All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
May 8, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying for a simple reason.
The views expressed by Oh, Damon, would you turn the music up so I can hear it?
Thank you.
The views expressed by the host on this program are rooted louder.
Thank you.
In a daily, relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth, and we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I'm Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do, and so are you.
I was born to host.
You were born to listen.
800-282-2882 is the number if you'd like to be on the program.
Alternative fuels discussion, ladies and gentlemen, and from ABC Science Online.
This is the Australian broadcast company, not the American broadcast company.
Urine batteries.
Batteries made with P are not able to power laptops yet, but they could theoretically keep a digital watch working, a urine-powered battery, the size of a credit card, has been invented by some researchers in Singapore.
A drop, just a drop, ladies and gentlemen, of P generates one and a half volts.
This is the equivalent of one AA battery, said Dr. Ki Bang Lee of the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology.
He says the technology could provide a disposable power source for electronic diagnostic devices that test urine and other body fluids for diseases like diabetes.
These currently need lithium batteries or external power sources, but with his system, the body fluid being tested could power the unit itself.
I just think it's cool.
You know, people research.
Can you imagine somebody wanted to research P and find out we're talking about alternative fuels?
And we know we're never going to run out of that.
Now, this is a sad story.
This is the Times of London health lobbyists, health lobbyists, food Nazis have decided that ice creams are too much of a danger to children's health.
Members of parliament and health officials are planning a series of measures across the country forcing Mr. Whippy.
That's what they call their ice cream vans in the UK.
Mr. Whippy and his helpers into meltdown.
Under an amendment to the education and inspection bill to be put forward this week, local authorities will be given new powers to stop Mr. Whippy and other ice cream vans from operating near school gates.
Local authorities have in recent weeks banned ice cream vans from using pay and display parking spaces and set up ice cream-free exclusion zones around busy shopping streets.
And they get the statistics here on how many calories and how many grams of fat in your average ice cream cone.
And if you add chocolate flakes to it, it adds about 100 calories, another six grams of fat.
A simple joy of childhood is now gone.
The health Nazis, these wackos, got to get Mr. Whippy and his ice cream.
I tell you, when I was a kid, Mr. Softy Truck came around.
That was cool.
You couldn't find Mr. Softy ice cream anywhere but those vans.
You just couldn't, no matter what.
As far as I was concerned, Mr. Softie didn't come around enough.
And when Mr. Softie came around, my mom was always obliging because he wasn't a refunding every day.
My mother wouldn't have been.
But my gosh.
Simple joy of childhood.
Now histoi.
At least in the UK, and it won't be long before the same thing happens here.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press yesterday, and she was being referred to As Madam Speaker, George Stephanopoulos, talking to Howard Dean about her, couldn't stop referring to her as the speaker, had to keep correcting himself.
Here's a montage of Russert, Howard Dean, and George Stephanopoulos calling Nancy Pelosi the Speaker.
You're measuring the draperies in the Speaker's office.
You're going to be the Speaker.
Can you guarantee you'll be the Speaker?
Speaker to be Pelosi.
Speaker, perhaps Speaker Pelosi.
Speaker Pelosi, excuse me, I don't know why I've got that stuck in my head.
You believe a Speaker to be Pelosi.
You normally wait until after the election in November, and then you start talking about Speaker-elect, president-elect.
This is Speaker-to-B, folks.
I guarantee you, this is the kind of arrogance that comes back and bites you where you don't want to be bitten.
Plus, that's right, this is bulletin board material.
This is the kind of stuff you don't do, like go leading up to the Super Bowl.
You don't start talking about how you're going to rouse the opponents.
You give them nothing but respect.
It's just common sense.
Now, she's out there laying plans, and the media drive-by media is picking it right up.
Speaker-to-be Peloskus.
That was Howard Dean saying that.
Let's go to her now.
Russert says, here's the numbers in terms of lobbyist contributions 2004 to 2006.
Lobbyists gave Republicans $20 million.
Democrats $17.8 million.
Both parties get their money from lobbyists.
What is this culture of corruption business?
Well, let me say this.
Our party is standing for honest leadership and open government.
We will turn the most corrupt Congress in history to the most honest and open Congress.
And maybe it'll take a woman to clean up the House.
Maybe that's what will have to happen.
Oh, fuck.
Could you hear the people that watch this program cringe when she said that maybe it will take a woman to clean up the house?
An attempt at what?
If she's trying to be funny, it wasn't.
It's pathetic.
It's incompetent.
Plus, the culture corruption business is not going to fly, and she can't get off of this.
There's Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
There's this Mollahan guy from West Virginia.
There's all kinds of them.
And the delay fiasco is going to capture some, or the Abramoff fiasco is going to catch some Democrats as well.
Now, this is her soundbite where she says that the Democrats are not really about impeachment, but she says she doesn't say they won't do it.
Tim Russert says, you told the Washington Post that there would be investigations if the Democrats regain control of the House.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee will be somebody named John Conyers.
I went up to his website, and this is what's on his website.
Stand with Congressman Conyers, demand an investigation of administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Democrats are not about impeachment.
What I told them is we will have an investigation of energy prices.
We will have an investigation.
I said we'd have hearings on the war.
We'd have hearings on the war.
But I don't see us going to a place of impeachment or is impeachment off the table?
Well, you never know where the facts take you, but for any president.
But that isn't what we're about.
What we're about is going there and having high ethical standard, fiscal soundness, and a level of civility that brushes away all this fierce partisanship.
John Conyers is an enthusiastic advocate.
I'm the leader.
Our caucus will decide where we go.
I know that she's delusional, but they really believe this alternative universe where they just harmless and friendly and bipartisan and so forth.
They're going to establish a level of civility that brushes away all this fierce party.
You mean you're going to stop saying Bush is Hitler?
You're going to stop saying Bush is killing people.
You're going to stop saying Bush is creating terrorists.
I mean, this is such a laugh.
Now, they're a laugher.
I've mentioned earlier that there's trouble in paradise there.
Stenny Hoyer actually wants to be the leader of the Democrats, whether they win in the House or not.
He wants her job.
It's going to take a lot of money to campaign for it.
But I'm telling you, underneath the surface, there are people in the Democratic Party who just cringe when she shows up.
There's nothing you can do about it.
I mean, who's going to tell her to be quiet?
Who's going to tell her she can't go out there?
She's the leader.
They elected her.
And Dingy Harry doesn't have that much better Q factor either.
Now, on Stephanopoulos's show, I had Howard Dean.
Since Pelosi went out there and talked about the plans that she, as Speaker-to-B, had in the Washington Post.
Well, that set the table for the Sunday shows to go get all these guests, the Democrats, to talk about what they're going to do.
So it was Howard Dean on Stephanopoulos.
Stephanopoulos said, is Ken Melman right or is impeachment off the table?
They just make that stuff up over there, I think, of the RNC.
I'm sure there are going to be investigations because we're going to stop the culture of corruption.
But we've got some big things on our plate, and we're going to need to deal with those before anybody starts talking about impeachment.
They have been talking about impeachment internally since 2001.
It intensified leading up to 2004.
And I predicted to you, if Bush wins the election and Kerry loses, the first thing they're going to try to do is get impeachment hearings going and start ringing those chimes.
And lo and behold, because I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand, I know exactly what they're going to do before they even do it.
We're going to stop the culture of corruption.
We got some big things on our plate.
Yeah, raising the minimum wage, fixing the Medicare entitlement, and doing investigations.
Now, folks, they're already talking about this as though it's pro forma.
It's just a matter of time.
And they're obviously jumping the gun big time, and they're just, they can't help themselves, but this is not going to help them creating this kind of atmosphere, talking positively.
I think they're trying to buck everybody up and get their vote out.
But this shows no humility.
You have to know what shape you're in when you start a race before you can honestly assess whether you think you're going to win it.
