All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:28
August 26, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh, this is going to be a great day, folks.
I mean, just strap yourselves in.
We got the Washington Post has now found conclusive evidence that John Roberts is a racist.
We've got audio from Timkin High School in Canton, Ohio, about why so many of his female high school students there are pregnant.
They still haven't figured it out.
We got a great story.
A professor, you may have seen this in the New York Times uh claiming he quit the Bush environmental wacko team uh for felonious reasons or fallacious reasons, and this guy said the the New York Times just totally took him out of context.
Thank goodness there are blogs and other forms of media to get the truth out there.
It's a great illustration of exactly what's happening and all kinds of other stuff.
It's Friday soul.
Let's go live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
It's the fastest week in media, and we're already here at the end of the week.
And if you'd like to be on the program, uh here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Open line Friday.
We open it up.
Uh to pretty much whatever you want to talk about.
If you have a question or comment, feel free.
Always look forward to open line Friday.
You never know what you're going to get out there.
All right, now I I want to I want to tell you people something.
I intended, I intended, I honestly intended to come in here today and punt this whole Sheehan story.
I'm just gonna punt it.
It's old hat, it's it's you know, I've had it.
Just like I said, this has become one of these stories we're getting tired of, but I can't.
Because I've stumbled across some new information I want to tell you about.
About who really it is that uh is behind her and what their agenda is and how they're using her, and then she may be willing accomplice in it.
I don't know, but you need to hear about this.
Uh and uh, but I'm not gonna do it first.
Um I'm gonna do other things.
Plus, Reverend Sharpton plans to join the peace, mom.
I feel partially responsible for this.
Uh and and Reverend Sharpton, what time is this show on?
Is this sh is this talk show started?
I know it was supposed to start this month, but I don't know if it's on the air or not.
Uh but Reverend Sharpton, I'm uh if you're listening or if you have friends listening and could get to you, don't do this.
Uh not not on the eve of your of your new talk show.
This is this is not your place, Reverend Sharpton.
I and I feel partially responsible because I was I've been asking, where are the uh elected Democrats?
Where are, and I know he's not elected, but he fashions himself as one anyway.
He's run for the presidency.
But where are the John Carries and the Hillary Clintons joining this uh this uh this protest?
Where are they?
They're nowhere to be found.
And I I think uh obviously word of this uh question has reached Reverend Sharpton, and he sees an opportunity.
Reverend Sharpton, I'm I'm trying to help you here.
This is you don't want to get anywhere near this, especially, especially after you hear what we have to tell you uh about the the real allies and the people who are sponsoring Ms. Sheehan and the people she's feeding, and by that I mean raising money for.
Uh and it's it's it's not at all what you think.
It's not a bunch of just spontaneously created left-wing wackos.
I mean, they're there now.
They've uh they've glommed onto it and joined it, but this thing is an even bigger fraud than uh than we thought.
But before I get into all that and all the great items that we have for you today in a stack of stuff in the audio soundbite roster, a great thing I want to pass on to you.
This is from Investors Business Daily today, and they did a poll.
And they have, and the reason they did the poll is because they like everybody are confused with such great economic news and such a great economy.
They don't understand why people, when asked about it, feel uneasy or a lack of confidence.
Uh they write experts both in and out of government are scratching their heads.
America's economy is in most respects stronger than it has been in years, says Senator John Kyle of Arizona in a column this week for realclearpolitics.com.
So why are Americans pessimistic about it?
Larry Cudlow, noted economist, wonders the same thing.
He calls it one of the enduring political mysteries of our time.
Writing in the investors business daily a week ago, he uh ran through the ever-growing list of splendid economic reports, but in one poll he noted consumer and investor confidence were down 15% from uh late 2003 when things weren't nearly as good as they are now.
Though Cudlow and Kyle finger the most obvious culprits, high gas prices, nonstop tightening uh the money supply of Federal Reserve and monkeying with interest rates, worries about the war in Iraq and fears about a housing bubble.
