All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
December 5, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You are tuned to the only radio show you need.
You are listening to the only network.
And you need to spend any serious time with the Rush Limbaugh program and the excellence in broadcasting network.
This also, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Thrilled and delight to be with you.
I am living legend El Rushball.
All-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all everything, all concerned, maha-rushy.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Robert Byrd this morning during the Senate confirmation hearing of Robert Gates.
This is not the sound bite I was referring to earlier when he was asking Gates about, you know, bin Laden versus Saddam, bin Laden, Al-Qaeda versus Iraq.
But nevertheless, it's a little exchange here in which Gates pretty much rules out attacks on Iran and Syria.
Do you support an attack on Iran?
I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened.
Do you support an attack on Syria?
No, sir, I do not.
Do you believe the president has the authority under either the 9-11 war resolution or the Iraq war resolution to attack Iran or to attack Syria?
To the best of my knowledge of both of those authorizations, I don't believe so.
It's I don't know if it's an academic point or not by now, but my recollection of those resolutions is they're pretty broad.
The president thinks that to take any action he deems necessary to prevent another such attack as was 9-11.
Now, I don't expect Gates to say that, oh, yeah, we're going to attack Iran.
I can't wait to get to the Pentagon so I can start formulating the battle plan, Senator.
Clearly, his objective here is to get confirmed.
And this dog and pony show of a confirmation hearing is something to be navigated and negotiated.
Not suggesting he's lying.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just not going to say, oh, sure, Senator Byrd.
Yep, can't wait to blow him off the map.
Well, they're threatening to blow us off the map, Senator, and we're here to protect American lives.
We'll do what's necessary should that become a threat.
American lives, I would consider to be a vital interest.
Now, yesterday, as you know, we talked about the Supreme Court case, the affirmative action case, these two scruels.
Basically, a busing case, and the scruels were trying to assign school population school assignments on the basis of race and diversity.
There's a new sheriff in town, Anthony Kennedy, is said to be the swing vote in this case now.
The oral arguments we have.
We have the audio yesterday, and I've got four sound bites, and this does not look good for the diversity crowd here, and they are miffed about it.
Remember, this case didn't get anywhere before because Sandra Day O'Connor was there, and she effectively joined the Libs.
These people on the diversity side of this school case, busing and what have you, the diversity side, need Anthony Kennedy to be the swing vote.
So here's a portion of his remarks yesterday at the court.
You are characterizing each student by reason of the color of his or her skin.
That is quite a different means.
And it seems to me that that should only be, if ever allowed, allowed as a last resort.
The emphasis on the fact that everybody gets into a school, it seems to me, is misplaced.
The question is whether or not you can get into the school that you really prefer.
And that, in some cases, depends solely on skin color.
It's like saying that everybody can have the meal, but only people of a separate skin can get the dessert.
Doesn't sound good for the diversity crowd.
Here is now Scalia and a portion of his remarks during oral arguments yesterday.
It seems to me you're saying you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Can you think of any other area of the law in which we say whatever it takes, so long as there's a real need, whatever it takes.
Stop the tape, stop the tape.
Re-cue that to the top.
He is talking straight to Breyer here because Breyer on television said that whatever it takes, if we have to go extra-constitutional, if we have to do that to level the playing field and make things fair, sometimes the Constitution doesn't do what we need it to do, and so we have to do it in the interest of fairness.
Whatever it takes.
And Scalia, not only retorting here to the lawyers on the diversity side of this, but also Justice Breyer, and there will be a little back and forth that you'll hear in just a second, but here it is again from the top.
It seems to me you're saying you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Can you think of any other area of the law in which we say whatever it takes, so long as there's a real need, whatever it takes.
I mean, if we have a lot of crime out there and the only way to get rid of it is to use warrantless searches, you know, fudge on some of the protections of the Bill of Rights, whatever it takes, we got to do it.
Any area of the law that doesn't have some absolute restrictions?
Now, Breyer and Scalia got into a back and forth here.
And when you listen to this, and I don't mean to sound sexist here.
I mean, I think even women would conclude, would agree with my conclusion here, that Breyer sort of sounds like a nagging wife telling Scalia that the school board was just trying to do a good thing and make every school equal.
Here is the exchange with Harry Corell, who is the attorney for parents involved in these community schools.
