When I get all revved up and passionate, sometimes some of this stuff genuinely makes me mad.
One of the things that makes me angrier than anything, folks, is just utter ignorance.
And then when confronted with truth, to continue to deny it.
I keep working for a way to permeate that obstacle and penetrate that obstacle out there with our good friends, the liberals, but damn, it's hard to come up with a way.
They just don't want to hear it.
And of course, you can't have an honest debate if one side is going to deny facts.
If they're going to deny facts, I'm talking about this business that Bush lied.
I can't get over this.
This poll from the CBS New York Times released today.
52% of the American people have bought into this notion that Bush cooked up and lied about the pre-war intelligence.
It's just not true.
Bush didn't say anything any differently than any Democrat said.
And yet it's like the world began on 2001 when Bush assumed office.
Anything that happened before that is irrelevant and immaterial.
And as I say, it just gets sometimes you just have to walk away from it.
But here when I have the opportunity to reach gazillions behind this, the golden EIB microphone is just an opportunity.
I don't want to pass it.
Anyway, great to have you back.
We've got another hour of broadcast excellence remaining.
We are ditto camming today.
I want to remind you that starting on Monday, the video podcasts of the morning update will take place.
We've been testing this all week.
We've been videotaping each morning update.
Brian is feverishly working on the system here to make it happen.
And it will happen.
It will happen seamlessly.
Just as you get the audio podcasts of the radio program each day, if you're a subscriber, rushlimbaugh.com, so will you get the video podcasts of the morning up to 90 seconds.
And I'm just going to give you a little between us, don't tell anybody.
But it's just a forerunner to other.
I mean, we've got other plans.
Don't tell anybody, though.
I don't even know why I have to whisper.
Whatever I say on this program is never heard by critics.
They go to other websites to find out what we actually say, so I don't have to whisper.
So that's coming up.
The Adopt a Soldier program continues.
We continue to seek military personnel and their families to register so that they can be matched up with donors.
This is done at rushlimbaugh.com.
Simply log on and sign up.
All we have to do is verify that you're legitimately military because there are a lot of people, of course, love to scam systems like this.
We have a huge entitlement mentality in this country.
A lot of people think that everything that they want, they should have.
And that if somebody else has it, they should give it to them.
So we want to make sure that the database is legitimately filled with military personnel.
All right.
Howard Dean, in the hangman's noose of his own making, said that his assertion that the U.S. can't win the war in Iraq was reported a little out of context, saying that Democrats believe a new strategy is needed to succeed there.
We have some audio soundbites.
He was on CNN today, and he was talking with Miles O'Brien.
Yeah, Miles O'Brien.
And I'm trying to see if Soledan asked me, but she didn't.
So let's go to the audio tape.
Question from Miles O'Brien.
You say, Mr. Dean, your remarks about the war were taken out of context.
Do you want to recant it, or is that how you feel?
It was a little out of context.
They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way they president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq.
All right, stop the tape.
The president cherry-picked nothing.
It was all white out.
They gave it to members of Congress.
They saw it.
They say the fact of the matter is it was a 92-page report, and only five or six members of the Senate read it.
Included among those who didn't was Senator Kerry.
And that's a classic example of what I'm talking about.
This is just blockhead.
This is just going on television and lying through his teeth.
And now he's trying to deny what he said.
It reminds me of this guy, Josh Steiner, back during the Clinton administration.
Is that what his name, Josh Steiner?
This guy, they found his diary, some star, some independent counsel looking into one of the multiple Clinton scandals.
And they found this guy who worked somewhere in the administration, Steiner.
And he had written in his diary something that was pretty damning for whoever it was they were investigating.
They brought the guy up.
It might have been a Senate committee.
It might have been a House committee.
I've been Tom Lantos.
Remember Tom Lantos?
When he was talking to Craig, what's his name?
Craig Livingstone.
Craig Livingston.
This is so funny.
I don't know if you people remember this.
We'll get back to Howard Dean in a second.
Craig Livingstone, nobody can remember who hired him.
Nobody in the administration for the longest time would admit to it.
Nobody in the administration, you had to ask yourself, well, how'd he get there?
Nobody knows who hired the guy just walking off the street.
He was working with some other schlub, and they had control of those 500 FBI files.
Well, not long before Craig Livingstone was brought up to testify, a Navy admiral committed suicide because Hackworth, the late David Hackworth, was running a story in, I think, Newsweek or U.S. News, whichever magazine Hackworth worked for, that Borda's medals were some of those irregularities.
They didn't earn them all or something.
