All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:11
March 26, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us.
If you're just joining us, if a welfare recipient, just getting out of bed and on your way to the emergency room, it's great to have you with us too.
Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I, of course, been ensconced firmly in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair behind the golden EIB microphone, doing everything as it should be done and in the process demonstrating the same.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
I just checked the email here at the top of the break.
Rush, I saw you stand up.
I'm watching on the ditto camera.
You look like you've lost more weight even from last week.
It's true, ladies and gentlemen.
35 pounds now, and I think it's 42 days.
It started, it started February 14th, so this is March the 26th.
Yeah, it's 42 days, something like that.
And you're losing way too fast.
No, no, no.
That's one of these common myths that the faster you lose it, the faster you put it back on.
There's so many myths.
Don't talk to me because I've done so many diets.
They all work.
I've lost so much weight over the course of my life.
I know everything about it.
I know the relationship exercise has to losing weight.
zip um not putting x i even got i even got a note from a doctor about this Where is it?
Oh, did you see turnout low at immigration rallies?
One-year anniversary of all those millions of people protesting illegally.
Nobody showed up yesterday.
Here it is.
From Patricia Benjamin in St. Cloud, Florida, she's an MD.
As a physician, I'm grabbing this minute from last Friday.
As a physician, I'm grabbing this minute as I just wanted to send along my personal thanks for advocating your listeners never exercise, walk, or do anything with play golf.
I know you did it your way.
So even the David Medical Community is mad at me.
I wrote her back.
I said, that's not what I said.
I didn't say that exercise is bad.
I just said it was related to losing weight.
It's irrelevant.
Get on the treadmill, folks.
Jog a mile at four miles an hour, whatever.
See how many calories you burn, like 100?
It's not even an Oreo.
Anyway, and how fast you lose weight is irrelevant.
I've always lost weight fast.
Don't know why.
I didn't expect to come off this fast, obviously, because I'm a little older now than the last time I did this.
So, what is it?
35 pounds in 42 days.
I've been expecting.
I was at a plateau for about 11 days, 10 days, 9 or 10 days, but I knew it was going to end.
I don't panic on these things.
Some people say when you hit a plateau, well, go off the diet, you know, really chug up a couple days, and that'll jumpstart.
Nah, that's not the way you do it.
The problem with going off a diet before you're through is you don't gain weight back right away.
View people understand.
You know why most people gain the weighting back?
Aside from that they go back to their old eating habits, which I fully intend to do, and I'm going to lose enough weight so that it takes me four years to put it back on instead of one.
But you get yourself in a weight loss metabolism with your body burning stored fat, and you go off the diet.
It just doesn't stop that metabolism.
That metabolic process continues, in some cases, for three weeks.
So you can sit out there and eat what you want for three weeks and don't get any weight back.
Aha, I've got it licked.
Bad, bad, bad move.
It's pretty soon you're going to switch back to a fat gain metabolism.
And no matter what you eat, you're going to gain weight.
It's just the way it works.
At least the way it is for me.
And it takes about a week to get the fat burn metabolism going once you start a diet.
But the speed, the rapidity at which one sheds pain.
And I always love hearing about this in people who've never been on a diet.
The skinny crowd out there, the crowd that's normal and okay.
They're the ones that are the experts.
They've never done it, but they all know.
And you got to, you got to, you know, everybody is trying to get you off this in their own subtle ways because they think they should be on one too.
And it's sort of, you know, they feel a little guilty when you're out there losing weight and they're not when they think they should.
So they urge you, come on, that little adult beverage here won't hurt you.
Oh, yes, it will.
Won't do it.
People have said, boy, I really admire your willpower, your discipline.
I don't have any.
This is fear.
Fear if I go off a diet, I'll blow it.
And I don't want to blow it.
I'll go off a diet.
I got a plan.
I know when I'm going to go off the diet, only I'm going to get back on it after these two days.
I've got a big wingding coming up on the middle of April.
And I'm going to go back on it after that.
But okay, HR in the ISB says, I found if you exercise, you can drink a lot.
Now, see, you know, one thing about drinking, one thing about alcohol, alcohol, the reason you cannot lose weight, I mean, a person that's disposed to overweight cannot lose weight consuming alcohol.
