All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
June 19, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I'm just reading this story, this column by E.J. Deion Jr. in the Washington Post on Friday about the mellowing of the evangelical Christian community.
And I'm not so sure that E.J. gets it.
But hey, we'll get to that in due course, folks.
Lots to do in our remaining hour here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, EIB Network, 800-282-2882.
If you would like to be on the program, grab audio soundbite 17.
This is why it is great to have a press secretary who understands media and is willing to take these guys on.
Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, was on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer yesterday.
And Blitzer holds up the Washington Post.
What is this?
Democratic Leaders Outline Iraq troop withdrawal plan.
Oh, great.
Carl Levin up there announcing a troop withdrawal plan.
Bring it on.
That's what we need.
More guys like Carl Levin to inspire America.
More guys like Carl Levin to sit there and inspire the American people to follow the Democrats down whatever rat hole they're headed towards next.
But at any rate, Blitzer holds up the Washington Post.
He says the Washington Post published a fascinating cable today, a report written by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department signed by Ambassador Khalizad, in which it painted a very, very grim picture, Tony, of what's going on in Iraq right now.
I know that many have complained that the news media is only focusing on the negative, but here the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad paints a pretty stark picture of what's going on right now, and the reality is gloomy.
That's taken in mid-May.
Here we are.
We're a month later.
And I've just told you, you've got 50,000 Iraqi troops that are now focusing on those problem areas in Baghdad.
What's interesting is, hand me that for a second, because there was an interesting lead on this story where it was said hours before President Bush left on a surprise trip for an upbeat assessment of the situation, he didn't go there for an upbeat assessment of the situation.
He went there for a realistic assessment.
And he got it from the prime minister, and he got it from the electricity minister, and the oil minister, and the minister for human rights, and the minister for national reconciliation.
So this was not the president trying to do a victory lap.
No, it was the president now realizing you got somebody you can work with to deal with problems like this.
I still am amazed at the timing of all this.
It's exactly what I expected to happen.
We nailed Zarkawi.
It is the epitome of good news.
Bush has one of the best weeks of his presidency last week and a couple of days prior to that.
And so what do the Democrats do?
Redouble their effort to paint this whole thing as a lost cause.
And they get, of course, their willing accomplices and a drive-by media to go right along with it.
In fact, the Washington Post citing a 30-day old story preceding any of the good news of the last week.
Thank goodness Tony Snow was there to correct this and put it in the proper context.
All right, San Francisco Chronicle today.
Ordeal of entering U.S. legally.
No plan in Congress will solve the complexities, experts say.
A bunch of big papers today that are doing large stories on illegal immigration.
And they work hard.
It's hard to enter.
Legally, everybody does it.
No one's fined, etc.
The headlines are what's of note here, but it's how many of them there are.
As I say, ordeal of entering U.S. legally.
No plan in Congress will solve the complexities.
So, all right, so again, come on, what are we doing here?
It's so hard to get in here legally.
What do you expect these people to do?
Back off, Republicans.
And then the New York Times, here illegally, working hard and paying taxes.
Come on, the New York Times.
Let them stay.
Let them stay.
It's so hard to get here.
Well, why do you think this has happened?
We got one more, I think, here.
Yes.
From the Washington Post.
Illegal hiring rarely penalized.
Politics 9-11 cited in lax enforcement.
Bush's highlighted here is short on enforcement, but it's been a steady retreat.
And then the L.A. Times, Georgia law chills Latino home buying market.
Legislation against illegals will hurt property values.
Why, we can't allow this to happen.
Come on, let them stay.
In fact, come on, let them come on in.
It is just an amazing thing to look at this stuff.
And you have to be able to read the stitches on a fastball.
You have to be able to read between the lines, ladies and gentlemen.
Taken one at a time.
Independently, these stories would not be much.
But when you combine them, as we're nearing the pressure point for the House and the Senate to come together on some sort of a compromise with the Senate bill on immigration, it is clear the drive-by media is in league with somebody to continue to further the notion.
Come on, come on, just let them in.
It's so hard to get here legally.
They're the backbone of America.
They're just working so hard.
They're paying taxes and they're great people.
Come on.
So it's, I don't know.
I just wanted to bring it to your attention, ladies and gentlemen, because these things, as I say, do not happen by accident.
You've also heard what a bunch of rotten, cheapskates, cold-hearted, mean-spirited, uncaring extremists Americans are.
USA Today has an AP story with a headline, charitable giving in the U.S. Nears a Record that was set at the end of the tech boom.
The urgent needs created by three natural disasters, the tsunami in Asia, the earthquake in Pakistan, and hurricanes Rita, Katrina, and Wilma, drove American philanthropy to its highest levels since the end of the tech boom, a new study shows.
The report released today by the Giving USA Foundation estimates that in 2005, Americans gave $260.28 billion, a rise of 6%, which approaches the inflation-adjusted high of $260.53 billion that was reached in the year 2000.
About half of the overall increase of $15 billion went directly to aid victims of the disasters.
The rest of the increase, meanwhile, may still be traced to the disasters since they may have raised public awareness of other charities.
I always love hearing these stories because we always hear about Americans aren't paying enough in taxes.
The rich aren't paying enough.
Nobody's doing enough for charity.
Nobody's saving.
Nobody's this country.
So woe is us.
No future.
And yet we find out that we are among the most charitable people in the world and that our charitable giving continues to increase even during times of supposed economic hardship, which these last years have terribly, terribly been economically difficult.
The Democrats have made a claim here that it's an illusion for most Americans.
And yet, all this charitable giving keeps coming.
And you add all these individual stories up.
And once again, it just illustrates the absolute illusion that is the Democrat view of the world, a liberal view of America.
Oil company CEOs were on Meet the Press.
And, you know, I felt sorry for these guys.
They seem like more like deers in the headlights than power-mad corporate chieftains yesterday.
But, you know, in the Wall Street Journal today, there's an interesting little chart.
Every oil-producing region but one is increasing its own supply.
Every one of them.
I have that chart here.
The Middle East, percentage change from 2002 plus 17% in terms of production.
Europe and Eurasia, plus 7% change in production of oil from 2002 through 2005.
Total of Africa.
Let's see.
Yes, Africa is.
Well, it's not big enough.
I can't do the plus or minus.
Anyway, the one region that is not increasing supply is North America, the United States.
We are the only continent, the only oil-producing region that is not increasing supply.
And the biggest uprising, the biggest increase in the production of oil is taking place throughout all of Africa.
Then the Asian Pacific and Central America is next.
We are the only ones declining.
Our oil production has gone down 3% since 2002.
All the while, we're being told we need to break our dependence on foreign oil.
We can't drill anywhere in this country because of the environmentalist wackos and their associations with others, as you know.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls are next right after this.
Ha, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, talent on lawn from God, kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
However, ladies and gentlemen, it will not be a full week.
I will not be here on Friday.
You might be able to see me nevertheless.
More on that when we get close to it.
We'll not be here on Monday of next week either.
Who's here Friday and Monday this week?
We got, yeah, Carrier Roger Hedgecock on Friday and Paul W. Smith from WJR and Detroit will be here on Monday.
This is from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.
At $6.5 million per year, a Medicaid program that pays for prenatal care for immigrant women is costing the state of Arkansas more than five times what officials predicted two years ago.
Really?
Are we surprised by any of this?
Legal taxpayers are now funding free prenatal care for anchor babies.
That's what this story is about.
And why is this happening?
Why are the states paying for illegals to have babies?
Because the federal government wouldn't fund it.
Why is it an even issue?
Why do you not send them home to have their children?
They and their children then are carrying are not citizens.
They don't have the rights to any government services except deportation, but that's not how it works.
People are looking into this anchor baby business, but this is in Arkansas.
You know, in Arkansas, not considered to be a border state, and they're getting up in arms about this.
This is still going to be the issue of this election.
And Democrats can talk about Iraq all they want.
They won't even put it in their battle plan.
And they don't have anything on immigration in their battle plan either because they think that if there's no immigration bill, that Bush loses.
I think if Bush loses, the Republicans lose.
But this is going to be the issue.
From the Houston Chronicle, the Harris County Hospital District's unreimbursed costs of caring for illegal immigrants approached $100 million last year.
That is a 77% increase in three years.
The costs are increasing because the population of undocumented immigrants is increasing and the cost of health care is rising, said the hospital spokesman, district spokesman, Brian McLeod.
Commissioner Steve Heratic, who requested the report on the district's cost of treating undocumented immigrants, said that county residents are shouldering a burden created by the federal government.
When they show up for free medical care, hello, ICE, make a phone call.
But you can't.
You know, I think I heard this.
It's a federal law.
You can't, when they're in the hospital, call ICE.
You can't call immigration.
You can't go, hey, guess what we got in here, pal?
A whole boatload just showed up.
Can't do that.
And they get treated and legal taxpayers in Houston now are paying.
This is just Harris County.
This is just Houston.
Unreimbursed costs of caring for illegal immigrants approached $100 million last year.
McCain says these are the backbone of America.
McCain says they're people paying their taxes and they're paying their dues and they're coming here to help America.
And I'm not going to send them back.
I'm not.
She.
The district in Harris County does not directly ask patients if they are in the country illegally or legally, but they infer their status from other information gleaned during patient screenings.
Untreated infectious illnesses among immigrants might spread to the broader population, he said.
It would be inhumane for the hospital district to stop providing treatment to illegal immigrants.
I mean, if they come in here with some infectious disease, we got to treat them.
And as long as the legal citizenry continues to pay for this without getting all upset about it, it is going to continue.
Washington Post, another immigration story today.
Nope, sorry, wrong stack.
Not it. That's it.
To the phones.
Here is Alice in Dayton, Ohio.
Alice, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Well, hi, Rush.
It's nice to talk with you.
Thank you very much.
You know, as a woman, I very much want to see women in positions of power.
But I have to say, some of the women who are in very visible positions of political power today are actually setting us back decades.
Case in point, Nancy Pelosi.
I try to listen to her.
I try to stay open to her.
You know, I'm not an anti-Democrat.
I'm actually a very middle-of-the-road person, but it's so discouraging.
I wonder if she even thinks what she's saying.
Last week, in spite of all the evidence that the tide is clearly turning in Iraq, the Sarkawi captured the documents found suggesting we've been on the right track all along.
Pelosi comes out and says, no, Mr. President, we should not stay the course.
It's time we changed the course.
And I mean, what is she even basing this on?
Wait, Alice.
Alice, hang on.
I appreciate and agree with and understand your criticism of Nancy Pelosi.
But when I see, for example, John Kerry screw up, which is frequent, I start a laugh.
When I see Dick Durbin or any of these other Democrats, I don't worry about how it's going to set men back.
Why do you see Pelosi and what she's doing as setting women back in terms of their ability to achieve powerful positions?
Well, I mean, because in some ways she's an embarrassment.
I mean, some of the things I heard you play some of the things that you're talking about.
Oh, wait, is she an embarrassment because she's a woman?
Or is she an embarrassment because she's just not smart or because she's overqualified or underqualified?
Well, you know, there aren't enough.
I mean, I think that women are just as smart as men.
There's no doubt about it.
Absolutely.
But unfortunately.
There aren't what that just kidding.
Unfortunately, there aren't enough women in really high positions of power for whatever reason.
I mean, we all know the history.
I'm not saying that there's been any sort of bias against women.
It's just that, you know, women have not been out there.
Women have been busy doing other things, you know, making homes.
I think, look, I understand how you feel, but I think this is all bogus.
I think this is all predicated on the fact that women have to be like men.
And if they don't succeed like men in positions of power, then something's wrong.
Either they're being discriminated against or they're not fulfilling their potential or whatever.
I think it's, and I mean this, folks, I think the notion that women don't have any power is absurd.
But if you're going to say, well, a woman doesn't have elected office power or she's not CEO or whatever and doesn't have that kind of power.
Well, yeah, I mean, the statistics will bear that out.
But to assume that because of that, women don't have any power is dreadfully mistaken.
And I'm not saying this in a sexist, humorous way or even a humorous, chauvinistic way.
I think the whole problem arises when we look at women and men and say they got to be the same when they're not the same.
Men and women are born different.
They have different emotional desires, needs, wants, all of this than men.
And it's we look at, I didn't even, I wasn't even going to bother mentioning this.
I wonder if I still have it in the stack.
Every day, when I'm doing show prep, I find some of the most ridiculous news.
And I think I'm not going to bother you with it because it's beneath you.
But there's a little test today, some wire story on are you a metrosexual as a man?
And of course, how metrosexualism is gone.
Metrosexuals are bad and real, manly men are back.
And then it gives examples of metrosexuality and real manliness.
And I look at it and I think it's banal, but I know how it captivates people, just like the story the other day on all those poor high school girls being pressured to have sex as though that's never happened before.
A new phenomenon.
And this, you have these continuing cultural ebbs and flows.
And the only reason, you know what a metrosexual is?
He goes and gets manicures, takes more time getting ready for work every day than a woman does.
Goes to Jean-Chaul Christophe for his hairstyling and sips whatever beverage with a little cosmopolitans with a little finger up in the air.
This all came about because of the changing evolution of women trying to be like men and men having to do whatever they have to do to attract women, which was be like women.
It's all crazy.
Women have power.
They may even know it.
You don't have to think about it.
We have redefined hip here on the radio.
Hip is conservative.
All right.
I'm going to succumb to it.
I have here the pop quiz: Are you a metrosexual?
But before I get to this, I also found a story by Gail Sheehee.
You know who Gail Sheehee is.
Gail Sheehee wrote a book once called Passages.
I forget what the book was about.
All I know is I worked for a program director in Kansas City and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and made me read it.
And I still don't, as a subject for community service workers.
I mean, just, I don't even remember what it was.
I guess it was moving from various stages of life.
I know that she's married to Clay Felker, or was, I don't know, used to run New York magazine, lives here in New York, Renowned author, one of the New York glittering literati, can do no wrong, probably doesn't even have bowel movements, if you understand what I'm saying.
So she had a piece.
I forget women, it's over the weekend, but she had a piece on how there's no question that marriage saves men.
That if it weren't for marriage and women, men could not survive in this cold, cruel world.
That they would be left to their own instinctive desires and they would invest in the worst aspects of themselves without women to place limits on them.
Now, this is not a new theory.
In fact, I once saw a man I admire greatly, George Gilder, get kicked off the Oprah show, literally kicked off the Oprah show for saying the exact same thing, although he said it a different way.
He said that women are civilizing influences, and he pointed it out in a number of different population groups and ethnic groups in America.
And he pointed out how it is the women in poor black neighborhoods, for example, which are holding the family units together, grandmothers and mothers and aunts, and that these fathers who don't end up getting married, even some who do just walk out and leave.
And he made the point that one of the great, and this is, you have to understand now, this is mid-80s, and we're not that far removed from the early days of feminist hysteria.
And he was basically suggesting, and he had incredible evidence and statistics and so forth, that women are a civilizing influence.
Those two words sent Oprah over the couch, heading for him with the claws bared, and he literally got kicked off the program simply because he said women, and he said women, they make the world go round.
He was praising them.
He was singling them out as the greatest force in genuine civilization of humanity.
And of course, this meant that they are orienting their lives around family and marriage.
And Oprah, in the fit of new feminist hysteria, just couldn't put up with this because women were supposed to get out of the house and they were supposed to move on.
They were supposed to become Nancy Pelosi's and so forth.
So now, look at what's happening.
Gilder was ridiculed.
He was lampooned.
He was impugned.
I interviewed him about this.
I talked to him for the Limball Letters, one of our archival issues.
And now all of a sudden, here's Gail Sheehee, who is back basically writing the same thing.
It's amazing when you chronicle culturally and sociologically the evolution of the modern feminist movement from the late 60s, early 70s to where it is today.
It has screwed everybody up.
And it was just exemplified in this last call we got.
Somebody tell me why, and I'm being serious here.
Why is it that a bumbling idiot woman in a position of power makes it harder for any woman to get the job?
Why does one woman in a position of power who's a bumbling idiot end up framing and shaping the opinion of every other woman?
Didn't change my opinion.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't change my opinion of Margaret Thatcher, doesn't change my opinion of Gene Kirkpatrick or any number of powerful, intellectual, intelligent babes out there that I know or know of.
Now, look at Nancy Pelosi.
I see a bumbling, incompetent person who's been elevated to a position for which she's not qualified.
Simply because of the spoil system, she was next in line.
It was her turn.
Little Dick Gephard got forced out in his presidential run.
Guess who's next in line?
And of course, the Democrats, being who they are, didn't have the guts to put somebody qualified in there because they couldn't vote against a woman because that wouldn't look good.
Blah, So they got caught in their own little belief system.
Well, in the process of this evolution of women trying essentially to become like men, which is where this comparison derives.
I mean, if you're going to look at Pelosi and say, oh, gosh, she's hurting the cause of every woman who wants to sit in power in government.
No, she's not.
She's just hurting her own cause.
And I don't know that she's discouraging any other women from wanting to try it.
If I were a woman looking at Pelosi and I said, man, gosh, I can do better than that.
Let me try for it.
In the process of all this, let me shorten this up.
In the process of all this, men who, under normal circumstances, seek women and under normal circumstances are the aggressors, have always had to get the lay of the land.
Okay, what do I have to do?
I mean, men would go read women's magazines, for example, and turn to the section on where to meet men, find out where they were supposed to be, and go there.
Over the course of years, it used to be libraries, churches, parks, zoos, or whatever.
I mean, women's magazines and books had those sections, where to meet men.
So the quickest way to find out where the women were going to be was to open their magazines and find out where you're supposed to be as a man.
You go there.
It's the way of the world.
You know, boy chases girl till she catches him.
I mean, that's it, folks.
It's universal.
It's in the genes, and it's been that way since the beginning of time.
Boy chases girl till she catches it.
Now, what happens when the girl becomes a woman and then all of a sudden wants to be like a man?
What's the poor guy do?
Well, men are bad, but yet women want to be like them.
It doesn't make any sense to the guy.
So the guy says, all right, well, I got to do what I have to do.
And we got all these wacko different interpretations like metrosexual.
What were some of the others?
I can't.
There was one just recently came up with a name for, and I claimed that I was uber, uber sexual.
And I read the list of what an ubersexual is.
Uber sexual, just a man, a traditional man, not a brokeback guy, but a traditional man, a John Wayne guy.
But they can't call it that, have to come out with uber sexual.
All right, so after reading Gail Sheehee's piece and having all these thoughts, I then come across this quiz: Are you a metrosexual?
Guys, weigh your style quotient to see if you are a metrosexual.
You want to take the test?
Question one: Which celebrity most displays your sense of style?
A, soccer star David Beckham, B, Guy's guy Ben Affleck, or C, Ultimate Grunge Johnny Depp.
Who?
Affleck?
Affleck?
You say that Affleck more reflects you, your sense of style.
Not a metrosexual, your sense of style.
Ben Affleck, you think you're more like, you identify more with Affleck than any of these other two guys?
I don't.
I don't identify with any of them.
Number two.
Well, but you could say none of the above.
B. Craig.
You don't have to choose somebody.
I mean, this is absurd.
Number two, what is your idea of a perfect Friday night?
A, drinking gray goose at the hottest new club in town.
B, playing video games while hanging out with a group of buddies.
C, downing beers at your favorite neighborhood bar.
Zilch zero nada for me.
None of that.
Number three, where do you get your hair cut?
A, same place I've been going for 20 years, the neighborhood barbershop.
B, haircut, what's a haircut?
C, I only get my hair cut by Jacques at the most exclusive salon around.
Okay, you're bald.
Your wife cut your hair.
Yeah, remember what Samson had to him done by Delilah when you, the next time this happened.
You've been going the same guy for 20 years.
My barber comes to me.
I haven't been to a barber shop.
Not on a hell.
I don't relate to any of this.
What kind of clothing do you wear?
A, only the top designer labels.
B, whatever's clean and feels more comfortable.
C, I wear whatever fits the occasion, although I don't follow labels.
You got an answer there?
Got one?
You're a C. You wear whatever fits the occasion, although you don't follow labels?
I do not.
I am number D, B, whatever's clean and feels most comfortable with emphasis on comfortable.
That's right.
I gave up ties.
I have concluded God did not mean for me to enjoy life while being choked.
Number five, true or false, I find myself using my girlfriend's or wife's beauty products, i.e., moisturizers.
I guess they're guys that do this.
Six, have you ever gotten a manicure?
Manicure, A, of course.
B, I got one once, so don't tell anybody, C, are you kidding?
Manicures are female-only territory.
Yes, I've gotten manicures, but only because one of you used to go to a barber, he offered them.
And the only reason I got the manicure is because she rubbed my arms.
I could have cared less about the fingernails.
It was just a way to get a quick body rub.
Let's see.
Number seven: shopping is A, a priority.
B, something I only do for major holidays.
C, something I greatly fear.
Shopping.
Shopping.
Okay, you only do it when you have to.
They don't say which of these is the metrosexual answer, by the way.
You can guess.
Shopping is, I guess, to a metrosexual be a priority.
Something I only do for major holidays, something I greatly fear.
I do.
I hate it.
I despise it.
I don't do it.
I mean, it's a last act of necessity.
How long does it take for you to get ready in the morning?
A, at least an hour.
That doesn't include my shower.
B, no time at all.
Just roll out of bed and get going.
C, 10 to 20 minutes.
C?
Yeah, me too.
10 to 20 minutes.
Takes longer than 20 minutes that they start to bed.
All right, a quick, quick timeout here, folks.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Folks, you got to hear something.
Maury Polvich and Connie Chung ended their brief, how long was it?
I guess six-month run on MSNBC, which is pretty good for that network.
They had this show on once a week and it canceled.
And it was, they did their farewell show, and Connie Chung went out there dressed in a slinky white gown, perched atop a piano, ended up laying down on the piano, singing her own lyrics to the Bob Hope theme, Thanks for the Memories.
She puts down Dan Rather.
She puts down her own husband.
She puts down cable TV in general.
And I want to warn you, she can't sing, but this was actually on television.
This Connie Chung.
Nobody saw it because it was MSNBC.
You can go to the Drudge Report and see the video of this, but I wanted you to hear the audio.
Thanks for the memories.
We came to do a show for very little dough.
By little, I mean I could make more working on Skid Row.
That's cable TV.
Thanks for the memories.
This half year flew by.
My Maury, what a guy.
Instead of asking who's the daddy, he could talk Dubai.
How stunned were we all?
Maury would talk stead of listening, unaware of the concept of whispering.
And when he did say the right thing, it was so rare.
Why should I care?
Thanks for the memories.
The thing I love the most about hubby as co-host is all those other anchors were as dull as Melba Toast.
The sparks really flew.
Just stick with it here, folks.
Thanks for the memories.
Now that the show is through, I've got bigger things to do.
But Maury is back weighing in fat babies.
How taboo he can't get enough.
Thanks for the memories.
As we come to a close, we say to friends and foes, thanks for tuning in to watch the con take on the pose.
And with that, she collapsed on the floor in the studio and the camera faded to black.
And so she puts down her husband as, you know, could have been talking about big things like Dubai, but no, he's got to talk about fat babies and so forth.
His TV show puts down cable TV, puts down Dan Ratheron's CBS.
And I can understand the caterwauling and the pain.
The pain in her voice is obvious because when you get canceled MSNBC, there is nowhere to go.
Mark in Cleveland, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Last night, your man with the carnivorous eyebrows was railing against America's military spending on 60 Minutes.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, who's my man?
Andy Rooney.
Not my man.
Well, he's a colleague, isn't he?
Sort of.
Okay, what's the point?
What did he say?
Well, he played President Eisenhower's warning against the military-industrial complex.
But he fails to provide a context.
At the time, I believe military spending exceeded 10% of GDP, and we're now just a whisker over 3%.
And my question is: what percentage of GDP constitutes a crisis for military spending?
Is it 3%, 4%, 2%?
What is it?
It's an entirely different barometer that is used.
And that is when there's a Republican president.
Any spending on any war is the military-industrial complex running the country.
He's just an antique lib, and he despises Bush like they all do.
Doesn't even really know why, probably.
Despises the war on terror, the war in Iraq.
Look, I'm blue in the face explaining these people to you.
It really isn't that hard to understand.
But let me tell you, the easiest way to watch Andy Looney or any of these other people is to just don't try to associate substance with what they're saying.
They are simply emoting.
And the emotion is rage and hatred and guilt and anger over the fact that they are relegated to status of irrelevance right now.
Back in just a second, folks.
Try this headline to Chicago Sun-Times today.
Criminal in arms.
More army recruits have records as the Army faces pressure to keep up recruiting levels during the Iraq War.
It increasingly is allowed in recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.
This is really no big deal.
It's just the Armory.
Army is hiring more of the new Democrat base, the criminal element that Hillary and the other Democrats are reaching out to.
We'll have more details on this tomorrow.
Lots of other stuff in store as well.
It's been great being with you today, folks.
And look forward to tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection