All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
March 1, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, we're back, folks.
Eagerly awaiting the opening, which is occurring now of this hour's broadcast excellence and excursion into same.
I am L. Rushbaugh, your host for life.
Here on the one and only EIB Network telephone number if you'd like to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
A fascinating oral argument session at the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the uh issue before the Supreme Court was campaign spending limits in Vermont.
Supreme Court displayed little appetite on Tuesday for making basic changes in its approach to campaign finance law under which the government may place limits on political contributions, but not on a candidate's spending.
Vermont's aggressive effort to drive much private money out of politics through a law that it enacted in 1997 set tight limits on both contributions and expenditures appeared unlikely to withstand the court's scrutiny after an argument that included a low-key but withering cross-examination by the new Chief Justice John Roberts.
And Vermont's attorney general William Sorrel, and I hope it's S-O-R-R-E-L-L, so I'm assuming it's pronounced Sorrel.
Uh might pronounce the sorrel, who knows?
So pronounce it both ways to cover my basis.
The Chief Justice challenged the Attorney General's assertion that money was a corrupting influence on Vermont's political system.
Now what's interesting to me about this is that that's the whole premise behind McCain Feingold, that money corrupts otherwise good, hardworking, decent, upstanding public servants.
If it weren't for the money, we wouldn't be corrupt.
And so that's the theory that these people in Vermont are using to try to take all private money out of campaigns, or as much as they can.
So here's this attorney general making this argument, and John Roberts said, Well, tell me how how many prosecutions for political corruption have you brought?
And the Attorney General of Vermont says, Not any.
Chief Justice says, Well, do you think corruption in Vermont's a serious problem?
Attorney General said it is.
He noted polls that showed that most state residents thought corporations and wealthy individuals exerted an undue influence in the state.
The Chief Justice persisted, would you describe your state as clean or corrupt?
Uh Sorrell repeated, we've got a problem in Vermont.
Mr. Chief Justice.
Roberts went further.
He says, if voters think somebody's been bought, I assume they act accordingly at the next election and throw the incumbent out.
Can I tell you what music to my ears that comment is?
He's basically saying, What the hell are you doing here?
The system will take care of this if you've got a problem in your state, if you got corrupt politicians, if private corporations and wealthy people are corrupting your state, I assume everybody knows that the problem's as bad as you say it is, and so the voters will get rid of the corrupt scoundrels the next chance they have to go to the polls.
That's exactly right on this.
He also challenged a line from the Attorney General's 50-page brief, an assertion that donations from special interest groups often determine what positions candidates and officials take on issues.
The Chief Justice said, Well, could you provide an example of such an issue?
Can you give me one example where donations from special interest groups have determined positions a candidate has taken?
And the Attorney General of Vermont could not provide one example.
He eventually conceded that influence would have been a better word than determine.
By the end of the argument, it appeared clear that Vermont's spending limits would fall, and that its contribution limits, the lowest in the country, were hanging by a thread.
Among his allies on the court, uh and there was this is a this is a man named uh Bop.
Uh he was uh another one uh his name right now, but he was uh arguing on the other side of the attorney general.
Mr. Bop said that the Vermont limits were too low to permit meaningful campaigns amounting to an unprecedented restriction restriction on speech.
And among his allies was Justice Kennedy.
Justice Kennedy said, let's assume that some members of the court simply accept the proposition that money buys access.
It's common sense conclusion.
I tend to think money does buy access, but what follows from that?
And he didn't wait for an answer.
Kennedy said, isn't the answer that voters can see what's going on and throw the incumbents out?
He's making the argument here, let people donate what they want, but let there be a public record of it.
So everybody knows who gave what.
And then track whatever influence you think has been determined or has been influenced, and then act at the ballot box.
And get out of here.
Stop bugging us with this.
Now, they didn't say that because they agreed to take the case, but this is, I think why they agreed to take the case.
Because this is silly.
And this, I don't know, this is not going to have any any precedent sort of uh uh setting effect on McCain Feingold, but there are elements of McCain Feingold going back to the Supreme Court, I believe.
This is going to be real interesting.
Scalia, the LA Times also has a story on this, and they quote uh they quote Scalia in talking to the attorney general of uh of Vermont.
And he said to him, You're not you're not talking about money.
You're talking about speech.
You are constraining speech with this law in Vermont, and that's very unusual in American democracy.
And he's exactly right.
All these spending limits, donation limits are a limit on speech.
And McCain Feingold features it because you can only add or run TV ads certain times for certain people within certain proximities to elections.
So this is this is going to be when when uh there's an element, I forget what it is, but there is a I think an element of McCain Feingold that's going to get before the Supreme Court that they've agreed to uh to re-hear.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if you followed my advice at the beginning of the program, went to the website to check out the morning update that we did yesterday for broadcast today.
We make these available in video podcast or video download for you at the uh at the website uh as we continue to be on the cutting edge of high-tech advancement in delivery systems for elements of this program.
Uh but I have to share the story with you that that comprised the um the uh update.
Oh, well, just just flash news, uh uh, ladies and gentlemen.
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled against a request by New Jersey to order an investigation into the UAE-based company's takeover of some U.S. port operations, including Port New York.
So the federal judge has thrown the lawsuit out.
The U.S. District Judge Jose Lenares also said that the state will not be privy to documents the company gave to a federal committee reviewing the deal.
Lenari said the state needs to show an immediate need for those documents.
The uh 6.8 billion dollar acquisition would allow Dubai Ports World to buy major commercial operations at ports in New York, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The uh the state of New Jersey tried to sue to stop this from happening, and the judge threw it out.
You don't have any reason to see these documents.
There's been no harm here.
Okay.
Uh there's this school, folks, uh, in in Engle Eagleswood Township, New Jersey.
It's called Eagleswood Elementary School.
Now, for those of you who have forgotten or who never went, elementary school is like up to the sixth grade.
And uh they obviously left school recently with a lot of questions about Macbeth.
But they're not studying Shakespeare.
Now, following a two-hour meeting, the Eagleswood Elementary School Board allowed 71-year-old Lily Macbeth to return to the classroom as a substitute teacher.
Now, when the school kids last saw Lily Macbeth, Ms. McBeth, she was Mr. Macbeth, a retired sales executive, married over 30 years with three children.
Last year, Mr. Macbeth underwent gender reassignment surgery.
They used to call this sex change operation.
Just like they used to call window washers window washers, but they're now vision control coordinators.
This was gender reassignment surgery.
In layman's terms, uh it's the chopidictomy operation.
It's the exact opposite of the adictomy procedure that is common in San Francisco among members of the election board there.
Anyway.
After Mr. Macbeth became Ms. Macbeth, she wanted back in.
She wanted to substitute Teach.
Some parents were a bit out of shape about this.
They argued that their uh their kindergarten through sixth grade kids were too young to understand the concept of gender reassignment surgery.
One parent predicted chaos.
Others voiced concern that younger children will be confused by the appearance of Ms. Macbeth, who they say looks like well, I saw a picture of her.
Looks like John Goodman dressed up as a as a maid.
But the problem is that that uh while Mr. Macbeth looks like a woman now still has a deep voice with uh masculine features.
Now, but Ms. McBeth though had a lot of defenders here.
Three transgender people showed up, uh, also some former students who said that it was more important that Macbeth was a good teacher than which gender she happened to have reassigned or be assigned or landed in, however this stuff happens.
After the debate, the the school board confirmed an earlier vote allowing Ms. McBeth, uh 71-year-old Lily Macbeth, to substitute.
Teach.
Afterward, Macbeth said, It was magnificent.
You saw democracy an accident.
So all's well lives well, right?
Much ado about nothing.
So says Lady Macbeth.
Gender reassignment.
Just getting sick out there.
Sick.
I have a question, uh ladies and gentlemen.
What what is it with uh what is happening to the seasoned citizen population out there?
I mean, this transgender reassignment gender reassignment, whatever.
At age 71?
We're talking, we're talking Medicare here.
I hope to hell these procedures aren't covered, but you never know.
We don't know what's in this new Medicare plan part B. We were told it was prescriptions, but hell's bells.
Maybe gender reassignment surgery is in there.
Well, what is it with you 70-year-olds and so on?
I remember when my parents were 70 years old, I never thought about doing this.
They never thought about it when they were 10.
They never thought about it when they were 15.
Well, they never told me if they did.
I never saw any indications of it.
My grandparents didn't do anything like this.
Well, there's another story here from New York, a phone repair worker who is in transition from male to female.
So he's getting the chopadictomy procedure.
Uh, but he's in the middle in the midst of gender reassignment.
He said Tuesday, she said male to female.
She was arrested three times by transit police in the last six months for using the women's restroom at Grand Central Terminal.
Now, is there something confusing about this surgery that you you don't know which restroom is yours after you have a new gender assigned?
Helena Stone, 70, said an officer called her a freak, a weirdo, and the ugliest woman in the world and warned her if I ever see you in the women's bathroom, I'm going to arrest you.
I said, that's the only bathroom I use, Stone said at a rally and news conference.
That's who I am.
MTA spokesman Tom Kelly said later that the charges against Stone would be dropped and that the matter had been resolved.
There is an investigation into how this took place, and we will take whatever steps necessary to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Stone's lawyer Michael Silverman of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.
They have everything in New York, you've heard that, and this proves it.
And I'll bet you they can still smoke, too.
He said, We're delighted to hear the offer.
We're delighted to hear about this, who joined Stone and about 20 transgender supporters across Grand Central On 42nd Street.
Stone said she had worked for Verizon and its predecessor for 37 years.
What that's an interesting pop quiz.
What was Verizon's pre predecessor?
What did Verizon Ninex?
Verizon is okay, good for you, Mr. Snerdley.
Anyway, she said she worked for Verizon and its predecessor for 37 years, been in transition from uh male to female.
Holy for ten years.
Ha.
Lord.
Um in August.
Sheesh.
In August of last year, she was assigned to repair the payphones at Grand Central, where she said she was harassed by the uh transit officers.
She started slowly and began to mount the protests did.
Um she was arrested.
Blah blah blah.
Silverman said he had filed complaints on her behalf of the MTA police with the City uh Commission on Human Rights, whose guidelines say that restrooms must be available to transgender people consistent with their gender identity or gender expression.
Okay.
Uh I you know what I I'm I'm not gonna place the burden of following this on a caller.
Uh so those of you on hold, just stay right there.
I'm gonna get I just got to do two audio sound bites, and then we'll get back to the phones, but I'm not gonna put a caller on after that story.
There's no way a caller could compete with it.
I'm not even gonna.
Instead, the job falls to School Bus Negan, the mayor of New Orleans.
He was on the Today Show today.
And the perky when Katie Curric asked School Bus Negan, said looking back with the benefit of hindsight, what did you do wrong?
Well, you know, I've thought about this a lot.
I wish I had gotten the information from Max Mayfield so that I could have issued a mandatory evacuation earlier.
All right.
Now that's that's just stunning.
Here is School Bus Negan saying, I wish I'd have heard from Max Mayfield.
Mr. Mayor, I see Max Mayfield three or four times an hour for days leading up to a hurricane and its it's its projected strike point.
Everybody knew where this was going.
Every he was asked about this today on CNN by uh by Miles O'Brien.
I went out and got Max Mayfield uh on the air to respond to School Bus Negan, and and this is what Max said.
Well, I need to make clear that it it's certainly not standard protocol for the director of the Hurricane Center to call individual mayors.
I've uh never done that before uh or initiated a call to a mayor that I don't think anyone should expect the director of the hurricane center to call each local official and every local community up and down the coastline.
I think that uh we need to understand the process there, and and people should not uh wait or expect a phone call from me.
That was above and beyond what we normally do.
Besides, Max is busy enough inspecting port deals.
School plus naked wants a phone call from Max.
I now to the phones.
This is Islam in uh in McLean, Virginia, uh McLean, I'm sorry, and thanks for waiting.
Hey, no problem.
Hello?
Yes, yes.
How are you doing, Russ?
I'm fine, thank you.
Pleasure to speak with you.
Um I had a comment on this whole port thing.
Every morning I wake up and watch watch the news, and it's it's almost seems like a debacle, because they're not covering the real issue, which is security, which is not even an issue.
It's uh it's being diluted by the media and by party affiliations and attack the president.
I just I don't quite understand it.
What is the main issue then to you?
You say security?
That's that's what is on the that's what's being reported as the main issue, isn't it?
Oh, yeah, okay.
Well, what do you think the main issue?
I think you're on to something here.
What do you because this this is a media drive-by shooting?
Yeah, absolutely.
There's no question they fired a loaded bunch of rounds into a big crowd here, and uh and they're watching people scatter helterskelter, they're creating a mess, and they're just gonna be down the road creating another mess.
Well, we have to come in and clean this one up.
What do you think the big issue that's not being touched on is?
I think the big issue right now is that we are, you know, the outside world, the international world has their views on us, and this is certainly isn't gonna help, especially when the company in question is an Arab-owned company.
And you know, our ports were already owned by foreign companies anyway.
So I'm not quite sure why we're focusing on something that's almost irrelevant.
And by doing that, we're alerting ourselves.
Uh I don't you you think you think the security issue is irrelevant?
No, it's not about this no.
I think it's definitely relevant, but I don't think that that's what should be driving this news story.
Well, it is because it's a political issue.
It's an election year.
Um but that's you know, you've you've you've raised an interesting thought here, but made an interesting point anyway.
So I understand the security concerns by everybody that has them.
Um other than the Democrats, because the Democrats, they're not this I don't care what they say, I don't care who they trot out to say it.
They'll never convince me that this is about security because they don't support any other measure to enhance our security, any real measure.
This is f this is a strictly a political opportunity for them.
But I'm gonna explore this a little bit more when we come back.
Thanks for the call.
Don't uh don't go away, folks.
Okay, back to the phones.
People are patiently waiting to Washington.
This is Paul.
Thanks for your patience, sir.
Thanks for having me.
You bet.
Uh this port deal, people are all complaining about terrorists getting uh undue access to our ports, but uh my take on it is they already have the United Arab Emirates flies two direct flights from Dubai daily into JFK.
Yes.
So they already have a a direct access in.
And that's that seems like uh worse access to have because it only takes fourteen hours and forty minutes to fly in.
So if you get some intel on something, you know, it doesn't take a month like uh to act on like with a ship.
Right.
And they don't have to own the uh airport to do it.
That's right.
You don't have to land it like you know, little boy and fat man were both airburst, so you just have to fly over uh JFK and keep going a little bit farther.
And uh and there it is.
Well I I do.
Okay.
Again, now, folks, ple uh uh we're we're beginning to repeat ourselves only because we were on the cutting edge of this last week.
But um the he's just addressing the security concern.
If you're concerned about the United Arab Emirates and security, I mean they fly in their own airline in here twice a day, and they and and you know, it's just it's just it's so th that's that's obvious.
I that's why that that previous call uh is resonating with me.
Uh and I I I think that there is a larger issue here.
In fact, I think this is gonna help us uh all this attention is gonna help focus more on the security at these ports, and that can only be good.
Uh but there is a there is a larger issue here, uh and and I've addressed it.
I've addressed it, and that is uh is this consistent with our stated foreign policy.
Needing allies.
Fact, this this neck from Olmy, Maryland here, this is uh Margaret.
Margaret, welcome.
I think she's gonna make a great point if I'm reading this right.
Go ahead.
Thank you thank you, Rush.
I was just gonna say that the the Democrats are so worried about this deal and they want the f extra forty five five days of scrutiny.
How long is it?
Two weeks since Al Gore went o over to Saudi Arabia and said that Bush was playing into Al Qaeda's hands because the worst thing we could do was cut off friendship and and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia, you could say, slash Arabic.
That is an excellent point.
And he's doing no, that's an excellent point.
And he also said that we were rounding up Arabs, and we were holding them without charges and without lawyers for indeterminate periods of time.
And he was ginning up all of this hate for his own country on the basis of the way we treat Arabs.
Now his own party is engaging in similar type activity, basically saying we can't trust these people.
This is too big a risk.
This is symptomatic of the Bush's problem, Bush administration's problem with lack of uh openness, too much secrecy going on.
So um yeah, that's that's a great, great, great point.
Now, we're st focusing on the politics of this on the Democrat side, folks, and that's that's why.
That that is an ex Margaret, are you a subscriber to my website?
No, I'm not.
Do you use a computer?
I do.
Well, uh, you need to be you need to be rewarded for coming up with this great idea.
I'm gonna will you hang on here at the end of the call.
Uh somebody will get on the phone with you and give you all the information necessary for you to become a complimentary member of the website Ditto Cam Access Podcast.
So I'll throw the uh subscription to the Limbaugh Letter newsletter as well.
I I thank you very much.
You're a very gracious host, and you certainly are the absolute best at doing what you do.
Well, thank you.
Thank you so much.
You're very kind to say that.
I appreciate it.
You're quite perceptive as well.
Thank you.
Yeah, you bet.
All right, Margaret.
Thanks, uh, thanks so much.
As reading the uh New York Times yesterday.
I know I I'm sorry, I did I'm I've I caught myself.
I actually well, I had to read this.
I did not read the New York Times.
Somebody sent me this.
I really don't read the newspaper.
In fact, I'm I'm uh I still get it delivered to the House.
Yes, I do for guests.
I want to, you know, guests come over.
I want them to I run a hotel.
That's the uh well, I know I wouldn't subject my cat to the New York Times in a litter box.
I wouldn't want the ink on the paper getting in my beautiful cat's feet.
Uh no, I use state-of-the-art stuff in there.
Uh at any rate, I don't want to start talking about litter boxes.
Everybody's trying to get me off track today, but I am staying focused.
Somebody sent me this story from New York Times.
It's a it's a it's a piece by Kit Seeley, Catherine Q. Seeley, about the contentiousness that is occurring now every day in the White House press briefing.
And she said, another White House briefing, another day of mutual mistrust.
She starts out by pointing out that Mike McCurry believes now that the biggest mistake he made was allowing cameras in there because now all these reporters end up showing off and acting and performing for the cameras.
And it gets in the way of the business being done in there.
But that's not the point of the story that I want to want to bring to your attention.
There is actually this, this event it's a one, two, three paragraphs, and it's a quote from the article.
Renetta Brooks, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington, who said that she had counseled several White House correspondents, said the last few years had given rise to White House reporter syndrome, in which competitive high achievers feel restricted and controlled and become emotionally isolated from others who are not steeped in their same experiences.
She said the syndrome was evident in the Cheney case, which she described as an inconsequential event that produced an outsize feeding frenzy.
She said some reporters use the occasion to compensate for not having pressed harder before the Iraq war.
It's like any post-traumatic stress, she said, like when somebody dies and you think you could have saved them.
So I guess the White House press corps, the David Gregories of the world are just still livid at themselves for being such patsies in reporting everything the administration said about weapons of mass destruction and all that in Iraq.
And they haven't gotten over being used.
They haven't gotten over being humiliated.
They've got post.
They've got White House reporter syndrome, and so they're just they're acting out because they they they they need to compensate for being fooled earlier.
She has counseled several White House correspondents.
White House reporter syndrome.
That's the New York Times from yesterday.
Now try this.
This this is from the Associated Press.
Now, folks, there are days where I feel like I'm in a parallel universe and that we're all in the twilight zone here, and I think Rod Serling is still writing the daily script.
One major factor separates Haskrul graduates who are ready for college from those who aren't ready for college.
A new study shows, and that's how well students handle complex reading.
They needed a study for this.
The trouble is most states don't even have reading standards for high school grades, and not a single state defines the kind of complexity that high school readings should have.
If you're not asking for it, you're not going to get it, said Cynthia Schmeiser, senior vice president for research and development at ACT, the nonprofit company that did the study.
The ACT isolated reading complexity.
As a critical factor by analyzing the results of the 1.2 million Has Gruel seniors in 2005 who took the well-known ACT college interest test, the ACT.
Based on that test, only 51% of students showed that they were ready to handle the reading requirements of a typical first-year college course.
The literacy of today's has scroll graduates has become an enormous concern for colleges and employers.
And again, what differentiates students who are ready for college from the rest is an inability to comprehend sophisticated texts that may have several layers of meaning.
That held true regardless of a student's gender, race, ethnicity, or family income.
The ACT has spelled out the elements of complex tests and hopes states will start adopting them.
Now this strikes people as news.
They did a study.
They did a study to determine this.
This is just common sense to me, but apparently it's big news to professional educators.
What does that tell you?
This is big news to professional educators.
How long have we been hearing high schoolers or graduating and can't even read their own diplomas?
We've been hearing it for years and years and years.
Now we got a big study that confirms if you can't read well, you're not going to do well in college.
Uh I don't know how many of the professional educators know how to do complex reading.
They can't do complex analysis of anything.
I mean, this is this is just with all the focus on reading, uh uh, I think states are going to move in this direction.
The question is when and where the leadership will come from.
You want to know why.
I mean, I'll tell you who's the educators are the last ones in to figure this out.
It's the parents that know all this.
That's why there's such a push for vouchers to help them change schools to go to private schools and so forth.
Anyway, a brief timeout here, my friends, the EIB network and El Rushbo recharging for a minute with uh obscene profit timeout.
Uh, we'll be back and continue right after this.
Well, bad news for Anne Andre Agassi.
Andre Agassi just lost his second round match in the Dubai Open.
The Dubai Tennis Open.
And Agassiz out.
Americans just can't catch a break over there.
Well, actually, that's not true because Tiger won the uh Dubai opening golf, but he got an appearance fee that was two and a half times what the winner of the tournament got.
I think they paid Tiger two and a half or three million just to go over there, and the winner gets like a million.
And Tiger won it anyway.
No, did he?
Yeah, he did win it.
That's right, exactly right.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, uh this next story, and back to the port deal here.
This is stunning.
And it's stunning because I have an AP story here, actually a uh it's almost like a commentary.
It's by somebody named Bruce Myerson, but it's it's a real analysis.
And it's so damn close to accurate that it it's stunning.
National security is a legitimate worry, but behind the dispute over whether to let the UAE operate terminals U.S. ports lurks the nagging discomfort Americans feel whenever the growing pains of free trade and globalization hit home.
Last year it was a Chinese company's attempted by a big U.S. oil company.
Before that, there was outrage over U.S. companies outsourcing jobs to India and other lower wage markets.
And for the better part of three decades, there's been dismay at just how open our borders are to the Japanese cars and other imports.
There was a time when our high quality, lower priced products were flooding other markets, generating fortunes in export revenue and a healthy dose of foreign resentment.
That often led to tariffs, trade barriers, and no shortage of angry protests from Washington.
Those days are long gone.
Imports of foreign goods exceeded exports of U.S. goods by a record $726 billion in 2005.
This imbalance prompts frequent calls by politicians and companies and unions to Retaliate against China and other nations who they say view free trade as a one-way street or to subsidize those segments of the U.S. economy, taking the biggest hit from the imports.
The head of the UAW, Ron Gedlfinger, has urged President Bush and Congress to recognize that the foreign auto firms who are gaining market share in the U.S. did not succeed while their countries let free markets run their course.
Japan, Germany, South Korea, and other countries actively intervene to support their industries.
Other critics say it's naive for the U.S. to be so open to imports from countries that don't return the favor.
No doubt the general U.S. devotion to free trade's been abused.
It may sound fair to respond with punitive tariffs and barriers, but that would be counterproductive and futile if one acknowledges the longer term, less emotional reality that market forces tend to be irrepressible, whether it's in China, the United Arab Emirates, or the United States.
I cannot believe this is on the Associated Press.
I could have written this.
That is exactly right.
So is his terminology growing pains of free trade.
Despite the earnest desire to buy American, it's hard to find products that don't derive any benefit from globalization.
An impurity that brings smiles at the cash register would be sorely missed if the U.S. turned too tough on trade.
The near-term pain of trade deficits is the price for preaching capitalism to the world.
That's a profundity.
That's not merely high-minded symbolism.
That is material payback for this leadership by example.
The flood of outsourced jobs to India, China, and Eastern Europe is boosting wages in those markets.
As pay rises overseas, it becomes less economical for U.S. companies to find a labor bargain.
Already outsourcers are looking beyond India, a process that's likely to ripple through the world economy for decades.
And with more disposable income on hand, consumers in developing markets come to demand products not made locally, including American goods.
We gripe that the Chinese are not buying our goods, but they are.
With all those dollars coming in, the Chinese government is one of the biggest customers for a unique American product.
It's called U.S. treasury debt.
An estimated three quarters of China's eight hundred billion dollars in foreign currency holdings are in dollars, and treasuries account for most of it.
Likewise, hard U.S. assets remain an appealing place for foreign concerns to park their dollars, though often not without controversy.
Generally lost in the current debate is the reality that the American ports in question have already been under foreign control for some time.
Granted, the current owners based in Britain and ally in the fight against terrorism, whereas Dubai Ports World is a company with secretive finances in a region politicians have linked with terrorism.
But the democracy of the United States is attempting to cede in that part of the world is in no small way dependent on the spread of free markets and capitalism.
So the answer here may be to proceed cautiously, protecting national security, but also ensuring that the U.S. doesn't send the wrong message with a knee-jerk rejection of the ports deal.
Bruce Meyerson, national business columnist for the Associated Press.
I nearly had heart failure three or four times when I originally read that piece.
Serious analysis.
There wasn't one assault on Bush in this piece.
Incredible.
Back in just a second.
Let's go to Chuck and Rudland, Vermont.
Hi, Chuck.
Welcome to the program.
We have about a minute here.
Thanks so much for taking my call and a longtime listener.
I just wanted to thank you for having that article about Sorrel and the Supreme Court on.
And I'm sure you're aware that uh big supporters of that are Feingold and McCain.
I'm I imagine you know that.
And one of Sorrell's real close friends when this law was passed.
Guess who?
Our former great governor, Howard Dean.
Yeah, I didn't know if you knew that.
But I thought it was one of his close buddies.
And I'm sure he was governor when that law was passed.
But I just sort of like to be to apologize for the rest of the country for reminding us because reminders are great place.
And all us people here are not like our representatives.
Like Senator Leakey and the rest of them.
Well, I I know you're not all like them, but most most are because they keep getting sent down there.
So I know.
And it's got to be it's us who feel sorry for you for I mean, I know you love it there, but you live amongst them.
And uh we're trying, Rush.
I only live about ten miles from our great jumpin' gym, you know.
And I'm glad he's finally jumping out.
So are a lot of people.
I appreciate the calls, Chuck.
Uh, thanks much.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Now reminder, I'll not be here tomorrow.
I have to go out of town to make a rare uh speech.
But we will be back on Friday for open line Friday.
Roger Hedgecock will be hosting the program tomorrow.
Thank him in advance for doing that.
▲
Export Selection