All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
January 5, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, one of the worst kept secrets this all of last year has finally been made public.
Bill Cower has resigned as head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
He's now into his third minute of thanking people.
But the best thing about this is, as far as this point in time, he has not cried.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida via New York City.
It's Open Line Friday.
Yep, yahoo.
All right, I had diarrhea of the mouth.
In the last hour, we didn't take a call on Open Line Friday.
I will rectify that in this upcoming busy broadcast hour, Rush Lynn Baugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
When we go to the phones, the program is all yours.
Feel free, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't have to care about it in order for you to talk about.
You can whine, you can moan, you can complain, you can argue.
You can praise.
You can ask a question.
Here's your imaginations.
Remember, the purpose, though, of a good call is to make the host look good.
You are just props.
And I don't mean calling here to praise me.
I'm getting more out of me than I could even get out of myself.
If you can do that, you are special.
800-282-288.
Sometimes I can't believe myself.
800-282-2882 is the number.
Uh-oh, no.
Don't start crying.
I got the Cower Press Conference up there.
Oh, no, I can see it coming.
The eyes are getting moist.
Oh, don't do it.
Don't.
Still no tears yet.
Ah, we may have gotten past the moment.
Smiling again now.
800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Just a couple more stories here on what we were talking about.
UK, they want to segregate boys and girls because of the mess they're making of education for boys.
Teachers should be encouraged to tailor classes to fit the needs of boys with more emphasis on competitive lessons and the reading of nonfiction books.
According to the review, chaired by Christine Gilbert, the head of the school's watchdog, Ofsted, the report calls for a huge shake-up in the way education is delivered over the next 15 years to ensure that Scrule in 2020 have all that school leavers graduates have all the requisite skills by 2020.
It notes that poor standards achieved by boys remained extremely persistent, calls for different techniques to be employed for the sexes.
This used to not be the case.
I mean, it used to be boys and girls went to school together and everything was hunky-dory and fine.
And then all of a sudden, feminists got involved.
Wait a minute, the girls are being left out here.
The boys are raising their hand.
They're monopolizing time in class.
The girls are afraid to raise them.
We got Barbie dolls that came out.
I said, math class is tough when you pull a little loop on the back of the doll and a doll spoke.
And so, of course, we had to do because that was aberrant behavior by the boys, being who they were.
So we did a role reversal here.
We started tailoring things for girls in school all the way up to universities to the point that most normal men don't want to spend four years being taught by the likes of Kim Curtis at Duke.
Think undeniable truth of life number 24.
Ladies and gentlemen, so now it's, you know, the whole thing was this that they tampered with basic human nature because their thought was human nature had been very unkind to them.
And once you start doing that, it's only a matter of time before course correction is needed.
Now, it gets even better.
John Leo, writing at townhall.com, young women, she says, you think I'm making all this stuff up?
You think I'm a little bit over the top on this?
I can understand you thinking that, but folks, I'm telling you, this is all predicated on the fact now that we've got one of these Kim Curtis types running the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.
We've got one of these wacko, wild-eyed feminists who is a product of all this.
And we've got a soppy lapdog drive-by media here who's promoting and promulgating the myth that we're a better country today and that we've reached some sort of a milestone and we're all going to be better people.
And the end of all partisanship and confrontation is around the corner simply because a woman is running the show.
And of course, anybody but to say that any one of the two genders eliminates confrontation, come on, it's sophistry.
At any rate, young women in Sweden, Germany, and Australia have a new cause.
They want men to sit down while urinating.
It is a demand that they are making.
It comes partly from concerns about hygienes.
It's the splash factor, and the women want to avoid that.
But as Jasper Girard reports in the English magazine The Spectator, more crucially, because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and by extension degrading women.
This is where feminism has taken us.
I kid you not.
Jasper Girard, writing in the English Spectator, studying this movement in Sweden, Germany, and Australia, where women are demanding that men sit down while urinating.
Yeah, it's partly the splash factor, but more crucially, because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and by extension, degrading women.
One argument is that if women can't do it, as in stand up to urinate, then men shouldn't do it either.
Another is that standing upright while relieving oneself is a nasty macho gesture suggestive of male violence.
Folks, this is what I've been telling you for I don't know how many years, reinforcing it today.
Men are natural predators.
Normal characteristics of men are something that needs to be fixed.
What women do naturally, that's the norm.
A feminist group at Stockholm University is campaigning to ban all urinals from campus.
One Swedish elementary school has already removed them in Australia.
An internet survey shows that 17% of those polled think men ought to sit.
They're actually polling this, while 70% believe that they should be allowed to stand.
Some Swedish women are pressuring their men to take a stand, so to speak.
Yola, a 25-year-old Swedish trainee psychiatrist, says she dumps boyfriends who insist on standing.
What else can I do? said her new boyfriend, Ingvar, who sits.
You think I'm making this?
This is John Leo, respected columnist, writing at townhall.com.
They are polling in these wacko-socialist countries whether or not people think men should stand or sit while peeing.
And you know, once these things start, they don't go away, think gay marriage.
It's just, it's just going to keep.
And I'm going to tease you.
We've got some of the funniest Barney Frank soundbites that I've heard yet.
It was on Neil Cavuto yesterday.
I'm going to play one of them here for you before the break.
Barney has got this idea, and I told you about it back in November after the election.
Barney is going to go to corporations and he's going to offer them a deal: less regulation for higher benefits, health care, and all that.
And he also now is getting excited about limiting CEO salaries and giving stockholders more say-so in what the CEOs make, not just the compensation committee of the board of directors.
So Cavuto says, in the Home Depot case, the shareholders, they complained enough.
Finally, the board said, you know what?
This is awful.
So is that something that can be done privately and at the company level?
Yeah, they said this is awful.
Please take $210 million and go away.
I think the shareholders ought to have the right to say we're unhappy without having to bribe someone with $210 million.
That's a lot of money.
Well, where would you draw the line?
Would you put a limit?
Neil, Neil, Neil, Congress.
Would you put a limit?
Would you put a limit on all CEOs' pay?
If you're going to interrupt every five words, we don't have a show.
No, all I'm asking for is an answer, Congressman.
It gets better.
Sit tight.
All right.
Dingy Harry and the QBN, Queen Bee Nancy, have both signed a letter, a joint letter that they ⁇ this is being reported by PMS NBC, by the way, that Queen Bee, Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry have sent a letter to President Bush demanding no troop surge in Iraq.
Not requesting, not suggesting, demanding no troop surge in Iraq.
Now, this is an example.
Can we go back to audio soundbite?
Let's see.
Find this for me.
What is it?
Number six.
A montage of Pelosi and her remarks yesterday.
I want you to listen to this after hearing that she has joined Dingy Harry with a letter to President Bush demanding no troop surge in Iraq.
I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.
We may be different parties, but we serve one country.
In this Congress, we must work together to work together with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.
Off to a greater requires respect for every voice, an obligation to reach beyond partisanship.
Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.
See, you got to know how to define bipartisanship when the Democrats talk about it.
Bipartisanship is the way feminists deal with men.
You must change.
Bipartisanship from the Democrat side is you've got to stop being who you are, you Republicans and conservatives.
It's just that simple.
All right.
Adam and Tucson, as we go to the phones, more Barney Frank soundbites coming right up.
Adam, welcome, and it's nice to have you with us.
Oh, thank you.
Fourth-time listener, first-time caller.
How are you today?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
I wanted to discuss the war in Iraq, but really quickly, do you mind if I take some liberties and discuss one bone of contention I have with one of your word choices?
Yeah, fine.
Go right ahead.
Okay, I happen to be an environmentalist, a staunch environmentalist.
How do you refer to us as wackos or what's the term?
Environ wackos?
Environmentalist wackos.
