All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:01
June 30, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is refreshing to watch Prime Minister Koizumi at Graceland.
They just had videotape of, I guess, his last moments there.
And he said in English, thank you for making my dream come true.
He said Prime Minister of Japan and visiting Graceland today is his dream.
And he was ecstatic, and he couldn't believe Bush actually went with him.
He thanked Bush for going with him.
It's cool to see this.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
And you know what's so unique about it?
Here's an ally that actually likes us.
And the media is giving this guy all this hint.
Koizumi loves us.
It was fascinating to watch.
I hope you have a chance to see it.
Greetings, folks.
Open Line Friday.
You know what that means?
We go to the phones.
The program is all yours.
I am, of course, a renowned benevolent dictator Monday through Thursday.
Nobody has the right to speak.
Nobody has the right to be heard on this program.
That is a right conferred by me on you.
But on Friday, there are no limits or very few limits.
I mean, just normal bounds of propriety.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program and rush at EIBnet.com if you want to go email.
All right, Mark and Brian, I'm sorry, Brian Kansas City, Missouri, been waiting patiently here to continue our discussion.
Thank you.
You know, I went back during the break, and I actually pulled a quote, and I didn't even say Democrats.
I said when you get right down to it, liberals are just downright mean.
They're bullies, authoritarian, arrogant, condescending, full of themselves, absolutely no reason to be.
That's the extent of it.
That's what I said.
Okay, that's fair enough.
But, I mean, it seems I listen off and on throughout the year.
Of course, yes.
But you tend to be a little loose and use the term liberal and Democrat almost interchangeably, it seems like.
You don't find any liberals and the Republicans.
Well, maybe a couple, but I mean, statistically, they don't exist.
Well, my whole point making this call is I'm certainly, believe me, I'm not going to even attempt to defend Clinton at all.
I mean, I voted for him.
I don't approve of a lot of stuff that happened, and so I'm not going to get into that.
It just seems like that, you know, you, over the past however many years, have made a career out of doing everything you can to bash him, to badmouth him.
And then, you know, when Bush is in office, anyone who disagrees with him is a Bush hater.
And I think he said something, in fact, earlier of Democrats are obsessed with getting rid of Bush and things like that.
And that's exactly what the Republicans were doing to all the Clinton administration.
Let's go back, though.
I can remember being called a Clinton hater.
The media came up with a term to describe any critic of Clinton, and that was Clinton hater.
But we never called Clinton a terrorist.
We never compared Bill Clinton to Adolf Hitler.
We didn't suggest that the biggest threat, as Jack Merthy did the other day, to peace in the world is Bill Clinton.
I have disagreed with Bush on numerous occasions.
I still do on immigration issues and others.
But you know what?
I think the problem is, Brian, and I actually run into this a lot.
I'm literally despised by a lot of people in the media and on the left.
And I'm despised by people who don't even listen much.
And so I've been perplexed.
Okay, how can this be?
Because I'm a lovable, likable guy.
I am not despised by anybody that knows me.
So what explains this?
And I think the left, and I don't mean Democrats, the left, I'm talking about the ideological left, for so long owned the playing field that they were above being made fun of and being ridiculed.
And along came old El Rushbo in 1988, and I've made a career out of making fun of them, and it never happened before.
Why, you're not supposed to make fun of people who believe in abortion.
You're not supposed to call them feminazis.
You're not supposed to make fun, and nobody ever did.
And so I am hated and reviled, but I don't come close to Michael Moore.
I don't come close to some of the Cindy.
She has some of the people that are foaming at the mouth on the left.
This program is useless.
Even if 90% satire, satire, humor, there is sheer outrage and anger on the other side.
If you send someone like Ann Coulter, I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to say that what she says about whatever, like fragging John Murtha and all that kind of stuff, that is not exactly something that a nice person would say.
So when you say liberals are not, then, you know, obviously, I just wanted to get your opinion on aren't you leaving yourself wide open?
No, not at all.
There are a lot of conservatives that are not nice people.
Ever since it was discovered that I was a conservative, I've been, and everybody else on my side has been called a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
I'm not saying that's right.
I'm certainly try and not use such terms.
What I'm trying to explain to you here is that for the longest time, the left had a monopoly.
They had the power with the media to establish clichés and stereotypes of conservatives.
And for the longest time, we've been fuming about it because it's not true.
