All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:07
January 26, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us on yet another excursion into broadcast excellence.
I am your host, Rush Limbaugh, on the program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from God.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I know, folks, a lot.
We've been talking a lot lately about what I consider to be the implosion of the Democratic Party and the liberal wing of that party particularly.
And I have not gotten any response like this or any emails, but I, you know, one of the things a qualified and broadcast specialist like me needs is empathy.
I think the key ingredient to succeeding in a talk show like this is empathy.
And by that I mean you have to be able to, while hosting the show, imagine you're listening to it and realize, okay, done that enough, time to get off of it.
And I may be getting close here with this, but I don't think so yet.
Because I still sense that there are some of you people out there who are not listening.
I sense that there's some of you people out there who are refusing to accept my warnings on this and you persist in wanting to run around and living in fear of this once masterful Democrat machine that seemed to never make mistakes and always got what it wanted and always defeated us no matter what we did, no matter how smartly we did it.
So I want to keep pounding home the idea that they are in trouble on the Democrat side and on the left.
And the express reason for it is twofold.
One, just again, to demonstrate that my instincts on all this are right.
So I don't know how after 18 years anybody ever doubts me, but they still do.
And the second thing is that when it comes from Democrat, when the news itself comes from Democrats that they are hopeless, then to those of you who might doubt me, the credibility of such stories or statements coming from Democrats will help you to accept it.
And there are all sorts of third reasons.
Some people just have problem with good news.
There's got to be a catch here somewhere.
You know those kinds of people.
People who are afraid of success.
I have never been afraid of success, but a lot of people are.
And they're so insecure that any good news, don't fall for that.
That's just a trick.
That's just temporary rush.
You're going off half-cocked here.
That's not the way to do it.
You need to put the gun back in a holster and hold your fire because it's not the way.
And that's not me.
I see trends.
I'm in front of trends.
That's what being on the cutting edge of societal evolution is all about.
It's interesting the timing of this column here that I'm going to share with you in a moment from Richard Cohen, because this week we have been talking about men and women and the way feminism has destroyed the public education system.
And it's literally, I think feminism is one of the real reasons the Democratic Party is heading down the tubes.
The feminization of Democratic men.
And there wasn't too much of that necessary when they started, but that just made the job easier for them.
And you look out on the Democrat side.
Now, just look at any Democrat leader, any Democrat candidate, and you tell me, in the eyes of tradition, do you see a real man?
I don't.
I see wusses.
I see wusses that don't even have the confidence of their own beliefs to tell these wacko leftists to shut up.
Go ahead and keep sending us money, but shut up.
You're hurting us.
And of course, watching them interact with women, that's puke city.
That's even worse.
But we've been talking about this all week and most of this program's history.
So here comes this piece just to show you how prescient we are on this program.
Here comes this piece from Richard Cohen today, and he's very liberal, and he's a columnist of the Washington Post.
What John Wayne can teach Democrats.
The latest poll is not good for the Democrats, and I'm not talking here of the one showing Bush's approval rating inching up.
I'm talking about the recently released Harris poll showing John Wayne, one of the most popular movie stars of 2005.
The one thing he and the Democratic Party have in common is that they are both dead.
Wayne was the quintessential anti-Democrat.
Everything he stood for, from support for the Vietnam War to antipathy to the 60s and 70s counterculture, was in consonance with GOP positions.
And more important, his iconic man-on-horseback image has been adopted by virtually the whole Republican Party.
The Harris people tell us that Wayne, tied for third with Harrison Ford, is a particular favorite of men.
Tom Hanks, number one two years in a row, is beloved by women, and both Wayne and Hanks are the choice of conservatives.
Liberals chose Johnny Depp as their most popular Hollywood star.
Wayne, John Wayne personifies the gender gap, the virtually habitual way white men vote Republican.
There are many reasons for this.
Democratic feminism, affirmative action, etc.
But one of them surely is that the John Wayne style of the Republican Party appeals to the cowboy in most men.
Even I, Eastern dude that I be, would rather follow the Duke than say Johnny Depp.
Sorry, my man, but that's the way it is.
Back when I met John Wayne, he was a dated pro-war caricature.
It was 1977.
The Duke had somehow been invited to Jimmy Carter's pre-inaugural gala at the Kennedy Center.
When he was through addressing the crowd, he walked right at me, looming as huge and formidable as he seemed on the screen.
