All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
January 11, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, I said I was going to move on to other things, but I have one more thing to say about all this Iraq business and the accompanying politics of all this that's going on.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
America's real anchor man here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network and the largest free education institution in the world, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Let me ask you a question.
Of all the things that are reverberating out there in the political cauldron, all the things that are boiling and effervescing out there, what's the one thing George W. Bush cares about and is going to fight about?
There may be two, but the one biggie is Iraq.
Now, during the break, I went back there and I was talking to Snerdley, and I said, Snerdley, this is a rhetorical question.
How long is it going to be before the Republicans start ripping into Pelosi like the Democrats ripped into Newt?
And my thinking was, it ain't going to happen because she's a girl, and you don't hit the girl.
You don't hit the girl.
Plus, it's not who the Republicans are, despite what the Democrats think.
You know, we did hit Clinton, but that was for reasons oriented around policy and then the lying and all that sort of stuff.
That was really born of our incredulity that the American people can fall for it.
For somebody like Clinton, that's when I should have recognized what a passive bunch of wimps live in this country.
Nevertheless, Bush is actually doing something from a political standpoint pretty smart.
I think he knows that he's not going to hit Pelosi.
And one of the reasons the Republicans might not hit Pelosi is because he's not going to do it.
But if you take a look at Harriet Myers, the White House counsel, she's gone, and she was largely responsible for selecting judicial nominees.
A number of holdover nominees for various appellate court seats, district court judge seats, have withdrawn themselves or Bush has swept them aside.
What he's basically done here, look at minimum wage.
I mean, minimum wage, it's going to happen, although it may not.
There's something interesting going on with the minimum wage.
The House has passed it.
It's going to go to the Senate.
And the Senate, there's some Democrats that agree with Republicans.
We've got to put some tax cuts in here and regulatory relief for small business.
Well, if that happens in the Senate, if they pass their version of it with those provisions, you can go to a conference committee with the House, and that's not going to sit well with the House Democrats.
They don't want any tax cuts, rather, for big business, small business, or whoever.
So it'll be interesting to see what happens in that conference.
I don't see how the Democrats in the House could vote against it, even if it has those tax cuts in it, since they're the ones that sponsored it.
The president's going to sign it regardless what's in it.
So that's off the table.
What's going to happen here?
Let me shorten the theory.
The only thing left on the table to argue about at the end of this first hundred hours of legislation of the Democrats will be Iraq, maybe stem cells, because the president will veto that.
They might have the votes in the Senate to override his veto, but I don't think they do in the House.
But all this other stuff that they want in their agenda, if it flies through the House and the Senate and so forth, he's not going to put up a fight about it.
He's going to continue to fight on Iraq, and he is the Democrats.
I don't care that they run the House.
I don't care that they run the Senate.
They are not going to be able to defund it.
They may be able to investigate it, and they may be able to conduct hearings, and they may be able to spread their propaganda and create as much anti-war sentiment in the country, but they are not going to be able to stop it.
They are not going to be able to stop the war in Iraq.
And then the focus of attention is going to hit Pelosi and to a lesser extent Dingy Harry from Democrats who are going to say, What are you good for?
The whole point of you being there is to get us out of Iraq.
They're not going to start dancing in the streets over the minimum wage being passed, the increase, and they're not going to go nuts over, you know, the government getting involved in negotiating drug prices.
That's going to be an abomination if it happens.
But the Democrat constituency, this kook fringe base, is not going to go crazy throwing parties over these legislative agenda items in their so-called first 100 hours.
And Bush isn't going to argue with them, and the Republicans are not sitting there really arguing.
In fact, they're going to vote for the minimum wage.
The interesting action there will be in the Senate.
But on the thing that really matters, the war in Iraq, the substantive part of it that matters, stopping it, getting us out of there, they aren't going to be able to do a thing about it.
And at that point, then there's going to be some focus of attention on Pelosi and her ineffectiveness and question marks about what she's able to really accomplish and so forth.
And those questions, of course, will come from Democrats who have invested such high hopes in Pelosi's ability, along with Dingy Harry and Ted Kennedy and all the rest, to get us out of Iraq.
So, Bush got two years left.
And the thing that it cares more about than he is Iraq, and he's perfectly willing to argue about that on something they can't win.
I mean, substantive.
They can continue their little propaganda ploys with their hearings and gin up anti-war support, and they can continue to pound Bush and make him look.