Uh, Cudlow also cited a seeming uh unwillingness of the White House to communicate and market an economic recovery message.
And of course, you know, I I'll join that.
I uh uh we talked about this.
I I don't I uh they don't toot their own horns there on practically anything, and I it's a big mystery why.
But still, another reason may be the way the media delivered the message.
Is public confidence, in other words, affected by the spin that news outlets put on the information they disseminate.
To see if there might be a link, we added a question to the investors' business daily TIP poll.
It's a monthly survey in which we asked 900 to 1,000 Americans how they feel about the economy and the president, the direction of the country, U.S. standing in the world, quality of life and morals and ethics.
The added question was this.
Which of the following is a major source of your political and government news?
Newspapers, news magazines, network television, cable TV, talk radio, non-talk radio, and the internet.
Respondents could name more than one.
We then calculated an optimism index for each category of news consumer.
The results are shown in the table above.
We I have the table here, and it's actually below in my stack.
Over 50 indicates optimism below 50 in this uh index uh uh indicates pessimism.
Listeners to talk radio were by far the most positive, especially about the leadership that President Bush is providing and in the direction he's taking the country.
But then talk radio is a haven for conservatives who have fled mainstream media they view as too liberal and too negative.
In fact, when we combined the six categories to determine an overall national outlook index, and then broke that down by demographic group, Republicans registered a very upbeat 63.5% this month.
Democrats uh chimed in at a dismal 35.7.
Also not surprising.
Those who depend most on two bastions of the mainstream media, newspapers and news magazines, had the most negative readings.
Newspapers and the news magazines simply depressed people.
Most of the country's major metropolitan newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, are considered liberal, and so are the leading news magazines, Time and Newsweek.
Viewers of Cable TV were a little bit more positive than those who rely on network news.
This probably reflects the influence of the top-rated Fox News channel, another destination for conservatives put off by the left-leaning sameness of CBS, NBC, and ABC.
And I have that I have that poll here.
And it's too many numbers here to go through this.
When they start talking about a bunch of numbers, you'll lose them.
You won't be able to remember them to compare, so we'll try to link to this uh at uh at Rushlinbaugh.com.
But talk radio listeners, the thing about this is what when as long as I've been around here and as long as the media has been commenting on me, what have they mostly said that uh you as you remember that describes the audience of this program?
Angry white men, right?
They have they have continually attempted to discredit you people and me, and all the other audience at Talk Radio by saying you're just a bunch of fed up angry white guys.
That's all you are is angry.
You're PO'd, and you've had it.
And it turns out it's just the opposite.
The most depressed Americans are reading the newspapers and news magazines.
The second most depressed Americans are watching television.
The most optimistic Americans are listening to this program and talk radio, and that makes sense.
But it's another area in which the mainstream press, categorizing me, particularly now as a competitor, just can't get it right.
And we know they're not even trying to.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue right after this, folks.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back.
Open line Friday, Rush Limbo.
And more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, we're going to get to your phone calls here.
Ill Quickle.
Little Spanish lingo there.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, this next story dovetails nicely with the uh investors business daily poll that shows that the newspapers of America are more depressing uh and the news magazines are more depressing than any other form of media that people access out there.
Earlier this week, and I didn't talk about this because frankly I didn't talk about it because when I read the story in the New York Times, I didn't understand it.
And I'm not going to sit here and talk about something I don't understand, but apparently the story was was egregiously wrong, and the story was about a professor.
Uh this this uh Colorado State University professor who quit a Bush science advisory team researching the causes of global warming said his reasons for leaving the committee were mischaracterized in an article published Tuesday in the New York Times, Robert Pilk, and I don't know how he pronounces his name, P I E L K. E. Pilk Pilk, Pikey, whatever.
This professor, a respected atmospheric science professor, and also Colorado's state climatologist, on Wednesday issued a retort to a Times article in the form of an open letter to the reporter Andrew Revkin.
