All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:52
January 10, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I'm just stunned.
I was just checking the email here.
About four or five women have emailed in the Rush comments line and don't understand my question or joke about being hired as eye candy.
Was that not that clear?
I fashion myself as a primo communicator.
I'll give it another whirl here in just a second.
In the meantime, greetings.
The fastest three hours in media underway.
Two up and down, one more to go.
We are ditto camming at rushlimbaugh.com.
And of course, just to remind you, we've started video podcasts each afternoon, as well as the audio podcasts of the entire show.
These are easy to get.
You can get Rush24-7 Media Center software.
It's El Fribo at rushlimbaugh.com.
You simply load it, Windows or Mac, and it will automatically download each day's podcasts when we make them available.
Last week, week before, we were having trouble getting them out before 5 o'clock in some cases.
But we've opened the bandwidth window now to full boat.
So many people are downloading these things that we've had to expand even the bandwidth here to make it available in mass ASAP.
But every day we also record, I record the morning update, a commentary heard in our radio stations around the country, record it right after the program.
We do that on the DittoCam now, and that's about 90 seconds, give or take a second, either side.
And the video podcast of that goes out as well.
So we're continuing to have massive sign up.
And that's free.
All that's free for existing members.
There's no additional charge for that if you are a member at Rush 24-7.
The phone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I just got an email from a friend that says, you know, if I am a drug dealer in Vermont, I have to love what I've heard today.
Strip searches in Vermont, no longer going to be allowed, no longer going to be permitted.
I can hide drugs on any 10-year-old girl I want if I'm a drug dealer in Vermont.
Let's not forget, Vermont is the place that had this judge that sentenced a multiple rapist to 60 days in jail, been raping the same girl from age four to age 10 over a number of years.
He said, you know, and he's been on the judge on the bench 25 years.
He said, I just don't believe in punishment anymore.
I used to be a big punishment guy when I first got on the bench 25 years ago, but I just don't believe in punishment anymore.
I don't think it works.
That's Vermont.
That's Patrick Leahy's home state.
Also, when Senator Kennedy during the Alito hearings was going on and on and on about protecting civil liberties and these warrantless searches that have been authorized by NSA and seating constitutional authority, and the president does have this right, I kept hoping that I know it'll never happen.
You know, I put myself in these nominees positions.
And if I were Alito, I would have said, oh, you mean the same kind of things that your brother did in wiretapping Martin Luther King.
Yeah, Senator, I do have a problem with that kind of thing.
Yeah, I don't think that was legal at the time.
I thought it was horrendous when I learned of it.
Why would a great man like Martin Luther King be wiretapped by your brother, RFK, when he was Attorney General?
But, you know, these are the things you just wish for, things you hope for, and you know they'll never happen.
This is the Rush Limbaugh program.
This is our official homeless update.
Of course, homelessness only becomes an issue when there are Republican presidents in the White House, but this is about the homeless in New Fallujah, in Detroit.
Detroit's homeless people will not be left out of the NFL experience during Super Bowl weekend.
Nope.
They are going to be invited to a party.
So says Chad Audi, the chief executive officer of the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, which will open its activities center at 138 Stimson to the city's homeless people February 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
They're going to have four big-screen TVs inside for people to watch the Super Bowl.
They'll also get food and clothes.
They'll talk to providers about long-term care.
Our goal, first of all, said Audi, is to treat them with respect.
We want them to enjoy the game like everybody else.
The three-day party, which will be from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., February 3rd and 4th, and from 8 a.m. until the game ends on February 5th, coincides with a ramped-up effort to get homeless people into shelters.
This is, I know what this is.
This is just David Dinkins redone.
When the Democrats had their convention at Madison Square Garden in 1992, David Dinkins, a general of New York, came in and he swept the homeless off the streets around the Madison Square Garden area and he transported them down in the lower battery area down to Lower Manhattan and then told them, Go ahead, find your way back home.
And they knew he wouldn't be back until the convention was over.
Take them more than a week to migrate back up to Madison Square Gardens.
So the homeless Super Bowl party is actually designed to get the homeless off the streets in Detroit while the nation's elite are in town for their real parties and festivities.
The three-day party coincides with a ramped-up effort to get homeless people into shelters across the city with so many out-of-towners, not to mention international media in the city for the game.
What does it mean to get them into shelter with so many out-of-towners?
What are they in hotel rooms now and they need hotel rooms for the visitors?
Now, this is where matters get delicate.
This is a Detroit free press story, by the way, because Chad Audi acknowledged that Detroit officials have to balance cleaning the city's streets to present a spit-shined image with offering more than temporary assistance to people who need long-term help.
Some advocates for homeless people say planning a party for those in need is downright silly.
These people are not concerned with sports, said Charles Costa, who has worked with Detroit's homeless people for more than 30 years.
They have real problems.
They got mental problems, drinking problems.
Some are alcoholics.
Some are drug addicts.
Acosta said if a spotlight shining on Detroit serves as a catalyst to help finally tackle the city's homeless problem, he supports it.
You need to look at this as a human concern.
These are human beings and they have problems.
You have to address it.
And Audi said that's his plan.
When police encounter a homeless person during Super Bowl week, they'll contact service providers who will be dispatched to talk the person into going to shelter.
There, workers will assess what help the person needs.
Providers estimate that as many as 13,000 people in Detroit are homeless, though many of those find shelter with friends and family.
Well, then, how can they be homeless?
Anyway, as many as 3,000 are on the city streets at a given time.
What?
There are 13,000 homeless, but there are as many as 3,000 on the streets at any given time.
Well, where are the 10,000 not on the streets then?
In dealing with the city's homeless population, Detroit officials said they will not follow the lead set by Jacksonville, Florida during last year's Super Bowl.
Jacksonville opened a temporary overflow shelter, giving homeless people a place to spend the day, watch TV, shower, and most importantly to critics, keep off the streets and out of sight.
The shelter closed the day after the game.
The homeless in Detroit are not buying any of this.
They just want to get us off the streets.
They want to keep us from panhandling, said Joe Ritchie, a 52-year-old homeless guy.
He said his heavy drinking cost him his job at Chrysler more than five years ago.
When the game's over, we wake up the next morning.
I still got nothing in my pockets.
Oh, come on, Joe.
You have a three-day party here to watch the Super Bowl.
Calvin Trent, the director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment, Recovery, agreed, he said Super Bowl has united area agencies like never before.
And he said the groups have brainstormed plenty of ideas that should transcend Super Bowl Week.
So this is a collaboration.
We're coming together to see how we can make this a meaningful experience for our people who live here who are homeless.
Well, you could do what they do in California.
You could give them shopping carts.
That's a real humane thing to do.
That doesn't work.
All right, back to the phones.
This is Dennis in Memphis.
You're next on the EIB Network search.
Great to have you with us.
Ditto's, Professor Lumboff.
Thank you.
I was just wondering if maybe the reason the old line media is reporting on a bad economy is because their industry is doing so poorly.
Their viewership's down, their readership's off, they're laying off employees.
So maybe that's why they think it's bad everywhere.
Yeah, I think there's a valid argument to be made for that.
Although, in addition to that, you have to, they're going to report the economy as less than stellar when it's going gangbusters during a Bush administration than if there were a Democrat president.
I mean, that just follows.
That's why we had this soundbite earlier.
That's why they talk about the psychological milestone of the Dow crossing 11,000.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's psychological.
He's going to tell people that maybe it's something that it's not.
It's just psychological.
It's not real.
But it's true.
The media business is not doing well, especially print.
Circulation is down.
LA Times closes production centers, lays off staff.
New York Times does the same thing.
You know what I love?
With all these layoffs, every newspaper warns its readers, or I should say assures its readers, don't worry, these layoffs, 10%, 20% of our staff, will not affect the journalism that we produce every day.
Layoffs are inconsequential to the journalism.
Really?
So, you were 20% top heavy then?
Business is journalism.
Well, no, you know, we have people in sales, classifying ads, so forth and so on.
Whoa.
So you're getting rid of people who generate the income.
Well, not really.
Our newspaper at large generates the income.
Our journalism is not going to be affected by these layoffs.
Well, tell me, at what point, how many people would you have to lay off before your journal?
Was the journalism of the New York Times affected when you got rid of Howell Reigns?
Was the journalism affected the New York Times when you got rid of Jason Blair?
Oh, no.
The journalism will not be affected by any of our layoffs.
It never happens.
The journalism is never affected.
So it just tells you there's a lot of people there that don't need to be there.
All right, let me clarify this eye candy business.
I can't believe that, and I'm probably going to get into a lot of trouble here, but there's a story: six women have sued a German bank because they've been hired for eye candy.
They were hired as eye candy, which means they were hired for their looks.
Maybe that's the stumbling block.
Maybe I have to think women know that term.
So they got hired for their looks, and this offended them, and so they're filing discrimination suits, $1.4 billion discrimination suit, which all I know, I know.
I mean, I know some women who would love to be flattered to be complimented to be hired as eye candy.
So I asked the question: how many of you women in the audience in the deepest, dark secrets of your dreams and desires would be flattered to be hired as eye candy?
I'm not talking about, I don't know how many of you want to be sexually harassed, or that's not what I was asking.
But I mean, If somebody wants to hire you to look good for whoever's the first to walk in the door every day, why not?
If that's your asset that offends me.
I would not I it's irrelevant the way I look.
Oh, really?
Why do you spend so much time on it then?
Well, it's not that's the way the world is.
Stuff matters.
But I just happen to think there are probably a lot of women out there that wouldn't be offended by it.
Now, I'm not talking about being chased around a desk, but probably some women wouldn't be bothered by that either.
Suzanne and Green Bay, you're next on the EIB network.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I'm not offended by your comment at all.
Good.
Good.
Yeah, woman of the 90s.
Yes.
I've been doing promotions for 10 years.
And it's a great part-time position.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
You have been doing promotions?
Yes, for companies that are promoting either liquor or MasterCarter visas, hair products.
Oh, you arrange promotional ideas for these people.
No, I actually work with the customers.
So I go out into bars and I let people sample the product.
You let people sample the product.
So you are the eye candy.
I am the eye candy.
You are the eye candy and you let people sample the product.
Yep.
If we're promoting a liquor beverage, we let them sample the product.
Well, like airline samples that you pass around.
Is that what you do?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, we do that for liquor companies.
We also, you know, for other companies, let's say it's hair products, we push out, you know, give shampoo samples and conditioner samples.
Yeah.
And I just love it.
It's a great part-time position.
And I've never had so much fun in my entire life.
How much do you get paid for this?
I don't mean dollars, but I mean, is it enough for you to live part-time or do you do something else?
I'm also a stay-at-home mom.
Well, you're a stay-at-home mom, but you're also eye candy.
You're an eye-candy stay-at-home mom.
Exactly.
And you do these part-time promotions.
Yep.
And so I gather the money is not the main thing to you.
You just like being eye candy.
Yeah.
That's true, I do.
Well, see, this proves my point.
But let me ask, when you're eye candy and you're giving away shampoo, it means you're eye candy to women.
Yes.
And I've been hired because I have long hair and I take care of it.
Yeah, but see, I happen to know women get jealous of other beautiful women.
Men don't notice this because they're always looking at the beautiful women.
They don't see the other women giving them daggers in the eyes.
You know, I haven't really run into that as much as people make it sound like I haven't run into people being or women being particularly mean to me in any sort of way.
A lot of times they think I'm really lucky for what I get to do and they ask me how they get, you know, how they can do it.
How did you get into this gig?
How did you find a job where you could be eye candy?
Well, I started in college and being.
Your eye candy career started in college.
Yes.
I started with a modeling company and then after that I found jobs in the newspaper.
Eye candy in newspapers?
Yeah.
You know, just in the Help Wanted ads.
They were looking for people that could be outgoing and fun in a bar atmosphere.
Oh, oh, oh, outgoing and fun in a bar atmosphere.
Well, you are eye candy.
But you're a stay-at-home mom.
What does your husband think about all this?
He doesn't mind it.
At first he was kind of worried about it.
On what basis?
Just that I was in the bar and I'd be out late and you know, you're dealing with drunk people sometimes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, you're helping them get drunk.
You're giving them the samples.
Well, we just give them a very small sample, usually in mixed drinks.
Yeah.
That way they get to taste the product and they can see if they really like it or not.
Plus we give them shirts and hats and all that other fun stuff.
It just makes it a great time.
Well, it sounds like, well, I love talking to people, love their jobs.
I love people enthusiastic about being their jobs, and especially people like you who are enthusiastic about being eye candy and don't feel the need to apologize for it or to or to feel guilty.
I can tell you, you know, the Democrats could use a whole lot of people like you.
They have a deficiency in that area.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Your host for life, going nowhere until every American agrees with me and we're making significant progress.
Well, I knew that there was going to be a media action line on the Alito hearings.
I know these people like every square inch, not just of my hand, but every square inch of my glorious naked body, folks.
I know what they're going to do.
The George Soros bunch, Americans coming together already out with an ad.
Judge Sam Alito appears to be a reasoned, competent jurist with the ABA's highest rating.
And sure, Judge Alito was a little league coach, but he favors script searches for 10-year-old girls because your daughter is carrying drugs.
Drugs.
Judge Samuel Alito is from New Jersey, which Al Gore said invented racial profiling.
The kind of profiling Alito did at Princeton.
Profiling.
And Alito is Italian, just like Columbus, who killed all the Indians who couldn't vote.
Killed Indians.
And Sammy, the big gavel Alito, wants to give President Bush absolute power to do anything he wants to, including torture.
Torture.
Tell Congress today we don't want a mobbed up, genocidal strip-searching torturer on our Supreme Court.
Not now, not ever.
Paid for by Nancy Pelosi's mainstream friend, George Soros.
Sammy Big Gavel Alito.
Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, does the name Cecile Richards mean anything to anybody?
Cecile Richards is Ma Richards' daughter.
She's a veteran political activist.
She is, as I say, the daughter of the former governor of Texas, Ma Richards.
And she was named yesterday as the new president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, taking over to crucial time for America's abortion rights movement.
Cecile Richards, 48, has served as deputy chief of staff to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats' minority leader in the House of Representatives, and she founded the Texas Freedom.
It only takes so much of this story before I choke up.
She founded the Texas Freedom Network to counter the influence of conservative groups in her home state.
Well, she had a lot of success there.
One story on this I saw, they described Planned Parenthood as the largest provider of abortions in America.
The largest provider of abortions in America.
As though they're health care providers, the largest abortion.
If they've got a new president, it means abortions are down, and that means revenue is down.
Now, remember, Ma Richards went to the podium at the Democrat convention in 1988.
No, it was 92.
Was it 92?
Which was it?
88 or 90?
One of two?
I think it was, I'm not now.
It has to be.
Well, it does.
Well, but he went through two.
George Bush had 88 and 90.
Okay, it was the first one.
Okay, so Bush had a convention in New Orleans in 88, and the Democrats had their convention somewhere.
And Ma Richards stood up there and wanted to lampoon Bush and ended up saying, poor George, he can't hip it.
He was born with silver foot in his mouth.
And of course, Democrat delegates, that brought the House down.
Well, I guess we could say about Ma Richards' daughter, Cecile.
Poor Cecile, she can't hip it.
She was born with a silver scalpel in her hand.
She now heads up International Planned Parenthood.
Here's a CNN story.
What is the CNN USA Today Gallup poll survey?
A majority of Americans consider the congressional influence peddling inquiry surrounding former lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a major scandal.
And they registered an anti-incumbent note in a poll released on Monday.
Ooh, this sounds bad, folks.
An anti-incumbent note, an anti-incumbent mood.
Terror and Iraq, still the number one issue in this poll, but it found Americans more critical of Congress than their own representatives, which is classic.
This is the same psychology that explains why people can think the economy is doing no good despite their doing well.
60% told the pollsters that their own member of Congress deserved re-election, but 42% said that most members of Congress deserve re-election.
That's the lowest response to that question since 1994.
Only 42% of those polled said that most members deserve re-election, but 60% said their guy deserves re-election.
So, okay, so Democrats hope to make hay out of this.
Here is David in Cincinnati.
You're next on the EIB network.
Welcome, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
Rush.
Yeah.
Best regards.
I just wanted to make a comment on a lawyer I have dealt with here in Cincinnati named Jerome Teller, who always thought he had an advantage when he was by himself versus a number or a banquet of lawyers on the other side because he knew what he was doing.
The other side would be divisive and also fractured, which I think is what's going on here with these hearings.
Well, except the Democrats are, I mean, they may be, they're not divisive or fractured.
They're just, they're just, they're barking up the wrong tree.
Now, if you want to say the whole committee's fractured because the Republicans on one side, the Democrats on the other, I can understand that.
I don't think that's complicated.
I think Alito is just twice, three times as smart as any of these Democrats on the committee.
I agree, which is my friend, the lawyer, felt the same way, that if you're an individual, you have more control over what you're doing than if you're trying to get 40 or 50 or 10 people together to get on the same message.
Oh, I see.
I see.
Well, I guess I can understand that in some sense.
Although I think the Democrats do a good job staying on message, just their message is Swiss cheese.
Swiss cheese has more substance than their message and their attempt here.
It's so I talked about this at the beginning of the program, and I don't want to repeat myself too much, but I watched this.
We had some sound bites of it today, and it really is pathetic to watch these guys repeat liberalism one, version one.
There haven't been any updates, upgrades in the software.
They're still using an old operating system and they don't have any idea how to update it.
And there's nobody in their camp that can write the revisions.
So they've got, here's the way they think.
They've got Alito.
Okay, what's Alito?
He's a white guy.
He's a conservative and he's a Republican.
Therefore, he discriminates.
He's a racist.
He's anti-gay.
He's homophobic.
He's against civil liberties.
He's against fairness.
And all they've got to do is ask some nonsensical questions and trap the guy into admitting this.
And this is what they're trying to do.
So here comes Ted Kennedy of all people, whose brother wiretapped Martin Luther King going on and on and on about all these violations of civil rights.
Ted Kennedy going on and on about strip searching 10-year-old little girls as though Alito, yeah, I'm all for that.
And let's do it more often.
Let's have fun with it.
I mean, they actually think that's the way Alito thinks about it because they're reprobate.
You know, as a conservative, he's a sexist.
Women don't count for anything.
That's the extent of their thinking.
Then you had, what's his name, Leahy.
In a purely suicidal move, I understood the politics of it, but his first line of questioning, Leahy took up the defense of al-Qaeda terrorists and demanded to know if Alito was going to see to it that they had constitutional rights protected.
Where do you stand on this, Judge?
And these are the enemies of the country.
And here's Leahy out basically standing up for the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Now, what he was doing was trying to, he wanted to entrap Alito into agreeing with the premise that the president could ignore McCain's torture law.
A couple of Democrats tried this.
The president has a signing affidavit after every bill he signs, signing statement.
And he signs his intent to do with the legislation.
And McCain's torture bill, the president's signing statement said, hey, I'm commander-in-chief, and if there's a drastic need, I'm going to do what it takes.
McCain himself has even said that there is a case to be made for the ticking time bomb, the nuclear bomb exemption.
If you have to torture somebody to get something to keep a nuclear bomb going off, you can do it.
This whole thing's absurd.
Bush said, I can ignore this if I have to to protect the country.
So the Democrats zero in on that, and they want Alito.
Say, I think the president can ignore anything.
I think the president can do anything he wants.
There is only one power in this country, and that's the president.
That's what they thought he would say.
They thought he's stupid enough to be roped in.
And they want to see this man is not fit to be on the court.
And then to show you how convoluted they are, here are these big government Democrats.
They love it.
They grow it.
They expand it every chance they get.
They want to raise taxes.
They believe in government as the sole arbiter of any dispute.
Government leads this nation.
Government's the reason anything happens.
And yet when they ask this guy questions, you ought to hear how they portray big government.
Why, big government spies on its citizens.
Big government has too many police powers.
Big government's right.
You can't trust big government, according to the guys who are the architects of it.
That's how out of whack they are.
Here, the big government believers end up ripping their own philosophy, trying to trip up this judge who's 12 times smarter than all of them combined.
He's been toying with them all day.
I don't know whether it's these guys are not just unified or they're all on their own agendas.
I think that they're just stuck 30, 40 years in the past.
They think they can robber bork anybody.
And the way they do it, they'll go out and tell lies.
But Kennedy, Kennedy said, well, yesterday in his opening statement, you can't find in his credit history anywhere where he's found or ruled in favor of a minority in any of his opinions.
The Republicans today trotted out four such opinions where Alito has ruled in favor of minorities in four such cases.
No phasing to Kennedy.
It doesn't matter to him.
His point was to lie about it and have the media expound and promote, amplify the lie.
I asked snurdly earlier in the program, do you actually think that they knew that these four cases existed?
Oh, yeah, they're smart enough to know that.
And I understand people thinking that, but I also think these people are arrogant enough.
I know these folks.
I've hung around these people all my life to this day.
I have experiences with liberals, and I will tell them the way I think about something, and I can see in their eyes it's the first time they've ever heard such a thing.
And you can see that it's foreign, and they try to think about it, but it doesn't fit in the worldview that they've constructed, so they reject it.
And they say, oh, that's just simplistic, or that's just silly, or that's why, why?
Why, well, you have to agree that that's outrageous.
No, I don't.
I happen to believe that.
What's outrageous is you.
So I think it's entirely possible that these people and the staff and the senator didn't know that these cases existed precisely because he's a conservative Republican and he hates minorities.
He's never going to find for.
They believe that.
It's not just something they say.
They believe it.
Now, in the event that I'm wrong and they did know that those four cases existed, didn't matter.
They'll tell the lie anyway because they're still stuck 30 years ago where they think Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw are going to take care of the lie for them.
And the day's over.
The day is done.
Who sang that song?
Day is done.
Peter, Paul, and Mary?
Day is done.
Yeah, that's a big song, big tune from the 60s.
Day is done.
Somebody look it up.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away, folks.
All right, try this headline, folks.
Girl gets bird flu after kissing chicken.
It's about a little girl in Turkey, had chickens in the backyard.
They were pets.
They would get sick and die.
She would hug them and kiss them goodbye.
And her mother saw this.
You got to stop that.
You can't hug those chickens.
They're sick.
And the mother came up and slapped her and hit her and made her drop the chicken.
She started crying and she wiped her eye with the hand that she'd been cradling the chicken because her mother beat her.
And now she's got bird flu.
Story in the Washington Times today study questions bird flu paranoia.
Study suggested most people exposed to bird flu don't become seriously ill and recover in a few days, even as a surge as suspected in human bird flu cases is raising alarm in Turkey.
Here's Ronnie in Washington.
Ronnie, glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
How are you this afternoon?
I'd like to point out that the real threat behind the liberal media isn't what they do to us today, is that in 50 years, our history books are going to be written with New York Times articles and Washington Post articles.
They're not going to go looking for Rush Limbaugh archives to write the kids' history books.
They're going to be going through the mainstream media.
So what we counteract today and when we make them look foolish today really doesn't matter because the next generation, they've already beaten us.
You know, that's what I love.
I love optimism.
I love people that want to hang in there and fight.
I appreciate you, Ronnie.
You're the backbone of the movement here as we move forward.
Let me try to make you feel better about this.
I mentioned this yesterday.
John Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, has reviewed a book by Richard Reeves called President Reagan, The Triumph of Imagination.
Let me just read you the beginning of the book.
The beginning of the review.
He finally got it.
In the end, after the tantrums, after hanging up on Nancy, after hearing about his own firing from a CNN report, Donald Reagan at last came to see the truth about Ronald Reagan.
What was the biggest problem in the White House when you were there?
The biographer Richard Reeves asked Reagan.
Reagan said everybody there thought he was smarter than the president, including you.
Yep, especially me.
That brief exchange tells us much about Reeves' illuminating new President Reagan and about a significant shift in elite opinion about our 40th president, long dismissed and derided by the upper reaches of the press and by denizens of the blue state bubble.
The man who swept two national elections, helped bring down the Soviet Union, and fundamentally changed the terms of the American debate over government is no longer being viewed as an unwitting tool of a manipulative staff, in Reeves' phrase.
In a way, Reeves took up Doonesbury creator Gary Trudeau's challenge and went in search of Reagan's brain.
He found a formidable one.
President Reagan marks a surrender of sorts.
The establishment has, for the moment at least, given in and decided that Reagan was a great historical figure after all.
That Reeves arrived at such a conclusion is particularly notable.
20 years ago in 85, he published the Reagan Detour, arguing that the Reagan years would be a detour, necessary, if sometimes nasty, in the long progression of American liberal democracy.
It turned out Reagan's America was neither coldly conservative nor intractably hawkish, and we are still living in the nation he seduced and shaped.
This review goes on and on and on, but the point it makes is that Reagan was continually misunderestimated, continually portrayed as somebody falling asleep at cabinet meetings, smarter people around him than he was himself.
He delegated everything, didn't really know is clueless.
He was a clueless old bumbling fool who had great advertising and marketing people who packaged him, and that's why people voted for him.
And now they can no longer deny it.
They've talked to all these smart people that worked for Reagan.
Our biggest problem was that we thought we were the smartest in the room and we weren't.
He was.
A shift in elite opinion about our 40th president.
So, Ronnie, don't give up hope out there, pal.
The New York Times is floundering.
They don't have the power they did.
They still have power.
But there will be people writing the correct history when the time comes.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Now, sadly, we come to another clause of another day of broadcast excellence here on the EIB network.
But remember, there's always tomorrow.
So sit tight and be patient.
It's just look at it as a 21-hour break.
Time flies, as you know, and we'll see you tomorrow and look forward to it, folks.
▲
Export Selection