All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:00
April 2, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Time once again for yet another excursion into broadcast excellence.
I am Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist, and by virtue of a consensus of the American people, the most listened-to radio talk show host.
Well, the most listened to media figure in America, as well as the most accurate and the most correct.
Again, by virtue of consensus of the American people making this the largest media program of its kind.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to join us, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
A large global warming stack today.
We've got a call fit to be tied about last night's Planet Earth series on the Discovery Channel.
And I know I got a bunch of emails today.
You recommended this.
You recommended this.
So I watched it for the first time last night.
All I got was Sigourney Weaver, who's the narrator.
All I got was a bunch of global warming propaganda.
I couldn't believe that you did that.
Folks, I didn't know this was coming.
First three episodes, it didn't get into this at all.
Last night it was the polar bears, and so we got a little global warming propaganda.
But don't worry, we will deal with it here.
We got an entire global warming stack.
I think that thing grows on its own.
It just Supreme Court has weighed in.
A federal judge has made a ruling.
I have to get the details.
Just giving you a preview.
This is not the global warming update.
No, it's not that story.
A federal judge has cited Al Gore's movie in a legal ruling about man-made global warming.
That is scary, but it is also absolutely ridiculous.
So much for the smartest people among us ending up on the bench.
But here's a great little illustration.
This is an editorial cartoon that ran in the North Carolina Times.
I think it's the North Carolina Times, NC Times, the cartoonist named Thornhill.
And it's got some old geezer here, thin-necked geezer, scratching his chin.
Because in the 70s, I was scared of global cooling.
I was also scared of the population bomb.
And then I was scared of acid rain.
And then I was scared of ozone depletion.
Later, it was Y2K.
I don't know if I have enough scare left in me for global warming.
Meaning, there's always something the left is trying to keep you in chaos and tumult and fear over, such as this.
And this is from of all places, livescience.com.
Study reveals widespread office bully problem.
The office bully has an array of weapons at his disposal, ranging from the subtle silent treatment to the not-so-subtle verbal ridicule, the effects of which can ripple through the workplace.
A new study.
As we breathlessly await the results.
A new study finds that while nearly 30% of U.S. workers have endured a punishing boss or co-worker, many individuals would not label themselves as targets of bullies.
For those who do, not just the bully victim who feels the heat.
Witnesses in nearby cubicles are affected and show an increase in stress and overall dissatisfaction with their jobs.
The prevalence of bullying in the American workplace tops the rates found in Scandinavian countries is on par also with those in Great Britain.
The scientists found.
Prevalence of bullying in the American workplace tops the rates of scandal.
Oh, sorry, read that paragraph.
Here's the survey.
400 U.S. workers who participated, 266 women, 134 men, ranked how often they had experienced a list of 22 negative acts in the past six months on a scale ranging from never to daily.
The participants then read a definition of workplace bullying and were, well, who wrote that and what is it?
We don't know.
And they were asked whether they consider themselves targets of bullies.
Those who answered no were asked if they had witnessed bullying based on the given definition over the past six months.
So there's widespread bullies, widespread bullying problem in the office.
We got the discrimination problem fixed, the glass ceiling problem fixed.
Now we still got to have chaos and tumult in the office.
It's still got to be just tough as hell and get up and go to work.
And how novel is this?
People don't like their boss.
How novel is this that people think their boss is autocratic, overbearing, mean, or what have you?
That's just human nature.
And how many of you employees think your boss is a blithering idiot and you can do three times the job your boss is doing?
That's human nature as well.
Are you saying there aren't bullies in the office myth or limit?
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying it's nothing new.
And of course, the story goes on to say it's an outgrowth of bullying on the playground.
That's where it starts.
Bullying on the playground has consequences, leads to bullying in the office.
What do you, what?
When I say it, no, I'm not.
Snerdley's question is: when you're saying it's human nature, are you saying that there's some validity to it?
My experience, combined with intelligence, intelligence guided by experience, tells me that some bosses are overbearing.
We've all had them.
I've been fired seven times because I confronted bosses like that.
I had one boss as a pathological liar.
It just made things, I couldn't handle it anymore.
I could not handle it.
I said, you know, Jay, I'm not buying any of this.
I'm not buying who you know.
I'm not buying where you've worked.
I'm not buying what you've done.
It's all a bunch of smoke because I talked to one of your supposed best friends who says he never met you.
Two hours later, I got a phone call from the owner of the radio station.
We think that you're having some psychological problems and that you we need to let you go.
It's like I can for it.
These things are out there.
I'm just saying that the word bully is a new attachment to this, and it has a political context because all this anti-bullying legislation in schools and on the playground, and it's like everything else with the left.
There's an end game to this, and it's always oriented toward people of achievement, people of success, people who've reached the highest rung of the ladder at whatever they're choosing to do.
There's something wrong with them, and it's just not fair.
It's not fair that anybody should have a boss.
Everybody should be equal.
That's where all this is leading to.
But, yeah, I mean, the idea that there are bosses, how many people don't like their boss?
How many people think they can do it?
There's nothing new here.
My only point with all this is that all these newfound social problems that seem to never exist before have existed since the first human being walked around in a Garden of Eden.
There is nothing new in any of this.
And yet, all these idiots in this country, these people, sponges that soak it all up, think that something's happening that's never happened in human history before, and it's a problem, and it's bad, and it's going to get worse.
And they end up being in angst all the time and chaos and tumult.
And furthermore, what does it do?
Ultimately, it makes everybody feel like they're a victim.
It makes everybody feel like they're victimized by somebody or something and creates, you know, all of these excuses for not doing well.
Well, I can't get anywhere.
My boss is a bully.
Well, I can't do that.
I can't achieve.
My boss is jealous.
My boss.
There's nothing new in any of this.
And all of these are obstacles that countless gazillions of people have overcome throughout life in the history of human civilization.
So that's why this study reveals widespread office bully problem.
I know exactly what this is.
I know exactly it's a bunch of liberals behind this, a bunch of panty-waist, limp-wristed, linguiney-spined liberals who are out there trying to work their magic and reorder the basic tenets of human nature, which is largely what a lot of liberalism attempts to do.
Quick time out.
Lots more ahead.
Your phone calls as well after this.
Hang on here, folks.
I'm just waiting for the super duper HB printer to spit something out here.
And here it is, page two.
Hang on, there it is.
Okay.
Now, this is fascinating.
This is Ralph Ryland, a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune.
And get this: only 6% of Korean eighth graders expressed confidence in their math skills compared with 39% of 8th graders in the United States.
This, according to the latest annual study on education by the Brown Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
But there's a problem with this.
And the problem is this: the surveyed Korean students are better at math than the American students, yet only 6% of Korean 8th graders expressed confidence in their skills, yet 39% of American kids, oh, yeah, hell yes, better than anybody else in math.
I'm cool, I'm great.
The Korean kids are uncertain, they're unsure, but they're good, in short, while American kids are cocky and dumb, which is not exactly a good position for the U.S. to occupy in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Now, Mr. Ryland says that we are in this position, which can be called unskilled self-satisfaction by design.
For those in American education with an aversion to competition, remember a 26-year-old student, a teacher I was telling you about last week, who said, We're pushing these kids too hard, Mr. Limbaugh.
We're pushing them too hard.
They're just making them learn too fast.
We need to slow down.
Remember all that?
For those in American education with an aversion to competition, an aversion to the thought of winners and losers, we can't have that.
We can't have winners and losers.
That's too humiliating to the losers.
So what did we do instead?
We promoted the idea of self-esteem.
We want our students to feel good about themselves, Mr. Limbaugh.
That's right.
We want them to love themselves.
We want them to look in the mirror and say, I'm good.
I'm the best.
Whether they are or not, we want them to have self-esteem, especially we put self-esteem ahead of academic performance.
And of course, when you do that, you just obliterate the whole concept of winners and losers.
Now, personally, folks, I think this leads to the creation of bullies, a bunch of people overconfident about incompetence, people that don't know diddly squat who think they're the greatest thing walking the planet.
It's one of the root causes of bullyism, which I predict will soon be a word in the dictionary.
Rather than seeing self-esteem as something that flows from good performance, American educators made self-esteem the first priority, assuming that good performance would flow from an inflated level of self-satisfaction.
It's like those no-score ball games.
The goal is good feelings.
Everybody plays.
Nobody loses.
Every kid gets a trophy.
It's like the teacher's contracts.
No scorecard, no linking of pay increases to performance, so everybody's a winner.
It's a mindset that sees scorekeeping as too judgmental, too oppressive, too capitalist.
And if you doubt this, don't forget this story.
You know, Sturdley came to me.
He must have been busy screening calls the day we did this story, but this story is three or four weeks old.
Some Seattle grade school has told kids they can't play with Legos anymore because Legos teaches capitalism and ownership, and that's not fair and right.
They're building little kids building little, it might have been kindergarten to first grade.
I forget what it was, but they're building little buildings and cities with their Legos.
And the teachers came and swept them aside, kicked the Legos out of the class.
You can't use that way.
This is teaching capitalism and it's teaching ownership and that's oppression.
And we can't have that.
And so that's the root of this.
Why scorekeeping is too judgmental.
It's too oppressive.
Too capitalist, too likely to deliver inequality and injured self-images, whether it's with pay or on the ball field.
And I'll tell you something else about this.
You see, in liberal worldview, what is the opposite of equality?
The opposite of equality is discrimination.
So if you have a competitive situation, the losers in liberal speak, and in their worldview, are automatically discriminated against.
And liberals will not discriminate.
They just will not.
They can't.
That's the one thing that a liberal will spend the rest of his or her life making sure that nobody ever thinks he or she discriminates against anybody for any reason.
And that's where this tolerance comes from.
They're the most intolerant people on the face of the earth while telling themselves, it's sort of like these kids.
They can't do one math event telling themselves that they're really good at it.
Liberals, by the same token, tell themselves they are the most tolerant among us, and they are intolerant as they can be of anything that makes them uncomfortable.
Any word or sentence or thought that they don't want to hear, they try to squelch it.
All in the name of equality.
Here we go, Mickey in Rockford, Illinois.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Well, it's good afternoon now.
The two words I hate worst of all are progressive, secular progressives, which is what Bill O'Reilly calls them.
And I think they are doing everything they can do to make sure we back away from what's going on in Iran.
Just like if we want to call them hostages, fine.
If they're uncomfortable with that, let's call them detainees.
And then they can have detainees, and we have detainees.
Yeah, same thinking.
It's the same principle.
Doesn't that make us all equal if we have everything the same?
Well, but there's more to it than that.
I mean, that's right.
There's clearly an element here, but you have to understand that in the minds of people, drive-by media, leftists, Democrats, who don't want to call these people hostages, the first thing that governs them is fear.
They are afraid we're going to offend the Iranians.
Again, yes.
Well, we must not say anything that bothers anybody.
And we can't do anything that's provocative because it might start a conflict.
And we might have to say political correctness.
No, but when the conflict's already started, this is what they missed.
The conflict was started by the Iranians in this circumstance.
We're not allowed to call them hostages because that might make the Iranians mad.
But the second thing that's at the root of this is that we don't have any right to criticize the Iranians.
The Iranians are the minority.
The Iranians are a small bunch of backward nomads.
I mean, they live over there in squalid conditions, and they live in the armpit of the world.
They have to live over there in the Middle East, and everybody's gunning for what they've got as oil.
And anything they do to protect themselves and save themselves against these giant imperialist oppressors like us is justified.
They can do anything.
They can break any rule.
They can take hostages.
They can do what we need to find out what it feels like because that's what the left thinks we do all over the world.
This is minor.
15 hostages?
Why, they'll cite story after story of how we've wiped out millions around the planet in service to our own power and so forth.
People are just, they are perverted and they're sick.
And this is why, if they ever truly wrest control of the national defense of this country, national security, as they are currently constituted, we face huge doo-do.
This is Aaron in the Bay Area.
Nice to have you on the program with us.
Welcome.
Hey, how are you doing, Rush?
This is a long time listener, first-time caller.
I want to send you some mega datos too.
Thank you, sir.
The question that I have is: is the fact that Iran is sieging to Euros instead of dollars the reason why we want to start something with Iran?
Since the Euro has a 20 to 25% appreciated value relative to the dollar, it's like a petro dollar war versus a petrol euro.
We won't be able to expand the credit via U.S. Treasury bills.
Well, you know, I've always said that you can't take the, if you follow the money, that you'll often find the answer to a lot of questions that seem to be hard to answer or have no answer.
In this case, I wouldn't rule it out, but with this administration, I really don't think that's the primary factor.
I think the fact that the Iranians are nuking up and they're threatening to blow a bunch of people off the planet, and they seem to be unstable and irresponsive, unresponsive to any efforts of the so-called international community to get them to play within the rules of civilized nations.
I think that's the largest factor in animating our policy toward them.
As far as whether they switch to the Euro rather than the dollar, maybe I really don't know.
It'd be a wild guess.
Secondary reason, if anything.
Okay, well, that's just my question.
I appreciate your calling.
Happy to answer some of these intricate international finance questions.
I, too, by virtue of consensus of the American people, am an expert on everything.
And anybody who denies that is a rush denier.
Well, it's out there, folks.
I got the largest audience.
I've had it for almost 16 years now, and that's a consensus.
The American people have made me their authority in great numbers.
We'll be back in a second.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, the latest opinion audit from the Sullivan group, auditing political opinions.
I remain documented to be almost always right, 98.6% of the time.
Columbus, Ohio, this is Dan.
You're up, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, first I have to say, go buck eyes tonight.
But secondly, you said you've been number one radio show, radio program for, what'd you say, 16, 17 years?
Yeah, 17 years.
I've been on the air 18 and a half.
I have been listening to you literally forever.
Who did you take over number one from?
Who was number one?
Well, the reason I wanted to take your call is because I saw that up there, and it's actually a good question.
And I think being truthful here, there was no number one in the sense that I am now.
You'd have to go back to radio prior to television, to the Jack Benny days, and when all people had was radio to find an audience of this saws.
When I started in 1988, there wasn't a national radio program.
The national radio programs for Midnight Six, well, there were some at night.
I mean, you had Sally Jesse Raphael and other people, but I mean, their audience was tiny.
I guess you'd have to say at some point they would have been number one by default.
But their audiences back then were, it might have been significant, but they were nothing like the audience here today.
So in the modern era, there probably hasn't been one this far.
So you're saying if I look up number one in the dictionary, there'll be a picture of you there.
Except, you know, I don't like to use that phrase because it's become a cliché.
And besides, the people that write the dictionaries and all that are rush deniers.
Oh, okay.
So you wouldn't see my picture next to definition of number one in the dictionary.
But actually, it's a good question.
And I'm glad you asked.
Speaking of this, I got an email.
To me, this is also an interesting question.
Last week I received the William F. Buckley Award, the very first one bestowed for media excellence by the Media Research Center in Washington on Thursday night.
And I spent a lot of time on the program Friday explaining my pride and what an honor it was to win this and some of my experiences in meeting Mr. Buckley.
He's one of my idols.
And a guy writes me a note.
His name is David Allen.
He says, Rush, you've told us a lot about Bill Buckley over the years, and I've read his column fairly regularly, only recently.
He's obviously a great thinker and he's mastered a language.
He was a courageous pioneer, but I'd like to know what it is about him that means so much to you.
Hope to hear from you.
Thanks, David Allen from West Friendship in Maryland.
And I thought it's a good question.
It's a good question because I've probably made the mistake of assuming that most in this audience can trace a relationship back to the 50s and 60s like I can with Bill Buckley.
And I realize that a lot of people who've only recently been interested in or turned on to programs like this featuring subject matter like we face might not have anywhere near the breadth of understanding of the role Bill Buckley has played in a lot of people's lives and in the so-called conservative movement.
But that's not the real reason.
I mean, that, of course, goes without saying.
Now, this may be tough to explain, but I believe that human beings are born and it is assumed that they have a static brain, that they have a static IQ, that you're born with whatever ability to learn that you have.
And once you've reached that, you've maxed it out.
In other words, that you cannot exercise your brain.
You can build up your body.
You can change your body by gaining weight, losing weight, lifting weights, working out, whatever you want to do.
But your brain is your brain.
A lot of people think their brain's the brain and their personality is their personality.
And whatever they are is what they are.
And I happen to disagree with that aspect about the brain precisely because I think that I've actually gotten not more informed and more educated because that goes without saying.
We all get more educated as we get older.
Life experiences teach us things that we haven't experienced before.
That would qualify as an education.
It's another thing whether you learn from it or not, but clearly it happens.
And I think people over the course of their lives not only become more educated, they obviously become more informed.
But there's more to it than that.
And I think the best way I could explain the effect that my father and Bill Buckley had on me was I wanted to be smarter than I thought I was.
And that was The primary inspiration from being exposed to people like that, not just in terms of learning the language, but being able to use it.
And I'm nowhere near Buckley's League.
I didn't have an objective to do that.
I didn't want to write a column with two or three words that nobody ever heard of before and had to go to the dictionary.
And that wasn't that.
It was just in a means of expressing myself, a means of being able to, everybody has a lot of thoughts, but how many people are able to actually put them in words in a cogent, understandable, and even persuasive way.
And I have, over the course of my life, I've been persuaded, I have been influenced, and my mind, in my estimation, now, there might be brain scientists, neurologists who think I'm all wet, and I could be on this, but I think you hear they do brain exercises for people who have Alzheimer's and this sort of thing.
And I don't think that they're casually mentioning that.
I think there is a way to do it.
I'm just telling you, Mr. Buckley and my dad interested me in my brain growing, in my ability to comprehend and my ability to absorb and retain, as in my memory and this sort of thing.
And I know this kind of thing is possible.
We all start out as skulls full of mush.
I mean, by definition, we start out not knowing anything.
And the moment we're born, and we start absorbing things even before we know we're absorbing them.
And we end up going to school, and we all end up being educated.
We are able to be taught.
I just think that a lot of people think that whatever their brain is, their IQ or their intelligence, they probably think that's it, that there's not any more they can do with it, what they're born with, the brain being such a mystery.
And what this led to in my case was almost a total lack of satisfaction at the first explanation I ever heard for anything.
Some call that skepticism, but it wasn't skepticism, and it wasn't distrust, it was a realization that there can't be just simply one source for all knowledge or for a point of view or what have you, other than me on this program for you.
And that's where the exercise of my brain has come in.
But when you're around people smarter than you, some people get intimidated, and some people say, oh, I'll never be able to do that.
I didn't look at it that way.
I was around smart people, people that I admired, people whose ability to learn and absorb and be vastly educated over a wide variety of things inspired me.
Buckley is really a Renaissance man.
The thing that he's not had until lately.
I don't know of anyone whose life has been spent more actively in both recreation and sybaritic pursuits, serious pursuits.
I don't know anybody.
I cannot imagine William F. Buckley Jr. in his prime or even prior to that having downtime.
Everything was in his life was pursuit of something pleasurable or something important or what have you.
You'd never describe him as lazy.
He is someone who made it a point to get as much out of the opportunity of life as possible in the realm in which he worked, the people he was able to meet, the things that he learned to do, piloted a sailboat around the world, or maybe just across the Atlantic, I'm not sure, and almost lost it all during a storm.
Is an expert on countless any there's not one subject you can bring up when talking to him.
Doesn't know a lot about it.
Not that he's just heard about it.
Former CIA agent, just tireless, indefatigable.
And those are the kind of things that inspired me.
So I'm thankful for the question to be able to answer this because, like anything else, I was assuming, like a lot of people, I was assuming that everybody was familiar with his life and his history and his work as I've been since, I mean, that time I was, I started reading his columns in the newspaper to St. Louis, Globe Democrat, which no longer exists when I was 10 or 11 years old.
And I remember being mesmerized by him, not just because of the vocabulary used and not just because of the everybody talks about Reagan and supply-side economics.
I first learned it from Bill Buckley in a newspaper column when I'm a teenager.
His explanation just made total sense.
He was bouncing off something that had happened in the news.
I forget what it was, of course, from way back then.
There was also a book that he edited called Have You Ever Seen a Dream Walking?
And it featured essays by a number of people he had known, Whitaker Chambers and so forth over the course of his life.
And that book, and I've told him this, and it was not a big book.
I mean, it's an obscure.
I don't know if you could even find it anymore.
My father happened to have it in his dusty old library.
And I would go through this thing.
And when I first was exposed to it in 19, what would it be?
Well, I went back to radio after five years at the Kansas City Royals, and I was doing commentary on KMBZ in Kansas City.
It was causing all kinds of ruckus because nobody was expressing political opinions.
This was a primary campaign of 1984.
So this would be the spring of 1984, and Hawkeye cauckey were coming up, and newspaper critics were writing about how mean and harsh and intolerant.
And I was just non-plussed.
What is all this?
I'm just telling people what I think.
It was so unheard of then, particularly on radio, that it caused a lot of dander.
And just by happenstance, one weekend I was home in Cape Girardea visiting, and I ran across this book, and the first essay I turned to was an essay by Whitaker Chambers, who was analyzing somebody who was too harsh and vitriolic in their writings and therefore not accomplishing things in the realm of persuasion.
It didn't fit my situation to a T, but it was eye-opening.
And it's these kinds of things that, and I was always oriented back then, even then, doing what I'm doing today, but doing it effectively, not just doing it to make people mad, not just doing it to get people or to get noticed, because anybody can do that, and it doesn't take any talent.
So, you know, learning to tell people why I think what I think rather than just soak it up like a sponge and repeat that without any backup or something, all these things and much, much more would have to be the primary reasons why Buckley has meant so much.
And he never knew any of this.
I mean, I didn't meet Bill Buckley until 1991 or 92.
He gets embarrassed when I tell him this stuff.
And he gets embarrassed when I imitate him.
The National Review 50th anniversary said, you go up there and no imitations.
And I said, all right, fine, I won't imitate you.
But he's a prince of a guy.
It's one of these people.
I'm sure you know them.
You go into the room with them and sit there and don't have to do anything for three hours, and you've just spent over a semester in a classroom.
Equivalent.
Quick timeout.
Back with more after this.
Stay with us.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
This is Gina in Laurel, Maryland.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Mega military dittos to you.
I appreciate that.
Thanks much.
My mother, I love her deeply, but she's an ultra Long Island liberal.
And she actually would vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.
Yeah, there's some women like that, but there are quite a few women that are going to vote against her for the same reason.
She's got a lot of negatives out there.
Her disapproval numbers are high.
We went through the polling data on this last week, or maybe it was the week before.
But don't make the assumption.
I'm sure you're talking about Long Island.
You're talking about Northeast Coast, you know, Manhattan, New York crowd.
Of course, they're going to vote for Hillary without question simply because she is a woman.
That's a given.
Definitely, definitely.
She actually mentioned in a conversation we have that she would vote for Condi Rice as well.
Just because she's a woman?
Just because she's a woman.
What does that tell you?
You name one thing those two women have in common.
No, she wouldn't tell me why either.
They both don't even wear dresses.
Well, of course, she didn't tell you why because she can't.
No.
She just thinks she's a woman.
Well, how did you turn out to be not like your mom?
I don't know.
I was definitely a Democrat by default for a while.
I've only been listening to your show for about a year, and you've turned me into a very conservative Republican.
How did you find the show?
I found a show.
I listened to WTOP, and I just found the show by default, honestly.
I go to the other side.
I'm not on WTOP.
I'm on WMAL.
Oh, WMAL.
That's what I meant.
W-M-A-L.
The other one is my traffic channel.
But, yeah, she hates you pretty much.
Yeah, but she probably can't tell you why.
No, she's never listened to your show.
I try to get her to.
She won't.
That would be fun.
With you, though.
Just tell her this.
Does she believe in global warming?
Oh, of course, yes.
All right.
Well, tell her.
And make it a point to do this.
Next time you talk to her, say, have you listened to Rush yet?
No, no, I wouldn't.
Rush is the most authoritative media figure in the country.
And she'll freak out.
And she's, how do you know?
Well, by consensus, the consensus, the American people, he's got the largest audience.
And you don't have the largest audience or anything unless people agree.
And just use that consensus.
Just mom, it's just like the consensus of scientists who say we got global warming.
A consensus of the American people claim Rush is right, and he's the most listener.
He's the best.
Right?
I know.
Just see what she says.
It'll probably go over her head.
I will.
I will definitely do that.
Well, give it a shout.
Report back.
I will.
I also want to give a shout out to my grandparents.
I know they listen to you every day in upstate New York, the Coughlins.
They've been listening to you for a very long time.
Well, except for your mom, it's a family affair.
I know.
Well, she's devastated that she has three children in the military.
No wonder.
No wonder she's devastated.
She has.
No, she's proud of us, but I think deep down inside, she doesn't know what happened.
I would hope so.
You had to be joking about it.
No, definitely.
And I have a future Rush listener here, Chrome Cruncher.
So we're a Rush baby.
He is definitely a Rush baby.
In the popular parlance.
Well, how old's a rush baby?
He's 20 months.
20 months.
Yep, running around.
Around the radio a lot.
Definitely.
Yep.
Kid's going to surprise you.
Yeah, I hope so.
Mark my words.
Gina, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
All right.
We've got fastest three hours in media.
Two of them are going by.
One more to go.
Sit tight.
We'll be right back.
I just got an email note from somebody.
You ever get tired of talking about yourself?
No, is the honest answer.
Like everybody else, I love talking about myself.
Try to limit it as much as possible.
One hour to go, the global warming stack is coming up, along with some cool sound bites and whatever excitement lurks behind the blinking yellow lights on the phone system.
All that right after this.
▲
Export Selection