They committed suicide out of shame.
And there's Lantos talking to Craig Livingstone.
He's really removing what it calls.
It's at least Admiral Burda committed suicide.
As though, Livingstone, you should consider this.
You know, Livingstone's looking at him, at least Admiral Burda committed suicide.
Well, anyway, this Josh Steiner guy was brought up like Livingstone.
And Steiner told Senate investigators that he lied to his diary, which said that Clinton was furious at Roger Altman's decision to recuse himself from a particular case investigation or what have you.
So he had this guy lied to his diary.
He said he lied to his diary.
It's like Charles Barkley reading his own autobiography.
And he's asked about something in it by a member of the press.
And Barkley said, I was misquoted.
Charles Barkley misquoted in his own autobiography.
Josh Steiner lied to his diary.
His quote was, I wish my diary was more accurate.
Now, who lies to their diary?
Who lied, of all things to lie to, who lies to the diary?
The lying takes place on the left in this.
I know both sides do it, but when it comes to this Iraq war intelligence garbage, I'm telling you, Howard Dean cannot go out and tell the truth about everything.
Here's the rest of the bite.
We can only win the war, which we have to win, if we change our strategy dramatically.
Stop the tape!
Stop the tape!
Did he say we have to win?
Didn't he say in his previous comment Monday that we can't win?
Didn't he say that?
He did say that.
Some of you may not.
Some of you liberal Democrats.
No, he never said that.
I'm going to play you the tape of him saying it.
And if I know you the way I know, you will continue to deny it.
No, he didn't say that.
Here's the rest of this.
Mr. Coalisting around a very different strategy.
We hope the president will join us.
This is a strategy of strategic freedom.
I can't take it.
I can't.
You hope the president will join you in victory?
This is one of these days where my own sanity is challenged.
I try not to expose myself to these people too much.
I mean, surround myself with what they think and say too much.
It can drive you nuts.
Here's the rest of it.
If we want to serve our troops well, who are doing a fantastic job in Iraq, and if we want to win the war on terror, we cannot pursue the failed strategy that we've pursued for the last three years in Iraq.
And we've got to start telling the truth to the American people about what's happening there.
This is psychosomatic.
There is a desperate need for therapy here.
Folks, this is, here's what he said.
This is what he is.
Go back.
He's on WOAI Radio in San Antonio, EIB, flagship affiliate, Stan Kelly, talking to him.
It's on the phone.
Stan Kelly says, eventually getting the U.S. forces out of Iraq is going to have the Iraqis doing a better job of defending themselves and taking a greater role.
Are we on the right tack to achieve that goal?
Let's not forget this was ultimately what America had to do in Vietnam.
Ultimately, they said, well, they're going to turn this over to the Vietnamese.
And of course, the South Vietnamese couldn't manage to take care of their own country.
I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we'd gotten in there.
The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
And I've seen this before in my life.
And it cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam.
I don't want to go down that road again.
Get out of there and take the targets off our troops back.
All right.
So look, the money quote here is the idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong.
The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
Now, what did he say?
They took me out of context.
They kind of cherry-picked that one.
The way the president cherry-picked intelligence.
We can only win the war, which we have to win, if we change our strategy.
Well, what's the but, yeah, your strategy still is to leave.
Bush's strategy is to stay.
The Democrats are coalescing around a very different strategy.
Yeah, leave, cut and run, quit, give up.
Uncle, call it whatever you want.
We quit.
We are the nation's Democrats.
We give up.
We want to serve our troops well, who are doing a fantastic job in Iraq.
And if we want to win the war on terror, we can't pursue the failed strategy we've pursued for the past three years in Iraq.
We've got to start telling the truth to the American people of what's happening there.
What's that got to do with the troops?
Okay, so you just heard him say, we can't win the war.
Then you heard him say, I've been taken to the context.
O'Brien says, well, let's go to the right flank of your own party, Senator Lieberman, and listen to what he has to say about this.
And they play Lieberman saying, it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.
So O'Brien says, do you beg to differ with the senator from your party?
I'm not as worried about the president's credibility as I am about the lives of brave American soldiers who are giving their lives and coming back wounded.
We believe that talking about the president's failed strategy in Iraq is not unpatriotic.
It may undercut the president, but it does not undercut our troops.
We're going to save our troops' lives.
We're going to learn from the experience of Vietnam and not wait for five years with promises made for political reasons here at home.
We are for the troops.
We're going to stand up for these troops.
They deserve better support than what they're getting.
Yeah, and you're the guy to give them that support.
