All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:02
September 20, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Wow, I just got an obscene email.
A North Carolina mistress just an obscene email.
What a way to start a busy broadcast hour.
It was two words.
I just asked her a question.
I said, did you write this?
I'll tell you, it is so much fun.
It is just.
I thank God every day I'm single.
Excuse me for a second.
I had a cough here.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being.
To have 800-282-2882 is the number if you want to be in the program.
It's open line Friday on Thursday, meaning we go to the phones.
The program is all yours.
You can talk about whatever you want.
You can ask questions.
No, if you call, you've got to use more than two words, folks.
I know this is highly unprofessional to be laughing about something I can't tell you about.
I'm going to.
I'm going to regain my composure here.
I want to finish my thought on the separation of church and state business here, folks, because this is important.
I don't care even if you've got some wacko teacher teaching your kid wrongly about it, it's still something that everybody has just come to accept, and it doesn't exist.
There's no such thing.
You can go to the Constitution, go to First Amendment, and freedom of religion is the first thing that's mentioned.
And it just says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
That seals us against the fear of a state church.
That's it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Now, the key here is coercion, which I will get to in a moment.
But in that First Amendment, there's no separation clause there.
This phrase, separation of church and state, comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter.
He wrote it on January 1st, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association.
He used the phrase, a wall of separation between church and state, to describe what the First Amendment had accomplished so that these Baptists didn't need to fear state governments' declarations of days of prayer and fasting as abridging their religious rights.
They'd have to fear it because there was nothing could be done to them.
The First Amendment protects religious expression even by individuals in government and even in public halls and government buildings.
And Jefferson solidified this by concluding his letter with a reference to the common father and creator of man.
Now, Jefferson had a, this letter ended up being seized on in 1947 of the Supreme Court in a case called Emerson versus Board of Education.
And the Supreme Court in 47 asserted that separation of church and state is mandated by the Constitution.
That was a complete misstatement of Jefferson's record to seize a single letter and to ignore the rest of his record and to take that whole phrase, a wall of separation, out of the context of the letter that Jefferson wrote.
Now, as an aside, ladies and gentlemen, Thomas Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention.
He was representing our country in France.
He was investigating Bordeaux.
He didn't vote on the Constitution.
He was a deist, not an atheist.
In other words, he believed in a supreme being, but not a supreme being who intercedes simply because someone prays and asks him to.
But without getting into all that, the point is that Jefferson was not hostile to religion.
His record is not one of banishing it from the public square.
At all.
And so this is something that's been taken totally out of context purposefully by liberals, teachers, and so forth who have a great fear of religion.
It dovetails to what I was talking about yesterday.
Liberals are people, for the most part, exceptions to this, but overall, liberalism can be defined in many ways.
And one of the ways you can define it is it has no meaning beyond itself.
And liberals have not, everything's about them.
They are the center of their universe, individually and collectively.
They do not have any sense that there's something bigger than they are.
They have never learned that there are things in life that are more important than they are.
And it's because they don't have, you know, they're hostile to religion.
They're hostile to God because that gives people meaning.
You know, you can have everything in the world you want.
You can go out and achieve everything you want.
And still people have empty lives who have achieved all those things.
Those things do not provide happiness and a sense of meaning in life.
And we're all searching for meaning, but liberals aren't.
They think they found it in themselves.
So when they are confronted with people who know that there are many things larger than themselves individually and have faith in a God, that is a huge threat because liberals want themselves to be looked at that way and their government that they run looked at that way.
So you have these liberals who take the Supreme Court decision and they run with it and they use it and they point it.
C, see, this country is not about Christians.
It's not about God.
It's not about anything.
You can't talk about, you can't put the Nativity scene in my town at Christmas time.
That's a violation of the First Amendment.
It is not because nobody's being coerced.
You put the Nativity scene up fine and dandy.
Nobody has to go watch it.
Nobody has to understand it.
Nobody has to go by and pay devotion to it.
Nobody has to do anything.
And without coercion, there cannot be any forcing by government, local, state, federal, whatever, of religion on anybody.
But because people get offended, and why do they get offended?
It's not because they may not, they hate nativity scenes.
It's larger than that.
They get offended because the nativity scene or any other such expression represents a threat to the worldview they have that they are the center of the universe.
They are genuinely afraid of people who have discovered or are on the path trying to discover genuine meaning in life.
Now, we human beings are very curious.
And we all have questions.
Why are we here?
Where did this come from?
How did it happen?
We have questions we are capable of asking, but we have no way of ever answering them.
Not on this earth anyway.
And that will always be the case.
I don't care what scientists tell us, what they do with the genetic code, what they do with DNA, all this stuff.
We are going to have questions we will never, ever have the answers to.
And so what sustains us when we don't get the answers?
Faith.
I remember reading Pascal Le Pensés.
Pascal, Blaise Pascal, French philosophy.
Did you see the story how many French do not brush their teeth?
I don't know if this is true of Pascal or not, but one million French citizens never brush their teeth.
Half of all French do not brush their teeth in the evening.
57 of French children under five have never brushed their teeth.
You know, it is amazing French kissing was ever invented.
Anyway, Pascal, he was just beside himself trying to prove Christianity to himself.
The Bible wasn't enough for him.
He wanted to find ways to establish it for himself.
Everybody does that's curious and has the ability to be somewhat deep.
So Pascal, to him, and this is just, again, I'm not coercing you to believe this.
I'm sharing this information with you.
So besides, I'm not a government entity.
So the First Amendment's not applicable to me here, but in this sense.
But Pascal, the resurrection of Christ was the key.
If that didn't happen, then nothing else in it could be true.
And he said, how can this happen?
How can somebody die and come back?
How can that happen?
And here's what he came up with to satisfy himself.
Very simple.
He said, it's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that's never been can be.
Now, I don't know what impact that makes on you, but I'm fascinated.
Malcolm Muggeridge was another, a British individual who, big atheist.
He set out to prove Christianity was a fraud and he became one of the biggest disciples of Christianity ever.
And this happens a lot of times when you have people who don't believe it, try to prove that it's all bogus, and they end up being some of the biggest converts you ever run into, and they're all profound intellectuals.
Now, I'm focusing on Christianity because I am one, but I'm not doing this to disparage anything else.
The point is, whatever your religious belief is, it's based on something larger than yourself, and it's based on a desire to understand more than we're capable of understanding.
It's a way to seek explanation, salvation, eternal life, all of these things.
None of this applies to liberals, folks, and people that do have these quests and people that have come to the realization that there are many things in life larger than themselves are huge threats to liberals because it shakes their total worldview and it takes them out of being the center of the orbit.
And that's the reason for their hatred of the Christian right.
And that's, in fact, their hatred of the Christian right is such that they will tolerate violent religions and try to compare the Christian right to them and so forth.
It's really, it's not hard to understand who liberals are at all and why it is that they're motivated the way they are.
And this separation of church and state thing is a great illustration.
What in the world is why have to go so out of your way to distort this and then end up trying to teach it in kids where, by the way, when you are a teacher and you're in a public school, you are part of the state and you are coercing.
If you are telling your students that you're not going to let God in your classroom because it shouldn't be part of the country, it was never part of country, separation of church and state.
No, you are coercing.
And you are prohibited from doing that.
And that's what this teacher in this school down here that I've been talking about all day is up to.
And it's just an idiot.
And yet has a doctoral degree.
And nothing more than a pure liberal hack who probably has a miserable life, spends a lot of it in fear.
You know, this is just, it's frustrating when you have something that's so easily understood as Thomas Jefferson's life as it relates to God, the founding fathers.
I mean, how in the world can you teach an American history class and tell your students that the founding fathers were atheists?
If you've ever read George Washington's farewell address, his inaugural address, or the Thanksgiving address, the first, you cannot read any of those things.
And if you're teaching American history, I would assume that you've been taught those things somewhere along the line in your own education.
So you throw all that out, you throw the facts out, you substitute your worldview for it because you are a liberal and you are smarter than everybody else.
And the world revolves around you and all these beliefs that people have, it can't be proved.
Why?
They're just distractions.
Anyway, I'm a little long here.
I got a brief time out, ladies and gentlemen.
Sit tight.
Much more straight ahead.
Ha!
How are you?
Welcome back.
El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
Maha Rushi.
You know something, folks, I've been noticing today, last night and today, be it in print, be it broadcast.
You know, Norman Shu been charged here by the feds with running a $60 million Ponzi scheme.
And every reference to him, either graphically on TV or in print stories that I have downloaded from anywhere on the internet, refer to him uniformly as disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Shu.
Now, I'm puzzled about this for two reasons.
A, why are they referring to him as a Democrat fundraiser?
Normally, the drive-bys would just be referring to him as disgraced fundraiser, if they would even be doing that.
But every one of them, I don't know if it's Fox, PMS, NBC, CNN, the newspapers, disgraced former.
The second question I have is, how come the people that took the money from the disgraced former fundraiser are not themselves disgraced?
Where is the FBI looking at Norman Shu?
But Rush, but Rush, he just got indicted by the Fed.
Yes, for his Ponzi scheme.
But I don't know that the FBI is investigating his campaign contributions, per se.
They're investigating where he got the money to charge him with a Ponzi scheme.
But let's go back, shall we?
Right now, Ted Stevens, a Republican senator from Alaska, has the FBI prowling around his home in Alaska for some fraud involving, what, remodeling a bathroom in his house with some constituent or some such.
I don't know if they didn't have any FBI's in a case.
And then we had a little congressman from down here who was writing his little funny little emails to these pages.
And the FBI and on that, they were reading these emails and they were examining IP addresses and DNSs and servers and everything else trying to find what really went on.
Emails, folks.
Emails.
And we had ABC News on the case.
What else we got?
We have the FBI, Harry Reid, Dingy Harry, hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable land deals involving federal lands.
LA Times has done countless stories on the intricate details and workings of Dingy Harry and his sons who are lawyers and lobbyists.
Where's the FBI investigating that?
They don't know that they are.
Might be, but we haven't heard anything about it.
We certainly hear when the FBI is investigating Republicans for emails or some kind of fraud remodeling a bathroom.
Where is the FBI examining?
Do you realize how many fraudulent donors in this cycle there are to the Democrat Party?
Not just Hillary, but Obama, all of these people, Edwards.
And they all are giving the money back, they say, to give a charity or so forth.
I want to see to cancel checks on those donations to charity.
But where's the FBI investigating the funny money campaign contributions in the Democrat Party?
Now, we do noted the FBI was heavily involved investigating Jack Abramoff.
Why, any Republican that ever came in contact with Jack Abramoff, who they were going to fry, along with Abramoff.
But now we got Norman Shu.
We've got, there's a whole bunch of them here.
In fact, from the note, ABC's the note today, and by the way, here's this word again connected to Hillary: fishy donors haunt Hillary's run.
Who was it the other day that said Hillary was not a wet fish?
Oh, it was Madeline Albright.
She's not a wet fish.
Cold fish.
She's not a cold fish.
That's right.
She's not a cold fish.
Yeah.
I got to stipulate to make sure that she's not a cold fish, which means, ladies and gentlemen, that Madeline Albright knows Hillary's temperature.
Has to be able to, I mean, so now here's a fishy donors.
Questionable cash haunts Clinton and her rivals in race for 08.
The Wall Street Journal's Brody Mullins reporting another suspicious bundler who's helping Senator Clinton, William Danielzick, founder of a Washington area private equity firm.
They quoted donor Pamela Layton as saying she was reimbursed by Daniel Check, her husband's boss, for the donations, which is illegal.
