All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
November 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back, ladies and gentlemen, with broadcast excellence and the Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Great to have you with us.
We're doing Open Line Friday on Tuesday today since I am taking an extended Thanksgiving break.
I'll be out tomorrow as well as Thursday and Friday.
So basically what you want to ask or talk about is Fair Game today.
When we go to the program, we'll go to the phones.
The program is yours.
The telephone number, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Several Democratic lawmakers have asked the Bush administration, this was yesterday, to replace its new family planning chief because the new family planning chief has worked for a health provider that opposes the use of birth control.
Dr. Eric Kerouac's record as an opponent of birth control and abortion makes him a poor choice to oversee a $280 million reproductive health program, according to seven House Democrats.
This stated in a letter to Mike Levitt, the Health and Human Services Secretary.
Kerouac is a skilled doctor, a nationally recognized expert on the subject, but Democrats don't want any part of him.
And the main reason is, is that he promotes an abstinence agenda.
So here we have a nationally recognized doctor who believes in abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
The Democrats want this guy as far away from them as they can get him.
And they're going to make this guy's life a living hell.
They just won Congress.
They did not win the White House.
And yet they are dictating to the White House what they must do with the health director.
Now, here's a guy who's trying to stop abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.
Could you tell me what is the compelling government interest in spreading abortion and sexually transmitted diseases?
If this guy's no good because he wants to stop or halt the spread of abortion and sexually transmitted diseases, then you'd have to assume the Democrats have an opposite view.
So what, pray tell, is the compelling national or government interest in spreading abortion or expanding it and sexually transmitted diseases.
Global warming continues to be a subject out there that has so many contradictions, it has become a full-fledged joke.
Here's a headline from CO2science.org.
Antarctic ice sheet mass balance.
The bottom line, it's just full of scientific mumbo jumbo, but here is a summary of what it means.
Contrary to all the horror stories that one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggests that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.
And we just had a story about the Arctic, the North Pole, which said that it is resisting our efforts to destroy it.
That the Arctic knows full well we're trying to globally heat the planet and destroy the Arctic ice sheets, and it's resisting these efforts.
Now the Antarctic, contrary to the horror stories that one hears, and again, this is CO2science.org, are saying that what's going on down in the Antarctic is a bit of an exaggeration as well.
All right, the United States and the war in Iraq.
Kofi Annan today had a statement.
Audio Sunbudge 23, 24-25 here, Mike.
Kofi Annan today discussing the United States and the war in Iraq.
The U.S., in a way, is trapped in Iraq.
Trapped in the sense that it cannot stay and it cannot leave.
The question of regret, I still have to say, is there is a war in Iraq and that the debate and the discussions that took place in the council could not have helped us stop the war.
I firmly believe that the war could have been avoided and the inspectors should have had a bit more time.
Well, who do you blame for that, Kofi?
You blame maybe Saddam for kicking the inspectors.
No, no, no, no.
Of course not.
So we're trapped in a sense that we can't stay and we cannot leave.
Now, that's not trapped.
That is a liberal pacifist's view of the situation.
We are not trapped.
If we're anything, we are between decisions here.
And everybody knows what's coming.
Everybody knows that the Baker report's coming out, the Iraq study group, and it's going to recommend talking to Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and somehow getting out of there.
This could still be one, and a lot of Americans know it, and it's frustrating to them.
Anyway, John Bolton had this reaction on MSNBC today to what Kofi said.
Yeah, that's another unhelpful comment from the Secretary General, unfortunately.
The fact is we are where we are, and the issue is how we're going to resolve this problem in Iraq and defeat the terrorists.
And also this morning on MSNBC Live, Andrea Mitchell interviewed John Bolton about the assassination of the Lebanese Christian minister Pierre Jamail.
He was the son of the former big gun over there, Amin Jamail.
And she says Syria has expressed concern about this assassination.
How much is that expression, their protestations, how credible is that given their role, their suspected role in the Hariri assassination?
Is it likely that Syria was involved in this as well?
One pattern we discern in these political assassinations of Lebanese leaders, journalists, members of parliament, they all are anti-Syrian.
So I suppose one can draw conclusions from that.
This is serious because Hezbollah, which is financed and armed by Syria and Iran, currently acts as a state within a state inside Lebanon.
It purports to be a political party, but it's armed to the teeth.
And its leader over the weekend called on Hezbollah's supporters to go into the street for quote-unquote peaceful demonstrations with the aim of overthrowing the Lebanese government.
So maybe somebody didn't get the memo and this political assassination is yet another indication that the coup d'état is underway.
Whatever it is, it's another act of terrorism and it comes from Syria.
And I just can't help but think we're supposed to negotiate with these people.
We're supposed to talk to them.
We're supposed to bring them into our warm embrace.
And we're supposed to seek their assistance.
Yes, we are supposed to go ask them along with the mullahs in Iran.
How do we get out of Iraq?
How do we save face?
How do we do this?
Can you guys offer some assistance?
This is who we're dealing with.
Quickly, before we go to the break, Rosemary in Memphis, glad you called.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Ron.
Hi.
How are you?
I'm fine and dandy.
How about you?
All right.
Megadittos.
Thank you.
Well, look, since it's Open Line Friday on Tuesday, I didn't really call you about this, but this is a good opportunity to ask you about this.
I really call it about Charlie Wrangel.
Yeah.
But I want to know your official program observer, Mr. Snerdley, a.k.a. James Golden.
When did he get back?
He never left.
He was always with us in spirit.
He just took a tumble out there in Seattle, but our arms were always open, and he's been officially back in the fold here probably about five years.
Oh, okay.
Because I remember when he left, he, you know, came from behind the mic and did an interview.
And just want to take an opportunity to say that is one intelligent young man.
I'm always amazed at how he could, you know, call to mind things that you can't think of.
And so.
Oh, let me tell you something.
Let me tell you something.
You know, Rosemary, this is Thanksgiving.
We've got to give thanks.
I usually save my thanks for Christmas because for some reason I feel more thankful at Christmas time than I do at Thanksgiving.
But I got to tell you something.
This show could not survive without Snerdley.
And I believe it, too.
Well, I know.
And I just want to let you know that your perception is accurate.
Yeah, yeah.
And we're a team.
We're at the team here at the EIB Network, and everybody here understands that.
Well, that's why everything runs so smoothly, and I really enjoy this program.
I appreciate that you do.
I'm a black woman, and the world that I live and work in is basically Democrat.
They think I'm crazy.
What's wrong with you listening to that racist?
I said, have you ever heard him?
Have you ever turned on the radio and listened to him?
I said, he said, give him six weeks.
Yeah, but they don't.
They don't, do they?
Yeah, but they won't listen to you.
Well, of course they won't.
That would challenge their worldview.
Yeah.
If they actually listened to the program, they wouldn't be able to say the things about it that they do.
I'm a little short on time.
What do you want to say about Wrangell?
Okay, Wrangle, if you've ever seen that real popular movie, 70s, 80s, or something like that, Platoon, Oliver Stone is the one who made it.
I watched that movie, and I think that movie, you know, it was all about Vietnam.
And the Iraq war is viewed with a Vietnam mindset.
And that's the only reason Charlie Wrangel has the credibility that he has, the things he's going around saying about the draft, uneducated military, they go in for the benefits and stuff like that.
Charlie Sheen was a star that movie, and he was the only one there with, you know, other than the officers with a college education.
They showed a lot of these black guys.
See, now that's an interesting point.
We've made this point before.
But the kind of military that Wrangell envisions is what you do get with a draft.
You don't get the Harvards and the Yale's with the draft.
You get people that don't want to go.
In fact, I've got a story here that kind of illustrates the point.
Now, it's not a large number of examples, but here's the headline.
Students see little chance of draft.
It's a story out of Chicago by Martha Irvine of AP.
You read this story and you get the impression that all these kids in the country today just spoiled rotten brats.
They found enough students to interview or kids, young people, to say they don't want to go to cast aspersions on the whole concept of a draft.
You can't say that the people they talk to in this story represents a cross-section of the American people at large in this demographic or this age group, but that doesn't matter to AP.
They're trying to create the impression with the story that the participants, the people they interviewed and talked to and quote, are in fact representative of the country at large.
I'll share with you some of the things these kids have to say when we come back on Open Line Friday on Tuesday.
Stay where you are.
Ha, are you?
We're back.
America's real anchorman executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
All right, all AP.
Many college students see the latest flirtation with a military draft more as political gameplaying than as a serious threat.
They welcome a discussion on military issues and the war in Iraq, but, regardless of their political leanings, they view a draft as outdated and unrealistic.
Their comments came Monday as Charlie Wrangell says he will introduce legislation, and Democrats have since shot him down, but the AP went out and decided to talk to young Truin, who might be affected by this if it were to happen.
Nora Vail, a junior at DePaul University in Chicago, sees some merit in having a discussion about military service.
It's not the Bush twins going off to war, she says.
It's going to be the poor kids growing up in the south of the inner city who go off to war.
Yeah, it won't be you either, huh?
She doesn't think reinstating the draft is the answer, though.
She calls it a terrible idea.
The majority of people who'd be drafted would oppose the war, she says, referring to Iraq.
It'd be just Vietnam all over again.
It would be people forced to serve in a war they didn't want to be at, says Vail, a Democrat majoring in political science.
Well, she is what?
What did it say?
She says she's a junior at DePaul.
She's 20, 21, 19, 20, obviously reflecting the views of the professor and the drive-by media here that Iraq is Vietnam.
This woman's not alive in Vietnam.
She know what happened during the Vietnam War other than what she's been taught by her professors and the drive-by media, pure and simple.
Students with other political affiliations share her opposition to the draft, though sometimes for different reasons.
What would I do if I was drafted?
I think I probably wouldn't be the best soldier.
I'm not sure other soldiers would want to depend on me, said Stephen Hogg, a 21-year-old senior at Emory University in Atlanta, majoring in classics and history.
The editor of the Emory Political Review, he identifies himself as a Republican.
In reality, he says most students see little chance of a draft measure actually passing.
The only people who are talking about it are the political pundits and a couple kids around campus.
Jamie McCown, professor of government and policy at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, agrees that many young people don't see the draft as a real possibility, but if it were, it would be an explosive issue.
I think they associate the draft as almost a historical thing.
It's something that occurred when we were involved in a bad war, he says, referring to Vietnam.
At the very least, he thinks Wrangel's proposal will spark debate, not just among students, but also among parents.
Maybe we should talk about how likely we are to go to war if it's your children and not somebody else's children.
But I can't see that anyone thinking about running in the 2008 campaign would want to touch it with a 10-foot poll.
He's right about that.
But they've gone out and found every kid they can, about five here, designed to represent the collective thinking of people their age across the country.
Oh, it'll never work.
I'd be a lousy soldier.
Oh, I want no part of it and so forth.
And I notice something creeping into this, and this is not going to stop because it fits a pattern of things that are already established.
Well, if Congress has to send their own kids, they won't authorize money.
If the president had to send his children to war, he would never declare war, wouldn't commit troops.
This whole line of thinking, maybe we should talk about how likely we are to go to war if it's your children and not somebody else's children.
This sounds eerily similar to people on the left who are saying, well, if you haven't been in the military, you can't talk about it.
Or if you haven't had a disabled child, you have no right to an opinion.
If you, I have had a disabled child.
If you haven't, you can't talk about it.
Now, where this could possibly be headed.
Remember, folks, just because the Democrats are shutting this down as a legislative matter doesn't mean it's just going to die on the vine or wither away on the vine.
The left is doing everything it can to discourage the use of the military, and they're doing it by way of impacting as much public opinion as possible with their willing accomplices in the drive-by media.
It is to impugn the people who are there.
It is to impugn their ability.
It's to impugn and intact the country and their mission as immoral.
It is to accuse the U.S. military of being the focus of evil in the modern world.
It is to secure defeats for the U.S. military so as to cause more and more people to think that's not the way to solve the problem.
And so when you put all that in the hopper, you can conclude that somewhere down the line, somebody will suggest that these members of Congress and future presidents must send their own kids to war if they have them or grandkids.
Somebody in their family is going to have to go if they start one.
Or not start one.
If they deploy troops, even in a defensive mission.
That members of Congress, say on the Armed Services Committee, or maybe all members of Congress, a certain majority of them, the president, are going to have to send members of their own family before they can send anybody else.
Otherwise, it isn't fair.
This is the kind of thing I think that is headed our way.
I notice these trends because I know liberals.
And it's not new.
And they're very patient.
And they will willingly spend the time it takes to reach their objective, even if it takes generations.
And this policy of putting forth victims in campaigns or TV ads as unassailable immune victims and participants in the political process is just another branch of that.
You put somebody, Christopher Reeve, whatever he says he wants, whatever he says he's for, you can't disagree.
You can't because you will be mean and insensitive because he suffers from spinal paralysis.
And how can anybody criticize him for wanting to get better?
If he thinks embryonic stem cell research would have been the way to do it, how you can't criticize him.
And that's you can't criticize is becoming the, it's evolving to be the next big bludgeon that the left is going to use on all of their issues.
And the military is just the next step in this.
You can't send troops unless yours go.
You can't be for it unless your kids go.
You can't, all of this stuff.
Mark my words, folks.
Remember this date, November 21st, 06.
We'll come back to it someday.
Making the complex understandable.
I know I promised the Thanksgiving story.
I'm going to do the Thanksgiving story.
I got an hour and a half yet.
Has everybody in there lost confidence in my ability to know what I'm doing with my program from day to day?
I know I promised the Thanksgiving story, and I will do the Thanksgiving story if I can find it.
No, I know it's over there.
Keiton Dayton, you're next on the EIB network.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, thank you.
Good.
Just an idea.
I think there is a case to be made for universal compulsory military service.
You think there is a case to be made for you.
Did we lose her?
No, I'm here.
For universal compulsory service.
Right.
Reasons for that are that, number one, that would undercut the kind of specious and disingenuous arguments that we get from the likes of Charlie Wrangell.
Are you talking about military service?
Right, right.
Go to boot camp and spend two years.
If you get deployed, you get deployed.
If you don't, you don't, but go to the, okay.
Right.
You're not talking about the AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps.
No, no, no, no.
Military Corps.
Or this or that Corps.
Okay.
Right.
And I think that it would also help a lot of people who have no clue, like a lot of liberals and the political class generally, to get real.
Well, you know, this is a very antiquated view of yours, Kate.
This used to be the kind of thinking society at large held back in the 50s and 40s.
In fact, with problem children, parents often dispatched their kids after all else had failed in military schools or academies or even the Army to get their heads right, to teach them some discipline, to tell them the world's not about them.
And it back that changed people's lives.
But today there's such a seething cauldron of hate aimed at the military that's been going on here for a couple of generations, ever since Vietnam, particularly in college campaign and other educational institutions, not to mention the military, that people no longer have that view of it.
And can you really blame them when the only reporting about our troops on the battlefield is how they rape and murder or they torture or what have you?
No, you can't.
But I think that people need to get real.
And I'll tell you another thing.
Working for 30 years as a mental health professional helped me to get more old-fashioned in my thinking.
How so?
Well, I retired from work as a clinical psychologist.
And I started out all dewy-eyed, you know, with a lot of liberal notions.
But really, after learning more about how people work, I think that we have to have standards.
I think we have to be real.
I think we have to look at the world and see, you know, what we're doing.
You know, I couldn't agree with you more.
We were talking about cultural rot yesterday, and you have just put your finger on a big element of it.
And that is the notion of high expectations for people and discipline.
Yes.
We do not, we have people who actually argue against high expectations and hard work because it might disappoint some and destroy those who don't make it.
And unless everybody can meet these expectations, we shouldn't subject everybody to it because some are going to fail and they're going to be in worse shape.
And we can't have people being looked down on by others.
It's sick.
The idea we cannot push kids in school to do better than they think they can do on their own because we're not cutting out homework.
We can't have homework.
And oh, it's not fair.
We've tried, well, some of the poor don't have nice homes to do homework in.
It's not fair for them.
Others say it's counterproductive.
Now we want to have kids get up at 9.30 in the morning and go to school because they can't get up at 7, despite a world human history of people being able to get up early and go to school and prosper from it.
Liberal social activists have gotten hold of the educational curricula and the last they want to treat kids as little cream puffs, fragile little pieces of paper-mâché, emotionally and physically, and they can't handle dodgeball anymore.
And the kids who misbehave, who act up, who are outliers are the ones who get the attention.
And the rest of the kids, the kids who are going to school every day doing their work, don't get any credit for it.
Sometimes they do, but oftentimes they are held out as Smarty pants or other, they're just how dare they do better than somebody else.
And they're called arrogant.
Achievement is frowned upon.
Super achievement frowned upon because it makes others feel bad.
Yes.
So you've seen all this in your practice.
Oh, yes.
Well, Wrange says he thinks there ought to be compulsory service.
I'm sure not for the reasons that you have articulated.
Well, I know some of these spoiled brat remarks I just read, one might see.
Look, I've always been in favor of a couple things.
But see, I'm not qualified.
I'm sorry.
I'm not qualified to discuss this because people, well, where were you when this stuff was going on?
High expectations, that I qualify for.
I have always had the highest expectations of myself.
And one of them, for many reasons.
There are all kinds of reasons people are motivated out there.
When somebody tells you you can't do something, that's pretty motivating if you really want to do it.
Or just a simple desire to achieve, to succeed, or to accomplish something.
Plus, if your parents, if you think back to your teachers in school, I mean, most people don't like their teachers.
I think back when I do, the teachers that I dislike the most were probably the best because they were the ones who were pushing me.
They were the ones who were trying to get me to perform at a level they knew I could and that I wasn't.
And that's why competitive sports are excellent for this kind of thing.
We're babying people now.
The other thing is discipline.
And I think discipline is in short supply in terms of how it's being taught.
It's not short in supply in the military.
It's not short in supply in those kinds of curriculum.
But we live in a feel-good society.
Feel free to do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else.
And that's kind of a silly notion because we don't live in vacuums.
The idea that you can do anything without hurting somebody else.
Everybody has a family.
Well, some, I mean, exceptions.
I mean, some people's families have all passed away or whatever.
But for the most part, now people will say, well, you can't, look at you.
I mean, look at your life.
I mean, who are you to talk about discipline?
And the way to answer that is you can answer with the cliché.
You say, look, nobody's perfect.
Just because I'm screwed up doesn't mean I don't know what's right.
Just because people make mistakes doesn't mean that they are incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong.
In fact, in certain sectors of our society, people who have really bollocksed their lives and then put their lives back together are held up as heroes.
Because they've seen hell firsthand.
And they can advise people on how to avoid ending up in their own hell.
But it's discipline, high expectations passed down.
It's all part of pursuing excellence.
It's all part of the old tradition, sort of old-fashioned these days, of be the best you can be on a daily basis or what have you.
Of course, Winston Churchill even had something interesting about that.
He said, oftentimes when people fail, they said, did my best.
I got my bed door.
I had the best I could.
Churchill would say, I don't want to hear about that.
You didn't do what was necessary.
You might have done your best, but you didn't do what was necessary to win.
You didn't do what was necessary to succeed.
Churchill was a brilliant guy.
I wish we had one now.
I do, somewhere out there.
That's a pretty good distinction.
Because doing the best you can, telling people you did the best you could, oftentimes is itself a scapegoat.
If you're really trying to do the best you can, you'll do what's necessary.
Yes.
And sometimes doing what's necessary, very, very hard to do.
I don't mean cheat and steal and this sort of thing, but doing what's necessary to succeed.
Sometimes that's where you need to be pushed and aided, and where you have to have confidence and motivation to do it, and that's where other people come into play.
Well, that's interesting.
I'm glad you called on that, Kate, because that is a central element in the whole cultural rot that we were discussing yesterday.
Here's Renee in Kansas City, Missouri.
Hi, Renee.
I'm glad you waited.
You are on Open Line Friday on Tuesday.
Thank you, Raj.
What a pleasure it is to talk to you.
I've tried to call you several times and actually got through once, but I was so scared I hung up.
How embarrassing.
But you know what?
Just to hear you talk about these kids in college who are being told what to believe and what to think and to be anti-war and made me think about what they're teaching kids in the Middle East.
They're teaching them to hate Americans.
They're teaching them to hate Jews.
that they're being brought up this way.
Yeah, they're teaching them to hate themselves.
Yeah.
Yeah, and they're being brought up this way, and we think that's just terrible, don't we?
But we're not any better if we're teaching our kids to not stand up for the principles that are good and right.
We're just as bad if we say, you know, you should never go to war, never, ever, ever, because nothing is worth fighting for.
That's just as bad as them saying to their children to hate someone.
You know, you are so right, and you are so close to brilliance.
So, so close.
I want to tell you how even more hideous it is.
While the left is doing everything it can to get us to pull out of Iraq in the most humiliating and embarrassing way, like Barack Obama yesterday, he joined the call for starting a move in four to six months at a Chicago Economics Club speech.
They want us to pull out of there in the most humiliating way.
Did you hear anybody suggest we pull out, or have you ever heard anybody suggest we pull out of Bosnia when Bill Clinton was fighting there?
Oh, no.
Have you heard the recent calls, we've got to do something in Darfur?
No.
Darfur in the Sudan, there is a genocide going on there, and we've got to do something.
And the liberal left is talking about sending troops and military apparatus in order to stop this genocide in Darfur.
Now, I want to ask you a question, Renee, since you are this, I mean, you're a razor's edge away from brilliance.
What is the distinction between the left's total willingness to send troops to Bosnia and Darfur, but we've got to get ourselves out of Iraq as soon as we can and in as humiliating a way as possible?