Okay, it's the full two words.
I got you.
I just think somebody that uses a term like that doesn't really go hiking a lot or spend a lot of time in our beautiful forests and mountains.
I think maybe if you did that, perhaps you would have a higher appreciation for it.
I think I have a higher appreciation for the environment and am in more awe of its creation than you are.
I think I have so much a superior understanding of why it is what it is and why things happen there, what happens and why, than you do.
I think you're into worship.
I'm into understanding.
Well, that's interesting that you know me so well after such a short talk.
Let's move on to Iraq because I can see we're going to make a lot of progress on the environment.
I'm really glad that Pelosi and Reid came forth with their cojones representing the people and wrote that letter demanding no troop surge.
I believe that the American people spoke pretty clearly a couple months ago, and that's what they said.
They want us out.
They don't want more in.
Well, what university did you attend?
I attended the University of Psychedelic State.
Yeah.
It's in New Hampshire.
University of Psychedelic State.
Yeah, UPS.
It's in New Hampshire.
It's a reputable school.
I majored in creative writing and rhetoric.
Yeah.
Well, it makes sense.
You have a very useful.
You have a superiorist tone, a condescending tone about you that smokes.
I thought it would be the University of the Psychedelic Strait.
We should get along a lot, Rush, because that's one of the few things we have in common there.
We're both elitists, and we tell other people how it should be.
Environmentalist wackos, that's just a denigrating term that somebody that doesn't like enough.
It's descriptive.
And I have defined it in great detail over the years.
Let's talk about your assessment that we shouldn't send more troops to Iraq.
Okay, and I'll try to be more conciliatory.
I don't mean to be so.
I know.
Something I'm learning as I grow older that you have to tone it down.
Be who you are.
You're not bothering me.
I mean, be who you are.
I was just absolutely.
I'm not trying to bother you.
But I do want to have an hour.
You're not bothering me.
I wouldn't have taken the call.
I want to have an honest discourse about this important war.
Well, instead of partisan.
I'll tell you what.
In terms of a troop surge in Iraq, if there is no accompanying policy change for victory, then I would agree with you.
It's pointless.
What would that policy be?
What are the options?
The Iraqi people want us out.
The polls show that.
The American people want us out.
No, they don't.
And I'm not.
In fact, I've got some polling data here that indicate a majority of Americans do not want us.
In fact, I've got polling data that suggests a majority of Americans think that the reporting on Iraq has been biased and negative.
It's not representative of what it is in truth over there.
There's not a national clamor to get out of Iraq.
There are not people marching in the streets like there were in Vietnam, and that's not why the Democrats won the election.
Iraq had nothing to do with it.
This is the Mark Foley election.
This is Republicans and moderates voting for Democrats because they got fed up with a lack of performance by members of their own party.
We've been through all that.
We've been through all that.
Can I ask you something?
Can I ask you a question?
I'd be happy to hear it.
Well, what's the unemployment rate in Iraq today?
Do you know that?
No.
Don't know what the unemployment rate in Iraq is.
It's irrelevant.
It is irrelevant.
Okay, that would be a pretty good indicator of their happiness.
I believe it's about 60%.
I believe that most of the people are not.
The reason why it's irrelevant is because we did a story, Adam, some, I think it was right before Christmas, and it appeared in the mainstream media about all of the marvelous construction and schools, all of the power, the stock market, the Iraq economy is going through the roof.
Adam, all of this news that was withheld prior to the election, Iraq is not the place that you have a picture of it.
It's not Panacean.
It's not paradise.
But it is not the circumstance that you seem to see it as.
In fact, Adam, I'm going to tell you something.
I'm going to tell you one more thing before we go here.
I don't think you have the slightest bit of concern for the United States and Iraq or the Iraqis or getting troops out, except for one thing.
You want us to lose.
Why would you say that?
You want America to be humiliated.
You're being divisive, and those are baseline.
I'm not being divisive.
Would you stop with the liberal?
I don't want to see any people get killed.
Be they in people get killed every day.
Let me tell you something.
Adam, more people are killed per year in 16 American cities for murders than are killed in Iraq in the middle of a war.
So we did them a big favor.
We did Iraq at the same time.
No, I'm just saying you have no sense of perspective on this.
You're trying to tell me you're concerned about death.
And if you were really concerned about death, you'd be focusing on it in this country.
You would ban the automobile.
You would ban people being able to cross the street.
You would do everything you could to arm up the citizenry to reduce the crime rate because there are murders taking place, murders and deaths in the cities in these countries that far outweigh what's happening in Baghdad or in all of Iraq over the course of a year.
Head the story, you're not concerned about death.
That's just something you say to make people think you're compassionate and that you're sensitive and that you're a bigger and better than everybody else.
You want the United States to lose.
You are ridden with guilt about what you think the United States has caused and is causing in Iraq.
And frankly, I have lost patience for this kind of not even thinking.
You people are just programmed robots, and you say all these things to make yourselves sound in your own minds and hearts, vastly superior to everybody else.
And what you are is ignorant.
Who's next?
Trevor in San Antonio, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Well, thank you, sir.
It's an honor to talk to you.
I'm a second-generation ditto head, and I'm actually shipping out for Iraq on our birthday.
Hubba, hubba.
Congratulations, sir, and God bless you.
Thank you very much, sir.
And I wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart for donating the membership to your website.
I enjoy that immensely, and the newsletter every month.
When my wife's not stealing out of my hands, I absolutely love it.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
I've lost track of what you're saying for just a second.
I was trying to multitask.
I don't do it as well as Pelosi does.
You need a baby in your hand, sir.
No, no.
No.
In fact, can I say something about that?
Yes, sir.
Do you know, let's go back to the late 60s, the early 70s, the birth of the modern era of feminism.
Among many of the tenants back then was that don't have family.
Your life is not based on your relationship.
Your life is not based on children.
And if you have them, make sure you're not the one raising them.
Make sure your husband does or a daycare sinner because you got to go out there and join the career world and you got to start climbing the ladder so that you too can crack the marble ceiling.
All right.
It was all about women becoming like men to hell with kids, to hell with family relationship.
Bit of an exaggeration, but that was the now.
Look what happened in the House chamber yesterday.
Look what Nancy Pelosi did, big-time leading feminist.
We've gone full circle.
Do you think the early feminist leaders really enjoyed seeing all that yesterday?
That Pelosi had to be surrounded by young babies and children and her husband in order to make herself appear more palatable to the American public at large?
Ladies and gentlemen, think about it.
Think about it.
Yes, it's Open Line Friday.
I, Rushlin Baugh, highly trained broadcast specialist, executing assigned host duties flawlessly and meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
Well, here is the story.
It was from PMS NBC.
It was a Newsweek story, actually, that we had might have been before Christmas.
It had to be before Christmas on Iraq.
And we shared this story at the time, and I just marveled here at how none of this news happened to make it into the public square prior to the election.
Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy and mother of all surprises.
It's doing remarkably well.
Real estate is booming.
Construction, retail, wholesale trade sectors are healthy.
This, according to a report by Global Insight in London, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago.
Sales of secondhand cars, televisions, and mobile phones have all risen sharply.
Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17% last year, projects 13% for 2006.
The World Bank has it lower at 4% this year, but given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.
It's startling.
Why is it startling?
Folks, if we covered the death and violence in New York City alone on a daily basis like Iraq is covered, nobody would go there.
And even after all those Goldman Sachs guys got their $50 million bonuses, people would still say that we got to get out of New York.
It's not worth it.
Palm Beach County, Palm Beach, where we live.
Peaceful little liberal enclave that it is.
Over 100 murders last year.
100 murders.
And that's the ones they know about.
The idea, 3,000 deaths in a war that's been going on for three, four years, and somehow this is a disaster?
You know, sometimes the utter lack of common sense gets difficult to deal with.
There's no question that drive-by media with pictures has the power to sway a significant number of people in this country.
But it's a shame because without any context, historical understanding, sure, 3,000 dead.
Well, it's horrible.
Who wants that?
I'll tell you what people want to see.
You know what people want to see?
They want to see us killing the enemy.
They want the enemy dead.
And that's what we're not seeing even when it happens.
And so we don't think we're accomplishing anything.
Well, look at when you go see a war movie, do you cringe?
Do they leave out enemy casualties in a war movie?
Do you cringe when you see it?
Hell's bells, folks.
You go to a war movie and the enemy gets blown away and you applaud.
Some of you may even cry in joy.
We don't get that here, so we're not under the impression the enemy's dying.
The drive-by media leaves the assumption here that only Americans and innocent Iraqis are getting wiped out.
And when we do kill an Iraqi, we talk he didn't do it with dignity.
Like the hanging of Saddam Hussein, which we didn't even do.
And then we blew away Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is that his name?
And for two weeks, we got these glorious profilo bits and what he meant to his people and so forth and so on.
It's an outrage.
It's an absolute outrage.
But you know something?
It's a fact.
It's just a presidents from this day forward, folks, are going to have to factor in 24-7 media coverage of the war in the war planning.
It's a different day, and that must be done.
And part of that is providing pictures of your good news.
And good news includes killing the enemy.
Sorry, that may sound brutal.
It may sound cold.
It's war, though.
And that's what happens in them.
And build a dunkin' doughnuts later.
Philadelphia, Ruth, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Megha, thankful to God for you, dittos.
Thank you, Ruth.
You keep me sane.
I'm not kidding.
And I had called because I thought, how is it in this nation, people can be so savvy when it comes to stats for football, baseball?
They can remember players way, way back and their stats.
And yet when it comes to politics, it's like they zone out.
And in listening to the program I'm on the phone, you answered my question.
Because you know what?
The mainstream media talks us to death.
They hammer away at the same thing over and over again, trying to almost paint the picture to be the way they're saying, as opposed to the way it really is.
And they do that by omission of certain facts and things.
And I'm thinking, I know what happens to people.
They just zone out.
Just like when you're in the world.
Well, but let me, there's, you know, that's an interesting question.
And I'd like to take a stab at answering it.
And I would come at it in this way.
Let me see if I make sure I understand the question.
You want to know why Americans are so skilled and so informed on the performance, the statistics, and all of that of sports teams, the teams that they like and even the teams they hate that are their team's competitors.
They're up to speed on it.
They understand it.
They have great memories.
They remember the great moments, the great in every sport and so forth.
And you're wondering, why in politics do people seem to forget who liberals really are, what conservatives really do, that sort of thing.
There's a reason for it.
And actually, maybe two.
The first thing is, and I understand this having worked in the marketing department of the Kansas City Royals.
Those five years were extremely valuable to me because I learned a lot about people and why they do things in terms of going to sports.
White communities take their self-esteem from the performance of their teams.
Now, in New York, that's a city too big for that to happen.
You look at Pittsburgh.
I guarantee you that people in Pittsburgh today, some of them are really, really depressed because Cowers leaving.
They're really depressed.
More so than anybody's ever been depressed when a president got defeated.
There are people that when Terry Bradshaw left, there were people, just George Brett in Kansas City, when he retired, it was a great celebration, but there was a giant, giant letdown.
Sports teams have the ability in most communities to define a city's self-esteem.
Why is that?
Because sports is an escape from reality.
Sports is what people do, the people enjoy it, to escape the humdrum of their daily lives.
It is fantasy city.
You can pretend.
I had one of the marketing meetings that we went to in the offseason every year.
We had a Harvard guy come out ostensibly to tell us what kind of thinking we could employ to sell more tickets.
And one of his theories was don't waste time trying to sell this game to people that don't come already.
Your trick is to get people to come once or twice to come three or four times.
And then he said something I have never forgotten.
He said, sports is the one thing in life in which you can invest total passion without consequence.
He said, try that with a woman if you're a man.
Try that with a man if you're a woman.
You can invest total passion without consequence.
You can love your team and you can support and you can cheer and you can be as open about that love as you want.
You can make an idiot of yourself.
You can show up nude when it's 10 degrees.
You can show up painted your team colors.
You can make yourself look like the biggest idiot and your team will not kick you out.
Your team will not reject you.
Your team will, they may lose and disappoint you, but they may mistreat you with high ticket prices and so forth.
But I mean, they're not, because you express your love for your team, they are not going to tell you.
They're not going to run away, close the gates on you, say you can't come in here.
In real life, that happens.
People are much more guarded about their emotions in the areas of life that are not their fantasies and so forth.
And it was an interesting thing for me.
The other thing, I think, is that the adoption of a sports team by a fan is an actual act of commission.
A fan is making a commitment to the team.
I'm wondering more and more why it is some people are conservative and why they're liberal.
And I haven't rejected the idea that some of it's genetic and some of it's parents and some of it's the way you're raised.
But there are people that change.
I think more liberals have become conservatives over the years than vice versa.
In fact, there's no question about it.
But there's not the same kind of relationship between a human being and his congressman or his president or his party.
They just don't look at a political party or as an ideology as meaning the same thing as a sports team does.
Didn't Reagan do that, though?
Didn't President Reagan stir up that same passion?
Yeah, but then okay, now, but that great question, and it proves your point.
What happened if Reagan had bridged that gap?
Let's say Reagan represented a great sports team that everybody loved.
I guarantee a Steelers fan is going to be a Steelers fan until the day he dies, regardless what the team does.
What happened?
How come, that's the root of your question, is that after Reagan wins two landslides and has all this wonderful conservative ideology leading a movement, how come a liberal ever won an election again?
Exactly right.
What happened?
Well, what happens is the American people need leadership.
And we haven't had an actual conservative leading a movement from the White House since Reagan.
We've had a number of them, like Newt, for a while in the House of Representatives, but we haven't had anybody at the top in elected office leading a conservative movement.
We've had Republicans and we had quasi-conservatives.
It's almost like our team hasn't really been trying to win every year.
That's exactly right.
But that's because our team has, well, our team has people on it that don't deserve to be on a team.
There's some Republicans who call themselves Republicans, may as well be Democrats.
Well, you know what?
That's what I started to say about the whole thing with when you were talking about women, how they talk so much.
And, you know, I had five brothers, and they were the greatest guys.
I mean, you know, they just are the greatest guys, and they taught me so much about life.
Women can talk each other to death, but men go right for the headlines.
They give you the facts, and they take care of the problem.
And I love that about them.
And I think that the mainstream media has so controlled things with all these words and this constant drumbeat.
Pictures.
Yes.
And paintings.
Pictures words.
People are zoning up.
They're not paying attention because it just wears you.
But Ruth, it's pictures.
It's pictures.
Ruth, do you know?
You listen to this program regularly, right?
I can tell because you say I keep saying it.
You changed my life.
I was an Irish Catholic growing up in a Democrat household in Massachusetts.
Well, that's like half of Pittsburgh.
All right, now, maybe more.
Now, do you realize, you may think this is not true, given the evolution of media today.
Do you realize that there are people whose daily consumption of news consists solely of watching Oprah, then whatever local news twaddle follows, and then either Katie or ABC or CBS for 30 minutes a day, and that's it.
That's all.
They don't read the paper.
They don't watch cable.
They don't listen to talk radio.
That's it.
And most of them are of a demographic now that they're middle age and upwards.
And those happen to be the people that vote the most.
And so until that segment of the population kicks the bucket, until it dies, because there's, you know, people coming up.
That's a depressing thought.
How long is that going to take?
Well, I mean, life expectancy is growing and growing and growing.
This evolution is underway.
It's taking place.
There's still a significant number of people.
If it doesn't happen on the NBC Nightly News or the CBS Evening News or World News Tonight, it didn't happen at all.
Well, you need to have more rush babies then.
That's all I can say.
I have as many as possible.
I'm not going to pay support.
Back in just a second.
All right, back to Barney Frank with Neil Cavuto yesterday.
We last left these two.
Cavuto was trying to get Barney to admit that he wanted to limit CEO pay.
And Barney is saying, look, if you're going to interrupt every five words, we don't have a show.
Refusing to answer the question.
We now pick it up with Cavuto saying, what I'm asking you is, where do you draw the line, Congressman, on pay?
On all CEOs, on basketball players, on who?
Corporate players, on baseball players, who?
Will you please let me answer the question?
Go ahead.
You have it.
The answer is whenever the shareholders want to.
It's the shareholders' corporations.
And I believe that what we need to do is to step in and amend the law, because in some states, many states where corporate law is set, shareholders who want to have a vote can't get one.
So Barney is whining some more here, admits that he wants to legislate corporate salaries, but actually what that's he's he's doing this under the guise of shareholder power.
Cavuto says, so when the shareholders at a company see that the company now in a search for a new CEO and the board's empowered to find a new CEO for Home Depot whom they might have to pay Dop Dollar for, what would you be for or against that?
I'm for the shareholders just signing it.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
I don't want to.
By the way, Congressman, is it always incumbent upon you to be so condescending, or do you just want to answer my question?
All I'm asking you, Congress.
No, no, no, no.
Congress, I'm just asking, is it all right for the shareholders?
Don't give me a question.
Is it right for the shareholders to demand the board to do that?
Yes or no?
You're not going to run this like a junior high school class.
I've answered the question.
You asked me the same question again in a distorted way.
No, it's not distorted, Congress.
The fear is that you want to put a cap on CNOP.
I want to be clear that you do not.
You do not, right?
No, I've never suggested that.
The fear was put in their minds by people who post questions like this.
This is a technique Barney uses all the time.
When he doesn't want to answer the question, he accuses the host of manipulating him or running out of a high school program or something.
He then accuses Neil of running the show like a junior high school class.
Who's next?
Pat in Roseville, Michigan.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
I feel like I'm talking to an old friend.
I've been listening to you for so long here.
I've been watching this stuff in Washington and the tobacco of the left taking over the House and Senate.
I'm just totally amazed at how arrogant these people are.
And the one problem I think they're going to have is the fact that when they bring their ideology out, people like yourself and the network that you have produced, the conservative voice out there, is going to give these people a lot of trouble.
And we know they don't like people confronting their views.
Yeah, we're going to treat them like piñatas.
Let's be honest.
Yes, sir.
My question to you is, do you foresee any attempt by these people to try to push some kind of legislation through to force TV and radio stations to provide equal time to the left to maybe go after you?
Well, it's actually called the fairness doctrine.
And there are a lot of people who have a genuine fear that that is on the Democrats' agenda.
And they won't be able to do it in the next two years because they'd have to have the president sign off on that and on going back to the fairness doctrine.
Fairness doctrine is one of these things that's just improperly named.
The last thing that results from the fairness doctrine is fairness.
Louise Slaughter from New York is the lead congresswoman on it in the House.
And there are a lot of people very much alarmed that if they win the White House in 08, that they'll try to reenact it.
And I'll explain what the Fairness Doctrine is in the next hour because we're out of time now.
But next two years, I'm not concerned about it.
And I'm not going to get concerned about it until it gets close.
I mean, I try to avoid living in fear most of my life about things that I can't control immediately anyway.
So quick timeout.
Back in a sec.
Fastest three hours in media.
And two of them are already done.
One to go.
We make the most of it.
Your phone calls will be prominent.
▲
Export Selection