All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
May 18, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There's so many parts of this day that are just hilarious.
Do you know, I just saw this.
The Washington Post actually has an op-ed by John Conyers, the subject of which, oh, I'm not going to be in a hurry to impeach Bush.
I'm going to take my time about it.
Another headline, no rush to impeach Bush.
Now, what the hell is that?
They've got polling data that shows if that's what their purpose in getting elected is, it isn't going to work.
But there's anything Conyers out there to write this.
This is just absurd.
And it's just typical of how these people, they're clueless, literally out of touch.
Greetings, my friends.
Ah, the GOP divide.
Look at right there.
I knew it when CNN called and wanted me to go on the show tonight.
The GOP divide.
They're showing my questions to Cheney.
And now this Brooks column today, I knew it.
I knew it.
The drive-by media, when they detect, when they sense a rift in the Republican Party, it's orgasm time.
And they cannot wait to exploit it and expand it.
Yes, CNN called and wanted me to appear with Anderson Cooper tonight.
And I said, I can't do it.
EIB Network never sleeps.
I got the newsletter staff in town.
We have a working dinner tonight.
And I wouldn't do it anyway, but I can't do it.
It was very polite in telling them so.
There it is, the GOP divide.
So predictable.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, our last caller was Edwin from Fort Myers, Florida.
And Ed's, what's happening to our Representative Republic?
And the Republicans aren't responding to us the way we want on immigration.
And what do we do?
We go elect these people they don't govern and what do we do?
I dealt with this in great detail a couple days ago, but let me very briefly touch on this again.
Representative Republic does not mean, folks, that you elect people who go to Washington and then poll you and find out what you want and do it.
Some do.
Some are panderers.
Some go there and lead.
You know, Representative Republic has leaders, and sometimes a senator or congressman will say, look, I know you disagree with me on this, but I'm doing what I think's the right thing to do.
You elected me for my judgment.
And if when the guy or the woman is up for re-election and you don't like their judgment, then you vote against them.
It's how it works.
Which goes to the second point.
There's a rebellion going on one politician at a time.
Take a look at these primary elections that have taken place in the last two to three weeks.
It's typical, though, that a lot of the senators leading the charge on this idiocy of immigration, illegal immigration, are not up for election this year, but they will be at some point.
They will have to go back to the people of their states and ask for their votes again.
And it's built into the system.
Things change slowly in this country.
Radical change is actually not possible.
It's been Constitution was written, designed so that radical change wouldn't happen.
And the whole structure of the government's based that way.
And the whole electoral process is that we could have elections every day if we wanted to, if we wanted to try to do that, but that would be foolish.
So Representative Republic is not failing anybody.
It's just the way, if you're going to make the investment as a citizen of getting involved in this, then you have to understand it's a lifetime thing.
I mean, you're into it for the long haul, and your ideas and your principles matter, and you'll work constantly at trying to secure their dominance and their victory.
And that's why this talk of, oh, I've had it rushed.
Yeah, screw these people.
I'm not sending them anymore.
I'm not going to vote.
Well, you don't have to send them money, but when you don't vote, it's the same thing as voting for the other party.
And there is a distinct difference.
No matter how rotten you think our guys are right now, some of them, and it is hard to make a case for some of them, the alternative at this point in time in history to me is unacceptable.
And anything that leads to the alternative happening is a bad move.
That's why I want to talk about these two optimistic pieces.
Let's go first to Jeffrey Lord, former political director in the Reagan White House and the author of The Borking Rebellion Today at American Spectator Online.
The conservative victory in 2006.
Now, by the way, I know a lot of you people who are so depressed and down in the dumps that the idea of positive news, you think, is just going to make you feel even worse because you can't believe it.
And you've got to get over that.
Being optimistic sometimes takes, well, it always takes effort, feeling down in the dumps and lethargic and depressed and doom and gloomy.
It's much more natural for those emotions to overcome you than it is to think positive.
So don't reject this.
This is not pie-in-the-sky Pollyanna stuff.
Forget the predictions of disaster for the Republican Party in 2006.
This election is over before it starts and conservatives win.
Could Republicans lose control of the House or Senate?
Sure.
Would that make President Bush's life miserable for the last two years?
Absolutely.
But predictions of disaster for conservatives fly in the face of very solid history, ignoring completely the power of political paradigms.
Elections are about paradigms, not presidents.
In 1946, the dominant paradigm was the liberal worldview of tax and spend government combined with an internationalist foreign policy that today is referred to as American exceptionalism.
The liberal political theories behind FDR's New Deal had been seared into the American psyche thanks to the Great Depression and two world wars.
The GOP ran against Harry Truman in the 46 off-year congressional elections.
They didn't run against him.
They ran against Truman.
He won in the ballot, whipping the war-weary country to a frenzy on the slogan, had enough.
Liberals angry at Truman for not being FDR simply stayed home.
Republicans won going away, taking back control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1928.
Yet when Truman mounted the rostrum in the now Republican House chamber on January 6th of 47 to give his State of the Union address, he bet correctly that the dominant liberal paradigm was still the foundation of the American political mindset.
Truman poured forth liberal proposals for antitrust law, health insurance, child care, hospital construction, veterans and civil rights.
Biographer David McCullough notes that Truman did not retreat one inch from the domestic programs he had promised to a Democratic Congress as the sudden successor to FDR in his 1945 message.
The paradigm that had won Democrats eight out of nine of the previous national elections was totally intact in Truman's 47 speech, despite the fact Republicans had won the House and Senate.
The internationalist agenda that had become inseparably linked to the domestic big government policies of the liberal paradigm not only thrived after the 46 Democrat defeat, it made GOP converts.
On July 25th of 47, Truman's National Security Act was passed with significant help from Michigan Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a pre-war isolationist.
Vandenberg was now both the president pro tem of the new Republican Senate as well as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Shocked by Pearl Harbor visiting London during a German attack, the powerful Michigander had become a thoroughgoing convert to the FDR liberal paradigm of American exceptionalism in foreign affairs.
He helped lead the fight for, by the way, I have to intersect here or interject that the whole concept of American exceptionalism anywhere is no longer part of the liberal paradigm.
It has been totally co-opted by us.
They don't believe in American exceptionalism.
They think America is the enemy.
They think America is the problem.
They think America is too big.
Listen to Madeline Albrecht.
Listen to Bill Clinton running around the world, apologizing to every country that wants to listen to him about our supposed imperialistic transgressions.
This whole concept of American exceptionalism is gone from the Democratic Party and from the left.
Now, this is not to say that Republicans were incapable of using their election whim to score a political success, back to 46 here, that went against a dominant paradigm.
Ohio Senator Robert Taft co-authored what became landmark labor relations legislation, a Taft-Hartley Act.
When Truman vetoed the bill designed to rein in his union allies, the GOP passed it again over his veto.
Yet, Taft-Hartley stands out precisely because it is almost alone as a Republican success in an era when voters were simply unwilling to overturn the existing liberal paradigm.
Truman, his approval ratings having dropped a stunning 50 points to 32%, not only never retreated from the paradigm, he kept turning up the heat on those who fought it.
In January of 48, standing again in front of a frosty GOP Congress, he dumped still more liberal policy proposals on the table.
There was a massive housing program, aid to education, health care, support for farmers, an increase in the minimum wage, and more civil rights legislation.
When Republicans made a point of ignoring his ideas, Truman pounced, labeling the GOP legislators a do-nothing Congress.
And then he taunted his own liberal base, which had set out the 46 election.
You don't want to do like you did in 1946, Truman barked.
Two-thirds of you stayed at home in 46, and look what a Congress we got.
This is your fault.
That's your fault.
Truman knew his audience and knew that their favorite paradigm was liberalism.
And he got his stunning victory, his upset victory over Thomas Dewey, winning back a congressional Democrat majority.
Periodic Republican victories over the next 32 years not only failed to break the liberal paradigm, they spawned the cheap imitation known as Republican liberalism.
Not until the Goldwater insurgency of 1964 did the GOP begin to successfully develop its own conservative paradigm, a winning paradigm still the dominant template of today.
And what a parallel.
Here's Bush at whatever they say he is, 33, 35, 39, 29, tracking poll, whatever it is.
And Bush is not relenting and he's not retreating.
You may not like it, but I mean, he's not leading a conservative movement.
Don't misunderstand, but he's not giving them what they want.
He is still acting like he is the dominant figure and his policies are dominant, and they are.
This is a country dominated by a conservative paradigm today, folks.
And you get caught up and looking at approval numbers, tracking polls, and all this sort of stuff, a constant negative drumbeat of news from the drive-by media, and you get the idea that's not true.
But it is.
And I especially like the last paragraph of this piece.
Could Republicans lose in 2006?
Yeah.
Will the conservative paradigm lose?
Well, look at it this way.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't draw an audience of 20 million listeners because America is about to sign on to a new liberal paradigm of high taxes, illegal immigration, appeasement, and judicial activism.
So Mr. Lord, using this program and the size of its audience, meaning you, as an illustration of his theory that the conservative paradigm, and by the way, take a look at all of the efforts that the libs have made to make inroads in talk radio.
It's a dismal failure.
It's almost invisible.
So don't think, folks, that conservatism is losing and don't think that conservatism's losing favor and luster and that liberalism's making a comeback because it's not.
And that, folks, explains why you are so frustrated at Republicans inside the Beltway because they don't seem to get this.
They don't seem to understand where the country is.
They're more interested in not being thought of as cruel or mean, typical clichés thrown around about Republicans and conservatives.
And they're more interested in competing with Democrats on Democrat turf for the illegal immigrant vote and whatever else.
And that's why you're frustrated.
Okay, what do you do with your frustration?
You don't stay home, for one thing.
I don't care what you do contributing-wise, money-wise, but if there's a rebellion, you got to be on the field.
Back after this.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, depression, doom and gloom, despair, and even the good times.
All right, here's optimistic piece number two.
And by the way, one other thing, you know, when you go back to 46 and you review the period of time that previous writer, Mr. Lord, was talking about the period of American exceptionalism in American foreign policy, that that was a Democrat idea.
You go back in that era, you find that Democrats and Republicans agreed on foreign policy.
World War II and Pearl Harbor and so forth.
You didn't have the Republican Party trying to undermine Truman on the basis of the war and trying to defeat Democrats on the basis of depicting the war as immoral and unnecessary and so forth.
The stakes are much higher today, folks, when it comes to taking action on your part that might result in a change of power, because you've got a group of people who don't believe in American exceptionalism today, either domestically or in the case of foreign policy, and that's something to seriously consider.
Now, here's Gary Andres in the Washington Times today.
Conservative columnists have a case of congressional crankiness.
Take Peggy Noon at the Wall Street Journal, for example.
She wrote last week, Republicans on the Hill are so far off track it might take losing in November to unlearn the lessons of power.
Media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post found her mood so foreboding, he suggested only Prozac might lift conservatives' gathering gloom.
Frustration among conservatives is both palpable and understandable.
Many believe that their pens played a role in promoting the emergence of the Republican majority in Congress, many of these pundits, that their writings promoted all this.
But frustration is also a communicable disease, and selective memory loss is one of its symptoms.
Conservatives may need a dose of remembrance and a lesson in the limits of power the majority party faces in the modern Congress.
The same writers that helped inaugurate a Republican majority could hand congressional gavels to liberal lawmakers by creating a pandemic of low turnout among conservatives.
How soon we forget.
When President Bush took office, the economy was teetering on the brink of recession.
The Republican Congress passed legislation to cut taxes every year since Bush took office, including the latest, signed into law yesterday, extending capital gains and dividends tax cuts for two more years.
These fiscal policies championed by conservatives keep the economy surging forward, representing tangible evidence that supply-side economics works.
Don't bet that New York Democrat Charlie Wrangell, as Ways and Means committee chair, would continue this pattern.
Conservatives also promote legal reforms.
In the last couple of years, the Republican Congress passed and the president signed comprehensive class action reform, gun manufacturers' liability reform, and bankruptcy reform, all over the vigorous objections of the left and their friends in a trial bar.
Michigan Democrat John Conyers certainly would not follow this path as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
These are frightening thoughts, Wrangell and Conyers.
The Republican majority in Congress has been a bulwark defending the culture of life.
The 108th Congress passed and the president signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and a partial birth abortion ban.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi would not even schedule these items for a vote if she were the House Speaker.
Republicans in the Senate defeated the left by confirming two outstanding conservative jurists to the Supreme Court, John Roberts and Sam Alito.
They'll put a conservative imprint on the court, possibly for decades.
The list could go on.
It just seems that some conservatives have a case of selective amnesia overcome by the anti-Republican aroma in a Washington atmosphere with a nose that only smells bad news.
Have there been some missteps?
Sure.
But Republican lawmakers, like the rest of us, are fallible.
We elect politicians, not pulps.
Frustrated conservatives should arm and aim their fury at the real culprit, the 45 Democrat senators who have the means and motive to block most conservative initiatives.
Consider what the House, where majority really means 50% plus one, has passed in the last several years.
Permanent tax cuts, death tax elimination, medical malpractice reform, creating opportunity zones in urban areas, welfare reform, child interstate abortion notification, head start reform, just to name a few.
The House could have also adopted some version of social security reform with personal accounts and tax simplification had Senate prospects not been so bleak.
While Washington Shorthand says Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, the phrase is a misnomer.
Excuse me, a day after the 2004 election, I wrote in the Weekly Standard that conservatives ought to temper their expectations despite a four-seat gain by Republicans.
A combination of new Democrat tactics and old Senate rule still leaves the minority the power to frustrate the Republicans' legislative agenda.
It's a 60-vote chamber now, folks, with the filibuster and all that.
So instead of wallowing in frustration, conservatives need a new mantra.
There's more work to do.
They should begin by painting a more realistic picture of the meaning of controlling the Senate for conservative voters and then promote the creation of a real majority by trying to elect five to seven more Republican senators.
Prozac cannot lift the collective spirits of conservatives, but neither will Speaker Pelosi.
So, and what I especially like about this is the focus on praising the House and what they've done because with this immigration debate as highlighted, we can't lose the House, folks.
That's an imperative.
All right.
That's the injection of upbeat optimism for the day.
Of course, it always happens here back in a moment.
Hi, welcome back, my friends.
Great to have you with us here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Remember, there are no degrees and there are no graduates from this institute because the learning never stops.
Phone number 800-282-2882.
This is just hilarious.
The left is out there going orgasmic over Al Gore's stupid new movie.
What is the name of this idiotic movie?
An inconvenient truth.
And have you heard that Beverly Hills High School, 90210, going to let the students out of school, 1,500 of them, to go see the movie?
I kid you not, school's nearly on for the summer, but before the break, students at Beverly Hills Has Scruel will get a heat day when they get to ditch class to see Al Gore's new movie.
On May 24th, six days from now, 1,500 Beverly Hills Has Scruel students will be boarding 30 buses.
Buses use what?
Gasoline.
And they're going to be bused across town to see Al Gore's new global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood.
Sarah Utley, a science teacher at Beverly Hills Has Scruel, explained in an email to staff and students, this field trip has been funded by a very generous alum.
You get to see the film for free.
Utley would not reveal who was financing the school outing to mark the opening day of the movie.
We need parent volunteers who can ride the buses and sit in the theater, she said in her pitch.
The buses are arriving at 8 a.m.
Be back at Beverly Hills Has Scrool by 1 p.m.
The parents, I know the film's urgent trailer warns humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb.
If the vast majority of the world scientists are right, we have just 10 years.
And we've got the Al Gore destruction of the earth countdown clock right there at rushlimbaugh.com.
Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb.
If the vast majority of the world scientists are right, we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics, and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
Insiders claim that Utley has annoyed some students with her insistence that global warming is a proven science.
She's obsessed with it, said one source.
Can't we just go see X-Men?
There are some sensible students, obviously, at Beverly Hills High.
Is this not absurd?
Well, I mean, they can do it with that.
You know, it's some Hollywood leftist.
Some Hollywood leftist has funded all of this.
And I'm going to tell you, I'm going to go on record right now.
I think Al Gore is going to run for president again.
And I think that there are some Democrats out there who can't wait for it.
I think there's some Democrats think that a dream ticket would be Al Gore and Howard Dean.
And I kid you not.
And I think this movie, oh, they're that whacked, yes.
And this movie takes him back to his roots, Earth in the Lurch, the book that he wrote.
But the whole thing is absurd.
The whole panic behind global warming is simply absurd.
10 years.
You know, when I started this show in 1988, one of the first things that happened when I started this show was that noted oceanographer Ted Danson predicted if we didn't clean up the oceans in 10 years, the oceans would die.
And if the oceans die, we die.
Well, it's been 18.
It's been 18 years, and the oceans are still fine.
In fact, we sank or sunk whatever, an aircraft carrier from the Vietnam era out there in the Gulf.
And we did it to create a new coral reef for little fishies and wildlife to make homes out of, swim in and out of, and so forth.
Old rusted aircraft carrier blew it up, things sank.
Now, I would think that this is polluting the oceans, but no one's actually helping the little fish out there.
At any rate, there is a counter going on to Al Gore's movie, Big Oil has launched an attack on Al Gore.
Now, this is a headline from a liberal blog.
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls global warming alarmism and the call by some environmentalist wacko groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.
The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, being released just a week before the May 24th opening of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Well, who is CEI, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Washington Post explains.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says ExxonMobil is a major donor, largely as a result of its effort to push that position.
CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.
So what?
You've got a bunch of absolute whacked out, hate America liberals in Hollywood sponsoring a stupid, absolutely intellectually depraved, dishonest movie and now trying to propagandize and poison the minds of a bunch of Beverly Hills high school students, and nobody finds anything unusual or untoward about that.
In the meantime, big oil, the target of destruction among many targets of the American left, decides to defend itself, and they are attacked even for that.
Michael, Charleston, South Carolina, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Meganidas from the great state of South Carolina.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted to point out to our Republican representatives in the Beltway that I'm not sure who they think all of their Republican support comes from, but a lot of this new support that they're starting to see that's voting out the Democrats and the Republicans are the former liberals that are starting to see the way and starting to see that the conservative values are working for our country.
And maybe they need to be reminded of that so that they will step up and represent not only the people that have always given in their vote, but the new liberals they are converting to receive their vote.
Yeah, I do think you have a point about it.
I think there are new Republican slot conservative converts.
Well, I know it's happening because this show is largely responsible for a lot of them.
Absolutely.
And so are other programs like this.
But we're still back to what these guys, the Republicans in Washington, have to understand and realize and so forth.
I'm just going to make a prediction to you.
And folks, I don't want you to get frustrated by this.
It's as natural as the sun coming up in the morning, except for the next 10 years it won't, but until then it will.
And that is this.
By the time we get down to pedal hitting the middle on this election, you're going to see and hear some of the most conservative rhetoric out of these Washington Republicans that you've ever heard.
When it comes time to hit the campaign trail, you're going to be scratching your head.
I haven't heard this in two years or four years.
All of a sudden now.
And they're going to think that they can buy you back with this.
And that's okay because they know what wins elections.
You can watch that by watching how they campaign during election.
And by the way, they're going to pay attention at these rhino Republicans and how they're losing and why.
You know, if you're an open borders Republican and you're up for election, you may as well just resign because you are going to lose.
If you're a Republican that has worked with Democrats to promote high taxes or liberal social policy because you think America's too partisan and you want everybody to get along, if you're a Republican working with Democrats to promote Democrat ideas and liberal ideas, you are going to lose if you're up for election this year.
And they're noticing this, and they will as we get closer.
Look at McCain.
McCain's the best indicator of this.
What is McCain doing?
Everybody was on the belief that he was going to go his version of the bull moose party, third party.
And some say he still could if his attempts to get back in the good graces of America's conservatives, American conservatives, fails.
But clearly, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, he's clearly making a pitch to go get the people that he angered, enraged, and ticked off back in 2000.
He knows what we just talked about, the conservative paradigm.
So this will happen.
You're going to wonder, and then you should say, where's this been the last two years when you're in Washington governing?
You can say that to him.
You have that reaction.
Here is Will in Santa Cruz.
This is always an adventure.
Santa Cruz, California.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
I look forward to seeing you again at the Pebble Beach Pro-Am in January.
Thank you, sir.
I will be there.
Excellent.
My question is: if and when there is some meaningful legislation passed, let's say by the House, what is the chance that the ACLU types are going to pick this apart, take it to court, and Ginsburg and the rest of them go along with that?
There's always that chance.
That's why judicial reform is also part of our wide-ranging, never-ending, never-quit agenda.
Yes.
You know, in fact, the ACLU has already joined with Mexico to sue us over this National Guard business.
I have it in the stack here in the immigration stack.
I didn't get to it.
ACLU is out there going to join with Mexico to sue us if the Guard apprehends one illegal.
Yep, that's entirely possible.
But these things, take a look at the abortion debate.
I mentioned earlier that these things happen slowly.
It took us a long time to get to this perverted culture in some sectors that we have.
It took liberalism a while to inculcate people and create their own paradigm, if you will.
And we're in the process of reversing it.
And the public opinion on abortion is now in our favor.
Despite the Democrats' threats to filibuster, we've got two really, really fine new originalist jurists on the Supreme Court.
And there are probably going to be an opportunity to appoint one more before the president leaves office.
So these things, the reason I spent the first half hour of this hour chronicling some of the positive things that have happened.
All that you suggest is entirely possible because the left is never going to go away.
They are never going to give up.
They've got other problems.
They refuse to analyze their own role in their own demise.
And until they do that, they're never seriously going to fix things.
But they're also, folks, what are they going to do?
Remember the story earlier this week?
They're going to inject spiritualism into their campaign.
Inject it.
As though you're going to go to a syringe, put God in the syringe, go shoot up just for the campaign.
If you have to inject God or religion or spirituality in your agenda, it isn't there.
And so it's the same thing.
Smoke and mirrors.
They cannot.
They are hampered by one hard, cold reality.
They can't be honest about who they are and what they want to do because they'd be even worse shape than they are now.
I got to run because of the constraints of time back in just a second.
Hi, welcome back.
All right, folks, some other news here.
Time is growing short here.
Running out of precious broadcast moments for today.
This is amazing.
I found this at WorldNet Daily.
According to its president, the National Breast Cancer Coalition has revolutionized public policy in the quest to eradicate breast cancer.
But they have an odd way of running its revolution.
On May 4th, the National Breast Cancer Coalition announced the Golden Boob Awards.
The Golden Boob Awards to highlight the biggest boobs of all, the organizations that are using breast cancer purely as a way to make money or to promote an ideology.
I'm not making this up.
The National Breast Cancer Coalition actually came up with Golden Boob Awards.
Now, as they say here at WorldNet Daily, that they would so crassly refer to a body part carrying such deep sexual and maternal significance to those mourning or fearing its loss is shameful.
It's like announcing the Little Baldy Awards for child leukemia research.
NBCC's top nominee was the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer, of which I am an advisory member.
I don't know who wrote this, but it's somebody at WorldNet Daily.
NBCC accused the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer of using breast cancer as a scare tactic by asserting abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer.
Well, that's what the research is.
Anyway, typical libs, folks.
And of course, what's going on with RU46?
You know, all these women dying with this thing.
You think abortion is such the sacrament to the left that even a pill that pulls off the stunt of abortion without actually doing an abortion is not going to be investigated.
What?
They say they don't know why that's even worse.
You think the FDA, let's go look at Vioxx, shall we?
Let's go look at whatever the hell else we're getting off the markets that cause heart attacks, causes this, causes that.
But the RU486 pill, women are dying.
We're not sure about that.
You libs are just pathetic.
It's absolutely striking to watch you.
Joey Porter, Pittsburgh Steelers, number 55.
He's the team leader of the defense.
He's outspoken, motor-mouthed, puts bulletin board material up for the other team during the game.
Said Steelers are going to be in Washington White House on June 2nd to meet the president.
They're going to get their Super Bowl rings.
And Porter said, yeah, I'm looking forward to it.
I'm going to have some swagger when I walk in there, too.
I have something to tell him.
I don't like the way things are running right now.
I feel like he's got to give me some of my money back.
So I got something to tell Bush.
Now, as you people know, I love the Steelers.
And Joey Porter does qualify as rich.
But if he doesn't know that Bush has already given his money back, starting in 2002 when these tax cuts were authorized, if he doesn't know that already, anyway, they got to him and he says, I was only kidding.
I was just being Joey Porter.
I apologize.
Backing off what he said were tongue-in-cheek comments that he plans to tell President Bush next month that he dislikes how the country is being run.
It sounds like he's upset with his taxes.
Joey, go look at what they were.
Well, I don't know if you're being...
Go to your accountant and ask your accountant what your taxes would be under Bill Clinton's economic policies.
The first theme park, world's first theme park dedicated to sex and relationships, set to open in London's West End later this year, its promoters said today.
They're all excited.
The first sex theme park.
You Brits, we've already got one called a Clinton Library.
More than 40% of women.
No, there's more to the story, but I mean, the Brits think they've got a big deal with their sex theme park, and we've already got one.
Hell, we had a, it's the West End.
It's in Great Britain.
The White House is a sex theme park for Crying Out Loud in the 90s and has been moved to that double-wide display called the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor.
The Academy of Sex and Relationships, featuring high-tech and interactive exhibits together with new media displays, expects up to 600,000 visitors within its first year.
It's going to be at Piccadilly Circus.
Titillation's not the goal.
No, no, of course they probably want to make sex boring.
What do you mean, titillation's not the goal?
You're going to have the first sex theme park and you're not trying to titillate?
Our vision is to build a Kenzie-type institute in Europe for Generation Y and Generation X to bring modern thinking around sexuality.
It truly is the world's first theme park dedicated to sex and relationships.
Well, they're going to talk about relationships.
I'll guarantee you, not very many guys are going to show up.
All right, folks, that's it.
Another Sterling three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence in the can.
It's the fastest week in media, and tomorrow is Friday, Open Line Friday.
It's always exciting.
I look forward to seeing you there.
Thanks for being with us today.
▲
Export Selection