All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
February 20, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sometimes, I must be honest, some of you wonderful people out there just frustrate me to no end.
I'm checking the email here during the break top of the hour.
Hey, this is really funny.
First hour, and I can't help laughing myself silly, but what about the serious stuff?
What about the issues?
What about the ports and the Arabs, the Arab Emirates owning our ports?
So I hang my head in frustration and near depression.
Where were you last week?
When we talked about it, this program is on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Glad to have you.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
Let me very succinctly describe this United Arab Emirates port deal.
I spent 30 minutes on this last week.
I even told you about my trip to Dubai.
Described who these people are, what they're trying to, went through the whole thing.
It was up on the website.
Why aren't you talking about the point deal?
We try to look forward on this program.
We stay on the cutting edge.
But let me just very succinctly, and I know that some of you are going to have a problem with this.
Economically, it is a good deal.
Just from a pure economics standpoint, it is a good deal.
Politically, it's a disaster.
And so what do we do?
What do we do?
Well, I guarantee you what's going to happen.
We're going to come down on the political side.
We've got Republicans out there in Congress.
We can't do this.
This is crazy.
We've got Chuck Schumer with a press conference with one of the fathers of a person that was killed at 9-11 saying the president's gone insane.
I'll repeat myself.
I guess I'm going to have to because people are at the point deal.
Let's look at the strict economics of this.
We don't operate the ports now.
The British do.
A British firm operates the ports.
Yes, Russ, but they're an ally.
I know that, but point is it's foreign ownership.
Now, the second thing is the British sold the ports to the United Arab Emirates.
Okay, so the United Arab Emirates, there's seven emirates that make up the UAE.
I've been to Dubai.
Dubai is, it's just amazing.
You fly in there.
I floor some of the ugliest, most desolate-looking desert.
Desert in this country is an oasis compared to the desert I flew over in getting there.
And then out of nowhere rises this city that makes Las Vegas look like an anthill.
And it is, the hotels are all Europeanized and Americanized.
Every sign is up in English with Arab compliments as well.
But clearly what the Emirates are doing is building a haven in that part of the world for Europeans and Americans to invest in, and it's working.
The amount of money that is going in over there and building this place up is just astounding.
And I met with some diplomatic people when I was there for a half a day, and they're big fans, and they were sold on it.
But admittedly, these are State Department people, so that went in one ear and out the other.
In fact, that raised a couple red flags.
You know how I am about the State Department.
But the United Arab Emirates still are the United Arab Emirates, and they have not been given an all-clear on ties to terrorism.
They have just the opposite.
But let's look at the, what are they paying?
$8 billion for this or something?
Is that the price tag for this?
Let's just look at the economics.
It's a strictly theory economics.
Forget the politics of this for a moment.
I know some of you don't care about the economics.
The politics is all that matter, but I'm telling you, and there are two different ways of looking at this.
And economically, it makes all the sense in the world.
I went through last week how we, you know, we had this fear of the Japanese when they bought up the Rockefeller Center Trust.
They were buying up buildings in Japanese or in California, and everybody thought that we're going to end up having Japanese bosses, and that the Japanese are going to infiltrate America and destroy our culture, and everybody's going to have a geisha girl, which I was all for.
But it didn't happen.
It didn't happen.
The Japanese are having their own economic problems now, but all those scare theories didn't.
I know the Japanese didn't threaten us with terrorism.
If you go back, and those were talking about the 80s, you didn't need the fear of terrorism.
There was this fear of a cultural takeover that we were selling off parts of this country that we shouldn't be selling.
We can make, okay, go ahead and sell our debt, sell investment in government bonds, but don't sell off the actual infrastructure of the country.
There was all this paranoia about it.
And it didn't materialize.
Now, economically, these people are going to own the port.
They do not want their own property blown up.
I don't care who they are.
They don't want their own property blown up, and they're not going to buy these ports for the express purpose of blowing up those ports.
And they may buy the ports for the express purposes of allowing unsavory types, but it's not going to be United Arab Emirates law that governs the union contracts, who gets hired.
It's all going to come down to our own laws.
It's all going to come down to how we deal with immigration.
It's all going to come down to how we negotiate union contracts.
It's all going to come down to U.S. law in administering these ports.
Coast Guard, all these agencies are still going to play the same role that they would play when the British owned these ports.
I guess the popular fear is that the Arab Emirates have so much money that they would gladly pay $8 billion to facilitate entry to the country in order to blow up parts of the country or to facilitate terrorist acts.
