Rush Limbaugh Program - March 28, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:18

March 28, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, welcome back, folks.
	And here we are from the Big Apple, the EIB network high atop the EIB building.
	We are serving humanity today, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	The Rush Limbaugh program behind the original Golden EIB microphone, I might point out.
	Telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
	And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
	I'm in New York because our annual Night of the Century cigar dinner.
	We call it Night of the Century.
	We actually call it Night to Remember, but I joke around and call it the Night of the Century because it's big.
	It's a black tie affair.
	It's a cigar dinner, and it features auction items.
	And the beneficiary of all the fundraising that will happen tonight is the CapCure Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation.
	Michael Milken will be there matching personally every dollar that is raised.
	There's always surprise items, big ticket items, little things.
	It just runs the gamut.
	In fact, you know, I just remember something.
	One of the things I ended up buying at the auction last year was a Super Bowl ticket for every team from a Las Vegas sports book.
	And so it didn't matter who won.
	I'm the winner because I got every team at whatever odds when the tickets were bought.
	The Steelers won.
	I got to find those and turn them in.
	I don't know what the odds for the Steelers were, but I just remembered that.
	Now, a lot of people have asked me, wait a minute, Rush, you're in New York, right?
	Yeah.
	But there's no smoking in New York.
	It's not allowed.
	How can you do this?
	Aha.
	Actually, a very good question.
	Two years ago, we were not allowed to do it.
	We couldn't get an exemption from this.
	You have to apply to the Department of Health to get an exemption if you want to do something like this.
	And all the employees at the place have to sign on to the idea that they know that it's going to be happening.
	In fact, you know, a little off-the-beaten path here, but there is a movement among some restaurants and bars in this town to change the whole structure of employee relationships, to actually give them stock in the company so that they are quote-unquote investors and not employees.
	So they have purposely have a stake in it.
	And so regulations that come along and say, well, you can't allow smoking in there because you're forcing the employees to inhale as secondhand smoke.
	And even worse, you're impacting their health in a negative way.
	There are all kinds of economic tools available to people that try to beat this.
	It's going to be very, very hard to do.
	But you have to apply for an exemption.
	Now, last year, get this.
	Last year we applied for an exemption.
	We got it.
	And the day of the event, we heard from the Board of Health that said, by the way, you can only smoke after dinner, after dessert.
	We said, what the hell is that?
	It's a cigar dinner.
	Everybody's coming here expecting to smoke five cigars during dinner and five more after.
	That's why they're here.
	The city don't care.
	Go to court.
	Had to take drastic action.
	Well, the way we solved it, we served dessert first.
	The food is just an interruption at this dinner anyway.
	But tonight, the honored guests are Joel Cernow and Howard Gordon of the show 24.
	They were profiled in the first issue of this year.
	Last year, Michael Jordan was there as he was profiled.
	It's a great, great night.
	I am this year's official co-host.
	Last year it was Mayor Giuliani.
	I have attended every one of these things.
	I have yet to miss one.
	And it's, I mean, it sells out.
	We do it at a restaurant that holds, like, we put about 1,000 or 1,200 people in there.
	Yes, I will be off tomorrow because I've got some, I'm glad you reminded me of that so I could tell the people.
	I will be off tomorrow, but I can tell you this, we'll have on Thursday, we get back to Florida, I'm not sure the time yet, probably around 12.30 or 1 o'clock, but we'll have Joel Cerno on the program.
	Yes, we're going to talk to Joe.
	And I'm going to try to talk him into taking some phone calls so people can ask him some questions about the program.
	Mark Bella will be filling in on the program tomorrow.
	But it's a great night here.
	It's always fun to see all the people that show up.
	And they come from all walks of life.
	They come from the entire political spectrum.
	The great thing about the cigar dinners and my experience in smoking cigars is they're a great bridge.
	They bridge gaps that exist between people.
	And some of the people I've gotten to know that I would consider really, really close friends I met as a result of attending events such as this.
	It's actually sponsored by Cigar Ficionado magazine.