John Wayne did not play in Westerns.
John Wayne was a Western.
Actually, he hated horses and never rode if he could possibly avoid it.
Since that night, Ronald Reagan has come and gone, and now we have another John Wayne in the White House, another rancher who doesn't ranch, a cowboy who doesn't ride.
No matter, George Bush shed his family's Eastern ways just as surely as Wayne did his prosaic Iowa upbringing as Marion Morrison, son of Clyde the pharmacist.
I thought he was from Illinois.
I thought John Wayne's from Illinois.
Marion Morrison, well, you can scan the length and the breadth of the Democratic Party, and you won't find any breadth.
And you won't find any John Wayne figure either.
None of the Democratic leaders seems to have what it takes to appeal to white male voters.
But if you should happen to be in a room 241 of the Russell Senate office building, you'll find Wayne Galore.
Pictures of John Wayne in various Arizona settings.
He's a twofer, a military hero, and a Westerner.
Democrats, beware.
Okay, Bill Clinton won twice, but he ain't no cowboy.
So it can be done.
But in the Harris poll, Wayne's ahead of Julia Roberts, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, George Clooney, Sean Connery, and Sandra Bullock.
Democrats, take note, the Duke is still king.
Now, what's he really saying?
Pretty blunt with this, wouldn't you say?
What's he really saying?
Would I say that when you look at the Democratic Party, do you see a real man?
No.
John Wayne is the quintessential icon image of a real man.
the Republicans somehow have John Wayne and the Democrats have Humpback Mountain.
Could there be...
I'm sorry.
I did it again.
You know, Snerdley said that to me the other day, and it's like somebody singing a last song you hear, you can't stop whispering.
And I've been calling it that ever since Snerdley said it to me.
At any rate, could there be any greater contrast to the two parties?
And when you look at the feminization of the whole Democratic Party, look at their definition of their real man.
He's some tatty, feely, sensitive, metro-sexual, sprays cologne all over, spends a lot of time in the hair salons and in the department stores, mixing and matching the wardrobe and so forth.
And if there is any hint of a cigar or cigarette smoke, I mean it's called the cops' time.
And it just, they're just, they're just wusses.
It just wusses by comparison.
There's no comparison.
And proof that the feminist movement has actually done harm is this, and that it's taken the party backward.
And because it's just, it's a denial of tradition, denial of biology, denial of human nature.
So more evidence that they just continue to implode this time provided by their own spokesman, Richard Cohen in the Washington Post.
Quick timeout.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
And let's not forget, we mentioned this to you yesterday.
Maureen Dowd in her latest column has effectively come out and said, explicitly come out and said that whoever it is, Harry Reid, Pelosi, this whole bunch of leaders the Democrats have, they're not fit.
They don't carry the message.
They don't have any power.
They don't have any influence.
They don't have any oomph behind them.
Liz Smith points out today that the high, quote, high liberal voice of Texas Molly Ivins joined in.
She writes, not backing Hillary.
She cites the senator for not taking a clear stand on a war, failing to speak out on the Terry Shivo gross pandering on flag burning, calling these contemptible little dodges.
So Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins, and there's a pair.
Imagine being a guy, folks, and having two women like that call you out.
I mean, that's got to be emasculating.
You know, you've been, you're a eunuch.
Can you imagine?
I mean, being called out by those two.
You are so bad.
You are so, you are, you are so weak.
You are that those two called you out.
I mean, it would be one thing to be, you know, be called out by a real woman, but these two?
I'm telling you, this is a party that is so far out of the mainstream, it is becoming laughable.
I'm not taking anything for granted as anything can happen.
Our side can screw up Royal and it doesn't matter.
Don't misunderstand me, but I mean, if you just look at those people within their context, it is fascinating to watch.
They are plummeting off the cliff.
They don't even know they've gone over the edge.
It's just amazing.
Here's Grant in Amarillo, Texas.
Hello, Grant.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Just dude, from 17-year-old aspiring conservative.
And I was wondering if you saw Howard Dean on the Today Show this morning.
No, but I heard about it, and I have the audio sound.
You mean, well, he was on about what?
He was on talking about a lot of things.
Well, he was talking about Jack Abramoff, and he claimed that no senator received one Democratic senator received one dime from Jack Abramoff.
Yeah, we have that.