Well, I'm not sure I know what you're leading up to, Rush.
Well, there's an answer to the question, and it's shocking and it's stunning.
And I'll tell you what it is because it goes right to your indoctrination that you're worried about happening in the screw system.
The thing that Darfur or Mogadisha, Somalia, or Bosnia, the thing those all three have in common is we had no national interests at stake.
In Iraq, we have national interests at stake.
The left thinks it's fine and dandy to use our military when our national interests are at stake because then we're big and we're magnanimous and we're helpful.
We're meetles on wheels.
We're a portable welfare state, and we're helping minorities who are being genocided out of existence.
But when we send our evil military to defend our interests, that won't do.
Now, what does that tell you?
Well, it tells me that we had the wrong paradigm.
We definitely need to realize that this country is the most wonderful thing that the world has as far as.
Well, you've got to understand, Renee, there are Americans who don't agree with that, who think just the opposite.
And that's why when our national interests are being defended, they oppose it because we don't deserve to be offended because we're guilty of X, Y, and Z.
And we have caused all this hatred against us.
So we must go other places where we have no national interest.
It's okay to lose our treasure there.
It's okay to lose troops.
It's okay to spill blood.
It's okay to spend money in these places that have no bearing on our national interest or security.
But boy, beware if we send our soldiers where our national interests are at stake.
The left is going to stand up in unison and oppose that.
People stop and think about that.
Thanks for your call.
I got to run.
We'll be back in just a second here.
It's Open Line Friday on Tuesday.
We go to the phones, and the program is yours.
Meaning you can talk about anything, even things I couldn't care less about.
Troy in Marietta, Georgia.
You're next, and it's great to have you on the show.
Thank you, Rush.
Mega, I can do it if I put my mind to it.
Simper Fidelis Dittos from Marietta, Georgia.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I got to call you to task, Rush.
You've got to change your tune.
You said in an earlier show, what can you do to reach out?
You're going to have to change your tune.
Wait, wait, I didn't.
Wait a minute.
I didn't say what can I do to reach out.
Well, I paraphrased you, as does most people.
So here's what you need to do, Rush.
Listen, your voice cannot be heard by those who don't wake up till 3 p.m.
And a $49 podcast is going to cut severely into the PlayStation 3 budget of most of these listeners.
These people don't wake up until it's time to go to class.
They can tell you less about what's going on in the world, but more about what's going on on Graves Anatomy or American Idol.
So here's what you need to do.
And you may want to take notes.
You need to send a summarized broadcast that just highlights your monologues.
Yes.
Send it out to a discount to the stations that wouldn't normally air you, but would love to capitalize on the advertising rates.
Have that just two hours, just a highlight of your show.
Then they can listen for six weeks.
We will then have another Republican revolution.
You know, I understand what you're saying.
Let me cut to the chase here.
What you're basically saying is that this program on from noon to three does not reach certain people, such as young people in Utes, because they're either in school or still sleeping.
Young skulls full of mush.
Right.
And so you want this program to air sometime at night.
I don't have time to go into a big, long business discussion of this, but this dates back to when the program started.
When we started 1988, nobody in the broadcast business thought that national programming syndicated in the daytime had a prayer because a lot of people had tried it and it never worked.
And they all offered to put us on at night, midnight, 2 a.m., 7 p.m. or what have you, weekends.
And we stood fast.
I stood fast and refused every one of those opportunities because you know what?
You would have never heard this show had it started at night.
You would have never heard of it because it wouldn't have lasted because it wouldn't have made any money.
Syndication at night is not going to make significant amounts.
At least it wasn't back then.
Now, the business has been built up some now, and it's probably more profitable at night than it was back then.
So, we have orders.
Our radio stations are not allowed to replay this program before 10 o'clock at night.
And I don't know how many of them do and how many of them don't.
But to send out a truncated version of the program to the same stations at night would sort of defeat our purpose because if you can hear the program at night, then you wouldn't make an effort to listen to it in the daytime.
And trust me, the audience size during the day versus at night on radio, well, you wouldn't believe it.
But most people are either out or watching television at night.
That has been a business decision of mine since we started.
It's why I wanted this program in the daytime and not at night.
We'll be back.
I'm in the mood to hear this whole tune, but we've only got six seconds left.
The true story of Thanksgiving coming up in the next hour, plus more of your phone calls at Open Line Friday on Tuesday.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection