All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:58
December 22, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, standby uh 13 and 14 because that Kofi lost it out there as well.
You're not you're not supposed to when you're a journalist, you're supposed to bow down and speak with reverence to people like Kofi, Annan, membership of the elite.
And some reporter asked him about the oil for food program, and Kofi lost it.
Anyway, greetings.
And welcome back, folks.
So all across the fruited plain.
My dulcet tones of rhetoric and residence reverberate.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Audio soundbite time, Saddam Hussein.
Part of this is uh through a translator.
But uh Saddam is using my my my defense.
In fact, let's play number 12 first.
Saddam and his uh his uh lawyer, Ramsey Clark, former attorney general to a Democrat, uh Lyndon Johnson, are doing what I knew they would do.
They are adopting my suggested defense strategy flat out.
This what I this is what I said they would do.
It's what I've suggested they should do November 7th of this year on this very program.
If I were Saddam Hussein, I would say, I have no hope for a fair trial.
Bush is a liar.
He lied about the reasons for and the need to invade my country, and I want it back.
He hires liars.
It is George Bush who should be impeached and convicted in his own country and then tried at The Hague in my place.
Not me.
Here is Saddam today in court.
The White House lies once more.
The number one liar in the world that they said in Iraq there is chemicals and a relationship to terrorism, and then they announced later that we couldn't find any of that in Iraq.
It's so predictable.
It is so I wonder if Democrats feel.
One of their one one of their staunchest allies now in their whole campaign at Bush Lied is Saddam Hussein.
Saddam and the Democrats, inseparable, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the policies of this country.
Now this next story, I alluded to this yesterday, and I noticed that the uh web people did not put it up, so I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna mention this uh again today from Slate.com.
It's by Daniel Gross.
Uh and it's just Well, it speaks for itself.
I may also explain why journalists are so mean and nasty and jealous and vengeful is because they have no money.
Daniel Gross, Slate.com, Tuesday, December 20th, actually, this ran.
The New York real estate boom is claiming a different kind of casualty, according to an article in Sunday's New York Times.
Heing off a new report issued by the Center for an Urban Future, Jennifer Steinhauer noted that thanks to high housing prices, many of the creative types who work in Manhattan-centered fields like advertising, publishing, and the arts, are being priced out of the city.
This presumably could damage New York in the long run since it's an article of faith among Nouveau urban thinkers, that the creative classes are a huge economic advantage, as the author Richard Florida has persuasively argued.
It could also damage journalism, though.
The journalists who write these stories about people who cannot afford to live in New York, can't afford to live there either.
And that's a trend that may prove just as corrosive to establishment media as any disruptive technology.
In an article about layoffs at Time Inc., David Carr refers to the magazine giant as the GM of the magazine industry.
It's an apt metaphor.
For at the publications of Time Inc.
and the other two members of Manhattan's historic big three media, the New York Times Company and Dow Jones, wages have been stagnating for years.
Disclosure, I, the author of this piece, derive a portion of my income from the Times.
It has long been the case that a reporter for the Journal or the Times or Time Magazine could not afford to live well in Manhattan, but increasingly they can't afford to live well in Park Slope either.
Are you crying tears yet, ladies and gentlemen?
You're shedding tears for these people.
Why they are being assigned to do stories on people who can't afford to live in Manhattan anymore, and they themselves can't.
It's such a tragedy.
And this, folks, they say, this is going to lead to a more corrosive aspect of journalism than any new media.
Because it's going to drive the really smart people out of the business.
The really smart people, Harvard graduates, really smart people, who then use their degrees to go to journalism, don't make enough money.
To live in Manhattan, the media capital of the world, how can they possibly stay?
Journalists have long suffered from what David Brooks identified as status income disequilibrium.
Journalists receive low wages compared to many of their peers and neighbors, but they enjoyed higher prestige and job security.
But for employees of the big media three, both the prestige and job security are fading as the publications hemorrhage audience, advertisers, buzz, and public esteem.
Well, I wonder why all of that is happening.
This reminds me of Dan Rather in a CBS newsroom when Larry Tish bought him.
He said, I got newsrooms hemorrhaging money.
I gotta cut people in there.
And rather you can't cut the news division.
Why we shouldn't be held at the bottom line.
He cut the jobs anyway.
Meanwhile, the wages for other professions that New York journalist neighbors and peers work in, law consulting financial services hedge funds have been rising fast.
So journalists in New York are worried about their 401ks, the barriers thrown up by co-op boards, and the excruciating choices they face.
Public or private schools, Brooklyn or Montclair.
Folks, can I try to put this in perspective for you?
These are the everyday challenges of every American.
They think they are somehow to be immune from this.
This cry about excruciating choices, public or private schools, for crying out loud.
You are supporting a political party that's trying to deny private school to anybody that wants it.
You were out there essentially aiding and abetting a corrupt public school system.
But yet you are upset.
You face the excruciating choice of public or private schools.
What have I told you about these liberals?
They're smarter than you.
They're the elitists.
There will be rules that they will establish whereby all of us will live, but they shall be exempt from those rules themselves.
Why they shouldn't have an excruciating choice over the best schools.
Why that ought to be automatic.
Their kids ought to always go to the best schools just because they are their kids.
Can't deal with these hard choices in life.
So they're worried about their 401ks and whether they live in Brooklyn or Montclair, New Jersey.
In his recent New Yorker takedown of New York Times Chairman Pinch Schultzberger, Ken Oletta noted that at a newsroom meeting at the end of November, editor Bill Keller found that most of the questions directed at him didn't deal with Judy Miller.
They dealt with money.
In fact, Steinauer, Jennifer Steinauer, one of the reporters herself told Ken Oletta, I really think the financial issue faced by this company and this industry is the big concern, not Judith Miller.
The health care fund for guild employees, newspaper guild, well that went belly up last year.
We had to give up our pay raises to fund our health care.
Our stock options are underwater.
You talk about having no connection to real people, and these are the journalists of New York who are supposedly better qualified to tell us what we should all think and how we should all be.
They are opposed to tax cuts.
They're opposed to anything that would add financial flexibility to the average American's life, and yet here they come complaining and whining and moaning about the fact that they had to fund their own health care by giving up a pay raise, or their stock options are underwater.
Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, the best business news organization on a planet.
Employees are perennially crabby at the way management scrimps on benefits and wages.
Most experienced reporters and editors at the publications in question earn salaries in the low six figures.
These people are whining and moaning and complaining about making salaries in the low six figures.
They can expect salaries to rise by just a few percentage points A year if they're lucky.
Salaries that barely pierce six figures certainly aren't insulting the most Americans, but everything is relative.
A couple doing quite well, he's an editor at the journal, she's a reporter at the Times.
It could make up to 250,000, but after New York taxes, New York child care, and New York housing, you're not left with much.
In New York City, you can't buy a co-op or a condo with only 10% down.
In most desirable suburbs, you can't buy a starter house for less than 700 grand.
When children arrive, the couple has to choose between living in an inexpensive town with good public schools, which means long, painful commutes, or the prospect of private school tuition at 25,000 per kid per year.
Given the types of lives many journalists wish to lead and think they're entitled to lead, by virtue of their education and positions, the wages aren't anywhere near sufficient.
I am I when I read this yesterday, I was just I the whole every sentence is an I told you so as and I told you so.
New York taxes, why don't you come out and support tax cuts then?
One time.
You're not even in favor of tax cuts.
You don't even improve your own life.
You complain about how much you're being paid.
And in the long painful commute, do they not know how most New Yorkers live?
Do you know what these transit workers run?
You know what they're being paid and what they're on strike over?
They're being paid starty salary set start Saturday.
Starting salary.
Starting salary for a motorman's $55,000 a year.
And I think the raise they want will put them up to 60 or 65, something like that.
These people, these are the transit workers, and these are people of color, 70% of them.
And they don't live in Manhattan, and they don't live in Park Slope, and they don't live in Brooklyn Heights.
They don't live in Riverside.
They don't live over in Pacific or uh uh Palisades and the and Saddlebrook and all.
Oh no, no, no.
They live way, way out.
They live in tiny little houses, 65,000.
You know what the firemen make in New York?
That's why they have to do two and three jobs.
Yeah, they only work three days a week, but 55,000 cops?
Put more on the line than a reporter ever thinks about.
And here they're they say it can't make ends meet because they're prestige, they're prestige.
I mean, educational prestige demands you chose journalism, you know what it pays.
Now there's more here.
It's ironic that much of the expanded coverage of both the Times and the Journal is dedicated to the sort of high-end consumption that reporters can't really afford.
As a result, there's a nose press to the glass quality to much of the coverage.
Today, neither journalists nor their employers have aligned their self-perceptions with the wages they pay and the space they occupy in the world.
For decades, companies like the Media Big Three have seen themselves as among the best and the brightest.
The Times the Journal, Time Inc., they want to hire yuppies, the better to connect with their yuppie readerships.
Reporters and editors want to be yuppies.
But the economics of the business and of the hometown no longer allow for the upwardly mobile portion of yuppiedom.
Oh, really?
These people are making more than Rumsfeld makes.
They're making as much as Bush makes.
They're making as much as anybody in government makes.
We New York area journalists shouldn't ask for pity.
Well, then why'd you write the piece?
And we don't deserve it.
Then why'd you write the piece?
As a class, we're bourgeois and ambitious.
We like comfort and access, but we don't want to work all that hard.
Well, there's your answer.
There's your you don't want to work that hard.
While you go out and impugn people busting their rear ends, whether they're in Iraq, whether they're cops, whether they work at Walmart, you'll go out and impugn people all day long who do work hard.
You will impugn ExxonMobil, you will impugn big pharmaceutical, you will impugn anybody.
Working hard.
Working for clients, as our lawyers, uh lawyer neighbors do, is anethana to us.
We're not going to have clients.
So is taking on risk, the task for which our neighbors who toil in the Financial vineyards are so richly rewarded.
Yep, okay.
If you don't want risk, if you don't want hard work, and you don't want to have clients, on what basis do you propose being paid?
When your newspapers are losing circulation, losing advertising, on what basis?
That you're better than brighter than everybody else?
Yep, that's the answer.
Writers unhappy with their wages can always switch fields or seek other jobs or leave.
If housing prices continue to rise and if wages continue to stagnate, the media big three may find that their captive creative class might quit for greener pastures.
Michael Gross, Daniel Gross and Slate Magazine.
Now, and he thinks that when that happens, they also are irreplaceable.
If the current crop of reporters and journalists at the big three in New York decide we're not going to take it anymore, we're going to go out there and make big books.
That that's it for journalism.
But last I looked, there were all these little citadels.
I mean, they're pr producing people by the droves who want to come into New York and be journalists that'll do it for half what these people are making, and they'll have the energy to do it for 10 or 12 years, and the people that run their papers know it.
And well, I'm not even going to get into whether you could of course there are plenty of neighborhoods in New York where you can live on 250,000, but not the way they want to live.
Not the way they think they're entitled to live, that's the point.
At any rate, I had to share this with you because it helps put in perspective in context who these people are and the fact that they hate the rich, yet they want to be.
They despise tax cuts, yet they desperately need them.
They're just they're off in the clouds.
They are such elitists.
And these are the people who claim to be in charge of knowing what we should know and not know.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with them.
Always exciting, and we get a call from Philadelphia.
This is Rich.
Nice to have you, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, it's a it's an honor to talk to you as I'm opening my letter for the media conference, the dishonors program next year.
Anyway, I'm so sick of the people comparing uh United States to Nazi Germany when they probably have absolutely no clue on the history and what happened in the 30s in Germany.
Well, who's doing this?
Well, the guy in the last call who called that we're gonna wake up one day and in Nazi Germany because of all the civil liberties we're losing.
I forgot that.
Yeah, you're right.
But the left is out there calling Bush Hitler and all that.
Yeah, you're right.
In the 30s.
And then it makes me sick that the people all they have to do is open up a history book.
It's not about history.
It's it's not about history.
It's about utter ignorance, it's about fear, and it is about a bunch of people who haven't the slightest idea what they are talking about, simply trying to propose anything that will scare other people, so they'll be frightened with them and get rid of Bush and elect Democrats back to power.
It may be a little simplistic, but it's pretty much that's all it is.
But it's they live by the tenants of Nazi Germany where they said a lie repeated enough times becomes true.
And that's what they're doing.
There was no Rush Limbaugh show in Germany, and there was no alternative media.
They had total control of it.
That has been arrested from these people in this country.
That's why they're upset.
They used to get their way saying whatever they wanted to say, it'd be amplified, everybody would hear it, hear nothing else, and it it uh it would affect a lot more people than it does today.
I mean, put put what we have in context with that is is is actually no comparison.
But I guess they don't want to do that.
But it shouldn't even be I mean I know look at this is kind of it's kind of ridiculous to have to even address this.
I mean, it's absurd.
The United States is Nazi German.
It's absolutely absurd.
And but but uh uh I I can understand your you're um feeling compelled to uh to lash out uh at this, but you have to understand who these people are, and they really are a minority.
They are so, so few, made to appear so so large, and so so many.
But they aren't, and that bothers them too.
Uh Arlington, Virginia, this is Frank.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Thank you, Rush, for having me on.
Merry Christmas.
Same to you, sir.
Um, I wanted to put things in historical context.
The first president of the United States, first American president to authorize warrantless wiretaps was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s to try to get the Axis powers operating in this country and their agents.
Back then, wiretaps were illegal even in criminal cases.
They couldn't get it through the courts.
They couldn't get it through the Congress.
And so finally, Roosevelt's attorney general told him look, if you authorize me as command your commander-in-chief, if you authorize me, I can authorize J. Edgar Hoover to do these wiretaps.
And you're acting as commander-in-chief to protect this country against foreign enemies.
And every president continued this.
Not just Roosevelt.
It continued with Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson.
Excellent point.
Excellent point.
You are exactly right.
That's the that's a very rational explanation for why it happened then and how, and nobody was opposed to it.
The one thing FDR did that has not been carried forward, however, is the internment of uh of Japanese citizens, 110,000 of those innocent Americans.
That has not been uh Well, take it back.
Waco invasion, close, close second.
Talent on loan from God.
El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing Maharashi, America's anchor man, doing what I was born to do.
Just got a press release, uh, ladies and gentlemen, dated today.
Al Qaeda announced today it would relocate its international headquarters to an unnamed U.S. city in order to take advantage of espionage-free local and state-to-state phone calls.
Al Qaeda will thrive in the land of liberty, said an unnamed spokesman on a 30-minute pre-recorded DVD.
We're still shopping for a primary location with great access to transportation and other be praised good public schools.
The Al-Qaeda source said that Democrats in Congress had recommended the move after the New York Times revealed that the National Security Administration listens in on communications between international terrorists and some U.S. residents.
The source said that no matter where Al Qaeda plants its U.S. headquarters, it will incorporate in tax-free Nevada.
Great comedy has to have an element of truth in order to be funny.
This does.
That's from our buddy Scott Ott at Scrappleface.com.
You know, it's been a while since we checked in.
Tom Dashel hasn't been working in a lot of well, you've been working.
Admitting has been in the Senate for a long time.
As you know, he uh one of the many hosts on liberal radio.
Let's check in, shall we?
I want to send our best out to the former uh majority leader in the United States Senate, Tom Dashell, now relegated to a show with an audience of two on some obscure liberal so-called network, somewhere, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
How many times have I have we discussed on this program the uh the migration of Northeastern residents to the Sunbelt, to the oceans, to the beaches, and in the warmer climbs.
We've discussed it a lot because it's happening.
800 people a day moving to Florida, for example, even despite all the hurricanes, 800 a day.
I've said if if this number keeps up, if that rate keeps up, New York will have more electoral votes than New York uh in ten years.
Florida will have more electoral votes than New York in uh in ten years.
And the and this is going to cause all kinds of presidential electoral college challenges and problems for Democrats because that's where all the voters are.
We just read the journalists are thinking to leave in New York.
We just heard this whining, moaning little story they can't make ends meet on 250,000 a year, and they can't cover the people they're supposed to cover.
So they have to basically put their noses up against the glass and look how real people live and fun people live and successful people live while the journalists sit there and eat dust.
And there are a lot of other people moving out too.
Well, here's another story, and this is from the AP.
Growing populationships, political power.
Once again, illustrating you listen here, you will be on the cutting edge.
You'll hear about what's important before it becomes important.
So that when it is important, you will already be up speed.
Southern and western states are growing so much faster than the rest of the country that several are expected to grab house seats from the Northeast and Midwest when Congress is reapportioned in 2010.
Demographers and political analysts project that Texas and Florida could each gain as many as Three house seats.
Ohio and New York could lose as many as two two seats apiece, and it could be more than that.
Several other states could gain or lose single seats too.
The states in the Midwest are going through a transition, said Ohio Republican chairman Bob Bennett.
We're going from a heavy manufacturing economic base to a more service-oriented base, and that transition's been very painful.
But if you uh you ever banned air conditioning, I think people would flock back uh to us.
Uh the projections are based on state population estimates by the Census Bureau.
The Bureau released its July 2005 estimates today showing that Nevada grew at a faster rate than any other state for the 19th consecutive year, followed by Arizona, Idaho, Florida, and Utah.
Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts lost population, as did D.C. The population of North Dakota, Ohio, and Michigan grew, but at a slower rate than others.
Keep a sharp eye on this because these migrations are going to end up having really profound electoral impact on Democrat states, and it's going to affect the way they campaign.
If they don't modernize, it's just another uh chip of the armor here of their giant age-old coalition of movements that make up the party.
They're gonna all get weaker and weaker and weaker.
And when combined, they're not gonna be enough to put the Democrats over the top.
For example, you know, Democrats are pretty much guaranteed New York.
Right.
Well, and they still will be.
But Florida and other places will become guaranteed opposites with more electoral votes as this trend continues, and it will happen in our lifetimes.
Marlene and Tucson, nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Thank you.
I I have a hard time with the all the people from California moving in here.
It's because they bring their politics with them.
Uh well, how does it do how does it differ from Senator McCain's?
How does it differ from Senator McCain's politics?
How do you think we got him?
Well, you know, a lot of California.
Well, we've had this theory that I think that you know, when you move to a new state, you shouldn't be able to vote for quite a few years simply because you have to get acclimated to what's going on in that city.
Well, now you can't you can't enforce that.
We're letting illegal aliens vote for Democrats.
We're trying to we don't want that either.
Well, I know you've lost that.
So how are you going to keep legal citizens from voting for a couple of years to leave them?
I don't know.
I just wouldn't.
Really, is it is it is it mostly Democrats moving into Tucson from uh from California?
Yes.
Yes.
Well, in fact, our last election here.
Now why would that be?
Here they're leaving the the Democrats are leaving their panaceas.
They're leaving New York and they're leaving uh they're leaving California.
A lot of re a lot of Republicans are moving out of California too for different reasons than Democrats are, but they are.
Uh I mean, there's a lot of long way to go before any of this affects California.
There's so many people moving in there and immigrating there legally and illegally.
The California, you don't include that in this migration map.
It's gonna stay it's gonna stay huge, and it's gonna be a beacon state.
People are going to continue to see all kinds of opportunity there and go try to make try to make their mark, but those who go there and fail and get tired of it will move out.
But overall, the net population gained.
In fact, there was a story in the LA Times.
This goes back to uh maybe the summer or the spring.
There was a story in the LA Times, uh the Times couldn't figure out.
Well, they didn't survey so many people leaving.
Why is the population not being reduced?
It could be they wouldn't they didn't count illegal immigrants.
It was they didn't immediately have a lot of people on voting rolls who are there twice or three times, or you know, if they don't take them off when they die, too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But I I wish they would stay away.
And because I mean in our last election here, local the local politics change.
Well, what do they do?
I mean, now wait a second.
I I I need I need I need some evidence here.
But how do you know the politics of these people moving into the state?
What do they do?
Um, one, because we have all of a sudden all these, you know, the the mass transit must be paid for by the government, and that you know, we have um all the Oh, oh, I see.
Okay.
So they're leaving because they've ruined the state.
Right.
And then bringing the policies that ruined a state into your state.
Not recognized.
Well, look, um, I have a feeling that all this migration is going to end up being a net loss for the Democrats because they're gonna be diluted.
Uh they may be moving to Arizona, but they're moving to other states as well, but not in large enough numbers.
There, I mean, there are more Republicans now than Democrats.
The People that call themselves that.
Quick timeout.
I appreciate the uh phone call.
Do not go away, folks.
We'll be right back.
Dean Kerrianis at the website is uh is the assistant Coco.
Sent me this.
I've forgotten this story.
This this is about uh this is an adjunct here to the journalist.
Is this too expensive to live in New York?
And see, what are we our kids in private school?
We can't afford it.
Public school, what do we do?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
We got this migration going on.
You will remember this story.
Because on July 19th of 2004, I read this op-ed by a freelancer who aborted two of her triplets to save money to avoid moving to Staten Island and losing her Manhattan apartment.
Name was Amy Richards.
You remember the story.
Now I'm 34.
My boyfriend Peter and I have been together for three years.
I'm old enough to presume that I wasn't going to have an easy time becoming pregnant.
I was tired of being on a pill because it made me moody.
Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant.
We both agreed that we would have the child.
Well, I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician.
A doctor had just finished telling me that I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy.
Turned on the sonogram machine.
There was a long pause, and she said, Are you sure you didn't take fertility drugs?
Said I'm positive.
Peter and I were very shocked when she said that there were three.
You know this changes everything.
You'll have to see a specialist.
My immediate response was, I can't have triplets.
I wasn't married.
I live in a five-story walk-up in the East Village.
I work freelance.
I'd have to go on bed rest in March.
I lecture at colleges.
And my biggest months are March and April.
I'd have to give up my main income for the rest of the year.
There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that, but it was a matter of, do I want to?
I looked at Peter and I said to the doctor, is it possible to get rid of one of them?
Or two of them.
Meaning her babies.
The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.
Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden I felt ill.
I didn't want to eat anything.
What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience on a subway.
Peter, my boyfriend, said, Shouldn't we consider having triplets?
And I had this adverse reaction.
This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets.
That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.
When I found out about the triplets, I felt like it's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island.
I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these kids.
I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.
Peter was staring at the sonogram screen, thinking, oh my gosh, there are three heartbeats.
I can't believe we're about to make two disappear.
The doctor came in.
Peter was asked to leave.
I said, Can Peter stay?
Doctor said no.
I know Peter was offended by that.
The upshot is this woman aborted two of the three babies so she wouldn't have to move Staten Island.
And uh so there is a way you don't have to leave New York.
Amy Goodman has shown the way in the summertime 2004.
New York Times, Warren and West Palm Beach.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
It's good to talk to you, sir.
Um I just wanted to comment on the subject that you were speaking about recently about everybody moving from the uh liberal areas into the southern and western area.
Yeah.
Uh here in West Palm Beach, uh recently in the last couple of days, I've run into a group of uh Democrats trying to get petitions passed uh to uh change the way redistant is done here in Florida.
So congratulations.
I'm not not surprised.
But why in uh statewide or just yeah, it has to be statewide, really, because they're they totally dominate this county and every county south.
Uh the outfit doing it is called acorn.
Is called what?
Acorn.
A oh, like Acorn.
Acorn.
Ah, we all know about these people.
They're they're uh they that's a wacko group.
They've been around a long time.
I forget what the acronym stands for, but um, they're activists, they've been out rabble rousing for for a long, long time.
I've you know, let them I mean, there's nothing you can do to stop them from doing it.
But it just indicates they know what's happening in the state.
The state's Republican now, the you know, South Florida, you get this county, Palm Beach, uh, Broward, Miami Dade.
All run by the liberals and the Democrats, and that's what made the Gore Bush recount so funny.
I mean, they were claiming they were defrauded themselves, uh, apparently.
Um and it was just, it was it was all all laughable and eager to make their voters sound stupid, don't know how to vote, don't know to use butterfly ballot.
I can understand why the ACORD would be in here uh trying to do this.
Uh and it's probably in part due to this influx of um of people.
Let's see.
Let me let me do Delphus, Ohio very quickly before we uh have to take the break.
This is Mark.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you.
Russ, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I just want to say maybe the maybe the liberals and the Democrats just need to uh sacrifice a little bit.
I mean, I sacrificed to send my daughter to a uh a public school or a private school.
I chose to send her to a private school, and I sacrificed, I went and got a different job.
Sir, I I I understand this, but but you see, sacrifice is for you.
It's not for them.
Remember when we're in the in the middle of the war, these very same people are agitating for tax increases.
Because the American people, why you can't, you can't have a war without suffering.
There has to be suffering.
There have there has to be sacrifice.
You have to sacrifice tax increases.
The same people now wailing and moaning about how they don't have enough money to live the way they want to live.
They want you to sacrifice out there, Mark, but not them.
They're not supposed to.
They live with a different set of rules.
They're they're the elitists that are pointing.
They're not they're not supposed to be subjected to the average, ordinary, everyday ebbs and flows of life like you are.
They are there to tell you how to get through those ebbs and flows best because you don't know how, but they do.
So they're they're they're not they're not of the class of people that sacrifice.
And I think what we've heard today from what they've written indicates they're not prepared to.
We will be back.
Stay with us, my friends.
I like to uh wrap up here by sending out our condolences on behalf of all of us.
Uh those of us here, those of you in the audience, to the family of Tony Dungey, Tony and Lauren Dungey, who learned at 1.30 this morning that their uh young son James, the second eldest of their five children had died in Tampa.
Uh the nation will mourn here.
Tony Dungey's a well-known and beloved uh national figure, and uh we want to pass along our condolences.
▲
Export Selection