All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
November 22, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Thank you and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We do not rest on this getaway day.
We are into it.
What a pile of stuff to talk about today.
It is, of course, getaway day for the Thanksgiving weekend, and we wish you well out there if you are traveling.
Or if, like Rush, you're hosting a whole bunch of people tomorrow, and I'm doing the same thing.
We're, of course, working hard at that.
But what a wonderful day to get together and give thanks, and there is much to be thankful for.
We'll talk about that today, too.
Much to be thankful for.
We are thankful that it was only a cell phone and a purse stolen from one of the Bush twins down in Argentina.
Good grief.
You think the Secret Service would have at least have an eye on these things.
I want to talk a little bit about Thanksgiving in our elementary schools because I guess this is where all of us learned about Thanksgiving.
And I don't know, depending on your age, you either learned that this is a time for giving thanks to God in memory of the pilgrims and their deliverance in the new world, emphasized by Lincoln in the deliverance of this nation from the horrors of the Civil War, reinforced by FDR and the deliverance from Depression and World War.
You'd be an older person if you have that view from elementary school.
Since then, the view has radically changed.
The view began to take on some colorations as a result of the agendas of different times.
And of course, Lincoln and FDR had their agenda too, to use an historical example to get people to realize how much they should be grateful for, as well as the tribulations they were going through.
But these days, the agenda seems a little, well, kooky, sorry, and strays significantly from the actual facts of the pilgrim's experience.
Take teacher Bill Morgan, for example, in the Cleveland Elementary School in San Francisco.
Morgan, who has taught for 35 years, decided, he said, after his own research into the original Thanksgiving, pilgrims and Indians and the Mayflower and all of that, that he changed his approach.
He said that, well, here's how it happened.
He walked into his third grade class wearing a black pilgrim hat made of construction paper and dressed up as a classic pilgrim.
Now, whether they wore all that stuff or not, I don't know.
But anyway, you know what I'm talking about.
And he began to snatch up the pencils and backpacks and glue sticks and whatever was on the desks here from his pupils.
And he says, these are my items now because I discovered them.
And the reaction is exactly what Morgan expects.
The kids get angry and want their things back.
And according to Yahoo News, reprinting an Associated Press account by Anna Beatrice Cholo, this is a more realistic look at the relationship between pilgrims and Indians.
This is discarding the romanticized version of their first meeting.
It is also just a load of bull.
Okay?
It is just a load of bull.
So I decided, and thank you, Rush Limbaugh, because yesterday Rush did a wonderful job recapping what he'd written in his best-selling book about the issue of the pilgrims and Thanksgiving and where it came from, and that first and foremost it was a celebration of thanks and prayer to God.
In fact, here is William Bradford, the governor of the Plymouth plantation from his history of the Plymouth plantation.
By the way, here's the arrival.
Forget, before we get to the Indians and pilgrims, here's the arrival.
Quote: Being thus arrived in a good harbor and brought safe to land, they, meaning the pilgrims, fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven who had brought them over the fast and furious ocean and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and stable earth, their proper element.
Now, I have to go a little slower on this 17th century prose because their vocabulary was about 50% larger than ours.
And well, you get the idea.
So, not only did the Mayflower folks feel guided by the blessings of God, but they also, the encounter with the Indians, was a little different than the current agenda.
The encounter with the Indians was a little different.
First of all, you probably, well, let me read from what he says.
Let's get back to Squanto here, because I remember Squanto from my elementary school, and I did get Squanto in this reading.
Here's the Treaty with the Indians, 1621, is the heading of this chapter.
And again, this book is written in the 17th century now, 300 years ago, plus.
Quote: All this while the Indians came skulking upon them, the them is the pilgrims.
All this while the Indians came skulking about them and would sometimes show themselves aloof off, but when they approached near them, they would run away.
And once they stole away their tools where they'd been at work and were gone to dinner, the Indians stealing the pilgrims' tools.
I don't know whether you get that in elementary school, that the Indians did not have a sense of private property.
They did not have a sense of the ownership of the land.
You cannot steal that which, Mr. Morgan, that which is not thought of as personal property.
The pilgrims didn't come and steal anything.
The Indians, in fact, accepted that another tribe had wandered into their territory, and there was the kind of give and take and warfare and stealing and making up and peace treaties and teaching and encountering and learning that went on between the Indian tribes themselves, who wandered around nomadically in those days in that area.
Do elementary school teachers know any of this stuff?
Are they just completely lost to their leftist ideology?
Is it so divorced from fact that they can't read the actual governor's history as written by the guy who was there and give it some credence?
They probably read this just looking for UFO references.
I mean, these.
Anyway, it goes on.
But about the 16th of March, a certain Indian came boldly amongst them and spoke to them in broken English, which they could well understand, but marveled at.
Imagine this.
Here comes one of these savages speaking English.
How did this happen?
So he goes on.
The governor goes on here.
He says, at length they understood by discourse with him that he was not of these parts, but belonged to the eastern parts, where some English ships came to fish, with whom he was acquainted and could name sundry of them by their names, amongst whom he had got his language.
He became profitable to them in acquainting them with many things concerning the state of the country in the east parts where he lived, which was afterwards profitable to them, as also of the people here, of their names and number and strength, of their situation and distance from this place, and who was chief amongst them.
The chief's name was Samoset.
He also told them of another Indian, whose name was Squanto, a native of this place who had been in England and could speak better English than himself.
Now, imagine, here we are, first of all, these guys have already been in England.
Is this a little different, Mr. Morgan, than your account?
Okay.
And then he goes this: being after some time of entertainment and gifts, a while after he came again, and five more with him, and they brought again all the tools that were stolen before and made way for the coming of their great Sachem called Masa Soit, who about four or five days after came with the chief of his friends and other attendants with the aforesaid Squanto, with whom, after friendly entertainment and some gifts between them, they made a peace with him, which has now continued for 24 years.
Does this sound like Mr. Morgan's account?
This is there's more.
After these things, and we're talking now about the English-speaking native here, after these things had happened, he returned to his place called Solams, about 40 miles from this place, meaning the pilgrim's colony.
But Squanto continued with them and was their interpreter and a special instrument sent by God for their good beyond their expectation.
He directed them how to set their corn, where to take fish, to procure other commodities, and was also their pilot to bring them to unknown places for their profit and never left them till he died.
In other words, here is an Indian who stayed with them, a native, and taught them what to do.
Now, it wasn't enough for the reasons Rush brought up yesterday, but I just wanted again to ask that teachers and others read the accounts of the people who were there before you start making up stuff that you teach to our kids in elementary school.
This is my problem with all of this.
What we're being taught in elementary school, what children now are being taught, are things that are divorced from reality and fact, but married to a leftist ideology with its own logic, its own momentum, its own goal, which isn't fact, which isn't history, it's indoctrination.
Is that going on in your kids' elementary school?
1-800-282-2882.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
It's the day before Thanksgiving with much to be thankful for.
We'll be talking about later in the program as well.
Let's take a short break.
We'll be right back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program continuing after this.
And the Thanksgiving story, as told by Mr. Bradford, the William Bradford, the history of Plymouth Plantation circa 1650.
Bradford was one of the leaders of the English Puritan separatists.
They wanted to separate from the Church of England.
They were, of course, hounded in England for their desire for religious liberty.
They went to Holland and then thence in the tiny Mayflower, a hundred of them to New England.
They had a patent actually for land in Virginia.
They missed.
They landed in New England instead.
This, oops, but this history is actually a personal journal kept by William Bradford, completed about 1650 after he had served about 35 years as governor of the colony.
And of course, those folks who had been in that boat, who had gone through all that he had described, were there to review what he said.
So I'm presuming this has a great deal of credibility, because if it didn't, there would have been howls and screams and alternative histories written and so forth at the time.
There were not.
For many, many decades, and people from New England, please call me if I'm wrong, this was considered the source book of what happened to the pilgrims in this situation that led to the first Thanksgiving feast.
Well, here's how he describes the communal living.
And Rush did this yesterday, but it's worth getting the full quote from Bradford himself.
The experience, he says, that was had in this common course and condition, in other words, holding all property and all things in common, the experience, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing.
He calls it a conceit that you could think that by taking away all the property.
You see, Mr. Morgan, it wasn't the pilgrims taking away the Indians' property.
They had no notion of private property.
That's why they were savages.
The pilgrims were in an elevating course of history, in an elevating course not only of technological advance, but of philosophy, religion, and other matters of the higher mind.
They were in an elevating uptrend in human history that culminated about the time Mr. Morgan and has gone downhill since Mr. Morgan became a teacher.
So this is the experience.
Now this is, keep in mind, this is 1650.
100 and I don't know, 150, 200 years before Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations the theory of capitalism.
There was no theory of capitalism.
It was common sense.
There was no theory of Marxism.
Marxism was 100, 100 years past that.
This was, in other words, Marxism and capitalism, something much more ancient.
Plato and the other ancients applauded this commonality, this commonwealth, and so forth.
He says, what a conceit.
They thought it would bring happiness.
What a conceit.
He says, quote, as if they were wiser than God.
For this community, he writes, so far as it was, and believe me, when he says that, he means they started out about 100, they were about 50.
Now, imagine a 50% attrition rate.
And you're not calling for an exit strategy.
You're not having a summit on redeployment.
You're simply trying to figure out how to survive and make it happen.
He says, for this community, so far as it was, was found to breed much confusion.
And he's talking about this commonality, confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.
In other words, people didn't work.
And he gives examples.
He says, quote, for the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time, they complained, they were whining, that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.
Why should I work for everybody else when I'm not getting paid?
He's saying.
And he goes on.
The strong man had no more of division of victuals, that's food, and clothes than he that was weak.
The strong man had no more than the weak man.
And not able to do a quarter, the other could.
And this was thought injustice.
And Mr. Bradford, Governor Bradford, it still is.
The idea that the strong, the able, the fit, the inclined, the ambitious, the competitive, the industrious should work as hard as God's gifts permit them and then have the fruit of their labor taken away to give to other people who won't work as hard is still injustice.
1650, 1950, 2050.
It's still injustice, Governor.
He goes on, he says, the aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals and clothes with the meaner and younger, thought by some to be an indignity and a disrespect.
And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men as dressing their meat and washing their clothes, they deemed it a kind of slavery.
Neither could many of their husbands well brook it.
In other words, put up with it.
And he says, upon the point all being to have alike, to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in a like condition, one as good as another.
And of course, that didn't work.
So what did they do?
What did Governor Bradford do?
Before there was Adam Smith, before there was a theory of capitalism, before there was a theory of private enterprise, what did he do?
He says, all this while, no supply was heard of.
That's a supply ship.
So no supply ship is coming.
There's no rescue for this famine.
There's no rescue from this communism that they thought was going to give them happiness.
So he says, so they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still languish in this misery.
At length, after much debate of things, the governor, with the advice of the chiefest amongst them, gave way that they should set corn for every man for his own particular, and in that regard, trust to themselves, in all other things, to go on in the general way as before.
In other words, everybody's going to get their own corn.
Here's how he did it.
Quote, and so assigned to every family a parcel of land according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for the present use, and arranged all boys and youth under some family.
They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious.
So as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could use, and it saved him, he's talking about himself, it saved him a great deal of trouble and gave far better content.
The women now went willingly into the field, took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
They went willingly because they owned the corn, ladies and gentlemen.
From the governor's own journal, Mr. Morgan, what source do you cite for your stupid, misbegotten leftist ideological ranting to third graders in the elementary school in San Francisco, you moron?
I'm Roger Hedgecock feeling so much better getting that off my chest.
Let's get to a call.
Do we have time for a call?
I have 30 seconds.
We better hold the calls then and let you just kind of fume about that because the real meaning of Thanksgiving is, first of all, thanks to God for God's blessings.
And secondly, thanks to ourselves for understanding how to organize our human society to give us real happiness, to give us real abundance, to avoid the famine.
And it isn't the commonality, and it isn't putting things all together.
It's private property.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, back with your calls after day.
Welcome back on Thanksgiving Eve and rush off for a couple of days.
50 people at home.
Good grief.
All right, let's go to the phones here on the Limbaugh Institute.
Mike in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, you're next.
Hi.
Hi.
It's such a privilege to be on your show.
Thank you.
Thanks for calling.
Yeah, I just wanted to call real quickly when you talked about there in the beginning about that teacher dressing up as a pilgrim and stealing things from the students.
That just shows the ignorance of history.
In the book, The Light and the Glory, and the authors are Peter Marshall and David Manuel.
Liberals might like this, I don't know, but both the authors are graduates of Yale.
They document a lot of the history of early America, and in that book, it actually says, and it gives all the documentation.
They go back to like original documents from a lot of the founding colonies and things from England, that the land that the pilgrims landed upon actually belonged to no one.
That there was a tribe, well, after they had landed there and settled there for a little while, an Indian named Samothed, if I'm pronouncing it right, came upon the settlement and gave them the history of the land.
And he had said that there were Indians very hostile that had lived there.
But about four years, I'm looking at the book now, about four years before the pilgrims arrived, they had died from a mysterious disease.
They were totally wiped out, every man, woman, and child of the Indians.
And all the other Indians in the area had moved out of that area out of fear of that area.
And the closest tribe was 50 miles away.
So, in fact, the land where they lived, where they had settled, belonged to no one.
And this Indian, when I told the call screener, I thought he was from that tribe, but he wasn't.
He was just an Indian that loved to travel, and he'd actually worked.
I thought it was the French, but it was the English.
And when he found that the Pilgrims or heard that the Pilgrims had settled there, he desperately wanted to go back there.
This Indian is the one that brought Squanto then later.
Now, I just got all this out of William Bradford's source book, the source book here on the history of the Plymouth Plantation as well.
All of that is true.
And again, all of that is just, you know, what does the current teaching in elementary school mean?
Because it's just garbage compared to the actual facts.
Here were the poor pilgrims in the Mayflower thinking they're landing in Northern Virginia or something, and they're landing at Plymouth Rock or in that area of Plymouth Plantation, which now you can go today and see how they lived in the ways of that time.
And it's interesting today, even in the L.A. Times, interesting editorial.
A Thanksgiving Toast is the title of this.
He says, this says, L.A. Times today: if you think we live in a puritanical nation, don't blame the Pilgrims.
As it turns out, they enjoyed sex and booze about as much as anyone, or at least embraced them far more than many of their predecessors.
In the History Channel special, Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the Mayflower, the settlers of Plymouth Colony are shown to be more colorful than conventional wisdom has it.
Within the context of marriage, sex was viewed as more than just a means for procreation.
And because of the scarcity of drinking water on the Mayflower, the beverage of choice for adults and children alike was beer.
And all of that is true, but it's typical, again, of our particular time that we emphasize those two things.
The Puritans were very much down on sex other than in marriage and very much down on drinking too much beer.
But the thing does bring up this point that we somehow think of the Puritans, the Pilgrims, and so forth as some kind of stultifying culture of conformity and religious extremism and so forth.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
They were themselves rebels against the Church of England.
They were themselves seeking religious freedom from the restrictions of the Church of England.
Well, again, maybe this is a little bit too much truth-telling.
1-800-282-2882, never too much.
Here's Patricia in Watertown.
Hi, Patricia.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Thanks, Fraud.
Good to be here.
I'm Native American.
I'm from South Dakota.
I'm full-blood Native Sioux, Dakota, Sioux, and Watson, Oyate.
And I'm pretty sure that there's thousands of Native Americans listening to you.
And they don't appreciate being called Indian.
No, I know.
I don't like to use the word Indian because it is, in fact, a European mistake.
When Columbus landed and thought he was in India, and he wasn't in India.
Yeah, I have two kids, and I don't want the world to be calling them Indian.
I would appreciate that.
I don't even like the word natives because I'm a native.
You know, I like to use, as you just did, the name of the tribe.
If you're Sioux, you're Sioux, or whatever name of the tribes within the Sioux name.
And I think that's appropriate, don't you?
Yes.
Yes.
I appreciate that.
Yeah, I know.
If you're really intelligent about this, you should call the so-called Native Americans, not just lump them all together because they're very, very different people when you look at the different tribes, very different kinds of people.
Yes.
Yes, you're right.
Well, I appreciate your call, Patricia.
Thank you.
Stewart in Moraga, California.
Hi, Stuart.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hi, Roger.
Thanks for taking my call.
A few years ago, I was helping one of my daughters do a report on the Connecticut colony.
And I learned that when the settlers came to Connecticut, the European settlers came to Connecticut, there were two Native tribes there that had been at war for a long time.
And one of the tribes cleverly leveraged the guns and skills of the Europeans, told the Europeans this other tribe was planning to massacre you.
So they induced the new settlers to wipe out the other tribe for them.
Now, those weren't Iraqis, were they?
Pardon?
You see what I'm saying?
I said they weren't Iraqis, were they?
In other words, this is that sort of stuff.
In other words, there was an insurgency.
There was a civil war going on between two Indian tribes.
There was an insurgency against the Europeans.
One side of the insurgency of the Civil War used the Europeans to try to strike home against their Native American Indian, Native American opponents, right?
Exactly.
And one of the tribes was the Pequot.
I think that was the tribe that was wiped out.
And, of course, Pequot is the name of the ship in Moby Dick.
That's how we remember it.
But the other tribes of other parts of what's now the North United States, for example, in the Southwest, there is evidence of cannibalism and other genocidal activities.
So it wasn't the Europeans that brought these kinds of activities to North America.
Oh, no, The Europeans and the Native tribes were well versed in warfare and slavery and brutality and barbarism.
Believe me, neither side had a franchise on those things.
I appreciate the call.
All right, look, I want to move on, and I want to move on because I think we know the point I'm trying to make there about Thanksgiving.
It's, again, been hijacked by the liberal left to suit a different agenda rather than fact.
So has the war on terror.
By the way, I don't know whether you have, speaking of Iraq and surrender and so forth, Nancy Pelosi is going to hold a forum on the Iraq war on December 5 with retired General John Batiste, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrook, and former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbignou Brzezinski.
And they're going to try to see what vocabulary we ought to use to induce surrender and retreat without calling it that.
That's the subject of the forum.
What vocabulary can we use to do what we want to do, which is surrender and retreat?
Act, in other words, like a modern Western European, sophisticated and nuanced country.
Say France, for example.
So the Dems are going to meet December 5 to bring that about.
They're going to try out some new vocabulary on you.
But former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials have filed in court, arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system.
Janet Reno is still trying to reduce the war on terror to simply a crime control problem in which, if only she was still involved, if she was still in charge, we would have solved.
Does this, I mean, if you listen to Janet Reno and the whole Clinton approach to the war on terror, how far away is it politically from this little sentence from a president who was killed on this day in 1963,
John Kennedy, who in his 1961 inaugural address said this: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
They applauded him then, Americans did.
He was a Democrat.
Just to make this clear to you, he was a Democrat talking about paying any price, bearing any burden, meeting any hardship, supporting any friend or opposing any foe to assure the survival and success of Liberty.
Is there a single Democrat today that carries forward that tradition, or is this party totally transformed into a Western European appeasement socialist-oriented party?
Because that's what it looks like.
The latter is what it looks like from the outside.
The party, the Democratic Party of JFK, I'm afraid, is extinct.
It never even made the endangered species list, it just went extinct.
I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush Limbaugh and back with your calls right after.
So the party of JFK and bearing any burden and paying any price has morphed into the party of Nancy Pelosi, who intends, apparently to this moment, to install the Congressman, just to give you an idea how far this party has come away from JFK, intends to install Congressman Elsie Hastings, Democrat of Florida, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Hastings, ladies and gentlemen, to put it mildly, is an incredible security risk.
Elsie Hastings was removed by a vote of Congress, impeached as a federal judge in 1989 for taking a $150,000 bribe to render light sentences and other perks to two mobsters.
His latest financial disclosures required of members of Congress indicate that he owes from, and the numbers are never required to be exact, so it's just a range, from $2 million minimum to $7 million maximum in liabilities, mostly for legal fees, with a cash on hand of about $50,000.
If Congressman Hastings was just another guy applying for a security clearance for the lowest kind of job at the CIA or FBI, he would be routinely denied.
He would not be allowed.
His history of public corruption and this precarious financial situation makes him ripe to be targeted for espionage.
Culture of corruption.
And I just want to again, and it's not a California-centric thing, but it just so happens that the woman very highly qualified to be chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who has been passed over by the first ever woman Speaker of the House, is a fellow Democrat Jane Harmon of California.
Jane Harmon.
Now, Pelosi may make all the speeches she wants to about, quote, draining the swamp, unquote, of Capitol Hill corruption.
But forget the Mirtha thing for a moment, which was bad enough.
Let's look at Al C. Hastings.
My goodness.
This is a man as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, whoever the chairman of the Intelligence Committee is, or chairwoman, would receive super secret briefings, operational military espionage briefings.
This is not the guy you want to hear that.
You just don't want to hear that.
Now, the two racketeers involved in the Hastings bribe case were Frank and Tom Romano.
In the bribery case, lawyer William Borders was the alleged middleman.
He has kept his mouth shut.
He was convicted.
The attorney, William Borders, was convicted, disbarred, and imprisoned for his contempt of court orders to testify.
And then got, get this, get this, culture of corruption fans, Borders, the attorney and the go-between between Elsie Hastings and the two gangsters on the bribe.
Borders got alleged.
Borders got a full, unconditional pardon from, you may be ahead of me, you may have already guessed, President Bill Clinton.
Nancy Pelosi wants to put this man in charge of the Intelligence Committee.
Even the L.A. Times can't stomach this.
Big lead editorial last weekend saying no, no.
Now, in the meantime, by the way, by the way, in the meantime, the Democrats are doing what people in Congress like to spend a lot of time doing, debating which office they will occupy, office space they will occupy now that they occupy the offices of Speaker of the House.
Forget the leadership fights, forget the judges, forget the budget, forget the war, forget the culture of corruption.
What view does my office have?
If you don't think these people are junior high sort of, I don't mean to mean junior high school students, but just to give you an idea of what I'm thinking here, this is kind of the junior high school student body president mentality here.
Good grief.
Incoming Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to the New York Times this morning, is planning to expropriate the second floor suite of offices now occupied by the current Speaker, J. Dennis Hestert.
The space has been in Republican hands for 50 years or so, even when Democrats were in charge of the House.
It has never been the Speaker's office.
In fact, when Gingrich took over in 94, he did not occupy the Speaker's office, the Democratic Speaker's office.
He went back and occupied this suite of offices where the minority leader and so forth had always been.
I have been in these offices.
They're quite nice, view of them all, so forth and so on.
But Pelosi is one of these types of minds that says, I'm not really Speaker unless I kick Denny Hastert out of his offices and occupy where he was.
These are not good signs.
Ladies and gentlemen, they are not good signs.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, back with your call after day.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today as Rush is getting ready for his Thanksgiving feast with many, many guests tomorrow.
We're doing the same.
I hope you're doing the same.
Be safe if you're traveling today.
And let's take a call here before we run out of time.
Chuck in Quincy, Florida.
Go ahead, Chuck.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Good morning, Mr. Hedgecock.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
I just wanted to answer your query as to was there a Democrat with the values of JFK?
I would say yes.
His name was Joe Lieberman, and today's Democrats threw him under the bus.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, big time.
And he still claims he's going to be, while an independent, not a Democrat, he's going to claim to caucus with and work with the same Democrats who threw him under the bus.
I wonder if that's going to work out.
I wonder if any Republican has taken the trouble to work with Joe Lieberman to see if there's a way in which he might work with the Republicans on a number of issues.
Maybe not all, but I bet he's independent-minded enough to realize the dilemma he's in.
He is a relic.
He is the endangered species.
He probably is the last JFK Democrat.
Certainly isn't Brother Teddy.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back with more Heart and Laugh for next.
▲
Export Selection