But after six years, we know Bush is not going to cave to it.
And at this point, he doesn't care.
He does care about victory.
He cares about winning.
He cares about a policy and a strategy that's going to lead to an overall wider victory in the war on terror.
He understands this.
He's committed to it.
And there's nothing they can do to sidetrack him from it, short of impeaching him.
And they're not going to do that either because they don't have the votes for that.
Their majorities are too slim.
That's just not going to happen.
And so when all this shakes out, and it won't be long this year for all this stuff to shake out, the genuine ineffectiveness on the thing that matters most to the anti-war wing of the Democrat Party, which is the big wing of the Democrat Party, she will not be able to have gotten it done.
So keep a sharp bias.
See if I'm not right about that.
Now, we've talked recently about Governor Schwarzenegger and his effort here to cut his suggestion to cut welfare benefits for American citizens.
Now, I don't want to get into an argument here about welfare, be it good or bad, because he may be able to make the case that what he's trying out there is California's version of welfare reform that was done nationally.
But he's promised to reduce welfare benefits for American citizens in order to pay to extend health care insurance to illegals and their children.
Now get this.
This is from the Seattle Times.
Republican lawmakers are protesting a proposal by Governor Christine Gregari.
I hope I'm pronouncing it, I don't know how to pronounce it.
I've not heard her name pronounced as you know, I'm deaf.
And Democrat lawmakers to expand state-funded health coverage for children of illegal immigrants.
Representative Bill Hinkle, ranking Republican on the House Health Care and Wellness Committee in the state of Washington, said they're not even citizens.
Hinkle said it doesn't make any sense to cover illegal immigrants when there are so many other shortcomings in the state's health care system.
This just drives people back home nuts.
But guess what?
The move is drawing widespread praise from hospitals, doctors, and children's advocates.
In our opinion, every child should have medical coverage and be able to get medical care, said John Gould, the deputy director of the Children's Alliance.
We shouldn't play politics with children.
Cassie Sauer, spokeswoman for the Washington State Hospital Association, said hospitals are required to treat any child who comes in with a medical emergency.
Child happens to be an uninsured immigrant.
The costs simply get passed on as a hidden tax to other patients who have insurance.
It's far less expensive, she said, to include those kids in health programs that provide basic preventive care, such as immunization.
Now, the reaction to this, if yours is, what the hell? is quite understandable and normal.
What the hell is going on here?
Well, I'll tell you what the hell is going on here, folks.
It is time for us to face it.
Politicians, for now in California and the state of Washington, are selling out American citizens for illegal aliens.
It certainly appears to this correspondent, to this reporter, to this commentator, to this celebrity, certainly appears to me that they care more for Mexico's citizens and children than they do American citizens and children whom they are supposed to represent.
Again, I don't want to have an argument about welfare, but if you're going to cut welfare to Americans to give health care to Mexicans who are not legal citizens, what the hell are we to conclude?
And the same thing here in the state of Washington.
And then you've got the deputy director of the Children's Alliance saying, we shouldn't play politics with children.
And the spokesman for the Hospitals Association says, hey, it'd be cheaper.
It would be cheaper.
It would be cheaper.
How in the world?
How does that add up?
I mean, all these people talk of a zero-sum game.
I know a little math here.
How in the world is it cheaper to extend health insurance to everybody, particularly illegals who don't have it?
Well, Mr. Limboch, because they're required by law to treat them in the emergency room when they fill up anyway, and that costs has to be path on.
Oh, so that cost is no longer going to occur?
That's right, Mr. Limboca.
They're all going to have health.
Well, who the hell is going to pay that, Mr. New Castrati?
As my friend the rabbi says, oi.
Okay, on the Today Show today, Madonna appeared with Meredith Vieira.
She was late, by the way, blamed it on her hair.
And she called Rosie O'Donnell a horse.
Meredith Vieira's question: I heard that Rosie is among things on your mind.
What about conflict with Donald?
What do you think about that?
I heard about it when I was in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
So I sent her an email and I said, is everything okay?
What's going on?
I had to hear it from the horse's mouth.
So you heard it here first.
She called Rosie O'Donnell a horse.
Let's see.
I was going to say something and I didn't write it down.
I forgot it.
So let me go to the next item here in the stack.
I'm sure it'll come to me.
This is a story out of India, the Times of India online.
It's a well-known paradox that had little evidence to support it until now.
Doctors from UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine.
Is it David Geffen School of Medicine?
You know how you get your name on a school of medicine is you donate to it.
You basically pay to get it built.
Anyway, doctors from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine have for the first time successfully demonstrated that obese patients actually fare better and have better chances of survival when hospitalized for acute heart failure than their leaner counterparts.
In the first ever large-scale study to assess the relationship between body mass index and survival in patients hospitalized with heart failure, think heart attack, doctors have found the obesity paradox, BMI being inversely associated with long-term mortality in chronic heart failure to be real.
The study has found that by weight category, in-hospital mortality rate was 6.3% for underweight, 4.6% for healthy weight, 3.4% for overweight, 2.4% for obese patients, meaning the thinner you are after a heart attack in a hospital, the greater chance you have of assuming room temperature.
The obese live longer in hospitals after heart attacks, have a chance of surviving far greater than the thin.
David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, it's time to bring back the trans fats.
Now get this next story.
I can't find anything more about this and I don't understand it.
I'm just going to read this to you.
Somebody help me out here.
This is an Associated Press story that ran yesterday.
Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr faced questions Wednesday on Capitol Hill over his cameo appearance in Sasha Baron Cohen's movie, Borret.
Senator Arlen Specter questioned Representative Barr on his appearance in Borit, Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
Barr said the movie was pitched to him under false pretenses and that he hasn't seen it.
Barr said he didn't sue over the film because he didn't want to draw more attention to the movie.
Specter said it was a most extraordinary movie, adding the interview with you was about the only part of the movie worth seeing.
What in the world is an ex-congressman being dragged up to the Senate to explain his appearance in a movie all about?
And what is a Senate committee doing getting testimony or conducting an investigation or hearing into Bob Barr appearing in a movie?
Could somebody explain this?
Here we are on the verge of sending more troops to Iraq.
Arlen Specter's got an ex-congressman up there asking him why and what for about his cameo in a movie and Barr's under the whites.
I don't know if he had to assume under oath or whatever, but that's all I can find about it.
That's all there is about this.
As though, hey, it's normal.
Ex-congressmen are routinely interrogated if they appear in a movie.
Chuck, in Snoqualmie, that's what it is.
Snoqualmie, Washington.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Good morning, Rush.
I appreciate all you do each and every day.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I appreciate that you appreciate it.
I'm glad somebody does.
Two really quick comments.
My first one is a question for you.
I don't understand because the Democrats, right up until the election and even afterwards, were accusing President Bush of being a buffoon because he was losing so much respect around, and he couldn't lead the nation's superpower in building this great coalition to go in here and to help us into Iraq.
So now, since the election, they've changed 180 degrees, and now they're saying, well, the Iraq don't need anybody else's help.
We're all free to pull out and to let them handle this on their own.
I don't understand.
Yes, you do.
Tell me what you think they're really saying.
Run.
It's all politics.
It's just whatever Bush does, they're going to disagree with.
That's right.
And you had a caller before, Mike, who just came back from Iraq.
And I can tell you it was the same in Vietnam because I flew around in a helicopter gunship while they were shooting at us.
And I'm mounted on a 75,000 Zeon light with an infrared scope mounted with 20.50 caliber machine guns.
And there's nothing worse than when those tracers are coming up at that damn helicopter.
You're calling in for permission to fire, and they're telling you to wait 1-0 to see if friendlies are in the area.
That's not how you fight a war.
You go in there and you take them apart.
That's why they call it penship.
It's just so frustrating.
They put all these rules and regulations.
Well, we're going to fight a war according to the way that the PeaceNets want to fight it.
That's not how it happens.
It's just ridiculous.
Well, I hear these stories, and I hear them frequently about the political correctness, the politically correct handcuffs that are placed on our troops.
And despite these, and you're describing the existed in Vietnam, and that doesn't surprise me.
It wouldn't surprise me if you told me that you had a straight line to the Oval Office, had to get permission from LBJ to return fire.
That's how micromanaged that war was, or McNamara.
But while we got all these politically correct handcuffs on our troops, we still hear all these stories about how they rape and murder and pillage.
And they go in, John Kerry, they terrorize women and children at home during religious ceremonies and so forth.
These two things don't go together.
And it sounds to me that the kinds of things that these guys get accused of are just the things that happen in war and that we are trying to eliminate with our guilt-laden political correctness.
You know, even in the middle of fighting a war, the predominant concern is that the enemy like us.
How ridiculous is that?
Well, they must like us, and they must appreciate us, and they must understand that we're Americans, and we have ideals, and we're doing everything we can to make sure that we end up as the targets.
I know it's absurd.
But the president last night said that some of these restrictions are going to be lifted, and I certainly hope they are.
I've been hearing these stories long enough, and it's frustrating to hear.
Thanks very much for the Nicole Chuck.
We'll be right back in a sec.
I know.
Got the little bit of an explanation here from the Editrix at a limbo letter, Diana Schneider, doing research.
Found out what was really going on here at this Arlen Specter hearing where Bob Barr was questioned about appearing in Borret.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was conducting a hearing on balancing privacy rights in government data mining programs, and Barr was up there to testify about the loss of privacy.
He's become a libertarian.
He's abandoned the Republican Party.
And as a side note, He was asked by Spectre whether his right to privacy was violated by Borret, Sasha Baron Cohen, because he was misled and totally set up for his appearance in the movie.
If you haven't seen it, Barr accepts an interview from Borret.
Boritt has convinced Barr that he's a legitimate TV correspondent from Kazakhstan.
And Borat wants to ask Barr questions about the Patriot Act and the war on terror and how it violates American privacy rights.
So that's a big deal with Barr.
So Barr agreed.
And when Boritt told him that the cheese he had brought was made with the milk of his wife's breast milk, that's when Barr said, hey, wait a minute, something's not right here and kicked him out of the office.
So, you know, didn't know who Borret was.
Thought Borrett was a gym.
That's what's great about this, how many people are being fooled by this guy.
I mean, even the nation of Kazakhstan has had to mount a national worldwide PR campaign to counter this.
Dodger Stadium, Chavez Ravine, Los Angeles, next baseball season, the right field pavilion.
You will be able to pay $40 for a bleacher seat and eat whatever you want from the concession stand.
The Dodgers are converting the Right Field Pavilion into an all-you-can-eat section.
They also are raising the price of the cheapest game day ticket, the top deck, from $6 to $10, matching the price in the left-field pavilion.
A ticket to the right field pavilion, $35 in advance, $40 on game day, will let you eat an endless supply of hot dogs, peanuts, soda, except beer, which hasn't been sold in the pavilion for years.
The Dodgers tested the concept several times last season.
Fans really liked it, said Camille Johnson.
We know it's a good option for groups.
So they're talking about banning trans fats in LA.
They haven't really gotten around.
They probably will ban trans fats, but that's what I say.
You can ban trans fats in restaurants, but if you're going to get around the concession stands, whatever.
Stirdly, that's not the question.
The question here is, we are inundated daily with what a bunch of slothful, obese, wasteful slobs we are.
And now here come the Dodgers.
Generally, it's an all-you-can-eat buffet at a restaurant or somewhere, and they score big bucks there because nobody really can eat enough to eat more than the price.
All-you-can-eat section at a ballpark?
Wow, this is innovative.
This is genuinely innovative.
Eat all the hot dogs, all the peanuts, all the soda, whatever they sell in the concession stands.
You get it for 40 bucks a ticket on the day of the game.
What else we have here?
Oh, here it comes.
We have an AP Ipsos poll.
Americans oppose Iraq troop surge.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP Ipsos poll.
Serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops.
There's another way to phrase this poll.
Americans are tragically misinformed about militant Islam.
Americans tragically misinformed about the stakes.
Americans tragically misinformed about the truth on the ground in Iraq in the first place.
So here it comes.
I guarantee you, since they were not able to stop Bush, they are going to be mounting pressure on the American people on you, on us with regularity.
They're going to do everything they can to gin up anti-war support to the 70 or 80 percentiles.
Mark my words.
Interesting headline in the Washington Times today: Hillary's status as frontrunner slipping in key states.
This is Donald Lambrough in the Washington Times.
Senator Clinton's popularity in Democrat presidential preference polls has fallen in the nation's first caucus in primary states in the face of increasing support for her chief rivals.
Those chief rivals are the Brett girl, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.
You have to ask yourself, you have to ask yourself the real question about Obama and so forth, whatever it is, is not really about him.
I thought Hillary Clinton was entitled to the Democrat nomination.
In fact, I thought she was entitled to the White House.
I thought it was hers.
I thought it was a foregone conclusion.
And yet, the best friends that Clinton's have in the drive-by media are coming out and making her opponents big, viable, attractive.
Why is Obama even a factor if Hillary owns it?
If the Clinton war room owns this, how can Obama even be a factor?
Same way with the Brett girl.
Somebody somewhere is seriously concerned that Hillary can't win, folks.
And that's the bottom line.
TV violence is surging.
A group says violence on broadcast TV is approaching epidemic proportions, surging 75% over the last six years, while posing a threat to children that parents and government officials need to address.
Wait till you see the new season of 24.
You haven't seen anything yet.
I'm not giving away plots.
You can read reviews.
The 24 Gang Sings Owa Fox sends out the first four episodes for review.
And there are four huge, I can't believe they just did that moments in these four episodes.
There are four moments where you're going to sit there and say, I can't believe I just saw that.
I can't believe they just did it.
And they beg the newspaper and television critics that they send these advanced copies to do not divulge these things.
And so far, I haven't seen anybody that has.
And I am not going to either.
But, man, I know that I've talked about it a couple of three times.
I can't get away from talking about the thing I'm on.
I'm a radio and a media guy.
They are too.
I just marvel at the creativity these guys that put this program together have.
I marvel at the genius of the writing.
Weren't for the writing, the actors would have nothing to say.
It's just astounding.
The plot twists in one half hour of this program rival anything you'll see in a two-hour movie.
And they just keep coming.
You know, I told you I had 22 people over to watch the first eight episodes.
We started at 7 p.m.
We finished at 2:30 in the morning.
Yeah, we stopped and refueled between episodes.
Had a little buffet set up up there, adult beverages and so forth, and soft drinks for those who preferred.
And only four people left.
And those four people left only because they didn't want to have to wait till February the 19th to find out what happens next.
What are you guys smirking at in there?
Yes, it was an all-you-can-eat buffet.
They're asking me if it was an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Yes.
You want to know what was on the buffet?
Okay, beef stroganoff, Allen Brothers hot dogs, Allen Brothers miniature hamburgers, chicken strips, popcorn, cheese and cracker tray, potato chips, peanuts, let's see.
There was one other thing that I know there were no veggie burgers.
There were no veggie burgers.
I can't remember, there was coconut popped in coconut oil, by the way.
That theater smells like a theater when I rip up the popcorn machine.
There was one of the, what was it, having, oh, egg rolls.
Egg roll.
Anyway, the people would come in, check supplies.
If their supplies were down, bring in another.
It was all you could eat all the way up to 2.30 in the morning.
Point is only four people left.
And that was because they didn't have to wait.
Want to have to wait till February 19th when episode 9 airs to find out what happens next.
But here's the thing.
Everybody was on.
They were exhausted.
They were exhausted after the first four.
And after episode four, they couldn't believe what they had just seen.
And it's so intense.
It literally is, you are riveted.
More so than any other season.
And by 2.30, I mean, people were tired, but they were exhausted.
They were emotionally spent.
It was fascinating because I had to watch these in advance because you can't have people over say, hey, we're going to watch the first eight episodes and have some of the episodes not be correct.
Have them not work.
So I had to watch this.
So I had seen them.
So while guests are in there watching this stuff, I stole into my office now and then to check new was on the computer, even though it was Friday night.
But I'd come in and I would watch them watch the show, standing in the back of the room and so forth, and making sure if somebody had an empty wine glass, I'd take the wine and fill it up so they didn't have to get up and leave.
And it was, it's just, it's a fascinating case study.
And these are all 24 fans, by the way.
These are people that are die-hard supporters.
But it's, you know, every episode has one of these, gosh, I can't believe they did that moment in it.
And especially the one on number four.
And they all star, I guess it's Sunday and Monday night for the first four episodes.
Anyway, I'm a little long here.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Okay, we're back.
A couple more things here.
14 members.
Listen to Wall Street Journal today.
14 members of an advisory board of Jimmy Carter's Human Rights Organization resigned today to protest his new book, which criticizes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories.
There are 200 people on this board.
14 of them have cleaned out.
They just said, they got the hell out of there.
He said, you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.
How stupid are these people on this board?
I mean, I admire them for walking out, but you tell and try to tell me that they didn't know how he felt until he put it in writing in his book.
And here's the story from the Contra Costa Times about Arnold Schwarzenegger's ability to insure his proposal to insure all the children of illegals health care by cutting welfare on Americans.
Governor Schwarzenegger's call to cut off welfare assistance to children whose parents fail to meet work requirements would place thousands of East Bay children at risk of hunger and homelessness.
The welfare cut would imperil children.
So he's funding free health care for illegals while putting Americans on the dole or off the dole.
Whatever.
Whatever you care about.
Welfare doesn't matter.
Pam in Lansing, Michigan.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Oh, hi, Rush.
I'm a little nervous.
I've listened to you for a long time.
I worked for John Engler, and that's when I started listening to you, like in 91.
So I am a big fan.
And I'm calling to thank you for the courage that you gave me last night when I was interviewed for my reaction about the President's speech.
You were interviewed by who?
I was interviewed by some local media here.
They had called the Marine Corps and asked if they had any local families that had an active duty.
Was it television, local TV?
It was local TV, yep, local news.
From Detroit or in Lansing?
In Lansing.
Okay.
And it was for, it actually covered two news stations, and I did a taped thing.
They watched my husband and I watching the president, and then they wanted to interview me.
And I have to say.
Wait a minute.
They had their cameras in your living room while you're watching the president.
Correct.
You gave them permission to do this, obviously, but that's what they did.
Yes, I did.
Yes.
And the reason I did that was because I wanted to have them cover a side of the story that was supportive of the president.
Well, let me guess.
After it was over, you told them whatever you thought of the president was positive, and they weren't interested.
Well, yes, they taped the version, but then they asked if they could go, their reporter asked if they could do a live report for their 10 o'clock live report.
And I said live, and they said yes.
And then again for the 11 o'clock news.
And so they did the interview for the 10 o'clock news live.
And I was asked three very pointed questions about increasing troop levels.
Did I worry that that was going to extend my son's deployment?
And one was about that my son's company has suffered several casualties in the last few months, and they came in right at the heart of all this insurgents.
It was very rough.
And then I can't recall the third question, but I answered him.
I actually had enough time.
I couldn't watch it, but my husband watched it upstairs.
And my sister said, oh, you came across really strong.
It showed that you supported your son and the troops, and you were very calm.
And so I felt good about it.
And then they told me it would run in its entire version on the morning news.
And they ended up deciding not to do the 11 o'clock.
They rushed to the airport to cover a Marine that was coming in who had been injured in Iraq and was with my son's company.
So they ran to the airport to cover that.
But the thing that caught me in the morning was what they had run at 6 o'clock, and again at 11, after my few-minute brief thing they ran on me, was there was a young woman that they interviewed who was a wife of an Army soldier.
And her saying, oh, no, I'm against it.
I don't think the president should do this.
My husband's been gone a few months already, and he's going to be gone a year, and that's too long, and we don't need to be there.
And then my piece never ran.
And so they basically focused on this very young wife who I think they found something better to fit their agenda.
Absolutely.
And I was very offended because actually I presented the opportunity for them to present both sides of the story.
Let me tell you something.
Pam, there's a great education for you.
Welcome to the media.
But I just want to understand the timeline.
They took you after the speech last night live?
Well, they first did a taped one that they were going to use for their morning programs.
Okay, but they instead ran it at the 10 o'clock news.
No, no, then they did another one with me, a second one that was live on their 10 o'clock report.
Okay, okay.
And then they were going to cut that up and use it in the morning.
No, the first taped one they were going to use in the morning.
So you were on the air once with your story.
Yes, I did get once.
Okay, well, you got once, but these other two times, it didn't happen.
No, I should take that back.
The 11 o'clock did do a small blurb, but it was basically about my son's enlistment in the Marine Corps.
All right.
Well, look at, I can't tell you.
You should call back sometime, because I don't have time, to tell you the number of times that that has happened.
It's one of the reasons I so infrequently do this anymore.
They've got the story done when they show up.
I don't care how big or small the town in which the media is.
The media is focused on doing damage to the president's policy and trying to show American families, military families in pain, in suffering, and disagreeing.
And you just didn't fit the bill.
Don't take it personally.
It's just you didn't say what they wanted to hear.
The lesson is they're not out there collecting news.
They are out there producing an agenda.
I got so wrapped up in the show today, I forgot to light my, I forgot to even get a cigar, much less light it.
I'll fix that pretty soon.
▲
Export Selection