Here we have no merit selection system.
Merit is not an issue.
The object of the people who run this place is not to create a school better than others.
It is to equalize the schools.
I would direct Your Honor to the district court judge's decision.
And there's a footnote in the decision in which she acknowledged that the schools were not of equal quality, that they provided different levels of education.
Well, of course they're not.
And that's why some of them were oversubscribed.
I didn't say that.
And others were undersubscribed.
And I didn't say that they were.
What I said was that the object of the school board and the administering authorities was to make them roughly equal.
I said that in terms of curriculum and faculty, they're about roughly equal.
Well, but they're not, because that's what the lower court judges said in the footnote, that they are not equal.
When he's talking about equality, he's talking about racial equality.
You know, the same number here, percentages that reference and represent population figures and so forth.
You can see here that this is not about education at all.
It's about diversity and all these other things.
Now, here's the last bite with Breyer, and he sums it up, I think, basically saying here that liberals see a terrible problem out there.
And so they must substitute their personal policy preferences for the Constitution.
It seems to me from what I read that there's a terrible problem in the country.
The problem is that there are lots and lots of school districts that are becoming more and more segregated, in fact, and that school boards all over are struggling with this problem.
And if they knew an easy way, they'd do it.
So, well, not necessarily.
But regardless, what he's saying is there's a terrible problem out there.
And we at the Supreme Court, even if we have to ignore the Constitution, we must address this problem.
This is a case, you know, that involves some students being bussed an hour and a half one way to scroll and an hour and a half back home, three hours a day on a scroll bus, leaving at 5:30 in the morning just for the purposes of segregating school for no other reason, just racial balance or equality.
And so the skin color of the student becomes the primary factor, not what the parents want, not where you live.
A lot of people move into certain areas precisely because they like the school system.
Here come the liberals.
Well, you can't do that because not everybody can move where you moved.
So we're going to take your kids away from where you moved and we're going to send them a place that you didn't want to leave so that you can find out how the other half lived.
Yotan is up.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Hey, folks, hot off the wire from the Associated Press holding this in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Headline: PlayStation 3 can help cure cancer.
The new PlayStation 3 isn't all about entertainment.
That's the message that Sony is trying to convey in announcing that the new game consoles, as powerful as supercomputers, can help Stanford University researchers analyze complex human protein structures and perhaps find cures for cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and other ailments.
Sony said that data processing time can be up 20 times faster with a global network of PS3s, which are fitted with advanced cell processors that can perform billions of calculations per second.
Wow, PlayStation 3 helped cure cancer.
That's great news, folks.
That means we don't need to go any further in stem cell research.
Janny in Northport, Florida, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, first of all, thank you for your note to me via Susan and Jimmy.
I treasure it.
Rush, you've thrown out some comments about the baby boomers since the election.
Wait, Now, hold it just a second.
You thanked me for my note to you via Susan and Jenny.
Jimmy.
Long Island.
Susan and Jimmy.
Yeah.
On Long Island.
Last August.
You were golfing out there on the Hamptons, I believe.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah, Oh, no!
Okay, now I know who you are.
Okay.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
As I say, I treasure it and have it framed.
But anyway, you've thrown out some comments about the baby boomers since the election.
So I'll bite.
And I think, like you, I keep thinking about the Shelby Steele column on the boomer generation that you've referenced over the years.
Yeah, the white guilt business.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And that, you know, the boomers run the world now.
And frankly, I don't feel very safe in it.
And Steele wrote about our parents' generation and what they sacrificed for in World War II and the Depression and how the boomers, we've never known sacrifice.
And we have this superior, condescending, snobbish attitude, I think, toward, or they think, toward that generation, that we're smarter, more educated, we have a better understanding of everything.
And the boomers, they're arrogant, they're self-absorbed, self-indulgent.
They're very undisciplined, I think.
And this self-interest is going to bring this country to its knees if we don't begin to understand what radical Islam has in store for us.
You know, this is I agree with much of what you've said about the baby boom generation.
I'll take it a little further.
If you look at the baby, and did you say you are one?
Yes.
All right, so you're your age.
All right.
Well, what's that?
Late 50s.
Now, mid-50s.
Mid-50s.
Mid-50s.
But hey, I wish it were late 50s.
I've always wanted to be older, and I've been right.
Every year has been better than the year before.
When I was 16, I wanted to be 40.
At any rate, if you look at what our parents did, the formative experiences in their lives were many.
Great Depression, World War II, you might even say in some cases the Korean War.
They had to learn very, very early in life that life was about many things larger than themselves.
They did such a good job of it that they basically paved.
I'll tell you how I evolved this theory.
I evolved this there.
I was talking to some friends at a Christmas party 15 years ago when I was 40.
And I said, you know, half the time I still feel like I'm 18.
I still feel like I'm trying to make up for lost ground in junior high and high school.
And I compare, my dad, when he was 40, wasn't doing that.
My dad, when he was 40, was set.
His life was, his future was what it was.
And if he hadn't made it by 40, he didn't have a chance.
And so my friends and I began discussing this.
And the theory evolved among all of us that our lives had basically been pretty easy compared to those of our parents.
And we had far more time to explore ourselves and to get into the self-indulgence that you talked about.
It was not necessary for us to grow up nearly as fast.
And plus, let's admit it, some of our parents, you know, no parent wants their child to do anything other than have a better life.
So some of our parents coddled us and sheltered us and made sure we didn't have to go through things like World War II and a Great Depression.
So they educated us on that basis and they spent a lot of time with.
And I think the baby boom generation grew up to be very self-focused, self-centered, and very selfish.
And in fact, I anger people when I say this, but I think we had to create our own traumas.
Oh, yeah.
We had to invent our own stresses.
And most of them are psychological discoveries that happened by us.
You know, our peers who have become doctors discovered all these new traumas and all these new syndromes and so forth so that we too could tell ourselves life is a BIH.
Because it really hasn't been compared to what our parents was.
But nobody wants to think they got it cushy because when you have it cushy, you have no excuses for failure.
And everybody needs excuses for failure that do not redound to them personally.
Well, yeah, I had ADD or I had post-traumatic stress disorder or I had, you know, whatever it was.
I never got over the loss of my cat.
You name it.
We came up with some kind of stress that enabled us to tell ourselves that life was tough and it was hard.
But in fact, it's never been better.
The opportunity that we've had has never been greater.
The opportunity for financial security has never been greater for more people in this country never before in the course of human history.
And a lot of people haven't accessed it to the best of their ability, so they need excuses for it.
When it comes to the selfishness and the self-indulgence aspect of the boomers, not all boomers are this way.
I mean, I'm a boomer.
I'm ashamed to admit it because of what most of my boomer brethren have evolved to, particularly as parents.
One of the biggest problems is what boomer parents are like.
Would you not agree?
Oh, yes.
You want to take a stab at explaining why?
I don't want to do all the talking here.
Well, I don't know if you're, I'm going toward the liberal education in the country.
Parents really don't have a say in what their kids are learning.
They don't want it.
Well, they don't want that's you know, foist it off on the schools, foist the discipline off.
They don't want it.
Hello, nanny.
I don't even want to raise the kid.
But don't you feel, Rush, that because the boomers have had the education system, they've owned it, the liberal boomers, for 30 or 40 years now, how are we ever going to get these kids back?
It's just going to get worse, in my opinion.
It may.
I'm sorry.
Look at what I just said.
Life in America is better every year than it was the year before.
Every day it's better than it was the previous day.
That's been my personal experience.
I try not to dwell in defeatism.
I know it's difficult, and there are sometimes reasons not to be optimistic because if you're falsely optimistic, you can disguise the problem and pretend it doesn't exist, which is what a lot of liberals do when it comes to threats against the country.
But it has been shown that the kids coming out of the educational system can get their minds right, and eventually grow out of this sort of stuff.
It's not lost.
It's not a hopeless lost cause.
Education is the last bastion where the liberals do have a monopoly.
There's no question about it.
And it just means it's a challenge that we have.
But when you say, how are we going to get kids back?
You know, if we're unable to do it, the cyclical nature of generation evolvement will handle it.
At some point, if not Gen X or Gen Y or whatever the current crop of crumb crunchers out there is called as a generation, at some point, and this has happened throughout American history and perhaps even human history, there's going to be a generation of kids that grow up is simply going to reject the values of their parents and their grandparents if they become too destructive.
