All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
January 6, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Time is zipping by here today, folks.
We're already at Friday, and we're already in the last hour of Friday.
Fastest three hours in media zipping by every day, and it's no mystery why.
Greetings, great to have you.
It is Friday, so let's just keep it rolling.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday.
And here's the telephone number.
It's 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Great to have you on the program today, folks.
Remember the rules now.
When it comes to taking phone calls, we will talk about things I don't care about.
Whatever you want to talk about today is fine.
Monday through Thursday, we talk about things that interest me from front to back.
I'm not going to sit here and talk about things I don't care about.
But I take a great career risk on Friday engaging in this, letting rank amateurs choose that portion of the program.
And I love it.
Don't miss it.
I don't mean anything insulting by rank amateurs.
I'm just, I am the highly trained broadcast specialist.
You are the rank amateurs when it comes to hosting.
You people are probably better callers than I would be because I don't ever call anybody.
If you want to send an email, rush at eibnet.com.
All right, very quickly, if you want the straight-up winners in the NFL's wildcard weekend this weekend, they are the Buccaneers, the Patriots, Steelers, and the New York Giants.
Straight-up winners, the Tampa Bay Bucks, the New England Patriots, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the New York Giants, which means the straight-up losers are the Washington Redskins, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Cincinnati Bungles, and the Carolina Panthers.
And am I confident about those?
Yeah.
Especially pick three because the Hutch told me that the Bingles are going to win, but he only picked the Bingles because he knows I like the Steelers because I gave him a Steelers jersey with my name on it when I autographed it.
I said, P.S. The Hutch stole this from me.
and he's never gotten over that.
Well, now, what are you not sure about the Giants?
What are you, what's, oh, no.
Well, whether you hate the Giants or not shouldn't affect whether you think they're going to win the game.
No, I just, I think home teams are pretty much going to win.
That's the way this weekend goes.
With the upset, I think the Bungles are going the wrong way this time of year and the Steelers are peaking.
But I will admit I'm a little torn.
Now, you talking point spreads, it's going to be a different situation.
We'll do that a little bit later.
Mentioned this earlier in the program.
Hidden cameras have pierced the hard-to-investigate world of nursing home neglect, leading to the arrests of 19 employees in a civil action against an owner after patients were left in their own waste while some staffers watched movies.
This, according to the office of New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer, yesterday.
The investigations prompted a consumer report released on Thursday that serves as a starting point for patients and their families to evaluate staffing levels at nursing homes statewide.
The arrests involved employees of the Jennifer Matthew nursing home in Rochester and the Northwoods nursing home in Cortland.
Now, Spitzer said he's trying to recover state Medicaid funds for care that he argues wasn't provided.
He said the home has received $10 million in Medicaid funds over the last several years.
And he said that hidden cameras found a patient in the Rochester home and other residents hadn't been repositioned to avoid bed sores, were often left for hours to lie on their own urine and waste.
He also said medications and treatments were not provided as prescribed.
Excuse me, folks.
I just have a question.
Did he use a warrant for these hidden cameras?
Well, it doesn't say.
It doesn't say.
If he didn't use a warrant, it sounds like unauthorized surveillance to me.
Of course, I don't play a lawyer on TV, so I don't know how this would shake out, but I would like to know if he used warrants.
Now, you don't think we've got a problem with the courts in this country?
The Florida Supreme Court struck down a statewide voucher system yesterday that allowed children to attend private schools at taxpayer expense.
This is a program that Governor Bush considered one of his proudest achievements.
It was the nation's first statewide voucher program.
In a 5-2 ruling, the Florida Supreme Court said the program undermines the public scruples and violates the Florida Constitution's requirement of a uniform system of free public education.
Voucher opponents had also argued that the program violated the separation of church and state in giving tax dollars to parochial schools, an argument a lower court agreed with, but the state Supreme Court didn't address that issue.
About 700 children in Florida are attending a private or parochial scruel through the program, but the ruling will not become effective till the end of the schruel year.
The governor said, I think it's a sad day for accountability in our state.
He said the voucher program had a positive effect because it put pressure on school districts to focus on the underperforming schools.
So if you read this, the Florida Supreme Court said that this voucher program violates the Florida Constitution's requirement of a uniform system of free public education.
So if that uniform system of free public education stinks, that's still going to be what we're going to have because it's uniform.
It makes the point.
Liberalism believes in equality, and the only way you can get there is to spread misery equally.
And by the way, this notion that private schools at taxpayer repents people go to public schools at taxpayer expense.
Who do you think is paying for the public schools?
What is this taxpayer expense repress?
Who cares?
You can see that the focus here is not on improving education, it is on protecting a public school system that can't compete.
Pure and simple, power of the unions.
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Puff Daschell is hoping to save incumbent Democrats from his own fate.
And so the Puffster is giving away $230,000 in campaign cash to vulnerable members of his party.
He may also be thinking about his own future.
Now, you might say, $230,000?
Campaign cash?
What campaign?
His, folks.
In case you have forgotten, members of Congress can keep whatever they don't spend that has been donated to them.
In fact, I don't know if this ever got changed.
At one point, when a member of Congress left office, unspent campaign cash could be converted to personal use.
Now, wasn't there some attempt at some point, snurdy, to change that?
And I don't know if that succeeded or not.
I don't know if it didn't.
I'm not sure that ever happened.
So I don't know, but Dashell has 236.
He's got a lot more.
So he took 236 from campaign funds he didn't use to give it to vulnerable members of his party.
A spokesman said Thursday that Daschel has not ruled out a run for president in 2008.
He raised the money last year for Democrats in Congress.
Former Dashell campaign manager Steve Hildenbrand also said that Dashel is going to give a speech in the politically pivotal state of Iowa next month.
It'll be his second trip to the state since he left Congress.
Dashel, also scheduled to speak in California and New York.
Well, hubba, hubba.
Man, I tell you, one thing, you know, I've always said about the liberals, you lose and you rise in prominence in their party.
They're losers.
I mean, you lose and it's a resume enhancement.
I say the more losers the Democrats can trot out there and run for office again or to urge votes for others.
We need more Jimmy Carter.
We need more Michael Lukakis.
Just get these guys out there.
It's amazing to me to watch.
The Democratic Party vaults its losers to senior status in the party.
And you know why?
I'll tell you why.
There's a reason for it.
I'm not just making this up.
It actually happens.
There's a reason for it.
Victimhood.
Democrats who lose don't lose.
They have it stolen from them.
It's cheated away from them.
It's something it's just not fair.
Isn't it right?
No Democrat ought to ever lose an election ever.
These guys are at the top of the victim pool.
And they think they can go arouse sympathy.
Here's our great former Senate leader, Tom Daschell, who by all rights should still be there.
But he had an election taken away from him by this guy, Theune, and in South Dakota.
And everybody knows that Dashel should not have lost.
He is our hero.
And so they put their losers at the top of their heap because their losers to them are victims.
They love victims.
I think everybody will sympathize with their victims.
What they don't understand is that nobody wants to be led by a loser.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, back to the phones on Open Line Friday.
I got horrible news for the Now Gang coming up, folks.
The NAGs, this is a dark day for them and the left, as is every day to one extent or another.
This is Mitch in Yuma, Arizona.
You're next, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
I wanted to say thank you very much, actually.
I'm one of your adopted soldiers.
I'm a Marine station here in Yuma.
I agree with you all the time on politics, but your sports this time is incorrect.
You went ahead and picked New England to win this weekend, but I wanted to remind you that you said they're on a roll, but they haven't played anybody since December 4th when they first played the Jets and they played Buffalo, Tampa Bay, then the Jets again, and then Miami.
They haven't shown anything other than they could win against losers.
So I'm picking Jacksonville, who had Fred Taylor out for much of the season.
Now he's back.
What are your thoughts, Rush?
Well, what does it matter since you disagree with them?
Because I just want to get a different perspective.
All right, here's my perspective on the game.
They are still the champions.
They are a team that still has the ability to dominate.
They have had injury after.
Look, they have had no worse injuries than the New York Jets.
Other than the Jets lost a quarterback, but we still don't know just how big a loss that really was.
It was Chad Pennington.
Right.
They've lost Rodney Harris.
They've had one cornerback.
The New England Patriots have had one cornerback play the whole season, and he got bumped out two games ago as Santa Samuel.
They have had rotating cornerbacks.
They lost Rodney Harrison against the Steelers earlier in the year, and he was the heart and the soul of the defense, and everybody thought that was it.
They lost Matt Light and another offensive lineman on the offensive line, both on the same side, Brady's blind side, and it didn't matter.
There's something about this coach and this team that, especially when you get it this time of year at home in New England, there's going to be snow and cold weather all weekend.
Tomorrow night, I don't think it's supposed to snow.
That's supposed to happen during the day.
You got Jacksonville going up there from a warm weather climb.
This stuff matters.
Byron left, which hasn't played a meaningful game in a couple of weeks.
He's coming off of an injury.
I just don't think this is a wildcard round against a Super Bowl champion.
And I just don't think that the Jack Wars have an 11, what is it, a 12-4 record?
But they haven't played a whole lot of people either.
Right.
But they are going to get a little bit of help from the Colts.
I'm sure they're giving them some insights because we don't want to face.
I'm a Colts fan and we do not want to face New England again.
You probably won't.
I mean, I don't expect the Patriots to go all the way, but until they're beaten, I don't know how you pick against them, especially at home in a wildcard round.
There's just too much experience these guys have.
This playoff experience, I don't think it's overrated at all.
They've got Teddy Bruski coming back for this game, and Corey Dillon is pretty much healthy.
Now, if you want to talk about points, now Jacksonville's getting eight and a half points in this game.
Now, if you want to take Jacksonville and the points, you might have a case.
Yeah, well, I think I will call you next week, though, if I'm right.
If not, you won't hear from me again.
I'll be glad to hear from you.
Hey, look, you know, if I'm wrong, I never have any problem admitting it.
So you feel free to call back anytime.
I'll be listening Monday to see if I was right and you were wrong.
See if you want to voice it again.
Well, you could watch the game tomorrow night and know that.
Right.
I just wanted you to say you were wrong on the air.
It doesn't happen much.
It's a rare experience.
I'll tell you what, most of the time, even when I think I'm wrong, I end up being right.
That's how right I usually am.
Even when I'm wrong, I think, or when I think I'm wrong, I end up being right.
So in this case, I can understand it.
People do love to hear me say it's wrong because they never do.
It's such a unique experience.
George, sell call from St. Louis.
You're next, sir, on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, getting back to Spitzer's indictment of these surveillance in the nursing homes, I think there's a marketplace capitalistic response to all of this.
I think good nursing home operators, if they're smart, they're going to put little webcams in every room in every hallway and invite people and say, bring your relatives here, bring your parents here, bring your grandparents here, because we're not afraid.
In fact, you can just sit at your desk at work and you can get on a webcam and you can watch exactly what's going on in our home with your parents, with your grandparents.
I think good daycare operators should pick up on this idea.
And I think there's going to be people flocking to these providers.
What you're going to find is the liberals, the Democrats, are going to go, way, wait, wait, privacy, way, way, way, HIPAA, everything else.
And I think what you're going to find is the market's going to demand that kind of surveillance.
We've got inner city surveillance.
No, wait a second.
You're exactly right about something.
The Democrats, the only time they will support the surveillance cameras is when the cameras are used to nail some corporation or some company because that's liberals target company.
If you look at their list of enemies today, it's Walmart, Enron, or not Enron, Big Oil, ExxonMobil.
Take your pick.
Any big business, GM, huge enemies of liberals.
So if you use these devices to capture these people, oh, that's fine and dandy, but you put these cameras in so people, anybody can tune in and watch what's going on with a patient in a nursing home.
And not all of that stuff do you want to see, George?
Well, I mean, you've got to admit that now, George.
There's some things you, like, for example, I was in one nursing home, and I swear, I'm not going to tell you who I was in visiting doesn't matter, but when these people, I went into the lounge or public area.
I didn't go to anybody's room.
These people, I felt like it was Halloween when they all opened their mouths and smiled.
You know, you just, there's some things you're not going to want to watch on these cameras.
I think you're going to see a trend here.
It's going to be in daycares.
It's going to be in school buses.
It's going to be in assisted living.
I don't doubt it's going to, it's already at traffic stops.
Surveillance cameras are going to be all over the place.
You better watch out.
Your enthusiasm for this is such that someday somebody's going to let's put them in some people's homes.
We know there are crimes going on in these people's homes.
Some of them might be smoking a cigarette in their home.
How I came upon this, I have a son with Down syndrome, and we're looking at residential facilities for him as he becomes an adult.
He's going to move in.
And there have been a couple enterprising parents in this town who have built their own houses with some very high-tech motion detector, light-sensitive, all these kinds of pull-off-the-shelf kind of technology today.
And they're having problems as they're interviewing service provider agencies who are saying, well, wait a minute, my employees don't want to be subjected to this.
And my take is, wait a minute, if you're confident that you're given the best quality care that can be provided, what are you afraid of?
Why wouldn't you want that?
In fact, it helps maintain, it helps secure.
Well, I'm going to tell you why.
No, no, let me give you a reason.
Let me give you a real-world reason.
Back, this was in the late 80s, early 90s.
I remember being on an American Airlines flight going either from New York to Los Angeles or vice versa.
And they had at that time a camera in the cockpit.
The camera was located behind the pilots so that you could see out the cockpit window on your screen at your seat or wherever they had the screen back then.
And this camera was located such that you could see what the pilots were doing.
And there happened to be on not on this flight, but on one such flight, there happened to be a plaintiff's lawyer.
And a plaintiff's lawyer thought he watched the pilots not paying attention to what they were doing at 39,000 feet or taxiing or whatever it was.
And he threatened to sue because the pilots were negligent.
And so Americans said, screw this.
We are offering this as a service to passengers, see what goes on up there.
They pulled the cameras out.
The pilots weren't negligent.
The flames flying up there on autopilot.
You can't tell just by watching on a camera behind these guys what they're doing up there.
So I guarantee you start these cameras in places and you're going to have staged events by people to try to get other people in trouble.
And they're going to call a neighborhood plaintiff lawyer.
And you're going to have a whole slew of things.
Now, I think there's going to be a big push to get these cameras in because invading people's privacy is a big deal these days under the guise of quality service and so forth and so on.
So, but you got to be careful with this because these free market solutions, while on the surface that may seem good, you can't forget that there are lawyers out there.
We will be back.
Stay with us.
Don't even bother to think, folks.
We do that for you here.
And as an added bonus, we'll tell you what to think after we describe the situation.
Remember when I used to say that early on this year, the liberal media would hear that?
He's dangerous.
He tells his audience not to think.
They're just a bunch of mind-numbed robots.
Anyway, greetings.
Great to have you back.
800-282-2882.
Dark day for the left.
This is from LifeNews.com.
A new national poll finds that Haskruel seniors take a pro-life position on abortion, saying it is morally wrong and supporting legislative proposals that would limit abortions and help women find alternatives.
The poll found 72% of females in the high school class of 2006 would not consider an abortion if they became preggers.
The Hamilton College poll found a majority of half-screwel seniors don't believe abortions should be allowed for sociological reasons, such as when women are too poor to afford another child or unable to have a baby at the time.
Sociology students at Hamilton College in conjunction with Zogby International surveyed 1,000 half-screwed seniors by phone.
The survey has a 3% plus or minus margin of error.
The poll is the seventh in a series of polls over the years of students' views on public policy issues.
Yeah, I don't know.
The now gangs out there are going to be in a twit here, folks.
What are we doing to our children?
Who's poisoning our children's minds?
Who was it that said that?
It was Meryl Streep during the LR Apple.
Boy, you talk about a hoax.
Meryl Streep going up there, testifying before Congress, LR, the thing that they put on apples and make them appear redder than they are by nature.
What are we doing to our children?
Ah!
As though we were poisoning them.
How many of you people out there are discovering that your family is less a family or behaves less a family because you all have cell phones?
Study here from what is this?
Well, I'll get to it here in just a second, but it's a Reuters story.
The round-the-clock availability that cell phones and pagers have brought to people's lives may be taking a toll on family life, according to a new study.
The study, which followed more than 13 adults over two years, found that those who consistently used a mobile phone or pager throughout the study period were more likely to report negative spillover between work and home life, and in turn, less satisfaction with their family life.
Spillover essentially means that the line between work and home begins to blur.
Work life may invade home life when a parent's taking job-related calls at home, for instance, or household issues may start to take up work time.
In the latter scenario, a child may call mom at work, not to say that he aced his English test, but that he microwave exploded.
Explain Noel Chesley.
What, all this?
Because cell phones, you mean kids never used to call their parents before cell phones were around?
What a bunch of bunk.
What a bunch.
See, everybody's a victim.
Everybody's a victim.
All you do is turn the phone off.
Can't turn it off, Rush.
I'm waiting for that important call.
Well, you know, Dawn has offered an interesting perspective on this, and one I wouldn't have thought of because this problem doesn't affect me.
But she says cell phones are actually keeping families together because wives have an easier time tracking down husbands.
That I totally believe.
That's totally.
I've wondered about this.
I don't use the phone.
I use it some, but I don't like the phone.
I've been through this.
It's not just my hearing.
It's just, I just, I don't know.
I will call somebody if I want to talk to them, and I never call anybody.
So they call me.
But people that know I don't want to talk to them don't call me, and that's fine.
They email me.
I'm a total creature of email.
99 of my interpersonal communications when I'm not in somebody's presence are with email.
When somebody wants my cell phone number, that's a huge decision.
And when somebody asks me to give them a call, I just not, and plus when the phone rings, you know, I actually tense up when the phone rings because there's somebody on the other end and they're going to want something.
Nobody ever just calls, say, hi, what's up?
What's happened?
What's going on?
Always want something.
Always.
And I'm not selfish or a skin flint.
It's just every phone call requires a decision.
Rush, we're having dinner on August 4th, and we want to.
Can you, oh, gee, I don't book myself that far in advance.
Thanks for calling.
Click.
So I don't, you know, I don't give the cell phone number out to anybody that hasn't had it for two years or four years or whatever, and I change it periodically.
And then when somebody used to have the old number calls, I haven't changed the number.
Keep trying.
I don't know.
I don't like the phone.
I despise the phone.
I actually, I hate it.
To be quite blunt with you, I hate the phone.
When the phone rings, I don't care what it is.
And I got in my house when I got two gates and somebody's at the gate, the phone rings.
But you know what?
I have a camera, so turn on the camera to see who's out there before I answer it.
I got protective measures here.
But I don't hate the phones here.
I mean, that's the point.
I think I'm on the phone so much here that when it's over with, the phone is more like my work.
I hate the phone.
I drive around.
I see people holding phones up to their ears all the time for crying out.
Loud, do you have a life?
Are you always on that phone?
But I mean, if you like the phone, that's fine.
I would never impose my hatred of phones on people.
I just don't like them.
Stephen Ithaca, New York, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
A few months ago, you had an interview with Natan Sharansky on his book on why dictatorships need enemies and why we have to, you can't trust dictatorships essentially and why we can trust democracies.
Yes.
And a few days ago, you had a discussion with someone.
They wanted to know why the Republican leadership didn't crack down on the rank and file and keep them in line like the Democratic leadership did.
Yeah, party discipline.
Exactly.
So it kind of made me think a little bit there that the Democratic leadership really is much more like a dictatorship.
So they need enemies.
They've got to have people.
Well, but there's one distinction here.
It's not that they need them.
They have them.
They genuinely, I mean, they create enemies.
I mean, now, you may be saying they're doing this on purpose.
I think they create enemies just on the basis of what they believe, what they want to do.
Some people look at them as enemies, not just the opposition, because of the tactics they use, the tricks they play, and this sort of thing.
I understand what you're saying.
But you know, this is not something that's really exclusive to Democrats and liberals.
I remember Phil Donahue, if he wasn't apologizing for the accident of his birth, quote unquote, or some other inane thing.
Phil would always start crying about being born in America.
He said, what if I was born 90 miles south of where I was born?
I would have grown up in Mexico and I would have been poor and I would have been this and I would have been that.
So he felt guilty over the fact that he had opportunity simply because he was born in America, the accident of his birth.
And I said, Phil, you can look at it that way.
I did tell him this, but you look at it that way.
But why don't you have genuine sympathy for these people you think are born in rotten places and help to spread our way of life to more places in the world so that when they're born there, they're going to have the same kind of opportunity we have.
He lost him.
He wasn't able to, because he didn't really believe when you got down to it in the opportunity of America.
America's stunk too.
But he always said that if the Soviet Union didn't exist, the Republican Party would have had to create them.
The Soviet Union had to exist.
And there are people now that say, since we beat the Soviet Union, Bush had to create another enemy, and it's al-Qaeda, because Republicans can't govern unless they put people in a state of fear, fear that the country is going to be wiped out and so forth.
So this argument goes both ways, and it's used by both sides to attack the other.
The fact of the matter is that we all have enemies.
We do.
As Americans, we have enemies.
And Al-Qaeda is a genuine enemy.
Iran is an enemy.
The Soviet Union was an enemy.
China, in certain regards, is an enemy.
And then domestically, when you get into domestic policies, some people think that they genuinely have enemies.
But I don't think that they have to be artificially created.
The Phil Donahues of the world never thought the Soviet Union was an enemy.
And the liberals today do not think Al-Qaeda is an enemy.
Bush is the enemy.
And their enemy is whoever it is that's denying them power.
Whoever's denying them election results.
Whoever's stopping them from their birthright of wielding power.
So that's who their enemies are.
I'm an enemy to the left because I say things on the radio that if I didn't exist wouldn't be said.
Well, now there's a whole new industry that does it.
But you go back to 1988 when this program started, this program was it.
You had the rest of the mainstream media and they had their monopoly.
And I think that's one of the reasons they're just totally unhinged today.
They had so many years of a monopoly.
They never had to work at it, never had to explain what they really believed.
They just had a mainstream media amplify it, and nobody ever heard anything different.
So the majority of people bought into everything the mainstream press says.
Not happening now.
And they don't know how to compete in the arena of ideas.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Stay with it.
Ha, are you?
Welcome back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Dear Rush, may I see the model of the plane behind you, please?
What kind is it?
You said I could ask this on Open Line Friday.
Thanks, Linda, in Yorktown, Virginia.
So I obscure this model when I sit in front of it.
So I grabbed it here to demo.
And this is a Gulfstream G4 SP.
And I would love to have one.
Here is Mike in Cleveland.
Mike, welcome to the EIB network.
All right, thanks a lot.
I'm calling about the San Francisco gun ban law.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold it a minute.
Hold it a minute.
The San Francisco gun ban law?
Yes, sir.
I didn't know there were any guns left to ban.
How can we attack this?
How can we get rid of this?
This is horrible for our constitutional rights right here.
What am I missing?
Did this news happen while I was gone or something?
It's a liberal city.
I mean, I'm only half joking when I say I'm surprised there are any guns left to ban out there.
This is the same outfit that's not allowing military recruiters anywhere near high school or college campuses.
I think it's San Francisco.
I mean, that's the best I can tell you.
I'm not trying to have your call bounce off here, but the only people can have are law enforcement, security guards, and related people in the military, and they're trying to get rid of those people out there, too.
The interesting thing to know, the murder rate out there is going up, and they don't know what to do about that.
I do remember that story.
The murder rate's climbing.
I don't know what to do about having meetings, what to do with the, there aren't any arrests.
So, you're thinking of starting a community policing program.
That's going to make a lot of sense.
Community police with no guns to go out and try to impact the murder rate.
It's just San Francisco.
Michael in Palm Springs, California.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you.
Good morning, Rush.
Always a pleasure and honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
By the way, you know what?
You reminded me, I have not played in a Bob Hope Chrysler classic in like three years.
Oh, I go to it every year.
Oh, I'm going this year.
They invited me.
They asked me quite persuasively.
Well, perhaps I'll see you then because I'm a disabled vet in a wheelchair and I'll get out there and I usually get front-row seating at those things.
Well, I will look you up.
Okay, listen, two things I wanted to say today.
One is just a comment about five or six weeks ago on today's show.
I was a bit surprised at your reaction to what Dingy Harry's response was to Bush coming out and saying that Tom DeLay will be proven innocent.
You had kind of a negative reaction, and the first thing I thought of this way, let me finish first, was, my God, these Democratic leaders are so afraid of Bush because he means what he says and he's a powerful leader, and that scares the pants off of them.
Now, wait a second.
You say I was critical of Bush for saying this?
No, no, you were a bit downtrodden about Dingy Harry's response to Bush saying that.
You took a negative aspect of it instead of always being the positive man you are and saying how afraid of him they are.
Because if Bush has that much influence that he could influence a jury, they are scared of him.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
But I just remember the comment about Dingy Harry, and it was basically rooted in who is this little chihuahua here?
He's just yapping at the heels of somebody much bigger than he is.
It was a joke.
I know, I know.
But it was just one of those days.
There was so much going on in the news that day.
We could tell it was weighing heavily on your mind.
And you're the one we look to for inspiration.
Can you hear my neighbors in the background?
I'm in the middle of a liberal enclave here, and I got them listening to you over the last couple months.
No, I can't hear them, but I can say a couple things that would freak them out, I'm sure.
The second thing I wanted to get your comment on was: I'll be 44 on Sunday, and I retired at 38.
My investment portfolio has not quite doubled since Bush has been in office.
And this morning, prior to our president's speech on the state of the economy, this David Gergen from U.S. News and World Report was on Fox.
It was about 9:20 West Coast time this morning.
And I wrote it down because I couldn't believe he said this.
And quote: Americans don't see the results of tax cuts and are apprehensive about further tax cuts.
Oh, that's crazy.
Let me tell you something.
That's David Rodham Gergen, by the way.
And he brings, this is simply articulating the left's stock answer on tax cuts.
That people don't want tax cuts.
They want balanced budgets.
They want the deficit reduced.
And there's no relationship to tax cuts in the economy.
It's just the exact opposite, and more and more people know it.
If Gergen believes that, tell him to tell the next Democratic candidate to run on raising taxes to reduce the debt.
Tell that candidate, run for president, raising taxes.
Promise to raise taxes for whatever reason.
Don't care.
Promise to raise taxes, and we'll see how well that candidate does.
You might go back to 1984, look at the campaign of Walter F. Mundo for an indication.
Quick timeout, folks.
We'll be right back.
Try this, folks.
There was Outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many, many times over a four-year span since she was seven.
The judge, Edward Cashman, said he no longer believes in punishment.
He's more concerned about rehabilitation.
He also revealed that he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench 25 years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment.
60 days for four years worth of raping a little girl starting when she was seven years old.
Judge doesn't believe in punishment.
It's a Burlington, Vermont story.
Have a great weekend, folks.
We'll be back and review it on Monday.
Whatever happens between now and then, we'll be on a cutting edge with it.
And as a bonus, we'll tell you what to think about what happened over the weekend.
▲
Export Selection