All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 23, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
November 23, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Doing what I was born to do, host this program.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchor man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball with talent on loan from God.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back to the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the EIB Network from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you'd like to be on the program.
We'll be getting a lot of your calls today, 800-282-2882.
We told you yesterday about this adjunct English professor at Warren County Community College in New Jersey.
What was this guy's name?
John Daly was his name.
Now the story was that uh uh a freshman student, Rebecca Beach, uh, invited uh Vietnam, I'm sorry, the Rock War veteran to a campus speech,
and this caused uh Professor uh Daly, uh part-time English professor at the college to uh to respond to her in an email claiming that the only real freedom will occur when the uh servicemen in Iraq turn their guns on their commanding officers.
So there was supposed to be a big meeting last night, figure out his future.
He was told yesterday, don't show up the last three days of the week to teach your part-time adjunct English class.
Well, it turns out now that the adjunct professor uh resigned yesterday before the Board of Trustees began an emergency meeting scheduled to address uh the matter.
As we prepared for that meeting, we received word from Mr. Daly that he had tendered his resignation from uh Warren County Community College effective immediately, Board Chairman Ed Smith said the board has accepted his resignation.
I think it's a great name for a university board chairman, Ed Smith.
You know, some like Joe Arpyle, who has a perfect name for a sheriff.
Uh Buford T. Justice was a perfect name for a sheriff.
Ed Smith is a perfect name for a college board chairman.
Some of the 30 people in the room gasped at the news, including the student Rebecca Beach.
Professor Daly is teaching in a state institution and acting on behalf of the state, and I believe his comments to me is a restriction of my personal free speech rights.
That's what she said.
Anyway, that's that's the the thrust of this.
The real news here is the headline of this story.
This is from New Jersey.com, their website.
The headline, Provoked Professor, leaves WCCC Post.
The professor, the part-time adjunct English professor, was provoked.
So she sent him a letter.
She sent him an email asking him a question.
It provoked him.
In fact, here's how the paragraph reads.
Some of the 30 people in the room gasped at the news, including student Rebecca Beach, whose invitation to a campus speech by a veteran of the Iraq War provoked an irate response from John Daly, a part-time English professor at the college.
So the student invites this Iraq war veteran, and that's provocative.
That's provocat.
Provoked professor.
Unbelievable.
Not that the student was provoked, not that the school was provoked, not that the Iraq war vet was provoked, and not that the commanding officers in Iraq were provoked, because it was suggested by this guy that they be shot.
And we learned yesterday that he also uh went off on Rebecca Beach because she he thought she was a member of the Young America's Foundation, which is a conservative group, and he doesn't think conservatives ought to be on campus.
He don't want her to be there.
So anyway, the guy quit.
He's he's dwa.
Uh there's also an interesting piece.
Maggie Gallagher is a is a columnist, syndicated columnist, and uh uh I I saw a column that she her, I guess it's our most recent column.
I saw it uh at Yahoo News.
You know, I it's not that I have a big ego, folks.
I keep up with things out there.
I have uh a keyword search on the uh on the web for my name as the stuff flashes up, and sometimes I check it out, sometimes I don't because I can tell what it's going to be where it comes from.
But she has a piece here called The Elite Divide, and it's about uh The latest poll from the Pew Political Center for people in the press or whatever it's called.
And she starts her piece this way: politically Americans are saying a pox on both your houses.
Both parties now struggle to find and to define themselves in ways the majority of Americans like for the best look at where both political elites may be going wrong.
Check out the Pew Political Typologies poll released earlier this year.
The Pew poll divides registered voters into eight subgroups, three on the GOP side who are called enterprisers, social conservatives, and pro-government conservatives.
There are two centrist groups called upbeats and disaffected.
And there are three Democrat groups, and get the name of these groups conservative Dems, disadvantaged DIMMs, and liberals.
You don't need divisions of Democrats.
They're all liberals.
And just some of them, you know, like some of the nice ones that call here the past couple days, they're they're they're duped, but they're still liberals.
But what is a disadvantaged Democrat?
What is it?
What the hell's a disadvantaged Democrat?
I guess okay, wait, I can figure it out.
The disadvantaged because they are Democrats.
So anyway, those are the eight groups.
The GOP elites, remember she says the elites of both these parties are the they're the most divided from the center of the country.
The GOP elites are recognizable by enterprisers.
And enterprisers make up 10% of all voters.
They are mostly men, educated, married, patriotic, affluent, with strong belief in power of military force, market capitalism, and the individual to get ahead in this world.
Maggie Gallagher says that if you want to, if you want to attach a couple of names to enterprisers, think Ronald Reagan and me.
Rush Limbaugh.
88% of enterprisers believe that most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profits, a position supported by only 39% of the general population.
84% of enterprisers agree that the best way to defeat terrorism is overwhelming military force, compared to 39% of the general population.
46% of the enterprisers watch Fox News.
They voted for Bush over Kerry, 92% to 1%.
Enterprisers who define the problem as all those Christian conservatives have a rude shock.
Now, this is where this thing totally breaks down.
Because the enterprisers do not define the problem as all those Christian conservatives.
It is the centrist Republicans.
You know, what's what's gone wrong here with this with this analysis by the Pew people is that they're confusing the enterprisers with the country club blue blood Republicans, and those are the ones that don't like the uh the conservative Christians.
I've been with these people.
I know these blue blood country club Republicans are.
I've been with them at dinner parties.
They come up to me, they sidle up to me, and say, You've got to do something about those hicks down in the South Rush.
What do you mean?
Abortion is just going to kill.
I've been hearing this for 20 years.
Now, these are Republicans, make no mistake about it, and they are effluent, these people I'm talking about, but they are not the enterprisers as defined by this.
The enterprisers are not really all that all that separated from the Christians.
Certainly, Ronald Reagan wasn't.
Ronald the the so-called Christian right was Ronald Reagan's base.
It's George W. Bush's base.
So this breaks down.
Now let's get to the the uh uh liberal elites.
So who are they?
Let's do it.
GOP's baseless with it.
Uh the GOP's base is less riven or driven or split than the Democrats because enterprisers do share the rest of the GOP's religious values just less intently.
Moreover, enterprisers take a unifying lead on one critical values uh issue, and that's optimism.
Working class Republican voters resonate to the idea that America still is the land of opportunity.
Sixty-eight percent of pro-government conservatives say they often can't make ends meet, yet 76% of them agree uh that most people can get ahead with hard work compared with 14% of disadvantaged Democrats who don't believe that.
Does that not sum it up?
Fourteen percent of disadvantaged Democrats, only 14% of them believe that you can get ahead with hard work.
That means what?
That what eighty-six percent of disadvantaged Democrats think work is worthless.
That hard work, no wonder they have no faith in this country.
No wonder they have no uh hope or or uh belief in opportunity.
Liberals, 19% of the voters are in charge of crafting the Democrat agenda.
They are the elites of the Democrats, and like the enterprisers, they are affluent and well-educated.
Younger and more female, uh more than a third have never been married, 43% seldom or never attend church, and only two percent voted for Bush in 2004.
They stand out from the rest of America in their opposition to military force and religion and their support for taxes and gay marriage.
So that is that's pretty good apt description here.
You get the conservative so-called elites as the enterprisers, the Democrat elites are the liberals, and there's this huge gap.
There's this huge but in the even in with the disaffected Democrats that don't believe in the basic values of America.
What uh what percent of the liberal elites have never been married?
Uh uh uh more than a third have never been married.
Let me run through this again.
Nineteen percent of all voters are liberal elites, and they're in charge of crafting a democratic agenda, like the enterprisers, the so-called conservative elites.
Liberals are affluent and well educated, forty-one percent of them earn at least 75 grand a year.
They are younger and more female, and more than a third of the liberals have never been married.
Forty-three percent seldom or never attend church.
Only two percent voted for Bush.
Liberals stand out from the rest of America in their opposition to military force and religion, their opposition to religion.
They also stand out from the rest of America by virtue of their support for taxes and gay marriage.
Sixty-five percent of liberals support cutting military spending to reduce the deficit compared to only between sixteen percent and forty-one percent of the rest of America.
Liberals are the only people who favor raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit.
Sixty-seven percent of liberals believe the preemptive use of U.S. military force is rarely or never justified, a position decisively rejected by centrist groups and all others on the Republican side.
Well, anyway, so there is this this big divide.
It got me to thinking.
How is this how is this uh manifesting itself in our in our war on terror and the war in Iraq?
Because the divide is clearly there.
I mean, you have the liberals hate military force, don't trust it, think we're the problem, we're evil, versus the good guys, the uh conservatives and the Republicans, the enterprisers who realize that, you know, once you're attacked as often as we've been, the only way to deal with this is by the uh uh proper projection of power and the use of force.
So what can we do to unite liberal politicians and conservative politicians in the war effort?
Because the whole point of Maggie uh Gallagher's column is that this is going to have to happen at some point if America is to ever get along with itself again.
We're not talking total unity, but I mean if this divide is so great, how can we breach the divide?
I, ladies and gentlemen, this is my job, thought about this, and I have come up with a way that we can unite all of our politicians in Washington in this war effort.
It's real simple when you stop and think about it.
We've got these insurgents over there in Iraq.
We got the Abu Mousab Al-Zarkawis.
And we got the the uh Ayman Al-Zawahiri's.
We have the uh Osama bin Ladens and all the other Muhammads.
Well, the Democrats don't seem to be bothered by them.
Uh Democrat politicians, we never hear them say one negative word about, do you?
We only hear about the barbarianism of U.S. forces and Abu Grab and club Gitmo and the secret CIA prisons.
If you listen to the American left, why we're the enemy, why we're guilty, why we're the horror, we're the barbarians, we are the butchers.
We never hear about how rotten the insurgents are.
Do it.
But is there a way to convince them that the insurgents are indeed the evil the in this war and that they need to be confronted as such, and yes, there is.
Here's what we do.
We simply deputize all insurgents and we swear them in as Republicans.
From now on, we call Zawahiri and Zakawi Republicans.
We just simply we make them part of the Republican Party.
That will guarantee the left will hate their guts and we'll finally see them as they are.
We'll be back in just a second, Steve.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
Oh, Mr. Snurley, I'm not joking.
I think it makes perfect sense.
If you listen to the American left, the worst enemy this country has is a Republican Party.
We in the Republican side think it's Al Qaeda and the terrorist networks around the world.
So in order to get the left to see the insurgency the way we see them, we simply call them Republicans.
Make them Republican.
Go over there and register them as Republicans.
Absented Republican voters.
Make Zarkaway a Republican, Zawahiri a Republican, bin Laden reb and then the only chance we got that the left is going to see them is the hateful people they are.
I think it's a brilliant idea.
Will it ever happen?
Of course not.
But it's it's uh it's worthy of of the illustration involved.
All right, we're going to Peter in St. Louis.
Peter, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Yes, hello, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes.
Thank you, sir.
And uh just want to mention that uh I called you last year about this time about um I have a uh we have at least one liberal in our in our family is an uncle, and I unfortunately wasn't able to execute your advice very well last year.
Uh now wait a minute, wait, wait, wait a minute.
I think I remember this.
You were going to Thanksgiving and you you had this uncle or this rel I guess you said it was an uncle last year, the relative very liberal, and you wanted to know how to deal with him because it's Thanksgiving, you don't want to go all these contra tempts and things, so you you wanted uh some advice on how to deal with the guy, right?
Yes, yes.
Now what did I tell you to do?
Uh just to ignore him and and and let him go on w about his um his his theories and and and whatnot and so forth.
I told you, if I remember right, I told you to laugh at him.
Right, exactly.
Exactly.
That that mostly too, and and and I tried and I did until finally I just after doing with everything that I had to do with that day, it finally it got to me where I I stood up and stood my ground from what uh the other relatives of my family had said, because they actually uh took me aside later and and quietly you know applauded me and said, Good job, if we actually standing up to him like they they wanted to always do it, but never really decided to take the opportunity.
Well, okay.
Well now that you say it that way, now wait a minute.
I I might have misunderstood this last year.
No, no, no.
Because does he take out after you wait a minute?
Does he take out after you personally?
Does he call you names or insult you because you're a conservative?
No, he he he just degeneralizes me, I guess, in a way 'cause I you know how I've been more voicing out to the family on saying, Oh, did you hear about what what what what um was on Russia's program the other day or or Sean's program or an and and since I'm the one that always would voice that to other relatives in the family just as a as a brief, you know, say wasn't that neat or funny or what we heard and everything, and then he'd hear me say that and realize I was more of the voice.
Well, okay, look, I mean I wish I could be there.
I wish I I wish I could be there because it's it'd be much easier that way.
Let me ask you, whose house is it that you go to?
Is it his?
Uh unfortunately, you know, it's his it's my aunt.
And your aunt but but well now your aunt, but he's your uncle's I mean is we we we tried, like I said, what it wasn't it wasn't coming to blows, but it did kind of detract from the uh you know the the the happiness of Thanksgiving to just you'd be there and enjoy friends and family and celebrate the meaning of Thanksgiving.
Well, it sounds like the guy makes it hard to do all that.
He he does, he does.
It it's it's almost at any kind of family function, especially um uh well does he bother everybody, is it or is it just you?
I I don't think too much uh everybody he might mention it to them and then they kind of you know find some way to just get out and get out of being that clear.
No, no, no.
I wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I'm maybe I'm still not this is happening at the dinner table, right?
And he's making all these comments.
Well, not really more at the dinner table than it's then approaching the dinner table.
It'd be more where you're you're in conversation in a room with with uh you have a relatives and you might even say it off on the side more than he'd be more bold to say it in front of everyone else, but he'd still it'd be almost where you're cornered in a way with trying to find some way to get around it.
I I've got one that what are you gonna do this year?
I'm gonna try to follow your advice from last year and just really, you know, not this is not you know to to to bring up a or have a topic during Thanksgiving or for Thanksgiving, just you know, try to bottom and save it for a while.
If he says the same thing to you this year, if I understood you right, if he says if he says he was listening to this program and heard X and heard Y or whatever.
Is that what you said?
And also other other points.
He doesn't listen.
He only listened to my own.
Okay.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's the wrong thing.
That's the wrong, wrong way to do it.
That's you don't do it that way.
You just turn around to him and say, I can't believe you're actually listening.
You you if if you're actually listening, how can you possibly draw that conclusion?
That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard anybody said.
Mostly people who think like you, Uncle Joe, don't listen to Limbaugh.
You're listening to him and you're still not getting it.
And then start laughing.
Okay.
It's really do not go on defense.
That's the key.
Stay on offense.
That's the attitudinal way to get past all this and laugh it off.
Folks, I thought I'd break out the manheim steamroller Christmas bump rotation today.
The Christmas decorations have been up for a couple months out there.
We may as well get in the spirit here on our annual Thanksgiving Day show, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Now, uh Peter in St. Louis, I I know I know you're still out there.
Uh one of the I I don't want to be cruel here.
I mean, I'm not trying to be cruel.
I'm trying to be helpful.
Now you all heard the call.
Peter called here and was trying to tell me that my advice from last year didn't work.
You also heard that Peter would not be quiet for me to advise him further.
So if you're gonna call for advice, shh so I can offer it.
I didn't have a chance because time was quickly dwindling away.
But Peter, let me expand on what I said at the end of the call.
What I can tell you I've I do by virtue of the last 30 seconds your call, I can tell you which problem is.
You are taking all this stuff personally, and that is a killer.
In a debate circumstance in a in a family discussion or just with a group of friends, when you start taking things personally, you are you you it immediately puts you on the defensive, and then your brain stops working.
And instead of reciting what you know, you get hung up trying to remember what you know in terms of trying to respond to what these numbskulls are saying to you.
There's something key to keep in mind, and this is this is this is this is fundamental in having a discussion with an obnoxious, braggadocious, arrogant, condescending liberal.
And that is when they are talking to you and telling you what they think about conservatism, they are not telling you about you.
Do not grant them the power to start insulting you.
You know, being insulted is your prerogative.
Don't give them the power to insult you.
It's not worth being insulted.
Understand that these braggadocious, obnoxious, arrogant liberals are simply giving you a look-see at who they are.
They are telling you who they are.
They're making the mistake of expressing their own insecurities.
And in many cases, they're expressing their own ignorance.
And so the the way to deal with this is to just turn it right back on them as they make some statement that you think normally would insult you, don't allow it to insult you.
Don't take it personally, don't ever even think that they're talking about you personally, even if they think they are.
Turn it right back around on them and comment in such a way that you are commenting on them, not what they have said.
If you're gonna get into these debates, it's never it's you're not gonna have a pleasant Thanksgiving if you if you do that.
Because you're not gonna you're not gonna change the mind of an arrogant, ignorant, condescending liberal.
You're you're just you're just not.
The idea would be to shut them up or to silence them.
And the best way to do that is to is to just let them know it's not bothering you and that they're making a fool of themselves.
But you can only do that if you find a way to stay on offense by being confident and not allowing whatever is said to get inside and and make you think that whatever's being said is about you because it isn't.
I I'll guarantee you, it's not in 95% of the cases.
You're sitting there worried about what he thinks about you versus on b based on what he's saying.
And the fact of the matter, he's like everybody else, he's all concerned what everybody thinks of him.
So he's trying to act like Mr. Big.
He's trying to act like Mr. Arrogant, I know it all.
He's just being a bully.
It sounds like to me, especially pulling this stuff at Thanksgiving, is to be making fun of you.
You go on defense and you allow it.
That's why just laugh.
I'm telling you, tell him he's funny.
You've never laughed so hard in your life.
You can't believe anybody would actually believe the things he's saying.
You're glad to have this kind of insight into who he is.
You've thought he was this kind of guy, but now he's letting you know for sure this is cool.
And just enjoy the hell out of it in that standpoint and and realize that the uh the point here is not to change his mind about anything.
The point is to shut him up.
And there are countless uh easy ways of doing it.
John in Jacksonville, Florida, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Raj.
Thank you so much for your time.
My pleasure, sir.
I am glad I'm I'm able to follow up.
I agree.
You just made a great statement.
I agree with it a hundred percent, which is um you really can't change an arrogant, braggadocious individual's opinions.
But I have a couple questions, and I really do appreciate.
I hope you can maybe help me understand if we have time for a second question.
But with the WMDs and this administration's allegation that they were misled or had bad information, and that's where some of the decisions were made to bomb another country.
What why have we not heard, or maybe you have had clips and you can share them with us about how they fixed that problem and it's not going to happen again?
Well, in the first place, uh one of the problem we touched on this yesterday, and I I I was reading a column by Jack Welch, uh, or column in which Jack Welch was quoted news story, and he was talking about how Bush ought to be bragging uh left and right about economic achievements, uh and not taking personal credit for them, but just going out and saying, hey, our economy's damn good.
Our economy's strong.
Look at our unemployment numbers even after 9-11 compared to other countries, use the bully pulpit to inform the American people just how great the economy is to sort of counter this uh the this negative economy news that's out there.
By the same token, this whole weapons of mass destruction thing is is is a puzzlement because we know that Saddam Hussein had them.
We know that Saddam Hussein used them.
We also know that elements of of uh of non-nuclear uh or or non-weapons grade nuclear uh uh materials have been found there since we arrived in Iraq.
Some for some reason this administration doesn't want to put that out.
Um the idea that the intelligence was flawed, uh and and therefore it needs to be fixed and a mistake needs to be made, I think is the is one of the the focal points of why uh there's such a battle going on in Washington, D.C. I think the CIA, for who knows whatever reasons, I I I'm not in a position to know.
But it's clear that since before Bush came into office, the CIA has not done a bang up job on intelligence.
We know about able danger.
They tried to warn everybody about the existence of Al Qaeda, uh like Mohammed Ada in the country.
We know that they had advanced word that uh as a technique that terrorists are going to fly planes into into buildings, hijacking them and flying them into buildings.
All this seems to have been ignored.
And the president has done his best not to humiliate the CIA in the aftermath.
He's covered up for them, and yet they still persist in doing everything they can to cover up their mistakes, trying to make it look like his.
And he's not he's not standing up for his side of this.
Now, your your larger question is, are we fixing the intel problems?
When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, I don't know how much fixing is actually needed.
We know that Saddam had them.
We know that Saddam refused to admit that he had dismantled the programs.
We know that the rest of the world's intelligence agencies thought the same thing.
We've also learned that the CIA is doing uh a number of things here to try to take the war on terrorist seriously, such as these prisons, the interrogations of captured prisoners and so forth.
And what we face here is an American left that is continuing to try to emasculate our intelligence agencies and our intelligence gathering ability.
Man, and and I think members of the CIA itself, just like there are in the State Department, there are rogue CIA members who are ideologically liberals.
They do not uh believe in this administration, and they're trying to sabotage this administration.
How else are we learning about what all the CIA is doing?
How's we learning this?
It either is being leaked to Democrats and the Senate Intelligence Committee and they're going public with it, or it's being leaked in newspapers.
Now we get this argument going over torture.
We got this big debate going over that, well, the Bush administration wants special torture tech.
No, they don't.
They they but they don't want to be hemmed in by a piece of legislation that's been written by Senator McCain that basically just just uh does turn every prison into a club gitmo.
So Porter Goss has been sent over to the CIA to try to clean it out just like Condoleezza Rice sent to the State Department to try to clean that out.
And I think they're both having probably some pretty good success based on the number of leaks coming out of both places that are attempting uh to destroy this administration.
Like this guy that started making speeches that was Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Larry Wilkerson, when he starts talking about how the administration uh Cheney and Rumsville hijacked the foreign policy.
Give me a major break.
The State Department thinks they, they're all unelected, run foreign policy.
Yes, they do.
Presidents come and go, but they stay, and they're the glue that holds it all together.
Here come Cheney, here comes Rumsfeld, and they hijacked it.
That's B.S. But these guys are, as I say, telling us who they are.
Larry Wilkerson's giving us the biggest window to view the State Department they've given us in a long time.
Now this Nincom poop, Marianne Wright, who was at the State Department for sixteen years now taking over for Cindy Sheehan on the protest march down at Crawford, Texas, sorry, they are again telling us exactly who's inside the State Department.
This is a great lesson.
This is a great opportunity.
CIA leaks, the same thing.
I happen to believe that there are people at the CIA trying to clean up the messes that have been made, trying to fix some of the problems, but let's not also forget the Clinton administration, a good old Jamie Gorellick who built that wall that said intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies cannot share what they learn with one another.
Now, how much sense does that make, folks?
CIA's out there learning about X. They can't tell the FBI, they can't tell anybody else because it's being it's being treated as a court case, grand jury testimony is secret, and the Clinton administration was dealing with terrorism as a legal issue.
We've got federal judges trying to wrest from the uh president commander-in-chief role.
We got federal judges trying to say when and if uh a foreign combatant, a an enemy can be tried as a as a terrorist or somebody has to be granted all the rights of the U.S. Constitution when they are in fact enemy combatants.
So there are a lot of people working against this administration, and it's an American left, and I'm telling you, I've I've tried to emphasize this as often as I can.
What this means to me is the American left is hanging on by their fingernails.
This is these are acts of desperation.
Not to say they won't succeed if they're not fought, but I'm saying they're acts of desperation.
These are not acts of confidence.
These are people that are doing in public what they used to get away with doing privately.
When they do it in public, we can all see it.
We can all see the outrageousness and the egregiousness of it.
And that's what I mean by its desperation.
They don't have the confidence to be able to get away with this on the sly.
Ask your larger question, are we doing a better job on weapons of mass destruction and making sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again?
That's not the question to me.
The larger question is if we have another 9-11, is the Democratic Party going to sit around and once again try to prevent any retaliation against those who do it.
Because the argument going on in Washington now is not over intelligence.
That's that's that's a straw dog and that's a smoke screen.
They're just using that as a political maneuver to keep these these sycophant creeps and and and punks and wackos on the left mollified.
What this is really all about is the is the future role of the U.S. military.
And what will U.S. foreign policy be?
And will we defend ourselves?
And are we going to have an accurate and very active national security program and national defense program?
That's what this is really all about.
So uh and the one thing I think the administration is not doing that it could do is, you know, thump its chest and talk about its successes.
Bush is not a braggart to him, that's bragging.
And uh it's politicizing things.
I guess I'm I'm taking a wild stab at that.
I'm not quite sure why he doesn't uh uh stand up and declare uh all of the successes that are taking place.
If you go back, I'll give it a I'll give you an illustration.
You go back to the first Gulf War, which lasted what, 250 days or 200 days.
Was there not a press briefing every day?
Schwartzkoff or somebody went to that tent, and the media, and boy, it exposed the media as a bunch of idiots too.
But every day there was a progress report.
Every day, the military called a press conference, and they talked about what was going on.
We did that at the beginning of this war, but we haven't done it.
We I think we need to reinstitute those.
We need to get some positive news on the on the on the war as it's happening from the generals on the ground over there, and they can do this with weekly briefings, daily, or however they want to do them, but but anything would be better in what they're doing now is is very little.
Mostly you hear from them when they come testify before Congress.
Uh and that's about it.
I I think it's just a matter of them getting their uh their story up.
I gotta run here because I'm a little long, quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a second with much more.
We say Merry Christmas on this program.
We also say happy holidays, but we do say Merry Christmas.
And if it offends some of you, we rub our hands in glee.
800-282-288.
Well, it's a national holiday for crying out loud.
Uh 800 282-2882.
This next story.
Excuse me, my friends have to get rid of some ashes from my one o'clock cigar that fell on some show prep here.
Always hate it when that happens.
This this next story.
You know, you talk about hypocrisy, uh, the hypocrisy of the left.
This is about Lori David, uh well-known uh uh environmental uh whatever environmentalist wacko extraordinaire.
She's the wife of Larry David, uh, who was the creator of Seinfeld and uh the curb your enthusiasm on HBO.
And she's, you know, when she drives around in public, she drives one of these these these uh lawnmowers with a couple seats on it that they call a hybrid.
I think so we seem to drive a Prius or something, and so does he.
But they fly on big corporate jets uh when they have to go from coast to coast and they they they burn their share of fuel and so forth.
But they've got a they've got a second home on Martha's Vineyard that is um 14 acres and has seven houses on it.
Now that's not it's okay, fine with me.
But they were going to have a big bash.
Have a big bash for Robert Kennedy Jr., who is responsible for Lori David becoming an environmentalist wacko.
She went to one of his speeches one day and went, ooh, ah, uh, it has become an environmentalist wacko ever since.
The problem is, according to a notice of apparent violations issued by Martha's Vineyard's Chilmark Conservation Commission.
Lori and Derri uh Lori and uh what's it Larry David were reprimanded last August for building a 26-foot-long barbecue station, stone and concrete bonfire pit, and outdoor theater on an environmentally sensitive patch of their 14-acre North Road property without the proper permits.
They were also cited for tearing up protected vegetation to make way for a lush, sodded lawn, among others.
Uh these are crimes against nature, according to people like this.
The commission has since ordered the couple to remove the offending structures and to restore the area to its previous state.
Now I'm familiar with this because where I live, you can't do with your own property what you want because of environmental regulations.
But these people said the hell with that.
We got Bobby Kennedy Jr. coming.
We've got to throw a big bash and have a theater presentation, a big barbecue pit.
So they went ahead and did all this without getting the permits.
Now they recited they gotta rest they've got to put it all back the way it was.
The hilarious part of this to me is that Lori David, when she found out about this, feigned shock.
Oh, I can't believe.
Oh, I should sorry.
Oh, I didn't realize.
Oh we only did it because Bobby Kennedy Jr. was coming.
Well, he's the environmentalist wacko extraordinaire in this country.
So in the name Of the man who made her an environmentalist wacko.
She tore up protected soil.
The arbitrator in the Terrell Owens case has upheld for the Philadelphia Eagles.
The uh Terrell Owens suspension has been upheld.
The Eagles win.
The Eagles are right.
Now to Peter in St. Louis and all of you out there fearing running into liberal relatives.
At uh Thanksgiving, I have one more little two or three phrases of advice right after the break here at the top of the hour.
They make all the sense of the world.
▲
Export Selection