All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
August 22, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
We are here.
I am here, Rush Limbaugh.
We're all here at the EIB Southern Command.
I am the prestigious Attila the Hun chair here at the Distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Thrilled and delight to be with you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Couple more bites that I want you to hear from President Bush's speech today, this morning in Kansas City, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention.
These are really two powerful bites.
These bites represent the president taking the partisan gloves off in his way and using history.
Comparing these Democrats, they want to compare Iraq to Vietnam.
The president says, go ahead and do it and let's compare you.
Let's compare you Democrats and let's compare you.
These are my words.
But let's compare the Democrats in the media in all of these historical events and see how little they have actually changed.
1972, one anti-war senator put it this way.
What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?
A columnist for the New York Times wrote a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists.
It's difficult to imagine, he said, how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.
Headline of their story dated, Nam Phen summed up the argument, Indochina without Americans for most a better life.
The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.
And they continue to this day.
Anti-war senator, writer for the New York Times.
You realize the powerful nature of these words from this anti-war senator in 1972.
Now, keep in mind, an anti-war senator is a liberal.
And what is it that liberals tell us?
They have compassion.
They are for the downtrodden.
They are for the oppressed.
They are the people who care about the weak, pitted and victimized by the majority, the strong.
And they promise the weak that they will protect them.
And then one of those liberals says, what earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam?
These are human beings, Senator.
Or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince, or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and never heard of.
Oh, guys, those people don't count.
Those human beings don't count.
They deserve a government that they may not ever see, a leader that they may not ever see, that's basically going to keep them poor forever and in prison and in threat of being assassinated and killed if they get out of line.
That's okay.
For what?
For what?
Keep in mind who these people are, folks.
These are the people who claim, let me go back to that forum with the AFL-CIO and the Democrat presidential candidates, and that endless parade of average ordinary Americans whining and moaning about their lives.
They've been voting Democrat for 50 years to get their lives straightened out and fixed rather than doing it themselves.
That's what the Democrats want.
And their lives are not improving.
People were miserable.
And they still, after 50 years of voting for the people promising to make their lives less miserable, find a way to blame the country and to blame George W. Bush.
They are encouraged to do this by the Democrats.
The Democrats want the miserable.
Those people equal votes to the Democrats.
So all of this, all of this gobbledygook and bilge and drivel about Democrats caring for the little guy is one of the biggest crux, one of the biggest, well, I was going to say, destruction, examples of destruction in English language.
That's not quite it.
It's the same thing as saying that they, the original racists, and the ones who oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's like saying they have always cared for the oppressed minorities in this country when they were the ones that kept them oppressed.
And I would submit to you to this day, keep them oppressed still.
Just as the oppressed union people whined and moaned before the Democrat presidential candidates, so do the minorities that vote Democrat in this country.
Complain and complain and complain, things never get better.
Keep voting for the people who promised to get them better, but then ignore them after the election.
And of course, the New York Times writer, columnist, whatever it was.
It's difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.
That's just stunning.
And that hasn't changed to this day, that attitude.
Here's the second bite.
In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy.
Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.
It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs.
He wrote, there was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women.
Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence.
That's what General MacArthur observed.
In the end, Japanese women were given the vote.
39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first pre-election.
Today, Japan's Minister of Defense is a woman.
And just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's upper house.
And yet back in World War II, same people as today said it couldn't happen said it about Germany, too.
And they're saying it now about Iraq.
I want to go back and play this John Kerry soundbite again.
It's from July 19th.
He's on C-SPAN.
He gets a call.
And the caller says, I remember the horrible killings after Vietnam and the boat people coming over here.
And I really hate to go off and leave our allies over in Iraq, and I'm concerned about that.
Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing.
Everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam.
There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam.
There were re-education camps, and they weren't pretty.
And nobody likes that kind of outcome.
But on the other hand, I've met a lot of people today who were in those education camps who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.
This is simply unbelievable.
No massive bloodbath in Vietnam.
No massive bloodbath in Cambodia.
And of course, no massive bloodbath folks in China or the Soviet Union.
No massive bloodbath in Cuba.
And more recently, no massive bloodbath in Rwanda.
The level of tolerance for bloodbaths exhibited by John Kerry and his pals in the Democrat Party is truly amazing.
But don't worry about it, folks.
Don't worry about it.
Liberals care for people more than anybody else does.
We know this because they repeatedly tell us.
No bloodbath in Vietnam.
But wow, the re-education camps.
Why, I know some people who went to those things and they're thriving.
Let me give you a little history.
I saw, there's a story out that two-thirds of the adults of the world have no clue about world events or local national events in their own countries.
That's not true of you.
But I'm going to give you some history here.
We lost, and Senator Kerry too, we lost 50,000 American lives in Vietnam.
Fighting who?
Communists.
50,000 is not a bloodbath, huh, Senator?
We've lost how many thousands all over the world fighting communists.
North Korea, South Korea.
People all over this world have been murdered in genocidal fashion by communists.
We have been fighting them most of this century.
Well, last century.
And we finally beat them.
We finally beat them.
You know, life in this country would not exist today as we know it had we still been fighting or were we still fighting the Cold War.
People, people born late 80s, early 90s, have no clue about this.
There hasn't been a Soviet Union in their lives.
40 million were wiped out in Russia and China.
40 million deaths from communists.
And here is John Kerry.
And he's not alone defending the re-education camps.
They defend Fidel Castro.
They defend Hugo Chavez.
They did everything they could to cast a policy of appeasement, of coexistence with the Soviet Union rather than defeat them.
Meanwhile, we have lost American lives in the struggle against communism.
We have an idiot like Kerry saying what he's saying.
He ends up being the Democrat presidential nominee.
We have John Edwards, a genuine blithering idiot who says publicly he doesn't know whether the Cuban health care system is state-run or not.
And these people somehow remain viable and their party somehow remains a viable major political operation in this country.
It should have been shamed into non-existence.
It ought not have anywhere near the number of voters and supporters it's got.
And it probably makes some of you mad that there are this many people in this country who don't see who these people are and will vote for.
Well, we know why.
Because people will take anything if you give it to them enough times and they'll come to depend on it.
But it's breathtaking here to listen to somebody like Kerry.
And then to contrast, John Kerry, who was said to be a brilliant man, as is John Edwards, as is Hillary.
And you listen to Bush, who's said to be just a hayseed tobacco-chewing rube from Texas.
The contrast in the sound bites here today are just breathtaking.
We could go back if we wanted to.
We can play soundbites of Obama talking to VFW, of Hillary talking to BFW.
Well, I think we've got Obama in the stack here.
In fact, yeah.
Yeah.
Grab CUP 11.
You've heard President Bush addressing the veterans of foreign wars.
Here is a portion of remarks made by Barack Obama.
There is no military solution in Iraq.
No military surge can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region.
Iraq's leaders are not reconciling.
They are not achieving political benchmarks.
The only thing that they seem to have agreed on is to take a vacation.
That is why I've pushed for a careful and responsible redeployment of troops engaged in combat operations out of Iraq, joined with direct and sustained diplomacy in the region.
Yeah, now that was last night.
Then the members of the VFW got to hear President Bush today with putting things in historical perspective, historical perspective.
Here's the rock.
They can't do it.
They can't get out.
They can't reconcile.
And if they can't do that, then our surge is meaningless.
Oh, woe is us.
All is lost.
It can't be won.
It's already lost.
I'm in the Harry Reid camp on this, he says, essentially.
You listen to this stuff and you wonder how in the world anybody considers any of these people presidential in the one area that matters most, and that's the defense of this country.
We'll be back in a second.
Mr. Snirdley said to me during the break, see now, JFK, JFK was one of these guys trying to fight communists.
JFK was built on fighting communists.
He's a liberal Democrat back then.
He'd be a hawked.
He wouldn't be welcome in today's Democrat Party.
I said, you know what's ironic about that?
What's ironic about it?
Who killed Kennedy?
Who killed JFK?
Communists.
I don't care who Oswald was working for.
He was a communist.
The communists killed Kennedy, the beloved communists that people like John Kerry would grow up and want to strike deals with, and all these other liberal Democrats.
And to me, it is one of the most amazing things.
I think there's a book out.
Can't remember the name of the author of the book, nor the title.
Rich Lowry wrote a column about it, but the theory of this book is that the Kennedy assassination was the beginning of the end of the old Democrat Party, and it gave rise to the Democrat Party that exists today.
After the communists killed their president, they ended up embracing communists around the world, if not embracing them, certainly not wanting to oppose them, standing in the way of opposing them.
In fact, they were assisting them.
You had all these Democrats from the Jim Wright era flying down to Nicaragua to help shore up a communist regime down there that the Soviets were sponsoring, the Sandinistas under the direction of Danielle Ortega.
It's one of the very striking irony.
And then liberal movie makers go out and start doing these conspiracy theory movies on the assassination of JFK.
And of course, somebody in New Orleans, some hick hayseed or somebody else, a mafia, was involved in all this.
Could not have been communists.
No, no, no, no, could not have been communists.
Communists wouldn't have killed our president.
No, The communists are not like that.
Oh, of course not.
This business of comparing Iraq and Vietnam.
Let's count the ways, shall we, that the situations are, in fact, exact opposites.
During Vietnam, an American, Jane Fonda, tried to discourage the American people and U.S. troops.
In Iraq, our politicians are trying to encourage our enemy.
In Vietnam, body counts of the enemy were used to rally our spirits.
In Iraq, body counts of our troops are used to demoralize our spirits.
In Vietnam, the media fed negative stories to the politicians.
In Iraq, the politicians are feeding negative stories to the media.
And both are lapping them all up.
They say in Vietnam that JFK didn't get us into Vietnam, but he would have gotten us out.
In Iraq, you'll have to say Al-Qaeda is in 60 countries.
This is what they say.
But they weren't in Iraq.
They were everywhere, even in Florida, but they weren't in Iraq.
Here's Jody at Lake Orion, Michigan.
Thank you for calling.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush.
It's great to talk to you.
I talked to you once before.
I've been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I'm getting brighter, but there's a lot to be learned, I know, and I am no expert in foreign affairs.
But what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur.
I mean, are we going to end up in a quagmire there?
I mean, isn't it, I don't understand.
Can you enlighten me on this?
Yeah, this is, you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple.
And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats and everything.
You are right.
They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.
There are two reasons.
What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?
Yes.
It's black.
And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them?
If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.
Yes.
Yes.
The black population.
Right.
So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa.
You get rid of the white government there.
You put sanctions on them.
You stand behind Nelson Mandela, who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders.
You go to Ethiopia.
You do the same thing.
I can't believe it's really that.
Well, now there's one.
See, I knew you couldn't believe it.
Here's one that's even going to be harder to believe, and it is even more truthful.
Could you tell me what vital national interest, Jody, is at stake in Darfur?
I don't know.
Nothing.
Zilch zero nada.
Darfur is not attacking us.
Darfur has not said they want to attack us.
So they will, same thing.
Clinton sent the U.S. military off to Bosnia.
No U.S. national interest at stake.
The liberals will use the military as a meals-on-wheels program.
They'll send them out to help with tsunami victims.
But you put the military in a position of defending U.S. national interests, and that's when Democrats and the liberals oppose it.
And terrorists have attacked us, and yet, and our oil supply comes from Iraq and Iran and the Middle East, and yet that's not worth defending.
Exactly right.
You've got it.
You've got it.
Now you just have to believe your own instincts from here on out.
You know it, and I know it.
By the way, we haven't talked about this.
This CIA report, the declassified CIA report that came out yesterday, there's something very interesting in that CIA report that, of course, the drive-bys are not going to harp on.
And it is this.
You remember when Bill Clinton went on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace started to ask a question that was an offshoot of the movie, The Path to 9-11.
By the way, Disney, where's the DVD on this?
You know, I just thought of this.
That show aired a year ago.
Where's the DVD?
DVDs are long ago out on a show like this.
I mean, I got the third season of House MD.
I got it yesterday, and it showed it in the end of May.
So that's Fox, of course, but that DVD is out.
At any rate, after 9-11, the movie made it clear that the Clinton administration was a little lax in a whole lot of areas going after bin Laden.
And Clinton walked into the studio loaded for bear on this, and Chris Wallace dutifully asked him about it.
Clinton blew up, said, wagging that finger.
What did I do?
What did I do?
I'll tell you what, I worked as hard as I ever had.
Ex-executive order to kill him.
We try to kill him every tap we get.
This report says that Clinton only authorized the CIA to engage in operations that would lead to the capture of bin Laden, and they didn't take it all that seriously because the rules on capture were no civilian casualties couldn't do this.
They said, well, there's not much we can do here.
The report also details how the National Security Agency and the CIA were not sharing information, this wall, or apparently two or three walls.
It sounds like a lot of the declassified documents in this report validate some of the historical claims in the movie, The Path to 9-11.
About which I still ask where the DVD.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley, a question.
Well, the drive-bys are, the drive-bys are blaming Tennett.
That's the point you're not going to see.
I mean, this may be references.
It's going to be at the end of the story.
Issakoff writes about this, and it's at the end of the story.
Very longstitz and newsweek on their website today, PMSNBC.com.
He references it.
They didn't make a big deal out of it, just kind of a little throw-in in there.
But it's, yeah, the thrust of this is that Tennett was an absolute boob and a disaster.
He's the full guy.
He's not around anymore.
And his book came out and didn't do much.
You don't think.
Here's Gary in Pittsburgh.
Gary, welcome to the Rush Schlimbaugh program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Ditto's from Pittsburgh here.
Great to have you with us.
We could sure use you to come up here about once a week.
And we're in desperate straits up here.
How so?
I live in a neighborhood up here, Beachview, right outside of Pittsburgh.
And I mean, it is so Democratic that I put up a couple signs last election.
They spit on my house.
They drew exit my ripped the signs down.
You mean these compassionate, tolerant, understanding liberals that people tell us they love people like.
Yeah, exactly.
Right.
Let me get to my point.
Just understand something out there, Gary.
You represent a bigger threat to them than bin Laden or al-Qaeda.
Well, it's proof by them tearing my signs down.
Yeah.
You know, they're afraid of it.
But as a president of speech once this morning, I watched the whole thing.
And, boy, I wish I was on prime time, Rush.
That was one of the best speeches I ever heard him give.
And all he does is stating facts.
That's what's so brutal about it to the Democrats, you know.
And it wasn't minutes later, Mike Weir was on there attacking them as quick as you can get there.
But my point is on this Iraq war.
I've been listening to you for the last couple days here and the president's comparison to Vietnam.
And these left-wingers have, you know, drove us out of Vietnam and caused a lot of civilian casualties.
I mean, massive casualties over here.
But I believe that the Democrats.
And I don't understand why nobody says it.
Maybe you did and I didn't hear you.
But I believe they have blood of our soldiers on our hands already.
Well, you know, I'm glad you said I didn't use those words, but in the monologue segment of this hour, first segment, I essentially said that and much worse.
They defend bloodbaths.
They deny they exist.
50,000 American troops dead in Vietnam is not a bloodbath.
Kennedy has to go out or Kerry has to go out and praise the re-education camps because he's known some people in Vietnam that got through them okay.
Those are simply mind control camps.
Those were re-education camps.
That means turn you into a communist after the Americans had come and soiled the great people's paradise with their notions of freedom.
Yeah, when you say that the Democrats give aid and comfort to the enemy, they encourage them.
In fact, I'll tell you what, it's starting to bother some Democrats.
Mike, let me find the soundbites.
Let's go to number 1314 of 13 and 14 for now.
We've been talking about this guy, Brian Baird.
He's a Democrat from Washington.
He is on the Democrat House steering committee, so he's in Pelosi's leadership cluster there.
He was on PMS NBC last night.
The question, Tucker Carlson, said, why is it considered wrong for Democrats to concede the surge is going okay?
Democrats don't want to admit that there's any progress there.
Why?
I think if more people could go to the region, as I have recently, a couple of times, and meet with the soldiers on the ground.
You know, when you visit a unit that says, look, Congressman, a few months back, we were taking incoming every day, and every time we went out of the perimeter, we were hit and hit hard.
That has stopped in recent months.
And when they tell you that the sheikhs and others who used to side with the insurgents are now siding with our side, and you meet those sheikhs in a public market where they embrace openly our military personnel, you've got real signs of progress on the ground.
Right.
Now, you went out and talked to the soldiers themselves.
And then, well, how was your last trip?
This actually should have played this bite first.
It's my mistake, but this is what he said first about it.
I think we're making progress.
When I spoke with the generals and the troops on the ground and Ambassador Crocker, there's still a lot of challenges, but noticeable and important progress.
And I think we need to try to work together to make this thing a success.
I really believe what we need to do now is stop looking at backwards and look at where we are today.
We have a strategic interest in seeing that this mission succeeds.
We have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people and the region.
And I think we're seeing signs of progress.
And it is worth letting Ambassador Crocker and General Proterias have their time and breathing room.
Yeah, exactly.
And then others are saying that we had this yesterday, that the political turmoil in the parliament is due in part to the Democrats and the Republicans' debate about the future of our presence in Iraq.
And that one of the reasons that some of the members of parliament are inclined to go back to their sectarian leaders, which, you know, that would foment the possibility of civil war, is because they see the debate going on over here.
They see one of the major political parties in this country trying to get us out of Iraq.
The people over there know it'd be the worst thing could happen for them if we were to leave, and they got to hedge their bets.
Okay, if these Democrats win and they pull out of here, then, you know, I got to have my buds lined up behind me.
And so there's a Democrat that said this.
His name might be McNerney.
And he said, if we just solve the debate and get on one page here, that would inspire a whole lot of confidence among the Iraqis that we're trying to help.
Amen.
It would.
And it would inspire confidence in this country all over the place, too, if there were unity on this.
And why not unity on the issue of U.S. national security?
Why not unity on that?
How in the world can you not have that?
But folks, throughout my life, the Democrats have had to be dragged, kicking, and screaming to be upfront on that issue.
They didn't want to deal with the Soviet threat.
They wanted to appease it.
They want to appease Al-Qaeda.
They want to appease Iran.
They want to appease everybody.
They wanted to appease Hitler.
They just don't have the stomach for it.
No matter what lessons of history have taught them, they have to be dragkicking and screaming.
But it's never been this bad.
This is the first time in my life Vietnam was not this bad in terms of the Democrats literally trying to engineer defeat for their own country and for the U.S. military.
And that is leading to the conclusion that the blood of many American deaths is on the hands of a lot of Democrats.
We'll be back after this.
Stand back, stand aside.
Rush Limbaugh on the air running America.
You know it, and I know it.
Well, the Chikoms are fighting back.
Chikom said today that they've discovered that there are many safety problems with soybeans imported from the United States, and they're urging U.S. authorities to deal with the problem, you know, because we're all upset here about the stuff they're exporting to us.
You know, lead and the Barbie doll.
Don't lick Barbie.
You're a little kid out there, you got a Barbie.
Don't lick Barbie if it came because it could have lead in there.
My parents didn't let us lick the toys or the windowsills when we were growing up.
I did pour some talcum powder down my brother's mouth one day because I thought it made him look better.
Well, I was three, three or four years old.
It was in the back of the car.
There were no child safety seats in the back of the car either.
We were just rolling around back there on the way down to Kennett C. Grandma.
I have a talcum powder back there.
Here, Dave David licked one.
One and a half years.
My mother got mad.
So what would constitute unsafe soybeans?
I wonder what.
Let's see, inspection and quarantine units in various Chikom areas have discovered a large number of quality and safety problems with imports of U.S. soybeans.
We've reported this to the U.S., demanding it look into the causes and adopt effective measures to ensure a situation like this doesn't repeat itself.
What do you bet of urine?
What do you bet?
Well, this is the stuff going to chi-com.
Well, we haven't had any reports of unsafe soybeans in America.
But what do you bet?
It's, you know, after the immigration bill failed, the illegals out there in the soybean field just say, well, pee on it.
Never know, just a guess.
Here's what I think.
This headline, I think that this is what John Edwards is going to do when he drops out of the Democrat race next month, the next two months, from CBS.
Boss, a jerk?
Think about suing him.
Is your boss a nightmare?
Not just annoying, but so completely lacking in people skills as to possibly be a sociopath.
Well, there may now be more than you can do than simply renting office space for the 11th time.
The LA Times reports that lawmakers across the country are considering legislation that would give workers grounds to sue their superiors for being basically jerks.
Let's see, lawmakers across the country, Democrat lawmakers across the country paying back donations in kind from the trial lawyers are considering legislation that would give workers the grounds to sue their employers for basically being jerks.
The specific standards for behavior that would justify such lawsuits are still being worked out.
Oh, yeah.
At least four state legislatures, including New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, are also considering such a measure.
Those who would argue that pushing around employees has been part of bosshood since the advent of work, the L.A. Times offers a few theories to explain the recent surge of worker whining.
Some experts contend the ranks of bullying bosses are growing as short-staffed companies tap managers with lousy people skills.
Other experts point out that baby boomers on the cusp of retirement and restless younger employees are more likely to complain or quit than suffer in silence.
Well, then, what's the problem?
Speaking of lawsuits, where is this from?
It's like this from Inside Bay Area.
Let me see if we should see.
Yep, it's a left coast.
Parents and students from the Hayward, Los Angeles, and West Contra Costa school districts filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that the department broke with laws meant to ensure a quality teacher in each classroom.
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, lawmakers specified that teachers needed to be credentialed and teach in a subject where they receive proper training in order to be considered highly qualified.
Districts must notify parents each fall if their child's teacher fails to meet those requirements.
However, the department allows states to count teacher interns as credentialed, even though they are still in the process of earning certification.
Maribel Haradia, the parent of two Hayward students suing the department, said during a press conference that her son's first-grade teacher is an intern who leaves twice a week to finish up college classes, leaving her son Jose Aldana with a substitute twice a week.
I feel this is wrong to call this teacher highly qualified.
I feel like I'm being lied to.
You think so?
So we had a story yesterday on the incompetence of teachers in Massachusetts failing to pass those tests, and now we've got more evidence here that we don't have a solid group of reliable teachers.
I'm not trying to tar and feather all of your teachers.
Please understand this.
I know a lot of great teachers out there.
I know you listen to this program, but we see evidence that not all among the teacher ranks are actually qualified.
Bill, in Binghamton, New York, welcome to the EIB network.
Yes, sir.
Good afternoon to you.
This is quite a treat for me.
Thank you, sir.
Esther, I was listening to the audio clips of Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Edwards, as you played quite prolifically on your program, and it just dawned me when I was listening that the potential for this to backfire, assuming it's orchestrated or not, because you don't attack the girl.
But it seems to me, you know, it makes good copy for the moment.
But at the end of the day, aren't the candidates quite possibly going to find themselves in situations where they're defending their wife's comments more than they're discussing the issues?
And furthermore, wouldn't that stand to potentially alienate a good number of people who really don't care what Mrs. Obama and Miss Edwards has to say about anything?
They're not voting for them.
Well, you know, that is.
I think you're right.
There's a little bit of a risk here, and I call it the Hillary syndrome.
You know, Rudy Giuliani stepped in it a little bit early on when he said that his wife would be allowed to sit in cabinet meetings.
Whoa, who don't meet Mrs. Clinton again.
You're the one running, not your wife.
And, you know, while I think that sort of has a play as a possibility here.
Hey, wait a minute, Edwards.
I thought you're the candidate.
What's your wife out there speaking up for?
Don't you have the courage to do it yourself?
And then Michelle Obama speaks up, and then Barack has to go out.
Well, come on, guys, don't play games here.
You know she didn't mean Clinton.
So they're out there having to correct them.
And it does run the risk of having these guys look like they're cowards.
Well, yeah, there's that as well, but there's also the additional aspect.
Well, you know, yeah, but I'm not voting for your wife.
I mean, see, isn't there a certain decorum that should be manifest here?
And it just doesn't seem to me like it is.
Like, it's almost this, hey, I got the right to speak.
I'm going to say whatever I want.
And I leave it to my husband to discuss it with you later.
Especially with all the sexism we have in this country and the misogyny.
Misogynism, you're exactly right.
You're going to have a bunch of guys out there.
I don't care.
From this woman, I hear enough of it like this at home.
I'm not listening to my wife.
I got to listen to her.
All right, I got to go on that one.
I got to hit the tallgrass on that one.
Thanks for a call.
I'll be right back.
You know that legislation they're working on.
You can sue the boss for being a jerk.
Will the legislation allow employers to sue workers for being jerks?
Will the legislation allow congressional staffers to sue members of Congress for being jerks?
How about interns?
Could they sue, say, the president for a sexual jerk?
I don't know.
I'm waiting to find out if it's in the legislation.
Also, big story: moose gas.
▲
Export Selection