He said the reference to my perspective and to the reasons I resigned from the committee are mischaracterized and erroneous in the New York Times article.
New York Times could not be reached for comment Wednesday by the collar.
What do you mean you can't reach a newspaper?
How in the world can you not reach a newspaper?
The Daily Coloradoan or the Coloradoan tried to get comment from the New York Times and they couldn't.
Always should be when you call a news organization, somebody's there.
How do you how do you find it?
How can you not reach the New York Times?
The professor was on Bush's climate change science program committee to examine trends of recent surface and troposphere temperatures.
For those of you in real Linda, the troposphere is one of those layers of Earth's atmosphere that's dangerously thin that has Ariana Huffington worried.
He left the committee in a disagreement about views presented in a chapter for which he was the lead author.
He took exception to the Times characterization that as a scientist, he has, quote, long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity, unquote, as written in the lead paragraph of the article.
The professor said, I was very disappointed the New York Times so badly mischaracterized my perspective, but fortunately, we now have blogs so that errors can be corrected, and I've posted my response there.
He uh sent in an email statement from Tucson, where he's attending a conference after speaking with the Coloradoan by telephone.
He said the fact is that science is complicated and sometimes doesn't leave easily fit into views that are black and white.
In his blog post, the professor said the committee was supposed to investigate spatial as well as temporal trends of recent surface and tropospheric temperatures, which in the last version of the report that I saw, it failed to do.
In his post, he also disputed a line in the Times article that said he contends that changes in landscapes like the spread of agriculture in cities could explain many of the surface climate trends.
Said this is a completely bogus statement of my conclusions on climate.
Now, the details, you know, not really all that relevant here.
I mean, in terms of going on with the story.
The bottom line is this is this is a lesson I have been attempting to teach for intensely for the past six years when encountering uh people on the phone on this program who are depressed and downhearted because of what they see in the media.
Bottom line is ten years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, the New York Times could lie about this guy, and thereby create an impression that the lead guy on Bush's environmental team quit because he disagrees with Bush, and because the Bush administration is not going far enough to find reasons to blame humanity for global warming, and that would have been it.
This guy could have called the New York Times, demanded a retraction, he would have not gotten it, and that would have been it.
The difference today is that when the New York Times or any other news organization lies about someone, there's plenty of opportunity for them to go and correct the record When the original publication that made the error will not touch it anymore.
And this is this is such a great thing.
This is so positive.
The bloom is off the rose.
The New York Times and the rest of the media that still live in their little bubble 20 and 30 years ago still think that they are immune from this kind of thing.
They are immune from criticism.
They are immune from having to get it right.
And when they do get it wrong, they don't have to worry about correcting it.
It is exposing that they have an agenda.
It is exposing that they will lie to further the agenda.
It is exposing that they will misquote and take out of context to further the agenda.
And it is also exposing that they're not interested in getting it right when the opportunity presents itself.
There's another illustration of this somewhat today.
Paul Krugman has two corrections in his column, The Ferret-like columnist of the New York Times, wrote some outrageously wrong things about the economy and the Florida recount in a recent column.
And he has to correct them because he's being he's being called to test.
You can't believe there are bloggers out there that have made Krugman's life miserable.
Krugman can't get away with one lie today.
He can't get away with it like he used to.
Even one of his corrections about the Bush Gore re-election recount or election recount, he even gets his correction wrong.
So he's now being held up to ridicule for that.
I mean, it's it's a new day out there, folks, and I think the people who have long had this intuitive understanding that something's not right in the mainstream press, you're being rewarded for your doubts.
You're being rewarded for your skepticism.
And the evidence is all over the place, and they're losing their dominant influence.
I don't care what you think.
I don't care how people talk about how they're still able to influence the public mood.
Yeah, perhaps.
No question about it.
This is not something to change overnight, but great and magnificent inroads are being made here.
And so I wanted to call your attention to this because it's a classic illustration.
Little bitty example of what is happening on a much larger scale out there with the uh the mainstream press.
The New York Times is no longer the official newspaper of record.
Too many people doubt them.
Too many people now open the New York Times and do what I do.
You look at it and think you're reading the National Inquirer.
And your reaction when you read the New York Times is something like, Wow, what if this is true?
Well, I mean, that's that's we open a supermarket tabloid weekly world news.
I mean, wow, wouldn't it be funny if this were true?
That's the reaction a lot of people are having to the New York Times, other than their steady, dependable liberal readers who are just sponges and soak up all that stuff anyway, because uh they believe it in the first place.
Now, John Roberts, Washington Post, another classic example.
In the old days, it would have been up to who knows who to refute this.
In the old days, and that's what amazes me by the I must tell you that the the so-called mainstream media still doesn't get it.
They're still beating their heads against the wall.
They still think they can get away with this kind of outrageous reporting and analysis.
This story happens to be about uh by Joe Becker, J. Of a female, and the headline in article, Robert's pen appeared to dip south.
When John Roberts prepared to ghostwrite an article for President Reagan a little over two decades ago, his pen took a Civil War reenactment detour.
A fastidious editor of the of the other people's copy as well as his own, Roberts began with the words, until about the time of the Civil War.
And then the Indiana Natives scratched out the word civil war and replaced them with the war between the states.
The handwritten document is one of tens of thousands of pages of Roberts' files released over the past several weeks.
While it's true, the Civil War is also known as the war between the states, the encyclopedia Americana notes that the term is used mainly by Southerners.
Many people who are sympathetic to the Confederate position are more comfortable with the idea of saying a war between the states, said Sam McZeveny, a history professor emeritus at Vanderbilt, who specializes in the Civil War, saying that Robert's choice of words was significant.
Yes.
Many people who are sympathetic to the Confederate position are more comfortable with the idea of a war between the states.
People opposed to the civil rights movement of the 60s and the 70s would undoubtedly be more comfortable with the words Roberts chose.
This is just hilarious.
I mean, this is So now the guy's a racist.
The guy is a slavery guy.
He's a support slavery.
He went in there.
He's oops, I can't say civil war because I am a Confederate.
Yes, Jefferson Davis, yes, Robert E. Lee, yes to Terra.
Bring back Big Sam.
I want to own Big Sam and bring back.
Hattie McDaniel.
Yes.
My friends, John Roberts, right out of gone with the wind, loves slavery, loved the old South.
The war between the states, he probably he would probably oppose Abraham Lincoln to this day.
That's what this story tries to say.
They don't say it in so many words, but how can you avoid that conclusion that this is their attempt?
They actually think this is going to work.
Bring it on.
We want more of this.
One thing we know.
If Robert Bird reads this story in the Washington Post today, we know that Roberts has his vote.
Sheets Bird will eat this up.
Hey, folks.
You believe this?
This is it is so it's so juvenile.
I mean, a serious newspaper story.
Washington.
I mean, I I just love this.
I just uh we are watching these people descend into an abyss, folks, and pretty soon they're gonna be out of sight.
Let me uh let me let me go to the phones.
Mark and uh since it's open like Friday, we'll go to the phones early.
Uh Mark in Roswell, Georgia.
Nice to have you.
You're up first today, so make it count.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
And it's an honor to be on your show and to serve on the front lines with you in the fight against liberalism.
And this is my first call in 15 years of listening.
I'm so excited.
And I also wanted to identify myself as a longtime free person, the scream name of Newland.
Rush, my call fits in perfectly with the poll results that you announced while I was uh on hold.
And it really keeps this front and center and validates everything that you said.
So I wanted to T1 up for you today and help everybody out there get focused on being on the offensive against liberals.
And we should all be on the offensive.
We won at the ballot box seven of the ten last presidential elections, U.S. and U.S. Congress governorships, state Senate, state houses.
There's never been a better time than now.
So conservatives out there need to stop defending their beliefs and start questioning every single premise, every single belief, every single lie, every single talking point that the left puts forth as gospel, even the sacred cows like pro-choice and social security and the New York Times and the WMD's drumbeat.
These are the questions that the liberal shields of the mainstream media will never ask.
And we need to be questioning everything that they say.
Yeah, and let me tell you something.
I've talked about this quite a bit.
You're absolutely right, and there's a term I use for it.
Um you're describing you're basically saying we need to get off of the defensive and start going on offense.
And the the way to do this is don't accept the premise of liberalism.
Don't even think that you've got to come up with a refutation of it.
You start accepting, you're running into liberal and having a discussion.
If you start accepting the premise, I had an email today from a guy.
Uh he's a subscriber at Rush 24-7.
I wish I would have printed it out.
I didn't.
I'm gonna have to I'm gonna paraphrase it.
But he he started listening to me when he was 17 because his uh somebody in his house did.
He hated me, he despised me.
He was raised as a liberal democrat.
All of his family is liberal democrats, and he literally despised, thought I was a nut.
But as he got older, he kept listening, and pretty soon he found out that who he really thought were nuts with his parents.
His parents would sit around and tell him that after listening to me, he would sit around and uh listen to his parents say the government's responsible for everybody's health care, the government is responsible for everybody's welfare, security, and happiness, and so forth.
Everybody ought to have the same amount of money, it ought to be equal, it's unfair unless the government does this.
And he said he had a brother, and his brother was constantly saying uh war is never the answer.
And he would tell his breed, ask his well, what is the answer?
Of course, his brother had no answer, but his brother would say, I don't have any answer.
All I know is that war isn't the answer.
Well, that is what I remember from the note primarily that illustrates the point here.
So you have a liberal who comes up and says, War isn't the answer.
Don't even waste time with it.
You are you are gonna waste valuable intelligence if you even accept that premise.
All you say is you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
You don't have the slightest idea.
You have no concept of world history.
You have no concept of peace.
If you don't think war has any purpose, we don't have anything to talk about.
I mean, it's if and and stay on offense.
That's exactly right.
And they are on the run.
And the um, you know, it's easy to slip into the defensive mode because you want to debate these people and win the debate and persuade them.
And that's uh debatable what you can because you're not debating intellectually with these people.
You find yourself in an emotional roller coaster with them, and you're gonna get frustrated because they don't know anything.
They're feeling everything.
They don't know diddly squat.
You know a lot, and you're unable to persuade them of it, and you bang your head against the wall, and I guess it's worthless, and it probably is.
Well, then you might say, well, how are we going to persuade them?
Some people are lost causes.
We're always going to have liberals.
I always, you know, I want two of them on every college campus when we wipe them out.
Uh but the the whole point here is there's no reason to be defensive about anything.
What do you mean, Pat Robertson?
You know what the answer to the if somebody brings up Pat Roberts, you know what he let me ask you a question.
Pat Robertson can't say anything.
Where are you asking all these people down in Crawford, Texas, to explain themselves?
Why don't they have to explain what they're saying?
They're saying the president is a murderer.
They're saying the president lied.
They're saying the president, where are you demanding they explain that?
What do you mean me defend Pat Roberts?
I don't know Pat Robertson, you can say.
But it's easy to get caught because you want to defend the people you like, you want to defend your side, you want to do this, but sometimes the premise just don't even accept it.
Just throw it right back at them.
I will give you examples of this as the uh as the program unfolds.
Thanks, Mark, for the phone call.
Uh let me give me line one.
Uh that's what you put up there first.
I was geared for it.
Jeff in Greeley, Colorado, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Ditto's Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
I think you're one of the great minds of our time.
I wanted to shift gears a little bit.
I wanted to get your opinion about Lance Armstrong.
Yeah.
And what's going on?
I mean, uh the paper in France wrote, Never to such an extent has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief.
If this guy was if Lance Armstrong was French, we would hear none of this.
And he would be, you know, a national hero.
But since he's an American, I mean, they've tried to attack him for year in, year out, and I just uh I think it's outrageous.
