All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
June 20, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sorry, folks, I'm just listening to my new theme song, Baby, Baby, Don't Get Hooked On Me by Mac Davis.
Didn't realize the program had started.
Thank you for the reminder, Aldemont.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
I wasn't checking some emails.
I saw the subject line in an email, market movers and shakers.
I thought, whoo, an email about me.
And opened it up.
It was spam.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Aldemont, we're going to start with audio soundbites 5, 6, and 7 when I get to it.
Probably 8, 9, and 10.
The Democrats and their position on positions, ascertainable as they are on the situation in Iraq.
All right, other items in the snack is stuffed.
Oh, here's the Supreme Court ruling.
I don't want to do that yet.
But remind me, HR, we got to do this because you, we started talking about this, about the wetlands decision from the Supreme Court yesterday.
It's actually quite confusing, and there are two different interpretations.
One in the Boston Globe, the other one in the New York Times.
Construction of new homes and apartments after three months of declines increased in the month of May.
And you know why?
Dry weather.
Yeah, just like shopping in January was great because of warm weather.
It's always the weather with these people, these experts, these analysts who are constantly surprised.
Good economic news, always surprising, always unexpected.
And of course, the reason?
dry weather.
That's why housing, not that people are building houses, not that people can afford to build houses, not that people want to move up, moving on up to the east side.
No, no, no.
The weather was dry.
So somebody out there who's in charge of building houses, hey, the weather's dry.
Let's start pounding nails.
And it wasn't Jimmy Carter at Habitat for Humanity.
Commerce Secretary said builders started construction at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of almost 2 million units last month.
That's up 5% from the pace in April.
I mentioned Aldemont quitting this program, going down to continue his education at, where is it, Loyola?
And in his off-time spare time, he'll be helping rebuild the dikes and the levees down there.
And I pointed out that crime is rising in New Orleans.
I care about you, Aldermont, and I want you to be careful down there.
This is some amazing statistics.
In a blunt admission that the city could no longer control its growing crime problem, Mayor Ray Schoolbus Nagan asked the state of Louisiana on Monday to send National Guard troops to help patrol the streets of New Orleans.
Now, I, folks, for one, am stunned that, I mean, Governor, what's your name, Kathleen Blanco?
Yeah, she's going to ask for National Guard troops, but the fact that there were any available, I thought they were all in a rock.
But apparently there are enough to send down to the border to control illegal immigration and to send them to help a crime problem in New Orleans.
She sent 100 troops to New Orleans, joined by 60 state police, said they would be in place by as early as this morning.
More are likely to arrive later in the week.
The mayor, Schoolbus Nagan, his plea for help came after five teenagers were shot to death with semi-automatic weapons in the central city neighborhood while sitting in SUVs on Saturday morning.
Just got a pain, Al Gore.
Movies tanking.
Hardly anybody went to see it.
And now murderers in New Orleans are hiding out, camping out in SUVs.
What can you do?
It was the deadliest single shooting attack in the city in 11 years, raising to 53 the number of homicides this year.
All right, now, if you read the rest of the story, which I have, I'm not going to burden you with.
That's why I'm here so you don't have to read the New York Times.
You find that police levels in New Orleans are now practically back to pre-Katrina levels.
It's a warning to you, Olamont, about how unsafe it is.
The population of the city is down by 50%, and the police levels are back to pre-Katrina levels almost, and they still can't handle it.
The existing police force with half the town gone still can't handle a problem.
Now, I've been through three or four hurricanes in my time down in Florida, and I've never seen a National Guard call down out there, especially 10 months after Hurricane.
There's a CNN poll out there on Mrs. Clinton.
It's generating a lot of reaction.
Let me first give you the results of the poll.
With the presidential election more than two years away, a CNN poll released Monday suggests that nearly half of Americans would definitely vote against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Respondents were asked whether they would definitely vote for, consider voting for, or definitely vote against three Democrats and three Republicans who might run in 2008.
Now, regarding potential Democrat candidates, 47% of respondents said they would definitely vote against both Clinton and Senator Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam.
48% said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied that he intends to run again for president.
Among the Republicans, Senator McCain and former New York Mayor Rudolph Rudy Giuliani fared better than the Democrats.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush fared worse.
All right, the headline of this story, Clinton gets a very high no vote in 2008.
Respondents also ranked who they would likely vote for.
Now, some people are being critical of this poll, saying, come on, it's two years out.
What in the world are we talking about?
She hasn't even announced yet.
And besides, it's a poll of all Americans.
We never take polls of all Americans.
We take polls of likely voters and registered voters and so forth.
This is absurd, some people say.
Other people are saying, well, wait a second.
The president's approval ratings are taken not of registered voters, but of likely voters, but of the American people.
American people, not categorized in any specific voting pattern, are asked in presidential approving polls, their approval polls, their opinion.
And so some people say, wait, wait a minute.
Now this poll is, I mean, it's got every bit the credibility of a presidential approval tracking poll.
And other people are saying, by the way, this fits a pattern that we have seen in recent polling regarding Mrs. Clinton.
And it also fits a pattern we have seen in the drive-by media with more members of the drive-by media conceding she can't win and looking for an alternative such as Al Gore.
Gosh, you people do not know how I pray.
I mean, I pray, but you don't know how I'm praying for Al Gore.
Get back in it.
Would you not would you know?
Would you, would you, and that's why my point, would you not love to see Al Gore and John Kerry in the primaries?
I mean, anybody having trouble sleeping.
Since we're talking about Democrats here, let's go to the audio soundbites.
John Kerry was on some program today on MSNBC and he unleashed.
I mean, for Kerry, he unleashed.
And on the administration on Iraq, you know, Kerry's got this resolution.
Well, get us out of Iraq.
Originally, I was going to get this out in what was it, July, December of this year, but I've moved it back.
I want to give people more time.
I'm moving back to July of 07.
These guys are all, he's got six votes for this resolution.
Here's Kerry on some MSNBC program today.
What this administration wants is to have a fake debate, as usual.
You hear the drumbeat on every television show from every commentator, cut and run, cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.
That's their phrase.
They found their three words.
They love to do that.
And they're going to try to make the elections in November a choice between cut and run and stay, of course.
That's not the choice.
My plan is not cut and run.
Their plan is lie and die.
Oh, man.
Cut and run, cut and run.
This just means it got to them.
It is cut and run.
It is how they've identified and typed themselves.
Kerry can't stand, nor can many other Democrats for the truth to be told about them.
And they laugh.
Of course, his plan is cut and run.
When you start calling for getting the troops out of there, what's the difference in redeploying them and withdrawing them?
This is another little semantic trick they're playing.
This guy, John Murtha, who, you know, my parents, as I said yesterday, have always told me to stop making fun of people with diminished mental capacity.
So I'm going to try my best to do things the way my mom and my dad raised me, as I'm sure all of you do as well.
But when he listed the places that he wants to redeploy, he mentioned one of them as Okinawa.
Now, I realize that geography is not taught to some of you the way it was taught to me.
Geography is now called human geography, and that's where you tell the teacher the various parts of the body of your classmates you'd like to visit.
Geography, when I went to school, was learning where things were on the map.
Okinawa is 4,000 miles from Iraq, Kuwait, or wherever.
It is in the northern Pacific.
Withdrawing 4,000 miles to Okinawa.
And I don't even think, I think we've got troops there.
I don't think they want us there anymore.
There's no need to be in Okinawa.
The Japanese prisoners of war that are still hiding in the jungle there really don't represent a threat.
So anyway, it's just it's what's the difference in withdrawing and redeploying?
It's absurd.
All right, here's Carl Levin.
This is explaining that very difference.
Boy, am I on a cutting edge or what?
Explaining the very difference between withdrawal and redeployment at a press conference yesterday, here's what he said.
Redeployment assumes that we're going to be moving those forces to other places, which may be, or at least some of those forces, to other places that may need them.
It has a kind of a different tone to it, a different nature to it.
Oh, I see.
So it's semantic.
