All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
February 26, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
As you people know, I normally do not watch the Epidemic Awards.
I did last night, and I don't know why.
I don't know what it is.
Made me curious to tune in.
Man, oh man, that was the boring, most boring.
Did you watch any of it, Snerdley?
What about you, Dawn?
Did you watch?
My gosh, folks, it was embarrassing.
All that talent, and it went to waste.
It was just utterly, totally embarrassing.
Well, you know that when Al Gore takes the stage twice at the Academy Awards and those two appearances are the high point, I mean, if it weren't for his varicose veins, the guy'd be totally colorless.
You know, it had to be a totally boring night.
Anyway, greetings and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, TGIM.
Thank God.
Goodness, it's Monday.
We got a new full broadcast week here on the EIB network.
I, of course, your host, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling Maha Rushi.
We are here at 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Big news this morning, a juror was dismissed from the Lewis Libby trial after court officials learned that this juror, she, had been exposed to information about the case over the weekend, meaning she had accessed media.
The judge, Reggie Walton, ordered the juror removed, saying that what she had exposure to obviously disqualifies her.
The judge declined to say what information the juror had seen.
He then questioned the remaining jurors individually, saying that they had not been tainted.
He would allow deliberations to continue with 11 jurors rather than calling on one of the two alternate jurors.
Walton said that they should continue with their deliberations.
I will emphasize again the importance of not having contact with any outside information.
Now, there's some interesting things about this, although it's difficult to know what to make of it.
It's really risky to start trying to analyze what's going on in a jury room, in a courtroom when you're watching the jury react to testimony.
But normally, I mean, I think the prosecutor here, Mr. Fitzfong, has to be a little concerned over this.
I mean, look at what they've been out there based two and a half, three days.
What is it?
Something like that have been deliberative.
This is just a simple case of lying to a grand jury.
I mean, you have to wonder what's taking the jury so long.
Libby lied or he didn't lie to the grand jury.
So what this means is, to me, well, I don't know what it means.
I'm guessing.
It seems to me then that the jury is probably looking at the testimony of other witnesses.
And if they are doing that, and if, capital I, capital F, if they are anywhere near objective, then they have to wonder about this case as we all have.
Now, this is also interesting.
Fitzfong wanted a 12th juror.
He wanted one of the alternates in there.
The defense did not.
The defense is perfectly happy.
They said to go with 11 jurors.
So that tells me that the defense team is obviously feeling better about the deliberations and the way they're going than Fitzfong is.
And it could also mean that the defense doesn't like the first alternate.
And federal rules require or allow in a circumstance like this for a jury of 11 to continue.
So there's got to be, there has to be some concern here because if this is simply lying to the grand jury, how do you, I mean, it's just four hours, four days, two and a half days, whatever it is to figure this out.
I am just surmising here, ladies and gentlemen.
I will make a prediction to you, and that is that if this case ends up in a mistrial or an acquittal, we will hear about it for two hours.
Excuse me, we will hear about it for two hours from the drive-by media, and then they will forget it.
They will drop it like a hot potato, forget that it ever happened.
Now, if you people will permit, I have to share with you some of my thoughts of the Academy Awards, and I'm doing from this perspective.
You got four hours last night.
If you're a business, you're Hollywood, you're in trouble.
Box office receipts are not what they have been in the past.
You've got four hours to make your case to the American people and the world about your business and about your industry.
That was the dullest, the most booked.
This was the third lowest-rated Oscar show ever.
And I have been told by a reliable source that has seen the numbers, the overnight numbers from city to city.
If it weren't for New York and Chicago saving this telecast last night, they would have bombed big time.
It would have been the lowest-rated Oscar show ever.
I mean, it was from the get-go, something about it seemed like a high school talent show to me.
You've got four hours, and you have whatever you think of their politics.
You have some of the most talented people in the country out there.
Every song was a downer.
Every bit was a downer.
The audience seemed, nobody seemed happy last night.
Even some of the winners seemed to be a little perplexed and curious.
It was a strange thing.
I haven't watched one of these in years.
And as I say, I don't know why.
Maybe it was because I was hoping for an implosion during the two Al Gore segments.
He was called up there twice, folks.
And as I say, I mean, if Al Gore is your highlight, you are in trouble.
In the entertainment world, if Al Gore is your highlight, you're in big trouble.
Now, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on it because it was so bad.
And I'm a class act, as you people know.
So I don't want to dance on the grave of this show.
But I do want to offer you a little comparison here.
You remember back when, oh, by the way, half-hour news hour last night warned you people.
I'm getting emails.
Hey, Rush, it was a rerun.
I know.
I told you it was going to be a rerun last night.
You people are going to have to start listening more closely.
Next Sunday, March the 4th, is the second episode.
I happen to think it's better than the first.
But anyway, remember when the first episode originally aired a week ago yesterday?
And of course, here came the critics and all the people that there were people that praised it as well.
But the critics, it was sophomoreic.
I could have done a better job than that.
Horrible, horrible, horrible.
Oh my gosh.
And I tried to explain to people: look, this is an evergreen show.
They had to shoot this six weeks before it aired.
There's not a whole number of ways that you could do specific issues six weeks out because who knows what they are.
And if you do six episodes based on issues that are six weeks old, that looks old.
That's not going to do.
But, you know, I'm watching the Oscars last night, and I'm thinking, no wonder these people mess around in foreign policy.
I'm to the whole Hollywood community.
Al Gore, DiCaprio, all of these people had some comment about being green, environmental, because that's easy.
It is flat out, it's easy to go up there and start ripping whatever you think is environmental destruction.
And by the way, did you happen to hear Al Gore make a point?
He said that people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis.
It's not a political issue.
It's a moral issue.
I told you, I told you folks, this is a religious issue to these people.
The facts are of no consequence whatsoever.
It's a scientific issue, Al Gore.
It is not a moral issue.
When you go out and call it a moral crusade, what do you do?
You remove it from any kind of cost-benefit analysis or serious investigation.
Because if you're going to peg this thing as something that is morally imperative, then whatever it costs is irrelevant.
And whatever you have to do to deny people's freedom, that's irrelevant.
And a serious investigation, we can't do that because we've got a moral crusade going on here.
So it gives them the right to say, what, you want to examine our claims?
How dare you?
Are you a tool of the devil?
Why, you must be a climate denier, which they are calling all the people who don't buy into this stuff.
But my point is, it's easy to get up there and pontificate on foreign policy or any other kind of political issue.
Doing good entertainment is hard.
It is very, very difficult work.
It's not easy, even for the people who are very good at it.
And it looks like no effort was put into this last night whatsoever.
I also was reading a blog last night by Nikki Fink of LA Weekly, and she made an excellent point.
She says, my gosh, if you have a foreign accent tonight, the odds that you're going to, or I guess it was degenerous that said that.
Degenerate?
Degenerate.
Ellen DeGeneres.
She said, if you've got a foreign accent, the odds are that you're going to win.
It was Nikki Fink who said after the first half hour, my gosh, we've outsourced all the makeup jobs.
We've outsourced all of the lighting jobs.
Are these jobs Americans won't do anymore in Hollywood?
Here's a little montage of just how it sounded of the announcer and some of the who are these?
The recipients, the nominees, and so forth, just to give you the international flavor of this.
This is the first Academy Award and nomination for Eugenio, Haballero, and Kilar Reguelpa.
David Marti and Monse Ribei.
And the Oscar goes to Guillermo Navarro.
And the Oscar goes to Gustavo Santa Olaya.
This is the most international Oscars ever.
We have the record nominations for Mexico here tonight, which is a huge, huge thing.
Yeah, and they're waving little Mexican flags in the audience last night.
Yes, they were.
People were waving little Mexican flags.
It was, it was, and then, last thing I'm going to say about this until we get to the actual Al Gore segment, I'm not even sure I'm going to do that.