They can't defeat us in the arena of ideas, so they try to discredit us by calling us these isms, racists, and this sort of stuff.
And that's pretty serious stuff.
Of course it is.
And that's why I want to assure you, I'm not agreeing with that at all.
No, I'm trying to discuss what you're saying.
I'm trying to explain to you that what I do is not mean.
What I do is funny.
They just can't take it.
And so now I am considered almost satanic because the left can make fun of all kinds of people and get away with it.
The right can't.
There's a different standard out there.
You talked about Ann Coulter.
You know, I would suggest that all of you actually go get her book and read it.
I have.
You've read the latest book?
Yes.
You have.
Can you tell me what you thought of her chapter on the infallibility of liberals?
Again, blanket terms.
Can you tell me?
No.
Can you tell me what you thought of her excellent intellectual discourse on the deterioration and abomination that is the public school system?
Yes, I can.
I happen to be a teacher.
That's why I took that one to heart.
When she says stuff like, oh, that it uses words like indoctrination, which I think is that very important.
Oh, she says far more than that.
Yeah, when she says stuff like, you know, teachers are very well paid, you know, because all we do is we only work nine months.
Well, I'm sorry.
I work year-round.
Oh, she does far more than that.
She totally destroys the whole belief, the system in evolution and Darwinism.
She talks about what a bunch of closed minds, liberal educators, and Coulter's book.
You know, I don't obviously don't have the names that tip my tongue right now, but that's my whole point of this, is that both sides, left and right, are dealing in such blanket statements.
And I don't think you're going to be able to do that.
I steadfastly disagree with you.
You read Ann Coulter's book, and you are going to get an intellectual feast.
You're going to get a book that was long researched, well researched, and well-documented.
You do have a chapter in there on the infallibility.
And I'll explain that to you in this manner.
Her theory on infallibility is that the Democrats go out, the Liberals go out and get a bunch of victims of a cause and then turn them into critics of conservatives and Republicans, and you can't criticize them because they're victims.
Ergo, the Jersey girls, Ergo John Murthy.
He was a Marine.
You can't criticize him.
County, you got to listen to what he says because they can't win in the arena of ideas.
The difference is that Ann Coulter's book is full of meat.
It is full of substance.
She goes on the Today Show and says what she says about the Jersey girls, and everybody gets sidetracked on that and ignores the fact.
You know, the liberals still are not objecting to the whole premise of her book is that the liberals are godless today, that they're pretty much atheists.
And I guess they're comfortable with that because they're not even reacting to it.
I don't think, just like they don't listen to this program, they're not reading her book.
Well, again, I guess my whole point, again, to go back to what I was saying, is that everybody deals in these blanket statements.
All liberals, all conservatives, whatever.
And I just don't, I think that's just an exercise in futility to go on with, you know, to say stuff like that.
Because obviously, the world has a lot of shades of gray.
It's not all black and white.
See, that's, there's, I mean, I know, a lot of nuance out there, a lot of gray area.
But there are liberals and there are conservatives, and liberals are liberals.
I don't care where they are.
The difference, the thing you've got to come to accept and understand is an often stated theory of mine, a profundity uttered early on in this program.
Words mean things.
And the liberals want their words to be taken however they intend them to be taken.
They want excuses.
They want to be immune from criticism for certain things while being critical of identical things.
But the thing, the bottom line is that they just can't take it.
They just can't take the criticism because they never had any.
They can't take being made fun of because they never were made fun of.
And they don't know how to deal with it.
And what we're seeing is a very, I think, knee-jerk emotional reaction when you get people like Michael Moore and others reacting.
And Ann Coulter's point is: as long as there are people out there going to call George W. Bush Hitler, and as long as there are people out there that are going to say that George Bush represents the greatest threat to peace in the world, she's not going to shut up.
And it's a battle and a war out there.
And I think our side's winning it because we are doing it with humor.
The plan in her argument, and the whole argument to me, is that when something like that is said, the implication is that that includes everybody.
And I think there's a huge majority of people out there on both sides who don't fit into any of those categories.
And that's my whole point.
Well, if that's true, then they're either out there hip-hop and waiting in line at Blockbuster or are otherwise disengaged.
And so who cares?
We are approaching the people who are engaged and who can concern themselves with the future of the country and these things.
And I think all of this is, you know, people say, how come you don't get mad at this?
It's a sign of effectiveness.
We're winning.
We're carrying the day out there.
You can't expect people that own the country for 50 years just to casually let go of it.
And so, you know, it is what it is.
Brad, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate it.
You're a very nice guy.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
All right.
In honor of our last phone call, ladies and gentlemen, an example of EIB humor and satire that always, however, while making us laugh, makes a point.
Given that we've been running this and given that CNN has aired excerpts of this, why would I ever expect fair treatment in the New York Times?
I wouldn't.
I don't.
I don't expect it.
So, you know, when the New York Times or anybody else publishes or broadcasts dastardly mean stuff about, I'm practically inviting it, folks.
And it is what it is.
Doesn't bother me.
I didn't go into this for approval.
Didn't go into this for good PR and great spin and love and adoration and affection by the people I happen to be criticizing.
What kind of warped mind would I have if I expected to be loved by these people after 18 years of this?
Who's next on this program?
Al in Bayside, New York.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yes, good afternoon, Rush.
Second time caller.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, what I wanted to challenge the environmentalist left assertion that we're running out of oil.
I'd like to point out that beside the fact that you yourself have pointed out that Alaska, Wyoming, and Utah have more oil than the Middle East, in the province of Alberta, in Canada, they have approximately 2 trillion barrels of what they call sand oil.
Yeah, so don't leave out Montana in this recipe, too.
Montana, they've got a lot, and it's going to take a different technique to get it, but there's a lot there, too.
Right.
But just in Alberta, that would be eight times what there is in the Middle East.
Yeah.
And we're told that the Middle East reserves will last about 70 years.
Yeah.
So what's in Alberta is about 560 years.
And we're not even talking about the reserves in Mexico.
No, but you've also got a bunch of environmentalist wackos that won't let you get to it.
Well, that's true, but I believe that if we get to the point where the cars aren't running any longer, we will get to it.
Well, yeah.
I mean, I think there's argument from a number of environmental geologists who speculate oil still being made, that oil is still being created by the earth in various places.
It's not just from ancient fossils and so forth.
But I think you're right.
I don't know.
When I start explaining this stuff, I get overawed by it all.
And it's even with somebody such as myself with excellent verbal and communication skills and an expansive fertile mind, it still is tough to describe what I feel when I travel anywhere.
The sheer size, the complexity, I guess is the best way to describe it.
The complexity of all the systems, eco and otherwise, in this planet that provide the opportunity for incalculable different types of species, life just overwhelms me and tells me that I don't care what anybody thinks or believes.
It cannot be an accident.
And I don't think we human beings will ever evolve intellectually to be able to mathematically understand all of this.
But there is no question this is all a giant mathematical equation.
And if you look at physicists and people like Hawking, when they break all this down, it's a math problem.
When they make discoveries, they try to explain the universe.
They always do it in terms of mathematics.
But the idea that Al Gore says we've got 10 years before we harm irrevocably the ecosystem.
In fact, I got a story here from our buddies over at newsbusters.com.
Apparently, Al Gore was on, here it is.
Al Gore was on the, what is it, The Daily Show, Jon Stewart's program.
And apparently, this was just a laugh riot.
The first thing that Gore said early on, Stewart asked him when he first started doing this slideshow about global warming.
Now, keep in mind that in Gore's Idiot movie, he claims that America has only 10 years to avert a major environmental crisis.
But he obviously forgot this because he told Stewart, oh, I've been doing this slideshow for eight years.
I've been doing it for eight years, long time.
Then he changed his position.
He said, actually, I've been doing this slideshow since before I came vice president.
Well, that would be 1993.
Well, that's over 13 years.
Okay, so assuming the second answer is the right one, that means that he's been doing this presentation for at least 14 years, which means the end of the world happened four years ago and we all missed it.
Maybe even funnier, later in the discussion, Gore changed his position again.
He said, you know, actually, I've been trying to tell this story for 30 years.
This is like the story we had last week, the AP, remember this?
They had a report that first claimed the Earth is currently the hottest it's been in 400 years, and they changed it to 1,000 years, and they changed it again to 2,000 years.
Gore said, the only crisis we've ever faced, global warming is the only crisis we've ever faced that has the capacity to completely end human civilization.
And Stewart, not even Stewart can let that go.
He said, well, what about, you know, nuclear's got a shot there, Al, the bomb's got a shot.
No, no, no, no.
Gore maintained that global warming would destroy more of the planet and civilization than nuclear weapons.
Well, how do you not make fun of this?
Gladly.
That's what we do here on this program.
We make the complex understandable.
You know, have you people heard any of the latest tape from bin Laden?
Well, I heard a little bit of it, and we have been trying to find a transcript, and we can't find one.
Cookie was looking exhaustively all morning long.
I have done my own exhaustive advanced searches using special techniques.
You can't find it on Al Jazeera.
You can't find it at Al-Arabiya.
You can't even find it on that Wacko website that they use to post attack warnings to various terrorists.
But the reason we've been looking for it is because, folks, it is, I mean, it's Chuck Schumer.
It's Ted Kennedy.
It's Democrat talking points.
It is, I mean, bin Laden in this thing accuses Bush of following the polls.
He praises the U.S. media for standing vigil or criticizes Bush for being critical of the media, which is only informing people of the truth of such.
It's astounding.
We can't find it.
We cannot locate it.
Now, there has to be a reason for this.
And I can only speculate it, but the reason we can't find it is because some people, one of two things, they either recognize it as exactly as I just described it, or they think it's a Rove trick and that Rove actually created and produced this thing, and they're not going to let him get away with it.
But there has to have been for not one website in the world to have that transcript.
Now, some bloggers may have it when it was posted, but I haven't visited all the blogs.
So if our buddies at Power Line or Captain's Quarters or Red State, I mean, I don't know if they've got it or not, but it's nowhere to be found.
And there has to be a reason for this because it's that's what made me want to go find the whole thing.
Just a few of the things that I heard.
I said, whoa, this is exactly, it's Democrat talking points all over.
All right.
Audio soundbite time.
Have the audio of the video I saw just moments ago described to you the so refreshing of being Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi and President Bush after they finished their tour of Graceland.
I was hoping the Prime Minister would want to come to Graceland.
I knew he loved Elvis.
I didn't realize how much he loved Elvis.
He not only knows Elvis' history, he can sing a pretty good Elvis song.
This visit here shows that not only am I personally fond of the Prime Minister, that the ties between our peoples are very strong as well.
And so, again, to the press, thank you all.
And, Mr. Prime Minister, glad you joined us.
Want to say a few comments?
It's like a dream.
An unexpected president to be this disquisition.
There's every song to dream the impossible dream.
My dream came true.
Thank you very much.
I just love that.
The Prime Minister of Japan has one of his most moving life experiences going to Graceland.
It was his dream.
His dream came true.
Thank you very much.
And he's saying, this is just this, Frank folks, this is more like it.
This is more.
I mean, this is a real guy.
Absolutely a real guy.
Here's Carl in Jacksonville, Florida.
Carl, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Yes, thank you, Rush.
Six or seven years ago, you published your letter, published a speech from your grandfather on your website.
Yes.
And I was thrilled by it.
You're talking about that was, I think it was my father's speech, the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
That's right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know what?
We have that on the members' side in what we call our essential stack of stuff.
But, you know, it's been a while since I think we've had it up there on the free side.
That's not a bad idea out there, Carl, coming up here on Independence Day weekend, 4th of July weekend for those of you in Rio Linda.
Coco, move that speech to the free side.
Go ahead and do it now so people can go access it.
This is even this a couple years after we put this up, there were some actual drive-by media types who went out there and tried to accuse my dad of plagiarism.
Remember that?
I remember when he was sitting there writing this speech at home and he'd go up to the library at the local university and do research.
And I heard him give the speech a couple times.
The signers of the Declaration of It is a powerful, powerful speech.
And yeah, we'll dig it out of the essential stack and we'll put it in the free side.
Thanks, Carl, very much.
Michael in Seldovia, Alaska.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning, Maha Rush.
Yeah, thank you.
I apologize for the morning, but we have the honor of joining you starting at 8 o'clock in the morning here.
Well, you're lucky to get it whenever you get it.
And I appreciate that you make the effort.
Well, I wanted to expand a little bit on the wonderful comments you made when that young man called earlier today about the motivations of our drive-by media.
Yeah.
As a Vietnam veteran and one of those American air pilots with a couple 250 air missions over Vietnam, I've got a strong belief that not only is it the drive-by media, but the management of the drive-by media, to a very large extent, are those children of the 60s.
They've grown up and they like the tactics they used to cause this.
Oh, no question about it.
No question about you're absolutely right.
Well, the motivation is the same motivation was to cause us to turn our back on 60,000 Americans that gave their lives and caused the government to walk away.
I know.
It's a replay because they consider Vietnam one of their glory periods.
Absolutely.
They're trying to turn this war.
That's the worst victory and our nation's defeat.
Yeah, exactly.
In fact, Howard Feynman of the Drive-By Media writes for Newsweek.
He's an NBC commentator.
Actually said that it was the Vietnam War that created the media as a fourth political party or third political, whatever it was, third political party in the country.
And that since then, they've pretty much acted as though they exist in that context.
So you're basically reacting to what I said to the young man that I don't think there really was total unity even on the day of 9-11.
Absolutely, sir.
Absolutely.
I think that to a large extent, everybody moves in the direction of the news, good or bad.
But when everybody sits down and has a little time to think it over, that's when the influence of those folks starts to come in back in.
And I think that they were going with what they thought was the popular tide at the time, and now they're speaking out and trying to turn that tide against what has to be.
And they're doing it for two reasons.
One, they're doing it because they genuinely want to turn the tide.
Second reason to see that they prove to themselves they still have the power to do it.
They don't have their monopoly anymore.
It was much easier when they had Walter Cronkite on your side, and Walter Cronkite denounces the war, then that pretty much helped them.
But they don't have that anymore.
There is no Walter Cronkite.
There is no singular voice.
In fact, I even, I forget who wrote this, some op-ed piece lamenting the fact that there just isn't one person with whom the nation can have a conversation with during these times of trouble and crisis.
That now there are so many voices out there, and some of them, of course, are so irresponsible.
They long for the past, and they long for the good old days, and that's why they're constantly looking to the past.
Your comment, though, about management, let me amend that.
You know, we see the talent, we see the reporters, and we see the anchors and the infobabes and the anchorettes, but we don't see these producers.
And a bunch of producers came of age in the 60s as well.
And a lot of them are fresh journalism school grads.
And journalism schools exist for one reason, and that's to inculcate a culture, to not teach a craft.
A great journalist really needs to have a good education in English, a superior education in history, a knowledge, some knowledge of general issues.
But that's not what Journalism School teaches.
Journalism School teaches an approach, a culture, an agenda, a formula, if you will, and they churn these people out of these things.
And it turned people out that have really no context, no historical context other than their own lives and their own memories, because their historical context begins with the day of their birth in most cases.
So a lot of producers that are in charge of deciding what gets on the air, what shows editors in the print publications, what goes on the front page and so forth.
But yeah, I think you've nailed it just as many people have.
This is simply a period where not only are they trying to recreate Watergate, or the Vietnam War with Iraq, they're trying to turn this administration into Richard Nixon, all to prove they can still do it and to relive their glory days.
They don't see any glory days in the future down the road.
All right.
All right, we're back.
Los Angeles Times.
Op-ed columnist Rosa Brooks.
You talk about an uninformed idiot.
Now, see, having said that, why would I expect favorable treatment from her or from the Los Angeles Times?
Let me amend it.
She's just ignorant.
She's arrogant and ignorant.
I gave you the details of this Supreme Court decision earlier in the program.
If you missed it, check the website later today.
If anybody overstepped any authority here, it was the U.S. Supreme Court and the four liberals and Anthony Kennedy that voted.
They threw out an act of Congress.
They ignored a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1942 allowing for military tribunals.
It's breathtaking when you understand what actually happened here.
So we have Rosa Brooks.
The L.A. Times, did Bush commit war crimes?
The real blockbuster in the Hamden decision is the court's holding that common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with al-Qaeda.
A holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the Federal War Crimes Act.
Impeachment, anyone?
Also predicted to you this would be the case as far back as 2004.
The court is wrong, Ms. Brooks.
The Geneva Convention does not apply as written to terrorist prisoners at Club Gitmo.
Just because the Supreme Court says so, it means they just have said they're above the law.
They are the law.
Congress isn't the law.
They are based on their personal preferences.
In this case, the liberal majority.
And we found the bin Laden, not a transcript, but I found enough of the story.
My brother David, I guess, stopped wandering the streets of Cape Girardo long enough to go the computer, and he found it on the Al Jazeera website, some of the things that I had heard from Bin Laden's speech.
I'll get into that in the monologue section of the next hour.
People have been patiently waiting here, and I want to get to Virginia Beach with Vance.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you, David's Rush.
Thank you.
Yeah, I'm an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, and I'm a benefactor or beneficiary of the Dr. Soldier program.
I want to thank you and the folks who make that possible.
Thank you, sir.
If you would, to accommodate my hearing, if you would slow down just a little.
Sorry about that, Rush.
That's all right.
I understand your enthusiasm.
I just want to make the comment.
You know, Brian called, and whenever these liberals make comments about blanket accusations, I remember something my daddy said.
He said, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who yells is the one who got hit.
You throw a rock into, I'm having to read because I didn't hear you, into a pack of dogs, the one who yells is the one who got hit.
Yes, sir.
Okay, so means the criticism hit home.
That's exactly right.
Yeah.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
So I sit here and say liberals are just mean.
And this guy, ooh, doesn't like that, so has to call a react.
See, this is the theory.
It's interesting.
Vance, thanks for the call.
This is the theory that I had to go back and forth with when I first started getting all kinds of criticism.
Do you react to it?
Because when you do, the critics say, aha, aha, must be true.
Thus be really worried about it to be bothered enough to respond to it.
And that's essentially the theory that Vance here espoused.
Vance, thanks much for the call.
St. Lucie County.
Is this St. Lucie County?
I'm here in Florida.
Florida.
Okay.
Jeff, everybody has to be from somewhere, I guess.
Yep, St. Lucie County.
Thank you, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
Excited to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Just watching the news and I'm confused, all this flooding in the Northeast.
Where's all the looting?
I mean, isn't that what Katrina taught us, that it's okay to loot and rob?
Well, yeah, except I've got a story in the stack.
Some looters just got 15 years.
Looters in New Orleans just got 15 years.
But what about all the ones up in the Northeast?
Well, you mean there aren't any?
I'm confused.
I thought it was okay.
Well, there might be some.
We're just not being shown.
Well, they shouldn't be shown.
Wait a minute.
Mr. Snirdley says if there aren't any looters?
I haven't seen any.
Snirdley says there aren't any looters up there.
Interesting question that you've raised here.
And I'm also curious to know where FEMA is passing out their gift cards to those poor people up there.
Yeah.
Good point.
I bet the only guy I've seen on television is Fast Eddie Rindell, the mayor of or the governor of Pennsylvania.
That's an interesting point.
You know, we had tornadoes go through other parts of the country.
I didn't see FEMA there either.
We haven't seen Bush, by the way.
Bush doesn't care about this.
I didn't see the looting with the tornadoes either.
No, you didn't.
Well, what is the conclusion that you draw from this?
Well, I think the conclusion's obvious.
I think it's pretty obvious.
If you don't get it, then you're probably a little too far left.
Another one of those blanket statements, Russ.
Well, I know.
During Hurricane Katrina, you're right.
They were telling us they're entitled.
Those people live in poverty.
They've got to survive.
They've got to go into those stores and get food.
What do you expect them to do?
There's no distribution system and so forth.
It's just another clear illustration, folks, of the massive double standard that exists.
We all know why that's the case.
The fact of the matter is that the reporting in Katrina was so abominable that it wasn't nearly, it was bad.
But I mean, it wasn't nearly, nearly as chaotic and bad as the drive-bys led us to believe.
Don in Lexington, Kentucky, you're on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Good talk to you.
Thank you.
I had a comment to make about the teacher that called in.
Yeah.
That's their game, is the blanket approach, you know, the blanket, the shotgun blast.
And I'm reading her book now, which I'm finding enjoyable.
I have to look up a word at least every other page.
But she's not making that point that all teachers are well paid.
She's hitting on the union pretty good.
She's hitting on the politics pretty good.
She's hitting on a lot of the things that they have to learn to become a teacher.
But she's not saying that the flyover country is paying that kind of money that they are in New York.
I just, you know, I think you hit it wrong.
But if I can make a comment about the looters, quickly, quickly, 30 seconds.
All right.
I think they're already in office.
The looters in the Northeast are already in office.
Good point.
Look, as to Coulter's book, I got a few seconds here.
You really, it is amazing to me to watch the reaction.
They're not even reacting to her book.
They're reacting to her interview with Matt Lauer about the Jersey Girls, is what they react.
If you get her book and read it, it is a deep intellectual exercise, folks.
It'll stun you.
The book is terrific.
Back in just a second.
Fastest three hours in media.
Two of them already in the can.
We got one more to go on Open Line Friday.
Can't wait to get to it.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection