All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
March 9, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No white man, no white man can understand the experience a woman has to go through to move ahead.
I'll tell you who said this and in what context in mere moments.
Greetings and welcome back to Rush Limbaugh program.
It's Friday.
Let's roll live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
A golden opportunity for those of you constantly whining and moaning about what's not talked about on this program.
If you think it needs to be talked about and you haven't heard it discussed, well, enshrining leadership.
Pauline talk about it if you like.
Open line Friday.
We go to the phones and the program is yours.
Talk about whatever.
800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, as you know, well, you may not know if you weren't here yesterday, the Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun wrote a story about the Breck girl, John Edwards, and Kate Michaelman, who used to run NAROL, a big abortion group.
And she said, of all the guys out there, I mean, he's closest to understanding women.
And the headline of the story called, Edwards, Could He Be the First Female President?
So we decided we're going to need a John Edwards update on this.
And we commissioned yesterday Paul Shanklin to go out and go out and do a takeoff of Helen Reddy's I Am Woman, sung by John Edwards, as portrayed vocally by Paul Shanklin.
We just got it.
I've not heard it yet.
I want to see here if it's any good to go on a rotation.
So we're listening together on the EIB Network.
I'm woman, hear me roar, and houses too big to ignore.
And I know so much about how to pretend.
Yes, I've said it all before, like how I care about the poor.
Those are union thug supporters.
They're my friends.
Oh, yes, I'm cute.
Perfect hair and teeth and stain.
Yes, I'm a trial lawyer.
So I'm never ashamed if I have to.
I can say anything.
I'm strong, but I am sensitive.
I am woman. I am woman.
Watch me go.
My hair shines with the natural glow as I spread my loving arms across the land.
Talking to those embryos in a courtroom long ago.
I'm sure I'll make you people understand.
Oh, yes, I'm cute.
Perfect hair and teeth and stained.
Yes, I'm a trial lawyer.
So I'm never ashamed.
If I have to, I can say anything.
I'm strong, but I am sensitive.
I'm warm.
I don't care what Ann Culta says.
She's just jealous because my hair has natural bouncing body.
I'll be woman of the year this year.
I know it.
You know, these pantyhose I drag.
Paul Shanklin is John Edwards, the brick girl, and I am woman.
Okay, it's a keeper.
That shows up in the rotation for our upcoming John Edwards updates.
There's a companion story to this New York Sun story we talked about yesterday.
Actually, I think it might have been in the story and I missed it because it only printed the first page.
Let's see, the leader of a group that endorses and funds female candidates supportive of abortion rights, Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List, said that the Breck girl's sensitivity can only go so far.
Every once in a while, we get in a primary race where a man says he's the best woman in the race.
I have never seen a candidate win with that argument yet.
It's just ridiculous.
Ellen Malcolm then said to Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton has spent her entire life working on behalf of women and children.
She has a unique experience as a woman who has faced the obstacles in the way of women.
No white man can understand the experiences a woman has to go through to move ahead.
I think every man understands it.
Got the tire treads on his back to prove it.
Only kidding, ladies.
Jim Taranto at opinionjournal.com says, no white man, someone's going to have to explain that racist non-sequitur to us.
And while you're at it, try to make sense of Malcolm's claim that Mrs. Bill Clinton is unique for having faced the obstacles in the way of women.
Apparently, she's the only woman ever to face the obstacles that are in the way of them all.
In any case, there's something odd and pathetic about this whole exercise.
Did Margaret Thatcher campaign on the claim that as a woman, she had the unique understanding of the reality of women's lives?
Did Golda May Ear or Indira Gandhi?
Doubtless, America will one day have a female president, but our guess is it'll be someone whose appeal transcends sex, who tries to win votes not from women for women, but from men and women.
So far, that would seem to exclude both Mrs. Clinton and the Breck girl, John Edwards.
It's just the more balkanization of our society.
No white man.
Do black men, can black men understand it?
It's what it says here.
No white man can understand the experience a woman has to go through to move ahead.
What?
That's just a.
I'm going to blow my nose.
What an appropriate time to have to do this, too.
It's an absurd statement.
I don't even really know what it means.
Except this woman obviously is out there thinking that she is a huge victim and that all women are victims and men can't understand victimization.
Sorry, white men.
That's right.
White men can't understand victimism.
It has to be what it is.
There was an entry of the Washington Post blog yesterday by a guy named Dan Frumkin, F-R-O-O-M-K-I-E.
And I missed this yesterday because I don't read the Washington Post blog.
I've found this referenced on another blog out there.
This guy has a theory.
And his theory is that midway through the trial, Scooter Libby and his lawyers call Bush.
And they offered the following deal.
If you'll pardon me, if you'll pardon Libby, we will not put Libby on the stand and will not call Cheney.
Now, this was on the blog.
It was not in the newspaper.
And let me just read this because this is insane.
What are the abides?
These guys are just, they just, they want Cheney so bad they can't see straight.
And they're sitting out there lying through their teeth about how Cheney is under a cloud.
It's a new time cover.
They've actually got a dark cloud over a picture of Cheney.
Cheney's not going anywhere.
Cheney's not concerned about this is this is just more of the alternative universe living a lie of the American left.
So they wanted Cheney.
They wanted Cheney so, so bad.
And this case was not about Cheney.
I don't care what Fitzgerald said.
It wasn't.
Now, here's how this Dan Froomken wrote about this yesterday.
One of the abiding mysteries of the Scooter Libby case has been why his defense so dramatically changed tactics in mid-trial.
Libby was found guilty on Monday of obstruction of justice and perjury.
In a pretrial hearing, Libby's defense team had indicated they would call Cheney as a witness, and that Libby himself would take the stand as well.
Testimony from either of them, but particularly from Cheney, could very well have opened up an enormous can of worms for the White House.
And the spectacle alone of the vice president being cross-examined in a criminal case was something the administration wanted to devoutly avoid.
Then in his opening statement, Libby lawyer Ted Wells shocked pretty much everybody by promising jurors that he would show them evidence that his client felt scapegoated in favor of Karl Rove.
All of a sudden, it appeared Libby had declared war against the White House.
It looked at that point like he'd thrown any idea of getting a presidential pardon to the wind.
But then, on February 13th, after barely two days of defense testimony, Libby's team abruptly announced that neither Cheney nor Libby would take the stand.
What happened in between?
Why did Team Libby suddenly decide not to call such essential witnesses?
Why would Wells put forth such a dramatic narrative, Libby's scapegoat, without offering one word of testimony to back it up?
And what led some of the finest defense lawyers in the country to rest so quickly, having left the prosecution's meticulous case substantively unrefuted?
It wasn't meticulous at all.
A possible hint comes today in the 14th paragraph of Peter Baker's and Carol Loenig's Washington Post story about the fevered speculation regarding the prospect of a Libby pardon.
Despite the defense's trial argument that Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House, aides and advisors said there's no anger toward him in the West Wing.
Libby's defense team reached out to an intermediary after its opening statement to reassure the White House about its strategery.
Well, in what form did this reaching out take place?
Was it two-way?
Was Team Libby's threat to attack Rove, call Cheney, and potentially spill plenty of White House secrets, just a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation?
Was their decision to rest the case in any way related to any promises from the White House?
Could Libby have made some sort of deal with the White House to ensure a presidential pardon?
Man, you talk about insanity and grasping at straws.
Literally, throw it out there.
It's a blog.
You can do it.
I'm just giving you an insight into the thinking of journalists in the drive-by media.
Everybody and their uncle knows why in the opening statement Ted Wells tried to distance Libby from the White House and a D.C. jury, Mr. Froumkin.
And everybody is afraid that a D.C. jury is going to be comprised of Bush haters.
And so Wells wanted to try to see if he could make the case, make it appear that Libby had been targeted as a scapegoat in an effort to get sympathy from the jury.
Turns out Libby did get sympathy from the jury, but not because of that, just because he's a nice guy.
They all appeared to like him personally from his eight hours of testimony that they heard and his demeanor in court.
If you want to comment further on this, I think it might have been a little bit of an error for Ted Wells.
As I had a note from a federal prosecutor made this point to me, he said, look, the big mistake here to cast Libby as a scapegoat and to say the White House wanted him to be the fall guy because that gave the impression there was some sort of conspiracy going on in the White House when that's not what this case was ever, ever about.
It was just a defense tactic.
And it was not mentioned in the trial, just an opening and closing statement.
So one of the jurors, Ann Beddington, was on TV a couple nights ago, said, eh, opening and closing statements are not the trial.
It doesn't affect us.
That's not the evidence.
That's all we decide things on.
So this is the latest paranoia out there amongst the left.
Cheney, and then Libby made a deal halfway through the trial, got a pardon in exchange for not calling Cheney and not putting himself on the stand.
By the way, Valerie Plame will testify before a Henry Waxman Congressional Committee.
Details coming up.
All right, it's Open Line Friday.
So let's go back to the phones to Aaron Chico, California.
Welcome, sir, to Open Line Friday.
Nice to have you with us.
Sir, thank you, Mega Sierra, Nevada, 82nd Airborne Ditto's Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, Beth.
I was calling because I'm just pretty incensed about this prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, for just the actions that he hasn't allowed Scooter Libby to provide experts to corroborate his own memory loss, but also others, not to mention just the fact of how memory works, not to allow it for his own defense.
And I can't understand how they let this juror who was writing a book stay on the jury.
Well, they didn't know that the juror was writing a book.
And the only I've talked to somebody in the know on this.
And by the time this juror, this Dennis Collins, got to him, they had used up all their strikes.
They had moveon.org people in the jury pool.
They had all kinds of leftists.
This guy was the by the time this guy came around, they knew he was a journalist.
They knew he was a friend of Russerts or a neighbor.
I had to work for Woodward, worked at the Washington Post, written books on the CIA and spying.
I mean, but there was nothing they could do.
Is that an out for a possible appeal?
Are they going to use that, do you know, or is that something that they can actually?
Now, here's what I think they're going to use on appeal.
First, they're going to ask for a new trial.
That will be denied because you ask the trial judge, and Reggie Walton's not going to say, yeah, I screwed up.
Let's do it again.
Of course not.
So here's the grounds for the appeal.
The judge was in a state of personal peak when they didn't put Libby on the stand.
At the opening of the trial, Ted Wells said they were going to call Libby.
They decided not to call Libby.
It's none of the judge's business.
There's a Fifth Amendment right.
You don't have to take the stand when you're the defendant.
And it cannot be held against you.
This is the law.
Now, once you get a jury room, of course, holdings can change.
But it cannot be held against you, especially by the trial judge when you decide not to testify.
Because Libby didn't testify after his lawyers indicated that he would, they did not allow evidence or witnesses to contradict, not contradict, but to show that Tim Russert had memory lapses too.
One of the witnesses they wanted to bring forth had records that said to show that Russert had said three times on television, or they wanted to produce the video, actually, not an expert, they wanted to produce video where Russert had said three times that he knew that you could not have a lawyer present during grand jury testimony when you are subpoenaed to go in there and ask be asked questions.
But he had said in trial that he didn't know that you couldn't have a lawyer in there.
Now, it's germane to nothing, but it would have given the jurors more reason to doubt the credibility of Russert because it was his testimony that many feel was the straw that broke the camel's back because Libby said that he had told Russert about Valerie Plain, or Russert had told him, one of the two.
And Russert said, I never spoke to Libby about her.
And the jury believed Russert, so the defense wanted to bring in these videotapes to show that Russert doesn't remember saying certain things, that nobody does.
Everybody has folly memories.
Charles Krauthammer wrote about this today and asked a good question.
All of you, I will repeat to you this question.
When was the first time you heard about Valerie Plain being in the CIA?
And who told you?
Where did you read it?
Where was it?
No, no.
Maybe it was me.
But I mean, stop and think.
This was what...
This is what this trial was about.
Libby was out there saying, I don't know.
I mean, it was this and that.
That's why the whole trial was bogus.
That will be the grounds for appeal, is that there were all kinds of bits of, there were examples that all of these witnesses that were incriminating Libby had also demonstrated that they had infallible memories.
And that was not allowed by the judge.
So that will probably be one of the areas of appeal that the Libby team will zero in on.
Well, I just can't believe that this is actually a process crime that went as far.
I mean, I have a relative that just recently was elected as the DA of a certain county here in California, which I won't say.
And I respect his professionalism and his respect of the law.
And to see this prosecutor, a federal prosecutor, act this way.
I mean, there's a book about this guy that people may not know about, about Patrick Fitzgerald, and it has to do with terrorism in this country.
It's called Triple Cross.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard about it, but it is called.
Doesn't really bill, but I can't say for sure I haven't.
I might be called to testify since we're reaming Fitzgerald here.
Well, he was the biggest disconnector of the dots of leading up to 911 and many years back when he was a specialist.
Well, but wait a minute.
Now, Fitzgerald was on a legal team that successfully put a bunch of these terrorists behind bars back in the 90s, the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel-Ruh.
Come on.
Well, when he did his testimony before the 9-1-1 Commission, and he talked about Abel Danger, but he did not mention this one guy who pretty much infiltrated the CIA, the FBI, the JFKA Special Warfares Unit.
He was a former Egyptian officer.
He was Bin Laden's main trainer of bodyguards.
And this is all documented and proved by this author.
His name is Peter Lance.
And it goes back for many, many, many years.
Now, I must admit, this is the first I'm hearing of this.
The guy's name was Ali Muhammad.
Who?
And the spy, his name was Ali Muhammad.
And he went by many other aliases, obviously.
But he is, I encourage you to read this book, Rush, if you want to be scared about this problem.
Well, I'll find out, but I want to, when we come back from the break, you wonder why he went forward with the case when you mentioned other prosecutors wouldn't.
I'll try to take a stab at it.
Stay with me.
I know.
We're back serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly because I assigned them.
Therefore, being myself cannot possibly be a screw-up.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the programmer, why did Fitzgerald pursue the case when there was no case?
When the original charge was to find out who leaked this babe's name and he already knew that.
Why did he pursue it?
Because he had, in effect, the powers of the attorney generalship.
Was granted blanket authority by James Comey, who was sitting in for Ashcroft, who had recused himself.
I've heard it said that many prosecutors would have looked at this and said, nothing here, and let it go.
But when you're special prosecutor appointed to get to the bottom of something in the federal government, it's just the benefit of the doubt here.
Look, I can't explain it because from the get-go, this was the pursuit of a process crime.
This was the pursuit of somebody in the administration.
This was not the pursuit of any journalists, even though Judith Miller spent some time in jail.
This was a concerted effort.
We have to rely on Patrick Fitzgerald's own words in his closing argument: there's a cloud over Dick Cheney.
It's clear that's who he wanted.
Cheney Arrove couldn't get there, and poor old scooter is there.
Now, get this: Valerie Plame will testify next week before lawmakers probing how the White House dealt with her identity.
Said the chairman of the panel, this would be Henry Waxman.
Also invited to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is Patrick Fitzgerald.
Waxman said that Plame has accepted the invitation, and Fitzgerald has not responded.
In a letter to the prosecutor, Waxman proposed a meeting with ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia to discuss the terms of any testimony.
The hearing will be the first public forum at which Plame has agreed to answer questions.
Two things.
I don't know why Fitzgerald would testify.
This hearing is taking place specifically precisely because the Democrats didn't get what they wanted out of this, which was Cheney.
And they want Valerie Plame to come up there and continue the lie that she and her husband have been perpetuating, that it was Cheney who set out to get them and ruin their lives.
When if anybody ruined her life, it was her idiotic husband for coming back and talking about all this in the New York Times and getting all of this started.
So, two things.
If there is a Republican on this committee with any brains and any spine and any onions, it is time to nail Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and Waxman all at once with the contradictions and lies that are public from this couple already.
I'm probably dreaming about this because my guess is the Republicans are going to want this to go away as quickly as they can.
Let Waxman have his time.
Let Valerie Plame continue to lie.
But we know that Wilson's been totally discredited by a bipartisan Senate Committee on Intelligence.
We know that a number of reporters, despite championing their cause, have facilitated the education that we've all had in the contradictions of Joe Wilson.
So the next thing is put her under oath.
What do you think the odds of that happening are?
Zilch Zero Nada.
The Democrats are not going to have her come up there and then be exposed for perjury herself.
So this is, just get ready for this one.
Cameras will be there.
This will be like the Iran-Country hearings, folks.
It's going to be an absolute zoo.
Here is Tony in Mesa, Arizona.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush Megadidos from Mesa, Arizona.
Yes, yeah.
I wanted to ask you about a problem with our antiquity, our antiquated copyright laws.
It seems if you show anything copyright material like episode of 24 on a TV larger than 55 inches to company, it may constitute a public performance and therefore breaks copyright law.
And I just know you have a big screen TV.
I have a big screen TV.
The copyright law further goes on to say anything that has more than four speakers in one room constitutes a public performance and it'll break a copyright law.
And the NFL was the one that brought this to my attention when they had their big what to do with the whole Super Bowl party of churches.
Yeah, but there's a reason for this, and that is that these sports bars that have all these TV screens in there and showing the Super Bowl are paying for it.
They are paying.
There's a rights fee for this, or they may be using smaller screens, but it's just like, let me tell you, if you have a restaurant and you play music in there, the first people you're going to hear from are the BMI and ASCAP gang.
And they're going to want royalties for every bit of music.
You're using that to draw customers and make money.
And the people are, they own that property and they want their cut.
And the Super Bowl, the National Football League, they're not giving the product away.
The 54-inch thing is, I think, just an arbitrary number, maybe, but it's designed to keep people from using big screens to attract large crowds and perhaps try to make money on the side in their own way.
What do you think is antiquated about that?
Well, I don't think there's any problem with protecting one's rights from the material.
I just think with our technology, with TVs getting bigger at home, it does seem to leave a loop for private citizens to get into legal troubles by just having parties.
No, that's not going to happen.
I didn't think it was going to happen, but they seem to threaten that.
Well, where?
Where have you seen any evidence of that?
Well, I just read an article over on techdirt.com that said the NFL wants to remind you that having people over to watch the Super Bowl on a big screen is what.com?
TechDirt.
T-E-C-H-D-I-R-T.
T-C-H-G Tech Direct.
TechDirt.com.
Yes, sir.
And they're alluding to the possibility if you have a big screen in your house and you're showing 24 or the Super Bowl and somebody learns about it and come shut you down.
Well, that's what they're saying.
The law leaves a loophole for.
It doesn't say it's going to happen.
I don't know anyone who's been sued over this, but it seems to be a possibility.
I don't see how.
The privacy of your own home is different than a public place.
Church is a public place.
Sports bar is a public place.
You know, you've got the Fourth Amendment protecting you against illegal surges and seizures unless Bush is tapping your phone, and then, of course, all bets are off.
But no, that's, I mean, I've got a giant screen in my place, and I have people over to watch the Super Bowl and the last round of the Masters and 24, and I'm not worried about it.
I mean, we're not making any money off of it, and I'm not sending out a public invitation.
Sure.
Well, you talk about a lot on the air.
I thought if anything happens, it'll happen to you first.
You know, this is interesting.
The fact, this is just to go to show you the natural inherent fear people have of government.
You actually have a genuine fear this could happen, right?
Well, not a genuine fear.
I mean, I work at a church and I've been studying copyright laws that we don't break it because we are a public forum and we buy certain licenses through certain other organizations to make sure that they're not.
Yeah, but you know what they're thinking.
Look at it.
You know what they're thinking.
The church wants to invite people in to watch Super Bowl, fine.
And the church isn't going to pass the plate.
Sure.
But the church thinks that maybe the next time they do pass the plate, there'll be a little bit more in it because of appreciation.
You never know.
You never know.
You never know what they're thinking.
Speaking of this, you want to talk about copyright and all that.
People who listen to this program on our daily podcasts, which are distributed about a half hour after the program is over each day.
We do not put any of the commercials in the podcast because the advertisers are not buying that.
And we don't put any music.
We don't put any parodies that use licensed music because there isn't, well, there's permission to do it, but the cost is prohibitive.
And they just raised the rates.
The copyright tribunal, the broadcast people, the music people, just announced the rates.
And I want to tell you how this works.
It just happened either early this week or late last.
And everybody, and it's going to affect everybody that plays music on the internet.
Now, we're already covered here the way we do the music with BMI and ASCAP with a broadcasting contract.
The internet is a whole new thing.
And podcasts are delivered via internet.
And this is going to affect everybody who plays licensed music in any form on the internet.
Here's the formula.
And I don't have all of the years, but I ran the numbers for us.
And I think it's 0.00008.
400 of an 8.
So 8,000ths of a cent for every time you play the tune times the number of people in your audience.
So if this were applied to us, we would have to pay something like just in this year.
Next year it goes up and eventually gets to 1900ths of a cent per audience member.
Every time we play in a parody here or something, if podcast audience was as large as the radio audience will, and it's going to be someday, would be about $6,000.
Now, you might think, well, your EIB, $6,000 is nothing.
Times how many times a day, times how many broadcasts a year, and the rates go up, it adds up.
And, you know, I think these people are actually shorting themselves.
They're going to see to it that fewer and fewer internet broadcasters or streamers are going to use licensed product because that's just, that's going to add up.
Now, for small operators who don't have large audiences, they may be able to afford it.
But that's what we've been trying to negotiate with ever since we started our podcasts.
And that's why they are music-free.
I mean, even bumper music, can't put bumper music on.
Any parody that uses, like we just played the John Edwards singing I Am Woman, cannot put that on the podcast.
And so, you know, people listening to podcasts afternoon when they get it are going to hear me intro it.
They will not hear the song.
And they're going to hear me say, man, that was funny as hell.
And they're going to, well, why not?
And they want to know why they can't hear it.
They send me emails.
That's why I'm explaining this.
So this is not going away.
In fact, the intellectual property, intellectual property owners are getting even more vigilant about theft because of things like YouTube and MySpace, all kinds of stuff going up there that is not the permission of the people posting it.
And they don't own it.
And these guys are, they're going to go, they're going to go like Banshees to gain control of it because it is their property.
They are creating it, be it 24, be it any other network show or what have you.
But I don't think they're going to invade our homes.
Not for that.
They may eventually invade our homes to see if we have any Bush paraphernalia in there.
But beyond that, I'm not worried.
Hey, folks, before I get out of here for the weekend, I have to tell you, I watched Amazing Grace last night.
I don't know if you've heard about this.
It is really a fine movie.
And it is a movie that is just, it's unlike stuff made in Hollywood today.
The whole family could watch this.
It is properly refined.
It's clean and pure right down the middle, but it's got an amazing story.
It's about William Wilberforce.
William Wilberforce abolished slavery, abolished the slave trade in 18th century Great Britain.
And if there's a theme in this movie, and it focuses on his time in the House of Commons, where his efforts to abolish the slave trade, by the way, 50 years prior to anybody else doing so, because his efforts led to the abolition of slavery throughout much of the world.
And he faced a number of pressures in the movie and in life.
He wanted to not go to the House of Commons.
He didn't want to be elected.
He wanted to work on all of his humanitarian efforts outside.
And he was persuaded by his friend William Pitt, William Pitt the Younger, the youngest prime minister in British history, to do it from inside the House of Commons.
And he ran into all kinds of problems inside the House of Commons because he was, of course, there were people opposed to him, and he was urged to be bipartisan.
He was urged, come on, William, you got to back off of this.
You understand a lot of people are making a lot of money off of this slave trade.
You've just got to learn to get along in here.
You've got to learn that there's only so much you can do.
And he refused to even consider bipartisanship as a way of solving the problem of one man being able to own another.
And it really is a typically British movie.
A couple friends of mine are listed as producers on it.
Patricia Heaton from Everybody Loves Raymond and her husband.
Dave.
Oh, don't come on.
Well, it's not Dave Ross.
I'm thinking of somebody else I know down in Miami.
He's going to shoot me.
He even had a role on 24.
He played McCarthy on 24 this year, who was running around securing the.
Dave Hunt.
Thank gosh.
Dave Hunt.
He was securing the nuclear triggers for the bad guy, Fayed.
He's a great guy, Patrician David, great guy.
And Dave's even in the movie for a couple of cameos in a bar scene.
But if you haven't seen this movie, and if you don't want something full of computer graphics and so forth, and if you want to take a message out of something, bipartisanship is not the way to deal with your principles is what this movie is all about.
You don't compromise your principles in the interest of bipartisanship to get anything done.
William Wilberforce didn't.
He was an amazing character.
And I'd never heard of him until I started seeing about this movie.
It's called Amazing Grace.
And it's out now.
You got to hear Calypso Louie from Nightline last night.
He was talking with reporter Martin Bashir.
And Bashir said, well, what about Mrs. Bill Clinton?
Not the young people.
Miss Clinton is formidable, but Barack is even more.
Hillary Clinton was as husband.
Bill Clinton was described as a black president.
What does that make her?
Really, not much.
Although black people looked at Bill Clinton as a black president, he did less for black people than other presidents.
We lost the safety net under his administration for welfare mothers.
We lost a lot.
They haven't forgiven Clinton for bending over, grabbing the ankles, and assigning welfare reform.
Bashir said, okay, a black man, Barry Obama, has announced that he's standing for president.
You support him?
I like him very much.
He has a fresh approach.
He's a beautiful young man.
If avoiding me would help him to become president, I'd be glad to stay in the background because of the taint that's on the minister.
Has he reached out?
He has not made himself available to me.
Do you forbid black and white dating and marriage?
I would love to forbid it because we are so far behind.
Our women don't have adequate men.
So I want the black man to marry the black woman.
I want the white woman to marry the white man.
Why?
Because that's the natural thing.
Calypso Louie, he also admitted in this interview his, I think he said prostate cancer, or brain, is it prostate cancer?
He says he's a changed man and he's not the same guy that he was.
He says he's no longer anti-Semitic and he's not anti-white and he's not anti-American.
He's not anti-gay.
All he is is pro-black.
Anyway, Bill Clinton didn't do anything for black.
He didn't do nearly as much as everybody thinks.
By the way, New Republic with Barack on the cover and he doesn't look pretty in this caricature, which really emphasizes those old Dumbo or not.
What's the elephant's name?
Dumbo?
The Dumbo Earth.
Yeah.
All right, we'll be back.
Okay, that's it.
Another exciting week of busy broadcast excellence in the can.
It'll take the weekend and we'll come back on Monday all revved up, charged up, ready to go.
▲
Export Selection