But they brought Jerry Seinfeld out to what he presented the award for the best documentary.
And he was very right when he said for the five most depressing nominees tonight, one of them's going to win and blah, blah, blah.
And then he started telling a joke.
Now, this is some people say he was auditioning for the host ceremony duties next year, but I have to tell you something, folks, just purely in a business sense, what he did last night was idiotic.
As you know, Hollywood is not doing well.
The box office receipts are down, down, down.
And the movies that do well, the movies that really gross, don't ever show up in these awards.
The movies that people really go see, they're never in the nomination list.
Well, what if Seinfeld gets up there and insults theater owners?
That was the crux of his bit.
Now, these guys, the theater owners, are not doing that well lately because the box office receipts are not.
The whole thing was just perplexing to me.
And there wasn't any politics other than Al Gordon.
There wasn't a whole lot of controversy.
It was just boring.
The mood, the attitude.
These people did not seem ecstatic or happy in any way, shape, manner, or form.
And I thought it was quite telling.
Anyway, quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Oh, this is incredible.
We got an argument going on here amongst the, well, Snerdley, probably speaking for the rest of you in there.
Snerdley thinks that opening the show talking about the Oscars, and I didn't.
I talked about Libby.
I let it end with the Oscars.
But nevertheless, Snurdley thinks that I'm attempting to broaden the base of the audience here at the expense of the base of the audience.
I'm just trying to stay in touch.
I know that a lot of people were going to watch.
It was so bad.
I can't.
It was so, and it kept getting worse.
I don't know, folks.
I look at these things perhaps in a different way than others do.
I look at this.
I'm a professional media person.
This was absurd.
It was just, I don't know, it got boring.
It kept getting worse when I didn't think it could.
They managed to.
The show needed a pacemaker.
It crystallized the problems they've got, as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, let's go to the audio soundbites.
My name got thrown around a couple times yesterday on the Sunday show's first slay the nation.
Bob Schieffer has this conversation with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Somebody like Rush Limbaugh might say, what you really did, you just went liberal on us.
What do you say in response to that?
And I always say that you don't have to give up your principles.
All you have to do is just serve the people.
And when you have two parties, you have to compromise.
It's that simple.
It's never our way or the highway.
It is working together and finding common ground and finding solutions.
The ultimate goal should always be what is best for the state or what is best for the country rather than what is best for my party.
That is the key thing.
Oh, man, so much to say here.
The problem is that what's best for the country is never what's best for the Democrat Party, or seldom, especially in recent years.
But what is this question from Schieffer?
Somebody like Rush Limbaugh might, there's nobody like me but me.
And Schwarzenegger says, well, I always say you don't have to give up your principles.
All you have to do is serve the people.
When you have two parties, you have to compromise.
The Democrats don't look at it that way, Governor.
They look at it as defeating their enemies.
Do you know the interesting thing about Mrs. Clinton?
And the way she has reacted to the David Geffen thing, if you've, I've often wondered, folks, and I have raised this question with you from behind the golden EIB microphone several times.
A question basically is, why is it that no one in the Clinton orb who served with them for eight years in their administration, why were there no leaks?
Why have there been no tell-all books?
Why haven't there been the usual defectors?
And I think we now know when anybody goes public and criticizes the Clintons, bam, here comes the Clinton war room and it is out to destroy you.
They have instilled literal fear into the people who have always been on their bandwagon.
And Howard Wolfson made it plain the other day when he's, or no, it was the punk who now claims he was joking, Terry McAuliffe saying, I was just joking when I said you're either with us or against us.
If you're not with us, then we're going to remember you.
Blah, blah, blah.
He's not joking.
He's trying to back out of this by saying that he was.
But it's a classic illustration of the Clinton testicle lockbox, where the media's testicles are constantly locked up.
And I think this is a great illustration.
How do you compromise with that, Arnold?
How in the world do you compromise?
They're not interested in compromise.
They are interested in defeat of people who disagree with them or have different policy.
They're not interested in compromise unless they're forced into it because there's no other way out.
And how does that happen?
Through political strength, welfare reform, a number of other things.
The Republicans won the Congress in 1994 and were able to force Clinton to go along.
Plus, he didn't mind doing it because he was trying to phony triangulate, make everybody think he was somebody he wasn't, while Hillary and the rest of the administration out there doing all the dead serious liberal dirty work.
Another question about the Geffen kerfuffle.
Somebody helped me out on this, but I don't think you can find evidence of this for me, but did anybody dispute what he said?
When Geffen said the Clintons lie and all the other criticism that Hillary is ambitious, that she can't win, that Clinton is disagreeable.
Nobody disagreed.
They just call a politics a personal destruction.
But nobody came out and said that Geffen was wrong about what he said.
They were, well, he's wrong to do what he did.
And then he started to destroy Geffen.
There was a page six New York Post hit piece Saturday or Sunday.
I forget which day it was.
Well, you know, Gevin's just jealous.
He's always wanted to be relevant, and he's not.
He's just jealous of Ron Burkel, Clinton's big bachelor buddy.
And they'll go horn-dogging around town when Clinton's in Los Angeles.
I read that.
No question to me.
This came from Clinton, Inc., and this is how they keep people in line and keep them forever quiet.
The Sandy burglars, the Richard Clarks, who knows what they've got on these people or what they, you know, they'll willingly go out and destroy people in public.
My point is with Schwarzenegger, how in the world do you compromise with this?
He says the ultimate goal should always be what's best for the state, what's best for the country, rather than what's best for my party.
Well, if you're a member of a party and you really believe your party principles, or if you have an ideology like conservatism, and if you really believe that conservatism would be the best recipe for what ails the country, then why compromise?
Just taking, you know, looking at myself personally, I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican, and I firmly believe that conservatism is the answer to so many problems in this country.
Why compromise?
I do think it's best for the country.
To me, it's one in the same.
But this whole notion of compromise for the sake of it is, you know, it's moot.
It defeats the whole point of having your own ideas and your own principles.
Now, remember, I had a little criticism of Jonathan Carl on ABC last week.
It came up on reliable sources.
Howard Kurtz talking to ABC's Martha Radditz yesterday.
Now, Rushman Moore was very critical of Jonathan Carl for coming back and saying, didn't we fail when 3,000 American soldiers were killed, saying, look, it's war.
People die.
Casualties are part of the process.
That question is a difficult one to look at and say anything about.
The troop loss.
I have a difficult time.
I probably would have a difficult time asking that question.
Notice the hemming and hawing there from Martha Radditz on my criticism of the question.
And I know Jonathan Carl, and I apologize to him before criticizing.
But the idea that 3,000 troop deaths in a war, 3,000 troop deaths in a war four years equals failure, that's a bit of a stretch.
It was embarrassing.
And Martha Radditz, I think, of ABC as well, found it very difficult to defend the question.
Just wanted to point that out.
We'll be right back.
We'll continue in just mere moments.
Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to an exclusive relationship we have with somebody at the National Security Agency.
We were able to intercept a phone call from President Clinton last night to former Vice President Al Gore.
Hello.
Hey, Al, this is Bill.
Congratulations on the Oscar.
I knew you could do it.
Well, it was close.
It was tough to beat out documentaries like Sagebrush of the Andes and Socks of the World.
But you did it.
And now you're a star.
Well, I guess I am.
Sort of.
Do you think I should do a documentary?
Oh, yes.
On the tsunami.
That would be a great idea.
No, I think the tsunami thing has all played out for me.
Well, what about the plight of the endangered Balajandro tree?
Yeah.
What about it?
Deep in the rainforest, the Malajandro tree.
No, no, no, no.
I need something big.
Like your global warming thing.
Something hot, like teenage sexual promiscuity.
Study it in depth.
Find out what the root causes are.
No, I don't think that would be such a good idea.
You could help.
We could watch hours and hours and hours.
Bill, to make this a carbon-neutral call, I need to hang up right now.
Did you all say that John Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry have a new book out?
Or it's soon to come out on the environment on environmental destruction and how we got to save the planet, global warming and crisis.
I kid you not.
I read about this Marty Peretz, who owns and is, I guess, one of the big-time editors at the New Republic.
Just couldn't believe it.
The book publishers puts out this blurb.
It's due this spring sometime.
And Kerry talks about how he used to get on hands and knees and go through the marshes of Massachusetts and dig clams and mussels and actually eat them back then when you could.
And he is at one with nature.
He and Teresa writing a book with personal tips drawn from their own lifestyle on how to protect the planet.
That's not a joke.
It's not a joke at all.
I want to go back.
I got to play this Schwarzenegger bite again because, folks, this is, let me tell you, I understand.
I want to play this again for you for a simple reason.
Obviously, more analysis by me.
But we live in times that people say we're too fractured, we're too partisan, we've never been more divided, and we need to find a way to work together, to get together and find our common dreams and our common goals.
And it's seductive.
Nobody likes confrontation all the time, and nobody likes a constant battle for things.
At times, you want to be able to say, okay, we've triumphed here and enjoy successes at the same time.
You don't have to constantly stay girded for battle.
But it requires that if eternal triumph or long-term triumph is to occur.
So listen to the Schwarzenegger bite here again with Bob Schaefer.
Somebody like Rush Limbaugh might say, what you really did, you just went liberal on us.
What do you say in response to that?
And you're right.
I always say that you don't have to give up your principles.
All you have to do is just serve the people.
And when you have two parties, you have to compromise.
It's that simple.
It's never our way or the highway.
It is working together and finding common ground and finding solutions.
The ultimate goal should always be what is best for the state or what is best for the country rather than what is best for my party.
That is the key thing.
I don't know what he's got against.
Why be a member of a party if you're not willing for your party to triumph?
I happen to think that you adopt or you have a set of core beliefs because you believe they should triumph, that they should dominate.
Why compromise on those?
Schwarzenegger here seems to be saying that leadership is compromise and that compromise is what the people want.
Not in his party, not in the Republican Party.
That is not what is wanted here.
That's not what Ronald Reagan said.
Compromise isn't a principle.
And principle is not compromising unless compromising advances the conservative agenda.
But when you're giving up some of your agenda to compromise just to get along, why big boo-boo, big mistake.
Let's just pretend for a moment that Arnold's conservative.
How is the conservative agenda advanced by Arnold proposing the most radical spending, taxing, and environmental laws and policies ever?
Where is the compromise?
This is an adoption of the far left's agenda, and it's being called compromise for the sake of getting along, putting party second, third, or fourth to the notion of the principle of compromise, and compromise is not a principle.
With whom is he compromising here?
Where is the principle?
How does it help the people?
How does all this help the people as opposed to helping him?
And this is my problem.
I told you the other day that we're in a tricky situation here with the Republican presidential fetal because all of the candidates have their little camps among conservatives.
And in order for conservatives to adopt any one of these candidates, you have to redefine conservatism in some way.
Well, this candidate's not quite what we want, but that's okay.
Well, all right, fine.
But don't then call that the new conservatism, which we run the risk of doing here.
And of course, with McCain and Arnold and some others, this is what is now passing as Reagan conservatism.
As I said, I think conservatism is good for the people.
I think it's the best thing that could happen to this country.
And what's happening now here, unfortunately, is Governor Schwarzenegger is developing a habit of defining his political compromises, which, as we can see, involve embracing the agenda of the left and then assuming that that's what people want and need.
Now, I understand he's in California, and I understand that California tilts way left, so forth.
But he ran as a conservative.
He ran as a conservative Republican, and part of that is carrying that banner through the day and doing what, especially he's got his second term now.
So, you know, this is when you go for broker.
But second terms always add up for most people of legacies rather than an opportunity to, all right, I'm running again.
I got nothing to lose.
I'm going to the wall.
That seldom is what happens in second terms.
It's tough.
I admit it's very hard to work to take a principled stand and fight for it and to explain it.
And the reason is that if you're a conservative and do that, you get destroyed.
You get tarred and feathered.
They come after you and they don't stop.
They never disagree with your policies or challenge your policies per se.
They try to destroy you personally.
They try to discredit you personally.
And they will throw in little things about how conservatism is oriented toward racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and all that.
But those are all clichés.
Those are stereotypical clichés that have been around for decades, easily refutable simply by looking at the conservative policy record, if nothing else.
But I understand it's hard to take a principled stand and explain it and continue this process time and again in the face of liberalism and the drive-by media and the never-ending liberal attacks.
And of course, in the course of setbacks that are going to happen.
But isn't that what leadership is about?
Leadership is understanding there are going to be setbacks.
Leadership is understanding that you're in front of the pack.
You're going to take the spears.
You're going to take the arrows.
Pioneers always do.
That's part of being a leader and keeping the troops behind you motivated rather than caving and giving in.
Look at anybody.
Anybody can embrace the views of their opponents and claim it as a compromise and then wrap yourself in a self-serving claim that you're operating in the public service because you've eliminated tension or you've eliminated confrontation.
That's easy.
It doesn't take a leader to do that.
In fact, it takes somebody who's oriented toward caving in.
And so rather here than really jump on Arnold because he is who he is.
But this is an abject or object lesson here in leadership and compromise and how when you compromise your core principles and beliefs and call that a principle, And when you embrace the wackiness of your opponent's agenda, just for the purposes of getting long and easing tensions and conflict, that's dangerous.
And as I say, this is, I think, a great opportunity for people to learn about this and how this is actually done and taking place and what the mistakes involved are.
He uses this argument time and time again to justify his lurch to the left.
He's calling it, well, this is compromise.
I'm doing the work for the people and so forth.
But anybody could do this.
You don't need Arnold Schwarzenegger to cave to liberals.
Mr. Snerdley is asking me a question.
Why do they always use me as an example when they are throwing questions at Arnold?
I don't know.
You tell me.
Why do they always use me?
That's it.
See, all right, I wasn't going to say it, but since Snerdley said it, I will repeat it.
My ego is such, and I'm not a braggart, as you people know.
Snerdley said, the reason they use me in questions to Arnold, as Schieffer did here, is because I'm the only one in the national media on the national stage that has not compromised my conservatism.
So I am the standard against which all of these other people are measured in the drive-buz, according to Snerdley.
Sounds good to me.
I'll take it.
Plus, there's something else.
I sell.
There's just no, I do.
I sell.
And so I'm not surprised I'm used.
Anyway, my whole point here is that what Governor Schwarzenegger is saying is leadership for the party or the state is not leadership, folks.
Leadership is not caving on your core principles just to get along and then adopting the mainstream agenda of your opponent.
That is not leadership.
All he's doing is adopting a hard left agenda and telling his party to live with it.
And leaders don't do that.
Quick timeout.
Carl 11 on Meet the Press.
Next, stay with us.
All right, before we get to Carl 11, and it was amazing what he said yesterday on Meet the Press.
Oh, Washington Post has this story out there, folks, about how the Democrats are all upset at Merthyr for blowing it, for blowing the scheme, for blowing the strategy.
And we got a story from Mrs. Clinton that it's also about Mrs. Clinton, also in the Washington Post.
Clinton fights to keep impeachment, impeachment taboo.
So Hillary's just going to issue a sweeping order throughout the Democrat candidates and primaries.
You cannot discuss my husband's impeachment.
Just issue these sweeping orders that drive by media, and any Democrat opponent just falls in line and obeys.
That's apparently what she thinks.
And of course, that's the purpose of the testicle lockbox that she's had for quite a while.
But for the phones first, Don in Lake Rock Concoma, New York, I'm glad you called, sir, and welcome to the program.
Oh, crush.
It's great to speak to you.
Thank you, Dittos.
Hey, I saw part of the Academy Awards last night.
I really had to get my snow shovel and rock salt ready for the overnight snow here in the Northeast.
But I thought it was highly hypocritical to call the Academy Awards a so-called green event when it's detailed on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website how the Oscar statues are flown into the event on a special United Airlines flight from Chicago.
Look, you know, excuse me.
Finding the hypocrisy with this crowd is not difficult to do.
I mean, it's all over the place.
Look, since you brought this up again, I want to tell you audience base members, and I had intended to let this go after my comments, but when Melissa Etheridge, who's up there singing the nominated song, the title song from Gore's stupid movie.
James, you should have seen this.
This was the most, they had this giant screen in the back, bigger than the screen I have in my home.
Huge, huge screen.
And as Melissa Etheridge is singing the song, they put things up there like take mass transit and light rail as often as you can and other little tidbits of advice on saving the planet.
Now, this is the Academy Awards.
Plus, the song is a downer.
I woke up.
I don't really want to get into this song.
It was a total, total downer.
And all of these stupid things that Hollywood people will never do.
They're never going to take light rail.
They're never going to get on mass transit.
They're never going to, I forget some of the other, I'm watching this and I just can't believe this.
You know, Al Gore got at least $3 million of free political airtime for his issue last night from ABC and the Oscar group.
I mean, it was just, but that was one of the funniest things.
I'm sitting there watching this in stunned.
My mouth was actually open.
My mouth was open for so long during the whole song.
I was drooling because I didn't have the energy to swallow.
I was in such stunned amazement at this.
I wish I could remember some of the other things that they had on the screen up there.
It was like, you know, don't use toilet paper, use leaves.
It wasn't that, but it was things like that.
And I'm looking out in the audience, of course, and there's nobody in that crowd that's going to do any of the sort.
Here, try this.
I want you to grab, let's say, audio soundbite, grab number six.
You've got to get this.
This is Joan Rivers.
Last night on the TV Guide channel before the Oscars started, and she's had this exchange with one of the producers of Gore's idiot movie, Leslie Chilcott.
Leslie Chilcott, who is the producer of An Inconvenient Truth.
She is wearing a gown that is biodegradable.
Explain to me about your gown.
It is organic cotton and bamboo fiber.
It's a brand new organic bamboo fabric that just came out just a few weeks old.
Did you plan to wear something like this and you just were waiting to find the fabric?
Or was this just luck?
I was really trying to either wear vintage to go with the recycling team or to wear something organic.
Bamboo fabric now, ladies and gentlemen.
You know, the Panda Bears, we're already crowding them out with their diet with all the bamboo steamers that are out there.
Now, if they're going to use bamboo and put it on women's clothes, it's going to cause a shortage of the primary food stuff of pandas.
But this is, I'm watching all this stuff, and I'm just my head's spinning.
But the greatest part of the night was when all those idiotic little tapes of advice were showing up behind Melissa Etheridge warbling this stupid tune.
Mike in Pittsburgh, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, Chad.
Hey, I'm listening to Al Gore last night, and he was talking about this, and I'm repeating what you had said, this being a moral issue.
And I know myself, I have a couple of quads, and I have a pleasure boat.
What's a quad?
What's a quad?
An ATV, a small four-wheel drive.
You know, one of these things you're running around on a beach with.
There you go.
All right.
And I'm thinking, every time I get on this, am I an immoral person?
Because I'm not using these for transportation.
I'm using them for fun.
I'm burning fossil fuel just for my own.
Yeah, and you're disturbing the natural tranquility of the beach.
You're putting tracks in there and noise.
But I'm also burning all this fuel.
Yeah, you're totally sinning.
You're a reprobate.
Look, I'm telling you, when you call it a moral crusade, folks, as Gore did last night, you remove it from any kind of cost-benefit analysis or any serious investigation.
That was a purposefully used word back in a second.
I actually think they made global warming look like the joke that it is last night.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, folks.
▲
Export Selection