Dealing with local.
And this is the guy they want running their party.
This is the guy they want running their party.
Actually, you know, I need to get rid of this frustration.
Fact is, this is a great example of how they just continue to burn themselves up.
They are imploding, self-immolating, whatever.
They are destroying themselves.
And the root of it is they're incapable of telling the truth.
They can't even be honest with themselves.
They don't have the guts to stand by what they say from one day to the next.
That's why they want the flexibility to change their position day in and day out.
But the real clincher is they think they're supporting the troops, and they think the troops are very, very supportive.
They can't, you know, you Dean says, well, we can undermine the president without undermining the troops.
I'm finished.
We'll be back in just a second.
In case you have people on the ditto camera rush, what are you strumming the guitar to out there?
I was listening to Street Fighting Man by the Stones here during the break.
And before that, high time we went by Joe Cocker.
At any rate, we are back.
I got two more soundbites here.
One is from Howard Dean, the other one is John Murtha.
And this is still on Good Morning, or I'm sorry, American Morning with CNN Miles O'Brien.
Finally, after this cesspool of wandering, aimless thoughts that ended up being a pack of lies by Howard Dean, Miles O'Brien says, final quick thought here.
With all the debate within the Democratic Party, you lay out a plan, a strategic redeployment, which seems to be gaining some steam in certain quarters.
Where, Miles?
Where is it gaining steam?
In the CNN newsroom?
At the CBS newsroom?
Where is this strategic redeployment gaining steam?
It's not gaining steam anywhere, except in people's minds.
Hang on a minute here, folks.
What's the rest of this question?
Strategic redeployment, which seems to be gaining some steam.
The American people don't think the Democrats don't have a plan.
Well, then, where is it gaining steam?
What's the question?
Oh, okay.
I get it now.
Strategic redeployment gaining steam, except the American people don't think the Democrats have a plan.
Why not?
I think that's mostly press gobbledygook.
The press wants to focus on the differences.
The differences are pretty small.
Perhaps Senator Lieberman accepted.
We want to win the war on terror, and we want to do it smart because we can't do it the way we're doing it now.
Well, now, where have I heard that before?
We're going to win it the smart way.
Who said that?
John Kerry.
John Kerr, all during the 2004 president.
Well, speak of the devil, there he is right now.
Council on foreign relations.
Well, it's a little late.
I guess they're running tape.
But he decided to do his own response to the Council on Foreign Relations today.
Bush spoke there yesterday.
So anyway, we've got to win it smarter.
We've got to do it smart.
It's press gobbledygook.
Howard, let me tell you something.
You wouldn't even be able to see above the sand if it weren't for the press.
The press gobbledygook is the amplification of your insane lunatic points of view.
And on that note, let's go to the Mirtha press conference yesterday.
You want to know what strategic redeployment is?
This is just a new phrase.
It's something to substitute for the word cut and run.
It's something they had to come up with because in the focus groups, cutting and running didn't work.
Quitting, giving up, crying, uncle didn't work.
So strategic redeployment.
And Mirtha defined that in his press conference yesterday.
When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us.
They throw a hand grenade or a rocket into our American forces, and the people run into the crowd and nobody tells them where they are.
My plan says redeploy to the periphery, to Kuwait, to Okinawa.
And if there's a terrorist activity that affects our allies or affects the United States national security, we can then go back in.
And a candidate, what is the problem that you people have with victory?
I say.
Gladly.
That's what we do here on this program.
We make the complex understandable.
Let's see.
I don't.
Yeah, this guy's been waiting for a long time.
Seth in Norfolk, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Glad you waited.
Hey, Rush.
I was glad to wait to have some time today.
Give you a call.
I just wanted to thank you a lot for the 24-7 invite for the military.
I've been getting the New York Times pumped into my email at work somehow, a special military edition with the downtrodden op-ed pieces every day.
Really?
Oh, it's, I mean, I've been meaning to, for the last, you know, six months, I've been like, you know, I just meaning to pop off a package to you in an email and show you the thing that they send us and stuff.
I mean, it's to the military.
And, I mean, you're not going to, you know, it's free, so you can't complain about something that's free, but it's got this.
What is it?
Is it a summary of what's in the paper every day plus some of the op-ed pieces?
Yeah, it's actually, yeah, it's just like the paper kind of, you know, it's about five or six pages and then, you know, the front page stuff.
I've seen this.
You know, they used to offer this, and they still may, the New York Times Fact Service.
You can get a five or six page little summary paragraphs of each story that's going to be in the paper the next day.
