All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 23, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:36
August 23, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, okay, the research project that I commissioned Mr. Snerdley to conduct for me has just been completed.
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You're tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in America, the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's been that way for over 15 years and shall continue.
I am firmly ensconced as America's truth detector and America's anchorman behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I told Mr. Snerdley, I said, I want the name of the Gold Star mother of the Ranger killed and dead in health and shot in Mogadishu and then dragged through the streets.
And we're still looking for that mother, but here's what we found out, that the Gold Star Mothers is an organization of mothers who have lost a son or daughter in the service of our country.
They were chartered, I believe, in 1929.
And when you go to their website, you find a little box on their homepage, and inside the box is text.
And since I went to the public school system decades ago, I can read what's in the box, and I'm going to read it to you now.
Cindy Sheehan is currently in the news.
She and her organization have no connection whatever with Gold Star Mothers.
We are a 501c3 organization and as such do not engage in political activities.
We do support our troops.
After all, they are our children.
So what Sheehan's done is apparently stolen the name and then added for peace.
So hers is Gold Star Mothers for Peace.
And it's not to be confused with Gold Star Mothers.
Also, we are recalling that the father of a Ranger killed in Mogadishu refused to shake President Clinton's hand after he received a medal for his son's bravery.
And of course, this father was trashed and criticized for his disrespect to the president during this incident.
Some of the wounded soldiers refused to get their pictures taken with Clinton when he visited them.
And of course, this was never a big cause celeb in the U.S. media because the media, as a previous caller said, is never anti-war when a Democrat is the war-mongering president.
By the way, folks, we have a new George Soros ad just came in over the transom.
How far will George W. Bush go in pursuit of Iraqi oil?
All the way.
Bush coordinated the 9-11 attack with bin Laden to create a pretext to invade Iraq.
Iraq.
Bush murdered Sheehan's son Casey to create a destruction from his real pursuit, Iraqi oil.
And right now, George Bush is building an internment camp in Iraq the size of Sacramento.
Just so he can deport all the citizens of Vacaville, California to Iraq, starting with Cindy Sheehan.
So if you want to stop George Bush from going all the way, sell your house and donate now to moveon.org.
That far by George Soros and Gullibo Friends of Cindy Sheehan.
As we like to say here, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
From the Washington Post, we have a story on nuclear weapons and Iran.
Now, let me preface this by saying yesterday, we pointed out to you an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.
And this was an op-ed piece by, I think, I'm not sure as an Iranian, but the man clearly said that, hey, we might want to rethink our policy here on Iran and let them have nukes because they will then, you know, they won't feel threatened and they'll feel like big guys and they won't feel put upon and it'll just give them self-esteem.
We should reconsider our policy here.
Now, what I found odd about this is that I can't recall the LA Times being in favor of nuclear anything anywhere.
Nuclear power here, nuclear weapons here, nuclear, I mean, the LA Times, editorially, seems to me, has always supported getting rid of nukes, but all of a sudden when it comes to Iran, let them have them.
But then today comes this Washington Post story by Daphne Lindser.
Traces of bomb-graded uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
A group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waiving is now eliminated with these conclusions, said a senior official who discussed the still confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Scientists from the U.S., France, Japan, Britain, and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pour over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Oh, that's comforting.
That's Mohamed Al-Baradai and his gang.
Recently, the group whose existence had not been previously reported, this group of super-secret scientists, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.
The conclusions will be shared with ElBaradai's board members in a report due out the first week in September, according to U.S. and European officials who agree to discuss the details of the investigation on the condition of anonymity, of course.
The report will say the contamination issue is resolved, a Western diplomat said.
Now, early September, first week of September, you know what else happens around that time?
The UN opens for business.
The General Assembly gets together and the bar scene from Star Wars is enacted.
And Bush goes up there and makes his speech about how great things are going and how great the UN is.
And so we're going to be greeted that week, very close to when he goes up to make his speech with news that there are no problems with nuclear weapons and Iran.
U.S. officials eager to move the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, which has the authority to impose sanctions, have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for nuclear bomb building.
Of course, sanctions don't work, countries like this.
John Bolton, you may be wondering.
By the way, UN's still there.
I'm happy to report.
Bolton's been there, what, about a month now?
And the UN's still there.
Top floors are still there.
And the UN is still functioning, even though Bolton is there.
He doesn't really believe all of this.
He said another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to and providing false and incomplete reports to Al-Baradai's gang.
For example, he says Iran first denied that it had enriched any uranium.
Then it said it hadn't enriched uranium more than 1.2%.
Later, when evidence of uranium enriched to 36% was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts, i.e. from Pakistan.
So we have this dilemma.
We have Bolton and a couple of others.
I don't believe this for a second.
These people lie.
They are trying to put together a weapons-grade uranium program, but these anonymous scientists from the U.S., France, Britain, Japan, and Russia, meeting in secret, say no evidence of this whatsoever.
So it's up to you, folks.
Some of you are going to be very comforted to know that Iran is just huffing and puffing here about nuclear weapons.
They're not close.
They don't have anything.
They're not even trying.
Or they are and are lying.
The Washington Post seems to be convinced that this is all a big smokescreen about nothing, that there is no enriched uranium and nuclear program going on in Iran.
A quick timeout.
We will be back and continue in mere moments.
Stay with us.
Not a dry eye in the house, folks.
Not a dry eye in the house.
Phil Collins, what do he had here?
I got an interesting email note from a friend of mine last night.
And it's, let's see, what is this?
I guess it's, that's the Lexington Sub, Lexington, Kentucky newspaper.
I don't know if it's AP or not.
A peace vigil.
And this is actually from August 18th.
So this happened on August 17th.
A peace vigil last night in Lexington's Triangle Park was one of about 1,100 gatherings nationwide.
The vigils showed support for Cindy Sheehan.
Lexington's Mark Comely says that he would like to join Sheehan in Texas.
He lost his son last week in Iraq.
This war is just another Vietnam.
It's chaos over there.
Time to get out before their families are hurt like mine, said Comely.
Mr. Comely said he doesn't believe his son was in Iraq to protect freedom.
Okay, the headline, Lexington Peace Vigil, just one of hundreds that was across the U.S.
And my friend had a better headline, a suggested headline.
The headline would be, an estimated 299,950,000 Americans avoid nationwide peace vigils.
Which is certainly more accurate.
Try this, folks.
The leading contenders, I'm not making this up.
This is not.
I want to tell you at the outset, a parody.
The leading contenders for the presidency of Mexico plan to launch their 2006 campaigns this fall in Los Angeles.
Sometimes you just have to laugh.
Sometimes that's all you can do.
Last month, Mexicans living in other countries were given the right to vote by mail, beginning with next year's presidential election.
And the candidates are seeking to woo support from Mexican immigrants in the U.S.
But they'll have to begin their campaigning in the U.S. early because Mexican laws bar campaign appearances outside the country after candidates are selected this fall.
Well, who came up with that idea?
What do you mean candidates can't campaign outside the country?
What a rotten deal.
They've got to change this.
But they can still vote by mail.
There are an estimated 10 million adult Mexicans living in the U.S., and about a third are eligible to vote in the Mexican election, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The leading contender for president is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City.
His campaign lieutenant first spoke of a visit to Southern California in July during the inaugural of the new Los Angeles mayor.
If Obrador visits on September 15th, which is Mexico's Independence Day, what is Independence Day?
I'm going to L.A. I'm trying to take this seriously.
If Obrador visits on September 15th, Mexico's Independence Day, we will have at least 100,000 people lining the streets to see him, said Felipe Aguare, the former California chairman of Orbador's Democratic Revolution Party.
The California chairman, the former California chairman of Orbador's Democrat Revolution Party.
The president of Mexico has a California chairman.
This is just, let me keep reading.
Uh, Roberto Madrazo and Arturo Mantel, who are seeking the nomination of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, both plan to visit L.A. as well this fall.
The PRI held the presidency in Mexico for 71 years before losing in 2000 to Vicente Fox of the National Action Party.
Mexico allows only one six-year term, so Fox must step down next year.
He is supporting Santiago Creole, his former interior minister.
Creo hasn't said if he'll go to California, but Pan's president, the National Action Party president Manuel Espino, will visit L.A. this month, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Longtime immigrant Jose Ángel Gonzalez of Norwalk, California supports the PRI.
Oh, this is great.
Now we're introducing, we're interviewing Californians that are going to vote in the Mexican presidential election.
What are they, what?
Don't know, but they've got to get to Long Island next.
I mean, and then they got to go to Arizona and then New Mexico, Texas.
Can you, you know, stop and think what this is going to mean for local media down there in terms of ad revenue.
I mean, you've got to start the Mexican presidential race.
They're going to be running TV ads in the L.A. market for the Mexican presidential race.
Yeah.
And they don't have any campaign finance reform restrictions.
They can spend as much as they want.
They can say whatever they want.
Yeah.
I mean, this is going to be fascinating to watch, folks.
Imagine that.
You people in L.A. are going to be first-hand witnesses to the Mexican presidential campaign starting soon in September.
Ted in Grand Haven, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Rush, I will never sit in this office again and think you do not take enough phone calls.
I am just so pleased that you took my call.
Thank you, sir.
Listen, I voted wholeheartedly for President Bush, and I even had the privilege of meeting and feeding him lunch when he was in a campaigning in Muskegon, Michigan.
But I have to admit to you that I have been feeling very wobbly about him over the past six months, the way he's handling the war, and even perhaps thinking he should meet with Mrs. Sheehan.
But you have spent the last day, and especially the last couple of hours, showing the contradictions of President Bush, or excuse me, President Clinton and Mogadishu and focusing on the media and the mother of that naked soldier in Mogadishu.
And that is what you need to do.
You need to continue to do that because I am so behind President Bush right now.
You have given me the clear picture of President Bush's determination, and that is what I needed.
And the call 45 minutes ago about President Clinton, what he was doing, and all of that back in the 90s, listen, he said, and this is stated, in 93 after the World Trade Center attack, he was going to hunt down, quote, hunt down and punish those responsible.
The USS Cole attack in 98, I believe, he was going to hunt down and punish those responsible.
And all those other terrorist attacks against our country, President Clinton spent more federal dollars hunting down and punishing Microsoft and Bill Gates than he did terrorism.
Amen, bro.
And that caller 45 minutes ago needed to hear that.
And I'm mad, but I'm not.
I want to address, and by the way, folks, somebody has to say this, and if I don't, it won't get said.
We had another bang-bang monologue in the first hour.
And if you missed it, it'll be up at Rush Limbaugh.
In fact, Coco, I want to do the same thing tonight.
We update the site as I did last week.
I want the, we don't have any ditto cam of it, but we've got audio.
We'll have the transcript.
I want you to put the first hour on the free side at rushlinbaugh.com today.
For those of you that missed it, you've no doubt heard about it.
If you missed it, you need to go back and access this and read the transcript and listen to it.
And Ted, you know, the first part of what you said, you said that you began to go wobbly on George W. Bush because you said you were not sure the way he was handling this.
I don't think that's what it is.
You know what I think it is?
What?
I think the reason you and other people are going wobbly is because of two things.
You've got a constant barrage from the left in this country and the mainstream media about how rotten it's going, and you've got Bush not responding to it.
I think you're right, Rush.
Bush is not using the bully pulpit.
Bush is not advancing the movement.
Bush is not advancing the cause.
He's giving five speeches this week.
But his speech yesterday, and I hate saying this, it says big buildup.
Bush coming back out.
Five speeches, resetting the table on the Iraq war.
And it's just the same thing he's always said.
Now, in one sense, that's good.
Shows he's being consistent, but he's creating expectations that aren't being met.
When he comes out with a new speech, people are like, oh, okay.
He's going to meet fire with fire.
He's going to come back and he's going to come out with something new and he's going to let them have it.
And it's not new.
And I think that's part of the reason why you and others are starting to go a little wobbly.
Need some leadership from the White House on this.
That's all we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
Great to have you with us.
All right.
We're going to go to some audio sound bites here, folks.
The first one is a montage of mainstream media robots.
They all work off the same template.
They all work off the same page.
We have Bill Plant.
We have Bob Beckle.
We have David Gregory.
We have Suzanne Malvau.
We got John King.
We got Dana Bash.
We got Nora O'Donnell.
We got Jessica Yellen.
We got them all here.
And they're all reacting breathlessly to President Bush's comment yesterday in Salt Lake City, where he mentioned the number of dead in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
1,864 members of the armed forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 223 in Operation Enduring Freedom.
Now, as you know, the media has been keeping a body count.
And when we got to 1,000, they said it was a milestone.
When we got to 1,500, they said it was a milestone.
And they now say we're approaching the milestone of 2,000.
They're keeping a daily count, and they seem to be happy about it because they seem to think that the number of dead and it, as it ever mounts, will suddenly turn the American people against this president.
And so yesterday, when the president mentioned the actual numbers, the press considered it a huge victory.
And they tried to make it sound like he finally had to come to grips with the horrors of his own policy.
It's the first time the president has indicated any empathy whatsoever with the people of this country who are losing their sons and daughters.
Let me listen or play for you while you listen the montage as the press all just had a conniption.
Well, it was like a giant circle.
Never mind.
Just listen to it.
Mr. Bush, for the first time, addressed the actual casualty numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The best new thing he could say was to list the number of people who had died there.
To date, 1,864 American forces have died.
Mr. Bush cited the numbers to make a point.
The president, for the first time, using the exact casualty numbers from Iraq and also Afghanistan.
He also, in an unusual part of this speech, actually used hard numbers, casualty numbers.
This was the first time he actually used the numbers of those who have died in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The president decided to cite the casualty numbers.
The president today, for the very first time, he specifically said that there have been 1,864 U.S. troops killed in Iraq.
It was a stark recitation of the numbers.
He had never spoken of that number aloud before.
And for the first time, he acknowledged the number of troops who have died on his watch.
Okay, now what we have, we had CBS represented here.
We had NBC.
We had Fox there with Britt Hume.
We had MSNBC.
We had CNN 1-23 times.
We had ABC.
Proving my point.
You only needed to watch one of these networks to get the story.
But it doesn't matter.
You can pick one.
It doesn't matter which one.
Just pick one and you'll get the story that's going to be on the other networks.
And it's predictable.
It's just predictable.
News is now being packaged like a product put on the shelves.
And it is being marketed the same way as those who market toothpaste and cereal on the shelves.
News is not what you think it is.
News is not what happened that you don't know about.
News is what happened that the people that put it together think, aha, this will advance our agenda.
Under the guise that this is what happened that you didn't know about.
Here's Elizabeth in Indianapolis.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Major Hoosier Megadittos.
Thank you very much.
Rush, I'm going to just go back for a second and talk to you about the if it bleeds, it leads.
And it ties in with...
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Folks, she's going back here to the first hour monologue.
I'm not going to repeat the whole thing, but so you're going to, you're talking about something that happened two hours ago, so the listeners might have a little trouble putting what you say in context, which is what I'm trying to help do here.
Sure.
But if it bleeds, it leads is the new media mantra for what they're going to report.
If there's a car bomb and there's a bombed-out car, it leads.
Right.
If there's blood and guts, it leads.
Whatever.
If it's devastation in America for America, it leads.
Right, and it's not new.
This is not a new policy.
Sensationalism has always led because sensationalism is what brings in the ratings.
And in this case, I blame the consumer because if we weren't watching the shows and we weren't tuning in to see the same video over and over and over again, they would have to find something else.
If I may, could you cite one of these outfits that's winning in the ratings?
I really can't.
You can't because they're losing ratings.
ABC, CBS, NBC, losing ratings.
CNN.
They're losing ratings.
You need a magnifying glass to find CNN's audience.
You need five telescopes to find MSNBC's audience.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Okay.
Sensationalism and the money.
So don't blame.
The audience is doing the right thing.
The audience is punting.
They are and they aren't.
Because when this first, this is a formula that started a long, long time ago.
Yeah, but primarily in local news.
Yes, in local networks, absolutely right.
But we do need to speak out because I just ripped into the general manager of a local CBS affiliate here because his morning anchor keeps using or keeps calling our president Mr. Bush.
And I called him up and ripped into him and the really lame excuse I got from him was, well, I've heard others do it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And, no, I just, you know, being in journalism and seeing this, this is a formula that I noticed happening, you know, back in the late 80s, and that it grabs the people, it brings them in, we stay glued to our monitors when we see school shootings.
Well, in local news, yeah, when they show you the latest SUV attack on an innocent citizen, yeah, that, you know, that holds you.
Or when they show you some school bombing or whatever.
But I blame the consumer, though.
If we didn't tune into this, they wouldn't have to show it.
They'd have to find something else to hold our interest.
Well, but I understand, but I'm not trying to be a broken record here, but it's difficult to blame the consumer when the consumer is tuning it out.
They may not be tuning out at the local level, but they're tuning it out here at the, what do you think all this is about?
The people of this country, a large number, are fed up with the fact that there's only one side of the story being presented every day and night in Iraq or from Iraq.
And they're sending letters to the editor of newspapers that are only presenting one side.
They're sending letters to the editor of television shows and so forth, the news shows.
And they aren't watching it in the numbers that they used to.
There's no question about it.
And I don't think it's just because of the sensationalism and the blood and guts.
And if it bleeds, it leads.
I think more and more people now are wise to the game.
I think more and more people understand now exactly why they're seeing what there is.
I'm not going to name the network there.
There is a network today that is obsessed with Pat Robertson.
This network has called me no less than three times asking me when I'm going to talk about it so they can record it.
This network hasn't cared one whit about any of the outrageous assassination threats that George Bush gets from members of the left.
It's so patently obvious.
That's why I knew they're going to be listening.
That's why I keep saying the mainstream media does not set the agenda of this show.
If you want to find out what I think, report what I think.
Not what you care about, what I think on your interest.
But if you want to report on this program, actually report what happens here.
But don't think you can call here and set up a premise where I'm going to fall into your trap to help you try to condemn the entire conservative movement.
The jigs up.
Ain't going to happen anymore.
And if I did say something about it, it would just be to tweak them.
Where they wouldn't understand it, and they'd report it, and it would be cast as the absolute worst thing in the world that had ever been said.
In fact, I'll tell you what it is in this context.
I was talking to guys around here, and I was telling everybody I got at least three different inquiries.
And they all want to know what I was going to say about Pat Roberts.
And I said, you know what this is?
In fact, I even got an e- before this even happened.
I got an email from a friend today who said, this Robertson stuff is just unfortunate because you know the mainstream press is going to try to link you with it.
And I'm not kidding.
Five minutes after I get his email is when I get the first inquiry about this.
So I'm on HR down here today and Snerdley and I'm saying, you know what would be fun to say?
And they don't say it.
Don't say it.
Even if you put it in total context, it'll be misreported.
They won't report your context and they'll report as though you actually said it.
And I said, well, I will have actually said it, but in the guise of tweaking them.
You think I should say it or not?
Snerdley thinks, now you think I should.
Okay, here's what I was toying with it because I knew, and it still may happen.
Let's see if it happens.
Let's see if what I'm about to say to you ends up being reported as, and Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the Pat Robertson controversy yesterday by saying, blah, Okay, let me say at the outset, I am not weighing in on the Pat Robertson controversy.
That's not what this is about.
I am tweaking the mainstream press, desperately hoping I criticize Robertson so that they can lump me with him and all of us with him to try to discredit the whole of the conservative movement.
And so what I would say, we were toying around with here, well, Pat, why did you not include Castro?
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Ralph Peters, brilliant author, columnist for the New York Post, has a nominee for August's most important unreported story.
While the media were in a frenzy over Cindy Sheehan, the armed forces have quietly exceeded their recruitment goals for fiscal year 2005.
Every one of the Army's 10 divisions, its key combat organizations, has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date.
Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates.
The first cavalry division's at 136% of its target.
The third ID at 117% of its target.
What about first-time enlistment rates since that was the issue last spring, the Army running at 108% of its needs?
Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
The Army Reserve's a tougher sell given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice.
Recruitment, reserve recruitment stands at 102% of requirements.
What about the Army National Guard?
We've been told for two years the Guard was in freefall.
Really?
Guard recruitment and retention comes out at 106% of its requirements as of June the 30th.
As Mr. Peters says, this, by the way, from the powerlineblog.com, as Peters says, patriotism's alive and well, but what do the young men and women who enlist and re-enlist see when they open a newspaper?
They see the Cindy Sheehan extravaganza, predictions of disaster, the depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes in a ceaseless attempt to convince the American people there's no hope in Iraq.
The ugly truth is that much of the media only cares about our soldiers when they're dead or crippled.
That's their story.
If the major media weren't too self-absorbed to see the liberal cocoon or outside it, they'd be ashamed of themselves.
And they're not capable of shame.
They're not that deep.
They don't have that much depth.
Well, what do you make of this, folks?
I mean, all this, busting these recruitment goals in these right in the midst of all of this.
If that doesn't buck you up about your country, I don't know what can.
Now, I got to share these next two soundbites with you because it's a total change of pace, but I promised myself I'd get these in today.
And so I'm going to fulfill the promise.
What I have is, first off, is a story from the Times of London.
It's about a woman named Annie Clayton.
She has a book, video, or whatever called Bring Your Husband to Heal.
And she says you can use your skills as a dog trainer to retrain husbands.
How does it work?
Well, all animals from parrots to goldfish to gorillas learn in the same way.
If something's worth doing, we'll repeat it.
If it's not, we won't.
It's called operant conditioning.
Why are men like dogs?
Because they bite visitors, because they leave hair on the sofa?
Research says that dogs and humans learn in the same way.
I suppose there are similarities.
They're both omnivores.
They like to be warm.
They copulate in the same way or similar, don't they?
But there's no husband bashing in this, she says.
We examined every wife's behavior first because you can't change somebody else's actions until you've changed yours.
You're happily married.
Did you have to train your husband?
Here we go.
That's just the story leading into the soundbites.
This babe was on Good Morning America today.
He was on ABC.
And this is a BBC show, How to Train Your Husband, by this woman.
It's a dog trainer.
And it's a new series that teaches wives how to train their husbands using techniques meant for dogs.
Here's how Annie Clayton, a canine behaviorist and host, opens her program.
Now, pay attention, ladies.
I've been training dogs for nearly 20 years, but I've been married a whole lot longer.
And I firmly believe you can train a husband like a dog because, well, they both learn in exactly the same way.
I'll let you into a little secret.
I'm living proof it works.
I have more tradition years.
Okay, and here, just one more segment.
A portion of ABC correspondent Jim Schudo reports on this BBC program.
This is what he said.
Meet the show's first husband and wife and master and student, Margaret and John Elliott, married for 37 years.
It is all about throwing bones.
More good dog than sit and stay.
You're going to ignore what you don't want anymore.
Replace that behavior you don't want with something that you do want, which is helping you with the dishes.
But you must reward each tiny, tiny little increment towards the whole.
Margaret practices on a real dog first.
Husbands can relax.
She will not be using the leash at home.
And then with hidden cameras recording every moment, she puts the formula to the test on her husband.
And John, to his own surprise, ends up just another puppy dog.
The men are kept in the dark.
They're told they're taking part in a relationship study.
It's not until the very end that they find out exactly what they've gotten themselves into.
There was a guy that worked at BBC who quit last week, who wrote a piece at a London newspaper about how the country's going to hell over there because it's totally been running by, being run by female thinking.
News organizations have been totally feminized.
And I just find it interesting that this story comes on the heels of that.
I want to squeeze one phone call in if I can after the break.
So let's take it and be right back.
I think we need to send this dog trainer babe to Abu Ghreb and let her take her leash there.
Janice in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
30 seconds I have.
Thanks.
Hey, Rush.
This has got to be the best show you've ever done.
Wow, that's saying something.
Well, you have made our drive from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, which is about four hours, seem like 30 minutes.
Well, that's awfully nice.
I appreciate that.
I really do.
I've enjoyed this show.
And that's why we call this the fastest three hours in media, by the way.
But, you know, I've enjoyed this.
I've been fired up to do this show ever since I started doing prep for it today.
Actually, it started last night, so I'm happy that you feel that way.
Thanks so much.
We've got to go here, folks.
I'm interviewing Kurt Weldon for the next issue of the Limball Letter here in about 15 minutes.
And I'll be back tomorrow and do it all over again.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection