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 Timken 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.
Professor, you may have seen this in the New York Times claiming he quit the Bush environmental wacko team for felonious reasons or fallacious reasons.
And this guy said 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.
So let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
I saw 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, here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Open Line Friday.
We open it up 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 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 going to punt it.
It's old hat.
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 is behind her and what their agenda is and how they're using her.
And she may be a willing accomplice in it.
I don't know, but you need to hear about this.
But I'm not going to do it first.
I'm going to do other things.
Plus, Reverend Sharpton plans to join the Peace Mom.
I feel partially responsible for this.
And Reverend Sharpton, what time is this show on?
Has this talk show started?
It was supposed to start this month, but I don't know if it's on the air or not.
But Reverend Sharpton, if you're listening or if you have friends listening, it could get to you.
Don't do this.
Not on the eve of your new talk show.
This is not your place, Reverend Sharpton.
And I feel partially responsible because I've been asking, where are the elected Democrats?
And I know he's not elected, but he fashions himself as one anyway.
He's run for the presidency.
Where are the John Kerry's and the Hillary Clintons joining this protest?
Where are they?
They're nowhere to be found.
And I think obviously word of this question has reached Reverend Sharpton and he sees an opportunity.
Reverend Sharpton, I'm trying to help you here.
You don't want to get anywhere near this, especially after you hear what we have to tell you about the real allies and the people who are sponsoring this Sheehan and the people she's feeding.
And by that, I mean raising money for.
And 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 glommed onto it and joined it.
But this thing is an even bigger fraud than we thought.
But before I get into all that and all the great items that we have for you today in the 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 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.
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 Kudlow, 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 ran through the ever-growing list of splendid economic reports.
But in one poll, he noted consumer and investor confidence were down 15% from late 2003 when things weren't nearly as good as they are now.
Kudlow and Kyle finger the most obvious culprits, high gas prices, nonstop tightening of the money supply, Federal Reserve, and monkeying with interest rates, worries about the war in Iraq, and fears about a housing bubble.
Kudlow also cited a seeming unwillingness of the White House to communicate and market an economic recovery message.
And, of course, I'll join that.
We talked about this.
They don't toot their own horns there on practically anything, and it's a big mystery why.
But still, another reason may be the way the media deliver 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, 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.
I have the table here, and it's actually below in my stack.
Over 50 indicates optimism.
Below 50 in this index 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 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 poll here.
And it's too many numbers here to go through this.
And when I 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 at rushlimbaugh.com.
But talk radio listeners.
The thing about this is, 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, as you remember, that describes the audience of this program, angry white men, right?
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 P.O.'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 Limbaugh.
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.
El Quicko.
Little Spanish lingo there.
Ladies and gentlemen, this next story dovetails nicely with the Investors Business Daily poll that shows that the newspapers of America are more depressing 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 egregiously wrong.
And the story was about a professor, this 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 Pielk, and I don't know how he pronounces his name, P-I-E-L-K-E.
Pilk Pielk, 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 color.
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.
You always should be, when you call a news organization, somebody's there.
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 Riolinda, 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 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 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.
He 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 a lesson I have been attempting to teach intensely for the past six years when encountering people on the phone on this program who are depressed and downhearted because of what they see in the media.
Bottom line is, 10 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 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 called to task.
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 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 that's going 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 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?
I mean, that's that.
Do we open a supermarket tabloid, weekly world news?
I mean, wow, wouldn't it be funny if this are 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 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, I must tell you that 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 by Joe Becker, J. O., a female, and the headline, in article, Roberts' 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 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 words 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 Roberts' 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, I mean, so now the guys are 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 Happy McDaniel.
Yes, my friends.
John Roberts, right out of gone with the wind, loves slavery, love the old South.
The war between the states, 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 Byrd reads this story in the Washington Post today, we know that Roberts has his vote.
Sheets Bird will eat this up.
Folks, do you believe this?
This is, it is so, it's so juvenile.
I mean, a serious newspaper story.
Washington Paul.
I mean, I just love this.
I just, we are watching these people descend into an abyss, folks, and pretty soon they're going to be out of sight.
Let me go to the phones.
Mark, and since it's open late Friday, we'll go to the phones early.
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 screen name of New Land.
Rush, my call fits in perfectly with the poll results that you announced while I was 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 10 last presidential elections, U.S. Senate, 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 shills 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.
You're describing, you're basically saying we need to get off of the defensive and start going on offense.
And 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 it.
You're running into the liberal and having a discussion.
If you start accepting the premise, I had an email today from a guy.
He's a subscriber at Rush 24-7.
I wish I would have printed it out.
I didn't.
I'm going to paraphrase it.
But he started listening to me when he was 17 because 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 after listening to me, he would sit around and 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, war is never the answer.
And he would tell his brother, ask his brother, 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 going to 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 nothing to talk about.
I mean, and stay on offense.
That's exactly right.
And they are on the run.
And 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 debatable.
You can because you're not debating intellectually with these people.
You find yourself in an emotional roller coaster with them.
And you're going to 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.
But 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, let me ask you a question.
Pat Robertson can't say anything.
Where are you asking all these people down at 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 could 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 program unfolds.
Thanks, Mark, for the phone call.
Let me get line one.
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, 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, I think it's outrageous.
Well, two things you have to understand here.
Number one, we live in the world of athletes doping.
We've got athletes in America being caught taking steroids and human growth hormone.
We've had Olympic athletes caught.
We've had, and it's been going on for a number of years.
So once that sets in, a question will descend in the eyes of some fans.
Well, gee, is anybody clean here?
Is any of this stuff happening for real?
So you have that 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 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 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 generally hate him, folks, because he wins.
And he won the Tour de France seven times in a row.
This test supposedly is from 1999.
Well, not supposedly.
It is from 1999.
That's what?
Seven years ago, seven, six years ago.
It is irrelevant.
It's nothing more than an attempt to smear the guy and take advantage of this attitude that exists 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 American that 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 tests, 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, you need two samples and they've got one.
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, I mean, in the era of Raphael Palmiero, if Armstrong's going on Larry King Live and all these other places and steadfastly protesting his innocence when he's not, then 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, I think you look at the source for the information.
You look at the emotion that surrounds it.
And I think it's just an effort.
And this is, 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 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 bamo when they fall off of it.
You know, I have a friend who writes a sports column for the New York Post.
His name is Phil Mushnik.
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, it might have been longer than that, but it was in the eve of the NFL training camp's opening.
And 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.
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'll give you an example.
An athlete will go on a tear, and the media will idolize and slavishly report and profile this athlete or a series of them each and every day.
Don't want to give you any names because this is not really mentioning or the purpose of this is 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'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 coach and about Andy Reid.
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 Owens?
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 when 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 really, you know, 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.
In this case, it's the French.
And when you understand it's the French and that they hate winners, that answers the question 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 athlete, the entertainer celebrity fails to perform at peak level.
Wonder what's going wrong, man?
Why nobody cares and why is nobody upset about steroids?
The sports media has built these guys up as superheroes and all sorts of stuff all during their careers and then turn on them.
It's a classic, I think, and great column that Phil Mushnik wrote illustration.
I'm going to 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 Time Out.
We'll be back with more in just a second.
And of course, we should mention that 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 the second installment in their series.
Is Judge Roberts a racist?
Charlie in Denver.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
I am absolutely convinced it's the oil prices that is hurting Bush 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 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.
We don't have any evidence that Soros is monkeying around with the oil price, but I think, look, that 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.
Quick timeout got to go because of the briefness of the segment because it went long in the previous one.
Be right back.
All right, I found that Phil Mushnik column, folks.
I'm going to share it with you at the top of the hour.
We found it on Nexus.
Lots to go.
Still ahead.
Ditto Cam coming up.
▲
Export Selection