It's what you get if you're, well, before they had broadband, wireless broadband, if you're on a cruise ship, it's how they delivered the New York Times with any news to you, stuck it under your cabin door.
Exactly.
So I think I know what this thing is.
But I just didn't know that they were targeting it at military people now.
Yeah, I mean, as you said, I mean, this whole show you've been doing just really sums up the whole issue.
I mean, they say this doesn't affect the military, but you're taking shots at the commander-in-chief every day with high-pressure hose there.
Hey, it's not just that.
It's what the shots are.
The shots are he lied.
The shots are that this is an unjust, illegitimate war.
We don't deserve to win it.
We have no business being there.
All you guys do is torture prisoners.
Exactly.
It's all of this stuff.
It's not just they're dumping on the commander in chief.
They're making a whole effort here for which you volunteered illegitimate.
Exactly.
I've spent 19 years in the military.
I spent a good five or six of them in that region myself dealing with this thing from every president from Reagan until now.
And Clinton, nothing really has changed.
I spent eight years of my life doing this under Clinton, the whole Iraq thing.
It's just what you said before.
Nothing has changed.
Nothing changed the day he walked into office and it suddenly became this big issue.
This has been going on for many, many years, and it's just frustrating to see these guys just whittle away at things and make people ask questions about what they're doing.
They really are hurting morale when they do this stuff.
And I don't even think that they know that they're doing that.
Yes, they do.
You're being charitable and generous.
Some of them know that's happening.
Some of them have to know.
Look at, you know, you have to, one of the tenets of modern liberalism is that the military is the focus of evil in the modern world because that's the instrument by which this nation projects power.
And it is the power that we project that's unfair.
It intimidates and causes enemies.
Blah, So they know exactly what they're doing.
I have a belief, Seth.
I think that in certain, shall we say, sectors of the American left, military defeat is applauded privately.
They don't go public with it, but they like defeats because it shows them that military means is not the way to real peace.
So they love it when the military bombs out.
Some of these people do.
You never hear them say it, but they believe it.
And with that as a belief, they never say it's going to shape and inform other things they will say in public, such as this line of rock that we're getting from them now.
Yeah, I'm 100% with you.
I just, I mean, I hope that America knows, you know, it's not a scratch-off lottery ticket.
It's not, you know, Ti-Vo.
You can get it, you know, whatever show you want.
This stuff takes time, lots and lots and lots of time.
And, you know, people have invested lots and lots of time in this and lots and lots of energy and lives and all these things.
And well, the bottom line is: how long were you in?
Did you say 15 years?
I've been in 19 years.
19.
What branch?
The Navy.
You're in the Navy.
So you know for a fact that all this stuff's been going on for 19 years, that Bush didn't make it up out of whole.
I mean, the UN stuff that happened prior to this rush, that's the other side of the coin.
You know, the whole UN issue with what a what a I was directly involved with what a farce that was, what a crime that that was being perpetrated by the UN for this UN food for oil.
I mean, it was just a joke, and it went on through the whole Kling years, and it was just a big scam to siphon money off to these other countries.
And it's just, I mean, it's always, you know, Bush lied, but we should have just kept doing this UN food for oil and stifling this country's growth for the next 15 years using these dumb sanctions.
I mean, oh, it's just horrible.
Yeah, in fact, I saw a story.
You're talking about the oil for food program, right?
Yeah, I was directly.
I saw a story yesterday about the oil for food program, and it was a story about this elections chief at the UN that got fired because she was engaged in sexual harassment.
They don't fire anybody at the UN when they defraud the women and children of Iraq and when they engage in bribery and take bribery and so forth.
But when they sexually harass them, they're going to get tough with them and can them on that case.
But the prelude or the lead to the story was the oil for food program was to do with the notion that I forget how it was exactly worded, but they missed the whole point of it.
Rather than point out the scandal, they said that something else was responsible for taking food and medicine out of the mouths and homes of Iraqi citizens.
It was the bribery and the fraud of that scandal that did that.
It was, oh, they credited sanctions.
They sanctions which prevented medicine and food from getting to the Iraqi people.
Sanctions on Saddam.
It wasn't the sanctions.
It was the oil for food program that was basically nothing but bribery that kept all this stuff from getting to the Iraqi people.
And people overlooked that aspect of the scandal.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, had the UN oil for food program been an honest effort, it may have actually worked.
Might have.
But since it wasn't, since it was just a bribe siphon to Hussein on one side and members of the UN on the other and all these other countries that were involved and getting in there, then it was, you know, the law of economics works out and follow the money.