I don't care if it's window cleaner, isopropyl, or wine.
You can't do it because the alcohol gets metabolized straight sugar, which triggers insulin, and insulin is the beginning of the fat storage process.
So, any diet, you want to eat as little sugar as possible.
And if you do, you've got to eat things with it that cut the amount of insulin.
And alcohol just blows that.
And you're saying, well, I've seen some people who do nothing but drink and they're skinny as a rail.
And they're probably not eating much.
I've seen those people too.
I've seen a lot of people drink a lot and they're nothing but the Michelin tire man.
You know, some people just puff some.
Everybody's different.
And you have to learn your own metabolism and yourself and what's bad and what you can get away with, what you can't.
And then you've got it pretty much understood.
Well, you say you're eating 1,000 to 1,400 calories.
Well, what do you do?
You know, I can't give you, I'm not going to go tell you what every meal is here, but basically if there's an emphasis on low anything, it'd be low fat.
But I still eat fat.
But I'm not watching the carbs.
High protein, low fat.
Carbs are what they are.
They're good carbs and bad carbs.
I mean, the carbs are getting vegetables and things like that.
I'm not going to post the menu on the website.
Somebody will do it and they'll die and then I'll get sued.
You know, everybody is different.
I don't write diet books.
I don't do that.
Look at it.
I've done this enough to know how what works for me works and what doesn't work.
But all these diets work.
The South Beach diet, the Palm Beach version of the South Beach diet, Sugar Buster.
Every diet in the world works.
The grapefruit diet, they all work.
Some work faster than others, but there's not one diet that by itself will keep your weight off.
I look at 1,000 to 1,400 calories.
I will tell you.
I will tell you.
I will promise you I'm not going to live the rest of my life like that.
Well, what does that mean?
Math is math.
So what I think I'm going to do this time, I'm joking about giving myself four years to gain it back.
What I'm going to try to do this time is do this diet that I'm on now three or four days a week, and then the other three or four, you know, go to town.
Because just what you eat in one day is not going to affect you.
It's a succession of days and weeks, one way or the other, that lead to failure or success.
They're going to mix them up.
That's the one thing I have not tried.
So I like this one.
I'm not hungry that much.
That's an amazing thing to me.
It's cut the appetite as well.
Yeah, this business is stomach shrinks.
That's another thing the thin crowd tells you.
Oh, yeah, stomach shrinks.
That's why you're not eating.
No, it has nothing to do with it.
Stomach is the stomach.
It's not empty.
It can be no bigger than a finger, but I mean, it doesn't shrink.
You can stretch it out in one meal, folks, believe me, and get it back to where it was.
Appetite's a function of blood sugar, primarily, particularly in people who have a tendency to overweight.
And therefore, what you eat can make you hungrier, like the old candy bar story.
You eat a candy bar, nothing has candy bars here, and a half hour later you're hungry.
It's because of blood sugar, whether you're hungry or not.
And you talk to some people, they'll tell you, I never get full.
I don't care what I eat.
And that's brain chemistry.
That's just different from person to person to person.
But don't tell me that you're losing it too fast.
You're going to put it back on.
There's so many myths associated with this.
Anyway, when we come back, I'm going to get some phone calls because I have had diarrhea of the mouth this show, this whole show.
Not that it hasn't been interesting.
I know it has.
It was compelling and spellbinding, actually.
But we'll go to the phones.
We've got some audio sound bites.
We'll get to the John Edwards and Elizabeth situation with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes Last Night, the Iranians' kidnapping of the 15 Brits.
I really don't want to talk about Chuck Hagel, but you got to hear what he had to say.
There's lots of exciting stuff out there.
So we'll get to all of that plus your phone calls next, right after this.
Hi, welcome back, Yellow Rush Bull, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
The only expert that ever appears on this show is me, Sedalia?
California or Missouri?
Oh, well, Alan, where are you?
Alan, hello.
Testing 1-2.
Hello, yes.
Mahara Rushi.
Yeah, Sedalia, Missouri.
Sedalia, Missouri.
That's what I thought.
Yeah, I know.
Hold on, the famous and popular Missouri State Fair.
Oh, my gosh.
It's, yeah, the fairgrounds are about five blocks from here.
It's really cool.
Yep, yep.
You got a Malone's Taffy and all that.
The only place you can get it is state fairs.
Yeah, I always go for the corn dogs.
But I called because you started off today talking about what you saw on the Discovery Channel and all that.
And I had a question for you.
There were two things I was going to ask you about, but the question was, I keep hearing a statistic that man-made carbon dioxide emissions, whatever, are about 4% of the total that's actually emitted by termites or volcanoes or whatever.
That's true.
And that includes every time we exhale.
If we all stopped breathing, we could eliminate maybe 1%, 2% of the carbon dioxide emissions, and the rest of it is our automobiles and smokestacks and SUVs and incandescent light bulbs and whatever else.
But okay, if that's true, if 4% of the total is caused by man, and if you think that maybe the United States man-made total that we produce is maybe 25% of what the rest of the people on earth produce, that would mean that if you completely overnight eliminated the United States emissions of carbon dioxide, that you would only reduce the man-made, you would only reduce the total by 1%.
That's exactly right.
They would totally devastate the world's economy in the process.
Well, what do you think the objective is?
Well, yeah, there's not devastate the world's economy, devastate ours.
What do you think the objective is?
You're on the right track here, pal.
Well, if the United States stops going to work pretty darn soon, they're going to run out of cornflakes and everything else.
It's not going to happen.
In fact, the story that I cited that was in the New York Post yesterday by Bjorn Lumborg has a little chart.
You know, everybody's saving grace, everybody's panacea is the Kyoto Protocol, which has guidelines for countries around the world signatories to reduce their carbon emissions.
And there's a chart that shows rising carbon emissions with Kyoto and without.
And the Kyoto protocol would, the reduction would be insignificant.
It's so small the two lines on the graph barely separate.
All of this, all of this is a hoax and a myth.
It may be warming, and we may be in some small way contributing to it.
But the idea that we are causing the destruction of the planet, like Al Gore in this movie, shows Greenland breaking up.
He says, If Greenland happened to break up and sink, sea levels would rise and there would be no more Manhattan.
Well, yeah, that might be true if it happened, but there's nobody saying it's going to happen.
And Al Gore doesn't say he just wants the picture to scare everybody who sees the movie and think that it's happening.
There's so much subterfuge and deceit in this whole argument that it's a crying shame.
But people have this psychological belief or desire to believe that they are this powerful and that we are oriented toward evil and that and we are committing sin, but there is salvation, and that is little curly-cued light bulbs.
What?
Maharashi.
Choke, you watch this series and you will realize on discovery, you watch this, all different light bulbs in the world would not have one.
It's absurd.
The whole thing's absurd.
What's the second thing you wanted to ask me?
Well, you've inspired me to learn a bit about the sun.
And, well, I started off researching it, and it's just more unbelievable and more they actually don't know what it is.
I mean, physicists say there's solid, liquid, and gas, and then there's this stuff called plasma, which is what the sun is made out of.
It's electrically charged atomic particles.
It conducts electricity and it conducts magnetism tremendously.
There's an article in the National Geographic July of 2004 that talks about the sun, and it just is unbelievably strange.
Well, here's what you have to do.
The point is, you're not a missionary.
You want to go out there, you want to persuade people.
And you guys hear the static on the liners of just me.
Just me.
So you go out there and you want to become an evangel on all this because you now believe it.
There's one simple question, maybe two, that you can ask people about the sun.
And actually, not a question, just the point that's made in the first episode called Pole to Pole of this whole HD discovery or discovery HD channel on planet Earth.
And that is, without the sun, there's nothing here.
There is no life.
There's no energy.
The sun is the sole source.
We have no control over the sun.
We can't get farther from it.
We can't make it cool.
The idea that we, all of humanity, with our light bulbs and our SUVs, have any effect on the sun is absurd.
Second thing is this.
I do not think the human mind, maybe Einstein and a few physicists, Stephen Hawking.
Other than that, I don't think the average human mind is capable of comprehending the kind of power contained in our sun, which is a little star.
How many billions of years has it been burnt?
We cannot comprehend what makes this possible.
We can't comprehend that kind of concentrated energy source that will not burn out for more years than the human mind is capable of calculating.
And once you understand that whether this all was created, as I happen to believe, or whether it's just the result of some giant coincidence, the fact of the matter is we're powerless.
We are no different in the big scheme.
If you go out 3,000 miles in space or more, you look down on a planet, we're no different than the insects.
We're no different than any other living creature.
We have a bigger brain, and we have a little bit more power to have stewardship over what we do.
But in terms of having the ability to impact all this without even trying, that's another thing.
You know, imagine if it's like I once said about the ozone hole.
Everybody was panicked about the ozone hole.
Oh, my God.
Oh, UV rays, we're going to get skin cancer.
Oh, no.
And let's say Ronald Reagan heard about this.
Oh, ozone hole up there?
Cancer?
Great.
Let's make it even bigger so all Democrats get cancer.
So Reagan calls Cap Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, says, Cap, I want you to widen the ozone hole out there.
And Cap says, well, okay, well, look into making the ozone hole bigger.
And then Cap goes and studies it, calls it most brilliant minds in the world.
Okay, we want to make that ozone hole that's out there.
We want to make it even bigger.
We want to move it from Antarctica right over San Francisco and New York and Washington.
Three little holes there with all the UV radiation.
And the scientists have to say, Cap, sorry, I can't do that.
Cap is, well, why not?
I mean, the ozone hole's down there, aren't we, causing it?
No, we're really not.
You know what creates ozone, Cap?
No.
The sun.
That's the sun's interaction with various elements in our atmosphere that create atmospheric ozone.
So if we wanted to eliminate ozone, we'd have to put the sun out.
Now, we don't have a fire truck big enough for that, folks.
We don't have a way to get the fire truck to the sun to put it out.
If we did that, we'd be dead, too.
The idea that we can eliminate the ozone on purpose or that we are doing it on purpose, the idea we're doing it by accident, just living our life.
The idea here that we have been granted, by virtue of our creation, the ability to use our minds to enhance our lifestyles, to make our standard of living even higher.
This is what galls me the most about all this is that the one country and the free people of the world, Western civilizations and democracies, are trying to improve the lifestyles of their people and the standard of living.
That is what's being blamed for destroying the planet.
Do you really believe a loving God would create people who by using what he created in them, an active brain able to advance their own civilization, would destroy this?
Wouldn't it be more likely that the polluters of the world and the people that don't clean up their messes and the people of the third world and dictatorships or don't care about this, where there are three-headed frogs in the rivers?
Wouldn't it be more likely that people making the mess and not cleaning it up would be more responsible for damage than people like us?
It's the other way around, though, when you listen to the lib socialists.
It is our advanced lifestyle.
It's our quest for a better life.
It is our quest to improve standards of living, our quest to grow more food, to have more energy.
That's what's destroying the humbug.
I refuse to believe that that is intellectually or spiritually possible.
That would not be a loving God created human beings that would destroy their planet simply by using their God-given intelligence, tendencies, creativity, and so forth.
Well, what about nukes, Rush?
What about nukes?
Okay, fine, nukes.
Yeah, we can maybe wipe ourselves out or some of ourselves.
We wouldn't destroy the planet.
And whatever we did do it, it would reform and then life would start up all over again.
It's silly.
Besides, we're not going to nuke the whole planet.
Unless the Iranians have a different view, and then, you know, we're screwed anyway.
Back in just a sec.
All right, back to the phones we go.
The number again, 800-282-2882 to Rochester, New York.
John, thank you for waiting.
You're next.
Thank you, Rush, for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
I'd like to comment on the audio clip you played on Friday where Bob Shrum and Chris Matthews shamelessly politicized the Elizabeth Heatherwards cancer situation.
Oh, yeah.
Just a sec here.
Cookie, go grab that bite out of the archives.
I'm not going to, she can't get it immediately, but you've got to hear this again.
Since you've referenced it, I want people to hear it who might not have heard it on Friday.
Go ahead.
What was your comment about it?
Well, in that, you'll see that Mr. Shrum had the chutzpah to lecture us on how the Edwards example represents a wonderful educational opportunity to understand and deal with the cancer situation.
That's not what he said.
He said a country learned more about cancer in one press conference in one day because of the Edwards press conference than anybody has ever known.
And see, this is the problem is the arrogance that I've always described to these people or assigned to them.
The arrogance and condescension.
Only when they talk about something our experts are talking about, everybody else is an idiotic plebe and doesn't understand it.
And so the country was able, whatever it is they happen to do or say, it is instructive.
It is the only thing worth learning and so forth.
And that comes from a conceit and from an arrogance, and I'm glad you caught it.
Well, as a cancer patient of several years, Rush, I fail to understand how going out and shaking a couple thousand hands a day, kissing babies, and hugging strangers, when your immune system is weakened and you probably have a low neutrophile and white blood cell count because of chemotherapy, represents a good example.
I mean, my oncologists encourage me to stay away from my own two grandchildren when they have the sniffles.
They'd be appalled if I was going to go out and wade into a sea of humanity during cough and cold season.
Here's that bite.
Cookie got it quick.
I want, here's the bite.
John, hang on the phone there.
This is what he's referring to.
This is Bob Shrum from Thursday night last week with Chris Matthews.
Now America's different.
And I believe that today people got more education about cancer and how to deal with cancer in one day than they have very often over a long period of time.
Whatever you think of Edwards, whether people vote for him or don't vote for him, whether they vote for Obama or Hillary, there's going to be a tremendous education in breast cancer and cancer generally, how to deal with it.
Which is sophistry.
People like you who have cancer, and you said that you've had it for years?
Four years now.
Four years.
What did you learn that you didn't know from that press conference?
The idea that anything was taught, the idea that people who have gone through this, who have, my mother died of cancer.
Edwards' press conference taught me nothing about it.
You know, that's just that there's just the arrogance and condecision.
It is basically saying to people like you that whatever you've learned or whatever you've done and however you're dealing with it, doesn't matter.
Edwards and his wife, they're the lesson teachers.
Rush, the statement you made on Friday hit the nail right on the head that most people, when they're faced with this type of personal crisis, have a tendency to turn to God and turn to their family and loved ones.
And we also look upon every additional day as a gift, and we try to live it to the fullest, surrounded by the people we love.
And I, for one, would not squander that gift on a campaign trail surrounded by strangers.
Well, you know, I also said that political people are different.
And you say that you turn to God, and I've heard that from my mother, did every people that I know that have gotten cancer turned to God.
But I think, I think, well, I've got a couple sound bites here.
I'm going to use the occasion of your call to use these soundbites because I think that it demonstrates what I also said on Friday: that political people, their quest, the political quest, is their religion in a sense.
It's what animates them.
It's what motivates them, it gives them drive, and it's that from which they take their identity.
Rush, I'd like to say one thing.
My problem is not with the Edwards.
They have the right to make any kind of personal decision.
Exactly.
That's what I was going to say.
My problem is with these liberal pundits who seem to see everything, including a personal crisis, through a prism of politics, and then they spin it for a political advantage.
I think that is about the lowest form of political discourse there is.
You have hit the nail on the head, and we have some sound bites to demonstrate this very thing, as we did last Friday, starting with Howard Feynman and everybody else, with the disclaimer, you know, I really shouldn't talk about this, but this is really, I mean, they're going to get sympathy, and this is really going to, you know, the Edwards campaign is going to get a little kick from this.
They were all analyzing it, especially at a press conference, in terms of how good it was politically.
And of course, Howard Feynman said, it's a 10-strike.
They couldn't have done this any better, as though it was, you know, political things are calculated.
That's one of the problems with politics.
People calculate their words.
They calculate their actions.
They plan them out.
So if you're going to credit what the Edwards did as great political theater, it was just that.
And I found it abhorrent that everything like this in the political world is looked at through strictly a political prism.
John, thanks much for the call.
Let's start at the top with audio soundbite number one.
This is what John just referred to me saying on last Friday's program.
Now, let me say something that might be accused of cynicism.
What is their religion?
I don't doubt they're religious people, but we talked about this.
Political people are different than you and I.
And, you know, most people, when told a family member has been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has, they turn to God.
The Edwards turned to the campaign.
Their religion's politics and the quest for the White House.
And it's not just with them.
I mean, it's part and parcel of political people.
Now, here's a little CI Told You So.
This is from 60 Minutes.
Katie Couric interviewing the Edwards last night.
She says, can you describe the decision-making process for me in terms of what we do now?
Do we stay in?
Do we suspend it temporarily?
Do I call the whole thing off?
Do we call the whole thing off?
How did that unfold with you?
She said to me, this is what we believe in.
This is what we're spending our lives doing.
It's where our heart and soul is, and we cannot stop.
You heard this on Friday from Moi before Edwards said it himself.
Just confirmed my analysis of what political people who are different than you and I, how they look at things.
He just made my point for me right there.
But that, of course, is not our stopping point.
Let's go back.
Bill Schneider on a San Francisco TV station on Friday calling me a cynic for saying that Edwards was trying to jumpstart his campaign.
Well, that's pure cynicism.
You know, there'll always be cynics in politics.
This was a difficult decision which he reached in collaboration with his wife, and I think she will be an asset.
Everybody was out there looking at it this way.
Everybody from the drive-by media was examining this in a political sense.
Just like when Tim Johnson had his cerebral hemorrhage.
Oh, no, what's this going to do to the Democrat majority?
They all fretted.
Oh, no.
Is this going to be a problem with Lieberman?
Not sure he's a demo.
Oh, that's all they, well, not all, but that was the primary focus of the drive-by's attention when poor old Tim Johnson had a cerebral hemorrhage.
Now, here comes Katie's question that I guess it's one of mine.
She said, well, she hears the exchange.
I'm not going to read the question.
I'll play Katie asking the question.
Politics can be a cynical business.
Some have suggested that you're capitalizing on this.
There's not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer.
Not a one.
If you're considering doing it, don't do it.
Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us.
That would be an enormous mistake.
The vote for the presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it.
But I think every single candidate for president, personal lives, that indicates something about what kind of human being they are.
And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in, to look at what kind of human beings each of us are and what kind of president we'd make.
Let's see.
I think even Katie was taken aback in this next bite.
Her question was, I guess some people would say that there's some.
By the way, I made this point at the beginning of the program, and I know a lot of people are going, hey, you know what?
She really hit them with tough questions.
Yes, but every tough question was prefaced with some people are saying, some people say, and if I were Edwards, I was, well, who?
Who's saying it?
You're saying it, aren't you, Katie?
Aren't you?
I mean, you're the one asking me the question.
Why don't you have the guts to put it in your voice and blame it on these other people?
Who are these people?
That's how I deal.
I get this question all the time.
Some people say that you're ex.
I always say, well, who?
Who are they?
And what you find out, the journalist is not talking about anybody else.
They're just talking about themselves.
Anyway, Katie's question, I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground.
You don't have to necessarily stay at home and feel sorry for yourself and do nothing.
But if given a finite, a possibly finite period of time on the planet, being on the campaign trail away from my children a lot of time and sort of pursuing this goal, it's not necessarily what I would do.
I've often said that the most important thing you can give your children are wings because you're not going to always be able to bring food to the nest.
Sometime they're going to have to be able to fly by themselves.
They're six and eight.
They're still baby birds.
They are still baby birds.
But they've got to start learning to fly.
They're not ready to fly on their own yet, but they got to start learning.
AB, we are talking about six and eight-year-olds here.
We'll be back, folks.
Excellence in broadcasting rolls on.
Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light and living legend.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes to Heartland, Connecticut and Matt.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Hi, Megaditto's Rush.
Thank you.
Very well.
Never better.
Good.
Hey, a little comment on the John Edwards thing.
I have just a little bit different take.
It's almost like part of their strategy is to give Edwards some immunity from criticism, much like the Michael J. Fox issue with stem cell research.
If his wife is suffering from cancer, and we all pity her for that, you know, I think they might think it would generate enough sympathy to where people would be afraid or ashamed to try to criticize him or to contest the issue.
Well, you know, look, I think it's true.
I mean, if you're Barack Obama or Mrs. Bill Clinton, how do you attack Edwards now?
His wife has cancer.
Simply, you can't.
Clinton Inc. would find a way, but it just isn't going to happen.
I don't think that – I can't believe that's a calculation.
I can't believe they had a conversation.
Look, Elizabeth, I want to stay in.
Yes, John, I think you should because now you can't be criticized.
Man, if that's part of the calculation, then I would be stunned.
I would surprise.
I wouldn't compare this.
Michael J. Fox is a different situation.
Michael J. Fox wasn't running for anything.
Michael J. Fox was used by a couple of politicians.
And the whole purpose of putting him in commercials with the symptoms of his Parkinson's on full display was to inoculate him from any criticism because he's a victim.
There's no question.
He could say whatever he wants politically, and nobody could challenge it because you just don't, I mean, he's got to hold out hope for his cure and so forth.
And that's what I railed against, and of course, caught a lot of grief over.
And once you enter the political fray, I think you're subject to criticism.
And in time, when Edwards starts talking about issues again, that criticism or disagreement, debating, whatever you want to call it, will commence again.
But there's going to be a grace period here, obviously.
Right.
Well, that's what I was getting at, Rush.
I don't think it was the calculation or the main point of bringing her out publicly, but I think it's an ancillary aid to his campaign to at least, if not jump-start it, at least maybe protect him, give him a little bit of time, buy him some time to get his issues out, maybe immune from criticism, and see where it goes from there.
In the end, I agree with you.
I don't think that's going to save his whole campaign.
Well, no, his campaign, if he's going to win this, I mean, I think he knows he's not going to get nomination based on the sympathy of voters.
Because the primaries are a long time down the road.
Look, I don't know.
I could be wrong about that.
I don't know these people.
I have a little different take on this.
I really have, when I look at this, I cannot tell you the degree of sympathy I have, but it would probably surprise you why.
But I have, I just, this is just, to me, it is so, so obvious that there are just certain things missing in this guy's life that I better be careful here.
But look at Matt, I appreciate the phone call.
Here's John in Washington, D.C., our nation's capital, where soon everybody will be able to have a gun.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
I hope you're right about the gun.
Yeah, I do too.
Yeah, Carl Rowan, a big liberal newspaper man, he had an illegal gun and used it, but that was okay.
I remember that.
I remember that.
Yeah.
He shot a teenager.
Yeah, that's right.
And he demanded to be exempted from the law because he's a special person or some such thing.
I forget what it was, but you're absolutely right.
Columnist for the Washington Post.
Oh, yeah.
Hey, I want to say the obvious.
I'm not that smart as Bob Schrum, who is probably the most unsuccessful political analyst going.
He hasn't won in years.
But for him to side with John Edwards is probably appropriate because John Edwards is a loser.
He's acting like he's got a chance in this.
He doesn't even show up on the radar screen in any of the polls.
Holy Toledo!
Have you no mercy, sir?
Oh, no.
Dare you call here and call him a loser?
He's a loser.
He's wasted his wife's life on a losing campaign.
What the hell's wrong with him?
This is crazy.
He couldn't get re-elected senator in his own state.
I understand that, but how do you know his wife is being dragged into this kicking in the crew?
Because she's stupid.
She's a big, bad frog, and she just looks up like he's a movie frog.
All right, free speech is one thing, but I mean, this is well, there's all kinds of opinions and attitudes out there, and Snerdley will no doubt find them.
I just, I don't, I'm going to take a break.
I'm just going to take a break here.
I must admit, I am still struck.
Even as Katie Couric was taken aback when the Edwards said that, well, you know, as far as spending time with our kids, birds got to learn to fly sometime.
They have to be able to fly by themselves.
And Katie said, look, they're six and eight.
They're still baby birds.
And Elizabeth Edwards said they're still baby birds.
And then John Edwards himself chimed in with, well, but they've got to start learning to fly.
and they're not ready to fly on their own yet, but they've got to start learning to fly.
I tell you, as I said mere moments ago, that evokes in me a tremendous amount of sympathy.
And I'll just go ahead and tell you why, because it appears to me that there's one thing in this guy's life, and that's running for president.
Without that, it doesn't see me as a life or nothing in it that's worth spending some time on anyway.
I mean, I mean, it's sad.
It's just very sad.
▲
Export Selection