And they think it's just a formality, these elections, that they're already, when they start talking about Speaker to be and the investigations that they're going to have.
I can't wait.
I cannot wait for the day after this election in November.
I knew in 2002 they were stunned.
They thought they were over the top.
2004 presidential elections in the congressional rate, they just couldn't believe it.
And they think they're in the bank now.
When they lose this one, when they don't get the House back, when they don't get the Senate back, it's going to be fun to watch these people and listen to what they say and drive-by media.
You mark my words.
It'll be unprecedented.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Well, John Kerry has decided to weigh in, ladies and gentlemen, on the choice of General Mike Hayden as the new CIA director.
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, says he's troubled and has serious reservations about President Bush's nomination of General Michael Hayden to be the director of the CIA.
Kerry says his concerns stem from Hayden's involvement in the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, which is not domestic surveillance.
It's foreign surveillance.
Kerry has serious reservations and his trouble.
Well, Senator, I have serious reservations too.
For dinner tonight at a nice Italian place at about 7:30, somewhere on 3rd Street in Los Angeles.
If you want to join us, more news from Iran, Iran's hardline.
Senator Kerry, I'm not extending an invitation to everybody.
Iran's hardline Islamic regime has had enough of footballers, soccer players, with long hair and plucked eyebrows.
The head of Iran's physical education organization, Mohammed Ali Abadi, told the Etimad Melli newspaper, I will ban athletes with an effeminate look.
It is really disgraceful for Iran that young people step onto fields wearing makeup.
When a man enters the field of dyed hair and groomed eyebrows, he is disrespecting society.
The paper said that Ali Abadi appeared to be particularly worried about soccer players and warned that even though they get away with it now, they will be disqualified in the future.
And of course, this is the country that, along with Iraq, many Americans on the left and the Democrats think is being mistreated by the United States.
We need to accommodate them and understand their culture and so forth.
Here's Dave in Linwood, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hey, Yarush, it's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, you know, as far as Nancy Pelosi cleaning up the house is concerned, she might remember that 14 years ago, Bill Clinton promised that he was going to have the most ethical administration ever.
Yes.
Yeah.
Think she could follow in his steps in terms of cleaning things up?
Look, the thing that we have to do here, though, Dave, I appreciate that people want to comment on the relative ignorance, whatever else of the speaker-to-be, Nancy Pelosi.
But actually, what we need to do is encourage her.
And I'm thinking of changing my tactics.
I think we need to encourage the speaker-to-be to show up and speak more as the speaker-to-be.
Because she says things that, you know, like you, she inspires thought.
And she's caught up in the culture of corruption and stuff that most Democrats have decided to drop.
Maybe she knows more than they do, whatever.
We need to encourage her.
And the more that we make fun of her and intimidate her, the less that she might be inclined to continue to speak out.
Speaking of speaking out, one more soundbite here from Howard Dean from George Stephanopoulos.
Stephanie says, look, on this issue of the culture of corruption, I mean, I want to show our viewers two members of Congress right now.
William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, a businessman pleaded guilty to offering his family $400,000 for legislative favors.
A former staffer, a businessman friend of Congressman William Jefferson's.
He hasn't pled guilty to anything yet.
A former staffer of his has pled guilty as well, Congressman Mollahan, forced to leave the ethics committee because of questions of whether he was steering contracts improperly.
So he's mentioning a bunch of Democrats that have ethical problems to Howard Dean and then says, are you concerned that this is now a bipartisan culture of corruption?
There are individual congressmen that have made mistakes.
This is a culture of corruption that the Republicans have brought to Washington.
We know there's always been some level of people doing the wrong thing in both parties.
But there is a culture that goes from the White House to the vice president's office to the leadership of the United States Senate to the leadership of the United States House of Representatives and in the agencies.
Corruption has become a way of life and it has to change.
We have to pass real ethics legislation, not the nonsense that was passed last week in the House of Representatives.
See, I'm going to take you back the last hour.
This is why, And I'm not overly confident either.
I don't want anybody to accuse me of this.
I'm just telling you, this is not the kind of stuff that is magnetic and charismatic and draws people because everybody that pays attention to politics knows that you start talking about corruption, and it's they most people think it's a way of life.
And to single out one party over another is really going to take something like a watergate, where it involves a president for it for it to stick big time.
These little drive-by hits and so forth, they've already come back to bite the Democrats.
Silk call from Illinois.
This is Richard.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
Hey, 24-7 Dittos, the Oracle of the Airwaves.
Thank you, sir.
When you recording Miss America last hour there, she said, restore lapsed budget deficit controls.
Now, I run that through the liberal translation matrix in my brain that comes out as get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
Yeah, exactly.
Get rid of the Bush tax cuts, raise taxes again on the rich, get that top rate back up to 39 where it was with Clinton, and maybe even higher.
Don't cut anybody else's taxes because you say we're going to cut middle-class taxes when you've come time to do that.
You say something like, well, I worked harder than I've ever worked in my life.
I just can't find a way to do it.
Sorry, gang.
I can't fulfill this promise.
But I am going to raise taxes on the rich.
It ain't going to help you, but it's going to hurt them, you think, and you're going to feel much better because we're sticking it to them.
And there's no question that they make raising taxes is as axiomatic to them as drinking water.
All I'll say here from them is investigate that, probes into this, more investigations, more investigations.
What else are they going to do?
Well, I'll tell you something else.
It's not just the raising taxes in this sort of when he's when Dean and these guys or Nancy Pelosi start talking about balancing budgets and reducing deficits.
Would somebody look up for me, if you can find it, one time since budget deficits began to exist where a Democrat Congress or a Democrat president has presided over the balanced, the budget being balanced and the deficit being zeroed out?
It has happened.
It happened during Clinton, but it wouldn't have happened without the Republican takeover, seizing of power, seizure of power of the House of Representatives.
The Democrats talk about it.
They've never balanced a budget.
They don't want to balance a budget.
Deficit spending.
In fact, what they really are upset about, about this deficit, and it's the same thing they were upset with Ronald Reagan and his deficits.
It takes away their ammo, which is spending.
One of the things that Democrats, I'm sure I was part of Bush's plan, didn't pan out, but they're just frosted that all this big-time domestic spending's going on and they haven't been in charge of it.
Now, they're acting like they can't believe all this spending.
It's irresponsible.
They're mad that they weren't the ones spending it, folks, and they will do so if given half the chance.
I got to take a brief time out back after this.
Shocking news here, ladies and gentlemen, potentially disturbing news to many.
A confidential Ministry of Defense report on UFOs has concluded that there's no proof of alien life forms.
I'm not lying.
In spite of the secrecy surrounding the UFO study, it seems that citizens of planet Earth have little to worry about.
A report, which was completed in 2000 and stamped secret, UK ISO.
It's a BBC story, by the way, has been made public for the first time.
Only a small number of copies were produced.
The identity of the man who wrote it has been protected.
His findings were only made public thanks to the Freedom of Information Act after a request by Sheffield Hallam University academic Dr. David Clark.
The four-year study entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK tackles the long-running question by UFO spotters, is anyone out there?
The answer, it seems, is no.
The 400-page report puts it like the, well, why'd they keep it a secret?
That's only going to make people doubt it.
The veracity of it.
If you're going to go study UFOs, you find there aren't any UFOs to study, then why do you hide the report for six years?
The 400-page report.
And have they never seen James Carville?
A 400-page report puts it like this.
No evidence exists to suggest that the phenomena seen are hostile or under any type of control other than that of natural physical forces.
There is no evidence that solid objects exist which could cause a collision hazard.
So if there are no such things as little green men in spaceships or flying saucers, why have so many people reported seeing them?
Now, here's the science bit.
Evidence suggests that meteors and their well-known effects, possibly some other lesser-known effects, are responsible for some unidentified aerial phenomena.
No UFOs.
Sorry.
Jim in Los Angeles, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, you there?
Yeah, right here, Jim.
Thank you, sir.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
Pleasure to.
I'd like to touch real quick on the Hayden nomination, and I agree with you that I think it's a masterstroke of political genius because everything I've heard from the Democrats so far is the way they're framing this debate is on this so-called domestic spying baloney.
And the way I look at it is they're digging themselves a hole.
And when they get up there, when the hearings start, and he starts answering their questions, he's going to, number one, expose them for the weaklings on terrorism that they are.
But he's also, in explaining this issue, going to do that and expose them on hating the military.
And he's just going to bury them.
And I think it's going to crush him in the November elections, or it has the potential to do so.
And the other good thing about this is I think by Bush putting him out there and letting the Democrats frame the debate like they're doing and then sending him up there just to blow him out of the water, we're seeing a little of the old Bush that we know and love.
Yeah, I think you're right about that.
I mentioned that earlier.
This is one story, one episode, this whole NSA so-called domestic spy scandal.
I think Bush has been wanting this, you know, they cut a deal to squelch the first round of hearings.
And I think that that was done on purpose to whet the Democrats' appetite even more because the deal that was cut sort of squelched the hearings on it for a time.
And everybody says, see, Bush didn't want the hearings rushed.
He ended up caving.
He didn't want the hearings on this.
And I don't believe this.
I think they're spoiling for this.
I think nominating this man is sending him up there.
He'll be in uniform.
He worked at the NSA.
He'll be able to explain this program.
He will expose whoever on that committee starts mischaracterizing it, misstating it.
He's going to talk about how you blew the program anyway.
Whoever leaked the existence of this to the New York Times blew it anyway.
And now we've had to scatter and come up with new ways to find out who's talking to people outside the country, in the country, who might be planning attacks here.
And I think that the Democrats think that they've convinced people that it's nothing but a domestic spying program, and they end up believing their own lies.
So the Democrats are out there.
They say it enough, they believe it.
And so they think they've got the guy who worked with Bush to set it up.
And they're going to kill the guy off.
They're going to nail his nomination.
They're going to cream the guy.
And it's going to end up being like when Mrs. Alito started crying up there during her husband's confirmation hearings.
The whole thing, it's going to come back and bite them.
They're in this speaker bee mode.
They've already got the election won.
It's just a matter of time now.
Let the calendar tick down.
I do believe that this is something that the White House wants to happen.
Otherwise, you know, all weekend long, all weekend long, we heard, I can't be Hayden.
The president's got to pull this nomination.
He hadn't even made it yet.
It was just rumors.
Got to pull Hayden.
Why?
This is the guy that did the NSA spy scan.
This is the guy in charge of domestic spying.
He's too contentious.
It's an election year.
We don't need military people at the CIA.
Democrats, some Republicans wringing their hands.
Oh, no.
Do not believe that this White House is in total disarray.
Do not believe this White House is disengaged.
And don't believe that George Bush has given up any fight.
Don't believe that George Bush doesn't have some desire to put these people in their place.
And don't for a moment believe that George Bush still doesn't place as his number one priority the national security of this country.
I think this is going to be good because this guy Hayden, as the General Hayden, as the leader of the NSA intelligence guy, he's going to run rings around these pompous, arrogant senators just the way Roberts and Alito did.
You wait and see.
And now, you know, Democrats can hear me say this, and their staff can hear it, and their supporters, and they'll just think I'm, you know, off my rocker like they think I'm always off my rocker and so forth.
And they just will not learn from their past mistakes.
They keep making them over and over again.
And each time they make these mistakes, they make them bigger.
And they make them in more profound ways.
Thanks for the call out there, Jim.
I appreciate it.
The Audit Bureau of Circulations, FAS-FACS, report that was released today reveals that circulation sank again this spring, circulation at major metro newspapers declining dramatically.
Gains were slight.
Since March of 2005, circulation's been declining at a more rapid pace.
This spring, the numbers are expected to be better or were expected to be better because of easier comparisons.
Yet for the six-month period ending March 2006, compared to the same period a year ago, circulation at newspapers in major cities across the country continued to drop.
Most notable so far, the San Francisco Chronicle experienced a dramatic 15% decline in daily copies to 398,246.
Daily circulation at the Los Angeles Times dropped about 5.4%.
Sunday proved better for the paper.
It's only down 1.8%.
San Jose Mercury News, which McClatchy bought, also shows circulation in decreases in daily circ down 7.6%.
The Washington Post reported daily circulation slipped 3.6%.
USA was up nationally despite a price increase last fall.
Now, this is interesting.
This is drive-by media reporting on itself.
And they're stunned at a price increase.
And circulation still went up.
The price went up.
They expect prices to go up, activity to drop.
Why don't they understand that about tax increases?
They seem to understand it in a lot of other various areas.
The Baltimore Sun saw a significant decline.
Daily circulate, my heart bleeds for that.
They're down 9.3%.
The Sunday paper in Baltimore decreased 6.6%.
The Philadelphia Papers, which McClatchy put on the block after buying Knight Ritter, also showed declines.
The Philadelphia Daily News down 9.3%.
The Philadelphia Inquirer down 5%.
The Detroit Free Press up four-tenths of a percent.
Let's see, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News declined.
Seattle Post Intelligencer down 9%.
Kansas City Scar fell 5%.
St. Louis Post to Scratch, down 1%.
Newark Star Ledger up 9-tenths of a percent.
The Orlando Sentinel dropped 8.2%.
The Atlanta Urinal Constipation down 6.7%.
Chicago Tribune reported gains, both Daily and Sunday, up 0.9 and 0.3%, respectively.
It's not good out there.
And the Denver Post offered early retirements and buyouts to its editorial department back in April in an effort to reduce staff by 25 full-time positions.
That's about 10% of the department.
Of course, none of these changes will ever impact the journalism.
Here is Scott in Greenville, North Carolina.
Glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Mega Digos, Dash Rush from our longtime listener and students since 1988.
Thank you, sir.
That's your lifer.
Yeah, I'm a lifer.
Still learning.
Still learning.
I just wanted to concur with you about dear Nancy Pelosi's letting her continue to speak as much as possible.
Because when Kerry ran, he wanted us to elect him without telling us any specifics.
And now with Pelosi, we actually know the platform for a change.
Investigate, investigate, investigate.
Oh, raise minimum taxes too.
Minimum raise on the working labor.
Yeah, they're going to raise the minimum wage, and they're going to investigate.
Look at all this.
The way to make this real simple, the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, announced their agenda.
They're going to hate Bush even more.
Absolutely.
Pure and simple.
Police are being clear about it for a change.
That's a very unique feature.
And if Republicans can't seize on that, I think it's going to galvanize the conservative, myself a conservative.
I haven't been excited about some of the things President Bush has done.
But on the other hand, at least now we have a clear vision of what the alternative is.
By the way, what did I see?
I've got something about Kerry besides he's, ah, here we go.
Kerry says he has serious reservations about General Mike Hayden, but in the L.A. Times yesterday, Senator John Francois Kerry, who served in Vietnam, accused the Bush administration of stirring up a spirit of intolerance to suppress dissent over the war in Iraq.
What is this man doing, saying, thinking, watching?
Suppressing dissent over the war in Iraq?
Kerry said the administration was targeting opponents of the war in much the same way he was attacked for protesting failed policies in Vietnam in 1970.
Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but it's dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure or genuine debate.
He made this speech at Grinnell College of Grinnell, Iowa.
Although no one's being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily.
And the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.
Well, they're losing their minds.
They can't even watch what happens in this country every day and have it honestly registered.
Cindy Sheehan, who's suppressing her?
They could have all the anti-war protests they want.
Now, why can't I dissent and describe these people?
Why can't the administration, I'm not even aware that they do.
Bush has not put them down.
He did put down a drive-by media claiming that they were acting as propaganda arms for the enemy in Iraq.
I got to take a break here a little long.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard me correctly.
John Kerry actually said that the Bush administration is intolerant of dissent and it's risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running the country.
The dirty little secret, ladies and gentlemen, is this.
According to the left, what's unpatriotic is patriotism.
You want to display the flag.
You want to wear a lapel pen.
You want to sing stars and stripes forever.
They will shut you down and accuse you of nationalism or phony patriotism.
They're nuts.
They can go out and they can practice dissent all day long.
We can't dissent against them.
We can't comment.
We can't characterize them.
We have access to the First Amendment, too.
And you know what this spirit of intolerance really is?
You know, they have a new definition, Kerry does, of intolerance.
He's not saying the Bush administration is trying to shut them up because they can't say that.
They're not trying to shut any of them up.
In fact, they can't, the last time they gave an anti-war rally, nobody showed up.
Remember, they were dwarfed by the pro-illegal immigration rally just a day later.
So what they're actually saying, this is their arrogance, folks, and their condescension.
What this idiot Kerry is saying, a spirit of intolerance means why Bush isn't listening to them.
He is not implementing their policies.
He is not debating the dissenters and he is not respecting them.
And he's ignoring them.
And there's no debate.
As though he ought to be consulting with whoever Kerry has in mind here, Cindy Sheehan or himself or what have you.
Colleges, ladies and gentlemen, have a new plan here to attack binge drinking.
The remedy for rampant drinking in American colleges could be a crash course in the art of sensible social drinking, reminiscent of the old-fashioned formal cocktail hour, often a showcase for decorum.
Steve Benton, psychology professor at Kansas State University, said, My belief is that we have to face the fact that a certain percentage of college students are going to booze it up.
So what can we do to reduce the likelihood of them getting into trouble?
Students who tend to have attitudes that make them greater risk takers are more likely to get into trouble when drinking, he said, even when controlling the amount of alcohol.
It's not how much you drink that affects the amount of trouble, but how risky you are.
Indeed, social drinking has devolved into a full contact sport among party-hardy students, even on Campaign, that have banned alcohol.
The students simply go off Campaign to imbibe, often resorting to coarse drinking games such as bar golf, which sends them to different establishments, brandishing a scorecard to record how many gulps it took to polish off a beer.
So instead of this, you want to bring back the formal cocktail hour to teach restraint.
You people are drinking.
And the guy just got through saying it's not how much, it's how big a risk taker you are.
Well, if you're going to have a formal cocktail, the purpose of a formal cocktail hour was social, but if you look it up, you'll find that the purpose of a cocktail is to enhance the appetite, to wet the appetite.
That's really what the purpose of the cocktail hour was.
In these, you know, stuffed shirt, blue-blood, trust-fun country club type places, or back in the Rockefeller days when everybody got dressed up in a tuxedo every night to eat.
They had the cocktail hour, and of course you had people that abused the thing, and it had people violating the so-called decorum, but it did have a purpose.
The cocktail does have a purpose, just like the after-dinner liqueur has a purpose.
It's a digestive.
But, of course, it gets abused by a lot of people.
So now the solution in college, at least for this guy, is to, okay, let's, we know they're going to drink.
We can't stop.
It's sort of like let's give them a condom in high school and a clean pair of sheets and maybe leave a pack of cigarettes on the end table rather than have them engaging in this out-of-control behavior in the backseat of somebody's car.
So this is the, it's, it's, don't try to teach people what they're doing is harmful to themselves and try to get them to stop it or see it in a different light.
No, let them do it, but try to do it in a refined, sophisticated way.
It's.
I know, I know, take the break, but you know what?
George Mitchell examining steroids in baseball has asked former and current players to surrender.
Some of them surrender their medical records, ladies and gentlemen.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection