All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:28
March 22, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I just got a fascinating email from a subscriber at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's pretty long.
I'm going to paraphrase it for you here in just a second.
As soon as I intro the big program here.
Greetings, folks, and welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Before I get that letter, also we got their global warming stack coming up with a global warming update theme, one of the three that rotate.
You know, this business, one more thing about these subpoenas that the Democrats and the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to authorize today, demanding.
And Karl Rove and Harriet Myers come up.
Even though there's no criminality in any of this, there's none.
They didn't get rid of any prosecutors that were conducting no evidence anyway, they did, conducting corruption probes.
Even the Washington Post editorial admits this today.
Do you remember the hullabaloo?
Do you remember Debruha when investigators dared to go into the office, the congressional office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, seeking evidence to back up the other evidence they had acquired about his being involved in financial chicanery?
I mean, two people have already admitted bribing Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, and Denny Hastert, the Speaker of the House at the time, a Republican, the whole House, you can't come up here.
Separation of powers.
You can't start conducting investigation in members' offices.
And everybody says, oh, you guys are allowed to use the sanctity of your offices to commit crimes?
You know, totally out of touch.
Don't tell me that didn't impact the presidential election or the November election either.
Republicans are, here's a Democrat waiting to be indicted.
Still hasn't been, by the way.
Where's the Justice Department on that?
But going all out of the way here to talk about, you can't invade our turf.
And now here's the drive-by media, of course, thought that was a great move.
Yeah, this is the legislative branch being investigated by the executive branch, the Justice Department.
Why, we can't have that.
This is horrible.
But of course, now Leahy and these guys that can demand the president send anybody up.
It's just a little parallel that I wanted to use to illustrate.
I'm going to paraphrase this email I got.
Dear Rush, I'm apoplectic about the Edwards press conference.
These political people are people I don't understand.
These are a different breed of people.
If my wife told me yesterday that she had cancer that had returned and it was incurable, the last thing I would be thinking about would be calling a fundraiser and a press conference, going to a fundraiser and calling a press conference.
The last thing in the world I would be thinking about would be that.
What is it about political people?
What is it that makes them think they have to share virtually everything like this?
And I wonder how many of you have that same attitude, that there's something you just don't understand.
I've tried to mention over the course of many, many years of service here behind the Golden EIB microphone that politics and the people that are in it are they are entirely different breed of cabinet.
Run around?
Your whole life is asking other people for money?
You know, people have said to me over the years, why don't you run for office?
I couldn't do that.
You know, aside from the pay cut, run around and asking people for money.
Don't give me the I wouldn't need to, because the idea is always spend somebody else's money in these things.
I wouldn't, something I couldn't do.
And I, you know, in a situation like this, family member gets, you learn that the cancer's come back and it's treatable but incurable.
Go out and call a press conference and say the campaign's going.
I just wonder how many other people like this email I got have the same reaction to this in terms of not being able to relate to it in terms of what they would do in similar circumstances.
All right, we got big, big, big global warming news here today, ladies and gentlemen.
Yes, sir, Bob.
And the news we have fits perfectly with this global warming update theme.
EIB Network and the Rush Limbaugh Program at Global Warming Update.
Paul Shanklin here with our theme song.
Here you have it.
That's Paul Shanklin as Johnny Cash, actually as Al Gore and a takeoff on the Ring of Fire, Ball of Fire.
I sometimes wonder what it must be like to be Al Gore.
I really do.
I have to think that his life has got to be such in denial.
The guy is out propounding one of the biggest lies in American politics ever.
And every day the lie that Al Gore's out there propagating is disproven.
Or at the very least, serious evidence emerges to challenge what he says.
How must he get up every morning and deal with the fact that he's lying?
The biggest lie ever perpetrated.
Well, I don't know about ever, but I mean, one of the biggest lies perpetrated in American politics, and this guy's the lead salesman.
This guy's leading the charge.
What must it be like to be Al Gore each and every one?
He shows up, the temperature plummets, snowstorms happen.
Here's the story: X-ray images taken from a new international spacecraft show that the sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent than scientists knew.
NASA reported this yesterday.
I wonder if there's a consensus on this issue yet.
Now, this is loaded.
This opening paragraph is loaded first off the vanity.
I thought we knew everything about the sun.
I thought there was everything to know that was known and that we knew it.
Now, these X-ray images show that the Sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent than scientists knew.
Why, scientists are learning things every day, but guess what?
Global warming is unassailable as a concept.
They saw twisting plumes of gas rising from the sun's corona and reacting with the star's magnetic field, the sun's own magnetic field, a process that releases energy and may power solar storms and coronal mass ejections, which in turn affect the Earth.
A turbulent magnetic field would, in theory, generate more energy than a steady-state field.
Theorists suggested that a twisted, tangled magnetic field might exist.
With the X-ray telescope, we can see them clearly for the first time, and the story has images from the telescope.
For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnetized atmosphere, said Dick Fisher, director of NASA's heliophysics division.
New realm of understanding, has it really?
Al Gore said yesterday that the science was all settled.
Scientists all settled.
New realm of understanding.
Yep, these images will open a new era of study on some of the sun's processes that affect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites, and the solar system, which means all those distant planets out there as well.
Now, might this new discovery of these multiple magnetic fields have any effect on temperature here?
Might it have any effect on global warming whatsoever?
Since the sun is the, could we say not just primary, the sun is the source of all energy on the planet?
It is.
You let that baby go out, folks, and it's all over.
And the idea that it is excluded totally from all of these global warming crises is indication itself that this is bogus.
Scientists hope the observations can help explain and perhaps predict space weather, the ejections from the sun that can disable satellites, knock out electricity grids on Earth, and cause the spectacular auroras in extreme northern and southern skies.
Now, this is a Reuters story, and the version of this that's on newscientist.com has an intriguing headline, Dazzling New Images Reveal the Impossible on the Sun.
Well, who the hell are we to say what's possible and impossible on the sun?
There's nobody from here that's ever been there.
There's nobody from here that's ever been close enough to get any kind of idea of what's possible and not possible on the sun.
How many people have the IQ?
Even the most learned among us, how many have the IQ to understand the physics and the concept of a star like Earth, which is a tiny one lasting billions of billions and billions of years?
How many of us have the IQ to understand the energy required for that and where the hell does it come from and how does it last?
Because, you know, the sun does not pull into a gas station.
Who the hell do we think we are?
What kind of vanity do we have that we would dare admit that there are things on the sun that are impossible?
It's like telling God that things are impossible.
At any rate, this is a, it's just, it's got to make me wonder.
Here you've got Gore, the leading snake oil salesman of one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the planet.
What must it be like to be this guy every day?
Now, yesterday at the Senate hearing that they had on this, Al Gore refused to take the personal energy ethics pledge.
And it was offered to him by Senator Inhoff.
Senator Inhoff showed Gore a film frame from An Inconvenient Truth where it asks viewers, are you ready to change the way you live?
Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee.
And it's been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway, whether he got involved in it or not.
And he was asked, are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence in the average American household by one year from today?
Senator Inhoff then presented, because Gore is telling everybody else, we got to downsize.
We have to reduce our carbon footprint.
We've got to do all this.
I asked Gore, would you do it?
Here's the pledge.
As a believer that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival, as a believer that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use, as a believer that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and as a believer that leaders on moral issues should lead by example, I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my home than the average American household by March 21st, 2008.
Gore refused to take the pledge.
Now, I understand he's not going to take a pledge offered by a Republican senator up there, and the senator probably just made up the pledge.
But I mean, we get these pledges from the left all the time.
Gore wouldn't take it.
Gore would not.
In essence, Al Gore was saying, I'm not going to change my life.
That's up to you, plebes, to do.
I'm the leading snake oil salesman of this hoax, and that's what gives me my power.
And I need to use as much power and energy as I can to maintain my power.
That's what carbon offsets are about.
We'll be back in just a second.
All right.
Everybody concerned I'm getting back late in these breaks.
Let's just say it's an active iChat day.
It's an active.
I got everybody that I know.
Well, not everybody, but sending me these instant messages.
I want to go back to the audio soundbites because getting more emails now from people who are expressing some incredulity that the first instinct of politicians when the personal crisis hits their family is to go public and do a press conference about it.
And I've got a couple phone calls about that.
I want to show you that it isn't new, folks.
These people are, as the emailer said to me a moment ago, they're a different breed.
Politics is its own unique business.
It's like most businesses are.
Let's go back and listen to Howard Feynman.
This is Howard Feynman basically reacting to the John Edwards Elizabeth Edwards press conference.
And you'll hear here that he's analyzing this as a political event, purely and simply.
Listen to this.
I think this is somewhat of a surprise.
I think there were some websites here in Washington that were predicting that he would suspend or even drop out.
That turned out not to be the case.
This is an ongoing story, and this is a metaphor for how they want to fight for the country.
They're willing to take the public relations risk of analogizing their own family situation and the bravery that they've shown and the guts that they've shown to the kind of leadership that they want to offer the country.
That's pretty bold, but that's the world that we live in now, Chris, where people's personal lives are analogized to their political beings.
And that's the thing with the Edwardses.
I thought that was looked at politically, diagnosed, if you will, politically.
That was a 10-strike of a press conference.
They showed guts.
It was nothing short of remarkable and somewhat unexpected.
And it's always great when something unexpected happens around here.
Who does this?
The drive-by media is doing these analogies, taking these events and turning them into political.
Howard Feynman here is just rating the press conference a 10-strike as a political 10-strike.
We're talking about a man and his wife and her incurable cancer.
And the press conference is reviewed in the context of was it any good politically?
And it was determined here that it was.
It was a 10-strike.
And this is not the first time.
Every time we get a new bunch of troop deaths in Iraq, what's the analysis?
Well, this hurt the Bush administration.
We get any stories of the valor of American military personnel in Iraq or the war on terror in Afghanistan.
No.
Every time there's death news, all we get, it's got to hurt the Bush administration.
Why?
How are they going to be able to survive this?
Blah, And then let's go back.
December 14th, 2006.
You remember when Tim Johnson, the senator from South Dakota, Democrat, had a brain hemorrhage.
And we've got a montage here of a whole bunch of drive-by media types.
And here's a man that's just had a brain hemorrhage.
And people who know know how serious those are.
And the comeback from one of these is it's and he's out of, he's out of the, I mean, he's out of Washington.
He's back in South Dakota now in what they're calling rehab.
But nobody's seen him.
Nobody's seen a picture of him.
There is one picture in a wheelchair and there's one picture in a wheelchair.
Well, anyway, that's good.
But the point is, listen to this little bite here.
Senator Tim Johnson has suffered a stroke.
The Democrats' control of the Senate could be imperiled.
It could have enormous political implications.
If Senator Johnson were forced to leave the Senate, his replacement would be picked by the governor as a Republican.
That would mean that it would go back to 50-50.
Republicans would control the Senate.
So the narrow control that the Democrats have the Senate would disappear.
Big change may be coming in the balance of power on Capitol Hill.
Senator Tim Johnson may have had a stroke.
What might this mean for the new Senate?
His condition could really determine control of the Senate.
A member of the U.S. Senate has suffered a stroke with control of the U.S. Senate decided by a single vote for the Democrats.
This could affect the balance of power.
You get the idea.
A Democrat senator just had a stroke.
Oh, no, what's the main concern?
Oh, no.
Can the Democrats hold the control of the Senate?
Oh, no, we're in trouble, Tim.
So don't think that this reaction that Howard Feynman had or others had to the Edwards Press Conference is unique within the context of Drive-Buy Media.
They're the ones doing all this political analyzing and personal suffering.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here on the EIB network.
And by the way, for those of you that I continue to get emails from people that say they're just a little, they just don't understand.
They can't relate to political people.
It would take a personal crisis like this and turn it into a political thing.
Folks, it's not that new.
You remember when Al Gore, what was this, the 2000 presidential campaign?
And he had a sister who died from lung cancer, and he took out after Big Tobacco during the campaign.
We had John Kerry saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again if he were elected president at stem cell research.
It really isn't new.
This is just what politics is.
I'm going to change direction.
I had a lot of stuff in a stack of stuff we didn't get to yet.
And that's because there is no program in America, no long-form radio program that deals with breaking news any better than this one.
I mean, I can give you an example.
I got mounds of stacks of stuff here, stuff that we work diligently on overnight, all morning long, preparing this show.
Then this Edwards things happen in the political, we go wall to wall with current news, the global warming stuff, and so forth, because we are always prepared here.
But that means there's other stuff in the stack that we haven't gotten to, such as this.
A 20-year-old man received probation after he was convicted of having sexual contact with a dead deer.
The sentence also requires Brian James Hathaway to be evaluated as a sex offender and treated at the Institute for Psychological and Sexual Health in Duluth, Minnesota.
The state believes that that particular place is the best to provide treatment for this sad individual, according to Assistant DA Jim Bogner.
Brian James Hathaway's probation will be served at the same time as a nine-month jail sentence he received in February for violating his extended supervision.
He was found guilty in April 2005 of felony mistreatment of an animal after he killed a horse with the intention of having sex with it.
Somehow, somebody got there in the nick of time.
So apparently he was unrequited and made the move on the deer.
He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, two years of extended supervision on that charge, as well as six years of probation for taking and driving a vehicle without the owner's consent, which means he stole it.
Hathaway pleaded no contest earlier this month the misdemeanor mistreatment of an animal for the incident involving the deer.
He was sentenced Tuesday in Douglas County Circuit Court.
The judge, Michael Lucci, said, this type of behavior is disturbing.
It's disturbing to the public.
It's disturbing to the court.
Really?
Everybody?
State of Washington, remember this Ekhim Claw, was that where it was?
Guy out there, the buddy snuck into the horse barn.
But at least that horse was alive.
And in this case, the horse was dead.
The deer was dead.
Yeah, well, no, we don't know that the horse in Eckham Claw, Washington consented.
The law out there says that it's not a crime to have sex with a horse unless you can prove the horse didn't enjoy it.
I'm not making that up.
I don't know how you ask.
You know, we on this program, we've been on the cutting edge of so many things.
The uglo-American, for example, and the plight that they face.
Banning the ugly from the streets in daytime to ensure economic recoveries.
We took the lead on this way, way back in the late 80s.
But now look at this.
Good looks could help guilty defendants dodge justice.
Researchers say ugly defendants are more likely to be found guilty than attractive ones.
They reported that in an experiment, jurors were more likely to convict suspects deemed ugly than those seen as attractive.
It is thought that the principle applies elsewhere in life, with beauty being associated with kindness, intelligence, and sporting ability.
That had anything to do with it.
Attractive defendants are, it seems, rated less harshly than ugly defendants, so perhaps justice isn't blind after all.
People who are physically attractive, assumed to be clever, successful, and have more friends, it's tragic in a way.
It's interesting that being an unattractive defendant only had an impact on sentencing and not a juror's verdict or guilt, Dr. Taylor told the British Psychological Society's annual conference in New York.
However, it's a positive finding that neither black nor white participants showed a bias toward their own ethnic group when looking at ugly members of both ethnic groups.
Interesting.
Of course, you know, this, it's always, every time you get one of these ugly stories, there's a very logical question.
Who decides who's ugly or not?
And I've always said that that's, it's a valid question, but the answer is simply ugly know who they are.
I mean, they have to look in the mirror too.
And so this ought to help them out now as they start preparing their defenses.
Because they say to a lawyer, look, I'm already, you saw that report.
We're in trouble here because I'm ugly, and you're going to have to find a way to overcome this.
And it can't totally be overcome with wardrobe.
By the way, this notion that ugly people, beauty, is associated with kindness, intelligence, and sporting.
That's not, that's, that's, that's not what, I mean, it may be, but that's not, that's not the allure of beauty.
In fact, most guys look, beautiful woman's probably an idiot.
Well, not an idiot, but a dunce because they haven't had to use anything but their looks to grab attention.
This is not a put-down.
I'm talking about guys.
I'm not making a judgment with women.
I'll tell you what guys think.
It may be born of experience.
I wouldn't know.
Shep in Los Salibos, California.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, hero.
Cigar smoking, rush babe on board, Ditto Head, California teacher and nurse.
Well, that's great to have you with us.
You're all effervesed here with us.
Well, I want to take a huge experiential issue with Howard Feynman.
What he said about the Edwards being brave and hitting a 10 strike, I can tell you as a nurse who has taken care of cancer victims that that is a very selfish, selfish stand for the Edwards to take, especially regarding their children.
How so?
Well, on a daily basis, I have seen what cancer victims have to go through.
It's extremely emotionally hard on young children, and their children are the ages of six and eight.
At that age, children's biggest fear is that they're going to lose one of their parents.
So they live in constant fear of losing that parent.
Oh, come on.
Is it constant?
Absolutely.
I took in a friend for two years here who had an eight-year-old girl, and I saw on an hour-by-hour basis what these kids have to go through.
Wait, wait a minute.
Are you talking about a parent with cancer or just a healthy parent here?
No, no, a parent with cancer.
Okay, but I mean, you're telling me that six to eight-year-old kids run around all day with healthy parents, overcome with fear they're going to lose them?
No, well, yeah, I mean.
No, it can't be.
Now, kids don't think of death.
They don't think of death.
Oh, Rush, listen.
I wrote for a year, for a couple years, for a publishing company, and we did research for first graders, which is what around the age of these children.
And their number one fear is a fear of losing the parent.
Well, now, I can understand that in emotional thing.
I'm just disputing that it dominates their days.
I mean, a lot of kids, when they get older than six or eight, and they start learning, I mean, intellectually comprehending that it's their parents who make it possible for them to live inside and have whatever it is they need or want, naturally are going to, oh, my God, what if something happened to mom or dad?
I can understand, but six or eight when they've got healthy parents, I'm sure that crosses their mind, but you're saying their lives, it's a number one fear, and of course, fear is something that's with a lot of people a lot of time.
Well, yes, if you live daily on a daily basis, like your earlier caller called in from Bakersfield about his child, it consumes.
When you have a terminally ill or especially cancer patient, it consumes because you see the children are very visual.
Okay, now that when you tell a six or eight-year-old that a parent has an incurable disease, then I can understand the fear being a constant thing.
No, no, but they see the parent not have energy to take care of them.
They see the parent getting thinner.
They see the parent have to go for hospital stays.
They see the parent throwing up after radiation and after chemotherapy.
And this is a very, it shakes their little world.
Their little world is not normal anywhere, and they don't understand it, and they're very fearful.
It's really and.
Are you saying that a six or eight-year-old is not possible of seeing what parents like the Edwards are going to continue their work?
They're not going to look at that as courageous and learn from it?
Okay, let me just say this.
I've also been in counseling situations with adults who, when they went back, were cut off in some way from experiencing or going through this with a parent.
My concern for the children is that if she is terminal and if God does not heal her or medicine heal her, are they going to grow up saying, my mom took off campaigning instead of spending her last time with me?
And what kind of a model is that giving women in America?
You know what?
I think, if you want to know what I think, I think that they absolutely wrote off a whole bunch of women in that announcement today.
Women who've had cancer, women who have taken care of cancer patients like your man calling from Bakersfield.
A powerful statement you're making here.
Well, I couldn't make it, Rush, if I weren't both a teacher who've spent most of my life working with kids and having kids in my classes who have.
So you think, you think based on your experiences that the kids here should be the priority.
Absolutely, Rush.
I mean, you know what?
I hear you talking so many times about your mom and dad and what a safe harbor they provided for you and how that is deteriorating in our country.
Yeah, well, that's true.
And I've mentioned this.
Once my brother and I were born, our lives became theirs, essentially.
Exactly.
And I can tell you professional women that I know that gave up their careers to stay home.
And their kids today are such great adult models.
And they say, you know, it was because my mom was always there.
My dad had to travel a lot.
But for her to say that she's going to keep campaigning, I mean, Rush, her treatment is going to be so debilitating that for her to, I don't know if she's lying.
You know, I can't figure them out.
It is totally political.
That's all.
Well, I have, to be honest with you, and I haven't read these, but I've had a chance to check the email stack here, and there's some emails from people who are expressing similar sentiments to yours,
such as one of them I remember off the top of my head, a woman whose husband got cancer, and he decided once he got cancer that the rest of his life was going to be spent totally with the family because he wasn't going to be able to have memories of his daughter getting married or walking down the aisle of his son graduating from high school.
And he wanted to cram as many memories and as much time with his kids as he could, given that I think in his case he had three months was the diagnosis.
So there's some people out there who have the same reaction that you do.
I'm glad you called out there, Shep, I got to go because of the constraints of time.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Back we are.
People have been patiently waiting.
Let's just stick with the phones here.
Fred in Lake Wales, Florida.
You are next, sir.
I appreciate your patience.
Thank you, Rush.
I just got a question for you to expound on.
If Congress, the Democratic-controlled Congress, is so hot to process a crime that has not been committed by trying to solicit perjury, why don't they go ahead and prosecute the one that has been committed by Valerie Plain, who has now been caught lying to the U.S. Senate as revealed by her recent House testimony.
This is an interesting question.
And the first answer that I would offer you is that it's Democrats that run the committees.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, Christopher Bond is a member, senator from Missouri.
He said, you know, we never heard anything about this junior underling.
Got a phone call from Cheney's office.
There's somebody else walking by suggesting Valerie Plame's husband.
There's a letter.
Christopher Hitchens has mentioned that there's a letter you can get that shows that Valerie Plame authorized or suggested her husband to go on that trip to Niger.
It's up to Democrats to do this.
They run the House and the Senate.
And I don't think there's going to be any interest on the part of Democrats to process Valerie Claymore or put her through any kind of a perjury claim.
You never know.
Justice Department's not going to do anything, so it's just, it's partisan politics.
It's the way it is.
You have somebody who has committed, you know, told two different stories before two different committees and nothing's done.
And then you've got eight people who haven't done anything wrong and rove and not lie.
And you're going to be subpoenaed for the purposes of trying to trick him into perjury, no question.
Tom in Chicago, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next to the EIB network.
Hi, Rosh.
Thanks for having me.
Yes.
Did you ever see the movie, The An American President?
Is that the one with Michael Douglas, his single guy in the White House?
Yes, it is.
Yeah, I saw it, but I don't remember.
Annette Benning's in it and works for him, and they have a little fair up there in the private quarters and so forth.
I don't remember much about it.
Right, and there's the Richard Dreyfus character who's the dick Taney slash Ken Starr character, the evil Republican.
And the reason the president was elected is largely suspected because his wife had died of cancer during the campaign.
And I think it's probably required watching for anyone in the DNC.
Well, you know, the Democrats think the West Wing was the administration, and they do take a lot of their identities from these movies.
Yeah, I've forgotten that element of it.
Yeah, and I mean, this is right out of the playbook.
It just seems to me that, and I'm not trying to make light of the situation, but it seems to me Edwards probably envisions himself in that character.
I don't know.
It's tough to speculate on that.
But I just have to tell you, Tom, I appreciate the call.
I have to tell you that I got a lot of emails from people who are expressing this kind of incredulity over the political nature of something that is such a profound personal crisis.
Let me just put it that way.
They are stunned at it.
Like our caller, Shep from Southern California.
Hillary in Santa Barbara, I've got 45 seconds, but I wanted to get to you.
Are you there?
I am.
It's such an honor.
I just love you.
I think I've loved you for 15 years now.
And I wanted to, I was talking to Bo Snerdling just a few minutes, and I told him that I thought your interview yesterday with the governor was wonderful.
You were professional and not, you know, you weren't Twitter painted like so many people are who interview him.
And I thought you asked some very good questions and you were straightforward.
And I just wanted to thank you.
Well, thank you.
It's always the women that come to my defense.
It's the guys that accuse me of being a worse and a sellout.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate your noticing.
You're welcome.
All right, Hillary, have a nice day.
A nice weekend, if I don't talk to you tomorrow.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Well, I knew it would happen.
All this talk of me being in trouble has subsided.
I was never in trouble in the first place.
Sometime I'm surrounded by panic-oriented people.
Anyway, have a great Thursday, folks.
Open line Friday tomorrow.
Can't wait.
Gonna have to be hot.
Global warming and all.
▲
Export Selection