Well, the two things you have to understand here.
Number one, uh we live in the world of athletes doping.
We've got we've got athletes in America being caught taking steroids and human growth hormone.
We've had Olympic athletes caught.
We've had uh uh and it's been going on for a number of years.
So once once that sets in, uh a question will descend in the eyes of uh some fans.
Well, gee, is anybody clean here?
Is any of this stuff happening for real?
So you have that uh as a as a possible attitude that some Americans have when the Armstrong news hits.
So how do you deal with both of them?
Well, here's here's here's my take on the Armstrong news.
It's the French, and they hate winners.
Pure and simple.
This is a newspaper that's been after the after Lance Armstrong for I can't tell you how long.
They've been after him ever since 1999.
They hate Armstrong, they despise him.
They genuinely hate him, folks, because he wins, and he won the Tour de France seven times in a row.
This test supposedly is from 1999.
Oh, not supposedly, it is from 1999.
That's what?
Seven years ago, seven, six years ago.
It is irrelevant.
It's nothing more than attempt to smear the guy and take advantage of this attitude that exists uh in the United States and around the world.
They don't have to worry about the attitude in France.
They already hate the guy because he wins.
Plus he's an American.
An America comes over and wins their race seven times in a row.
They hate his guts.
The French don't like winners, period.
French love to surrender.
The French love losers.
They band together with losers, they feel sorry for each other together.
They commiserate with each other and talk about how woe they are being in the lower tier of success.
And that's where they draw their comfort.
But here comes Armstrong, and in their face, seven straight years wins their race.
They don't like him.
It's that simple.
He has steadfastly denied it.
This race this year, I've looked this up.
He underwent every sort of doping test there is before this.
He went blood test, urine tests.
They can't produce anything for this year's race.
They tried it last year.
They've got some sample from 1999 now.
And there are some aspects of the sample here that, you know, that you need two samples, and they've got one.
I'm not, I'm I don't know what to call the two samples, they're A and B, but they've only got one sample.
You've got this paper over there, which has been on an anti-Armstrong crusade for as many years as he's been going over there.
He's uh I mean I in the era of Raphael Palmero, if Armstrong's going on uh Larry King Live and all these other places and steadfastly protesting his innocence when he's not, then uh uh he's a bigger idiot than Palmero apparently is.
I still don't understand that.
That's still something that just can't relate to.
But in this case, uh, I think you look at the source for the information, you look at the emotion that surrounds it, uh, and I think it's just an edit effort.
Uh and this, you know, it's almost human nature too.
We love, we love building people up.
And then we love it when they crash and burn.
We just love it.
We love it when the mighty who show themselves stronger and fitter and uh and more successful than we do plummet, because then it makes them look like the rest of us.
And so we love putting them on a pedestal, and then bam o when they fall off of it.
You know, I have a friend who writes uh sports column for the New York Post, his name is Phil Mushnick, he's a good golfer too.
And he had a column three weeks ago.
I had me standing up and cheering here when I read it.
It was a Friday morning.
And it was uh it might have been longer than that, but it was in the eve of the NFL training camps opening.
And his his thrust is that we have ruined good kids by the way we cover sports, the athletes themselves, young kids that come out of college or get into college, then go to professional sports, we ruin them.
Uh we've ruined sports because of sports media.
Let me see if I can paraphrase this.
I don't have his column at my fingertips, and I'm not sure that I can find it in the post archive, but I'll try, because I'd really rather be able to read it to you.
So, Phil, forgive me here if I don't quite get this.
But I give you an example.
Uh an athlete will go on a tear, and the media will idolize and and and slavishly report and profile this athlete or a series of them each and every day.
Uh, don't want to give you any names because I I don't I'm not this is not really uh mentioning uh or the purpose of this not to really attack the athlete.
It's to describe how we as sports consumers are taken on this roller coaster ride.
We hear every day about how wonderful athlete X is.