I was right.
Asked to explain the difference between withdrawal and redeployment.
He says, well, redeployment just sounds better.
I got to take a break.
We're running a little long here, but we've got a couple more sound bites to get to, ladies.
We'll do that.
We come back.
We've got Howard Dean.
Howard Dean and Howard Dean.
We got four Howard Dean.
So this ought to be a laugh riot.
Stick with us.
I'll be right back.
I was just perusing my stack of stuff here, one of the three using to execute and perform the program today.
And this headline, this is by our buddy Liz Sadoti from ALAP.
Senate Democrats coalesce around Iraq plan.
For how long have they been coalescing around an Iraq plan?
Somebody needs to ask John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, if your plan is not cut and run, what is cut and run?
No, it says they're coalescing, not convalescing.
You know, my friends, you're going to have to excuse me for this.
I realize some of you are going to take great offense at this, but I just, I have to make the remark.
We live under the illusion of Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd and the waitress sandwich at La Brasserie.
That's Kennedy or Dodd on top or bottom of the waitress in the middle.
And we hear about all the sexual exploits of Der Schlichmeister, Monica Lewinsky, and so forth.
I think it's all a myth.
Like much of the prowess of liberalism is a myth.
I think how good can they be in intimate situations?
They continually pull out before the job's done, be it Iraq or anywhere else.
Howard Dean, this is on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night.
Guest host Nora O'Donnell said, please respond directly, please, please respond directly to what Karl Rove was saying because what he said is that they may be with you at the first shots, but they're not going to be with you at the very last tough battles.
That's exactly what I just said.
They pull out before the job's done.
John Kerry and John Murthy voted for this war.
Karl Rove says they're not sticking with us to the end that they're cutting and running.
John Murthy and John Kerry served in Vietnam.
Karl Rove did not.
George Bush did not.
Dick Cheney did not.
Don Rumsfeld did not.
And they wouldn't listen to the people who did.
The fact is, you can't trust these folks.
They didn't serve abroad defending America.
They talk tough, but the fact is that they are sitting in air conditioning office on various parts of their anatomy.
And it's big cheap to talk in Washington or to fly in for a half a day with the troops.
Oh, they are so bitter.
They're so bitter that the country loves Bush, supports him on this Iraq business, and that they are not supported.
We had a caller yesterday.
In fact, a Vietnam vet who called yesterday said the fact that somebody's been in the military before does not make them infallible.
This is the whole point of Dean's argument.
Well, Cheney, and I've been facing this myself since 1988.
Well, you never, you didn't go to Vietnam and you didn't kill commies, so what right do you have to talk about the defense budget?
What did you ever do?
And of course, since Murthy did serve in Vietnam and Kerry, Dean said he served in Vietnam, so I guess it's true.
Since they served in Vietnam, they're infallible.
We can't criticize them.
And this is a technique that the Libs have set up, be it the Jersey girls, I don't care who else it is.
You cannot criticize them because they're infallible.
They have experience and so forth.
And that, of course, is intellectually ridiculous as well.
Next question was: so with all this talk out there, why is it the Democrats can't put down on paper, Mr. Dean, exactly what their unified plan is?
What are you trying to avoid?
Well, let me remind you, it's the Republicans that run everything.
I think it's pretty terrific of the Democrats to put down a plan because the Republicans don't seem to have one of any kind, except a permanent commitment to a failed strategy, which we got into because we weren't told the truth.
Our plan is this is a transition year, which the Republicans have now adopted, which I think is great.
And there's going to be a redeployment of our troops, some to other countries.
I think that's a good plan.
I think it's a Democratic plan.
So I guess he's agreeing with Podesta yesterday.
What?
We don't need a plan.
We're not in power.
We can't do anything.
What do you mean?
Well, this is like John Kerry said during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Senator Kerry, what are you going to do at Iraq once you're inaugurated?
Well, I don't know because I don't know if I've been getting this great skinny.
I want to find out how they've cooked the books.
I want to find out what they've been lying.
I can't tell you what I'm going to do until I get there.
Okay, we can scratch your name off the ballot.
If you're not willing to come up with a plan, Democrats think they don't have to have a plan.
All they can do is, yeah, we're going to deploy, redeploy troops to other countries.
That's a smart Democrat plan.
Okinawa.
Next question, Vice President Cheney said it's no accident that the U.S. has not been attacked since 9-11.
Just last week, he said that taking out Saddam was in part the reason we've not been attacked.
Your reaction, Chairman Dean.
That's complete hooey.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.
That's just part of the Republican nonsense that got us into Iraq in the first place.
And Americans now know that's complete hooey, and that the president and the vice president were not telling the truth when they said that.
This is dangerously oblique, dangerously obtuse, and just dangerously dumb.
You show the bad guys you'll come back at you.
You show the bad guys that you're not going to take it.
It had an effect on Moamer Gaddafi.
And I'll guarantee you this.
I will guarantee you this.
If that little pot-bellied, dog-eating, two-timing dictator that Madeleine Albright met and admired, isn't that crazy, in North Korea fires that little missile of his, I would think that we almost have an obligation to try to shoot the thing down to send a message to anybody else, the Iranians, particularly.
This is the kind of stuff that does work.
But see, these Democrats, folks, they have grown up in the era of hating the military or despising it or blaming it.
I mean, thinking it's the focus of evil in the modern world.
Plus, at major institutions of supposed higher learning, even in high school, liberals have been in charge of such concepts as conflict resolution.
Now, I can think of many places where conflict resolution is attempted and tried daily.
Conflict resolution, in fact, may be an active ongoing policy at several institutions daily.
And that institution, the one institution that rises to the top, in my opinion, that practices conflict resolution as it's taught, would be the United Nations.
Second only would be the State Department of the United States, i.e., diplomacy.
And thanks to it.
Yes, diplomacy and thanks to the work, Ruth, if you death stick with them.
We have to understand these people.
You don't understand them if you think conflict resolution, doctors, nurses, clean water, bilateral, unilateral talks are going to make any headway with people like Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, the lunatic president of Iran.
But if you want to find where conflict resolution is practiced every day, and thus, if you want to see how it's effective, just follow the boys and the girls of the United Nations.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Your calls are next on the EIB network.
Don't go away.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Get this.
This is a story Mr. Snerdley will be fascinated by.
It's out of Beijing.
Chinese woman has been charged with accidentally killing her husband with a sword after he refused to make her dinner, according to the Shanghai Daily.
Police said that Tang Zhawan, or Zhawan, 25, who has been practicing swordsmanship since she was young, had often forced her husband of three years at sword point to carry out her demands.
I guess they don't promise to love, honor, and obey over there in China anymore.
This is sort of strange, strange occurrence.
China, this is the last thing you would expect to happen in China.
Talk about falling on the sword for love.
All right, Angela Ligonier, Pennsylvania.
You're next on the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, hi.
I'm so excited to talk to you.
Thank you.
Megadittos from the land of the heroes of Flight 93 and Dick Cheney Quill Hunting Grounds.
Thank you very much.
What I really called about was to congratulate you on the cabinet post appointment.
Did you hear about that?
I hope.
I got some emails about this.
You talk about Mallard Fillmore, the cartoon today.
Exactly.
Yeah.
In a move designed to heal the risks between the President Bush and his political base, the White House announced a new cabinet post today, making talk radio host Rush Limbaugh the new secretary of reminding the president what an actual conservative looks like.
Is that me or what?
Oh, I hadn't heard that.
I haven't had a chance to go read the cartoon yet.
So I thank you for keeping me up to speed.
You're welcome.
So Fillmore named me the new secretary of reminding the president.
The president named you of what an actual conservative looks like.
What an actual conservative looks like.
That's good, isn't it?
Well, I've always loved the Mallard-Fillmore strip.
Mallard-Fillmore strip started, oh, I'm guessing now, 10 years ago, and I've appeared in it periodically and always favorably and in a good light.
Yeah, he's a real intellect.
Well, it's good to appear in it again.