And that's where the political aspect of this comes in.
You can't ignore that.
In a post-9-11 era, you simply cannot ignore it.
And in a political sense, it appears tone-deafed.
It makes no sense whatsoever politically.
Of all the foreign owners that we could solicit, of all the foreign owners that are out there, the United Arab Emirates, who is lost their minded.
I can totally understand that reaction to this.
And if you were listening on Friday, that was my concluding thought.
Or maybe it was Thursday.
I forget when it was that we talked about it.
It's a shame, though, because economically it is a good deal.
Go if you want, if you can find one anyway.
Economics is not taught in this country in high school anymore, college, really.
And so the whole economic aspect of this is totally missed and forgotten because people are ignorant too.
They just haven't been taught.
But if you could find one, if you could find a very good PhD in economics as an open-minded teacher, he'll tell you that if you just look at the economics of it, slam dunk good deal.
But politically, I don't think it has a prayer.
And it probably, given the post-9/11 world, shouldn't have a prayer.
And they're going to have to pull back from it now.
There's just too much inside the Beltway opposition.
What's interesting, though, here's the thing that's fascinating.
Last week on our New York affiliate, our flagship, WABC, AM77, John Gambling, who hosts the two hours prior to this program, had on Ann Compton of the White House Press Corps.
She's at ABC.
And he asked her if the Cheney story has sort of sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
That's the only story anybody cares about in Washington, right?
And he asked her, well, do you think maybe we ought to be getting some news from you on the potential purchase of these six ports by the United Arab Emirates?
And she had no clue.
She had no idea that was even happening.
She's sort of laughing nervously.
John, you're going to have to get back to me on that.
Maybe send me an email, get me up to speed or something like that.
Which prompted me to say, I'd like to get about five or six of these Washington beltway types in here and just do a little pop quiz and find out how much they know what's going on outside Washington or outside this administration.
I'm sure Ann Compton's up to speed on it now.
But, you know, try this story.
So I think all this is interlinked on the political side.
Muslims assault the American embassy in Indonesia.
Makes total sense to me.
Why wouldn't they assault our embassy in Indonesia?
According to former President Clinton, those people publishing those cartoons of the Prophet are criminals.
He said this last week.
He blamed the Europeans and he blamed America for fanning the flames of this opposition.
And he totally stood by the concept that these publications should not be free to publish this kind of thing.
And he dumps on America, dumps on Europe.
Bamo!
Is it any surprise that Muslims would be enraged and assault the American embassy in Indonesia?
And according to Vice President Vice Perpetrator Al Gore, the current administration of this country hates Muslims, hates Arabs.
We indiscriminately lock them up and torture them.
So you've got Clinton and Gore, the ad hoc Clinton foreign policy team, currently managing our country's foreign relations on foreign soil, encouraging Islamo-fascists to riot and provoking them.
There's a logical reason for all this.
The Clinton administration has laid out the case.
The West in general, the United States in particular, have made grievous, intentional, and criminal provocations and have not apologized for it.
There's no excuse for these cartoons.
Clinton thinks they ought to be shut down.
These papers that did that ought to be punished.
They ought not to be published here.
Let me tell you something, folks.
When you have a former president encouraging activities that would limit freedom of the press, I would think that would interest David Gregory at least some.
When you have a former president suggesting that the mainstream press decide what to print and not to print because of fear, there's an outfit little publication in Boston, Jeff Jacoby writes this, the Boston Phoenix, and they admit they're not going to publish those cartoons because they have fear of violent reprisals.
Hello, terrorists win.
Then you have Bill Clinton and Al Gore in Saudi Arabia and wherever Clinton was talking about how these cartoons are bad and that we are mistreating Arabs and Muslims and Saudis and that we are putting them in prison and we're locking them up, throwing away the key, making them go on hunger strikes.
These two guys single-handedly are out fanning the flames of all this.
Does it make the news?
No.
It's not even commented on.
Cheney and this hunting accident remain the big story with the mainstream press this week, both Time and Newsweek.
Putting that on their cover.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
America's anchorman, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, El Rushbo, serving humanity simply by showing up.
An interesting email here.
Rush, they're not buying the ports.
The UAE babe people are not buying the ports.
They're buying the container terminals.
In New York and New Jersey, they have a joint venture with the port authority there to improve six berths.
Are five other container ports in New York and New Jersey alone that are not being affected by the purchase.
And then the letter writer points out, I think this is accurate, too.
Don't forget, DP World, which is the UAE people, is already operating the ports in China, Germany, Hong Kong, and so forth that are shipping us the containers anyway.
So they already own.
Now, so they should own the world?
No.
Then they're surrounding us.
So I'm telling you, politically, this doesn't have a chance.
It just doesn't have a prayer.
Brian in Fishkill, New York, you're next, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, how you doing?
So, Brian, you don't really want to know.
Yeah, first of all, just I'm a Louisiana native up here in Fishkill, and I have an aside about that just real quickly.
If everybody in the Ninth Ward really wants to get crazy, why don't you start with the oil and gas revenue that's been spent and squandered since the days of Huey Long, which really could have made the streets of New Orleans paved with gold by now?
Anyway, just moving on to the next one.
That would have meant the money didn't go into the back pockets that it ended up in, and there is your answer to that.
Well, I worked as a, you know, as an intern in the Louisiana State Senate, and I'd just love for people to take a survey down there and find out how many state reps in the House and the Senate came into office without a paved road up to their fishing camp.
And after they got into office, how many of them got a paved road up to their fishing camp?
It's just a little quirky kind of survey, but just that's a starter.
But I want to talk about this port deal.
It has to do, just real quickly, Rush, on how I just, you know, as Americans, I think we get tired of being played for chumps.
You know, and look, did you interpret what I said a moment ago as recommending the deal?
No, sir, not at all.
Okay.
I'm just expressing my views.
I hear you loud and clear where you're coming from, and, you know, I got it.
And it may be economically a beautiful thing, and politically, it just kind of stinks.
But that's the essence of it.
I mean, we kind of need to look out after our own.
For instance, you know, let's just go to the Chinese.
Why did they need to own two sides of the Panama Canal?
Why does Boeing need to sell them airplane wing technology in order to sell planes in China?
You know, what you're illustrating, it is a global economy.
You raise a good question.
Why should we let Boeing sell jets to people who are our enemy?
Why?
Because if we don't, Airbus will.
And Boeing is an American company.
It has to participate in the world.
But I totally understand what you're saying.
There are a lot of people that don't trust this, are not going to trust this.
It's too close to that region of the world that spawns all this terrorist activity where all these mosques are that are creating all this hatred for Western society.
And it's just, it just looks like by opening up these six container areas that we are saying, hey, if you can't get into our country in it away, buy your way in if you want to blow us up.
That's how a lot of people hear this.
And why would we do this?
How stupid can we be?
Which I totally understand politically.
When I say to you, go out and find somebody that you trust to tell you the economics of this, just for your own information.
I'm not trying to change your mind or persuade your mind on this because I know it's not possible.
And I'm not even of the mind to do it.
Here's Greg in Monroe, Michigan.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush, it's a pleasure, and you are the shining hill of the shining light on the hill of the Republican Party.
No, the conservative movement.
I'm not a shining light anywhere in the Republican Party.
I misspoke.
The Republican Party listens to me like every other party does.
Oh, my gosh, we've got to deal with this guy, too.
Well, the reason why I'm calling is I just want, I don't think we're giving you or this show enough credit on why Gregory apologized.
This show, nor me, get enough credit for anything that happens in this country.
But I think it's just showing that we actually cause the liberal media to apologize for being themselves.
Well, actually, I would love to take credit for this, but I don't like to take credit for things I don't genuinely accomplish.
And when David Gregory said his wife is the reason he apologized, that's good enough for me.
I totally believe that.
If he got home that night and his wife started scolding him, I can't compete with the wife when there's an anger contest going on, I'll guarantee you.
Here's Bruce in San Diego.
You're next, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Incident dittos to you.
Thank you, sir.
A lot of us out here appreciate your getting the facts, getting the truth, and getting the analysis that we don't have time in our busy lives to do.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
I was wondering, why did it take over 48 hours for David Gregory to make his apology public?
Was it to give him a pause?
Oh, wait a minute.
It was longer than 48 hours.
He didn't apologize till Sunday.
It was however many hours in a week.
Was it to give him time to sober up or maybe to get drunk and sober up?
Or to attend a professionalism and manners seminar.
And why did he appear on NBC?
Why not Fox News?
Everybody knows NBC is a liberal network.
No, that's a great point, too, because he knows he's going to have a safe seat at NBC.
That's his network.
He knows nobody's going to put him through the ringer on NBC, but he didn't know Mary Madeline would.
But yeah, why did he call a press conference to apologize?
Why did he apologize on a Sunday morning show?
Why did he get the whole press corps get it?
Why did he call a press conference and make this public, this apology?
And to whom is he really apologizing?
I wasn't quite sure of that.
Is he apologizing to the American people?
It seems to me he should apologize to McClellan.
Was he apologizing to other media buddies?
Was he apologizing to Cheney?
I don't know who he was apologizing to.
Yeah.
Well, thanks very much, Rush.
All right, Bruce, thank you.
That's a good question.
Why did David Gregory wait over a week to make this apology?
And why did he do it on only one program with a friendly host where he knew he was going to get softballs?
He didn't even go on Larry King to apologize, nor to explain his actions.
So those are all relevant points.
Folks, I'm sorry, I have to go back to the Clintons after the break, but you will understand why there's bad polling news out there for Hillary, and the media is circling the wagons.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No, Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
A couple more comments on this port controversy.
I have to tell you, folks, the Democrats are really puzzling me on this.
I mean, they're really confusing me because all of a sudden they're acting like we have an enemy.
All of a sudden, they're acting like we need to be worried about these Arabs.
We can't trust any Arab.
You want to talk about profiling?
They won't let us profile in the airports, but we can profile this port deal all day long and say, just because it's a bunch of Arabs, we can't sell it.
Yet at the same time, in Congress, they're trying to create the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
They want to stop the spying program.
Well, no, they don't want to stop the spy.
They want you to think Bush is spying on you rather than spying on foreign interests.
So while they've said no profiling in airports, can't do that.
Why you grandmothers and two-year-olds get security wanded out there and Sahib goes strolling through untouched.
And then you've got Ted Kennedy and these guys worried about the way we're running prisons and so forth.
You've got Clinton over there encouraging riots against the publication, people that publish these photos.
You've got Gore over there saying we're mistreating Arabs, and all of a sudden we can't let them buy our ports.
Where's the threat?
You Democrats are really puzzling.
I can understand conservative fear and opposition to this, but the Democrats, this is the first sign since about four days after 9-11 that I get the sense from them.
They think that we have an enemy in these people.
I mean, that's really what puzzles me about.
Barbara Boxer out there talked.
Barbara Boxer said, what she says, face the nations.
It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9-11 to take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports.
This has to stop.
Okay, that has to stop.
We can't do that.
We can't do the investigation.
We can't do the surveillance.
We can't do interrogations in prison, but we can damn well stop them from buying our ports.
Well, I have the compromise solution.
Here you go, folks.
For those of you out there that have problems with this, there's only one entity that can bring peace to this whole deal.
There is only one entity that we know could successfully run these operations, and that is Halliburton.
Now, if somebody could persuade whoever it is that's running Halliburton to intercede on behalf of America, would not that be great?
Wouldn't you love to see the steam?
You think that there would be this is a rofe trick.
This is a Bush trick.
They knew that this would never go.
They knew the American people would never stand for the UAE buying these ports.
So Halliburton comes.
It was a trick all along.
It was a trick all along.
And now Halliburton's going to get a steal of a deal, blah, blah.
I would love it.
It's one of those things that I would, I, I would, it'd make me, it would make my week if Halliburton comes into the rescue.
All right, now, Associated Press.
Nope, I'm sorry, Florida Times Union, Washington Bureau.
I think the Florida Times Union is in Jacksonville.
Hell, I don't know.
I don't care.
But here's the story.
Growing numbers of Americans oppose a, and this is not new news.
This is just another poll confirming what we've already learned from a Gallup poll, from a Harris poll, that she, Hillary, 51% of the people say they will never vote for her in one of these polls.
Now, this is not that bad in this one, but still it's bad.
Growing numbers of Americans oppose a presidential bid by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 and favor a run by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This amid broad public willingness to elect a woman president, according to a nationwide poll released on Sunday.
The President's Day survey conducted for Hearst newspapers by the Siena Research Institute of Siena College in Loudonville covered 1,120 registered voters, was completed on February the 10th.
Some 48% of survey participants said that Condoleezza Rice should run for president.
That's an increase of six points over a similar survey a year ago.
But Hillary saw opposition to her own presidential bid grow over the same time.
Some 44% now say she should not run, up from 37%, who felt that way last year.
The percentage of registered voters who say Clinton should run slipped from 53 to 51 percent over the past year as support for a Rice candidacy increased from 42 to 48 percent.
Now, this next, sorry, I got a problem with this.
The survey found that 79% of participants were willing to vote for a woman as president.
64% said the nation was ready for one.
The survey did not test a head-to-head race between Clinton and Rice.
I'm sorry, some people say they don't like me putting papers on the table irritates them.
So, some emails irritate me.
Why don't you talk about the port deal?
Now, 79% of participants willing to vote for a woman.
See, I have this theory about polls.
Well, you don't think that's you don't think it's an accurate number?
Snerdley.
Now, Snerdley is an avowed chauvinist, though, and he's proud of it.
So, he doesn't think it's anywhere close to 79%.
I don't either, but not for any cultural reason.
79 is 80%.
But here's the thing: I have this theory about polls.
You are Mr. or Miss or Mrs., or you're both, depending on the day you choose, average American.
And a phone rings, or you're walking the mall, and some pollster comes up to you.
It's worse if the poll is done in person, but it's pressure is just as significant if it's on the phone.
They start asking you all these questions.
Now, I don't care who you are.
You will think that a pollster already has an opinion on all this.
And you have been so sensitized to the militant feminist agenda over the last 30 years in this country.
If somebody comes along and asks you, would you vote for a female pre- You're not going to say no?
You don't want the pollster thinking bad things of you.
You don't know if they're wearing a wire.
You don't know who they are.
We have all this talk about cameras and listening devices all over the place now to fight terrorism and so forth.
I think this figure gets inflated because this is people just answering with what they think will give them the easiest time with the pollster or telling them what they think the pollster wants to hear.
But I think 79% is a little top-heavy, no pun intended.
And you want to know why?
Because the truth is that voters who will most scrutinize a female candidate will be women.
I think during wartime, I don't know that a majority of American women would give another woman the presidency or vote for the woman for presidency.
I could be wrong.
There are days I think I'm an expert on women, and there are days that I wake up and realize the folly of thinking that.
But I just, I do.
I got Dawn laughing there.
Okay, so aside from all that, the crux of the poll is that we got another bit of evidence that Hillary's popularity is waning.
So lo and behold, what do I find in the mainstream press today?
Well, I find two stories.
One in the Los Angeles Times by our old buddy Ronald Brownstein.
And the title of his column, Even Clinton Went by the Book.
What does a president read about other presidents to help prepare for and deal with the presidency?
In Bill Clinton's case, the answer apparently was everything.
This is a fawning puff piece on how Clinton prepared himself for the Oval Office by reading about Lincoln, reading about Washington, reading about all these other presidents and so forth.
Why are we getting this now?
What does it have to do with when Clinton's over on foreign soil inciting riots against newspapers that publish the cartoons of the prophet?
What in the world are we getting this piece now to dress Bill Clinton up for?
It's the continuing quest for a legacy.
Who cares now how Bill Clinton prepared for the president?
Excuse me.
Besides, we all know that what he primarily did to prepare for the presidency was to stand in front of a mirror and bite his lower lip and rehearse it until he got it down automatically.
And there may be a couple of other things.
You know, pretend that every day is the senior prom and he's the king.
But I mean, this business fawning over how Clinton prepared for the presidency is just the timing is suspicious and it's worthless.
And then the PAs pay presence here in the Washington Post.
Special care for Big Clinton donors.
Big dollar political donors are like exotic animals.
Both require near constant attention and delicate treatment from their handlers.
And I would add a few pardons.
No politician knows this better than Senator Hillary Radham Clinton, who, along with her husband, has perfected the care and feeding of major contributors.
Now, aren't we in the midst of the so-called Abramoff scandal?
Aren't we in the midst of trying to nail Tom DeLay on just the...
We get a fawning puff piece on how nice Hillary and Bill are to their donors?
And we...
And we get a piece on the care and feeding of donors and how Bill and Hillary understand the necessity of this.
Now, these three stories, I guarantee you, the news in this poll was known before it was published today.
And these stories that appear today, probably written last week sometime, is just too coincidental to me.
A fawning puff piece on how the horn dog-in-chief prepared for the presidency and then a piece on how Hillary and Bill really know how to take care of their best donors.
And they know how to pardon them.
At the same time, all on the same day, the latest poll showing Hillary losing favor among the American electorate.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
We'll be back in just a second.
All right, back to the phones.
We go.
This is Keith in Chicago.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Good to talk to you, Rush.
I'm a little appalled by your uncertainty about the veracity of that poll.
The fact that an overwhelming majority say the country is ready for a female president.
That's my point.
They say it because I think a lot of them say it because they think it's a politically correct thing to say to a pollster.
I don't think they actually mean it.
Maybe it's the right.
Let me see.
Bennis Irvuto and Diara Gandhi, your hero, Margaret Thatcher.
Oh, wait a second.
We're the beacon of enlightenment in the world, correct?
And these third world countries, even the Philippines, elect females.
Of course, Americans would vote for anyone, regardless of gender, if they're qualified.
That's Republican mantra.
It's not going to be just qualified.
And they're going to vote against people, too, on the basis of whether they like them or don't like them, qualified or not.
I think the country would elect the ⁇ I'd vote for a female president if it were Condoleezza Rice or if Gene Kirkpatrick would have run.
I would have voted a long time ago for a female president.
I vote ideas.
Well, then, what's your objection to the poll?
Most Americans are saying what you say.
Now, I'm just, I'm not objecting to the poll.
I just, if I'll tell you, I said what I said.
I think the biggest scrutiny would come from other women in wartime.
That's a generic question, and I said what I said.
And that is, and I will say it again, it is a question that I think people face fear in answering because of political correctness.
Would you vote for a woman?
No.
Oh, you're a racist pig, a sexist bigot, eh?
They don't want to face that reaction from the pollster.
I think that's one of the problems with polling.
No, I didn't invent the gender gap.
In fact, I don't really.
We talked to Cato Byrne for the interview, the next issue of the Limbaugh letter.
And she makes the point there isn't a gender gap, that the feminazis just created all of this as a political wedge issue.
And she's got the statistics to back it up.
But I'll save that for when we publish from the interview.
Keith, I got to run here, but keep your radio on, and we've got some women coming up who want to talk about this, and it might shine some light on this.
Kim in Washington, hello, and nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
I wouldn't vote for a woman.
And why not?
Well, for one, that I think as soon as you vote for a woman, you open the door to vote for other women.
And I don't know if there's too many women that are qualified beyond the ones that we've mentioned to take over that role in future elections.
Well, would you, let me throw some names up.
Would you vote for Hillary?
No.
Would you vote for Condoleezza Rice?
Probably.
Would you vote for, well, I don't know who there won't be anybody else this time around.
But that's the point that I have is that if you tried to run another female afterwards, now you're looking at possibly a Democrat going up against Condoleezza Race.
Let's say she stayed in office for eight years.
Now you're looking at giving Hillary a better option of getting in.
And I just don't know if the Arab nations are ready to deal with a female power in a presidential position with us being like a higher power.
No, I wouldn't let that would not stop me.
You know, if they don't like it, you know, go buy somebody else's ports.
That wouldn't stop me.
But opening door to other women, of course it would.
There's no question it would open the door to other women, other women.
Now, if you're saying it would open the door to entitlement to other women, so the problem with a female presidency is the feminist movement.
The problem is, well, it's Hillary's turn.
Nobody's basing her candidacy on whether she's qualified or not.
Nobody's even examining that.
I've told you why the press and those who are behind Hillary's ascension are for it.
They think she deserves it.
She's entitled to it because of all the garbage she's had to go through being Bill's wife.
And she held that marriage.
She held that president together.
She left Yale.
She left the great Northeast.
She left a budding career on her own to go to that hayseed state, Arkansas, hang around while that horndog was having affairs with people, had to park herself at that little hayseed law firm, ended up getting in trouble over it.
She's done nothing but been a perfect servant to this guy.
It's her turn.
And so the feminists basically have said women's advancement is due to past discrimination.
And we ought to advance women because of that, not simply because they're qualified.
And so you're going to open the door to this sense of entitlement.
But, hey, if the right female candidate came along and was on the ticket, I would vote for it.
It's all about ideas with me.
I got to run.
Thanks, Kim, for the call.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
So I'm sitting here watching CNN during the break.
And they're doing a little feature on Dreaming Big, having big dreams.
They're asking one of their anchors, Tony.
What are your big dreams?
So they put up a graphic with Tony's big dreams.
And I'm looking at it.
Well, Tony wants to be me.
He wants to be Rush Limbaugh.
I'm waiting to see what some of the other CNN people come up with As they dream big.
Anyway, here's what we got coming up in the next hour.
We still have the Allen Simpson soundbites.
I just have two of them from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday, in which he talks about the media and the Firestorm overreaction to the Cheney story last week.
Also, Bush.
Bush had a private meeting with Michael Crichton in the White House.
Michael Crichton wrote the anti-environmentalist wacko book, State of Fear, and the environmentalist wackos around the world are alarmed.
They're very worried.
They're troubled that Bush spoke to Crichton.
▲
Export Selection