All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
January 25, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program now documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time.
The latest opinion audit in from the Sullivan opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, California, Rush Limbaugh back on the one and only EIB network.
We are at 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I have to admit, I sort of overreached yesterday.
I sort of stepped in it here when saying, we have this long, drawn-out, emotional discussion yesterday about how did it even start?
I don't even remember how it started.
Men and women.
How did it even start?
What story?
Oh, yeah, the news week story.
Girls and boys are different and how they're goofing up teaching them in the classroom and it's driving more boys out of school to boredom and not going to college.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
So yesterday I said, you know, I'll tell you people what the perfect woman is.
And I got, I did.
I thought about it last night.
I think I've overreached my here because I don't, I tried for two hours and it's just a pointless exercise.
I mean, I'm the one that says there's no such thing as perfect anyway in anything.
And to sit and try to do this, I did, because I figured I owe it to you people.
I committed yesterday to this.
And I said it's just a flawed, it is an absolutely flawed concept.
But I have, there are some people here who have attempted to define the perfect woman, some women, some men.
Let me just share one of these with you.
Here's my stab at the perfect woman, Rush.
She adores you, believes totally in your calling, supports your career in any way she can, is easy to please and loves pleasing you, is your companion in fun and the pleasures of life, is your equal in mind and importance in the relationship.
What is that?
Is your equal in mind and importance in the relationship?
No, put an asterisk by that line.
Moving on, is a seeker of truth and growth, pursues her own talents and interests in a capacity secondary to yours.
Underline that, baby.
Takes care of herself, but is not trying to be a glamour queen or attract other men.
Has a good sense of humor, but not as good as yours.
A loving heart.
An affectionate, passionate nature.
Thinks you're very sexy.
All right.
Now, let me just ask you, is that woman out there?
Apply this to yourselves first.
I mean, this woman is, she's not writing it about me specifically.
Well, a couple lines she is, obviously, talking about intelligence and all that.
But imagine, as I read that, imagine it applying to you.
Does that woman exist?
HR says yes.
See, my experience, and that's all I have to go on.
What?
HR is not.
No, he's answering the question, honestly.
He thinks that that does apply to him.
More power to him.
That's definitely fabulous.
Now, adores you, believes totally in your calling, supports your career in any way she can.
Easy to please.
Loves pleasing you.
Is your companion in fun and the pleasures of life?
Is your equal in mind and importance in the relationship?
I'm not quite sure.
Oh, she's as smart as I am and thinks it's as important to be married to me as I think it's important to be married to her.
Or don't say married, just in a relationship.
Is a seeker of truth and growth.
Pursues her own talents and interests in a capacity secondary to yours.
Takes care of herself, but is not trying to be a glamour.
This is the problem here.
This woman may be out there in the form of a blow-up doll, but I just don't know that because I'm just going to get myself in trouble if I deal with this.
There's no upside for me in this.
There's literally no upside for me to respond to this.
The way it, I've all my life, I've had a very simple definition of the ideal good woman.
And it's very simple.
The man who thinks he's smarter than his wife knows not how truly smart she is.
That pretty much will take care of everything.
But when you get into these competitive battles, then it all breaks down.
And the feminists hate that.
The feminists hate that definition.
Man who thinks he's smarter than his wife knows not how truly smart she is.
Oh, so we're supposed to act dumb just so you'll feel good?
Yes.
It's real simple.
Guys are not hard.
Guys are easy.
All they want is some appreciation for the effort they're making.
That's all.
If you just show a little appreciation, you own them.
See, I'm getting wound up and I'm going to have to put the brakes on here because there's no way to win on this for me.
But I could go through this whole list.
Let me do it again just so you can hear it in context.
She adores you, believes totally in your calling, supports your career in any way she can, is easy to please and loves pleasing you, is your companion in fun and the pleasures of life, is your equal in mind and importance in the relationship, seeker of truth and growth, pursues her own talents and interests in a capacity secondary to yours, takes care of herself, but is not trying to be a glamour queen or attract other men, has a good sense of humor, but not as good as yours, a loving heart, an affectionate, passionate nature, thinks you're very sexy, blah,
If, if, if a man could achieve all of that, it still wouldn't be enough.
No matter what it all is, it's still not enough.
All right.
And then there's this.
And this is, Rush, here's a funny take.
A MasterCard commercial that was turned down.
Cover charge, $15.
Round of drinks, $23.
Table dance, $30.
Another round of drinks, $23.
Couch dance and tips, $50.
A round of shots, $34.
Private dance in your hotel room, $300.
Send her on her way and never have to hear her complain.
Priceless.
Now, I mean, I'm getting these things from all of them now.
Let me tell you about these two babes out to Bob Hope because I promised I'd tell this story too.
No, three up.
Was there a picture of this?
Wearing the Denver Bronco jerseys, the pictures of these babes.
Huh?
No.
No, no, no.
I'm talking about the girls wearing the Denver Bronco jerseys.
And these are babes.
These, I know I was surrounded by babes the whole weekend, but these were babes.
And I had just par a hole, so I'm coming off and I'm feeling my oats.
I'm feeling really good.
And I'm walking to the next tee in a huge crowd.
And I see these, it was two babes wearing Broncos jerseys.
And the Steelers are playing the Broncos.
I think this was Friday when this happened.
Sunday, the Steelers are playing the Broncos.
So, you know, I walked up and they're wearing these Bronco jerseys.
I said, Broncos fans, eh?
And this babe said, what's your first clue?
Like I was the biggest idiot walking the planet.
I was just trying to start a conversation.
Broncos, yeah, what's your first clue?
Parentheses, you buffoon.
So I said, well, it's a football team, and you're a woman.
I didn't think you might know what you were even wearing.
And that's all I could think to say.
I mean, you know, I've gotten pretty good at this repartee back and forth.
And that broke the ice.
Just started laughing and so forth.
But I'm just trying to be nice.
Just go and say, hey, Broncos fan, what's your first clue?
I would never say, if I'm wearing a Steelers jersey and some nice-looking person comes, Steelers fan, I say, yeah, yeah.
Not you idiot.
Anyway, quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll continue here in just a moment.
Stay with us.
All right, welcome back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have El Rushbo here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
You know, yesterday we were talking about the phenomenon out there of rush babies, college students whose parents, when they were young skulls full of mush, running around breaking windows and stuff when they're little kids, had the radio on.
Their parents had the radio, and these kids are listening to me.
And they've grown up now.
They're in college.
And they're calling themselves Rush Babies.
And we have the founder of the group that uses that as their title on the phone from none other than Pittsburgh.
It's Chris.
And Chris, welcome to the program.
I'm flattered that you called, and I'm flattered that you call yourselves Rush Babies.
Well, we're certainly not crying, Rush.
If anything, we're irritating liberals.
So Rush Babies, if that's what people want to know us as, fine with me.
Well, I'm flattered as long as I'm not paying any support.
We won't charge you, Rush.
But, you know, we were probably one of the first organizations to use this term.
I don't know if I can take credit for recording the phrase limb ball babies, but as a young conservative, especially one that graduated from college just a few years ago, it's a rather common phrase within my circles and a phrase that encompasses a message that my group, the Network of College Conservatives, believes in and is trumpeting across the nation.
Now, is your group, the National Network of College Conservatives, are you tracking liberal professors and you offering bounties to people who turn them in?
Well, yes and no, Rush.
We are tracking liberal professors.
Are we offering money or, as you say, a bounty for this information?
No.
That's too bad.
Well, I guess you're referring to the alumni group out there in UCLA.
To be quite honest, Rush, while I understand their reasoning for offering students money, obviously they're frustrated with pervasive liberalism in academia.
I can tell you that, again, the NCC, the Network of College Conservatives, will do no such thing.
Over the past 20 years, and this kind of gets into the limb ball baby quote, you have taught us young conservatives that there is more to life than money.
And you have played a key role in developing within today's college conservative a keen sense of morality, justice, fairness, and a heightened sense of right and wrong.
Students will report abuses on liberal indoctrination on campuses, not because they'll receive money, but because they realize educators are stifling debate, discussion, and the free exchange of ideas.
So the student's moral compass, not his or her pocketbook, will lead them to a report on liberal educators, and that is what the network of college conservatives is going to trumpet.
Excellent.
Excellent.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
But what do you think about, aside from the money, this UCLA alumni group, which is not an official alumni group, they're just this separate organization, they're asking students to go tape the lectures of these liberal professors.
Now, what do you think of that?
Well, you know, I've heard people say that it is spying.
You know, I'm sorry, but these students are not spying.
Spying implies there's some sort of secrecy.
And there's no secrecy, especially with my group's part.
We have been and will be very honest and open that we're going to hold these intellectuals' feet to the fire, keep them honest, and make sure they're providing the adequate, well-rounded education that every student deserves and is paying for.
The only secret agents on college camp high are radical left-wing professors and administrators who use their positions of power and influence to indoctrinate students who are away from home and in most cases without mom and dad knowing exactly what's being taught to their children.
So any action a college or university condones, it should also be able to defend and justify.
And that is what groups like mine is bringing to light.
We're bringing to light what is in the dark.
And we preserve intellectual integrity.
That is an excellent point because what I gather they're most upset about out at UCLA is not the money.
The money is just a way for them to poke opposition and discredit these people.
It seems to me that what they're most upset about is that somebody's actually going to leave the classroom with evidence of what went on in there.
And I thought liberals should be proud of what they believe.
I mean, if they're willing to teach it and, as you say, indoctrinate young skulls full of mush with it, what are they so afraid of when those same students walk out of the classroom and say, hey, here's what my professor just said.
It seems like if anybody's engaging in secrecy and darkness, it is the university and it is these professors.
Exactly, Rush.
Rush, the message that I have found in my research and in my groups exposing these professors and administrators, radical professors and administrators, is that they are willing to accept mom and dad's money, but they're not willing to accept mom and dad's values.
And so it is a secret organization, a secrecy that's going on within the institution of higher education to limit what parents know is happening to their children.
And it's part of, you know, I'm sorry to say, but the re-education of America's youth.
Exactly.
Now, let me ask you this.
When you were in school, we had a quote yesterday from, I forget the man's name, Selnick or something, but he's done a study of professors at college, and he says that it is rare, extremely rare, to find a professor anywhere in a major American university which will say positive things about the country.
What's your experience of it?
It didn't talk about the tremendous economic opportunity.
It didn't talk about the great things America does for the world.
It didn't talk about the massive freedoms that we have in this country compared to other countries and societies, that they're always finding things to criticize and rip about this country, and they're trying to inculcate these young kids with the same attitudes about America.
And in a large number of instances, it succeeds.
What was your experience with your professors?
Obviously, it was something similar.
You wouldn't have started a group.
Rush, it's exactly that.
You know, America is indeed the villain.
They focus on America's negative points without focusing on the positive sides, all of the good that we do.
And while they may be, you know, in terms of being accurate, say that, yes, we did do things that may have not been fair or just in the past, they are still biased because, or in essence, lying because they're not presenting both sides of the story.
I don't want a slanted biased education.
Their job is to teach me a well-rounded education.
And that is what I am paying for.
A good example would be Ronald Reagan.
I know you're a fan of his.
And America being a shining city on a hill.
Well, the truth is, is that most of these professors are skewing the facts.
So students believe that Reagan's vision and accomplishments were ignorant, ill-conceived, ineffective, and idiotic.
And as for America being that shining city on a hill, these liberal indoctrinators used the president's analogy to exemplify American arrogance and oppression throughout the world rather than Reagan's societal vision of virtue, opportunity, and freedom for which other nations could aspire to.
And to be quite honest, I fear that if you ask most college graduates out there who have been shortchanged by their liberal educators, do you know about America's shining city on the hill?
I fear that they would say, do you mean San Francisco?
Well, look, let me ask you one more question before I let you go.
You grew up a Rush baby, or as you have been dubbed, when you were actually in the classroom.
Are you a graduate now?
Are you out of school?
Yes, I graduated a few years ago.
All right.
When you were there and you were undergoing this indoctrination, were your convictions shaken?
Did these professors get close to shattering you?
And if so, why?
If not, why not?
Rush, I grew up in a very conservative family.
And so I came from that background.
I went to college to learn what the liberal argument was.
And so what happened was, if anything, it did strengthen my resolve for conservatism.
It made me no longer just say that I was conservative or believed in limited government.
It made me find out the reasons why I believed what I believed.
And that is how we are to help our children educate and fight this liberalism on campus is through education.
And unfortunately, if students don't come from a conservative background, if they just rely on the professors to teach them, they're only going to get one side of the story.
And hopefully, if that is the case, my organization, and I hate to give a plug here, but I might as well.
It's conservativesoncampus.com.
My organization not only provides an avenue for students to report abuses from liberal professors, but also provides them the resources and tools to educate themselves on conservative values and views.
That's conservativesoncampus.com.
That's correct.
All right.
Well, you've just shut down your own server.
Hey, you know what?
Keep visiting over the next few weeks.
And I appreciate the opportunity, Rush, and thank you for all that you have done, not only for myself and others, but for America's future generations.
Well, that's you.
And I look at, I appreciate all that, but you hung in there during these challenging times, and I appreciate it.
I'm flattered to have my name associated with what you all are doing.
Speaking of all this, I got an email last night from a student at the University of Iowa, and his subject line is, Rush, my textbook says, you are a liar.
So I will give you details of this when we come back.
Rush, you are a liar, according to this kid's textbook at the University of Iowa.
Back with more right after this.
Stay with us.
Now, this is laughably absurd.
You guys, you all remember the name Carlos the Jackal.
Worldwide assassin of tremendous repute.
Day of the Jackal, a big movie, Day of the Jackal.
The book was about Ilich Ramirez Sanchez.
Carlos the Jackal.
He was captured somewhere not long ago, well, some years ago.
He's now claiming that he is the victim of human rights violations in prison.
But this is just the theater of the absurd.
Guy who is a mass murderer, a paid assassin.
And he's trying to get sympathy because of human rights violations.
One thing about this perfect woman business, I don't want to forget what the original question was yesterday because I remembered this.
The guy called, and you'll remember this, Mr. Snirdley, the guy called and wanted to who was the something along the lines, who was the perfect conservative woman out there.
Any others besides Ann Colder, Michelle Malkin, and all that, remember?
And I'd rather go about this a different way, because those are two fine examples.
But there's a book out there that is so appropriately titled, and I would and am heartily recommending that you get it.
It's by Kato Byrne, who is a friend of mine.
She's National Review Magazine and National Review Online, and she's written a book called Women Who Make the World Worse.
And it pulls no punches.
And it talks about what we were talking about yesterday, about how the curriculum and the teaching methods in junior high and high school have basically been turned into feminist re-education seminars.
Basically, it's what schools have become in much too many, many too marks of the country.
And the left hates it.
The left despises the book.
They're going to bookstores and putting it in the cooking section.
They're putting it in the fiction section.
Some people are even going to Photoshop and making up their own copy or known cover and altering it with inflammatory, insulting pictures of Kate on the cover and this sort of stuff, and then putting it in the.
And they're doing with Fred Barnes' new book, too, which is a little look-see into the Bush presidency.
But she cites the example like Larry Summers, this president, the University President of Harvard.
All he did was come out and say something true, and he's gone.
Well, he was emasculated.
He may as well be gone if he's still there.
But Women Who Make the World Worse is a book that I think you would all find fascinating.
And just know this.
The left and its establishment just despises this.
The title alone is enough to send them into conniption fits, especially when they see some of the names in the book.
I'm not going to tell you some of the names in the book, so some of them are patently obvious, but there are quite a few.
Now, I got an email last night from a student at University of Iowa, and I'm sort of reluctant to mention her name because I don't want to get her, although she signed it.
Dear Rush, I'm currently a sophomore studying journalism at the University of Iowa.
Today I began reading The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian, the main text in my media and consumers class.
I couldn't read past the first chapter.
One theme was clear.
Right-wing propaganda has taken control of our nation.
I'm sure you're familiar with this book, but allow me to present a few examples.
I've never heard of the book until I read this letter.
The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian.
But I'll tell you what, I love the title, The New Media Monopoly, because it's about all of us.
Murdoch's Fox Radio and Television of Almost Unwavering Right-wing Commentators, the two largest radio groups, Clear Channel and Cumulus, whose holdings dwarf the rest of radio, are committed to a daily flood of far-right propagandistic programming.
Bagdikian continues, in a little more than a decade, American radio has become a powerful organ of right-wing propaganda.
The most widely distributed afternoon talk show is Rush Limbaughs, whose opinions are not only right-wing, but frequently based on untruths.
Ben, a little correct, we're not the most widely distributed as though we're being forced on people.
We are the most listened to.
It's the free market out there, and the listeners determine which is the largest and how widely available it is by demanding it, by wanting it, and by utilizing it when it's made available.
He goes on to say the political content of the remaining four of the big five is hardly a counter to Fox and the ultra-conservatism and bad reporting of dominant talk shows.
Beginning in 1976, candidates who spent more than $500,000 were increasingly Republicans.
Conservatives perpetually accuse Democrats of bowing to special interests in the conservative lexicon.
These are code words for labor union.
I'm reading from the textbook.
And now, no, I'm not surprised.
Don't misinterpret my tone here.
This is exactly what we know is going on at these institutes of higher learning, particularly in journalism schools.
But here you have a textbook written by some guy who himself is nothing more than an angry, displaced, no longer powerful propagandist himself.
Now, all of these examples that I read to you are taken from the first 20 pages of the book.
And she writes, as a student, I know that many of my peers will not read past a certain point in many assigned readings.
This text allows students to be exposed to these ideas with little effort on their part.
Now, I came to this school understanding I'd be exposed to extreme points of view, and I was more than willing to hear them.
How can I expand my own knowledge without learning what the other side has to say?
However, I have many friends who come to this school unaware of what is being presented to them.
The average student views politics from an apathetic stance.
These students are hearing and reading such biased opinions from the people that are supposed to be teaching them facts and concepts for the future.
Many students take these words at face value.
Of course they do.
Today, the woman teaching this course discussed the idea.
I get this.
And again, this is the University of Iowa.
Today, the woman teaching this course discussed the idea of consuming with an open and informed mind.
She discussed purchasing clothing with a company's logo displayed on it and how, as a consumer, we are paying to give the business free advertising.
She stated that as consumers, one should not go along with the crowd just because it is seen as cool are right.
Now, taken by itself, you know, the last part of that, I'm all for you.
Conventional wisdom is a losing road.
You know, don't go down it.
But this business, I must have, when I worked in Pittsburgh, it was 1971 through 1975.
And I'm just a disc jockey back because I'm driving around and listening to other people doing talk shows.
Pretty bad, but they were doing.
And I remember there was one guy who was trying to gin up his audience on this about automobiles.
He actually was trying to get people all upset and worked up that when they went out and bought a Ford, it had the dealership's name on the trunk or on the license plate holder or frame.
And aren't you upset that you are engaged in free advertising for the dealer?
And he got zero calls on it.
I wanted to listen to that and see what he got zero calls on it.
So here you have a journalism teacher, a journalism class teacher teaching, bringing this sort of thing up.
Now, this young student, I mean, I'm sure this young student knows, because sounds like she's a rush baby too.
But if you go into these journalism schools these days, I mean, you go down the hall of any of them and just pick a student at random.
Say, hi, why are you here?
Because I want to change the world.
I want to make a difference.
Well, this is not where you should be.
I mean, you should run for office, get yourself some policymaking position, but you're just, you're in a journalism school.
I know, I want to make the world a better place.
I want social justice.
I want to make a difference.
Well, Adolf Hitler made a difference.
Well, no, I want to make a positive difference.
He made a difference.
I mean, all kinds of people make a difference.
That's not what you're here to do, but they do that because that's what journalism has become.
Journalism is just a form of liberal activism anymore, especially when you see excerpts or hear examples of the kind of garbage and bilge that's in these textbooks, which is strictly a rant against the new media based in anger over the fact that these old media people, these antiques, these Jurassic Park practitioners have been replaced and no longer have their monopolies.
Quickly before the break, this is Bill in Maine.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
You bet.
I taught history on the collegiate level for 25 years, and I was a lonely, conservative, Republican voice.
And I would not permit voice recorders in my classroom because primarily it removes the student from active participation.
To sit there and manually have to take notes involves the student.
So I would not permit that.
And as I said, I know of professors who blame the United States for everything.
I even said probably Adam and Eve were Republicans, or were Americans.
I mean, they caused everything.
But I think on this using conservative students using voice recorders in the classroom, and I understand their frustration.
It's, I'm going to sit there with this recording, and if that guy says anything to the left, I got you.
And that bothers me.
To me, the student is not there for the class.
He's there to get this professor.
And those are my views.
Well, okay, now I totally understand what you're saying, but isn't it also true that the professor is there to get the student?
Yes, he is.
He's there to propagandize.
I give you that.
But they could tell a professor had left-wing views by merely showing the administration whoever the textbook he's using.
I mean, Paul Samuelson's book, Basic Economics, he said the Soviet Union is an example of a socialist system that can work and thrive.
That's his 1989 edition.
I know all that.
But I'm just, and maybe it's not, maybe it's not as dark as I paint it, but I just don't like this idea of recording someone's lecture.
In fact, there was a case in Illinois about 15, 20 years ago.
A professor said this was an invasion of my privacy using electronic media or using a tape recorder.
And I think the state court upheld him.
I don't know how universal that is, but I think the court found in the professor's favor.
Oh, I'm sure it's against all kinds of university policy for a whole host of reasons.
The fact that they're taping is incidental to me.
It's the reaction to it that I find most fascinating.
Oh, yes, yes.
There does seem to be a genuine fear that somebody outside this classroom is going to learn what's being said in there.
And I've always, where are you liberals?
Why aren't you proud of what you believe?
Why is it so important that you must keep it from everybody else what you're trying to inculcate in these young kids' minds?
Why aren't you proud of it?
What's so wrong with students coming out telling people what they heard in a lecture?
I know that some students are going to come out of there and they're going to go tell people, you should have heard what this guy said.
And some people say, ah, you must not have heard that, right?
Oh, or you're just a kid.
You're probably not focused or what have you.
There's nothing like hearing it for yourself.
But I understand why they don't want tape recorders going on in there.
I'll tell you what, though, there is one standpoint I can understand it.
I was a horrible note-taker because I didn't write fast enough and just taking notes.
Yeah, I was involved in the class, but I don't know how much I missed.
If I were allowed to tape it, especially a class I was interested in, it would have been of immense value.
And this is like people listening to this program trying to take notes to remember it.
That's why we put the website up so they don't have to take notes.
They can totally immerse themselves in listening to it.
And if these professors really cared, put a transcript out of the lecture.
What are we there to do?
Teach people?
Who's laughing at me?
I was a lousy, total lousy student.
I'm not changing my tack on that.
I was a total student.
I didn't like it at all.
But there were some classes I liked.
I mean, it wasn't some classes, only an hour.
You know, if I only had to go to school for an hour a day, I could have put up with it.
But those one hours, you know, that were sporadically pockmarked across my day, I liked some of them.
But taking notes, I was just not proficient at it.
No, my snurdly just asked me if my memory when I was a young skull full of mush was similar to what it is today.
Obviously not.
I mean, I got C's and Ds on the tests.
I was not a good test taker either.
Choked up.
You know, if, you know, my memory is like anybody else's.
If you set out to try to remember something, you free.
Give you a best example.
I'd be interviewed by somebody.
What are your 10 favorite movies?
I can't remember one.
Oh, gosh, 10 favorite movies.
Now, if we're just talking about it and the subject comes up, bam, they're right there and they flow out.
But you've got to question it.
I don't think I'm unique in this.
I think there are a lot of people who have that kind of, I call it choking or what have you.
But no, I don't think my memory was that perfected back then.
I wasn't engaged in doing that much.
It was interesting to me.
So why remember it?
Back after this.
You know, folks, this business of taping college professors in the classroom, it's not really all that necessary now anyway, thanks to President Bush, because we're no doubt taping their phone calls at home.
So we're going to get them one way or the other.
Do you know what the left, left media, the latest thing that irritates them, these so-called pictures of Bush and Jack Abramoff?
And nobody cares.
And nobody cares.
They don't understand it.
Media writing about it, these people hosting television shows at night.
Can't believe it.
People don't care about it.
I have a picture right here.
I'll show this to you, you people watching on the Ditto Cam.
Let me zoom in here.
As you see, that is our former president Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, dressed casually with James Riotti and part of the Chinese funny money campaign contribution group.
So these pictures are around all over the place, and Clinton knew exactly who they were, and they were there for one specific reason, and that was to talk about all the money.
And how about all the Clinton coffees?
But here's another way to look at this.
I have gone to just this last week, I don't know how many pictures I post for, and I have no idea with who.
I literally don't.
I'm not impugning any of these people, but one of them could be an axe murderer for all I know and will be found out and convicted.
And there's going to be this picture someday with this axe murderer with me signing an autograph.
But you just don't know.
You think a president of the United States knows everybody.
How about Hillary?
Who was this guy?
Yeah, Jorge Cabrera.
He was a cocaine dealer, and he's in the White House, and she posed for a picture with him.
And then that's why this stuff is not taking off.
Hillary Clinton has read the polling data, folks.
Drudge just posted the story.
Senator Clinton blasts Bush on eavesdropping.
Senator Hillary Rodham Rodom on Wednesday called President Bush's explanations for eavesdropping on domestic telephone calls strange and far-fetched, launching a blistering attack on the White House ahead of the President's State of the Union address.
Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists.
I think that's our obligation, but I think it can be done in a lawful way.
It's the same.
I told you Monday this is the way they were doing.
Well, of course we support tracking down the bad guys.
We just want to do it smart.
We want to do it responsibly.
We want to do it legally.
And there's nothing illegal about what's going on now.
So Hillary, by the way, told reporters she didn't yet know whether the administration's warrantless eavesdropping broke any laws, yet she just got through saying she wanted to do it legally.
But Hillary did say she didn't buy the White House's main justification for the tactic.
Their argument that it's rooted in the authority to go after Al-Qaeda is far-fetched.
So, I don't know blistering what it probably was, probably more that screeching, but it's a direct result of that poll, USA Today Gallup poll.
Back in just a second, folks, stay with us.
Scott McClellan yesterday about this picture said to the press, Well, hell, most of you have had your pictures taken with Bush and his reputation still intact.
Love that answer.
Folks, we're out of time.
Been another fun three hours tomorrow, right around the corner after a 21-hour break.
And we'll look forward to it and see you then.
▲
Export Selection