He does all this for charity, does all this, he does, he's great on the field and so forth and so on, and then all of a sudden, at some point, the athlete will do something that angers the media and the media will turn on this guy and ask how anybody could have ever trusted such a reprobate.
How could anybody have ever believed this guy was genuine?
And the answer is, you told us.
You were nothing but a groupie.
You were a groupie, you wanted to be close to this guy, you wanted to build this guy up bigger than life so he'd keep talking to you, and then he falls off that pedestal one time, and bam, you are on him, and you make him out to be the biggest slime walk on the planet.
And then you wonder, and the same time the media wonders at the same time, what in the world happened?
And why are these athletes turning into such rotten actors?
When they behave as reprobates but are still performing well on the field, they're never criticized.
Terrell Owens is a great example.
Terrell Owens, as long as he plays on the field and catches passes and takes the Eagles to the Super Bowl, all the other aspects of Terrell Owens are glossed over, forgotten, and ignored.
But let Terrell Owens screw up this year by going to training camp and acting like a little immature kid, which is the way he's always acted, and let him say disrespectful things about the coach and about Andy Reed and the same Philadelphia and San Francisco sports media that built Terrell Owens up to be bigger than life are now the ones that want his head on a platter.
And they ask the question, what happened to Terrell Owen?
Why is this happening?
Why is he because you let him get away with that kind of behavior forever by writing all these idolatrous and glowing things.
And then all of a sudden he does something you don't like, bam, you tear into him and act like you had nothing to do with building him up and having people overlook The character flaws that he and everybody has as they go through life.
So it's it's it really, you know, you you look at Lance Armstrong, he's no different than anybody else.
The French hate his guts.
He's performed at a high level.
He's heroic.
He has overcome cancer.
He has become a great fundraiser for it.
He's a superb athlete.
We've built him up.
Somebody's decided he's gotten too big.
Let's tear him down, or let's try.
That's uh in this case, it's the French.
And when you understand it's the French and that they hate winners, that answers the question uh for me.
But in a larger context of human nature, I mean this is something that you can watch it.
I don't care if it's sports or any form of entertainment where there are celebrities.
You see a fawning media ignoring all of the negative characteristics of somebody, and then all of a sudden, they can't ignore them anymore when the uh athlete, the entertainer celebrity fails to perform at peak level.
Wonder what's going on, man.
Why nobody cares and why is no why is nobody upset about steroids?
The the the sports media has built these guys up as superheroes and all sorts of stuff all during their uh during their careers, and then turn on them.
It's it's it's it's uh it's a classic, uh I think, and great column that Phil Mushnick wrote illustration.
I'm gonna try to get my hands on it and read parts of it to you because he does a much better job in his own words than I have here.
Quick timeout, we'll be back with more in just a second.
And of course, we should mention that uh John Roberts is from Indiana.
But he did grow up in that all-white neighborhood.
There were no blacks, and there were no Jews.
Jews.
Washington Post told us that too.
This is second installment uh uh in their series is Judge Roberts, a racist.
Uh Charlie in Denver, hello, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey Russ, how are you?
Uh I am absolutely convinced it's the oil prices that is hurting Bush at the uh on the poll ratings.
If you look at Clinton, that's when he was most vulnerable, was when we had that spike of oil.
And I would not be surprised uh because I think Soros even alluded to it before the night of the 04 election that he was instrumental in trying to manipulate the prices up.
Yeah, he was he was.
He was speculating in currencies as sports.
Yeah, I we don't have any evidence that Soros is monkeying around with the oil price, but uh I I think look, it clearly could be a component, but I do think the polls also, as I said yesterday, are garbage in, garbage out.
You never know what kind of questions are being asked, and the samples are skewed oftentimes.
Uh quick timeout gotta go because of the uh briefness of the segment because it went long in the previous one.
Be right back then.
All right, I found that Phil Mushnick column, folks, and I'm gonna share it with you at the top of the hour.
We uh we found it on Nexus.
Lots to go, still ahead.
Ditto cam coming up.
▲
Export Selection