Let's listen to the soundbite here.
He was on with Katie Couric, and Katie said to Dr. Dean, Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff too, Mr. Dean.
That is absolutely false.
That did not happen.
Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Republican.
Let me just tell you, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republicans and $1.5 million to Democrats, including centimeterity leaders.
Not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
We can show you the FEC reports.
We'd be very happy to do it.
There's a lot of stuff in the press that the Republican National Committee has been spinning.
This is a bipartisan scandal.
It is a Republican finance scandal.
Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat.
Not one dime.
All right, so, Grant, what's your reaction to that?
What do you think that really signifies and means, other than Dean's an idiot?
Well, it means that they don't want to admit any wrongdoing so that they can pin it on the conservatives as nasty, horrible people who don't do any that do everything wrong.
That's exactly right.
You're another rush baby.
You realize all these rush babies how many illegitimate kids I have out there?
Well, I'll listen to you guys.
Seriously, I'll tell you what it means, Grant, because you're right on the money.
Dean's refusal here to accept the facts is really not a big revelation, but it just cements the notion that their next issue into which they're throwing all of their eggs, the next basket, is this Abramoff scandal.
They still don't have a plan.
We're still waiting on Dean who's going to come out with his own contract, right?
I haven't seen it.
Hey, it's election year, sir.
It's about time you came out with your contract here.
Haven't seen it.
Probably isn't going to be one.
They're going to continue.
What's the definition of insanity?
One of the definitions of insanity is that you repeat certain actions.
You keep doing the same thing over and over, knowing full well what the result will be, knowing the result will not change, yet you keep behaving the same way.
That is one of the definitions of insanity, and it fits these people.
How many times have they tried the scandal routine with George W. Bush?
Well, it's too many to remember, too many to count.
Abramoff is the next one.
Culture of corruption is just a sign that all of their eggs are going to go into that basket.
Here's Stan in Las Vegas.
Stan, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, I need to thank you for making my blood boil.
I really enjoy it.
Thank you, sir.
You just talked about the feminization of Democratic men, and when you did it, claim not to be homophobic.
I'm saying conservatives claim not to be homophobic.
You did it with the lisp that portrays a lot of conservative, right-wing people's ideas of what a homo or a gay individual sounds like.
And if that's not homophobic, there's a problem with me and I think a whole lot of other Americans in this country.
And that's what got you upset?
Yeah.
It didn't get me upset.
It just that it's hypocritical that, oh, I'm not a homo.
If I'm going to talk about them, I'm going to talk about feminist, the feminization of Democratic men with a language that comes out of my mouth that dictates or sounds like what a lot of people think the okay.
Well, all right.
Look, this is a fair criticism.
And since you've called and raised it, let me ask you: could you tell me what gays sound like?
I'm not trying to impersonate people.
I'm not trying to impersonate.
I'm trying to gay females in my family.
Stan?
Do not sound like that.
I know a number of gay people.
Well, I'm not imitating females.
I'm trying to, I'm trying to, you know, I do a lot of impressions, and I'm trying to encapsulate my opinion with an impression with.
Then why don't you just talk as a regular man talk?
Well, because regular men don't talk like wusses.
Wait.
I'm not trying to talk like somebody who's gay.
I'm trying to talk like that.
I'm just trying to make them soft-spoken and sound like they have been unicuffed.
Yes, I know.
No onions.
You know what I mean?
And that certainly doesn't describe gays.
No, what you have done is reiterate your ideas in regards to what a homosexual should sound like, but basically he doesn't.
And I got to tell you, I'm straight.
I am married.
It sounds to me like, you know, you're the one with the prejudice.
You're feeling the prejudice.
I stir the prejudice in you, and you're blaming me for what you think.
No, but what I'm saying is that.
You are inferring that I'm sounding like a gay, even though you say that gays don't sound like anything.
So they must sound like something to you.
No, they don't sound like anything to me.
They sound like a regular male human being talking to me.
What their sexual overtones are or what their sexual innuendos are or whatever they may be has nothing to do with the way they talk.
Okay, let's try it this way.
What does a wuss or a wimp sound like then?
Because that's what I'm trying to sound like.
I mean, I again.
This homophobia business, you people have got to get that out of your minds.
You put it label us with all these things, but you're the guy that's coming up with all the definitions of how gays sound and all that.
Wait, you are, again, relating those individuals, wusses and wimps, to homosexuals.
You are.
Rock Hudson.
Was Rock Hudson?
You are.
When I talk about the feminization of Democratic men, I am not talking about gays.
Why do you assume that?
Come on, Rush.
You are assuming that because you have a stereotype yourself of what a conservative is.
Yeah.
You do.
You think.
And that may be 100% totally wrong because I know some conservatives who are not within that mold.
Have you ever heard Robin Williams do an impression of a gay?
Yes.
All right.
Did you call him and say it's not fair?
No, no, no, no.
I'm sorry.
Not a gay.
Yes.
Liberal comedians make more fun of gays than I have in my whole life.
They'll do it in one routine.
Anyway, look, I appreciate being able to explain this and answer it to you, but it just confirms for me that it works.
Hi, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us, the EIB Network.
But Eddie Murphy.
Eddie Murphy makes fun of.
I was just telling these guys, I don't know how many of you have seen the Broadway production of the producers.
Mel Brooks is highly successful.
I mean, one of the most successful Broadway productions in recent years.
Well, that was appropriate.
Anyway, the character that brings the house down in that production, Mel Brooks is no conservative, and the people who put it on are no conservative.
Broadway is not conservative.
People behind stage are not conservatives, certainly.
And the character that brings the house down in that show is the biggest parody and joke of a gay person that I've ever seen from the walk to talk to the wardrobe to the whole thing.
And when I saw it, the House just roared in laughter.
All I'm trying to do here when I come up with the voice for the emasculated male Democrat, male liberal is simply sound sensitive.
I'm just trying to illustrate how they have been sensitized by all these societal pressures.
And if somebody hears something in that, it's not intended, it's your problem.
It's your prejudice.
It's your stereotype that you are dealing with.
Now, moving on to other more substantive subjects.
President Bush and his top national security advisors are trying to change the debate, even the vocabulary about the National Security Agency's controversial electronic monitoring program.
This is a story written by Catherine Schrader.
Remember this name, because what Catherine Schrader is doing is invoking her own spin on this.
The slugline for this AP story is analysis.
White House tries to spin spying.
So her lead is President Bush, his top advisors, trying to change the debate.
Even the vocabulary about the National Security Agency's electronic monitoring program don't call it domestic spying.
They say it's a terrorist surveillance program.
That's what it is.
What is so hard about this?
Americans have been uneasy about the program since it was first disclosed last month.
According to polls, slightly more than half think the government should first get a warrant before eavesdropping on people in the U.S. whose calls and emails the government believes involve alcohol.
I have not seen that poll.
I've seen just the opposite.
I've seen 51, 52% of the people are not troubled by the program.
Liberal Americans have been uneasy about the program.
And it wouldn't matter what program we're talking about.
Liberals are uneasy about anything coming out of this administration.
This most definitely is not a domestic spying program.
And it's amazing to hear the libs continue.
See, they thought they were able to define the terms.
This is what they used to be able to do.
They used to be able to define the terms and spin things because they had their monopoly.
Now they can't, and so they're getting into a spin battle and accusing everybody else of doing what they got away with for years and years and years.
The president spoke about this today at his press conference.
John Roberts of CBS said on the NSA eavesdropping program, there seems to be growing momentum in Congress to either modify the existing law to write some new law that would give you the latitude to do this and at the same time ensure that people's civil liberties are protected.
Would you be resistant to the notion of new laws if Congress were to give you what you need to conduct these operations?
I can tell the American people the program's legal.
It's designed to protect civil liberties and it's necessary.
Now, my concern has always been that in an attempt to try to pass a law on something that's already legal, we'll show the enemy what we're doing.
And we briefed Congress.
We'll continue to do that.
But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate, it'll help the enemy.
And so, of course, we'll listen to ideas.
But John, I want to make sure that people understand that if the attempt to write law makes this program is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it.
I mean, and I think the American people understand that.
Why tell the enemy what we're doing if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy?
And it is.
This is another great answer on this whole program.
And he's basically saying, hey, Democrat, campaign on this all you want.
You want hearings?
I'll show up.
I'll send my whole administration.
You want to put yourself on the side of the enemy here?
Go right ahead.
Why pass a law to say something that's already legal?
You know what really irritates the media because they can't, and I know this, folks, I know this like the back of my hand like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body.
When he uses the word enemy, I just know it grates on them.
I just know it.
It's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
You know why?
Because they don't think there is an enemy.
He is the enemy.
They don't think this is a war.
A war is something like World War II, where both sides have uniforms and tanks and armored personnel carriers and mortar fire and all this smoking battlefields.
And they don't think this is a war.
And they don't think we have an enemy.
They think that terrorism is just a bunch of disappointed, disaffected social outcasts who are poor because the United States has been stealing all the resources from their countries.
And this is the only way they can lash out and make their grievances known.
Did that sound gay?
No, it sounded sensitive.
It sounded wimpish.
You know, people, where did this word wimp come from, Rush?
Where did it originate?
I can tell you.
The word wimp is actually an acronym.
And here's what WIMP stands for is woman-influenced male person.
I love saying these things just to watch Dawn smile when she really doesn't want to.
At any rate, this is a classic illustration here, folks, with these people.
They just, I'm telling you, they don't think we have an enemy.
Bush is the enemy.
They don't dare say it.
But I know these guys would love to say, you keep using the word enemy.
What enemy?
You're making this enemy up because you wanted to fight a foaty war about whom, about which you lied to the American people.
That's what they really think.
I know that's what grates on them, and I guess why he keeps using the word.
Partially is why he keeps using the word.
Bush also doesn't get them let away, let them get away with accusing him of circumventing the law in this next bite.
Another reporter said this FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the NSA was spying domestically.
What's wrong with that law that you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential powers?
You said, I have to circumvent it.
Wait a minute.
It's like saying, you know, you're breaking the law.
I'm not.
See, that's what you got to understand.
I am upholding my duty and at the same time doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me.
That's just very important for you to understand.
The FISA law was written in 1978.
We're having a discussion in 2006.
It's a different world.
And FISA is still an important tool.
It's an important tool.
And we still use that tool.
Circumventing is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.
Yeah, because if I were doing something illegal, how in the world would I go tell Congress about it?
So Howard Dean was asked about this today on the Today Show, Katie Couric.
Dr. Dean, have you seen any evidence that the administration is somehow poking into the private lives of Americans?
Of course they are.
You can't tell who's a terrorist and who's not until you tap their phone.
We've always had for many, many, many hundreds of years in this country the idea that the courts had to give some prior justification in order to do this.
We all believe that we ought to be spying on al-Qaeda, but we don't believe that you ought to spy on American citizens without some kind of third party looking at this.
That's what makes the difference between America and other countries like Iran, where the government can do anything they damn well please.
We need to obey the law.
It's a bad example for our kids and for the president to insist that it's okay for him to break the law.
That is not right.
This is not even worth my time.
Quick timeout, back with more in just a second.
Okay, back we go.
We have more broadcast excellence here on the EIB network.
Listen to this.
This is in USA Today.
Now, let me ask you a question.
You know, folks, because we talk about them and we mention some of them, that there are plenty of conservative slash Republican blogs out there, are there not?
How many times do you see those blogs referenced in the mainstream press?
I hardly ever see them referenced in the antique media.
About the only time Republican slash conservative blogs are referenced is when they destroy Dan Rather with facts.
And then those blogs are routinely lampooned, impugned, and criticized as a bunch of hacks, what were they called, the pajama Hedin or something like that.
These losers sitting around in the pajamas all day long, clicking away at the computer and just destroying great media figures like Dan Rather.
And there's no filter on these guys.
He can say and do whatever they where is the filter?
And yet when they write about these Democrat left-wing blogs, they do so with reverence and they give them credibility as this unbelievable story in USA Today illustrates.
It's by Jill Lawrence.
Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine lifted the Democratic Party's spirits last fall when he won in a conservative state and gave his fellow Democrats some ideas about how to replicate his success.
The fruits of his victory include the honor of being picked to respond to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday and the wrath of liberal bloggers wondering why Democrats didn't choose somebody else, anybody else.
Yes, my friends, this is an entire story devoted to the anger of the liberal blogs and why the Democrats chose the newly elected Timothy Kane, Democrat governor of Virginia, to respond to the president.
On the campaign trail, Kaine was not at all bashful about talking about faith and values as he puts it or about contrasting the success of his state's popular Democratic leaders with the record of the Republican president and the Congress.
He set a leadership example for the rest of the country, said Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi when they named Kane to give the party response on national TV Tuesday night.
Their pick, Timothy Kaine, is a Roman Catholic who opposes gay marriage, highlighted fault lines within the party.
Bloggers on several liberal websites were furious for reasons including Kaine's looks, his style, his obscurity, his open talk about religion, his moderate positions, and his inexperience in foreign affairs.
What the hell are they thinking, Ariana Huffington demanded on her web blog in a post that drew 262 responses, mostly echoing her irritation?
She accused the Democrats of choosing somebody whose only claim to fame is he carried a red state.
Only claim to fame is he carried a red state?
That's a crime.
If a Democrat wins in a red state, it's a crime.
I thought that's what they thought they had to do.
And anyway, they quote all kinds of other rabble-rousers from other left-wing blogs.
Bloggers at dailycost.com, talkleft.com, and other liberal sites showered cyberspace with alternatives, new faces like Barack Obama or Elliot Spitzer or Al Gore, maybe even Hillary.
They all suggested should do the response.
Liberal writer Ezra Klein was unimpressed.
He called Kane a squat, squinty, pug-nosed fellow with little oratorical skill.
They were just celebrating this guy.
How many?
Three months ago?
This guy was a hero.
He had beaten the Republican challenger and he won in a red state.
And that's being held against him.
Now, you need any more evidence these people are out of their minds.
Absolutely.
And especially, they claim, by the way, that they don't care about anything but winning.
Here's Lynn in Phoenix.
Lynn, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Well, I can't believe that I'm actually talking to you.
And I have to tell you first that I lived in Chaffie, Missouri, most of my childhood.
Wow, that's not far from where I grew up.
That's right.
Yeah, I was born in the Southeast Missouri Hospital in Cape Girardeau.
I'm about your age.
We could have known each other, but we didn't.
And I sit there.
Well, now, wait, how do you know?
We're about the same age.
No, I mean, how do you know we've never met or don't know each other?
Oh, well, I would have remembered you.
My goodness.
I wasn't there.
Okay.
Yeah, I tell people, hey, yeah, teenagers, I would have looked at him.
All right, okay, okay.
I'll accept that.
I can't believe you were talking about the men today and what wusses they are.
I have been saying this because I have two boys that are in their late 20s.
They're both married.
I cannot believe how they act with their wives.
It just makes me want to say.
Sick.
Just say it.
It makes you sick.
It does.
It makes me sick, and it makes me frightened for our nation because I'm looking at, and I love my kids.
They're great.
They're smart.
They're wonderful.
But women, and I blame women's lib, I blame all that stuff for twisting their minds while they were at the university, giving them the doctrination of women this, women that.
My one son works very hard.
He works about 60 hours a week.
goes to school his wife you don't have to say anymore and it's not enough it's not I can't believe it, though.
Nobody's talking about it.
And here you talk about it today on the phone, on the radio.
It's just, it's incredible.
They are.
They're wusses, and their women are, it's women's fault.
I can't believe it.
Their marriages are so different, and they didn't learn it at home.
They did not learn this at home.
Because your husband's not a wuss?
My husband is not a wuss.
He's a, you know, he's a regular guy, a hardworking, regular guy who's a man.
This has to be, I mean, horrible for you to have to admit this.
It must be really bad for you to call here and admit this.
The first person to bring this up.
I have been saying it.
I keep telling my husband, I could have a talk show because I blah, blah, blah, blah.
I'm ranting about this.
Well, what are these?
What are your son's wives?
Totally order them around all the time, and they're just like little puppy dogs.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I was sorry to say, my one son, he works 60 hours a week, but he has to do the laundry.
He has to have dinner home and she stays at home.
And I keep telling my husband, until he stands up to her, until he says to her, you know, this is the way things need to be, let him be a wuss.
She doesn't work.
Nope.
Okay, have you talked to him about this?
Pardon me?
Have you talked to him about this?
A little bit.
Yeah, but you don't want to involve yourself.
You can't.
You can't.
I know you can't.
You just make yourself the enemy here.
Absolutely.
And you know who the real enemy is.
All right.
Well, you know, this is.
Sadly, my friends, I mean, I'm sorry that Lynn had to call her to admit this, but I am not in the least bit surprised.
Hear what President Bush said to General Motors and Ford?
Basically said, screw you.
If you want help from us on your pension problems, just go out and build cars that people actually want to buy.
▲
Export Selection