Because people are going to continue to want as free Americans the opportunities that previous generations have had, and they're going to try to do what they can to secure it.
If that means rejecting a bunch of perverted, failed values that they're born to, they'll go around changing it.
This is, I mean, we had the Puritans.
We had all kinds of the stifling of a number of different freedoms throughout the history of the country.
And at some point, it regenerates and refreshes itself.
And I have no doubt that that will continue to happen here so long as we're not attacked again and wiped out by military enemies.
That's a whole other thing.
Thanks for the call.
We'll be back in a sec.
You know, I really do have a dilemma.
Folks, when I get a call like we just had and the caller has a vision of not doom, well, maybe it is doom.
Maybe her vision is doom.
We're losing the kids.
How are we going to get them back?
And my dilemma is there are times I feel the same way.
And sometimes when you want to issue a call to arms to people, sometimes if you do it right, portraying the worst vision possible can motivate people to wake up.
And sometimes, you know, it's really not that bad.
Cite reasons for optimism.
People relax a little bit.
And I go to great lengths here not to go extreme or hysterical in either direction.
But believe me, I mean, I fully recognize the challenges and the disappointments and the frustrations that all of you do regarding education, liberalism in general, the media, the domination of the country by people who appeal to people's emotions rather than their brains.
But I just, I can't come here each and every day and start preaching the apocalypse.
Because I don't think that we're facing the apocalypse.
I don't think the country is doomed.
But I do think that it has serious challenges.
And I don't like to present news that is artificially false, designed to instill hope that is not real, because that would be cruel.
But when you look at the theory that generations clean themselves up at usually it's every third or fourth generation, if you look at the patterns, if you go back and check this, you will find that at some stage in the evolution of generations, that a generation is born and just rebels.
They're just not going to put up with the value system that exists.
So that can be good or bad.
I mean, it happens both ways.
Right now, we've got the baby boomers who are basically rebelling against anybody who doesn't put them first.
And so we've got all these ridiculous trans fat bans.
And, you know, we're banning smoking because it kills, we're not making it illegal because we need the tax money.
We're just, all kinds of wacko, stupid things are happening in the schools.
And a lot of them are because liberalism never dies and never goes away.
A lot of it is because some people just don't want to face certain responsibilities in life.
But there are stories that evidence the fact that there are reasons to be optimistic.
I saw something on television yesterday.
What was this on it was Palavady got I got PMS NBC and Fox on in here.
So it had to be one of those two.
Do you know that at the University of California at Berkeley, Republican students outnumber Democrat students?
Conservatives at Berkeley.
At Berkeley, conservative students outnumber liberal students.
They interviewed a political science professor.
They asked him if, are you worried about this?
Oh, no.
We love diversity here on our campus.
I guarantee they're going to do everything they can to change the minds of the dominant conservative Republican majority on the campus, but it's still, of all places.
I mean, that's no different than if we woke up today and realized the majority of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is now conservative judges.
That's about how profound it is.
These are rush babies.
I own California.
Folks, I can't tell you.
We blanket that state.
You can't go anywhere other than the mountaintops where there are no radio towers and broadcast signals.
We own the rush babies at the University of California at Berkeley.
And I'll tell you, somebody else who deserves credit for this is Ward Connerly, who has given everything to change admissions policies on the basis of merit rather than the usual criterion of, well, is it disadvantaged here?
There's a minority there or what have you.
And Ward Connolly has been doing the Lord's work for I can't tell you how many years.
And there are lots of people like Ward Connolly who are working behind the scenes, not for any personal credit or public acclaim.
They're just doing what they do because they believe in it.
And They're targeted by the left as well, and their lives are attempted to be destroyed, reputations attempted to be destroyed, because remember, liberals can't win in an argument against anybody.
All they can do is discredit and insult and try to literally destroy their enemies because ideologically they can't win.
In fact, let me find this story.
Well, here's two stories.
There's three stories.
There's four stories.
Let me put these aside here, but it's not the one I'm looking for, but sit tight.
How about this headline?
Kids see too many anti-impotence ads, according to doctors.
Anti-impotence.
Okay.
Hang on, Air BP.
Be patient here, folks.
I'll find this in just a second.
Now, I've even forgot what I'm looking for, but I'll know it when I see the headline.
Well, here's another one about Berkeley.
I can't believe I don't have this one higher in the stack.
Here it is.
Here it is.
It's about the election results.
This is from Human Events by Timothy P. Carney.
One theme emerging from the 2006 elections is the ongoing march to extinction in the House of pro-choice Republicans.
The already small pro-choice contingent in the GOP caucus was cut in half as pro-choice Republicans performed much worse than the rest of the party.
First, consider the Republicans who receive money from pro-choice PACs, Planned Parenthood, NAROL, Pro-Choice America.
They're two of the largest pro-choice PACs.
Five Republican candidates, including Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, received money from one or both of these PACs in 2006.
All five of them lost.
Similarly, the Republican Majority for Choice PAC funded 16 GOP candidates for House and Senate.
Only four of them won.
Most striking was the poor performance of incumbents funded by these PACs.
Incumbent Republicans supported by NAROL and Planned Parenthood went from zero or two zero, went zero for three, over three.
Incumbent Republicans supported by Republican Majority for Choice were a dismal four for 11.
So now, beyond these campaign contributions, voting records paint a similar picture.
The most pro-choice Republicans were far more likely to lose than pro-life or moderate Republicans.
So this last election aborted the careers of many pro-choice Republicans, despite all the funding they got from the pro-choice crowds out there.
Now, it's an interesting phenomenon.
I want to remind you why.
These are rhino-Republicans.
These are moderate liberal Republicans.
And they, by the way, I got to note, what is a Rhino-Republican?
It stands for Republican in Name Only.
R-I-N-O.
It has nothing to do with being a rhinoceros.
Just an acronym, Republican in name only.
Rhino pro-abortion Republicans disproportionately lost in this election and conservative or Democrat in name only Democrats disproportionately won.
Now, this is another thing to take some measure of contentment from, if you don't want to say happiness.
At least you can say it's a little reassuring in the wake of these big losses.
Conservatives need to hang together and ditch these rhino embarrassments.
It is just more and more validation that conservatism did not lose in this election.
You know, everybody out there is telling us, you guys, you've got to get rid of the Christian right.
You've got to get rid of the evangelicals.
You've got to get rid of this abortion business.
And the people losing on it are the pro-choice types, the pro-abort types.
Even the Democrats that won had to go out there and say, I'm pro-life.
I believe in God.
Jesus is the dude.
All these things that they were out there saying, and they got elected.
It wasn't so much party label that mattered.
It was ideology.
And so if you, if you know, that's that it's going to be a total mistake for anybody to assume that liberalism won this election.
So that's just another reason.
I'm trying to give you three or four here why I do not succumb to the seduction of throwing my hands in the air and say, ah, screw it.
The country's lost.
It's over.
There's nothing we can do about it.
We've lost the kids.
I don't care.
It's horrible.
And folks, I'm going to tell you, you better wake up because this country.
I know there are people on the radio and elsewhere that do that, but I just don't think that way.
I mean, there are, you know, every time I see Ted Kennedy on, I get apocalyptic and fatalistic.
And there are incidents that I'll see that make me think that way for a split second.
But the overall picture is not nearly as apocalyptic as all that.
Plus, my friends.
And this goes to the dilemma that I was describing here at the beginning of what has turned out to be a really brilliant, totally ad-lib segment.
My father, when my brother and I were growing up, and he started talking to us about these matters when I was nine.
So that would have been 1960 during the campaign, the Kennedy-Nixon campaign, and that presidential race.
And I remember my dad telling me that if Jack Kennedy were elected president, he didn't think he'd start a war on purpose, but he thought a war would happen.
He said, son, it's not like if I put a chair here in the middle of the kitchen and get up and swing a baseball bat and aim it at the light bulb, I'll break the light bulb.
I don't think that's what Kennedy's going to do, but I think he's going to get on a chair and start swinging the bat and accidentally hit the bulb.
And he was right.
It was called Vietnam.
And even prior to that, it was this disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion that we caved on and didn't follow through on, which gave us exploding cigars.
Give me a break.
Big CIA attempt to wipe out Fidel Castro.
He also said to my brother and I, and our friends who had come over, and this is an example of, you know, this did two things to us.
We laughed.
Oh, my gosh, dad's off on a rant again.
But it also made us stop and think about it now.
And then he said, you boys are going to be slaves if these communists aren't stopped.
And he said, the first people that are going to be taken slaves are these media people who think that they're the best friends of these people because they're the ones that are going to be shut into jails first so they can't continue to do what they do.
Well, that was a call to arms in a sense.
He was sharing with my brother and I what he really felt as a parent and as an American his fears were.
Now, remember now, this is 1960, 61.
Khrushchev has just banged a shoe at the UN.
So there was a legitimate fear of communists.
And it was not, you know, you didn't discredit yourself to talk about the communists or accuse certain people of being communists then.
It was after Alger Hiss and all that.
The only people you offended by calling communists communists were liberals because they were their friends.
Still are, essentially.
Well, look at Ortega.
They're happy.
They're probably, I mean, Castro.
Look at who their friends are.
There's not a dictator or thug out there that they don't support on some perverted basis.
Well, it's just a small little country, little victim of oppressive United States policies over the decades, but whatever they come up with.
But you can't, as radio host, as somebody talking to you every day, I'm not going to come here and say the equivalent of, you people are going to be slaves.
Maybe I should have said it to this kid from West Palm Beach who called the first caller of the day, because he doesn't get it.
A lot of liberals just don't understand who the enemy is, and they do not understand what the war on terror is all about, wherever it is, be it Iraq, be it Somalia, be it the Philippines, they don't understand what it is because they are people who think all people are the same, which is why I cringe or laugh when they laugh at Bush's plan to democratize Iraq.
They're the people, listen to this.
These are the liberals who say, we're all just the same peoples.
We're just like, we're just together.
We just need to communicate to them and let them know that we don't intend to harm this.
And yet, when you have Bush basically articulating their theory that we're all just the same, they smirk, they laugh.
What do you mean?
Democracy in Iraq.
Way, freedom's not for everybody.
The arrogance and condescension of these people.
What they failed to understand is that the war on terror, wherever it is being fought, is not about anything other than saving our own lives.
They just can't get that.
It's got to be about boiler.
It's got to be about Halliburton.
It has to be about money and power.
Some silly conspiratorial junk that they come up with.
It's about saving our lives.
And I just, I wonder how much they value American life over any other life, given that they think we're the oppressors and are causing all the death around the world.
Back in just a second.
All right, folks, just a programming note here.
That last brilliantly conceived, totally, flawlessly executed ad-lib monologue went a little long.
This is going to be a short segment.
Elkton, Maryland, and April.
Nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush, and Mega Ditto from the top of the Chesapeake Bay.
Thank you.
How are you?
Good.
I've got a practical question to ask you.
It's my business to communicate with people, but I'm at a loss, a complete loss as to how to communicate the mortal danger we're in from Islamo-fascism to the milquetoast quiche heads out there.
I feel like it's 1938 all over again, but this is worse.
And short of bankrupting myself by buying up every copy of because they hate and sending it to everybody I know, how do we counter the liberal media?
I mean, what platform would average Americans use that these people will listen to?
I'm afraid we'll have to take another hit.
Oh, I've thought that for a couple years.
But what can normal Americans do to spread this word?
I mean, you can't get it out there through the net.
Yeah, it's a tough thing.
We had this first caller of the day today, may as well have been from a different planet.
I heard him.
There's no way.
I mean, in a case of somebody like that, there's no way of persuading.
That's not the objective.
The political objective is to defeat these people at the ballot box and keep them out of power.
Not these people that are calling, but I mean, their leaders are the people that they would vote for.
Now, having said that, April, I have to tell you something.
I mean, I don't have a running count of it, but it's gazillions.
It's a lot.
The number of liberals who, over the course of this program in 18 years, have changed.
Countless times I get emails.
I used to be a Democrat until I heard you.
So it's possible.
But I mean, it takes time.
You don't accomplish it in one conversation.
But these people don't They have a, it's almost like it's genetic.
They just have a different view of things, and it starts with the fundamental belief that their country is always guilty, that their country is wrong, and it proceeds or descends from there.
I wish I had more time, but I went long in that previous brilliant monologue.
So brilliant, I didn't have the discipline to stop it.
Be right back.
Say with us.
We have a woman on the phone who wants to talk about the new castrate.
There's something I like about when women want to talk about the new castrate to me.
That's coming up and lots of other things in the next hour.
▲
Export Selection