Thanks very much.
I'll find it after the program has concluded.
Pueblo West, Colorado, and Sherry, great to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hello, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you today.
Thank you.
Truly one of the greatest days of my life.
But I was just calling regarding the guard being sent down to New Orleans.
Yes.
As I read the article this morning, it seemed very ironic to me.
A lady, her name is Latoya Cantrell, and she's the president of the Broadmoor Improvement Association.
She was quoted as saying, neighborhoods should not have been left alone to begin with.
Pulling out was a mistake.
And I just thought about Iraq.
You know, that wouldn't be a mistake to pull out of Iraq, but it's a huge mistake that we pulled out of New Orleans.
Well, now that's an interesting point.
Because, see, the Haditha incident, where 24 Iraqis were ostensibly massacred by evil, ill-trained, well-equipped troops.
Remember that story?
Yes.
And the liberals out there wringing their hands, oh, no, 24 dead Iraqis.
Oh, no, this is horrible.
Our troops suck.
The military, the Marines, a bunch of marauding killers that don't have any value instruction, blah, blah, blah.
I can't remember a time when Democrats or liberals cared a whit about the Iraqi people when Saddam Hussein was wiping him out by the hundreds of thousands.
Now we have, the contrast is this.
The situation in New Orleans, well, of course, liberals care about New Orleans because Bush tried to wipe it out with the hurricane and didn't repair the levees on time and wanted to destroy the Ninth Ward.
I did an interview with Newt Gingrich for the upcoming issue of the Limbaugh Letter, and he made an interesting point.
He thinks the government's fallen apart at every level.
And he used Katrina as an example.
He said it was embarrassing to him to watch any number of bureaucracies fail.
They said, well, what do you expect a bureaucracy to do, something this massive?
I said, Newt, the bottom line is this to me.
The bottom line is that when you look at New Orleans, we should have had a utopia down there.
This place has been run by liberals and Democrats for as long as I've been alive and maybe longer.
There shouldn't have been any poverty.
There shouldn't have been any homelessness.
There shouldn't have been any discrimination.
shouldn't have been any unemployment.
There should have been total happiness and contentment.
And he said, you know, you have put your finger on something very important because the fourth problem in New Orleans was a gigantic failure of citizenship, he said, basic citizenship.
And I said, what do you mean by that?
He said, the very fact that citizens of the United States of America thought nothing of doing anything for themselves to protect themselves in the face of an oncoming storm that everybody knew was coming and everybody knew was going to be big and potentially devastating.
So he said, we had failure at every level.
We had bureaucratic failure in Washington.
We had bureaucratic failure in New Orleans.
We had bureaucratic failure in the state of Louisiana.
And we had an utter failure of basic citizenship in the post-Katrina period in New Orleans.
And he's right on the money about that.
This is the United States of America.
We have created a population down there or did.
It's not just New Orleans.
There's many pockets around the country where it's this way, totally entitlement-oriented, and they sit around, wait.
Government's going to fix it for them.
This is what they've been promised, by the way.
This is the irresponsibility, by the way, of liberal Democrat leadership.
They're promised they'll be taken care of.
Don't worry about it.
We'll fix it.
We'll fix it for you.
We'll take care of you.
Republicans out to destroy you.
Republicans want to make you poor.
Republicans don't care what happens to you, but we do care what happens to you.
Well, here came the bureaucracy.
And of course, since the government happened to be led by Republicans, Democrats said, see, Republicans don't care about you.
And that's not helping anybody.
I don't care what failures there were, and there obviously were massive failures, but some of those failures have to be measured against expectations.
What can really be done in light of a devastating hurricane like that, once every 100 years, something that large strikes a populated center in that regard.
But nevertheless, the concern for citizens in New Orleans by liberals, well, of course, they're Americans and all of that.
We ought to pull out of Iraq.
Now, pulling out of Iraq, cut and run, would expose the Iraqis to who know and ourselves.
If you think pulling out of Mogadishu was devastating, the idea that we should cut and run and pull out, redeploy to Okinawa, I'm laughing, but the result would be devastating to us and our safety and security.
But it would also ruin any safety and security the Iraqis have established.
And you wouldn't hear the Democrats care about that.
Democrats are basically saying, screw the Iraqis, except those 24 killed at Haditha.
We love them.
We're concerned about them.
Screw.
You know, if Iraqis are killed by Americans, why?
We love them, and that's horrible.
And we're going to investigate and find out.
But if insurgents kill the Iraqis, well, that's okay.
We never cared in the first place.
So I'm not surprised at all, Sherry, by the apparent hypocrisy or contradictions when you say, well, you should have never pulled the National Guard out.
We'll get a crime problem.
Pull the military out of Iraq because we don't care about the crime problem over there.
Here's Kyle in Detroit.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Proud Limbaugh, maybe here.
Thank you very much.
I want to talk about the liberals that just can't keep their story straight.
First, Chat Lunch says the insurgencies are being fueled by us.
Before that, it was, well, there's no weapons of mass destruction, so we need to pull out of Iraq.
And now they're calling to say that the Iraqis are becoming dependent on our presence.
This is the party that's supposed to win the midterm election that's going to take back the House and the Congress.
They can't even keep their story straight.
They're pounding their own nails into the coffin, and they don't even realize it.
When the Iraqis do take over, it is going to be a slam dunk for Bush and the Congress.
I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing you because of your phone line or your phone, but did you say that now the Democrats are trying to say the Iraqis are becoming dependent on our presence, and that's why we should get out?
Absolutely.
That's the reason they're giving.
The liberals are just beside themselves that the Iraq war is a statement.
Oh, wait a minute.
So are you interpreting this as them saying we're creating a bunch of dependent people who can't defend themselves, defend themselves because they're depending on us, and so we need to pull out?
Absolutely.
And that's, hey, why don't they adapt the same policies the way they treat the American people?
They do.
And that is exactly the policy that they treat the American people.
No, they don't.
They want as many Americans to be dependent on them as possible.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say, Rush.
They are trying to say that the Iraqis are becoming dependent on us, but they want us to get out.
Screw the Iraqis, as you are saying.
It's exactly the policy that they have.
Well, the bottom line is, when it comes to Mirtha and Kerry and Howard Dean and most of these people, they don't really care about the Iraqis.
This has been one of the things that I think this whole war on terror has really exposed the left and the human rights groups because they always talk about, we must free people from bondage, Mr. Limbaugh.
We must free people from oppression.
Even today, CNN, wall-to-wall refugee day, World Refugee Day, and CNN wringing of hands over 15 million refugees and how many homeless there.
And oh, it's horrible.
How can we let this happen?
And yet, the same people, the same kind of thinking, they can wring their hands and feel bad over all these refugees, would consign a nation of Iraqis to the horrors that existed before we got there with literally no concern for human rights.
And they'd be saying, we've got to move on to Darfur.
And we got to move on to, well, we've got to move on to wherever.
We've got to get on to Darfur.
We've got to go to people starving.
There's a genocide going on.
We've got to get out of Iraq.
Everybody that pays attention knows what these contradictions are all about.
And they are contradictions big time.
These people that claim to have human rights, love and devotion, and care about the oppressed, it's not about that.
It's about themselves and their power for power's sake, for whatever psychological reasons.
Don't have time to go into all of them here, but you're wise to point out the contradiction.
Got to run, be back after this.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, and even the good times.
Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
Maha Rushi, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Got an email from a military friend of mine, a brilliant warrior.
He said, Rush, you know that withdrawal thing you were talking about with the Democrats before the job is complete?
We have a term for that in the military.
It's called combatus interruptus.
And I told him I like it so much, I'm going to steal it.
And I must really, folks, I try not to get graphic on this program, especially during summertime, because I know that you and the young children are at home out of scroll, creating little rush babies out there to grow up, become good young conservatives.
And I know sometimes that some of the things we say, this is an adult program sometimes, and it can be offensive, but the Democrats, I said, I just don't understand the legendary image of their prowess in intimate moments because they continually pull out before the job is finished.
And this is what my military warrior buddy said they call combatus interruptus.
I got to get to this before the program's over.
You know, yesterday we had a female caller who said she was embarrassed for Nancy Pelosi or by Nancy Pelosi and that Nancy Pelosi and her public appearances was hurting and harming the chances of all women to achieve positions of political power in this country.
And in a response that probably shocked many liberals and feminists who do listen to this program, I said, well, why?
Why in the world would what Nancy Pelosi does affect women?
I don't get embarrassed when some idiot guy says something and say, oh my God, this is hurting the cause of manhood or maeledom or whatever.
I said, we got to sort of look at these people and individuals.
Just because Nancy Pelosi can't handle this, I would, you know, not going to make me think less of Margaret Thatcher or Jean Kirkpatrick because Nancy Pelosi may fall short in a number of areas.
I said, the problem results.
And the reason, I told our female caller, the reason you're falling prey to this is because the feminist movement's one big error, and there were many, but the one big error of the feminist movement, the militant feminist movement, was they inculcated women with the idea that to be successful, they had to be like men.
I disputed the notion that women don't have power unless they're in high positions in government or whatever.
Women have all kinds of power, and in the old days, they knew it.
And they knew how to exercise it and use it for the common good.
But this notion that women have no power unless they're CEO or unless they're Speaker of the House or President of the United States is absurd.
Now, just to illustrate how on the cutting edge of societal evolution this program is, I have a story from the Associated Press.
I posted it, holding it here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, and it got posted at 3.39 this morning.
Women achieving more politically.
For aughts by a woman, I guess, Robin Hender.
I don't know it's a woman, but I'm assuming.
For all the talk about Hillary Rodham Clinton and Condoleezza Rice battling for the presidency in 2008, the closest a woman has come to the Oval Office is actress Gina Davis.
Now, that's silly.
It was a TV show and nobody watched it.
It was an embarrassment.
It was a failure, and Condoleezza Rice and Hillary are both closer to the...
Hillary's been in it, probably much to her regret on occasion, but she's been in there.
Gina Davis was an actress.
Yet, here's the next line.
Yet in other nations, a female leader isn't just the stuff of television drama.
Well, it's not just the stuff of television drama here either.
There are countless female leaders all over the place.
Countries as diverse as Britain and Chile, Liberia, and Israel have elected women to their highest political office.
When it comes to female representation in national parliaments, the U.S. ranks 68th in the world.
Even the new democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan have a greater percentage of female representatives than does Congress.
Oh, so they're better than we are now in Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet we've got to pull out.
This is all just ridiculous.
It's akin to when the militant feminists were saying, unfair representation.
There are not enough women in the Senate.
I was shouting back, tell them to run.
It's called get elected.
Nobody's appointing people that are there.
I wonder, though, folks, this.
Women all over the world, as this story tends to indicate, women all over the world hold more powerful political positions, have more political power than women do in the United States.
Now, could there be a reason?
Hold them out, you think there's a reason for this?
Not asking you what the reason is, a simple yes or no question.
Oh, your mind's not here.
It's in New Orleans.
Course, there is a reason why women all over the world hold more political power than women in the United States.
And it's not Nancy Pelosi's stupidity that casts a pall over the concept of other women being in power.
It's the feminist movement.
Think Golden May Ear was being trained by Gloria Steinem or anybody else?
No, she was.
The feminist movement made men try to go, women be like men, dress like men, act like men wrongly, rather than just expanding their horizons as who they are.
I wish I had more time to elaborate on this, but sadly, my friends, we are out of busy broadcast time.
Back in just a second.
As always, folks, a thrill and a delight.
It's more fun than I can tell you to be with you each and every day here.
And look forward to tomorrow.
Also, want to wish Mike Altamont the best last day today.
Great job today.
Stay dry.
Down there heading to New Orleans, pursuing his law career.
Are you going to become a trial lawyer or are going to become a constitutional lawyer?
He doesn't know it.
Trial lawyer, then we don't like what you're going to do.
▲
Export Selection