All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
June 19, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to youth realseekers, music lovers, conversationalists, and if you're just lazy and not doing anything, welcome you to the Rush Limbaugh program, the one and only excellence in broadcasting network, 800-282-2882 is the number.
If you would like to call on me on the program today, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We are in New York.
We are at the high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan.
We'll be here through, what is it, through Thursday and then have to go to DC, but that's just a quick in and out.
And so we're looking forward to it.
A lot of a beehive of activity planned up here.
And it's the only reason that I came, necessity.
But nevertheless, we make the most of it.
We got lots of stuff in the news today, folks.
Everybody's saying, do you have the John Murthy soundbutt?
Yes, folks.
I have the John Murthy soundbutt.
But we're going to get to them.
You don't have to ask something that big.
You can count on the fact that we are going to have that.
What you don't know is what else we've got.
I don't either.
I'm just going through the I'm just going through the roster.
Nah, I know what we've got.
It's going to be great.
Start off a little lighthearted stuff here.
They're going after Starbucks now.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is going after Starbucks because of their high-fat products.
Now, you're going to have to forgive me here, folks.
I have yet to be in a Starbucks.
I've never gone in one.
And I'm not putting it down.
I have no criticism of it.
It's just coffee has never been a destination for me.
And I mean, I'll have coffee at the desk when I get to work.
But going to a coffee place, that's all they've got.
I mean, what in the world is high?
What are they doing at Starbucks that is high-fat?
Enough to get them sued.
Starbucks Corp may be next on the target list of a consumer health group.
This is these wackos that have never done anything.
Center for Science in the Public Interest said that they're planning to campaign against the global cafe chain.
Do they serve food in there?
They serve.
Oh, they do.
What kind of food do they serve?
Muffins and stuff.
Cake?
All right, but that's it.
I mean, it's just, it's not a full big menu with a kitchen back there.
Well, what?
No, you can't get a steak sandwich.
You can't.
Well, then, what is it?
They must be using straight lard for the cream in the lots.
Lot days.
Well, anyway, the Center for Science and Public Interest.
I hate to be ignorant, I really do, but I mean, when I haven't been in there, I'm not going to fake it and act like I know what goes on in there.
I don't.
So I have to ask people who have experience.
So anyway, the Center for Science and the Public Interest said it's planning to campaign against Starbucks because of the increased risk of obesity, heart disease, and cancer associated with the high-calorie, high-fat products it sells.
The possibility of legal action against Starbucks, similar to the case it's taking against Kentucky Fried Chicken, has not been ruled out, said the executive director, Michael Jacobson.
Regular consumers of Starbucks products could face Venti-sized health problems, Jacobson said, referring to Starbucks' use of the Venti designation for large.
This just dumbfounds me.
It just, have you ever been to a Starbucks?
You have.
You realize you're on the verge of dying.
Do you realize you don't know what's good?
It's a coffee shop, right?
It's a coffee joint.
And it's owned by a bunch of liberals.
It's a perfect liberal hangout, perfect liberal thing to do.
Go in there, read the New York Times, act like you're smart, act like you care, sip your latte, and die.
And use the Wi-Fi.
Yes, take your laptop in there, use the Wi-Fi.
And now another liberal group wants to put you out of business.
Jacobson said Starbucks may have been spared the scrutiny fast food chains received recently because of its health-conscious image.
People expect foods from Dunkin' Donuts to be unhealthy, but Starbucks is more of an upper-middle-class, healthy hip, politically correct facade.
Said, Michael, it's a facade.
It's all a joke to screw and fool liberals into coming in and getting heart disease.
Yeah, it actually sounds like it sounds like I ought to be the owner of Starbucks.
It sounds like something I would do.
Create some hip joint, attract a bunch of liberals in there and secretly clog their arteries, making them think they're just drinking coffee.
And then there's this.
A healthy dose of vegetables every day may help keep the heart arteries clear.
According to a study in mice, researchers found that lab mice, given a diet full of broccoli, carrots, green beans, corn, and peas, develop far less artery narrowing than those reared on a veggie-free diet.
See, folks, you are so fortunate to have me as your host.
They can't fool me with this.
You remember that if you've been here a long time, back in 1991, we did a story.
Everybody who has eaten carrots in the history of humanity is dead or will be.
Not a single person who has eaten carrots has survived or will survive.
Everybody.
Everybody who has eaten peas eventually dies.
Everybody who has been in a major automobile accident has eaten carrots at some point prior to the accident.
Everybody who has had a heart attack, everybody who has had a stroke, everybody who has beat up somebody in a fit of rage, everybody who has AHDD or DDD, whatever it is they give you Riddling for, has eaten carrots at some point prior to acquiring the disease.
And they can't fool me.
Now, nothing but vegetables going to unclog the arteries.
And then you go to Starbucks and you just destroy all of the goodwill that you have built up.
And then there's this.
HR, suspend the screening here for just a second because I want you to hear this.
Some husbands, a story out of India, some husbands in Western India are renting out their wives to other men, cashing in on a shortage of single women available for marriage, according to a news report today.
Atta Prajapati, a farm worker who lives in Kajarat state, leases out his wife, Laxme, to a wealthy landowner for 8,000 rupees.
It's about $175 a month, according to the Times of India, citing unidentified police officials.
A farm worker earns a monthly minimum wage around $22 US dollars or 1,050 rupees.
Laxme is expected to live with the guy that her husband rents her out to, look after him and his house, and have sex with him.
So it's become a way, you know, earn a little bit more money in India.
Rent out your wife because there's a shortage of available women in India.
Well, just outsourcing, renting, whatever.
That sounds like a great idea to me.
Let's take a brief timeout.
We'll come back and get started with all the, well, that is serious stuff.
It is serious stuff, but we have even more serious stuff when we get back.
By the way, hearty welcome to all of you watching on the Ditto Cam today at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
We are, by the way, we're working on, since, you know, Sunday, yesterday was Father's Day.
And by the way, thank all of you for the email Father's Day cards.
I wasn't fishing for Father's Day.
I was just mentioning the fact that I hadn't received any.
I wasn't fishing for them.
But we came up, we're in the design phase now, but a new product for the EIB store.
You know, those silly little yellow signs that people put in the back window of their cars, the baby on board?
We're going to make up some that say Rush Baby on board and put them in the EIB store as soon as we get the design phase over, which should happen pretty soon.
I'll keep you posted.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, we'll be right back after this.
Well, this is really cool.
I was hoping something exciting would happen today.
North Korea yesterday threatened to mercilessly wipe out U.S. forces in case of war during a national meeting to mark the 42 years of Kim Jong-il's work at the ruling party.
The threat in a ruling party report carried by the Korean Central News Agency came as North Korea was reportedly preparing to test fire a long-range missile despite strong protests from the United States and its allies.
A ranking working party, Workers' Party official said Washington was hell-bent on provocations of war of aggression in the report to mark the 42nd anniversary of Kim's start at the party.
So they're up there.
They're fueling this missile.
They're going to test it.
It's going to demonstrate that they could send a missile that would hit us.
And so, of course, what's the reaction here?
Well, the Washington Post headline, opponents Mount Drive to stop North Korea test.
Governments opposed to North Korea's apparent plan to test a long-range missile stepped up a diplomatic drive to stop the law.
Well, that's exactly what we need.
More diplomacy, ladies and gentlemen.
Yes, diplomacy.
More diplomacy.
More diplomacy in Iran.
More diplomacy in Iraq.
Let's have more diplomacy.
After all, it was diplomacy that got rid of Abu Mu Sabal Zarkawe, wasn't it?
We've been doing diplomacy for how long with this little pot-bellied dog eater.
And understand they're eating cats over there down there.
These people make me sick.
It's what we need, more diplomacy while they fuel their missile.
Hey, I have an idea.
Sanctions.
Let's sanction them.
Let's take away their opportunities to have economic growth.
Let me tell you something, folks.
That country is already in a world of hurt.
The only people eating over there are the army and the leaders of that potbelly little dictator's party.
At any rate, more huffing and puffing.
And this, you know, this is one of the, what shall I say?
This is one of the outgrowths of the policies of the Clinton administration and Madeline Albright, who diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
Well, what are you saying, Rush?
Is it to go over there and nuke them?
No, I'm not saying go over and nuke them.
I used to go over and bomb them.
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm just, you know, you can sit there and act frightened and you can act afraid and you can think that diplomacy is going to get these guys to stop doing what they're doing, but it won't.
At some point, we're going to have to deal with reality.
You remember when Nelson Mandela was here, ladies, and he came to New York shortly after being freed and he got a tour of the city.
And General Dinkins was the mayor, then mayor for life.
They took him out to Yankee Stadium, had a big rally and reception for.
I'll never forget Mandela was, and just, you know, I make note of people's speech patterns.
He was saying, we love you.
We respect you.
He too proud to beg.
Temptations.
1968, I believe.
Well, we love you, John Murtha.
I have to tell you, folks.
Another liberal walks into doors, bounces off the wall, delivers a historic unintended consequence speech or appearance on TV.
The Pennsylvania Democrat.
By the way, do you know he has an opponent?
There's a woman running against him, and she is a babe.
She is a babe.
I have to, you don't see too many babes in politics.
Showbiz, you know, politics showbiz for the ugly.
This woman's a babe.
She's married.
She's got three kids.
I'll have to get you her name because she's got a chance here, especially if Mirtha and the Democrats keep making the investment that they are making.
I think Murtha, backbencher for 32 years in the House of Representatives, has done something no politician has done in years.
He has found common ground between the left and the right.
He is the poster boy for the cut and run left, and he's the poster boy for the rest of us.
He's the darling of the drive-by media.
Tim Russard had an exclusive with Murthy.
Exclusive.
Murtha's everywhere.
But I guess he was only on NBC for 20 minutes yesterday, so I guess they could call it an exclusive.
Let's listen to some of what John Murtha said.
First off, on Friday, you got to hear this one if you didn't hear this.
On Friday, the situation room with Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf says, now you led the fight, Congressman, against this resolution.
It passed 256 to 153.
That was the resolution to set a timetable to get out of Iraq.
Is this a vote of confidence for the president's policy and strategy in Iraq by the House of Representatives?
The thing that disturbs me and worries me about this whole thing, we can't get him to change direction.
And I said over and over in the debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut, President Reagan changed direction.
In Somalia, President Clinton changed direction.
And yet here, with the troops out there every day suffering from these explosive devices and looking at those occupiers, 80% people want us out of there.
And yet they continue to say we're fighting this thing.
Well, we're not fighting this.
The troops are fighting this thing.
That's who's doing the fight here.
He's starting to ramble now, but this is a classic illustration and a serious example of why these people are not ready to lead.
Somalia, he called that a change of direction.
And he praised Clinton for understanding, you know, we can't get bogged down in this place.
Okay, they killed some of our Rangers in a battle that we won.
We won the battle that became the book in the movie Black Hawk Down, but because they dragged through the streets of Mogadishu dead Army Rangers, oh no, we couldn't handle that picture.
Osama bin Laden was watching, and it was that instance which told him that we could not take casualties and inspired him to come after us with even greater firepower and strategy.
So now here's Murtha calling this a change of direction.
And Ronald Reagan changed direction in Beirut, he said.
Clinton changed direction in Somalia.
And that's what he wants to do in Iraq is change direction.
He doesn't understand that what he, I don't know if he understands it or not.
This is the thing.
This guy's his reputation, folks, Murthy's reputation and image is one of a great war hero, great Marine, been around for a long time.
And so he's infallible.
He's got credibility.
You can't criticize Jack Murtha.
Why, he was a Marine.
Why he fought for his country.
Why?
You can't attack him.
The left always throws out these people that you can't attack.
They say, why have you no shame going after Jack Murthy?
Well, if Jack Murthy, I don't care if he's a Marine, if he was a dog catcher, if Jack Murthy's going to insert himself in the political sense, which he can and he should.
He's a member of the House of Representatives.
Well, then, by golly, we're going to respond in kind.
And he's stupid.
This is dangerously stupid.
But can I look at, folks, it's all academic.
It really is all academic because every time the Democrats put it to a vote to get out of a rock, in the Senate, they get six.
In the House, they got 150-some-odd.
Or was it 142?
And 40-some-odd Democrats voted with the Republicans.
I mean, Jack, it's time to shut up about this.
You keep losing it.
Your Democrats are not going to put their votes where your mouths are.
You can keep drumming this butt all you want, but nobody is going to go along with you.
The American people don't want to pull out of a rock right now.
The majority don't.
It would be a disaster.
You think Mogadishu was a lousy change of direction?
This would be even, I mean, it would be something we don't even want to comprehend.
Now on Meet the Press yesterday, Russert talking to Murthy, they said, Carl Rove invoked your name in New Hampshire.
Let me show you that comment.
Rove said, I want you to think about the consequences of their proposed course of action.
If Murthy had his way, American troops would have been gone by the end of April and we wouldn't have gotten Zarkowi.
What's your response to that?
Let me tell you, they built Zarkawi up.
They have a thousand foreign fighters.
This is a civil war, and we did it from the outside anyway.
To say that it wouldn't have happened is absolutely a political statement.
Okay, getting dangerously close here to Tom Hayden territory.
Tom Hayden out there recently saying he wasn't sure if Zarkawi wasn't even one of ours, an agent, CIA agent of some kind.
And now we build Zarkowia.
Zakawai really wanted a dangerous guy.
We built him up.
We made him into something far worse than what he is.
Besides, we got him from the outside anyway.
We didn't need to have troops underground.
This is, you know what's limiting me in commenting on Jack Murthy is I've always been told by my parents, I was raised, don't make fun of the senile.
Don't make fun of those with a diminished mental capacity because they can't help it.
And we may have arrived at one of these times.
This is an absurd statement that were it not for the fact that a lot of Democrats and their wacko bass glom onto this and think, ooh, wow, this is terrific, then almost would let it go.
You know, we had Nancy Pelosi last week.
It's time to face the facts, Mr. President.
I wonder if these Democrats and liberals listen to their own words.
Time to face the facts, Ms. Pelosi.
Cut and run, lost the House.
Cut and run, lost in the Senate.
Every time you want to pull out, every time you want to put your votes to where your mouths are, you always don't get the votes.
You can't even get your own party to take a stand.
Cut and run now, cut and run by the end of 06, cut and run by the end of 07.
Cut and run when.
What you're doing is caterwauling with America, and that's about all we can afford to let you get away with right now is just a bunch of caterwauling.
Back in just a second, folks.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
America's real anchor man behind the golden EIB microphone, El Rushbo, back to one more soundbite.
We'll get to your phone calls here in just a sec.
One more soundbite from Meet the Press.
Tim Russert talking to Jack Murtha.
Russert said, now Carl Rove went to New Hampshire.
He talked about Democrats who voted for the war and who have now changed their opinion.
And here's what he had to say.
Rove.
Like too many Democrats, it strikes me that they're ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, when it gets difficult, they fall back on the party's old pattern of cutting and running.
They may be with you at the first shots, but they're not going to be there for the last tough battles.
They're wrong and profoundly wrong in their approach.
And so Murthy reacted.
He's sitting in his air-conditioned office with a big fat backside saying, stay the course.
Stop that type of thing.
Now, this is we're at the highest levels of government.
We've got an infallible critic of the war, a Democrat, Jack Murthy, 32 years in Congress, a great Marine.
Carl Rove, chief advisor to the White House.
We have Jack Murthy saying, he sits in his fat backside saying, stay the course, sitting in his air-conditioned office.
A personal attack, resorting to a personal attack when Rove didn't attack Murthy personally, just attacked his ideas and his policy.
That's not a plan.
I mean, this guy, I don't know what his military experience is, but that's a political statement.
I disagree completely with what he's saying.
When we went to Beirut, I said to President Reagan, get out.
Even in Somalia, President Clinton made a decision.
We have to change direction.
Even with tax cuts, when we had a tax cut under Reagan, we then had a tax increase because you have to change direction.
We need to change direction.
We can't win a war like this.
I'll tell you, it's interesting.
Eleanor Clift, writing in Newsweek, might be saying, Eleanor Clift, what are you doing reading Eleanor Clift?
I don't read Eleanor Clift.
Eleanor Clift came to me.
Somebody sent me this piece.
I don't search around looking for Elder Clift pieces because I usually get what I know I'm going to get.
But in this case, you know, she had her little dagger out for Rove, and more and more members of media are doing this too.
But the drive-by media are getting worried here about the Democrats, their Iraq position, because they don't have one other than cut and run.
But in some cases, it's cut and run in 2006 to come to cut and run in 2007.
In other cases, like John Kerry, get out now, get out as soon as we can.
Others want to deploy.
Meanwhile, Rove is setting them up.
Rove has been running around telling Republicans we're going to hang our mantle on the war at Iraq.
And at least the Republicans have a policy and a strategy and confidently are following it.
And this is upsetting pro-Democrats in the drive-by media who think the Democrats are just caterwalling and making no sense whatsoever.
And it's also becoming apparent to more and more people that this cut-and-run business, you know, you can call it that or you can say we need to redeploy, need to get out.
But what's becoming clearer and clearer, even to the most casual observers in the American population, is that the Democrats are invested in defeat.
They're invested in the defeat of the president's policy.
They're invested in the defeat of the war that we are waging against this particular enemy.
And how they think this is going to help.
Murthy's got these polls he cites.
80% of the Iraqis want us out.
Not true.
Murthy has these polls suggesting that the vast majority of the American people want us out.
Not true.
Now, in addition to Murtha, we've got Cindy Sheehan.
She's somewhere, I guess, in Vienna, and she's sidling up to anti-American communists, wherever this economic meeting the president's attending is.
Bring it on.
You know, more Jack Murthy.
Let's have more John Kerry.
Let's have more Gore.
Let's have more of the daily spokesman of Nancy Pelosi.
Let's have it.
Bring it on.
And the same thing with Mother Sheehan now.
Washington Times today, Representative Jack Murthy, says Democrats are uniting around his call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
His plan was echoed yesterday by Senator Feinstein, widely considered one of her party's leading voices on national security.
Two-thirds of the Democrats agree with my position now, Murthy said on Meet the Press.
Everywhere I go, people understand what I'm saying.
The public's been way ahead.
Feinstein on CNN said the Iraq mission has taken too long.
I don't know why we're so afraid to stand up and say, look, we want to see an end to this thing.
Three years and three months into a mission was supposed to take 30 or 40 days.
That isn't cutting and running.
It is most certainly cutting and running.
But all of this is academic.
I don't know where they're coming up with this business of two-thirds of Democrats agree with him.
They got six votes for pulling out in the Senate.
They got 12 or whatever it was, 142 votes in the House with 42 Democrats, all up for re-election in the House, voting with Republicans.
And in the Boston Globe today, Democrats set to call for phased pullout.
Congressional Democrats, seizing on public discontent over the war in Iraq, will offer legislation.
What is this?
On the heels of killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and of this government assuming control in Iraq.
With all the progress that's taking place, the Democrats, this is like a suicide mission.
I mean, I'm having trouble understanding how they time it this way after the events of last Bush.
Bush just may have had the best week of his presidency.
And what are the Democrats?
Get out now.
It's not called cut and run.
It's called change direction.
Actually, it's called give up.
It's called quits.
It's called surrender.
All these people, you know, Rove is right.
They couldn't wait to vote to start this war.
They couldn't wait because they thought the American people were all for it.
I'm going to tell you something, folks.
Just mark my words here.
In fact, I'm not going to use my words.
Got to show you this.
I've got to find something John Fund has published today in the Wall Street.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Try this.
This is, I'm just going to read you the first two paragraphs.
During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there.
All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty, the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters.
Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react.
Listen to this.
This sentence was not written accidentally.
One wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced.
Would they step back and reevaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick?
Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.
Now, I don't, I just happen to believe, I know how these things work, folks, and I don't believe that sentence is in there accidentally.
And I have it say anything about this because I don't like to spread things around that end up having to be explained later.
But there is a treasure trove of documents continuing to be discovered, being released.
And I have, I've been hearing little whispers, little whispers about evidence of WMD.
Not enough to tell you, folks, get ready, this is coming.
But when I see this sentence from Fund in the Wall Street Journal, you don't write that by accident.
Now, let's just play a game.
Let's just be hypothetical because he raises a good question.
What if incontrovertible evidence soon is produced of weapons of mass destruction?
We know that Saddam had a relationship with al-Qaeda before 2003.
Zerkawi was in there in 2002.
And we know all these.
They are purposely ignoring all of these things.
And what are they going to do if there is evidence?
Because the whole theory of getting out of there is that Bush lied, this was unnecessary, lost American treasure.
I am just here to tell you that there is nothing I have seen to cause me to think their fortunes are going to change.
They are still going to open a door right into their nose and bloody themselves.
They have been doing it since 2000.
They did it in 2002.
They did it in 2004.
They are doing it now.
They are going to come back, and this is going to bite them, this and a number of other things.
People that act the way they're acting, people that lie the way they are lying, people attempting to destroy the things that they are attempting to destroy do not ultimately win.
Not in a country like this.
They might win if this were a totalitarian regime led by a dictator, but in a free and open republic, people like that, when they make their move as a party philosophy that doesn't inspire, that doesn't motivate, that doesn't stand for anything large, that doesn't stand for anything with meaning.
All it is is in negative doom and gloom.
They don't win.
And they're going to continue to make mistakes.
And they're going to be big ones on occasion.
And these big ones are going to blow up right in front of them.
You mark my words on this, folks.
In addition to all this talk about the Democrats unifying, CNN, Democrats' congressional support eroding.
The efforts of Democratic caucuses in both houses of Congress to set a midterm election agenda have had a definite effect on their standings with the electorate.
They've eroded them significantly.
According to CNN, Democrats have lost seven points and the majority in support of a generic party preference while Republicans have remained steady.
When registered voters polled were asked if they were more or less likely to vote for a candidate Bush supported, 47% said they were less likely, while only 27% said they were more likely.
20% said it made no difference.
Sampling error for the question plus or minus four percentage points.
However, the poll showed that Democrats have so far not been able to capitalize on these so-called Bush political difficulties.
When voters were asked which party would be their choice for Congress in November, 45% said Democrats and 38% said Republican.
12% were unsure.
However, in May, Democrats captured 52% in the same generic ballot question, showing their support had dropped seven points in a month.
But it's all academic anyway.
If these generic ballots were accurate, the Democrats would have won back the House in 2002, and they won back the House in 2004.
But the generic ballot is not accurate because for some reason, a drive-by media always inflates the power of the generic Democrats in the poll.
Wonder why that is.
So they end up coming up with flawed polling data that the Democrats end up believing, the media doing it because they hope it'll all come true.
In the meantime, they avoid reality and they're going to get smacked upside the head with some of this stuff that they're doing and it's going to be profoundly embarrassing.
And the only way they're going to be able to get out of it is to accuse Rove of a giant election year tweak.
Back after this, stay with us.
Ado.
Hi, welcome back.
Nice to have you.
L. Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
Maha Rushi.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go back to the phones.
We're going to talk to young Katie in Detroit.
What is this for you, Katie?
Second or third time with us.
I think it's my fourth time.
Fourth time.
Katie is the student who called here and had a political science dilemma in her political science class, saying that she had a professor who was a communist and wanted advice on how to deal with him.
And we had a call from, what was this young man's name last week?
Jason was Justin.
Justin.
Turns out Justin and Katie go to the same school, and you have a complaint about the way I dealt with Justin versus the way I dealt with you.
Yes, I do.
I got up on Friday morning and read the transcript of your conversation, and I thought, whoa, I know this kid.
And I got very upset because it seems like you contradicted yourself in how you handled his situation and how I handled my situation.
Wait a second.
There's one big difference.
You called me before you took the test.
You called me before the final exam.
You called me in the middle of the class.
This kid tells me what he did after the fact and calls here wanting absolution.
Right.
But the fact is, is you were very easy on him, and you basically said, well, if you're going to get anywhere in politics, if you're going to run for office, you're probably going to have to do that.
Well, I don't think that's necessarily true.
And I don't think that was right of you to tell him that because I obviously I could have, you know, in my class, there's been a lot of classes where I could have just sold out and gotten a higher grade.
But I just think that, I don't know, you're just encouraging him to like, oh, that's okay.
All politicians.
Katie, did you read the whole transcript?
Did you bother reading the whole transcript or maybe?
Yes, I did.
I did.
Well, then you know that even I came under assault from my own staff.
I know.
All right.
Snurdly jumped on me.
And I ended up sharing with young Justin, the kid, as you say, everybody's thoughts.
But if you think I was being complimentary when I told him to go into politics, you're misunderstanding.
Oh, all right.
Well, I mean, that's how I took it.
That's how I read the transcript.
No, if you're going to be willing to sell out your position every time it takes to get something personally you want, go into politics.
That's all I was telling him.
But you're bigger than that.
You're better than that.
You have principles.
You wanted to stand on them.
And you attempted to educate the teacher in the class.
You were trying to better yourself.
You weren't selling out.
He had a goal.
He wanted to get a 4.0 all through school.
It was going to take him someplace.
You know, everybody has their own agenda, their own desires.
But he exhibited traits that, to me, reflect perfectly on the resume for a politician.
So basically, I probably shouldn't get into politics then, correct?
Well, you once said that you wanted to do that.
Look at this.
Well, yeah, I'd like to.
I'm just a secretary in the White House.
Katie, excuse me, I'm watching a replay of John Mirth on Meet the Press.
I'm telling you, he troubles me.
I mean, it does not look all there.
It doesn't look right.
I have to share that with you.
He looks a little possessed with the spotlight, obsessed with the spotlight, and got more than his 50 minutes of fame.
No, Katie, politics needs people like you, just like journalism needs people like you.
Well, I mean, am I going to have to, if I eventually want to be press secretary at the White House, does that mean I'll have to sell out in order to get anywhere?
Well, that's not a question of selling out.
If you want to be press secretary of the White House and you sign on with the press, let's say you pull that off.
You work for him.
He is the policymaker and is the press secretary.
It is your job to go echo what he believes, what he thinks, what he wants, and do it in a way that helps communicate it to people.
You're not going up there as Katie.
You're going up there as a representative of the president.
So, no, that's not selling out unless you support a president who is 180 degrees out of phase with you just to get the job.
Right.
That would be selling out.
Okay.
Well, because that's how I see, I mean, I think there's a difference between compromising and selling out because unfortunately, this kid, Justin, has given us College Republicans a bad name at Oakland University.
Not because of the call.
Not because of the call.
No, no, no.
I understand, but now we're getting to the bottom of it.
You and Justin, this guy has rubbed some people the wrong way, ruffled some feathers.
So you've called here to do your own version of an attack ad.
Sure.
Yes.
Well, I don't want to attack.
I just like to defend my.
See, okay, this is what has troubled me, okay?
I'm a senior now at Oakland University.
Okay, stop.
Katie, I have to run.
But let me tell you something.
The worst thing you can do is compare yourself to other people.
Be who you are.
Do not measure yourself against others in that regard.
Don't resent them.
Don't think they're getting away with things that you don't.
It's not true most of the time.
Be who you are.
I got to run.
Back after this.
Something going on in the drive-by media regarding immigration, ladies and gentlemen.
Show prep today revealed this to me.
▲
Export Selection