, can be found at the end of the trail of big bucks.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. It's great to talk to you. I'm calmed down a little bit. I called Lindsey Graham's office about 45 minutes ago, and got into a heated debate with an office worker. I said, "You know, I was not a supporter of John McCain. I put my checkbook away." I said, "The House Republicans are doing something that is inspiring conservatives. I got out my checkbook to write again, and you just shut me down. You're sabotaging McCain's candidacy and the presidency and you're handing it to Obama." He said, "We need to get something done expediently or we are going to lose the House and Obama's going to have a 60-seat, veto-proof majority." I said, "Republicans are tired of you compromising with the Democrats. If we wanted a Democrat plan, we would vote for them. We want to drill on American soil. Conservatives are excited about this. You would have so much money flowing in, if you would fight for our ideals." And he told me, "Well, what exactly is the plan that you're against?" I said, "You're going to be raising more taxes. You're going to be giving in to environmental concerns, their agenda more so," and he said, "Well, maybe you ought to read it before you just listen to Rush Limbaugh. What's he telling you?" He said, "I've been taking angry calls for the past two hours over this. Maybe you ought to think for yourself." I said, "Well, Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for us, but he is the voice of those of us who get ignored by Washington senators like Lindsey Graham." So...

CALLER: Yeah, I was quite upset, because for somebody to tell me that I don't have a mind of my own when I think conservatives have the greatest minds to think.

RUSH: All right. Now, I want to go back over something that you said the person in Lindsey Grahamnesty's office said to you. This person said to you, "We've got to do something, we have to show compromise, because we've got to keep the Democrats from getting 60 seats in the Senate."

CALLER: Yeah. He said they are going to have a veto-proof majority in the Congress.

RUSH: Right. Okay, so what that means is, in the office of Lindsey Grahamnesty, the calculation has been made that in order for more Republicans to get elected, they have to show the "willingness to compromise" with Democrats on an issue where the American people overwhelmingly oppose the Democrat stance! Also, Lindsey Graham -- none of these guys faces a serious reelection challenge. It's not as though they have to go out and show bipartisanship in order to win reelection. That's even worse than what they did. By the way, did you tell this babe -- was this a guy or a woman you were talking to in there?

CALLER: Well, no, I didn't hear that part. I've been in and out of the car all day.

RUSH: Well, that's where I got the information. Kimberley Strassel has written a column about it. We double-checked it. There's an energy think tank that's really good that has even bullet-pointed the problems of this bill even more. I'll get the name of that to you in a second, in the next break. But it's all over the place. So what they're mad at is that what they did got out. It just happened last Friday, a week ago, Laura, but people just found out about it yesterday.

CALLER: Well, my point to him was, "You are trying to save your congressional seats but you're going to in turn lose the presidency." I said, "So you are sabotaging McCain's campaign at this point, because if you don't have conservatives behind him, it's not going to matter you winning all the seats in Congress."

RUSH: Well, that's a good point. I don't know whether they look at it that way but they are sabotaging McCain's campaign because McCain finally -- finally! -- had come around on energy. He had finally come around, except in ANWR, but then these guys come and do this, and it did take the wind out of McCain's sails for a while. But it's just a deal among ten senators now. It hasn't gone to the full Senate, but with these five Republicans caving it's only going to take four more.

CALLER: Well, I think they're getting the wind knocked out of their sails because I don't think they expected the amount of calls. It was tough getting through.

RUSH: How could they not? You know, that's another thing, Laura. How could they be so tone deaf? How can they not understand that essentially agreeing with the Democrat position on this -- no drilling, tax increases on oil companies, money spent on "renewables" and "alternatives" -- that a hell storm would erupt?

CALLER: I don't think they care. To be honest, I think they're so beyond -- all these senators that have been there forever almost beyond -- help because they have sabotaged themselves anymore. If they don't see that this has gotten conservatives excited and they're starting to write taxes since they've been hurting for money, I don't understand how they could pull the rug out from under us and say, "Well, we need to do something expediently." It just doesn't even make sense, so I don't think they listen to us in Washington.

RUSH: Well, the way I hear that is it sounds like they think that in order for them to win elections for Republicans to be reelected, they gotta show a willingness to work with Democrats. Of course, their role model for that is McCain. So in one sense, it's understandable, but it isn't understandable in the sense that it undercuts the position of their party's presidential nominee, as you have pointed out. Well, I appreciate the feedback on that call, Laura. Thanks for taking the time to call.

CALLER: Good deal. Listen, the first time I heard about these five Republicans trying to cut this outrageous energy deal with these Democrats, I heard from you this morning. And when I heard it, it just outraged me, and I got on the phone to both Isakson and Chambliss's office and I told them, "What's wrong with these guys? Have they lost their minds?" I said, "Do they not understand that people in this state and in our country want us to drill for our own oil?" And I said, "I don't consider it nothing less than a stab in the back." And I said they better back away from this. The thing about it is, Rush, I voted for these guys, and I'm ashamed I voted for them now. I thought Chambliss was a pretty good Senator 'cause he always seemed to come down on the correct side of the issues. But now he just seems like he's just turning out to be another typical politician.

RUSH: Well, it appears so on this issue. Look, I didn't even know anything about this, either. This is one of these things that happened very quietly. I didn't know about this 'til I read Kimberley Strassel's piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and then had it confirmed and backed up on an energy activist website. I forgot to get that during the break, but I will get it. I'm having a mental block as to the name of it, but we'll link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. Like you, I was just stunned. It's worse than stupid. It's so stupid there has to be some other reason for this.

CALLER: Well, I don't know what's wrong, you know. I've been listening to you for about three years, and I've become so much more informed about what's going on in this country and the government and such, but, you know, here I am out here busting my hump just to put gas in my car, which is almost four bucks a gallon here, and, you know, here these guys are up in Washington, you know, that I voted for, and, you know, it seems like all they care about is, you know, of course their jobs.

RUSH: Well, what did they say? What did their representatives say when you talked to them?

CALLER: Well, Isakson's office was fairly cordial, but Chambliss's office -- and it took me awhile to get through both of them because their lines were busy -- but Chambliss's office, the lady that come on, she had a real bad attitude, she said, "Well, we've already gotten a bunch of calls about this," and I said, "Now you got one more." I said, "You better tell the senator, he better get his head out of his butt and he better back away from this, 'cause he's going to lose a lot of votes and, you know, he's going to have to pack his bags and find another line of work next time he comes up for election," and if I hear any more about it, me personally, and I have a large family and a lot of friends, and they all vote Republican, and they all voted for Chambliss, if he doesn't back away from this, none of them is going to vote for him. And if he is so stupid to do something like this, and that's another thing, you know, the more I listen about it, the more that it just floors me, how could anybody not want to go in our own country and get our own oil out when we have got so much? And talking about all this environmental green stuff and alternative energy, yeah, I'm sure some of that stuff will do some good but, you know, I'm totally in line with you, oil is going to be here, everybody might as well face it. And here we have, we've got a bucket load or tons of bucket loads right underneath our feet, and people like Obama and these other just stupid Democrats, they don't even want to get it. I don't understand it, Rush.

RUSH: Because they don't control it, because they don't control the oil. If they could nationalize the oil companies they'd be all for it, if they participated in it, but they don't control it. That's just one of the reasons. It's irrational, but you're right, they hate it. But this country, of the western democracies, the advanced industrialized western democracies, this country is the cleanest in the world. My point is, this oil, wherever it is, offshore, underground, is not polluting us. It's organic. It is a commodity, and Democrats hate it. It's like hating sugar. It's like hating cotton. It doesn't make any sense. And you take oil out of the economic equation, and we're back to the 1850s.

CALLER: Well, oil -- you know, I totally agree. Oil is a natural product of the earth as plants and soil are.

RUSH: Of course it is. That's what I mean, it's organic. Ethanol is the artificial thing here.

CALLER: Well, I'll tell you what, Rush, I don't know, is it even possible to elect anybody anymore that actually goes to Washington and stands up for the people and not get caught up in all the perks on their job and turn into a typical politician? Because I'm beginning to wonder. Because even the ones that you think are fairly decent and good, once they get up there, they turn out to be just like everybody else.

RUSH: Yeah, there's something about that town that does conservatives in. But, look, Neil, let me explain something to you, and people are going to think this is a lousy excuse for these guys, but look at who the Republican presidential nominee is.

RUSH: John McCain. What does he even say is his strong suit? Working with Democrats. It got him laudatory media time. He was fawned over and loved for a while by the Washington press corps, by the Washington social circuit, and now he's ended up as the party nominee. Well, now, just in the sense that everybody's a copycat and politics is a copycat game, and you got Lindsey Graham, you know, hanging around with McCain all these years, it could well be that these guys are simply following the leader, hoping that it will advance their careers as it advanced McCain's. This is one of the problems that this whole nomination presents us.

RUSH: As I was talking to the guy from Dalton, Georgia, about his phone calls to Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, it struck me that it was two hours ago that I discussed what this is all about. If you just tuned in and you don't know what is he upset about, let me give you the highlights. Again, this is from Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal today in a column entitled, "The Republican Energy Fumble." Essentially there is a Gang of Ten senators, five Republicans led by Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker (Tennessee), and Johnny Isaakson. They joined five Democrats to craft an energy bill in the Senate that is exactly what Barack Obama wants. It is an utter disaster.

It's a Democrat giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures only in four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. They have expanded. They are higher. PETA has a role. The ACLU has a role. The bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the United States coastline. That puts off limits some of the most productive areas -- even if the states allow it -- including in ANWR. Well, you can only drill in four states anyway under this bill, but no -- you can't drill any closer to 50 miles of the coastline even in these four states, which puts ANWR off limits and most of the really rich areas. Also the bill contains "$84 billion in tax credits, subsidies, and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables."

This bill would lead to no drilling at all, anywhere at any time. It would lead to increased taxes on the oil companies. As Kimberley Strassel writes, "The Sierra Club could not have written this better. So the Republican Five has potentially given anti-drilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November," when this was a winning issue for any Republican! McCain finally had an issue he was winning. He was embarrassing Obama with, this whole inflate your tires business. The vast majority of the American people want to drill. People in California, a majority, want to drill. Majority in Florida, want to drill. Now, this is a compromise between these ten senators. You have to get the Gang of Ten concept now.

You have to understand what this is. The way things line up now, Harry Reid, the Democrats, need 60 votes in order to get anything passed in the Senate. It's just the way the Senate works now. They don't have anywhere near 60 senators. They need nine Republicans to join them. If every Democrat agrees on any legislation, they need nine Republicans to join them. Well, five have here. Because the bill was a stalemate, and the reason the bill's at a stalemate because the Republicans, Mitch McConnell, didn't want any part of it. So these guys decided, "It doesn't look good for us to be in a stalemate. The American people want something done. The American people want efficient, comprehensive reform. They want something done!"

Yeah? They don't want "something" done. They want drilling! They want energy independence. They want increased supply. Now, the House Republicans, they're still churning away over there, folks. They're still trying to embarrass Pelosi. They're still playing that great hand that the Republicans have been dealt here. This is five senators from the Republican Party, and what they have basically done now is seen to it that all Harry Reid needs to is go out and find four more Republicans to join in this -- and these Republicans, by the way, these five are conservatives. Well, compared to Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, they are conservatives. Compared to Gordon Smith in Oregon, they are conservatives. Compared to Chuck Hagel, they're conservatives.

So, you see, it's quite likely that there's four renegade Republicans that could join this. If this happens, all it means is, there won't be any legislation. It doesn't mean this bill is going to pass. It just means there won't be any action taken on drilling, which is exactly what Obama wants, which is what the Democrats want, and it effectively cuts the rug from underneath the Republican campaign. As such, it's inexplicable, unless you follow the money, and who knows where that trail leads in this case. But almost always following the money will give you the answer to most questions, particularly in politics. But then again, being honest and up front, you gotta say that these five Republicans are simply following the lead of the party nominee.

That was his success track. That's how he got where he is. They probably saying, "Hey, what's wrong with it?" Lindsey Graham, hey, he survived his primary fight after the immigration debacle. He's figuring he's bulletproof; nothing going to hurt him. He can take whatever position he wants now. None of these five senators face a serious reelection challenge. So we led this off two hours ago with the program, and if you've just tuned in late or in the last hour, then you might have known what was driving all of this. Now, the Institute for Energy Research has released an analysis of this. It's called the New Era energy plan. That's what the Gang of Ten bill is. It's called the New Era energy plan proposed by the self-titled Gang of Ten US senators. "Publicly available details on the plan are limited to press releases and brief summaries, which form the basis of IER's analysis. The Institute's resident economist, Robert Murphy, issued the following statement:

"'Faced with the prospect of having the ban on offshore energy production expire at the end of September if Congress does nothing, this headline-hungry gang decided it had to do something before leaving town for the August vacation,' Murphy said. 'The New Era plan is the same as the era we find ourselves stuck in today - flush in subsidies, tax credits, and various other government handouts, but short on the energy supplies our economy and our consumers need to prosper. American families would be better served if the Gang and the entire Congress simply stopped trying to help, stepped aside, and let the offshore ban expire.'" See, that, my friends, is the real nub here, because the ban on offshore energy production expires at the end of September. If they do nothing, it just goes away. So what they've effectively tried to do here is reinstitute the ban, which is exactly what the Democrats want. Five Republican senators are giving the Democrats what they want.

RUSH: Senator Chambliss is on the line. Senator Chambliss, I'm glad you called. I only have a couple minutes here so I may ask you to hang on during the break at the bottom of the hour.

RUSH: I'm fine. There's a hubbub here because of a Wall Street Journal column today about you being a member of the Gang of Ten, you and four Republican colleagues that basically signed on with the Democrats' idea of an energy plan that will essentially shut off all drilling, all kinds of tax credits for renewables and alternatives, it will let all kinds of brand-new regulations, basically thwart the effort to drill for more oil.

CHAMBLISS: Well, Rush, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean you know, here we are in Washington trying to set good policy on energy as well as other issues, and people back home in my state and all across America are hurting, they're angry because gas prices have gone from $2.33 when the Democrats took over to over $4, and that's backed a little bit, but people are upset about that. And what are we doing in Washington to try to help these people out who all of a sudden that have had their kitchen table budgets shoved to heck and back. We're doing nothing. So what we did was we got together in a bipartisan way, Rush, and you well know that no major issue gets resolved in Washington unless you got 60 votes, and we had to get 60 votes, so we put a bipartisan group together, a group of Democrats who were willing to make the commitment to additional offshore drilling, provided that we would make some compromises otherwise, and --

RUSH: Senator, I don't mean to be rude but I do have to take a commercial break here in ten seconds.

RUSH: Can you hold on and we'll go through what some of the specifics of this bill are.

RUSH: And you can tell me if the reporting that we've all heard about the specifics are accurate.

RUSH: And we are back with Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. Thank you for holding on during the break, Senator.

RUSH: Now, let me set a couple things up here, it won't take long at all and it will give you the general idea why people are bamboozled today and a little angry. In the first place, people are fed up with the four dollar gas price, it's a tipping point and they want to drill for new oil, become independent, they want to drill here and drill now, and they don't like being dependent and they want to have more supply from domestic sources. The ban on offshore energy production is set to expire at the end of September if Congress does nothing, giving the American people exactly what they want. Now, here comes your bill, The New Era Bill, and it says that new production will only be permitted in four states, and the state legislatures are in charge of it, not the federal government anymore, and only 50 miles or further offshore in those four states, which eliminates the richest fields and things like ANWR. It has 84 billion dollars in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. It basically, according to the Wall Street Journal today, will eliminate any effort for new drilling.

CHAMBLISS: Well, it's actually designed to do just the opposite, Rush. First of all, our bill has nothing to do with whether or not the moratorium remains on after September 30. That's going to be an up-or-down vote on either continuing resolution or some sort of omnibus bill. That's where it will be included. I intend to vote to lift the moratorium. I think all five of us will do that. I'm sure all five of us will. This doesn't have anything to do with that. What it does have to do with is we've got a commitment for the first time that I can remember in my now 14 years in the Senate, a significant number, although five may not sound significant, but it really is. We've got five Democrats who are willing to say, "Look, you know, we think we need to be reasonable and we need join with you guys, so let's work on a compromise bill that will allow additional offshore drilling," something we haven't done in the last 28 years. And sure, we had to make some compromises on the other side, but what we've got is this. We've got common ground. Is ANWR common ground? Absolutely not. I voted on that, Rush, as you well know, I got elected to the House in '94 with --

CHAMBLISS: No, no, no. It doesn't address ANWR one way or the other, but we knew Rush that we would never be able to get 60 votes and we will not get 60 votes on ANWR in any piece of legislation right now until we get enough like-minded, folks, in there. But this bill that says while we know we can't do that, we can drill offshore. We're going to open up additional areas, plus --

CHAMBLISS: Well, four states will have -- but, look, the Gulf of Mexico is where the oil is. And that's where we're going to start with in this bill. We're going to protect the beaches of Florida. That's why the 50-mile barrier is there.

RUSH: Okay, so the 50-mile barrier -- see, the thing that has people upset about this is that everybody's assumed that the Democrats are going to sweep to major victories in the House and Senate and a landslide in the White House. This drilling issue came along with a tipping point of four dollar a gallon gas, finally Senator McCain had an issue the Republicans could embarrass Obama with and perhaps ride to victory, because the vast majority of the American people want to do the opposite of what the Democrats do. So nobody can figure out why compromise with the Democrats and cut the knees off of Senator McCain.

CHAMBLISS: Well, it doesn't cut Senator McCain's knees off. It really complements his position, but what it does do is it provides an opportunity to send a message to the markets that, wow, the president is serious about lifting this moratorium, and now we've got ten members of Congress who have come together in a bipartisan way who say also we're going to lift the moratorium, we're going to allow more drilling. Look what's happened to the market since we started this conversation. Just in the last week since our legislation was announced, our draft discussion was announced, we've seen a further reduction, Rush, in the price of a barrel of oil. Now, we're not taking credit for that, but the fact is the markets understand that finally Congress is not at loggerheads. Congress is serious about expanding offshore drilling. They do want to drill now and they want to drill in places where we know there's oil.

RUSH: But Senator, the Democrats don't want to drill, and the obstacles to drilling that are apparently in this bill are going to make it impossible to succeed. I mean, letting the ACLU and animal rights groups and so forth have a regulatory role or at least a right to protest here, which is just going to make the permit process extended over and over and over. I don't see the Democrats compromising anything here.

CHAMBLISS: Well, they agreed that we move into additional areas of the Gulf of Mexico, they've agreed that we go to places like Virginia where the two senators there want to immediately take advantage of this, and we don't know whether there's oil out there or not off the Atlantic coast. We think there is gas out there, and we will have the opportunity to have immediate access, but let me mention one other key point to what we agreed to, Rush. One argument we've heard is that if you start drilling now, it's going to be ten years before you see any results of it. Well, in the Gulf of Mexico, where we, number one, know there's oil, know there's gas, there's something else out there that is key to immediate effect on the market, and that's the infrastructure. They've got the pipelines already existing in the Gulf of Mexico, and if a driller were successful out there in the short term, we could immediately see some impact in the supply. And as you and I well know, supply and demand is what is causing the price--

RUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I know the ten years thing is a bogus thing. The Democrats are trying to shut down -- I mean they've turned oil into a campaign issue demon. It is amazing. So you say you've got five Democrats -- by the way, we're talking with Georgia senator Saxby Chambliss -- you say you had five Democrats that were willing to compromise with you, moving in our direction. It's the first time in 14 years. Why not make 'em come a little further?

CHAMBLISS: Well, if we could have, I assure you we would have. We had some very heated discussions between our members, even though everybody was respectful and professional with each other, but we did try to move 'em. I would love to have ANWR in there. I would love to have oil shale in there, although the technology with the oil shale is not quite where we could take advantage of it right now. And I think this, Rush. I mean when people see and understand that with the technology we have today, drill in areas even where we've drilled before, and from an environmental sensitive standpoint not interfere with the environment, I think it gives us the opportunity to open up ANWR. Otherwise, I'm afraid symbolically it's going to be extremely difficult ever to do that.

RUSH: Well, to me, that whole environmentally friendly stuff is a straw dog because it's been environmentally friendly for decades. We haven't had spills from rigs. We haven't had leaks from rigs. The oil facilities pumping and drilling and so forth, we've had, you know, tanker spills and so forth, but the actual infrastructure to get the oil is clean as it can be. We're not destroying anything with this. And the politics of this is what has some people upset. They see Republicans always compromising with Democrats to move things forward, and they want Democrats defeated, not compromised with.

CHAMBLISS: Well, what my constituents tell me is that they don't like paying four dollars a gallon for a gallon of gas, and upwards of that. And if Congress could just quit their partisan bickering and come together on this as well as some other issues, they would see relief. And I think they're right. We're not going to see any relief as long as we just stand on the floor and butt heads with each other. So it's not --

RUSH: If butting heads with them leads to them losing elections, and you getting enough senators on your side of the aisle to have no worries about having to compromise, I mean that's the gold standard. Time is running short here, and I just want to get one thing clear.

RUSH: The Wall Street Journal today says that this deal is essentially what Harry Reid wants, that it guarantees no drilling because, even though there's four states that can drill, states have to decide it, you've turned the decision over to the states, the 50-mile limit and the new regulations, the analysts of this bill on our side say this is going to result in no meaningful discoveries.

CHAMBLISS: Well, if that's true, then they're telling you something entirely different from what our analysts are telling us. We did our homework on this. We did our research. The folks that we talked to say there is additional oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. It's there now; we know where it is. There have even been wells that have been shut down, down there. If they're within 50 miles, we won't be reopening them, but if they're outside of that, potentially they could be. So we know there is oil and gas there. The question is, Rush, whether you want to have access to it or whether you want the issue out there from a political standpoint. And I know and understand that. I understand that we're winning on this issue, but at the end of the day we have the opportunity not only to win on the issue -- because it's pretty clear, Democrats as a whole, don't want to drill; Republicans do -- but people know that the price at the gas pump is not going to come down until we do have the opportunity to drill. As long as we stay where we are today and keep the issue, we don't have the opportunity to drill. But if we do have a compromise on offshore drilling, we can drill within a short period of time.

RUSH: Senator, thanks for calling. People, I'm sure, wanted to hear what you had to say about this, as we opened the program with it, and I understand your office is being bombarded with calls, as are some of the other Republicans. So thanks for calling in and telling us your side of this.

RUSH: I have everybody asking me, "How do you respond to that call?" Ehhhh. Look, I think, folks, something is pretty obvious -- and I say this with all due respect, and I'm glad Senator Chambliss called. You and I, who have adopted the principles of the nation's founding as the things that guide us (the preservation and expansion of individual liberty and all that fall from that) consider ourselves to be in a war with the forces of the left who want to usurp as much of that liberty and reshape this nation as far from the founding as they can. So obviously we're in a war, and we don't see compromise. We see freedom versus less freedom, where do you compromise there? Why are we who seek freedom to give some of it away, just in order to show the American people we can get along?

And to come up with some efficient bill that nobody will admit is a great bill, but got this notion we gotta get something done. So you and I look at this and we're at war here. Kids and grandkids, the future, you want the country to be preserved and even improved, and it just appears sometimes that people in our own party are surrendering. They don't look at it that way. They don't think they're surrendering. They think that they are making progress 'cause they look at all this through a different lens. They look at it as being criticized if they don't get anything done in a legislative body. We look at legislative bodies not doing anything as victory, 'cause what do legislative bodies do? They write laws limiting freedom.

They empower bureaucracies made up of people who are not even elected. So we have a simple issue here that has been highlighted by the workings of the market. We have emerging democracies and capitalist markets all over the world putting an increasing demand on the supply of oil. When there is not enough oil to keep up that supply, the price rises. We have learned that the tipping point in this country for gasoline, given all other market conditions is four bucks a gallon. It's once it hits four bucks a gallon and once jet fuel hits its equivalent. Do you really know the airlines are gonna close something like 60 to 90 million seats on flights from now to the end of the year? That's because there's less demand to fly. JetBlue the other day said they're going to start, what, selling bottled water and pillows, or renting the pillows when you're flying.

They gotta come up with something. They can't raise the fares, to be competitive with other airlines. So then we learn that we're importing an increasing amount of our oil every year and we have it thrown in there that some of these people from whom we're buying the oil hate and us they're dictators and terrorists and so forth and so on. That's neither here nor there, because the market will take care of that kind of stuff but just the fact that we have to import it when we don't have to. We have our own, and it's a very simple thing to do. Most people say, "Okay, we already drill. They drill for oil all over the world, and the world has not died and the world has not been destroyed. We drill for oil everywhere." Okay, so why don't we go drill our own to lessen the dependence on these other places, increase the world supply, bring the price down, create some jobs in the process?

We have a Democrat Party that says, "No! Inflate your tires and get tune-ups, but we're not going to drill. We're going to get you driving these little Smart Cars with windmill propellers on the back." While the ChiComs are stepping up the SUVs and bigger cars, Americans are living retrograde lives because of the price of gasoline. So we've got a perfect issue. Democrats: anti-progress. Democrats: for high prices. Democrats want you angry. Democrats want you suffering. Democrats like gasoline at four bucks. The American left likes you angry at what food costs because they think they can convince you it's Bush's fault, therefore the Republicans' fault. All of a sudden the Democrat presidential candidate fumbles the issue big time. Surveys in individual states and nationwide show a majority of the American people want to drill. "Drill here, drill now." Millions have signed a petition.

We got Republicans in the House of Representatives who are trying to embarrass the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi into coming back and having a debate -- and then out of nowhere, five Republican senators sign a compromise bill with Democrats that limits new drilling to four states and no closer than 50 miles to the coast, with new added regulations and think it's a victory because they've come to a compromise. I guess if you're a legislator -- member of Congress or House or the Senate -- I guess you figure the definition of progress is "getting something done, when most of us view progress as, "Just leave us alone, you know? We get this moratorium on drilling. Let it go. Let the ban just expire." That's all that has to happen, and then we got free rein. So while we look at this as a very important battle in a war, some people on our side don't see it that way. They see it simply as a thorny little legislative issue that if we can just come to some compromise deal, then we can say we've made progress. So they just look at it differently than we do.

RUSH: I had a story in the stack here. Barry, The Messiah, is going on vacation. He's going over to Hawaii and the Democrats are in a tizzy. He doesn't have a running mate. Caroline Kennedy cannot find a running mate. They gotta keep John Edwards away from the convention somehow because of the Enquirer story on his love child and his babe [Update]. Byron York has a story today, by the way, the media all knows this is true, they just don't want to be the ones to report it because this is the Enquirer. They didn't have any problems reporting BS about me in the Enquirer. They didn't pause for five seconds and they didn't have any problem taking any news about O.J. from the Enquirer. But now that the Enquirer news is about the Breck Girl, "Oh, jeez, I hope we don't have report this, make it go away, can somebody else report this so I don't have to?"

You got the Clintons, he's going to speak on Wednesday, she's going to speak on Tuesday, she wants a roll call, they're taking over this convention it appears. By the time they get through and this Breck Girl thing, his speech on Thursday night's going to be anti-climatic. Now, on Monday, ladies and gentlemen -- and some of this stuff might leak before Monday -- on Monday, the Atlantic magazine is going to publish a story written by Josh Green. Josh Green obtained 130, approximately, internal memos. There are about 200 internal memos that Josh Green obtained, 130 or so of which he plans to scan and post online. These are former advisors to Hillary Clinton, who are now in a tizzy over this piece in the Atlantic Monthly that chronicles the inner workings of the Hillary campaign. When the piece is published sometime next week, readers will be able to scroll through the memos from people like Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, Geoff Garin, to see what exactly was going on inside the infamously fractured Clinton organization. This has some former team members in panic, and I'll tell you why, because I myself as a powerful, influential member of the media, have obtained shocking lifted sentences from a memo. Shocking.

Clinton team internal memos referring to Barack Obama as "unelectable." Clinton team internal memo saying Barack Obama has a lack of American roots. Clinton team internal memo: Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun. Those are the three references that I have. Now, 130 of these 200 memos are going to be posted online. No wonder the Clinton team's in a tizzy, 'cause this Atlantic Monthly guy got hold of these, and they're trying to peg everybody in the Republican party as racist. They're trying to peg everybody in the Republican Party as sexist and bigoted and homophobic, and when these memos are seen, if the three things I have are any indication of what was said about Barry, The Messiah, by the Clinton interworking team -- (interruption) -- well, oh, there's no question. Mr. Snerdley just asked me, "Who leaked this, and why?" Do you have to really think about that? Do you really have to think about who leaked this? Who do you think leaked it? You don't think she would? You never, ever trust a Clinton. Nothing that happens with the Clintons is a coincidence. You don't think she'd leak this? Ha-ha-ha. You don't think he would leak it? Maybe their fingerprints aren't going to be on this, but there are any number usual suspects in this. Who would be able to get their hands on internal Clinton memos, ladies and gentlemen? They say the campaign was fractured and disorganized and so forth. I mean, it wouldn't be Patti Solis Doyle who left the Clinton camp, got canned, she's over now working for The Messiah, The One. So it doesn't matter who leaked it. It's going to come out, and everybody's going to wait with bated breath all weekend because I think more of these things are going to leak. The point of this all is, with this kind of disarray -- FinancialTimes.com: "Democrat Jitters as Obama Heads for Hawaii. Obama advisor blames McCain ad for poll dip." They are worried. Grab audio sound bite number 15. We put together a montage of the Drive-By Media.

RUSH: Okay, now, the obvious question is, "Who do these people think they are? On what basis should he be so far ahead?" According to who should he be so far ahead? According to them, 'cause they've pulled out all the stops, they've given this guy every tailwind they could give him. They have been pumping this guy, puff pieces, they've been treating him like the president, they've treating him like royalty, they've been treating him like a messiah. Plus McCain's such a wrinkled old white guy, like Paris Hilton said. By the way, I hope, ladies and gentlemen, I'm given to understand that Paris Hilton is going to send a video to the presidents of Russia and Georgia warning them of the dire consequences to the environment should this war continue and expand. I think that's good civics. She does not mention the civilian deaths that might occur in the war and have occurred, by the way, but the damage to the environment. At any rate. So he should be so ahead, why? Well, well, because Republicans always lose, and the country always loves Democrats, and the Democrats are just such a big party, and everybody hates Bush, and everybody hates the war in Iraq, and Obama makes such a good speech, and everybody wants change and has hope in the future and, why is he not doing better? We can't figure it out.

Hey, ask yourselves a question: The guy goes to Germany and rips his own country! The guy comes back and rips his own country to a seven-year-old little girl! The guy thinks elevating pressure in your tires replaces drilling for oil. And don't tell me he didn't say it, 'cause he did. The first thing he said was exactly that. We could save as much as we're going to get from drilling, if we would just properly inflate the tires. No, sir, we cannot inflate our way out of this. So anyway, the Drive-Bys are in a tizzy. The polling data shows that the American people vastly, great majority want to drill here, drill now, want more oil. The Clintons are about to turn the Democrat convention into a war zone. And five Republican senators join five Democrats to undercut the entire one issue that gives McCain and Republicans a slam dunk over the Democrats, and that's drilling.

RUSH: "Why is Obama down? Why is Obama down? Oh, no! Why isn't Obama leading? Why isn't he leading by double digits? Why isn't he just running away with this?" The question is starting to resonate. You know, you Drive-Bys had better stop asking that question on television. You can ask it to yourselves on the planes and in the buses and in the bars, but you go and ask that question on television, and it's a mantra now just like "gravitas" was. It's on every cable network, by every host. "Why can't Obama win? Why isn't he in double digits? Why isn't he running away with this?" You keep asking the question, Drive-Bys, and it's going to start resonating with people, and I think it has started resonating with people. Maybe the question is resonating in this way: What does anybody know about this guy, Drive-Bys? What does anybody really know about this guy?

What does anybody think he or she knows about Obama? Folks, ask yourselves. I know which camp you're in here. What do you know about the guy? You know nothing. You know Jeremiah Wright. You know Bill Ayers. You know soaring, meaningless, vapid rhetoric. You know Messiah. What do you know about the guy? What we know about the guy, what we think we know about the guy, is enough to warn us on. Maybe the answer is all we know is what the media tells us. But what do they know about him? They won't even tell us about John Edwards! The media will not even tell us about the Breck Girl, what in the world are they holding back on Obama? Now, this deal, by the way, this Gang of Ten deal, get this. I talked about some of the regulations in this bill that are onerous. Try this. This deal would allow drilling if -- if and when -- the EPA and PETA and states and cities and counties and the ACLU clear the way.

It would put up more barriers to drilling, which is what the Democrats want, because they want no drilling, period. Five Republicans go along with it. By the way, Snerdley, as to your leak question, the Clinton staff is who's nervous here, not the Clintons. The Clintons are very happy that this is going to happen. But the Clinton staff, some of these people, if Barry gets elected, they're going to need gigs. They're going to need jobs in the Democrat Party. They're going to need jobs somewhere within the Democrat hierarchy, and here there are memos coming out referring to this guy as "not native," "lack of American roots," "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun." It could be Mark Penn. You know, Mark Penn, the staff, the Clinton staff hated Mark Penn. They hated him all over the place. They wanted him out of there, and they finally got rid of him. It could be payback time. Who knows? Doesn't matter who did it, we're just glad that it's happening.

RUSH: Try this headline from the Rocky Mountain News: "With the Democrat National Convention in Mind, the City of Denver has Banned Carrying Urine and Feces." A story written by Daniel Chacon, let me share parts of this story with you: "Poo and pee dominated a public hearing Monday on a new law that prohibits people from carrying certain items if they intend to use them for nefarious purposes. The law, crafted in advance of the Democratic National Convention, was adopted unanimously by the City Council. But not before a hearing laced with comedy and profanity. Representatives from some of the groups planning large-scale protests during the DNC this month said the ordinance was unnecessary and accused city officials of fear mongering. 'The intent of this ordinance is to try to smear protesters and make them look as if they are somehow criminal or somehow going to engage in some kind of gross conduct,' said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the Recreate 68 Alliance." Why would they think that, Glenn? The name of your group is Recreate 68. What happened in 68? Utter chaos, bombs, tear gas, and all kinds of burning fires, raging fires and automobiles in Chicago in 68. Recreate 68?

So now they can't tell you that you can't carry poop and pee around, and you get mad about it? You mean you intended to? "No, Mr. Limbaugh, we're just afraid of what this is going to make people think of us." Don't worry about that, Glenn, people already have you people sized up, and we're hoping you perform, baby. (laughing) We hope Recreate 68 means exactly what it says. What was the name of that weapon that these protesters used? The crap cannon. The protesters were afraid that the cops had this device called a crap cannon that sent out certain kind of waves, and it caused the protesters to lose control of their bowels. So there may not be any need, Glenn, to carry feces around. You may just be able to bend down in the street and pick some up here after the crap cannon has been used on you people. Can you imagine the city council having to pass laws saying you cannot carry feces? I guess you can carry feces and pee around if you don't plan on using it for nefarious purposes, but if you plan on using them for nefarious purposes, you can't do it. (laughing) Oh, this is just too good. I don't know who's gonna check this.

"The ordinance makes it illegal to carry certain items, such as chains, padlocks, carabiners and other locking devices." What is that, what's a carabiner? Have you ever heard of that? Anyway, you can't have one of those. You can't have other locking devices, either. "It also prohibits the possession of noxious substances. Two of the most frequently used examples of a noxious substance are a bucket of urine and a 'feces bomb.'" And this is what protesters have been known to use, so they've been told they can't do this. "Safety Manager Al LaCabe said the law will be applied in situations when certain items are going to be used in a disruptive way. He said officers will consider the totality of the circumstances. 'Our intent for this bill is not about suppressing or chilling First Amendment rights,' he said." Of course not, the Constitution clearly says you can run around and throw feces at people as an expression of free speech. The situation is when certain items are going to be used in a disruptive way. Can you imagine the city council debating this? At least they voted unanimously for it.

RUSH: TIME Magazine. Michael Grunwald, headline: "'The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke' -- How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day--" make that a field week, Michael. "--and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled 'Barack Obama's Energy Plan' to Washington reporters. But who's really out of touch?" You see where we're headed here, ladies and gentlemen? "The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling --" I'm not going to read this. They go on to try make the case that Obama is closer to right than I am, that this whole thing is a joke.

"In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge," writes the sycophantic Michael Grunwald. "But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears." Smears? There's no smear here, Michael. See, this is another classy example. Attack a Democrat for what he says or what he does and make it truthful, and it is a smear. It is an attack. "The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis." No, they don't. I have nothing against conservation, Mr. Grunwald, but you cannot grow an economy like this country's with conservation. It ain't going to happen, it isn't gonna work. You gotta bone up. You Drive-By people are exhibiting your own selves to be rather ignorant about some basic fundamentals, not in politics, but in economics. So he's worried that all these attacks on Obama and his tire gauge thing will dissuade people from conserving. Hey, Michael, you gotta realize, like President Bush said, these people in the country know what to do in crises, quote, unquote. They're driving less, Michael, they're already doing it without somebody telling them to. They're flying less, Michael. The airlines have parked over 400 airplanes. They're buying less, Michael.

In fact, the oil price is coming down. Got a story from Fortune magazine. Oil prices are falling sharply and that's good news, but not nearly as good as you think because lower oil prices, according to the Drive-Bys, may now lead to a recession. Yes, my friends, sit tight, be patient, and I will explain this. As far as Michael Grunwald at TIME says, "The tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: We can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle." So he's all worried that making fun of the tire gauge is going to dissuade you people, you idiots, you morons, from conserving. So that's step one in bailing Obama out of the fire. Then the AP actually does a fact check on inflated tires. "John McCain and his Republican Party are gleefully mocking Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion that properly inflated tires could help save oil. The thing is, there's some truth to it." It's not what he said. The Drive-Bys have to protect their little guy here, but that's not what he said. He said you could save as much as we would gain by drilling. "Obama may have exaggerated when he said simply inflating tires and getting regular tuneups would save just as much oil as the offshore drilling McCain is proposing. But automotive experts long have suggested those steps to cut gas bills. ... The Obama campaign could not provide figures to back up his claim that inflating tires and getting tuneups would save just as much oil as could be produced by offshore drilling. ... but McCain wants to lift the ban to alleviate high gas prices."

RUSH: Sacramento, California, my adopted hometown. This is David. Nice to have you here, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Yes, sir. I'm an automotive instructor out here in Sacramento and Obama's comments about regularly scheduled tune-ups is kind of idiotic because we don't do tune-ups anymore.

RUSH: Well, some people's cars still require tune-ups. But what is an automotive instructor?

CALLER: Well, we try not to use that term anymore because of the technical complexity of the automobile.

CALLER: Well, it's a little bit more technical than that, but students nowadays, technicians really need to understand electronic diagnostics so much more than just changing brakes or whatever.

RUSH: You gotta know far more than how to read an oscilloscope now, that's for damn sure.

RUSH: Okay. So you teach people to become automotive technicians, which basically correct any of the high-tech problems that go wrong with today's modern automobile engines. So there's no tune-ups really, there's not a tune-up in the sense that there used to be some years ago?

CALLER: Right, that's correct. What we do now, other than just regularly scheduled maintenance like oil changes, air and fluid changes, those kinds of things, tune-ups really are a thing of the past because of the onboard diagnostic systems that the onboard computers have, the computer basically tunes itself up constantly.

RUSH: Yeah, what kind of cars are we discussing here? How old a car do you have to go back to to find one that would require the Obama mandated tune-up?

CALLER: No, sir. And especially 1996 and up where the computer is better able to basically tune itself up with what we know as adaptive strategy.

RUSH: Okay, fine. So Obama doesn't even know about that, doesn't even know we don't need tune-ups. So let's go to inflating tires for optimum pressure to save oil. Could you shed some light as an expert, automotive technician instructor on Obama's claim here, because two stories in the Drive-By Media say that it really could make a big difference.

CALLER: Not as big as they're saying. Keeping tires properly inflated does help with your average fuel mileage, but not to the degree that they say.

RUSH: How does that work. Is it a degree of drag and friction as the tires circle and travel over the road surface?

RUSH: Rolling resistance. Fine. Now, do we take time after factoring rolling resistance based on the proper inflation of tires, do we then factor whether or not we have head winds or crosswinds which will add air friction to the road friction which might negate any savings made from properly inflated tires? Especially with all the windmills that are out there --

RUSH: -- the left has been creating all this new wind in the opposite direction which it's coming. If that wind for the new windmills happens to get in the way of a car with properly inflated tires traveling down, say, Interstate 80, wouldn't it be safe to say that the effect of properly inflated tires could be negated?

CALLER: We could say that. The only wind resistance that is taken into account is wind resistance based off of the frontal area of the vehicle as it travels down the road.

RUSH: Well, the frontal area of the vehicle, would it help then for people who are driving pickups to lower the tailgate to reduce resistance?

CALLER: That's long been an idea but it really doesn't pan out. It's really not as big an effect as people once thought it was. It's really a nonfactor.

RUSH: All right. Now, if your tires are properly inflated -- by the way, at what time in the driving history, when you start the car, after you've driven it for a couple of minutes, when do you check the tire pressure to make sure it's proper? Because of course the air in the tires is very cool first time you start it in the morning, doesn't take long to expand the air in those tires and therefore expand the tire pressure. At what point is the optimum point to take the pressure and make adjustments?

CALLER: The optimum time is to take it before you even drive down the road because with every mile that you travel, the temperature of the air inside the tire increases pressure by about -- I take that back -- ten degrees in air temperature changes pressure by one pound.

RUSH: So the manufacturer suggested tire pressure for front left, the rear left, front right, rear right, that should be done before you make a move.

RUSH: Now, if the tire pressures are low or high -- well, let's say low. If they are low, do they then not have to drive someplace on improperly inflated tires to get the correct amount of air put in there?

RUSH: Oh, no, they won't, because that will negate the whole point, if you're using more power there, we're trying to reduce our carbon footprints here. Now, properly inflated tires from the get-go, how many miles driven at what speed will cause those tires to lose their proper inflation? And therefore, how often should you stop to check on the properly inflated -- and if you've been driving say an hour at 75 miles an hour, do you need to wait for a half hour for the tires to cool to get a proper measurement of the inflated tires?

CALLER: No, not really. Because the inflation pressures that the manufacturers list on the vehicles are cold inflation pressures. And as we drive during the day, of course, the tires heat up, air temperature heats up and then air pressure goes up as well. You really have to let the car sit for a good eight hours or so for the tires to properly cool off --

RUSH: That's what I'm saying, it will impact a tremendous amount of people's time. And then, of course, if you happen to get in an accident, somebody rear ends you, you happen to cut down a pedestrian or something, that's gonna affect tire pressure too, so a lot of variables.

RUSH: Spartanburg, South Carolina. Dave, you're next. Thank you for waiting, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, good afternoon, Rush. Just for the sake of saying Mr. Messiah Tire Gauge is right and checking the pressure in the tires is going to offset drilling offshore, wouldn't it be even better to do both? Because just think of how many gallons of gasoline we could have, how it would drive down the price of gasoline and a barrel of oil.

RUSH: You want to combine both: the drilling of new oil here in the United States, the continental shelf; plus the proper inflation of tires, to double the effect of the oil that we are drilling?

RUSH: I think it's a brilliant idea. I think you should... We need to pass this on to the McCain campaign because Obama may be on to something, 'cause if we can inflate our tires and get as much oil as we are going to get drilling, why, then we can still inflate the tires properly and do the drilling and get twice the oil!

RUSH: And the price will come down even more and our independence will be greater. We'll assert our independence on these people that are raping us even better.

RUSH: That's a brilliant idea, Dave. I'm glad. It was worth the time for me that you held on to pass that bit of brilliance on. I really like it. That's great thinking.

Time Magazine: Obama is right; go out and inflate your tires and the crisis will be over (honest, that is the gist of what it says):

Nedra Pickler of the AP tells us: Besides the recommendation to keep tires properly inflated, Obama also suggested providing incentives for people to trade in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars; investing in research and development to produce new fuel-saving technologies like long-running batteries; encouraging innovation in alternative energies; and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient..

Any idea how long this will take? Any idea when this will actually replace our need for oil?

RUSH: I kid you not. "Oil prices..." This is from Fortune magazine. It's from yesterday, last night, actually. "Oil prices are falling sharply, and that's good news, but not nearly as good as you might think. No doubt the drop, which is..." Let me check and see what it is. It was down to $118 earlier. We're at $119.61 right now. So the drop-down to $119 a barrel "down to $120 by mid-day Monday, gives strapped consumers relief at the gas pump. Prices have dropped below $4 a gallon and could be headed toward $3.50, going by trading in wholesale futures markets. Any decline will be welcomed by Americans struggling under the burden of falling house prices, rising layoffs and stagnant wages. But," dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut, "falling oil prices also suggest that the recession the US has so far avoided is well on its way, as consumers pull back from the spending spree that drove economic growth earlier this decade.

"A weakening economy will mean more layoffs, further pressuring already reduced spending. 'There is no doubt that with gasoline prices dipping below $3.90 a gallon we have a bit of a reprieve on the energy front," Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a report Monday, "but the reality is that this is a chicken and egg game because the decline is reflecting the consumer recession.' ... Americans are driving 4% less now than they were a year ago, Rosenberg writes, while energy use in inflation-adjusted terms has dropped 2% -- an event he calls 'extremely rare.'" Why isn't everybody happy about this? Isn't everything that's happening here exactly what we have been preached to for decades we should do? We should stop driving. We should buy smaller cars. We should use less gasoline. We should stop spending so much money, period. We should start saving; we should stop consuming.

This is what the left has been telling us. Now that it's happening, now they say it's causing us to head into recession. Is it any wonder that people in this country are confused about what their economic circumstances are when this kind of stuff gets reported? "Meanwhile, the weak economy is spurring more companies to cut back. Outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas said Monday that layoff announcements jumped 26% from a month ago in July. The unemployment rate recently hit a four-year high at 5.7%. How low can it go? One unhappy fact is that a drop in the price of oil won't bring back many of the jobs lost over the past year to the energy-cost surge. Even were gas to fall to $3 a gallon -- a move that is by no means assured -- no one is going to beat a path to the dealership to buy pick-ups and SUVs that are now, in many cases, being phased out. ...

"On a happier note, there is hope that the decline in oil prices has just begun." So look at what we got here to start the program. We got, you can't carry urine and poop at the Democrat National Convention. We have two arms of the Drive-By Media suggesting that Obama is actually quite brilliant and on to something by telling us to inflate our tires properly, get tune-ups, we can save as much oil (i.e., gasoline) as that we would get if we drilled -- which is patently ridiculous and absurd, and yet they're circling the wagons and doing it. Now, after how many months of stress, pressure due to the high oil price, now that it has fallen from what? What did it get up to, 148, 150? Now that it has come down, 150 to 119, all of a sudden it proves we're heading into a recession! Now, I know what the economists are saying, and this is where I think these people get a little too smart by half.

The statics that they cite are that people are using 4% less gasoline and spending 2% less overall is a function of affordability. It's a function of price. I told you when the barrel price got up and was flirting with $150 and everybody was predicting $200, I said, "The market won't support that. The aviation industry could not tolerate that. They'd go out of business." Well, lo and behold, we reached a tipping point, and people started buying less, for whatever reason. So when the supply is increased because people are buying less, guess what happens? The price comes down, exactly as it should, and now we're being told that your driving less and spending less is due to the fact that you know that we're in a recession; when in fact it was nothing more than the high prices. Now, the high prices have come down, and they're trending even lower. A correction is taking place. And you are probably, many of you probably excited about this. Isn't that what this campaign has been about? The seminal issue in the presidential campaign has been the gas price and the Democrat Party's reluctance to do anything about it. Now that the oil price is coming down and all the related good aspects to it, the media still has to tell us we're doomed.

RUSH: From the New York Daily News: "Bill Clinton regrets some things he said and didn't say on the campaign trail, but there's one thing he still can't utter and that is that Barack Obama is ready to be president. Kate Snow of ABC News was interviewing Clinton and said, 'Do you think he's ready? Is he qualified?' And Clinton said, 'You know what, I mean, you can argue that nobody's ready to be president. You can argue even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can really be fully ready for the pressures of office.'" He just will not say it. He just will not say that Obama is qualified! He said his wife was, but, of course (chuckles) it's his wife. What's he going to say? "Clinton and his wife argued in nearly every speech that she was ready to be president on day one, obviously," but that Obama still today is not. I saw the video of this morning, just before the program began, and it was just funny to watch.

Clinton was saying, "Ah, you know, I don't think anybody's qualified. How do you know anybody's qualified? When I became president, I mean, I learned things in there. I didn't know what was going on before I got there. Who would have thought...?" He was right, there are a lot of us thought he wasn't qualified. He also said, "Hey, look, it's not for me to say. The Constitution defines the qualifications for president. The Constitution is the one that does that. And as long as he meets the qualifications of the Constitution, then I got nothing to say about it." Now, this is a former Democrat Party president who will not endorse the current nominee. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, they haven't even decided if Clinton's going to have a speaking role at the Obama convention.

And we have one more Clinton story here. This is from the Boston Globe: "President Clinton acknowledged an interview that he regrets some of his comments during the Democrat presidential nomination but he denies that he made racist statements about Obama. Ask whether he blames himself for his wife's loss, Clinton said, 'There are things that I wish I had urged her to do. There are things I wished I had said. There are things I wished I hadn't said, but I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment. I didn't attack Obama personally. They played the race card on me," and you know he's right about that. They did. They played the race card on him. You have to cut him some slack here because he's right. "I bragged on Senator Obama hundreds of times." He's in Rwanda, by the way, over there apologizing. He's continuing his private foundation work to fight AIDS in Africa.

"I never was mad at Senator Obama. I think everybody has a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. I'd be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition." This is three weeks now. The third day of this, rather, the third day of all this racist stuff, and it all bubbles up from the Democrat campaign. The Politico has a story by Ben Smith. "Race Card Flap Reopens Clinton Camp Wounds." I'll just read a paragraph to you. "When John McCain's campaign manager last week accused Obama of playing the race card, the Clintons or their supporters could have provided a powerful rebuttal. Instead they were silent and in private some even quietly cheered," because the Obama camp did play the race card against Clinton. No question about it.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, our Morning Update today bounces off an Associated Press story that talks about not only are you suffering economic hardship, so are the wealthy. The wealthy and the rich are finally beginning to share the pain that everybody else in this country is feeling. They are hurting. They are scrimping and scraping and saving and they're doing everything they can to make ends meet just like you. Here's how bad it is according to the AP. The wealthy "have decided to invest their money more conservatively." In the past, the wealthy didn't care whether the money did well or not in the investments. They just gave it to the broker and went to the golf course. But now things have gotten so tight that the wealthy actually care whether or not their investments are growing.

It's a big, big change obviously. Everybody knows the wealthy don't care about their money. They just give it to the broker and if it loses some, fine! Write it off, go play golf, and buy another airplane. But now those days are over, folks. Those days are over. Now they have to pay attention to their money and increasing its amount and size. According to the Associated Press, the wealthy and rich have cut back on all sorts of luxury items and they've cut back on their credit card spending. In fact, a lot of the wealthy are in default at American Express. I read the story. Some of American Express' financial problems right now are that the wealthy are simply saying, "To hell with the bill," like Aristotle Onassis always did. You get to Onassis status, and you never pay the bill anyway. It's demeaning. They just carry it. You know, some accountant will take care of it later, but Onassis never paid the bill.

You just give him the card and walk out with your own card after they chalk it up that you don't pay for it, but now they are defaulting. "Some of the wealthy..." This is really... I mean, this actually makes me sad when I see these next items. Some of the wealthy, some of the rich "have asked their personal shoppers to look for bargains." I can't tell you how humiliating this is. The wealthy are sending personal shoppers into Costco now, into Wal-Mart, Target and so forth, looking for bargains. This has never happened before. The wealthy of course look for the highest priced goods, go out and buy them, and then brag to everybody how much they cost. But those days are over, ladies and gentlemen. Personal shoppers, who themselves have rarely been to a Target or a Wal-Mart have now had to, A, find out where the nearest one is, to the wealthy person they work for, and then they've had to go in there and look for bargains.

They're deal hunting, the rich are, some of the wealthy. This is especially devastating to learn. The rich who have their own airplanes, their own private jets? They have told the flight attendants and the flight crew to forget fancy catering services offered by the various airports and instead find a cheap deli near the airport and go there for some baloney sandwiches and cottage cheese, some dill pickles, and maybe some tomato and mozzarella. But no more fancy-schmancy catered meals on the private jets. That's humiliating. I hope they're able to remain anonymous. Obviously the Associated Press found out about this, so the staffs of these people -- the flight crews -- are obviously talking. Then there was a story about this poor guy in Long Island, put his mansion up for sale for nine million, and had to sell it for seven.

That's an embarrassing thing for people to find out. I mean, times are really tight for the rich, too. Now, normally we've been told, a lot of people been told to celebrate this. We had a phone call from an Obama supporter last week who was all excited Obama's going to raise taxes on the rich because it's going to improve his life. Which is one of the most dunderheaded comments that I've heard in the last couple years on this program, but he actually believed it. This guy is actually the one that's going to get hurt if Obama starts raising taxes. So with this story, that even the rich are suffering -- and, by the way, that was not the point of the story. The point of the story is yet to come. The rich are suffering and you all, we're all supposed to be happy. "Yeah! It's about time they found out what it's like!" Then the AP takes a curious turn, ladies and gentlemen, warning you not to celebrate any of this yet.

"The scrimping rich," according to AP, are contributing to your economic woes. Do you know why? Well, when the rich stop spending money as though it were water, everybody else's money dries up. Why, AP writes, it ripples through the economy! Quote, "The problem is that when the wealthy get stingy, it trickles down to the rest of us." This, ladies and gentlemen, constitutes journalistic malpractice. The first half of the story, we're happy as hell that the rich are hurting and suffering. Now all of a sudden, because they're getting "stingy," that's the word in the story! These cruel people, they hate you when they're really rich. They hate you when they're scrimping and saving; they are stingy. And you get hurt when they are stingy, because they are spending less, which means less opportunity for you to have more.

Now, remember the way the left and the Drive-Bys always attacked trickle-down economics. The theory of trickle-down economics, which has just been confirmed here by the witless reporters at the Associated Press, holds that the more money the wealthy have to dispose of as they wish, the more

likely that will end up spread out trickling down through the economy -- i.e., in new jobs, in business expansion, or in retail spending. Now, this is a simple question rooted in fundamental logic: If we are going to lament the rich getting stingy, meaning spending less money 'cause times are tight for them, then why at the same time can't we recognize that tax cuts for the rich also benefit all of the rest of the people who are not? So what you have is a glaring illustration of the utter agenda-driven focus of the media, their utter bias, and their genuine ignorance. Somebody ought to realize at the editor level that this story contradicts about 25 years of news stories that AP has run. The only thing consistent in this story is: No matter what the rich do, they're still SOBs.

RUSH: Here's a shocker, folks. I know you won't believe this. This is from McClatchy newspapers: "With four days left before the start of the 2008 Summer Games, Chinese officials have not lived up to key promises they made to win the right to host the Olympics, including widening press freedoms, cleaning up their capital city's polluted air and respecting human rights." No! I am shocked. I cannot believe this. They lied to us, the ChiComs lied! The ChiComs lied to the world, not just to us! The ChiComs lied to the media! The ChiComs lied to the Drive-Bys. The Drive-Bys thought they were going to have all kinds of new openness and access, and they're being shut down and severely limited.

By the way, did you see our bicycle team got off wearing black face masks to protect their respiratory systems? Ha! But the ChiComs are saying, "Don't worry, we're going to get rid of the smog and we're going to get rid of the rain. We've got this handled."

Anyway, the article continues: "Near Tiananmen Square in the heart of the city, police scuffled with protesters who said they were evicted from their homes to make way for Games-related development. Chinese censors continued to block access to politically sensitive Web sites for thousands of foreign journalists gathered at the Olympic press center." They lied to us! They lied to the world. I can't believe it.

RUSH: Yesterday on Stephanopoulos' Sunday show, the guest was Nancy Pelosi. Now, we have three bites here. The first bite is a montage -- it's comical -- a montage of questions that Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi because he knows, Stephanopoulos knows this issue is killing Democrats. And you'll hear here, he begs Pelosi to allow a vote. Question after question after question. But he never got the answer he wanted.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why won't you permit a straight up-or-down vote? Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling? Why not let it -- let it be debated out and have the vote? So what exactly are you trying to say? Why not allow votes? Why can't they have a vote? Just to be clear, you're saying you will not allow a single up-or-down vote, not going to permit a vote? Why not allow a vote on the drilling? Let me move on to another issue.

RUSH: That's how many times he asked the question of Nancy Pelosi yesterday on his own Sunday morning show. Now, here are a couple of bites of Pelosi herself. I don't know if you saw this, but this may have been her worst performance on a show like this, out of her league, eyes were just bug-eyed -- it was the strangest thing. She knows that she's guilty here. She knows she's got big problems, but she's hanging tough. And I'll tell you over on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw, John Kerry was nonsensical as well, and poor old Brokaw, he was so upset at the McCain ads that are being run against Obama. CBS had a cow. The only reason they're having cows over those ads because those ads are effective, they work. Exactly right. Okay, here. Stephanopoulos says, "If you feel that you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling?"

PELOSI: What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. We have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our -- our balance in all of this and not just say, but for drilling in unprotected -- in these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

RUSH: We have a planet to save. These people are so full of themselves. They are going to die of anal poisoning unless they do something quick. Did you save the planet by leaving town, Ms. Pelosi? You save the planet by shutting down the Congress? You save the planet and you have an economy to grow? What do you know about growing an economy? Every thing that you are oriented towards here is going to do great damage to the economy. In a sane political world these people would be the biggest jokes. None of what they say makes any sense. It's either wrong or flat-out lies. Here's one more, Stephanopoulos says, "Okay, why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as speaker you promised in your commitment book a New Direction for America -- let me show our viewers -- you said bills would generally come to the floor under procedure that allows open full fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives. If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have their vote?"

PELOSI: They -- they'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and they may get a vote. You never say never to anything. You know, you have to -- people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as speaker of the House and of this 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to save -- reverse global warming. I am not giving the gavel -- I'm not giving the gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things, that supports the oil -- Big Oil at the cost, at the expense of -- of the consumer.

RUSH: Folks, do you realize what she just said here? May I translate this for you? Aside from the, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, they'll have to use their imagination parliamentary to get a vote, aside from all that, "My flagship issue as speaker has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." What are the House Republicans wanting to vote on, Madam Speaker? Drilling domestic oil. And then she says, "Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reversing global warming." So we have idiots, genuine leftist, socialist idiots. She knows this is the stuff her audience wants to hear. I go back and forth as to whether she's really this dumb or not. Every time I hear her speak I get closer and closer to concluding that she is this dumb, not just trying to speak the words and thoughts that her critics want to hear.

RUSH: Do you think TIME Magazine would ever do a cover store on Nancy Pelosi where the headline is: "Is Nancy Pelosi Good for America?" as they did with me? Do you think they'll ever do a headline, cover story in TIME Magazine referring to her as a Grinch who stole Christmas? Do you think they would ever do stories about how she's stubborn and obstinate and blocking progress, as they do when Republicans stand in the way of what Democrats want?

RUSH: Everybody is chatting in one way or another about Paris Hilton, the celebutard's retort to the McCain ad that had her and Britney Spears in that commercial making fun of what happened over in Germany in front of 200,000 people. If you haven't heard this, this is Paris Hilton's ad, it's at funnyordie.com, which is a website that's been put together by a bunch of former Saturday Night Live people.

HILTON: Hey, America, I'm Paris Hilton and I'm a celebrity, too. Only I'm not from the olden days and I'm not promising change like that other guy. I'm just hot. But then that wrinkly white haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I'm running for president. So thanks for the endorsement, white-haired dude. And I want America to know that I'm like totally ready to lead. Okay, so here's my energy policy. Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency, and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates' ideas. We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved. I'll see you at the debates -- (bleep) --

RUSH: She called both candidates b-i-itches there. We bleeped that out because of our standards on this program. Now, actually, when you listen to this the first thing you realize is that Paris Hilton didn't write it, but that she delivered it pretty well. It's pretty well done and it's funny, and it's a great retort. But now we've got Paris Hilton in the presidential campaign. I don't know for how long, but she's in there. Now, you just heard what she said about her own energy plan, which, on the face of it, sounds somewhat reasonable. It's not, but it sounds reasonable. Takes elements of both sides, we keep drilling here and that will tide us over 'til all these miraculous new things come to fruition, which they won't any time soon. Listen to Laura D'Andrea Tyson who was one of Clinton's primary economic advisors and is now on The Messiah's team. By the way, this again dispels the notion there's anything new and unique, untried in the Obama camp. This was yesterday on DNCTV. The anchor, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, asks Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Obama economic advisor, "Obama, who voted for the energy bill in 2005, which Democrats had long called the Cheney energy bill 'cause it came out of his task force, so isn't [The Messiah] a little bit vulnerable on that?"

TYSON: We need a multifaceted energy policy. It includes some drilling, bringing a million electric battery vehicles onto the roadways by 2015, increasing our dependence on renewable energy and electricity, doubling it to 10% within the first term of the Obama administration.

RUSH: All right, I don't care what she said. I want to compare the way she sounds with Paris Hilton. Now, we gotta be fair here. Paris Hilton was obviously reading from a teleprompter. I doubt that she memorized the lines, but she might have. I don't know. In fact, Mike, why don't you play number ten again and then a very short period of time after that we'll play Paris Hilton, so 10 and 11 of the sound bites here, and you just compare which of these two women, the Obama economic advisor or Paris Hilton, sounds more intelligent.

Which woman sounds the more intelligent here? I mean, you gotta give it to Paris Hilton, don't ya? I mean, a straight up-and-down vote, you gotta say that Paris Hilton sounds a bit more cogent, a little bit more informed, a little bit more confident, a little bit more up to speed than Laura D'Andrea Tyson, plus Paris Hilton has the added benefit of being hot. But that didn't influence my vote, I'm just saying. Now, beyond this, beyond the fact that we have proclaimed -- (interruption) What do you mean, only me? Well, I'm not trying to inflate Paris Hilton to intelligence. I'm just doing a side-by-side here, and I'm telling you how I hear it. You know, I'm a social commentator, I'm an observer and I hear these things, and it seems to me that Paris Hilton sounds a little bit brighter, more informed, more confident on the issue than Laura D'Andrea Tyson, who is Obama's economic babe. I know it may sound funny, but it's true. Aside from that, the policies are identical. What Laura D'Andrea Tyson said and what Paris Hilton said are identical. So is Paris Hilton actually a celebutard, or is she an Obama advisor? Or is whoever wrote it for her an Obama advisor?

[I have to admit that she can read a script and sound better than Obama or McCain; and she has actually run a business of her own, putting her light years ahead of Obama when it comes to experience; and she is, admittedly, hotter than McCain]

Another 2^nd grader engages the Obama’s on Iraq: Thank goodness for little children! I'll say this much for the Obamas: No one has more interesting political conversations with second-graders than they do.

One of the biggest failures and worst mistakes that we have made as a nation is ethanol. This is what happens when the government finds some golden-boy solution, without much investigation, and supports this solution full-force. It is the reason the government ought not to subsidize anything.

Although much of McCain’s campaign is lackluster (he is an old dude), now and again he hits a home run. Handing out tire gauges as representative of Obama’s energy policy was tight.

Conservative Review
Issue #37	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	August 10, 2008