Rush Limbaugh Program - July 23, 2007, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:30

July 23, 2007, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	And greetings to your music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
	Time for broadcast excellence here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	I, of course, a highly trained broadcast specialist, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
	Great to be back with you, folks.
	Told you to be back today, and I'm back.
	And we have a full week of broadcast excellence today.
	Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
	The email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
	I see the president had a colonoscopy while I was away and had five polyps removed.
	Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Carl Levin, and Dick Durbin are all doing fine after being removed from the president's colon.
	Well, it's incredible what's going on.
	Folks, they're starting to talk impeachment seriously now.
	It was Feingold yesterday talking about censure and all that.
	I predicted this to you before the 2004 elections.
	I said, if the Democrats lose this, mark my words, they're going to start impeachment proceedings at some point.
	Talk about it, yeah, and get going and censure.
	And then Feingold was on Meet the Press yesterday, and he was, he's deadly serious about this.
	Of course, the drive-bys are as excited as they can be about this.
	Constitutional crisis here supposedly being set up.
	And we'll talk about that as the program unfolds today.
	However, a big Democrat debate tonight, it's being called the CNN YouTube debate tonight.
	And everybody is wondering whether or not, because Obama is going to have to do something.
	Because Hillary, she's not faltering at all.
	Her flip-flop positions on the war are not hurting her at all.
	Obama's raising.
	How about this money?
	Democrats lead by $100 million in the money race in terms of donations.
	Where are all the stories in the drive-by media about fat cat liberals and fat cat Democrats?
	And have you noticed, by the way, that since the Democrats are leading in the money race, why there's nothing wrong with the campaign finance system?
	Oh, no.
	I mean, it's perfect.
	I mean, it's working exactly as planned now.
	But when the Republicans lead in fundraising, well, we need campaign finance reform.
	This is not right.
	This is not fair.
	We Democrats, there are more Democrats than Republicans.
	We ought to be leading.
	Now they are, and there's nothing wrong.
	Everything is just fine.
	At any rate, Obama is going to have to do something.
	And this is being touted here as the first real debate.
	And so people are wondering, are the gloves going to come off during the debate tonight?
	It's in Charleston, South Carolina.
	There was a little bit of a dust up on CNN yesterday, Wolf Blitzer's show, and if there's any indication, if that's any indication, and the gloves may in fact come off tonight.
	And of course, since this is the first YouTube debate where the internet is going to be involved, we have the obligatory story about those who are now left out of campaigning.
	Yes, millions of Americans who can't afford computers, let alone internet access, are being left out of the 2008 presidential campaign.
	Monday night's Democrat candidate debate in Charleston is a perfect example of the digital divide that leaves poor Americans unable to take part in the process.
	The Washington Report, Washington Post, big story today, co-sponsored by the website YouTube.
	Questions for the debate have to be sent via the internet in video form.
	I've got some of these questions that these people have sent in.
	And if they use any of them, it's going to be hilarious.
	You know what's striking?
	The people at CNN have been looking at some of these questions coming in from YouTube.
	And you know what's striking?
	Hardly any questions about Iraq.
	Hardly any questions.
	Nobody can believe that.
	Why, this is the people.
	YouTube is the people.
	Where are the questions at Iraq?
	There are very few of these that have been posed so far.
	And it backs up what I've told you: that this is something that's been way overblown in terms of the attitudes and the opinions of the American people.
	Now, about this internet divide.
	There's always this is this is another one of these obligatory stories, the haves and have-nots.
	We've got a new innovation, and yet some Americans can't participate.
	All they got to do is turn on television.
	They don't have to have a computer to follow a campaign.
	The absurdity of that assertion.
	But whose fault is it that they don't have computers?
	Whose fault is it they can't afford computers?
	Well, obviously, it's our fault.
	Those of us who do have computers, it's not fair.
	And get this: you know what the Gore tax is?
	Remember the Gore tax, folks?
	That's on every phone bill in this country.
	It's a 10-year-old telephone tax, and actually, it's older than that.
	The Gore tax was just a revision of the original tax.
	The original tax on everybody's phone bill.
	You can't even find it.
	It's there.
	But you can't, I mean, the intelligent, forget the poor.
	The intelligent can't decipher a phone bill.
	Just look for the amount due and pay it.
	You go nuts looking at all the taxes and trying to figure out what tax is what, but it's there.
	And this tax from the early days of the invention of the phone was intended to bring phone service to rural Americans.
	And long ago, that was accomplished.
	There's no need for that tax anymore for that purpose.
	Then 10 years ago, they updated this tax to help bring affordable service to rural areas.
	It turned into something quite different: a bottomless and politically protected well of cash for cell phone companies that do big business in rural America.
	Over the past four years, there's been nearly a tenfold increase in government subsidies paid to a handful of so-called competitive providers, cell phone companies paid by the fund to offer service in rural areas where an existing carrier already receives a subsidy.
	The Universal Service Fund is what this is called.
	It's collected $44 billion over its 10-year lifetime from a surcharge on the phone bills of nearly every American.
	In 2006, the fund collected $6.6 billion, money that flows to four programs.
	$1.7 billion paid for screws and libraries to connect to the internet.
	Two smaller funds subsidize phone service for the poor and rural health care facilities.
	And the largest chunk, $4.1 billion last year, flows to the aptly named high-cost program, the source of the current controversy.
	That money is paid directly to phone companies that do business in mostly rural areas where the cost of delivering service is high.
	Phone service, cell phone service, can mean internet accessibility in rural areas.
	So anyway, we've got a new concern here.
	We've got a bottomless pit tax that should be getting everybody phone service and internet connectability.
	We've had all kinds of programs to give computers to people in the schools and so forth.
	And yet, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve, on the day of the first real Democrat debate, we need to cry.
	We need handkerchiefs because the poor, as always, are being left out.
	When in fact they're not, because everybody in this country has a television.
	Left out by Democrats, in fact, because the Democrats who have the ones who've made the promises to rectify all of these situations.
	See, seagulls, fat and infertile from fast food.
	Seagulls, they're nothing more than sea rats.
	cares?
	A seagull is the rat of the sea.
	Seagulls gorging themselves on greasy junk food, where is this from?
	This is Australia, are so fat it's affecting their reproduction.
	University of Tasmania researcher Heidi Allman has found that silver gulls feeding on fatty scraps being thrown to them from seaside cafes has caused them to become overweight.
	She's been comparing city birds to those on the remote Ferno Islands off Tasmania's northeast as part of her PhD for almost four years.
	And the urban gulls, about 10% fatter, had higher cholesterol, which was leading to poor quality eggs and a possible nosedive in their populations.
	They're also the poorest.
	That's why they're eating junk food.
	The things that make news.
	24.
	They've hired a woman named Cherry.
	Cherry, I forget her last name.
	She's going to be a female president on next season's 24.
	And people, you know, little red flags are raising.
	Wait a minute, 24?
	A female president?
	ABC already tried this with Gina Davis and it bombed out.
	Is there an undertone here?
	Is the network taking control of this show?
	Is the network insisting on something like this in order to lay the groundwork for the acceptance on the part of the American people as a female president in an already popular show?
	Well, is this president pretty?
	You're asking this actress?
	You can't ask me that.
	I mean, I have an opinion on it, but that's why you set me up with asking me that kind of a question.
	Is she Cherry Jones as a President Cherry?
	Does she look like anybody?
	Well, she was in Oceans 12, and she played Matt Damon's mother in Oceans 12, I believe.
	Well, she's motherly.
	Yeah.
	And we're not talking about a swimsuit pin up here for the female.
	She's got a great personality.
	Fabulous personal.
	That's what matters anyway, isn't it?
	At any rate, you know, this hasn't worked.
	This whole business of female presidents and female this on television has not worked.
	It hasn't worked for Katie.
	It hasn't, where it didn't work for Gina Davis in that ABC show where she was commander-in-chief.
	That show didn't last but two or three episodes, really, before it was canceled.
	And will this president, Cherry Jones, show cleavage like Hillary did after her womanhood was challenged by Elizabeth Edwards?
	Was that, I mean, that's the first time Hillary showed the last time was when she danced on the beach down there in the swimsuit with Clinton when there was no music playing.
	Remember that photo up?
	A brief timeout.
	Lots to do here on the program today.
	Plus, your phone calls, folks.
	Sit tight.
	El Rushbaugh back after this.
	Okay, here's the question.
	Oh, yeah, I love this in the bumper rotation.
	Doesn't come up enough, but here it is.
	Rush Limbaugh back here at the number again, 800-282-2882.
	Here's the question of Fox, the 24, a female president.
	We've had a number of other efforts in the media to put forth this notion of a dominant woman in a TV show.
	The show was called Commander-in-Chief Gina Davis.
	And what's interesting about this to me is the people that do this, if they're doing it for political reasons.
	And by the way, Hollywood producer Rod Lurie, who created the TV show Commander-in-Chief, made no bones about his goal.
	He was tilling the soil of popular culture so that it would soon be easier for a real woman to take root in a nonfiction oval office.
	That was his purpose.
	I don't know if that's the case on 24.
	It hasn't been in the past.
	But you look at CBS, they brought Katie Couric in to do the nightly news.
	And one of the things that is the foundation for this is this belief that women will unilaterally and universally support another woman.
	Remember the French election when Segaline Royal, the female socialist candidate, lost out to a Sarkozy, who is basically conservative.
	And over here, and it went as big, and she didn't care anywhere near a majority of the female vote in France.
	He did.
	And the women commentators in the drive-by media here were scratching their heads and were confused.
	How did she not do better with women?
	Because there's this assumption out there, and I think this is born of the modern era of the feminist movement, that women view men as predators and enemies and something that has to be avoided, and they feel totally comfortable with women.
	And I've always thought that insulting to most women.
	The fact of the matter is, many women like men.
	There are a lot of women who are married to men.
	Women are willing to vote for men because they live with them.
	They're their husbands, their sons, their brothers, their friends.
	Men are not some other against women and against whom women need to circle the wagons.
	But that's how it's portrayed, that if a woman's going to get someplace, every other woman in the organization has to get behind her and pull force simply because she's a woman.
	It's insulting also to believe here that all women think alike and that the first thing that unites women is the sisterhood.
	It hasn't proven out.
	This television show with, what was it, Gina Davis, bombed.
	Now, partly because it was a lousy show, but it also bombed it.
	It was to set the stage to get the American public ready for a real female president.
	Here's Katie Couric at CBS doing the evening news, bombing out royally.
	And the Politico, the Washington website, says if these two things are any indication, the failure of the Gina Davis show and Katie bombing out, that Hillary may have a tough road ahead.
	Some are apparently just figuring out, folks, that women will not flock sheep-like to vote for a candidate simply because they share the same gender.
	Now, the problem for those who would like to construct or rely on such scenarios is that unlike minority races or even religious faiths, women are not an insular minority in this country, where they stick together because in some sense they feel slightly embattled.
	Women are not a, well, some women have been made into victims, the Oprah audience, for example.
	But in terms of sheer numbers, they're not a minority, and they don't feel like they're embattled, and they don't feel like they're being set upon by men, and that only a woman can save them from this terrible onslaught.
	So whether or not this is going to impact Hillary or not remains to be seen.
	It seems, folks, like it is a foregone conclusion that she wins the Democrat nomination.
	Obama, who has raised more money, is not even close in any of the polls, which takes me back to the debate tonight.
	The format is said here by Kit Seely in the New York Times to bring new voices, new voices into the process.
	What new voices?
	Just because some people now send in their questions on YouTube rather than email them?
	What new voices?
	There aren't any new people out there.
	Same population, just using different ways to communicate.
	Here are some of these voices and what great voices they are.
	One young man shows a clip of President Eisenhower in his YouTube submitted question for the debate tonight, warning about the influence of the military-industrial complex and asks the candidates if that's still a relevant concern.
	And if so, he says, how would you help to protect America from its undue influence?
	Another question submitted on YouTube asks the candidates if they would put their friends in important government jobs.
	Are you going to hire the best and the brightest?
	Are you prepared to tell us that your friends are the best and the brightest?
	A black man standing in front of a check caching store asks the candidates how they would stop predatory lending in low-income neighborhoods.
	A college student wants to know if the candidates would lower the legal drinking age to 18 from 21.
	Another video maker said, if you had to choose a current Republican presidential candidate as your running mate, who would you choose and why?
	So these are the new voices.
	And these are the wonderful new voices that we are so excited and happy about.
	And of course, we're also sad because some of the new voices will never be heard because they can't afford internet service, nor will they ever be able to afford a computer.
	If that's not right, Mr. Limbaugh, if an unequal distribution of reforth of this country, it's not fair.
	Okay, no questions on issues.
	And the guy that's screening these videos is David Borman.
	He's the Washington Bureau Chief for CNN.
	He'd been sitting in a production bus in South Carolina for several days scanning all these YouTube submissions.
	And he's helping pick which ones to broadcast.
	He said he had been surprised by how few questions there were about Iraq, how broad the age range was of the questioners, and how many of the videos showed a person just talking into the camera.
	You know, I think what can be said here is that the drive-bys who easily get caught up in their own perception of fads apparently have this belief that YouTube consists of people who are a cut above and are engaging in this process, and they've got this notion simply because it's talked about.
	They're products of buzz.
	YouTube is just people, average people from all walks of life, who have basically one desire, and that's to be known.
	It's an amazing thing that's happening in our culture.
	Everybody wants fame.
	Everybody wants some attention, and they're willing to give up all kinds of privacy in order to get it.
	So the vast majority of the questions from YouTube are going to be just what they would be if average people walked into this debate with little screening or anything else, which is why these public questions are always screened.
	That's why CNN is screening these YouTube submissions even now.
	But the idea that this represents some new revolution.
	I mean, it's a new media revolution in terms of how people communicate with each other, but it's not new in terms of who the people are.
	And the idea that it represents some sort of unique, brand new, never-before-in-existence type of person involved in the political process is absurd.
	It's the same people that have always either been involved or not been involved with the same irrelevant, stupid, or bright questions, depending on the person.
	There's nothing new about it other than a method of transferral.
	America's real anchorman and doctor of democracy here on the one and only EIB network.
	We are at the Southern Command, EIB Southern Command in South Florida today, housed securely in the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Now, there's a TV critic, a former TV critic out there.
	I think this guy used to write for USA Today.
	He's named Jeff Jarvis.
	And he's got a website called BuzzMachine.com.
	And he's not happy the way CNN's handling these YouTube videos.
	He's among many who have criticized CNN for retaining control over which videos are shown as opposed to showing the ones that viewers watch the most or rate as the best.
	Now, two thoughts about that.
	Number one, it would be tempting if I ran CNN.
	I would certainly let the public choose which ones.
	If I ran CNN and did this show, what I would suggest is this.
	I would suggest, as the president of CNN, absolutely right, we're going to let the audience vote on their favorite YouTube questions for these candidates in the debate tonight.
	And then we're going to air those.
	And then I would come on this show and I would tell everybody to pick the most ridiculous, stupid, out-of-the-world questions you can.
	That's why CNN can't retain, cannot lose control over this.
	Above all else, this is a show.
	CNN is in this for ratings.
	They're not going to turn over the all-important questions to these candidates, to a bunch of dingbats who don't know what they're doing.
	And the idea that this should be voted on by the public is in this kind of form, it's tempting.
	It would be laughable.
	It'd be funny to see how the candidates deal as a broadcasting proposition.
	It would be silly.
	Jarvis says it's our democracy, not yours, CNN.
	There is a need for order, but not control.
	I know some of these questions might be real turkeys, but it would also show that people really care and that democracy is in good hands.
	It might not accomplish that.
	It might scare people.
	What is out there?
	Now, the LA Times has a piece on this CNN YouTube debate, too.
	And here's a submission from a guy in Las Vegas speaking to the camera in a homemade video on YouTube.
	Has your husband Bill Clinton engaged in adulterous behavior since he left office?
	That question will not air.
	Do you think the public would elect and vote that question near the top for the debate tonight?
	They probably would.
	It's a real crapshoot here for this kind of thing.
	But the bottom line is, I think, you know what this really is?
	This is just the Democrats and their accomplices in the media salivating over what they think is the newest route to getting the youth vote.
	They have had all these massive voter registration drives the past three or four elections, rock the vote on MTV, all of these things.
	And they've been so filled with promise, such excitement that young people, the youths of America, would leave wherever they were, watching MTV, whatever, and drag themselves on down to the polling place and vote for Democrats.
	And it just hasn't happened because the youthful people just don't show up in as many numbers as other older demographics.
	The YouTube business is nothing more than the latest attempt by the Democrats and the media to extend the youth vote to the Democrat Party.
	Think of this as the 2007 version of Rock the Vote.
	Are we seeing Rock the Vote on MTV right now?
	I mean, I haven't turned MTV on for a while, but it obviously didn't work.
	So probably the same bunch that was behind Rock the Vote somehow is involved in this whole YouTube business.
	Columbus, Ohio, and John, we'll start on the phones with you today, sir.
	Great to have you on the program.
	Thank you, Rush.
	How are you?
	Never better, sir.
	Never better.
	Well, I was just going in because your comments about this being the same group of people that would otherwise have participated is exactly right because the control is still the same.
	And that was really what strikes me as this is just another, as you said, attempt to recycle just sort of a new, the greatest thing since sliced bread to get Democratic voters.
	And I just, you know, I like the idea.
	I like the idea of having a vote on who you're going to put to the questioners or what the questions you're going to put to the candidates.
	I'd like to see that actually done.
	And maybe on the GOP side, they can really make it work.
	Well, it might, but it's always...
	This is a...
	Saying it's a crapshoot is the wrong way to go about this.
	It's not the...
	It's not the way to characterize it.
	So I can't separate myself as a broadcaster from these debates.
	And I know that these are first and foremost television shows that are going to be used to promote the network carrying the debate, which is CNN.
	And every broadcaster, the one thing that no broadcaster, well, except for PBS and liberal talk radio, the one thing that no responsible broadcaster wants to do is bore the audience.
	And you cannot turn over, well, you can't, and you cannot turn over a broadcast of eminent high quality to rank amateurs.
	You just can't do it.
	Especially when you're in, there's nothing that's supposed to be entertaining about this.
	This is supposed to be very, very serious.
	We're talking about the future of America.
	How are we going to get out of a rock?
	How the Democrats can save this great economy and wreck it so that people will be happy again.
	All these great questions.
	And you can't turn that over as a broadcaster to rank amateurs.
	It's just not done.
	As I say, there are other places, you know, places it is done where people, in fact, they take pride in boring people because that's thought to be high-quality intellectual broadcasting.
	Award-winning, in fact.
	I mean, people that do all that boring, all these documentaries, these boring documentaries that win all these awards that nobody ever sees.
	So a responsible broadcaster, CNN's got, you know, whether they know how to do it or not, they still have the desire to have a lot of viewers.
	And you don't do that by boring the audience, putting a bunch of rank amateurs.
	They have to have control over this.
	And I don't think it means anything negative for democracy just because you let people into a debate or any sort of any, either take questions to the audience or from emails or now from YouTube.
	It's really nothing.
	There's nothing new about any of this.
	It's this, it's an image.
	It's an attempt to put forth the idea that we're bringing democracy to the masses.
	And we're bringing the masses to democracy.
	We're bringing the masses to the candidates.
	And the candidates are going to be confronted with questions in real.
	It's not that at all.
	There's really nothing new about this.
	Pittsburgh and Joshua, thank you for calling, sir.
	You are on the EIB network.
	Hi, Rush.
	I am the faculty advisor at a local university's College Republican group.
	And at least one of those videos, one of the ones selected by Time.com as one of their top 10 questions, was produced by one of our college Republican presidents.
	The one with the three girls standing in ostrich suits, asking them not to bury their heads in the sand.
	That was produced by our college Republicans doing their summer internship.
	Well, congratulations.
	We really are not letting it just become the Democrats running this show.
	Well, is your question going to be used?
	I haven't the foggiest idea.
	You haven't the foggiest idea.
	That's the thing.
	They're not going to release that to us.
	They probably won't tell us about it at all.
	Well, of course not.
	What they will do, they will mix in some questions that they'll get a highly produced one like that for the entertainment value.
	And a couple of times they won't mind throwing curveballs at the candidates.
	And in order to satisfy the masses, they'll have a couple of dumb questions as well to make sure they're spreading it around so the dumb are represented, the uneducated are represented, the ignorant are represented, the comedic like your guy, the thoughtful are represented.
	This is how liberals do things.
	Everybody will be represented.
	So you have a shot.
	I'm hoping that we actually get there because it is an issue-oriented question, and it's one of their talking points.
	Social Security reform is something they're all going to want to talk about.
	I'm hoping that this comes off.
	What is the question?
	You said something about ostriches and the heads in the sand.
	What is the question in your video?
	The question is, what will they do to reform Social Security and save our futures?
	That's how the students in the video do.
	All right.
	Now let's assume that that question is used, just for the sake of it here.
	What do you think, your bright male, what do you think the average Democrat candidate would say if posed that question?
	I think they'll go back to their standard talking points that the social security system is a promise that needs to be maintained, and we're not going to hear anything new out of the candidates.
	They're not going to answer the question in the context of reform at all.
	All they're going to do is take the opportunity, the occasion of that question, to pledge their support for it and to make sure that every elderly person watching knows that they're never going to lose it.
	Exactly.
	They will not deal with the question of reform.
	That's why these things here tonight are any debate is sort of a pointless exercise because these Democrats do not have different ideas among them about anything.
	They all have the same ideas.
	They all want universal health care.
	They all want paid-for abortions by everybody else.
	They all want out of a rock.
	There's not one dime's worth of difference in any of these Democrats in their position.
	Well, maybe Gravelle didn't have a clue, nor does he have a chance, but there's not a dime's worth of difference.
	So this is, it's nothing more than a popularity contest.
	The inevitability question is always going to fall on Hillary.
	That's why Obama is going to have to do something tonight, regardless of the questions that are asked and where they come from.
	Obama's going to have to do something tonight to get off the dime because it's getting close now.
	This is the first real debate.
	I don't know why they're calling it that, but since there have been others.
	Anyway, I appreciate the call.
	Joshua, thanks much.
	A brief timeout here.
	EIB Profit Center Drake will be back after this.
	CNN has been playing all week and promoting the debate tonight.
	They've been playing some of the questions that they've been getting via YouTube submissions.
	And last Monday is when they first aired the video question about Mrs. Clinton's problem with her husband's infidelity.
	Here's that question.
	It's Gavin from Las Vegas.
	Senator Clinton, I think you would make a great president, but there's a question that deserves to be answered before the end of the primaries because it could affect your ability to run against a strong Republican.
	Has your husband, Bill Clinton, engaged in adulterous behavior since he's left office?
	How do you plan to address the issue, whether real or trumped up, by people that would demean your character by trying to imply that your marriage is politically convenient?
	Now, the question, that's a perfectly good question.
	It's a perfectly reasonable question.
	It's something everybody wonders.
	Is Clinton still horn-dogging it out there?
	Everybody wonders this.
	Now, would this, you think they'll use this question at CNN?
	Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that apparently, the odds are they wouldn't use it.
	But you know that the Clinton campaign has got to have an answer.
	They know they're going to get this question somewhere down the line.
	Maybe not about is your husband still cheating on you, but what about his past infidelities?
	Is it going to be a problem?
	You're camping.
	You know they've got an answer for this.
	You know Clinton, Inc. in the war room has an answer for it.
	It's going to come up.
	It will come up.
	At some point, this will come up.
	This campaign, it may not be in the primaries.
	It'll be in the general.
	She's going to be the nominee.
	It's going to come up somewhere in the general campaign.
	It is going to come up.
	They've got an answer for it.
	That's the point.
	They've got an answer for this, whether it comes up or not.
	Now, something CNN has to think about is if they do use it, you know, they, I know the drive-bys, and they covet access to these people.
	And if they use this question, you know, will the Clinton campaign immediately put, this is on, this is, this is a problem here.
	We cannot possibly allow access to CNN.
	Is the most unconscionable breach of privacy.
	You know, blame it on Fox or something.
	They won't go on Fox because Fox is too whatever.
	They won't do it.
	They won't use the question.
	But it's a question on everybody's mind.
	And if they had put this up to vote and the audience got to rate these videos and the top-rated videos were the ones that were used, you damn well know that that would be at the top of the list.
	You know it.
	Here's Zach, Lancaster, Ohio.
	You're on the EIB network, sir.
	Hello.
	Hey, I'm kind of nervous.
	This is a big thing for me to get a chance to actually speak to you.
	Well, last.
	You don't sound nervous at all, Zach.
	No, thanks.
	And if you were a female, I'd say don't worry about it because this call is going to be like a mint glove on your back.
	But since I don't go that way, I won't say that to you.
	Thanks.
	Last year in high school, 11th grade, we had a classroom mock election.
	The teachers split the classroom into two sides, Republicans and Democrats.
	Of course, me being a rush baby, I'm a Republican.
	Right.
	So we had a chance to come up with what our platform would be.
	Of course, I'm a staunch conservative first, conservative Republican.
	So we came up with our platform.
	And now I was running against a female.
	So we came up with our speech.
	I prepped for the debate.
	The teacher brought the other class over to watch the debate and the speech we gave.
	Plus, we made an ad.
	And the results were not as what we were expecting.
	In the debate, the Democrats and Republicans both, both the whole class thought that it was over.
	I was going to win right there after the debate and after the speech.
	Wait, You're leaving some things up.
	This is high school, right?
	Yeah.
	18.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So Democrats and Republicans both.
	The whole class thought it was over.
	You were going to win right there after the debate, right after they thought your speech was great.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely.
	And both sides.
	Well, I remember walking out of the classroom, them coming up to me, the Democrats, saying, oh, this is over.
	There's no way that we're going to win after the debate and speech.
	Well, the results came back.
	In the classroom that came over to vote for us, the ratio between male and female were one to two.
	And I lost by six votes.
	Wait a minute.
	It was two to one female to male in the class that came to watch?
	Yeah.
	And that class voted.
	Yes, that's the class that voted.
	And you lost by six votes, and so the female vote beat you.
	Yeah, that's what I believe, and that's what.
	What you're saying is that the women hung together against you.
	Exactly.
	So you're calling to tell me I may be wrong in my statement here that women will not vote for women just because she's a woman.
	Right.
	I'm saying that the generations coming up after these people that voted are two years away from being a part of the electorate.
	And they may be part of that feminist movement, many more of them this time to come, though.
	Well, that does happen.
	You know, young women in hash scroll and college are subjected to these feminazi professorettes and so forth, even some feminazi professors.
	And they do come out of school with their minds sort of poisoned against men.
	Well, they do.
	I mean, especially some of the higher-rated institutions of higher learning in this country.
	But if you take a look at real life in other circumstances, most women don't dislike men.
	And most women don't hang.
	In fact, this idea that women were going to hang together simply because it's a woman is dispelled in everyday life.
	Cattiness, jealousy, all of these things rise up.
	But the whole premise here is even though you got skunked, you think, by women hanging together.
	Yeah.
	Zach, I don't know what you look like, but as far as they were concerned, it could have been nothing to do with what you said.
	It could have been the way you look.
	No, you see, I mean, look, I'm not a vain guy, but I don't think I look terribly bad to where I've turned them off to where they wouldn't want to vote.
	Well, you never know.
	I mean, you just never know, Zach.
	That's why don't take it personally if it's the reason.
	I know.
	You just never know about these things.
	The teacher told me that he thought it was my speech.
	He said that I was being a bit too conservative and I didn't move to the middle.
	I wasn't being a moderate.
	I was being a conservative.
	Well, now that's possible.
	But I think in being conservative, you were probably very confident.
	Yes.
	And you were very sure of your positions.
	And that threatens a lot of people, not just women.
	It threatens nobody supposed to be that.
	But aren't there two sides?
	Isn't he partly right?
	Can't he be something he'd, you know, in a campaign, you're beating the hell out of your opponent, and they're all worthless.
	You know, you're not, you're not, you're not, you're not saying anything good about anybody out there.
	And that's, God, it makes me feel uncomfortable.
	Even though they probably know you were right.
	Thanks for the call, Zach.
	It's a great experience.
	Don't change.
	How about this headline in USA Today?
	Clinton focuses on female bonding.
	What a headline.
	The story's worthless.
	We'll be back, my friends.

▲