All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
January 25, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, yeah, I'm glad you reminded me about that.
I'd forgotten about it.
The girls out at the Hope.
Yeah, okay.
Okay, thanks for reminding me of that because I'll keep reminding me of that.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh on a roll here on the Limbaugh Institute or from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am firmly ensconced behind this, the golden EIB microphone here at the prestigious Institute sitting in the one and only Attila the Hun chair.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, this is just too funny.
This, by the way, those of you on hold, be patient.
I make this pledge.
We'll get to your calls in the second segment here, as soon as I finish the monologue open of the second hour here.
This, to me, is just hilarious.
I think this is a Reuters story.
I'm not sure, it doesn't matter.
Senate Democratic leader Dingy Harry yesterday urged, and I want you to picture Dingy Harry as you listen to me tell you about this.
I want you to picture this little mousy guy with his soft-spoken, whatever voice.
I mean, you know what image conjures up when you listen to Dingy Harry, this dynamic, powerful, overwhelming, inspirational, motivational speaker, Dingy Harry.
Senate Democratic leader Dingy Harry on Tuesday urged President Bush to swagger less and to show more honesty and humility in his State of the Union speech next week.
In a speech at a liberal think tank, Dingy Harry gave a scathing assessment of the state of the Union under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence.
He was speaking at the Center for American Progress.
Dingy Harry's speech was part of an effort to lay the groundwork for the November congressional election in which Democrats hope to win control of Congress or at least shrink the Republican majority.
So what happened?
It was just last month.
That was all sewn up.
They were going to win back the House.
They were going to win back the Senate.
And then in 08, the White House was theirs.
It was already done.
It was a fait accompli.
Now, this willing accomplice, Donna Smith, this leftist sycophant writing in wherever she writes.
I think it's Reuters.
Democrats hope to win control of Congress or at least shrink the Republican majority.
Contrast that with Carl Rove.
Carl Rova goes out and speaks to the RNC Friday night and says, oh, yeah, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to kick butt.
And this is how we're going to kick butt.
ABCDE, here's who we are.
Here's our campaign.
This is our campaign.
These are our issues.
And this is how we are going to win re-election in 06.
And Dingy Harry goes up to some think tank where President Bush isn't even watching.
He's not even in attendance and he won't even hear about this.
And Dingy Harry, you better swagger less.
You better have more humility.
This is an absolute joke.
These guys remind me of a bunch of yapping little chihuahuas.
They come up to you, these little yapping little dogs, and they just, they're big and bold.
They're tiny little things, no bigger than a hot dog.
You just want to kick them across the street when they come up and yap at you.
And all you got to do, little chihuahua, these things are constantly, and I don't, I know a lot of chihuahua lovers out there, but I've got to describe them accurately.
These little things, they look like they're constantly just on this side of a nervous breakdown.
They're shaking, and they're just like these guys, Democrats are.
And they start yapping, ya, gig, yag, gigga!
And boy, but if you shout it, shut up, dog, runs across the street before you have a chance to kick it across the street.
Bush has these guys so convoluted, he's got them so out of sorts that their best tactic is to go to a group of people that's made up of people just like them and say, Bush better be more humble.
He better not swagger as much.
That's the brilliant campaign that's going to win back the Congress or shrink the Republican majority.
And then there's this from our old buddy Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times.
Now, remember yesterday, we shared with you the warning shot across the bow to the Democrats from E.J. Deion Jr., columnist at the Washington Post.
E.J. Deion Jr., upset.
When are the Democrats going to get serious about this domestic spying thing, this NSA story?
Why, if they're not going to get serious about it, if they're not going to act like they should act, then what's the whole reason of having a majority party?
And of course, E.J. fell right into Karl Rove's lap, a trap.
Rove announces what our strategy is, and the Democrats take it up.
Okay, fine.
You want to debate on the NSA?
Skip, fine.
I'm going to tell you, the president can't wait for these hearings.
The president can't wait for this debate.
The president can't wait for the campaign because just like USA Today Gallup poll tells us that 51% of the American people definitely will not vote for Hillary Clinton for president in 2006, about 52 to 55%, depending on the poll you look at, the American people want to be protected and take steps necessary to prevent another attack like 9-11.
And if the Democrats want to go out and act like Bush is the greater threat, if they want to make it appear that the real national security objective is impeaching George Bush, well, then Rove and the boys welcome it.
And that's what E.J. Deion Jr. wants.
Now, Ronald Brownstein today headline pretty much encapsulates the story.
Democrats may argue liberties to their peril.
Leading Democrats, you're challenging President Bush's record on civil liberties across a wide front, inspiring a Republican counterattack that even some Democrat strategerists worry could threaten the party in this year's election.
I wonder why.
Could it be that strategerists in the party know that the vast majority of these people, vast majority of people in this country, do not associate the Democratic Party with strength when it comes to the military or national security?
Who was it, ladies and gentlemen?
Search your little gray cells, if you will.
Who was it that reminded you back in November and December that as the Democrats kept ginning up their anti-Iraq war position and anti-war on terror position that they were sounding more and more like George McGovern?
T'was I.
And they are the party of McGovern today.
And they think McGovern lost in a landslide, but the Vietnam War ended.
They think that's glory days for them.
Proving what I've always said, the higher and greater you fail in the Democratic Party, the more stature in the Democratic Party you have.
Witness Jimmy Carter.
And now these Democrats, they're just a bunch of 60s and 70s retreads, folks.
You know, Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin and all these guys, if they weren't senators, they'd be running bagel shops or coffee shops out in San Francisco.
That's what they'd be doing.
They're just little 60s and 70s retreads.
That's exactly, well, maybe a bagel shop.
But that's what they'd be doing.
Now they're in the Senate and they're simply reliving their glory days.
And they've gotten themselves positioned here where once again, they are on the wrong side of American strength, exceptionalism and all this.
They don't think there's anything exceptional about America.
No, we're flawed.
We've got racism.
We have sexism.
We have homophobia.
We have bigotry in all this.
We need affirmative action.
Don't deny people.
Allow people civil rights though.
Their view of this country is anything but exceptional.
And for some reason, they think that that's a winning position to take.
Well, Brownstein's point is that these strategists understand that this is not the position that they should be having and taking.
From Bush's authorization of warrantless surveillance by the NSA, the renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and his critics are battling more intently than at any time since the 9-11 terrorist attacks over the proper balance between national security and personal liberty.
And in each of these disputes, prominent Democrats accuse Bush of improperly expanding presidential power, blah, These exchanges establish contrasts familiar from debates over law enforcement and national security throughout the 70s and 80s.
Don't leave out the 60s, Ron.
With most Republicans arguing for tough measures, many Democrats focusing on the defense of constitutional protections.
That emerging alignment, writes Mr. Brownstein, worries some Democrat strategists who believe it may allow Bush to portray Republicans as stronger than Democrats in fighting terrorism, as he did in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns.
Ron, you know, this is a problem you people have.
Everything is not packaging.
There are things that are real.
The president will have to do nothing to portray the Democrats as you describe them.
They are doing it themselves.
What is so hard to understand about this?
We don't concoct all these spin machine games.
We don't have a bunch of PR flaks out there creating an image of the Democrats and the media and the people swallowing it up.
The Democrats are who they are.
The Democrats are, despite the fact that they're going behind closed doors to come up with strategy sessions on what they believe.
Everybody knows what they believe.
You have to listen to what they say, watch what they do.
I guarantee you, the number of people in this country who think George Bush poses the greatest threat to national security, you can put in a thimble.
And the Democrats think that that's a winning issue.
Bush isn't going to have to do anything but go out and be who he is, which is what he's been doing, and that's what he always does.
But Brownstein says Democratic strategists believe it may allow Bush to portray Republicans as stronger than Democrats in fighting terrorism.
No portrayal is necessary.
It's true, Ron.
From John Kerry on down or up, depending on where he is on your scale, there's no portrayal necessary.
And about civil liberties and about all of the civil liberties.
Lest we forget, who was it that burned down a religious compound with tanks?
Now, just think about it for a second.
The Waco invasion, who authored that and who ordered it and who carried it out?
The Democratic Party under Bill Clinton.
You can say it was Janet Reno, whoever, but it was a Democratic Party.
Who took an innocent child away from a legal guardian and presented him to a communist dictator?
Talking about Ilyan Gonzalez.
Need we go on?
These examples are many.
It's the liberal side of the aisle that breaks those liberties in the worst way.
The Democrats say they want to be perceived as tough on national security, but they don't want to be too tough on national, but they really want to be perceived as protecting civil liberties.
Well, talk to the branch developions.
I mean, you might have thought they were kooks, but it had a reason to burn down the place where they live and kill them.
Yeah, to the left.
I mean, they're a wacko-religious bunch.
But Caesar Chavez, now there's a man, there's a man.
Hugo Caesar, whatever.