These guys are never going to stop this program because they're getting rich off of it.
Well, exactly.
Now, when you say theoretically, it might have worked, theoretically only.
You had a corrupt dictator on one side, you had a whole corrupt organization on the other.
It had no chance.
And in actual theory, if you set up a program with Corrupt thugs on both sides of the deal, it doesn't have a chance.
Look, Seth, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate your holding on for as long as you did and the nice things you had to say.
Walter in Kensington, Maryland, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Rush, just want to make a point.
I don't want to argue or anything, but I want you to look at it from this way.
You're an average person on the street.
You know, I hear what you have to say, but then you see the nightly news, you read different articles, you hear different generals like Clark and Shinsecki and Shalvili, and I know I just botched his name, and you hear different points of view of what's going on.
You hear a report that, you know, where Joe Lieberman was, he was in an area of Iraq that's pretty stable.
I guess my point is, is what are people supposed to believe when they get all this information, different information?
Well, can you give me some specific information?
For example, you heard from Ashley Wilkes that you want to know whether or not you should believe.
Well, I guess my question would be when you hear things aren't going on the ground as well as the administration says it is, or you hear things like, you know, the insurgency is growing, or you hear.
Okay, let's stop.
That's a good point.
Here's the way I do it.
The first thing, okay, who's saying it?
One, Ashley Wilkes.
That's what we call Wesley Clark here.
Okay, who is he?
Well, Wesley Clark's a Democrat.
He's a presidential candidate for the Democrats that did not reach the pinnacle in 2004, but he was in the primaries.
Therefore, is he speaking to us as a military person, an objective military person with no interest other than U.S. victory, or is he speaking to us as a liberal Democrat?
Now, so to find that out, I go compare what he's saying to what liberal Democrats are saying.
And I think, hmm, I'm hearing a lot of similarities here between Wesley Clark and a Liberal Democrat.
So if I hear a liberal Democrat saying, the bottom line for me is, I don't believe it.
I believe none of what they say.
I believe very little of what I see them say.
I have to really be proven when they start talking.
I have to really be convinced.
And then if, and then I measure what other people are saying against Clark.
And okay, who are they?
Okay, well, they might be generals that are retired like Clark is, but have they run for president?
No.
Are they writing books?
Yeah.
Are they on television?
Yeah.
Are they interested in becoming credible commentators?
Yeah, like Clark is.
Are they interested in our victory?
Do they want us to win?
If I cut, you know, Clark on the side of the Democrats, Democrats have no interest in our winning.
They're invested in defeat.
Clark's echoing what they say.
I'm doubtful.
I'm dubious.
Another general on the right who says something about the United States and its efforts and the ability that we have and talks about the military in the sense that I believe and know them, that they're capable, that they can win, that we are winning.
Then I do other things.
Fox had a documentary Sunday night on the changing face of Iraq and how there's positive news that isn't being reported.
I put all this together.
Now, in my case, all this happens in a split second because I know who Wesley Clark is.
I don't have to ask myself, but you might because you're trying to figure this stuff out.
But I know these guys.
This process I just described happens a split second.
In other words, when Wesley Clark opens his mouth, I don't believe it.
I don't care what he says.
I don't believe it.
When Bill Clinton opens his mouth, I don't believe it.
These other guys, Shinseki, do they have axes to grind?
Are the Democrats really trumpeting?
Are the Democrats rallying around these retired generals and propping them up?
Are they saying things about them that aren't true?
John Kerry keeps saying that Shinsecky was fired.
Was Shinseki fired?
No, he wasn't fired, as it turns out.
So if you find enough reasons here to doubt, if somebody's lying about one element of a story, the odds are there are other lies in there.
And then you ask yourself, what is their vested interest?
If they're out there saying that we can't win, then the worst thing can happen to them is for us to win.
Yeah, but I mean, but are they saying they can't win, period, or are they saying they can't win based on the strategy taking place right now?
Because, I mean, I'll be honest, I think every American, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, look, we're there.
Regardless of how we got there, the bottom line is we got to finish up.
We can't retreat now.
I agree with you there.
I mean, I think everybody's well-intentioned.
It's just a question of how do we get to that means.
See, I disagree with, I don't think everybody is well-intentioned.
That's where you and I differ.
I think Howard Dean said we need a new strategy.
And these and Wesley, we need a new strategy.
Well, okay, are they offering one?
Yeah, get out.
You just said you don't think we should do that.
But their strategy is cut and run.
