All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:53
March 23, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Wowie Zowie.
George W. Bush is mad.
Just watching his little uh statement reacting to the Democrats' pork bill that they just signed.
That was, of course, whipped into shape by the briber, Nancy Pelosi.
We're working on the soundbites now.
You gotta hear these.
The president said this bill has no chance of becoming law.
I will veto this bill if it ever gets to me.
The Democrats have put a bunch of pork in a bill.
They are rejecting the advice of our commanders on the ground.
They wanted to make their anti-war statement, and they've done it.
They've done it irresponsibly.
I would add this.
All everybody's out talking about Rush, don't worry about it.
Bill's never going to become law.
Do you think this sends a message to our enemies around the world, folks?
You don't think it tells the Iranians something?
You don't think it tells the militant Islamo fascists around the world something?
All it tells them is support Democrats in every election is do whatever they can to get Democrats elected, and they will win the war on terror.
Don't think this is meaningless.
It's meaningless within the context of it ever becoming law, but it is not meaningless in the message that it sends to our enemies around the world.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the phone number if you want to be on the program is 800 282-2882, the email address, rush at EIB net.com.
Remember now, folks.
We go to the phones, and the program is all yours.
You don't have to discuss anything that I care about.
You can.
But if you want to talk about something I don't care about, that's your prerogative on Open Line Friday.
By the way, the pet death toll, a poison pet food now up to 16.
Just saw the report on the Fox News channel.
However, still no news on how many senior citizens have been made sick or who have perhaps died because they have been eating the same food.
Well, I mean, you know, we've been told by the Democrats that it's for many seasoned citizens, it's a choice between uh medicine and real food or medicine and dog food.
And uh cat food, you know, pet food, uh what have you.
Again, the number 800-282-2882, email address rush at eIBNet.com.
Global warming update time, ladies and gentlemen.
One of our three update themes in a rotation.
This is Al Gore.
It's the EIB Network.
And the Rush Limbaugh program, and we are on open line Friday.
That's Paul Shanklin as Al Gore and a take off on a great tune by Johnny Cash, co-written by his wife June Carter Cash, by the way, Ring of Fire.
And the global warming update.
Um interesting items today.
This is from South Africa.
Tourists cause global warming.
Holiday makers may be ruining their favorite destinations through pollution and greenhouse gases, making the tourism industry one of the world's worst polluters, experts say.
Now many of you people are tourists out there.
So in addition to the destruction that you are causing simply by living your domestic lives, when you travel, when you act as tourists, you are even compounding your sin because you are creating an even larger carbon footprint.
For example, a flight to that pristine beach in a few nights in an air-conditioned hotel room when repeated on the mass scale of modern tourism is all it takes to put the holiday business on a polluting par with heavy industries.
Now, seriously here, folks.
The di I with these updates each and every day, are you starting to get the picture here?
Are you beginning to see what is emerging?
Well, I've always said is the objective of the global warming crowd.
It's just that these people are just the new communists.
They're displaced, they're homeless after the fall of the Soviet Union, and uh no less a figure than Vaslav Klaus, Czech Republic president, has echoed my sentiments on this in suggesting that all this movement is is the new communism, which is designed to restrict people's freedom and liberty.
Tourism is unfortunately one of the vectors of climate change at the moment and contribute through its excessive to the pretheth of global warming, said World Tourism Organization Director General Francesco Frangiali to an international conference on meteorol meteorology in Madrid this week.
For example, in 2006, 842 million selfish, self-absorbed, careless tourists took a holiday in a foreign country.
And 40% of these reprobates flew to their destinations.
That's 336 million people destroying the planet.
That is more than the population of the United States, taking trips which spew greenhouse gases that fuel global warming.
You tourists know who you are.
Tourism itself is facing tragedy.
If climate change continues unabated, said Frangiali.
As tourists pollute their way around the world, popular destinations such as the pristine but low-lying Maldives islands in the Indian Ocean may disappear as sea levels rise.
Tanzania's famous lakes will dry up in Europe's Alps.
The ski season will become shorter.
The UN's intergovernment screw the UN.
Get this.
The WTO has backed an EU proposal to include air travel by 2011 or 2012 in limitations on emissions and creating transferable carbon accounts in a bid to limit the greenhouse effect.
Let me ask you quick.
Can I go back here?
842 million people took a holiday in a foreign country in 2006.
40% of them had the audacity to fly.
Are there enough carbon offsets you people could buy to offset the destruction that you are wreaking?
Creating these offsets would encourage airlines to put pressure on manufacturers to produce aircraft which are more fuel efficient.
They're already doing that.
That could mean higher airfares, but some in the travel industry believe tourists would be ready to pay a little more to protect the place they love.
Meaning they think that you will fall for the notion that the next time that you go to SeaWorld to see shamu, you will pay more to get there.
If next time you go up to Disney World to see Cinderella at Disney World, never been there.
Next time you go anywhere to see an animal or any wherever you go to vacation, you will be willing to pay more to protect the place you love.
A total scam.
Now is this working?
San Francisco Chronicle from uh yesterday.
Washington is suddenly debating global warming this week, but the big challenge remains outside the beltway, coaxing Americans to adopt new technologies and change their energy guzzling lifestyles.
Let me say coaxing isn't going to work, and that's what's dangerous.
When they see the coaxing doesn't work, guess what then happens?
The use of force.
Recent polls suggest that public sentiment on this is soft.
According to a Pew Research Center poll released in January, only 47% of poll respondents believe that human activities are causing global warming compared with 50% in July of 2006.
Why?
They're losing ground.
The wackos are losing ground in the minds of the American people.
In the poll, 55% of respondents said that global warming is a problem that requires immediate government action, a decline from 61% last year.
Um basically what this is isn't this really the elites telling Joe Six Pack to change his lifestyle because the elites aren't going to change theirs.
Gore proved that he's not going to take the pledge to reduce his uh his uh I don't know, his emissions to the average American home level.
He refused to take that pledge.
So the subhead here, urging different lifestyles on people seen as difficult, urging, that's why when urging is not going to be all they'll try.
They all mandate it.
Guess there's no public consensus on global warming.
We've got all this scientific consensus, but you idiots are not listening to the consensus of science.
And by the way, I would have to say that I am having a profound effect in this.
I don't know if too many others who have who well, seriously, you can sit in there and smirk Dawn, but I'm telling you, I don't know of anybody else publicly who's been out there sounding the warning clarion about this as often and as loudly and as frequently as have I. I'm going to raise my hand and take full credit here, or full partial credit, for helping to contribute to the declining support amongst the public for the whole concept of global warming.
One more thing here.
This is from the Longmont, Colorado Daily Times.
Global warming was on trial in front of a bunch of sixth graders.
And the sixth graders decided that humans are not to blame.
Somebody by the name of Ben Reddy wrote the story.
Humans don't cause global warming.
A jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.
Yeah, they're pretty young for this kind of thinking.
They did great, said paleontology teacher Ken Pope, after the 40 minute trial in his classroom with Earth's warming accepted as a tenant, preteen lawyers and scientists debated whether humans have caused it.
Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs, tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap stats, volcanic activity, and sea surface temperatures, all of which were found Wednesday in the school's computer lab.
The Earth is warmed and cooled over many years.
If it's caused by CO2, why haven't a chart shot up, Pope's son?
And lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.
Hillsbell's here, folks.
There is hope.
Sixth graders in Longmont are figuring this out.
Oh, what a way to end the week.
This is Holobaluta.
We will have the soundbites in President Bush's statement top of the hour.
He was taking it right to the House Democrats on their pork bill, uh disguised as they get everybody out of a rock, but you know, Snerdley said to me we're watching it in there, snurly said to me, you know, I just think about all these Republicans back in November.
You know, they were they were fed up about earmarks, earmarks, here Marks.
No, gotta get rid of the Republicans.
Dear Mark, dear Mark, dear Marks.
And here these Democrats are spending out of the wadzuids.
People expect Democrats to do that, snerdily.
Democrats are gonna be hell, that kind of standard.
Republicans, conservatives, they say they're there for smaller government, less government.
They ought to pay a price when they screw it up.
But uh you could say that the voters are a little naive because spending's gonna happen no matter who's there.
Uh and you'd be right.
Uh couple more little global warming stories.
We just heard about the the sixth graders uh who pronounced global warming a hoax in a little jury trial they had in their classroom out in Longmont, Colorado.
However, a story here by Gabriel Glazer in the Oregonian.
The headline pretty much says it all, younger generation sweats future.
Global warming, concerns about the effects of climate change resonate among many.
Leslie Carlson remembers the 70s signs for fallout shelters and the screw drills that send kids diving under their desks in college, worries about nuclear catastrophe kept her up at night.
Yes.
Discussed this.
But today, Carlson 42 is still has the mentality that she had in the 70s.
She now has global warming anxiety.
She said, by the way, she's a mother of three.
She's a Portland PR manager.
She said, I really worry about the quality of my children's lives and a connection to nature that I love so much.
Why, just last weekend she was skiing with her crumb crunchers, and surveyed the mountain landers landscape.
I wondered, are they even going to be able to do this when they grow up?
What, the mountains are going to disappear?
Snow in the mountains are going to disappear.
She's worried about this.
Probably making her kids suffer and worry about it as well.
Every generation has its fears, writes Gabriel Glazer.
Before the polio vaccine, parents kept their children indoors on hot summer days.
No swimming pools, no picnics.
Then came the cold wall and its fears of sudden annihilation.
For the first couple of years after the 9-11 attacks, terrorism dominated the worry agenda.
See, here's the thing.
Those were legitimate things to worry about.
Global warming is not, but the point is the pattern here is that the left is constantly trying to keep you people in fear, constantly trying to keep you in tumult and chaos.
It's how they control you.
But today, concern over climate change appears to be replacing the ideas of atomic Armageddon or anthrax epidemics.
For some families, compost piles have supplanted bomb shelters and duct tape as household essentials.
Madeline Levine, adolescent psychologist, Marin County, California, San Francisco.
The news has been really, really unremittingly bad.
She's written a book on the angst of today's middle class kids.
Increasingly, she says she sees young patients beset by their fears for the planet.
They're worried, Levine says, and they're angry.
They feel that older generations screwed up the earth, and now it's time to fix it, but they don't have the skills or the ability to do it.
Levine estimates that one in three children struggle with anxiety, and that many have fixated on global warming and the poor polar bears.
Typical, the Libs out there trying to scare their own kids about this, keep them in a constant state of angst.
The New York Times has a hilarious story today.
It prints out to over four, well, four pages.
I can't read the whole thing.
But the title of this story is The Year Without Toilet Paper.
Now, you people that have been with this program since the get-go will remember that way back in the early days of the Wacko Environmental Movement, late 80s or early 90s, we found a list 50 things you can do to save the planet.
One of them was get rid of toilet paper and use leaves or rags that you would throw away.
Toilet paper gums up everybody's works.
And you people left.
And I warned you, I said, These are liberals.
This stuff, once they put it out there, it doesn't go away.
It may get laughed at.
Listen to this.
Dinner was the usual affair Thursday night in apartment 9F in an elegant pre-war on Lower Fifth Avenue.
There was shredded cabbage with fruit scrap vinegar, mashed parsnips, and yellow carrots with local butter and fresh thyme, a terrific frittata, then a homemade yogurt with honey and thyme tea, eaten under the greenish flickering light cast by two beeswax candles and a fluorescent bulb.
A sour odor hovered also slightly in the air, the faint tang, not wholly unpleasant.
That is the mark of the home composter.
Isabella Bevan, age two, staggered around the neo-modern furniture.
Her silhouette greatly amplified by her organic cotton diapers in their enormous boiled wool snap front cover.
A visitor avoided the bathroom because she knew she would find no toilet paper there.
Welcome to Walden Pond, Fifth Avenue style.
Isabella's parents, Colin Bevan, 43, Michelle Conlin, 39, are four months into a year-long lifestyle experiment they call no impact.
...
These are just blithering idiots.
There's no other way.
Characterize them.
You gotta hear these next four sound bites.
President George W. Bush fired up.
It sounds like he's finally gotten mad, and he is calling Democrats by name.
He's not saying my opponents, my respected good friend opponents.
He's calling them the Democrats, he's calling on the carpet.
This happened about a half hour ago.
He was surrounded by surrounding me.
He had a bunch of military personnel standing behind him.
And this is the president, first of four bites, responding to the House Democrats passing their pork bill.
Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror.
Yet today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law And brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.
Purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding.
Instead, Democrats in the House in an act of political theater voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
You hear him hammer that Democrats in the House in an act of political theater.
Here's the next bite.
They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret.
They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground.
And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror.
This bill has too much pork, too many conditions, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
Yeah, this is the bribery bill.
Nancy Pelosi, the briber.
She had to pay off her recalcitrant, ununified Democrats in order to get them to support this thing.
Here's more from the President.
I will veto it if it comes to my desk.
And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained.
Today's action in the House does only one thing.
It delays the delivery of vital resources for our troops.
A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.
Amid the real challenges in Iraq.
We're beginning to see some signs of progress.
You have to score political points.
The Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.
Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq.
They made their point.
For some, that is not enough.
Do you realize the power of what he just said?
Yet to score political points, the Democrat majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.
Yes, they own defeat.
I had talked to you about the pictures I had to dig through the LA Times to find, not on the front page of the New York Times.
No, no.
A big carnival in Baghdad, where there's supposedly a civil war going on.
Insurgents are killing innocent women and children each and every day.
It's a horrible thing.
So sad.
Very sad.
Yet there they are in the middle of snow cones, Ferris wheels, all this stuff.
Smiling to beat the band.
Baghdad.
Who would have thunk it?
New York Times today.
Headline, reclaiming homes, comma.
Iraqis find perils still at door.
Well, how stupid of these Iraqis.
They're going back home.
It's safer, but guess what?
It's still bad, says the New York Times.
Why are they going home?
Why are they returning to their homes in Baghdad?
Well, it's still bad out there, says the New York Times.
But even they conclude in this story.
Security plan could eventually work.
Though hundreds of thousands of Baghdad residents remain displaced, officials say the steady flow of people returning is an indication the security plan could eventually work.
Damn it.
So the President says to score political points, a Democrat majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains of our troops.
They're making on the ground.
Democrats want to make clear they oppose the war.
They made their point, but for some that is not enough.
One more from President Bush.
These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects.
This is not going to happen.
Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds.
The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th.
Our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so were their families.
The Democrats have sent their message.
Now it's time to send their money.
This is an important moment of decision for the new leaders in Congress.
Our men and women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win.
Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay.
I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops.
And so do the American people.
And the president turned around.
He was he was a bunch of military people in uniform standing behind him.
He turned around.
He looked at them.
You can see the look on his face.
I'm your commander-in-chief.
I have your concerns.
I'm the one that's on your side.
You can see that look on his face.
So that's it, April 15th.
And I mentioned this earlier in the program.
And this is going to be very interesting.
Because I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to let that, you know, to make sure there's not a bill the president can sign by April 15th and let the troops suffer the uh recriminations of underfunding.
And then you see what the American people reaction will be.
Because I don't care what their attitude on the war is.
They don't want the troops underfunded, and the American people do not want the U.S. military to lose.
The Democrat Party does.
The Democrat Party owns defeat.
They don't care if we lose.
All that matters to them is that they do two things.
They placate the kooks on their fringe that dominate their base.
And number two, set themselves up for what they think will be a massive electoral victory in 2008, and they think this is it.
They are becoming the McGovern Party.
They're setting themselves up for a humiliating landslide defeat somewhere down the road, and they don't even see it.
They think they are recreating moments from their past of great virtue and valor, of great strength.
Remember McGovern lost in a land slide to Richard Nixon.
This is who they are.
You could say this who they're becoming, but this they can't become who they already are.
They own defeat.
They have the deed.
There have been no co-signers.
The Democrat Party put no money down.
They didn't borrow any money to own this defeat.
They paid for it in full up front.
They continue to do so now.
Now some people might say, Rush, they're back off now that they've made their statement.
They're going to feel their oats.
And I got to guarantee you that the drive-by media, if you if you waste your time watching them this afternoon and tonight, they'll let you hear the same sound bites I just played to President Bush, and they'll talk about how well he's out of it.
The man's he's he's delusional.
He's lost touch with the reality.
Well, he doesn't even know what he's talking about.
It was 218 to 12, and without bribery and pork, this bill would have never passed.
The Democrats in the House are disarrayed.
This bill changes none of that, and they have put that on display for anybody who is watching to uh to notice.
Quick call here before we go to the break.
This is Mary in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
We own Allentown, by the way, and uh I appreciate your patience.
You've been waiting out there a long time.
Rush, this is a dream of mine, so it's no problem waiting to be on the air with you.
Thank you.
I've been listening to you since I was five in the back seat of my mom's station wagon, so this is a dream come true.
Since you were five?
I think so, probably about that.
That makes you a rush baby.
I am a rush baby.
You have your own babies now.
Um not yet.
But they'll be rushed babies someday too, don't worry.
Um in Pennsylvania this week, it's been big news, well, not really huge news, but Spectre's running again for re-election in 2010.
And uh, since I was a big Tumi girl back in 2004 when uh he challenged him in the primary, I have two questions for you.
Uh do you think Spectre might be more vulnerable to a conservative challenge like Tumi in 2010?
And also, do you think a conservative like Patomi could win in the general election after what happened to Santorum last year?
Sure, any of that's possible.
2010, that's three years away.
You know the the 2008 election uh is is gonna have a tremendous impact on on uh voter attitudes, and we don't know what those the impact is gonna be because we don't know what the outcome is gonna be.
But all of that is possible.
Oh, I'm I'm really I'm hoping that Pat Toomey gets back in the race because he he was my congressman, and I just think he would make an awesome senator.
Um, you know, there's there are there are a lot of people who are looking back at that and saying, gee, I wish we'd have done something different.
Uh but this is, you know, these traditions in Washington and Republicans that they supported Link Chafey, too.
They supported uh uh Spectre.
Uh it's just it's just the way things are.
And I I don't doubt.
See, what one thing's gonna change, though, if if the Democrats, if if if, if the Democrats are elected president, uh, then, you know, all bets are off in terms of uh White House Party loyalty to uh any sitting Republican senator.
Now, Spectre is going to be formidable.
Don't misunderstand.
I don't mean to portray this as a cakewalk, but I'm saying that in the realm of possibility, sure it's possible.
The questions that you asked.
Uh well, I I certainly hope that people in Pennsylvania wake up.
Well, now that is another thing.
Uh uh Pennsylvania's Democrat state.
And it's getting more and more so.
I mean, you've got uh Pennsylvania's one of those, but but it that it can be one.
Santorum has proven it.
It can be one.
Uh but you got you know that that state's run by the Philadelphia machine.
Oh, yeah.
As uh as you well know.
And then the the Pittsburgh machine coming in a close second there.
Uh and then you people in Allentown and some of the other conservative areas get dwarfed by them.
Absolutely.
And uh, you know, I mean, in Philadelphia.
Here they're building a brand new building.
Big build modernized building of uh no flush toilets and all this sort of stuff.
And the unions, well, you can't do that.
Why, if there's no if there's no flush toilets in there, then what are our plumbers going to have to do?
And of course, the uh city says, Oh, you know, that's a great point.
So they build, they're building the building with pipes that go nowhere that will just be there to be serviced by the plumbers.
Uh to provide well, but that's that's the kind of uh power that the machine there has.
So um, you know, and there's also a factor in Philadelphia, and you can't, you don't know what uh the Eagles are going to be doing in 2008.
You don't know where McNabb's gonna be.
So uh there's just so many factors here, but my point never ever give up here.
Don't don't don't think that all is lost just because of an incident in the past or two, like Tumi and and uh and Santorum.
Uh but the the place to focus on so much here is not the Democrats, is if the Republicans are going to get themselves in gear.
If we if we uh get some elected conservative leadership, uh a lot of these trends that people fear uh can be uh can be reversed.
Well, I've just told you this.
We here at the EIB network are going to be working to achieve and accomplish what you what you what you want.
Get, you know, as much conservative elected leadership going to Washington as possible.
I hope so.
I'll keep fighting the good fight up here in Pennsylvania.
I'm sure.
Uh well, they say all politics is local.
Uh but hang in there.
I mean, as a rush baby, you ought to be naturally positive.
I'm trying.
It's hard sometimes, but I'm trying to understand.
Understand that.
That's why we should listen here at least twelve hours a week.
Uh really only takes two hours a week to get the the up and beat and uh good cheer nature of possibility here, but uh the more the better.
But just hang in there.
I know it's I know it's tough to stay optimistic, especially especially when you live in a place like Pennsylvania Allentown, when you're surrounded by all this stuff, it doesn't make any sense to you.
Right.
Like liberalism.
But uh, you're not alone.
Well, thank you, Rush.
I'm glad you have my back.
Uh yes, a manner of speaking.
Uh thanks so much.
I'm really glad you waited.
I appreciate the call.
You bet.
Hang tough out there, folks.
I mean, you I have detected a pattern out there as a observant observer of the drive-by media and of the worldwide left.
It seems to me every weekend, every Friday, every Thursday or Friday, we get a story that is designed to scare us and ruin the weekend.
Particularly your crumb crunchers.
And here is this weekend's scare reminder.
Antarctic melting may be speeding up.
How many times have we heard this over the last ten years?
Meanwhile, they go up there to try to dig a hole in the ice.
It's so thick that's uh their surprise had no idea how thick it was, and they have a shotgun up there to shoot polar bears that try to come and attack them.
This is the guy that that uh misrepresented the polar bear picture on that ice flow out there.
Rising sea levels and melting polar ice sheets are at upper limits of projections.
They are not folks.
That is an out and out lie, leaving Some human population centers already unable to cope.
Say top world scientists as they analyze latest satellite data.
So satellite data is telling us that world populations are already unable to cope with the Meltic melting Antarctic ice.
A United Nations report in February projected sea level gains of 18 to 59 centimeters, seven to twenty-three inches this century.
What a spread.
Hey, pal, we can really rely on that.
Seven to twenty-three inches of sea level gains.
Observations are in the very upper edge of the projection, said leading Australian marine scientist John Church.
I feel that we're getting uncomfortably close to threshold, said Church of Australia's CSIRO, Marine and Atmospheric Research.
There's been no repeat in the Antarctic of the 2002 breakup of part of the Larson Ice Shelf created a 500 million ton iceberg as big as Luxembourg.
But the Antarctic Peninsula is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, and glaciers are in massive retreat.
This is BS.
This is not true.
Most of Antarctica is getting colder.
Now we've had that news on this program, but that's not the point.
The point is, you are to be scared when you hear about this news.
Your kids are supposed to have nightmares, not be able to sleep at all this weekend.
That's the point.
Who's next?
Jackson, New Jersey and Patty.
Is that right?
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes, you bet.
Um, I just wanted to make a comment about this John and Elizabeth Edwards situation.
Um I just really find it absurd that anyone would would be surprised that he would uh use his wife's medical crisis to jumpstart the campaign when he launched his entire law career on the backs of children with cerebral palsy.
So just I really just find that totally ridiculous and absurd that people would be surprised at that.
Oh well, I don't think people are surprised.
There's not many people think that's what he was doing.
You're very cynical when you say that's what they said of me.
You're very, very cynical out there, Patty.
Well, I am cynical about that, I guess.
Well, one thing is true.
One thing is true about this, though, is that Edwards as a as a trial lawyer is especially good at evoking sympathy from juries.
It's one of the great things that a great trial lawyers do is evoke sympathy for victims.
And so I I agree with you on that, but I I I find it personally offensive.
I have a 17-year-old son who has cerebral palsy.
Yeah.
And people who use that as a means of uh, you know.
Look lining their pockets, so to speak.
Just offensive.
Patty, Patty, it's they're Democrats.
No, that's true.
I'm telling you, it's it's amazing.
I don't know if you heard the soundbite earlier, Bob Schrum saying America learned more about cancer in one day from the Edwards Press Cont.
They didn't say a word about cancer.
But the arrogant condescension, you people are a bunch of dopes, only Democrats know and can teach whatever they say and do, whether they go public or private, it's their right.
Can do no wrong.
We will be back rapidly.
Snerdley sit down.
The show is not over.
Ah, gosh, everybody wants to get out of here early on Friday.
Okay, now it's time to go, folks, because that's it.
Broadcast excellence is over.
Have a great weekend.
Don't be scared.
▲
Export Selection