	Marvin Shankin has put this together from the get-go.
	He's a good friend of mine, excuse me, as you know.
	And he's asked me to co-host it this year.
	And it's just a hoot.
	And I will have a full report for you on Thursday.
	No, I'm not taking any.
	Why would I want to take anybody to this?
	They used to be stag, but after a while, we opened it up because some women, we didn't think women would want to come.
	You know, a room full of cigar smoke.
	But after a while, they started requesting that they come.
	Wives now come, girlfriends, barmaids, concubines, whoever.
	You never know who you're going to see.
	It's just, it's a hell of a good time.
	But no, I get mobbed at these things.
	If I were to take somebody, I'd never see them anyway.
	And they'd just get jealous.
	And I don't want to put anybody through that, because I care.
	And I'm sensitive, and I just, you know, I'll find other places to find companionship.
	Now, this is great news.
	Just cleared the wire.
	Do you remember the couple, the grandparents, the Martins?
	They were driving along in their Cadillac toward Jacksonville.
	They're on I-75 in Florida.
	And like all of us, they had radio in their car that receives cell phone call signals.
	And like all of us, they also have the recorder in their car that would record these cell phone calls that their cell phone radio receiver receives.
	As they were driving along, I think they were headed to a shopping mall to do some Christmas shopping for their cute little grandchildren.
	And they're fiddling with the dials.
	They couldn't find anything on the real radio that interested them.
	So they turned on their cell phone receiver.
	And lo and behold, they heard a conversation and they thought that they were listening in on history.
	They thought that they were privy to history is what they said.
	It was a phone call between John Boehner, who is now the Republican majority leader, and Newt Gingrich, back when he was the Speaker, running the House of Representatives.
	And these people were listening to a phone call, and Boehner and Newt were discussing strategiery about how they were going to smoke the Democrats and some legislation that was coming up.
	Well, this couple, thinking they were just tuning in on history, just knew they had to share this with somebody.
	They just knew they had to.
	So they racked their brains.
	Who should they call?
	Should they call the media?
	No, they called Jim McDermott, Baghdad Jim McDermott, who is a congressman from the state of Washington.
	And they sent him the tape of the phone call between Newton and Bayner that they had recorded in their car while listening to their cell phone radio receiver.
	McDermott then gave the tape to the New York Times.
	The New York Times transcribed it and published the transcript of the phone call.
	Boehner sued over the illegality of this and the violation of privacy.
	Today, a federal appeals court has ruled that Representative Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.
	In a two-to-one opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott violated the rights of House Majority Leader John Boehner, who was heard on the call involving Speaker Newt.
	The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 large, $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation.
	The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.
	McDermott leaked the tape of this phone call to the New York Times and other news organizations.
	The call included a discussion by Gingrich and other House leaders about a House Ethics Committee investigation of Gingrich.
	Boehner was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time, now as House Majority Leader.
	A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment and said a ruling against him would have a huge chilling effect on reporters and newsmakers alike.
	So illegally recorded in the first, you can't do that.
	You can't record people's phone calls when they don't know what's happening.
	I mean, you can't use them.
	You can't use them.
	I mean, you can, well, you can't do it, but certainly you can't use it for anything legally once you've done it.
	But it's a violation of privacy.
	But what's interesting to me about this is that now here's this investigation, the NSA thing, that's underway.
	Justice Department's still looking at there's illegal leaking there.
	And some of it may have originated in the hallowed halls of the United States Senate.
	We remain to learn the details and the truth about that.
	But here the appeals court, D.C. Appeals Court said in a slam dunk move, it's illegal.
	You can't do it.
	And it's, I don't know how precedent-setting it is for this other case, but it still does establish, at least in one area where the law still matters, there were lawyers for 18 news organizations, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, that filed a brief backing McDermott.
	So no mention of in this story, I don't, yep, no mention in the story of the cute little grandparent couple, the Martins, and how the tape was made, which is why I spent time at the beginning of this setting the stage for you so you know how in the world this tape came to exist in the first place.
	Because if you're like the Martins and like most of us and have a cell phone radio receiver in your car, be careful.
	Because if you record it and then do something with it and it's discovered, you are in heap big trouble unless you're an illegal immigrant and promise to learn English, and then you're cool.
	Back in a moment.
	You know, folks, there's a way of looking at this Jim McDermott situation, fined a total of $700,000 by the D.C. Court of Appeals for illegally providing to the New York Times and media an illegally taped telephone conversation.
	What was this?
	When you boil it down, what did the Martins do?
	The Martins engaged in an illegal, warrantless intercept.
	And they were facilitated and aided by McDermott.
	Given the current climate, we need to start a censure McDermott move because he has violated constitutional rights.
	He participated in a warrantless intercept or spy program.
	You would have to say that a perfectly innocent private conversation between Boehner and Newt was the victim of a spy program and there was no warrant.
	I say this to illustrate the once again the hypocrisy here, the Democrats wanting to censure George Bush for essentially doing what they are trying to defend in court as perfectly legal, and it'd be chilling to shut this down because it would limit what the media can do.
	Now, folks, we can talk about holes in security all we want.
	We can talk about how the fact that this poor guy, David Sanborn, who had the unfortunate thing happened to him, he happened to work for DP World once, not even in the Emirates, in different ransom terminal operations for DP World.
	President Bush nominated him to be the head honcho at the maritime agency of the U.S. government, head honcho of the policing the seas and so forth.
	And John Kerry and Bill Nelson have told the president, we're going to kill your nomination.
	We're not going to allow it to go to the Senate because he once worked for DP World.
	So the president pulled the nomination of David Sanborn, an American, a member, ex-member of the Navy.
	All because he worked for DP World, he poses a security risk and a security threat to the people of the United States.
	And John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and Bill Nelson are not going to let this threat occur.
	They are going to protect this country while signing on to the illegal immigration bill.
	They're going to make sure that David Sanborn does not get in a position to threaten the security of this country.
	Now, you can talk about holes in security all we want.
	But try this.
	An embarrassing hole in security surrounding former U.S. President Bill Clinton turned up when one of his chauffeurs was found to be a wanted man.
	Shahzad Qureshi, 42, was in one of three cars awaiting Clinton at Newark International Spaceport last week when a Port Authority policeman happened to check license plate numbers.
	The computer came back showing that the Pakistani national had skipped a residency status hearing in 2000 and a deportation order had been issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
	Qureshi was still in jail Monday awaiting immigrant processing, the report said.
	Now, I would like to know a lot of things here.
	How much was Bill Clinton paying the illegal immigrant?
	Was he actually on Bill's staff or does Bill use a car service?
	Maybe Bill used a car service.
	I would think not.
	I would think as an ex-president, you're going to know every day who's driving you, you and your car and in your caravan.
	I don't think you go through security checks every day.
	So how did this guy, illegal immigrant, get past all of the security?
	I mean, you would have to think that there would be security for an ex-president would be pretty tight.
	So you have to assume that this was known.
	We have to assume if it wasn't known, that's just as bad in its own way.
	So assuming that it was known by Clinton or his office that they had an illegal immigrant as a chauffeur, were they doing it to escape paying top dollar?
	Did they do paperwork on the guy, pay him in cash, keep it all under the radar, but he saves time and money by going around regulations?
	And, you know, was this Pakistani national any Arab descent at all?
	If so, how could an Arab be allowed to be so close to an American president?
	We can't even have an American who worked for an Arab company run a maritime agency here.
	We can't let an Arab country run the ports, the terminals, but we can let a Pakistani illegal drive around the ex-president of the United States.
	Talking about a hole in security.
	Meanwhile, Clinton's over in Great Britain telling the people over there that we, the people of the United States, envy them and envy their country.
	I've got nothing against the Brits.
	That's not the point.
	And I love the place when I go.
	I really do.
	But why go across the pond and rip your own country?
	I know what Clinton's trying.
	This is his way of complimenting them.
	But in the process, he just can't help himself.
	He's got to take a swipe.
	He's been extended all kinds of courtesies by the Bushes.
	They practically adopted him into their family, and he has shown no similar inclination.
	He has not extended similar courtesies himself.
	Just it's all about him.
	Self-focused, like I have never seen him, so other than actors and actresses.
	And it's probably why they like him.
	He's one of those guys.
	Self-focused, phony baloney plastic menu, pat you on the back, say what's going on, whatever you want to hear.
	Here's Stephen in Greenfield, Massachusetts.
	Stephen, I'm glad you call.
	Welcome to the program.
	Thank you very much, Rush.
	I appreciate you for taking my call one more time.
	I just wanted to say I really agree with Senator Fein Dinstein what she said about illegal immigrants.
	I think part of the big problem of illegal immigrants in this country, me being one of those at some point, I'm legal now.
	I think it's the policies of the United States.
	If you have a tyrant or a dictator in your country, there's a flow of immigrants coming into this country from Castro to Idi Amin to Mugabe and all that.
	They're flocking in this country.
	They're not asked whether they speak English or they don't speak English.
	For some of us who are coming, I'm coming from Tanzania, East Africa.
	If you don't have a dictator in Tanzania, coming here is absolutely like climbing Mount Kilimanjaro.
	It's so hard.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Stephen, hang on.
	This doesn't surprise me.
	I mean, in fact, yesterday, one of the observations I shared with my audience here was that you could look at the protests in Los Angeles.
	And Stephen, don't go away.
	I want to keep you after the break here.
	Time is dwindling down for this segment.
	One of the ways to look at all this is: forget all these people saying we've lost our reputation and respect.
	Forget all these people that say our country is going to hell in a handbasket.
	The fact is, it's still the one place on the planet everybody wants to show up and come and be part of.
	And we have no problem with that.
	It's just the illegal side that this argument is about.
	I'll continue with you after the break here.
	Well, this is really fascinating to watch.
	And in Paris, riot police broken out.
	Tear gas and water tanks being used to break up these protests in Paris.
	These people are going nuts over there, all because Dominique de Villepin, who everybody on the left of this country has thought was the greatest guy that ever came along during the whole UN Security Council debate over what to do about Iraq.
	This guy is about ready to have to resign in disgrace or run out of the country to save his life because he proposed this law that says, you can get fired.
	We can fire you with no cause.
	And the reason is the French don't like that.
	They want the job they have to basically just be a welfare check.
	Don't have to work, don't have to show up on time, don't have to do what's necessary to keep a job in most places.
	But it's just causing the country untold problems because you just can't keep hiring people you don't need.
	So the unemployment rate in France is sky high and it's going higher.
	And de Villepin wanted to give employers a little power to run their businesses.
	And the French, who have bought into a socialist system and expressed their desire for it and actually voted for a socialist system, are learning now that it can't sustain itself.
	And they don't want to deal with the reality.
	And so the government says, look, we're going to make some changes here.
	And they can fire you even without cause if you're 26 years old.
	And boy, the kids over there are just going nuts.
	And everybody knew this is coming.
	It's fascinating to watch it.
	I love this stuff because right in front of our eyes daily, we see evidence wherever we want to look in the world that socialism doesn't work, that big governmentism doesn't work, all the derivatives of communism, be they liberalism or socialism or what have you, Maoism, they don't work.
	And here's a classic example of the government realizing they got an untenable situation, but the people that they have catered to and have given circumstances that basically equal a cushion, realize they can't sustain themselves.
	They're going to take it away.
	You can't do this.
	Now, I understand the right to protest.
	It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch as far as I'm concerned, but still fascinating to watch this.
	All right, I want to go back now to Stephen in Greenfield, Massachusetts, who came here originally as an illegal.
	Now you're legal.
	You mentioned Diane Feinstein.
	Grab audio soundbite number five because I want people, Stephen, you're still with us, I trust, right?
	I'm Steve, yeah.
	I want people to hear what Dianne Feinstein said that you are reacting to.
	It's only eight seconds long.
	It's at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday.
	They pay taxes.
	Their children are Americans.
	They go to schools.
	They're good citizens.
	And they're needed.
	All right.
	Now, Stephen, let me give you a political reality in this country.
	That is a pure pander.
	The Democratic Party is trying to secure the Hispanic vote in this country much as they've secured the black vote.
	She called illegal immigrants citizens.
	She praised their work ethic.
	She talked about how we can't do without them.
	Now, nobody on the other side of the aisle has anything deleterious to say or derogatory about them as people, as human beings.
	We don't even know them.
	It's just the concern that the concerns are two.
	A, there's illegal, and are we going to enforce our laws?
	Obviously, in this circumstance, we're not going to enforce our laws.
	So we come up with a new set of laws that we think we've defined this down, just like define Deviancy down.
	We've defined what we're going to do and our standards on illegal immigration.
	We've defined them down.
	Second thing that we're worried about is, unlike you, I can tell talking to you, you have come here, you have assimilated, and you are an American.
	You didn't set up a Tanzanian enclave where you didn't learn English and you only associated with fellow citizens from Tanzania and basically just establish a remote outpost in America of your foreign country.
	What we're concerned about, some people are concerned about, is that there's not going to be enough assimilation going on.
	They're not going to learn English.
	They're not going to discover the unique American culture that you discovered in your journey here and in your life here.
	That's what the concern is.
	Not that they're bad people.
	Well, I agree with you, Rush.
	I mean, I wanted to correct one thing.
	I came here legally, and then in between, I became illegal, and then I retained my status back.
	I think the problem really here is, as I said at the beginning, the policies of the United States toward immigration have contributed a lot to this.
	And now you have come to a point whereby you really, to be fair, you have to legalize these people in order to know who is here.
	I mean, you have to say, wait, wait, hold on a second.
	You've got to explain something to me.
	You said that we, the policies of the United States toward immigration have contributed to this.
	How so?
	I'll explain to this.
	Right now, if you're from Afghanistan coming here, it's easy to come here.
	If you're from Iraq coming here, it's easy.
	As well as it was if you're coming from Uganda when Idamin was there, if you're coming from Zimbabwe, if you're coming from Cuba, if you're coming from Russia, the policies of the United States was if you are against communism.
	Okay, you're talking about political asylum.
	Okay.
	Exactly, exactly.
	Now, they don't ask, do you know English or you don't know English?
	Whether you know English or you don't know English, as long as you're against Castro, you're here.
	As long as you're not going to be able to.
	Well, no, you've got to get here first.
	In the case of Cuba, I don't want to get dragged down too many details here because we're going to lose point.
	But case of Cuba, if they get to our shores, they're here.
	If the Coast Guard intercepts them at sea, they can send them back.
	And that happens.
	But we're getting off the beaten path because in terms of southern immigration, the southern border with Mexico, nobody down there is fleeing a tyrant.
	Nobody's down there fleeing political oppression.
	They may be fleeing poverty, but half the world is fleeing poverty.
	But we can't.
	Well, go ahead.
	What were you going to say?
	No, I was saying what you're doing, though.
	You are saying, okay, if you're running from tyrants, you're welcome.
	If you're running from, well, if there's no jobs in your country, no, no, no, you're not welcome over there.
	See, I'm not doing this.
	No, no, That's not what we're saying.
	We're not saying to anybody, you're not welcome.
	There is a process.
	And in truth, you know, the people you're talking about go through the process.
	They declare political asylum.
	They go through like you did.
	You came here legally.
	You became a citizen after losing your status for a while.
	We're talking about people who are gaming the system.
	Rush, what is the process?
	If you're just offshore Florida, you're already okay here if you're from Castro regime.
	Is that a process, really?
	I mean, that's not a habit.
	That's my point.
	There's politics in all this, Stephen.
	There's a huge Cuban exile community that lives in Florida.
	They're a very powerful political bloc.
	They're largely entrepreneurial, entrepreneurial.
	And so Castro is a sworn enemy of the United States.
	He's got an embargo against the country.
	It's a stupid embargo.
	It's absolutely silly, but we have it.
	And so, you know, we have this situation where every circumstance is different.
	That's why there's a system to deal with all of this.
	Can't treat everybody the same.
	It's not possible.
	There are too many different sets of circumstances.
	But you try it.
	You try to come up with a policy that does get as close to fairness as you can.
	But we're not even – blaming the system for illegal immigration is a bit of a stretch.
	That's – I don't – that's – That's an excuse that they might offer to try to turn it around and make themselves appear to be a little bit more heroic.
	And they've succeeded, I think.
	There's almost now a heroic aura that has been attached by supporters to these people.
	But Stephen, here's the real thing.
	This is the real thing to learn.
	If you want to understand what's happening here, I cited the evidence from two polls to the NBC Wall Street Journal and a Quinnipiac College poll.
	Both polls show overwhelmingly that huge majorities of America are opposed to illegal immigration and consider it a huge problem.
	The people of this country who hold that view, which is the majority, are being ignored.
	And instead, the news today is filled with stories about how we must covet these illegals.
	There are too many.
	We can't enforce deportation.
	We've got to welcome them in, blah, blah.
	It's pure political pandering and hoping by both parties that they can reach out and get as many people from this community, the Hispanic community, to vote in elections for their party.
	So all of this is politics, and it takes a while sometimes to understand the American political system.
	I appreciate the call.
	Thanks much.
	Vinny in Queens, you're next.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	It was a great one.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	You bet, sir.
	Yeah, talking to your call, Screener.
	We had decided on a topic I was going to hit you with, but just real quickly to Steve, I don't need a lawbreaker telling me how I should view immigration.
	And he was an admitted lawbreaker, and I really don't care to hear his explanation about what this country should do.
	I love you guys from Queens.
	I love you.
	You just get right to it.
	Well, what I'm really here to ask you, though, is I remember you made a statement about two years ago, and you said a lot of the, or the main reason we don't see a lot of deportation is because of the pictures that would be sent back from the border.
	And that would, the American people would be shown on their televisions day and night of families being bussed out over the border and just how the mainstream media would have a field day.
	And would America have the stomach to see this through?
	Now, at first I thought they did, and I was bumped up by the two polls you just mentioned.
	But then I got to thinking, you know, we had these same good feelings, and we had the stomach for it at the beginning of the Iraq war.
	And I'm looking at it now, and I'm seeing support for the president dwindle when it comes to Iraq.
	And I wonder if we would really have the support to see this through, partially because of the reasons you had mentioned a few years back.
	I just don't think a lot of us do have the stomach for it.
	And, you know, I don't really know what the answer is, and I don't know if anyone truly does know what the answer is.
	And I guess I just feel a little beat up today over just everything that's been happening.
	I see.
	Vinny, this is unlike you.
	You sound a little defeatist on me out there.
	You're making it sound like you don't think.
	By the way, nobody is seriously suggesting deportation.
	That's what that number of 11 and 12 million people is used consistently because it would, as they say, it would be a practical impossibility to do it.
	And then where do you send them?
	And how do you, what kind of transportation it's, you know, you move 11 million, and what kind of period of time are we talking about?
	I mean, you can't do it in a week, can't do it a day, you couldn't do it in a year, probably.
	But what that represents to me is, see, this is not the first time we've done this.
	We did this back in 1986.
	And in 1986, it resulted in the legalization of 4 million illegals.
	We keep compounding the problem because what we end up telling everybody, the Congress does, we can't enforce.
	So I ask myself, well, what about these new provisions in the bill that came out of Judiciary Committee?
	We're going to make them learn English.
	They're going to make them pay a fine.
	Well, what if they say no?
	We're going to deport them?
	It's easier to deport single violators than it is to find and round up 11 million illegal immigrants and deport them.
	Are we going to do that?
	I don't think so.
	The story is in the paper today.
	Parties must pay close attention to how they are perceived in dealing with enforcement.
	Do not want to make illegals angry.
	Hispanic vote at risk.
	Well, that's all you need to know.
	So the problem I have is that no enforcement seems likely.
	I hear you when you're saying, well, I don't know what the answer is.
	Because if you accept the notion we can't deport, even if we wanted to try, we can't deport 11 million, then what do you do?
	Well, that's what this bill attempts to do.
	Say, okay, we've got to move forward.
	We're going to come up with a plan that allows them to actually become legal, but we leave it up to them.
	They're going to show up.
	They've got to turn themselves in.
	They've got to pay $1,000 fine.
	They've got to learn English.
	We're not going to ⁇ I doubt that there are going to be swarms of agents fanning around the country trying to round up the illegals because they don't run around wearing a t-shirt and says, I'm illegal right here.
	Find me.
	It just doesn't happen.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll be back and continue in just a second.
	Oh, yeah.
	The top five all-time favorite tunes, Al Wilson, Show and Tell.
	Back to the phones, Russ in Lewistown, Pennsylvania.
	Great to have you with us, sir.
	Thank you.
	Megan Dido's from Central PA Rush.
	Yes.
	Other than the immigration reform bill, the other big news story today seems to be the resignation.
	I'd say the surprise resignation of Andrew Card.
	And this is a gentleman that's been with the president five years, served under really tough circumstances, as you know, during 9-11.
	Do we really care about this?
	Do we care about it?
	Do you think it's that big a deal?
	Well, chiefs of staff come and go.
	The gentleman that's replacing him, Josh Bolton, is someone who's, I think, fairly unknown.
	And I was wondering what your take would be on how that would change the administration, or is this the beginning of a sweeping change in the cabinet and everything is people like Fred Boyd?
	This is totally normal.
	Second-term administrations, generally there's more turnover than there's been in this one.
	This is the first major change in this administration since it started.
	Well, it is the most major change.
	I don't think it signifies anything other than Card's tired, wants to move on.
	There's somebody perfectly qualified to step in and do the job, Josh Bolton.
	I've met him, nice guy, brilliant budget expert.
	And, you know, I think the media is more concerned it wasn't Karl Rove.
	But we have a montage since you brought this up.
	We have a montage of how this is being treated.
	And once again, the drive-by media is on the case.
	No matter where you turn, they have the same phrase to describe this.
	Is this a shake-up or is this just rearranging the deck chairs?
	Like rearranging the deck chairs, not really a major shake-up.
	Simply rearranging the deck chairs.
	The president of the United States needed to rearrange the chairs.
	You're basically just moving the chairs in different directions.
	It's just rearranging it.
	The only thing I didn't say is on the Titanic.
	But we're rearranging the deck chairs.
	They don't even think it's that big a deal.
	Andrew Card, in fact, as chiefs of staff go, was probably less visible and whatever power he wielded was less visible than many chiefs of staff.
	Leon Panetta, chief of staff with Clinton, was out there constantly.
	John Podesta, when he was Clinton's chief of staff, constantly out there, was on television, was doing all kinds of interviews.
	Andy Card has been pretty much invisible.
	I don't think that it signifies much other than a rearranging of the deck chairs.
	We'll be back after this.
	Okay, we have about a minute.
	Donna has been waiting from Fresno, California.
	Hi, Donna.
	Welcome to the program.
	Thank you.
	You know, I'm so upset and so feeling betrayed by President Bush when I heard him say yesterday that the illegals are the backbone of our economy and that they are costing us nothing.
	That is just so naughty.
	Wait a second.
	Wait, No, Did President Bush use that term?
	They're the backbone of the country?
	Yes.
	Or very similar words.
	Boy, I missed that.
	But I was on an airplane for a lot of yesterday, and I had a thing to do last night, but I had not heard that.
	Well, even if he did, I just I understand, Donna, this is all politics, and it's not new for him.
	He's being consistent with his attitudes on illegal immigration.
	Hasn't moved off the dime on this since it first became a big issue in his administration.
	I'm glad you called.
	Great to talk to you.
	We've got one hour left of the fastest three hours of media.

▲