Yes, I always call him Caesar.
Hugo Chavez.
One of the Democrats' latest icons is down there visiting him, Cindy Sheehan.
And he paid for the trip.
Chavez paid for the trip.
So she's down there rallying around his cause.
He's a great world leader, blah, Remember, there were serious Democrats, blogosphere left wackos back during, well, it was last summer.
We need candidates like Cindy Sheehan is Cesar Chavez, Hugo, Hugo seizing businesses, yes.
It's just eminent domain.
I mean, we're doing that here, too.
Back in just a second.
Hey, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Let's go to the phone, see what fun and excitement lurks behind the blinking yellow lights.
Timothy and Knoxville, I'm glad you held on.
Appreciate your patience, and welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Referring to your commentary on Hillary in the first hour.
Yes.
I would like for you to clarify what you meant about being careful who we pick as a candidate in 2008 to run against Hillary.
Clarify?
Well, the word careful, I would just, you know, I hope by that you don't mean a safe candidate or somebody who's the contrary.
No, no, no, no.
Just the contrary.
We need to continue to be aggressive.
This is no time to go into prevent defense.
This is time to be.
I'm talking about nominating the wrong person.
Let's not nominate somebody who's not conservative.
Sure, because I think our views represent normality, and then we shouldn't have to be afraid of them.
And I want a candidate who's going to say things that say Hillary or any other liberal.
All right, let's do a little test.
Let's conduct a little test.
I want you to listen to some sound bites with me, and then you tell me if this is a candidate that you could support.
Okay.
All right.
I mean, I'm not trying to embarrass you.
I want your actual honest input here.
Let's go to the Today Show today.
Matt Wauer interviewing Senator McCain.
And Wauer said, and this is about government reform.
He said, you've proposed new legislation that would change the rules of the way lobbyists and lawmakers interact this following the Jack Abramoff situation.
Do you think that legislation can be passed this year?
Yes, you will see lobbying reform this year.
The question is, will we reform the system that has caused the corruption, that has caused a situation where one corrupt congressman and one lobbyist can get tens of millions of dollars inserted in the middle of the night in an appropriations bill?
That's the question as to whether we'll fix the so-called earmarking, the pork barrel spending.
And I don't know if we're going to be able to do that or not.
If we don't, we're not going to fix the system.
All right.
Are you inspired there?
No, I'm not rushing.
All right.
Well, let's give Senator McCain another chance then.
It's not fair just to have you judge him on one soundbite.
Let's go back to the Today Show today.
Matt Wauer talking to Senator McCain, he says, when you were asked if you thought the president's actions, this is the NSA domestic spying scandal, Timothy, Senator, when you were asked if you thought the president's actions were legal, you said, I don't think so.
You think the president broke the law?
I don't know.
I want to be perfectly clear.
I don't know the answer.
That's why I welcome the hearings.
If I was sure whether it's legal or not, then I wouldn't feel that these hearings are important.
And again, I'm glad the president welcomes them.
The question is, is what is that I don't know the answer to?
What's the scope of this program?
Who's being listened to?
All right.
Does that inspire you?
No, not particularly.
Well, that's Maverick John McCain of the president of the media.
And he says he doesn't know if the president broke the law, and that's why we need hearings.
And he wants to know who's being listened to and what's the scope of this program.
The way to analyze this, imagine if McCain were president, had authorized the same program to go ahead and protect the American people.
Would he have the same questions about his own activity and behavior?
He knows George W. Bush.
You know, this is, does this sound like the kind of guy that you, as a conservative, Timothy, could rally behind and say, yep, this is my guy?
No, McCain's not a starter for me.
I mean, I couldn't back him.
All right, well, let's give him one more chance.
You may be making a hasty judgment here.
Let's stick with the Today Show.
Mel Wauer interviewing Senator McCain.
He said, Alberto Gonzalez said yesterday and defended this program, saying that when Congress voted on that resolution following 9-11 to give the president the power to fight the war on terrorism, they were in fact giving him the power to carry out this policy.
You supported that resolution.
Had you known that that would have been part of the resolution, would you have supported it?
Well, of course, I would have supported the resolution because I thought it was very important given the threat.
But would you question this policy?
I did not know that that was part of it.
But the Attorney General of the United States just made a legal argument.
He should make it at the hearing.
We should hear from other witnesses.
Okay, so Senator McCain here says he didn't know that that 2001 resolution would cover the.
How can you not?
How can you not know that a resolution granting the president's power to do whatever is necessary, not allow the president to spy on foreign enemy agents to find out what they're going to do?
How can you not know that that's what that included?
Well, that's my point, though, Rush.
I mean, he's trying to be careful about everything he says.
And I was concerned that what you were saying is we need a guy who knows how to be careful, you know, when he talks at Lauer.
No, You misunderstood.
I said we must be careful in who we choose.
I didn't say we must choose someone careful.
Okay.
Yeah.
We've got to be careful who we choose.
And that's the bottom line.
And I, like I said, George Allen today, George Allen on the floor of the Senate.
When the Democrats, you know, start huffing and puffing about all this potential filibuster and stuff.
George Allen said, go ahead, make my day.
Just go ahead.
If you want to try to filibuster this nominee, you go right ahead instead of trying to cower in the corner or trying to say things to make people everywhere like you.
I mean, that to me is a death trap because it's not possible.
And I know he knows everything.
I know he knows everything about war.
McCain was a prisoner of war.
He understands what it takes to fight the enemy.
When he was in that prison, he was hoping damn well we had intelligence to know where he was now to get him out of there.
And he, yeah, I know that's that's to me is a little bit disingenuous about this way he answered all these questions.
Thanks, Timothy, for the phone call.
We'll be right back and continue after this.
Screams of panic at the very mention of my name.
A couple interesting little news blurbs here from Hasbrook Heights, New Jersey.
A male high school student can wear a skirt to school now after the ACLU reached an agreement with the school officials.
I bet his parents are so proud.
The ACLU, no, it's not a kilt.
The ACLU announced a deal yesterday.
It will allow Hasbro Heights High School Senior to wear a skirt to protest the school's no-shorts policy.
The district's dress code bans shorts between October 1st and April 15th, but allows skirts.
That's a policy that 17-year-old Michael Covaello believes is discriminatory.
He said, I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention again.
I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense, Covaello said.
The Hasbrook Heights Superintendent Joseph Luongo did not return telephone messages left Tuesday seeking comment.
We're talking about school yesterday and why so many boys don't do well in it.
One of the reasons the schools allow skirts year-round is that's one reason to get the guys to show up, but not this way.
Now, this is interesting, too.
You know, this guy, what's his name?
James Fry, the recovering drug and alcoholic, drug addict, and alcohol.
He went on, Oprah promoted a big book and all that.
And then people came out and said, no, he's fabricating a lot of the experiences he had.
Some of the wisdom in there makes sense, but he's fabricating something.
So Oprah, he goes on Larry King with his mother, I guess, somebody, and Oprah calls in to defend the book.
Well, a Seattle federal court lawsuit has been filed seeking damages on behalf of consumers who bought this book for the lost time they spent reading it.
Have you heard of this?
This has happened, apparently.
This is the third such lawsuit in America.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday, Seattle attorney Mike Myers lists as plaintiffs two Seattle residents, Shira Paglanawan and Stuart Oswald, who each received or bought the book before news of the book's falsity was disseminated.
The suit, apparently the third of its kind to be filed across the nation, seeks class action status against Fry and the publisher.
The Seattle attorney, Mike Myers, alleges several legal causes for the suit, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
So the guy goes out and writes a book.
People go out and buy it.
Book turns out to be fraudulent in some way.
Now these people want a lawsuit for their lost time.
Now, there's no, I can't find any dollar amount listed here in the suit.
But we'll be, well, I wonder, that's a good point.
I wonder if the previous lawsuit was against Bill Clinton for his autobiography, My Lies.
Well, no, because people would have bought that book knowing in advance.
See, this is when you are deceived.
So, no, it can't be Clinton's book.
Bob in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes, hi, Rush.
About Hillary.
Yeah.
You're wrong if you don't think she can win.
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
And it's very simple.
John Kerry almost won.
He lost by three points.
And he based his whole campaign on three and a half months in a Swift vote.
And his background, his voting record was buried.
He made his name in BBAW a bunch of bogus psychopathic radicals.
He told all these twisted lies about being in Cambodia.
He goes to Paris and meets with the enemy during Vietnam and works on their behalf.
All of it was buried, and he almost won.
If it hadn't been for the alternative press, he would have won.
Yeah, only alternative.
They're going to bury off her past.
They're going to portray her as a moderate like they did Kerry.
One of the things you have to understand, though, about Kerry, I think it's a little bit mistaken to compare Kerry to Clinton because in truth, Kerry was an unknown to most of the people in the country.
He was this, you know, dog-faced senator who didn't do much throughout his career.
And when he runs for president, he had a little bit of...
But Rush, consider this.
Well, it would not.
Think about it.
No, the point is everybody knows who Mrs. Clinton is.
It's my point.
Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry would love the kind of fawning press that Mrs. Clinton has received for 13 years.
And it's resulted in 51% of the people definitely saying you don't want to vote for her.
Now, look, you can sit there, and I'm not going to disagree with you.
She could win.
I mean, anything can happen.
Who knows the future?
I'm just telling you, there's no reason to be afraid of it.
Rush, hold on.
Consider Kerry's appearance.
He looks like Frankenstein.
He's got a boring patrician voice that puts everybody asleep.
They can't stand it.
All right.
Okay.
Bob, hang on.
Grab cut 13, Mike.
You want to start comparing voices.
Here's John Kerry puts himself to sleep, puts everybody to sleep, contrasted with this.
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Now, really, I mean, you're going from, my point, you're going from one extreme to the other.
Why do you want to be afraid?
Seriously, Bob, why do you want to be afraid of her?
Because she is something to be afraid of, and fear helps to motivate people.
If it wasn't for people like you and me, we got to get out there and stop people like Hillary.
Well, I understand.
We stop Kerry, and we got to keep going because they're going to keep putting up people like Hillary and Carrie.
Yeah.
And where's it gotten them?
You know, the point is, look at, if you want to talk about fear, I'll allow it in this context.
I would be afraid of a Hillary presidency.
I mean, who wants that?
But in terms of running a campaign and dealing with the potential candidacy that she might get nominated, the attitude to have is oppose her.
Now, if part of the campaign is to warn people what will happen issue by issue by issue if she is elected, yeah, if you want to call that fear, I think that's just informing people.
There's a big difference between trying to gin up a bunch of fear and paranoia than it is informing people on the truth and giving them facts and so forth.
But I guess when I say that I don't have any fear, I'm really speaking about her inevitability.
I am not one of these people who think, and I haven't ever been, that she has an inevitability to be elected president or that she has an entitlement to it.
I don't think it's written in the clouds, written in stone, etched in the beach, wherever it gets written, that that's something this country must have and that she must achieve.
And a lot of people do.
And I think when you end up being motivated by fear, sometimes it can be a good motivator.
But a lot of times it makes you behave irrationally and assume things that aren't.
And one of the bad things about fear is it goes hand in hand with assumption.
And assuming things you don't know is a dangerous thing.
And fear is going to make you assume negative things.
And that's not productive either.
So I'm just trying to point out to you here that despite all of this spin campaign that has been ginned up on her behalf for the last 13 years, it hasn't worked for a whole host of reasons.
But the main reason is her.
There's not that much likable about her.
And there really hasn't been.
The sense of entitlement that the media, the Democrats have attached to her is, as I said in the last hour, here she was, this Chicago woman that went to school at Yale and met this horned dog from Arkansas.
And she could have had a brilliant career on her own.
Do you know, I mean, she was a leading feminist light.
She made it plain as day she was a feminist in every possible way.
You could tell by looking.
And she was going to go to all kinds of great heights.
And then, and then she met and fell in love with the horned dog and gave it all up, gave it all up to move to the swamps of Arkansas and had to lower herself to work in some place called the Rose Law Firm so beneath her talent, so beneath her potential.
Look at the years she sacrificed.
And look at what she put up with Jennifer Flowers and who knows who else.
And she stood behind him and she was the reason he became elected president.
And now it's her turn to be rewarded.
And that's been the whole thing that's propelled her.
That's it.
Her health care plan guaranteed, well, was a large role in the Republicans winning the House in 1994 in those elections.
Just say we're not dealing with somebody here who is unbeatable or who is even that formidable.
Here is Bruce in Los Angeles.
Bruce, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
You're the best.
Thank you.
It's a pleasure.
Rush, I'm glad to hear that these progressives who are the mainstream can wear dresses now if they're men.
That cinches it for me, that's for sure.
Anyway, I called because I wanted to let you know that the Democrats really view the American people as potential collateral damage.
They want to.
What do you mean by that?
Okay.
They were looking at the numbers for the soldiers they supposedly support, and 1,000, that really made their day.
2,000, they're in Hoghaven.
They are looking at us, everybody here, as potential collateral damage because they are hoping that we get hit so they can turn it right around and really, really go after Bush.
And the collateral damage is whoever gets hurt here.
Let me tell you something.
I'm going to grant that you have a point, but I'm going to take your point in a different way.
Using your possibility here that we get hit again, if we get hit again, does anybody really think the Democrats are going to be able to gain from it?
They are the ones who are trying to – if there's one person out there trying to do everything humanly possible to prevent it, who is it?
It's George W. Bush.
It is not any of the Democrats.
This collateral damage business, you've got me thinking about that because in one context, you might be right.
It's a little tough to say, but hear me out.
The Democrats actually, as Karl Rove said, as we've been saying here for a long time, want to convince as many people as possible that we're actually living in a pre-9-11 world.
They were trying to construct scenarios that are only realistic if 9-11 didn't happen.
So 9-11, it's terrorism.
Yeah, we can't stop it.
Yeah, it's going to happen now and then.
Some are going to be worse than others.
Yes, Americans are going to be lost.
Does it worth going into Iraq?
Is it worth the war on terror?
Is it worth the human treasure that we are losing?
Blah, blah, blah.
So in that sense, you could say if they're not really going to fight terrorism all that much, because it's not that big a deal, 9-11 certainly is not that big a deal to them based on everything they've been saying and doing since, other than the first two months, then you could say losing an American here, there, a couple over there, collateral damage.
No big deal.
Now, that might accurately describe them in terms of your collateral damage assessment.
Thanks for the call, Bruce.
I appreciate it.
We'll be back with much more right after this on the EIB network.
Stay with us.
So I'm getting all these emails.
When are you going to tell us a perfect woman?
I may have bitten off what I can chew, folks.
I stood on it two hours last night, and I just, I mean, I think it's a flawed concept.
But people are sending in their own ideas of perfect.
In fact, who?
I don't know.
I mean, subscribers of the website.
Let's see.
Let's see.
Here's one.
Rush, I found the perfect girl.
I couldn't ask for more.
She's deaf and dumb, oversexed, and owns a liquor store.
Other people are taking it a little bit more seriously.
They're still quite familiar.
Speaking of all this, I got a quick.
If this high school senior at Hasbrook Heights High School in New Jersey can wear a dress, is it okay for Hillary to wear one now?
No.
Let's go back one more.
I'll tell you about the girls at the Hope, the ones wearing the Denver Broncos.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, you say well, but you don't know what the story is.
At any rate, we got one more audio soundbite here, ladies and gentlemen.
Senator McCain, after he finished with Matt Wower on the Today Show, went over to Julie Chen at the early show on CBS, or maybe he was there first.
I don't know.
And she says, Senator, how do you personally feel about these wiretaps and spying all domestic citizens?
Not only are you a lawmaker, you are also a citizen.
If you are on a phone call to somewhere overseas and you found out the government was listening in, how would you feel about it?
I wouldn't like that just because of the privacy concerns.
There have been allegations that there are al-Qaeda sales in the United States of America, and they're listening in on that.
And I think all of us, including me, would support that.
That's why I think we need to understand the parameters of the program.
So is it tough luck on those who are not talking to al-Qaeda operatives who get their phone calls listened in on?
I don't know whether they are or not.
The administration claims that only those suspected al-Qaeda members or suspected terrorists are those who are being eavesdropped upon.
Look, can we be realistic?
It's going to happen.
Do you understand that despite the fact nobody wants it to, there are people that get in car accidents every day?
It just happens.
There's a term for it.
Expletive happens.
There's nothing in the country or in the world that is perfect.
There probably have been people who have been talking on a phone to somebody overseas and their phone call was logged or something.
But I'll bet you 10 to 1, none of them have been approached, subpoenaed, unless they're talking to al-Qaeda.
And that's the right answer.
I mean, look, you go into war and soldiers get killed.
It happens.
You know, there are unfortunate things happen here.
There's a price for everything, but to demand perfection in a program like this is simply absurd.
Notice, though, despite all of these fears and all of these complaints, not one of these people who object to this program have suggested that it be canceled.
Gauntlet's been thrown down.
Now, now I'm supposed to tell everybody what the perfect man is, too, huh?
All that in due course.
USA Today, look at this headline.
Young earners face intense financial challenge.
This is new.
When has this not been the case?
When has it not been the case that young earners face an intense financial challenge?
No, don't give me that Clinton economy stuff.
I mean, this is just more worthless recycled news designed to make it look like the economy is horrible.
This is always the case.
This is human nature.
It's just the way things are.
What?
Are we all supposed to graduate from college and be making whatever we expect to make when we're 40 or 50?
It's not news.
It's a hoot.
Why?
Kids are struggling in America.
Why?
▲
Export Selection