Now, let me, since you asked, I'm glad you called because this is a great segue.
There's a story here from Reuters about the Democrats' struggle on Iraq.
The headline, divided Democrats struggle for cohesive Iraq view.
And they're all concerned about Dean, and they're really worried.
One of the guys in this story is Harold Ford of Tennessee.
He's running for the Senate or thinking about it.
And so they're going to him.
He's considered a moderate voice among the libs in the House of Representatives.
And here's what he said about a unified Democratic position on Iraq.
He said, I don't know if that's what we, the Democrats, are seeking.
That is not our responsibility fully to come up with all the answers on this.
Now, that tells me quite a bit there.
They don't want to be asked what their answers are because they don't have any.
They don't think they should have to have any because they're not running the show.
Well, okay, if you're going to sit around and say we need a new strategy because this one isn't working, then you better have an alternative.
They don't, and they're unwilling to come up with one.
I put all this in the hopper.
I mean, it's easy.
I could say to anybody about the job they're doing, I disagree with the way you're doing it.
Why would I have credibility saying that if I'd have never done it if I have no alternative?
I mean, it's easy as pie for these guys who have no responsibility whatsoever to go out and say we need a new strategy.
The guys saying it are of dubious qualification to me, such as Howard Dean and all the rest of these people.
And if you put their track record in history in the context, you don't find support for the military.
You find this is the party of McGovern.
And you have to conclude they're not interested in victory.
Hey, Rush, I agree with most of what you're saying.
Can I just make one point?
You mentioned McGovern Democrats.
Look, I mean, I will tell you right now, I'm a Bobby Kennedy Hubert Humphrey Democrat, and I will tell you the Democratic Party today makes me sick, sick to my stomach.
And I agree with you about Dinger Reed, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.
I think they're two of the most condescending people on the planet.
I absolutely agree.
But as far as George McGovern goes, I have a lot of respect for that man.
That man served in World War II honorably.
And it's a shame that he's labeled, you know, the party's labeled as a McGovern Democrat.
I wish there were more people that had guts like George McGovern.
And I just want to make that point.
Look, your comments about Hubert Humphrey, I can tell you, we did this.
We've got audio soundbites of Hubert Humphrey from the 60s talking about family values.
That would make a Democrat today cringe, and they'd treat him far worse than they treat Lieberman or that poor governor from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey.
The Democrats, look at this outfit in this little town, Manchester, Connecticut, holding a town meeting, figuring out what to do about Lieberman because he's off the reservation.
They don't allow altering points of view, alternative points of view, or differing points of view.
The reason McGovern has earned this label is because back in 1972 in the presidential campaign, he sounded no different than the Democrats you cited when talking about Vietnam.
And they went down to a landslide defeat.
And that's why I'm really long here, Walter, and I got to run.
But I'm glad you called.
Thanks so much.
I've enjoyed the conversation.
We will continue in a moment.
I want to mention this story here before we have to get out of here because we've been talking.
We started this.
Yeah, it was this week.
This week is going by so fast.
The story of the Sunday Washington Post, what's happening to all the boys on college campus?
And the answer, of course, is that the feminization of the curricula and the overrunning of militant feminism is running them off.
Here's a story out of Kansas City.
Even as the nation's parents a decade ago began taking daughters to work for a day, the murmurs were there, what about the boys?
Eventually, society's focus on the plight of girls stirred a backlash from boys advocates, drawing little media attention at first.
Their arguments gained both statistical strength and often uneasy support in a culture where gender inequities have long made Americans defensive and edgy.
The American Association for University Women also did not disclose poll results showing broad agreement among students of both genders who thought girls enjoyed better treatment by teachers than boys.
What was so bizarre, said Joe Manthe, who now leads a schools program for boys in California, is that it came out right at the same time girls had overtaken boys in almost every area.
And he had this fascinating quote.
And I know, Snerdley, you're going to love this.
You're going to eat this quote up because I do because this is a money quote.
It says, Joe Manthe, and now, man, again, he leads school programs for boys in California.
When the girls were thought to be hurting in schools, the approach was to change the schools.
When it's boys who are in trouble, people say change the boys.
And that's where we are.
And you know how we change the boys?
You give them Ritalin.
Back in just a second.
Okay, folks, I got to get out of here.
I got to do the morning update.
We got to do one more test rehearsal, maybe a couple more for our video podcast debut starting on Monday, right after this program.
So you have a great day already.
Open Line Friday tomorrow.
And we will look forward to being back and seeing you then.
And thanks so much for being with us today and every day.