All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 16, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
January 16, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
I told you it wouldn't be long, folks.
Here we are, Rush Limbaugh, the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, your guiding light, well-known radio raconteur, general all-around good guy from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the telephone number, if you want to be famous.
I appearing on this program, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
So a guy sends me an instant message.
What is this banner headlines Obama announces to explore for options for president?
Is this breaking news?
Yes, you have to understand to the drive-by media.
It's huge news that Obama's doing this.
But the interesting thing behind this to me is how can this be happening, particularly in the drive-by media, if Hillary Clinton is the anointed entitleee to the Democrat presidential nomination?
That's the thing about this that fascinates me.
They are having more gasms over Obama than they have ever had over Hillary.
I mean, Hillary, she got her share of, oh, she's so wonderful, so forth.
This is unrivaled.
Hillary has never had, other than New York Times magazine, which has put her angelic mug on the cover a bunch of times.
Other than that, she's at her share of puff pieces, but destined to be president and excitement like this, like the savior?
She's never been treated like the savior.
And what's interesting to me about this is what's causing this?
You know, if the conventional wisdom for so long has been that Hillary is the entitlee, it's hers.
And everybody stay out of the way.
What the hell are all these people doing in it?
What's the Brit girl doing?
And why is he generating so much excitement?
It has to be that somewhere in the dense caves of the Democrat Party, there is a whole slew of doubt that she can win.
More and more people apparently thinking she can't win.
That's that.
I mean, how can this even happen?
How can there be this Barack Obama phenomenon if this is Hillary's just because she wants it and because it's owed to her?
And you've heard my theory about why it's owed to her.
I don't want to waste time.
Well, it wouldn't be a waste of time because it's a great theory, but I've done it two or three times.
I want to move on.
Snurdley, during the break, said, well, you know, I'm thinking about this first hundred hours of the Democrats.
I don't see any excitement about it out there.
He said, during the Republicans, 95, when they took over Congress, had the contract with America, and there was all kinds of excitement about it out there.
And media was chronicling it and what they were doing.
And every vote and every debate the Republicans had was huge, big news.
And I said, well, you've got a rock that's overshadowing everything.
But it is true.
What do you hear about the first 100 hours?
I think another reason why that it really isn't being pushed that much by the drive-by media or even the Democrats is they didn't run on this.
They didn't run on an agenda.
They're claiming a mandate now when their campaign actually was to just, you know, throw the hate and rage out there and hope it sticks in as many places as possible.
What hour are they at, by the way?
I mean, the best way to express this is they're going to get the first 100 hours and they're going to get all these great, wonderful things done.
Nobody seems to care about it.
What hour are we at?
I'm sorry, you never end a sentence with a preposition where you don't have to.
At what hour are we?
Is anybody even keeping track?
Not that I know of.
Hour 40?
We don't know.
Interesting news here, ladies and gentlemen.
New research showing a strong link between Parkinson's disease and low levels of bad cholesterol are so worrying that U.S. researchers are launching a study to look into it.
The team at the University of North Carolina is planning clinical trials involving thousands of people to see whether statin drugs, which lower low-density LDL, the good cholesterol, might actually cause Parkinson's in some people.
Do you understand the import of this?
Do you understand the impact?
For the longest time, the people who have been trying to convince you that you might live forever if you just get your cholesterol under control have told you that there are two kinds of cholesterol, good cholesterol and bad cholesterol.
And the bad cholesterol is really bad.
It's called the LDL.
And so we've got these drugs that lower the bad cholesterol because nothing bad should be in your body.
Now, all of a sudden, researchers are so worried that these drugs have successfully lowered the bad cholesterol so much that it might lead to Parkinson's disease.
Now, will Michael J. Fox soon begin doing television commercials for trans fats, i.e., healthy eating?
I mean, this is striking.
This is just another example of how we have this panic-oriented health culture where every week we get a new discovery, a new claim, do this and do that.
It becomes household conventional wisdom.
Bad cholesterol is bad.
Too much of it, and you die.
Plaque and heart attacks and clean out the arteries and go in there and do all this stuff.
Stints.
Bad, So lower it, diet, exercise, and take this, whatever the drug is.
And now all of a sudden, I know there are bad things in the body, but normally the bad things in the body get passed out by the body via the two means by which waste is eliminated.
And I know that there are poisonous toxins running around the body, but they are taken care of by human organs in there, the kidneys and the liver and other things.
We've had to believe that cholesterol, the LDL, the bad cholesterol, the killer, that we were created with a natural substance that's going to kill us for whatever reason.
Now, all of a sudden, we find out that we start tampering with that, we might get Parkinson's.
The thing to do is just enjoy your life, folks, and understand that you're mortal.
And that when your time's up, your time's up.
And the real thing to do is try to get the most out of every day you have that you can, rather than sitting and fretting over this little adjustment that you can make and this little adjustment, you become anal.
How many anal people we have out there just constantly micromanaging every little speck of whatever they breathe, eat, drink?
Yeah, make sure you make sure you jog in the grass.
Don't jog in the street.
No, no, no, no, I can wreck your knees.
All these you get so paralyzed with these things that enjoying life cannot possibly result from all these things that you do designed to improve your life.
Let's see.
The name of the researcher here is Zhume Huang or Huang.
It's the Chinese, I think.
Colleagues found that patients with low levels of LDL cholesterol are at least three and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease than those with higher LDL levels, the bad cholesterol.
British heart experts expressed alarm about the report, said heart patients should not stop taking statins.
They say, wait a minute, we don't know about this.
This is just some surmise that we've got to get to research and so forth.
Don't start dropping the drugs yet.
Now, if you're out there on a drug to lower your bad cholesterol and you're listening to this report and you're concerned about getting Parkinson's disease, now what do you do?
Now, what do you do?
We'll be back in just a moment.
Well, this is hilarious.
Sitting here monitoring PMS NBC during the break, you know what they're doing right now?
They are doing a serious hand-ringing segment on the nuke explosion last night on 24 and whether or not it'll help Bush.
And they've got some yin-yang Democrat guest and some former assistant press secretary for Bush debating whether the nuke explosion, a television show, will help Bush.
Help Bush.
They're going on and on about how this show is watched.
Oh, look.
Yes, they just put a caption up there.
John McCain and Rush Limbaugh, huge fans.
So the whole point is at 24 is nothing but propaganda designed to prop up the Bush administration or Bush personally by lighting off a nuke last night in Valencia, California.
They are worried to death.
Anything that they think might turn public opinion around around the war on terror, they've got to do a segment on it and they've got to bring in people.
Folk, it's a television show.
The Democrat, right before the break ended, I was at the Democrat, and I never heard of this guy.
I don't know who he is.
Some red-headed, freckle-faced kid whose parents would not have had him had there been proper testing.
Because who wants a red-headed, freckle-faced kid these days when you can put a designer baby together?
So he's lucky to be alive.
He's out there saying Jack Bauer can't even save Bush and his administration.
Deadly serious.
Not even.
And of course, Drudge had a story yesterday that some Fox unnamed source told him, yeah, it's time to, I forget the exact quote, time to give the country a wake-up call or some such thing, as though the nuke in this show is designed to show the American people what can happen.
Well, it can, but I moderated a seminar last June for the Heritage Foundation with Howard Gordon, who is the lead writer and executive producer, and Joel Cernow, who is an executive producer, creator, and Mary Lynn Raiska was there, Chloe, and Carlos Tony Almeida, I forget his real name, he was there, and a couple other people, and Bob Cochran, who was Cerno's co-creator.
And of course, they were kind of amused at the serious think tank type questions that were being lobbied or lobbed at them.
They said, well, we do take terrorism very seriously, but it's a television show, and we write this thing so many months in advance that to try to predict future events and then tie our show to them is sort of, we don't do that.
We're just trying to make every episode better than the last one.
But these libs in the media are panicked because a nuke's been lit off.
And they're worried the American people.
Well, you know, that actually could happen here.
And will that help Bush?
Because you see, they're on the verge out there, folks, of turning the whole country against Bush on not just Iraq, but the whole war on terror.
It's hilarious to watch this.
Sandra in Bryan, Texas.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Ditto's Rush.
Hey.
Hi.
I was just calling to say that I don't think you owe any apologies, and I don't think you should start having to say you're sorry.
We love you just the way you are.
I've listened to you for 16 years.
No need to start changing now.
Well, I wasn't changing.
The lady said I offended her when I insulted her town of Durham, North Carolina.
Well, I was responding to the caller after her who felt that you did not apologize enough.
Well, he was being facetious.
He actually has the same opinion doo.
He was trying to shame me by playing the devil's advocate.
He was trying to sound like I do.
He was trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, by telling me I need to apologize more.
I wish I could find these stories.
They're buried in stacks long ago used, but it was toward the end of last year, and there was a series.
You know, the media runs these, there's a formula for news up to the new year.
Big news stories of the previous year, what the predictions are for the big stories of the next year, who screwed up, who most entertained us, all these formulaic, predictable stories.
And there were five from three from AP, two from Reuters, I think.
Five stories on how apologizing and saying you're sorry are the magic words to getting along with people in America today.
Because the implication was we're all imperfect.
And to apologize for your imperfections and to tell people that you are sorry shows that you are human, and it shows that you're sensitive.
And it's a way for people to relate to one another in their imperfections.
And so I was just giving it a try.
Apparently, it isn't working here.
Well, it's a good thing.
Keep up the good work that you're doing.
We love you.
Thank you, Sandra.
I love you too.
I appreciate the call.
This is Scott in Austin, Texas.
Thank you, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
Hey.
Yeah, talking about the 24 show.
Now, I don't know if it's intentional propaganda the way those others were saying, but the first thing I thought of when I saw this nuclear explosion, I thought, good, maybe that'll wake some people up who have forgotten about 9-11 and how serious this is.
But, you know, the more I think about it, as this debate goes on and people try to get some of these people, wishy-washy types, to be more serious about the war on terrorism and saying, look, what could happen, nuclear war, I'm wondering if the other side is going to say, ah, that's just TV.
That's just a TV show.
That could never happen.
When it could happen.
Let me ask you a question.
Okay.
Do you really think that the liberals, as we've come to know and love them today, who are convinced that America is responsible for all of the bad things happening to us, that we have created hatred around the world because of our various selfishness, our pollution, our superpower status, all these things?
And as such, their guilt is so profound, they feel that we are justified in losing a war.
We deserve to be taken down a couple not.
We deserve to lose.
We deserve to have our, to be embarrassed and so forth.
Do you really think a television show which lights off a nuke in the context of terrorism is going to cause them to change their minds about anything?
Well, honestly, yeah, they do think we deserve.
There's a segment of the crowd that thinks that, but I don't think anybody's ready for a nuclear bomb.
I hope that that isn't the wake-up call they need.
Maybe just a show is what they need to get serious about it.
They've forgotten about 9-11.
That was a million years ago to them.
That's ancient history.
And they're not taking it seriously anymore.
Well, I know.
A lot of people aren't because they don't have to.
You know, this is not hard psychologically to understand.
We are at war, but we aren't.
The country doesn't have to come together for us to be at war.
Those who don't want to even acknowledge that we are at war don't have to.
Their lives are unaffected by it.
Their jobs are there every day, more so than ever before.
Affluence and the opportunity for it is at an all-time high.
I've got to find the story out of the stack yesterday that dovetails with this.
It's all about how the middle class is doing everything it can to pretend it's rich.
It's trying to live its life or live their lives as they read that the rich do.
So, I mean, there's clearly a desire on the part of more Americans than ever before to be upwardly mobile because they think they can reach it.
The liberals keep running around, well, we haven't sacrificed.
What do you want us to do?
Well, you should pay higher taxes.
We don't have to.
What is this notion of sacrifice?
Nobody thinks they have to in order to fight this war on terror.
Hell, I mean, the Democratic Party in this country has done its best, Scott, to erase the memory of 9-11.
New York City still can't agree on a plan to start rebuilding.
The World Trade Center, when that starts going back up, it'll bring some memories.
We'll refocus.
But in the end, and I really don't, I don't like throwing cold water on.
I really don't, because I know people get all excited about their own interpretations of things.
But when it comes to the nuclear light off last night, the nuclear explosion on 24, please try to keep in mind the context of the program.
This is season six.
And you have to keep doing something new.
Now, I know they debated this a long time.
They wondered about the ramifications of it and so forth.
When it boils down to it, though, at the end of the day, they're doing a television show.
It's highly competitive out there, and they just can't keep repeating the same old.
In fact, I wonder what they're going to do next.
What else is there to do after six years of this kind of exploration of terrorism on 24?
I think this is just my guess.
Okay.
I'm just like, well, I don't know this.
I've not discussed this with my buds there.
I think they're going to throw everything there is left in the scenarios of militant dramatic terrorist acts in this country into this season, and then next year move on to something else.
I have no clue what it would be.
So there are still four suitcase nukes out there in this show.
Folks, you think one nuclear blast is shocking.
What if there are four more?
Well, there won't be four more because Bauer has to say today, one of them, I would think.
I know.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
We are back.
I am Rush Limbaugh amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic, premium cigar smoke.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
Somebody just sent me an email note.
Hey, Rush, I did hear you're talking about PMS NBC worried that what happened on 24 last night will help the Bush administration.
Did they ever do segments on the West Wing and whether or not that would help the Clinton administration?
Of course not.
And that excellent point.
Way to think out there.
That's the correct way to relate to all this.
Bill in Port Charlotte, Florida.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
It's a pleasure.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you, sir.
Limitless, Geez, limitless, conservative, poor guy that used to be red-haired and freckled dittos.
You were talking about women choosing to stay single.
I personally think it's the other way around.
No, it's actually not.
No, I would have, well, I think that's what they're trying to sell us, but I think there's a lot more guys out there that are choosing to stay by themselves than so we can maintain the obviously erroneous conclusion that we are worthwhile and we're not dumb, bumbling, useless.
Pardon me?
Predators is the word.
There you go.
Yeah.
There you go.
I can't help thinking that I think a lot of us have just decided it's not worth the time.
I started to ascribe to the Willie Nelson procedure, which is something about wait six or seven years, go out and find somebody you don't like, give them a house and be done with it.
I've heard that.
Find somebody you like, buy them a house, but don't marry them, and you have the same result.
Yeah.
Yeah, then you're all done with it.
Then you're all done with it.
Yeah, I don't buy.
I mean, I have to give myself and a whole lot of other guys credit for finally starting to wise up.
Well, wait a minute.
How many times have you been married?
Too many.
So you're divorced now.
Yeah.
Single?
Oh, yeah.
Cohabitating?
Oh, heck no.
I'm fixed it so I can't.
I live in a hovel, and nobody in their right mind would want to live here, but I own it.
It's mine.
Why is this?
I mean, why have you chosen this lifestyle?
Well, just because it is too much of a pain, and it's literally, I guess that's it.
It's the pain.
You get into it.
No, what's a pain about it?
You have to be specific.
You got us.
When you finally split, you start the whole thing out, and you're bound and determined, this is it.
You're going to do it, and it's going to be right.
And before too long, you become the inept, foolish, totally wrong, apologizing constantly to stay to keep the peace person.
Maybe I'm just a bad judge of character.
I don't know.
Okay, so what you like about living in the hovel that is only suitable for one, that being yourself, is that you have freedom.
I mean, nobody's going to sit there and tell you what's wrong with you, and nobody's going to tell you what you have to do to get better, and nobody's going to tell you what you have to do, period.
Exactly.
It's up to you.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That's another thing.
So do you think that you are as good and accomplished as you can be as a human being?
I'm working on it, but I think we're all a work in progress to a point.
But you don't believe that a life partner can help you improve in certain areas that you may not want to admit that you need to improve.
I suppose it's possible, but I've lived long enough, Rush, that I think I have things figured out to my own satisfaction.
How old are you?
58.
58.
Yeah, you're pretty set in your ways.
It'd be tough to change you.
Yes.
And it's.
Wouldn't stop them from trying, but I mean, it's.
Absolutely.
That's the point.
I don't like it.
Let me take the occasion of your call here to move into this New York Times story, which got this discussion.
What he's calling about.
I mentioned at the top of the program, big story in the New York Times today, the headline: 51% of women are now living without spouse.
It's the first time in American history, I guess, since the census has been taken, that there are more women living unmarried than women who are married.
Now, he called to say it's because men are choosing it.
But because of the difference in the number of men and women in the country, the fact is there are more men married in America than there are women.
There are more married men.
That's what this story says, even though 51% of women are now living without spouse.
Here are some of the details and highlights of the story.
For what experts say is probably the first time more American women are living without a husband than with one.
In 2005, 51% of women, this is the most recent year for which these full data from the Census Bureau are available.
In 2005, 51% of women were living without a spouse, up from 35% in 1950 and 49% in 2000.
Several factors are driving the statistical shift.
At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods.
At the other end, women are living longer as widows and after a divorce are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.
In addition, marriage rates among black women remain lull.
Only about 30% of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with 49% of Hispanic women and 55% of non-Hispanic white women, more than 60% of Asian women.
Professor Stephanie Kuntz, Director of Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families, said this is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people's lives.
Most of these women will marry or have married, but on average, Americans now spend half their lives, their adult lives, outside marriage.
Now, when you have something called the Council on Contemporary Families, a so-called nonprofit research group, and the leader says, this is another inexorable sign that there's no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that, I mean, hello down the road, you can marry your dog.
Hello, down the road, you can marry your boyfriend and your girlfriend.
I mean, once you start this, once you start redefining marriage, and what a great statistic for these people.
51% of women now say the hell with it.
And when you read the comments that some of these women make, you swear that they sound just like Bill in Port Charlotte, Florida, describing why he doesn't like being married.
Here's another William Fry, demographer at the Brookings Institution.
For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage.
Younger women understand this better and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone with non-married partners.
For many old boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage didn't hold the promise that they might have hoped for growing up in their Ozzie and Harriet era.
Here are some examples.
Carol Crenshaw, 57, Rosewell, Georgia, Roswell, Georgia, divorced in 2005 after 33 years, says she is in no hurry to marry again.
I am in a place in my life where I'm comfortable, said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons.
I can do what I want.
I can do it when I want and with whom I want.
I was a wife and mother.
I don't feel like I need to do that again.
In a similar fashion, Shelly Fidler, 59, public policy advisor at a law firm, has sworn off marriage.
She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams-Morgan neighborhood of Washington when her 30-year marriage ended.
The benefits were completely unforeseen for me.
The free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel, and cultural events.
Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce, it is said here, and both are increasingly likely to cohabit rather than marry after a divorce.
Elisa B. Terrace, 59 Marietta, Georgia, divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, said, A gentleman asked me to marry him.
I said, No, I told him I'm just beginning to fly again.
I'm just beginning to be me.
Don't take that away.
Marriage kind of aged me because there weren't any options.
There was only one way to go.
Now I have choices.
And listen to the choice.
You've got to figure when a woman says now, or any person, when a person says, now I have choices, the first illustration they give you is something that's most important to them.
And her choice was, one night I slept on the other side of the bed and I thought I liked this side.
She said she was returning to college to get a master's degree.
Her former husband didn't want her to do that because he was more educated.
She was more educated than he was already.
Once you go through something that you think will kill you and it doesn't, every day is like a present.
Don't these women sound like Bill, our caller from Port Charlotte, who purposely lives in a little slum hovel so that no woman would possibly want to live with him?
Anyway, it's, I started when I, before I read this, it's like okay, what I just toyed around with myself.
What could be the explanation for this?
And I chalked it up to feminism.
I thought maybe, maybe after all, some tenants of the modern era of feminism are actually working.
You don't need a man to be happy, to have freedom, to be the best you can be, to be the total person that you are, blah, This whole partnership thing has been a scam foisted on society since Adam and Eve.
Any number of things that I thought I'd get, but I was surprised when I actually read the story to find that these women, I mean, they sound just like this guy, Bill.
In fact, they sound like a lot of people who are divorced.
Gosh, I love the freedom.
I love the freedom.
I love the no-nagging.
I love the nobody looking over my shoulder telling me I got to do something I don't want to do.
You've got to go here when I don't want to go.
So basically, I guess you can sum it up by saying we have become really, really self-focused and selfish as individuals and have less and less of a desire to compromise.
In other words, there is no spirit.
We demand bipartisanship and compromise in our politics, but it ain't working in marriage.
Ha, Harry, you, welcome back.
You know, I forgot a crucial passage that's in the third paragraph of this story in the New York Times about 51% of women are now living without a spouse.
After going through those numbers and the facts and figures, coupled with the fact that in 2005, married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.
Now you're asking, well, how can this be?
Well, there's a little known dirty secret out there that I don't know how prevalent it is now, but you know, a married couple, if one has the better job, they'll take that job's family and health care benefits, and the other spouse will not have to worry about that since now with fewer people being married, employers.
Here's another thing.
You know, this happens.
And you know what has happened?
A married employee will tend to make less if the spouse of the employee also has a job somewhere earning money than a single employee will make.
It's subtle.
It's never stated.
It's not in the policy manual, but these things have happened.
What they're speculating, and of course, the Times is all excited.
Anything to reorient government and employer benefit policy.
Why, that's exciting.
Now, what are you frowning about in there?
Do you think this is, I mean, make no mistake, there are people who have no concern about the social ramifications of this.
They're looking at these census stats on fewer and fewer women being married and thinking, hmm, opportunity to reorient the benefit plan here, the cycle both at the employer, what we mandate on the employer and from government.
Glenn, in, oh, Glenn, hang on.
We got the soundbite here from the red-headed freckle-faced guy that was on MSNBC a moment ago with Nora O'Donnell discussing the propaganda that 24 is for the Bush administration.
His name is Michael Feldman, and he's a blogger at hotsoup.com.
He's a former Al Gore advisor.
And Nora O'Donnell said, The Drudge Report yesterday online quoted an unidentified Fox executive as saying it's time to wake up the country.
Is this propaganda or is it entertainment?
Look, it's entertainment, and not even Jack Bauer can save President Bush and his administration, especially right now and given his popularity.
But seriously, I think the American people know the difference between fact and fiction.
But in a post-9-11 world, especially in a place where Americans have fears about their homeland, attacks on their homeland, about terrorism, popular culture can tap into something.
And there's no doubt that these issues in this show taps into a psyche with the American people.
Well, then you ought to be worried, Mr. Feldman, because your party's doing everything it can to say these fears don't really exist.
Now, here's Glenn in Courtero, Arizona.
Glenn, thanks for your patience.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
15 years of ditto, sir.
I wanted to talk about Barack Obama, the totally unknown needs of Chihuahua.
He's the Paris Hilton of politics.
He never had to do anything to get his job.
And I heard him twice say when I lived in the Chicago area that a man is not entitled to protect himself with a gun in his own home.
This is a dangerous man.
Well, yeah, we've got to be very careful here because Barack Obama is going to appeal to a lot of casually interested people who don't, they don't, they're not going to care to hear what he said about gun control or any of that.
He's going to appeal to a certain segment of the population and just wants to think there's somebody different.
And if the press tells them he's different, they're going to accept it.
He is articulate.
I've always told people: if you learn to read and write and speak the English language to the best of your ability, you will stand head and shoulders of people and you will convince them that you're educated and smarter than you might be.
And he's mastered that.
You listen to Obama, and no matter what he says, you think he sounds authoritative.
He sounds intelligent.
And when you're talking about electing political leaders, there's no substitute for that, particularly in the television age.
Yeah, he hadn't done anything, but neither is Hillary.
But what's Hillary done?
What recommends her?
Go down the list of any of these Democrat hope.
What John Edwards, what's he done?
He's been a senator for six years.
He's a failed vice presidential candidate.
He was a tort lawyer.
What have any of them done?
That doesn't matter.
I mean, not at this stage.
I mean, it might matter to voters at some point, but it's going to be up to the opponent of Obama or the opponents to make that case about him.
And will Hillary have the guts to do that?
Because she's opening herself up for the return fire.
Return sub.
Well, what have you done, Mrs. Clinton?
Your health care was an abomination and helped us lose the House for the first time in 40 years.
These people are going to have to very, very careful after how they go, Republicans and Democrats alike, how they go after this guy.
Because one thing he's not what he's going to lay claim to being.
He's not a centrist.
He's not a unifier.
Just an examination of his voting record will show you there's nothing bipartisan about the guy other than the way he sounds.
In terms of what he does, I mean, look at, he's already dividing the nation by picking the Bears over the Saints in the playoff game on Sunday.
Here's a guy claims he's a unifier, and he's just all over New Orleans and their football team by laughing about how the fact that their fantasy is over.
He's dividing.
When you start using the citizens of New Orleans and the victims of Katrina as victims, as objects of fantasy and ridicule for your own selfish desires, your football team, you are dividing people.
An AP News Alert just in a federal appeals court in San Francisco, it's the Ninth Circus, no doubt, has thrown out the sentence of Ahmed Rassam, who was convicted of plotting to bomb LAX.
I'm trying to get details.
▲
Export Selection