I don't even like Hillary.
I'm a Republican.
She said the Clinton campaign says it's sending back the $9,200 donated by the Laytons and will review all the contributions brought in by this guy.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
We have this guy.
Then, of course, there's Norman Shu, the Ponzi scheme.
It's described in the LA Times today.
And of course, the other shoe has dropped on Shu.
And that is, well, it has.
And that's his federal indictment on this Ponzi scheme.
In addition, Clinton's still refusing to say whether she will return money from Oscar Wyatt, who is on trial for fraud, conspiracy, and other charges related to Saddam Hussein's oil for food program.
John Solomon and Matthew Musk examine Clinton's top fundraisers and find several figures who were involved in the 1990s Democrat Party fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband's record.
Now, this is more of an issue for Clinton than any other candidate.
But one of John Edwards' top money guys, trial lawyer William Larock, and I'm not sure how you pronounce his name, is now headed to prison for 12 months under a plea agreement on conspiracy charges.
So, I mean, where's the FBI here, folks?
It is a pattern.
It is a pattern here in the Democrat Party and is being swept.
And they keep disgraced Democrat fundraiser.
There's something up.
I haven't figured out what yet, but there's a reason to drive-by is it doing that.
That would be the golden EIB microphone, ladies and gentlemen.
Center stage, Daniel in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, you're always telling your loyal listeners that we can't see the footage of the 9-11 attacks on the U.S.
I really don't understand.
I think a guy of your stature, you should be able to afford some of this footage and put it on yourself.
I've even seen it on community access here in Raleigh Lightnight.
I never even thought about buying it.
I probably could, but I want to wait till it costs as much as possible.
I don't buy things till they cost a lot of money.
That explains it.
I never thought of that.
Thank you.
You have a good point.
I don't know the state of that footage.
Do the networks own it?
And would they sell it?
So forth.
For example, you know, just to give you an example, I have tried and tried and tried to buy videotape of all of the Super Bowls in the 70s that the Steelers were in from the networks that broadcast.
They will not do it.
The only way you can do it is to go to NFL Films and get the highlight for each Super Bowl, which is either 30 minutes or an hour, depending on how they do it.
They will not do it.
Won't sell it no matter what I offer.
Well, you know, that's better than me trying to get a bank sale on.
I never thought that you'd just wait till the price was in the stratosphere.
Well, I have to keep up my image.
I mean, if word gets out that I go out there and buy cheap stuff and pay as little as I can for it, then that house of cards could give me trouble.
We all have our legacies here.
And so that's, I'm glad you understand that.
I appreciate it.
I like that kind of sensitivity in this audience.
Jen in Scottdale, Pennsylvania.
Hi.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
You bet.
I just wanted to make the comment that I can't see that CBS would ever let this Dan Rather thing go to trial because Dan Rather, all the years he's been on the air, has to have some good inside information on CBS that they wouldn't want to come out.
Yeah, but that works both ways.
Well, Dan Rather has already been disgraced.
Yeah, but see, this is about the money.
You understand that?
Yeah, it seems more like a blackmail to me.
Well, there's something else you got to think of here.
CBS paid off pretty rapidly to Don Imus, didn't they?
Now, we don't know how much, but the Imus camp was putting out there the $40 million figure.
CBS out there denying it.
So CBS, I don't know if they're going to settle this or not, because if they establish a pattern of, yeah, I'll pay you to shut up, then they're going to have a lot of takers.
They'll have a lot of people that'll come out of the woodwork.
Well, maybe that's what Dan Rather's thinking he saw.
Imus paid off and said, hey, where's my portion?
Well, Dan Rather's thinking about money, and Dan Rather's getting sick and tired of running around, unable to shake his reputation based on this story.
And so if he can get CBS to admit in a settlement, by virtue of a settlement, that parts of his lawsuit have merit, then he can run around and say, see, see, record's been straightened out.
Dan Rather, CBS News, tough questions.
They saw it my way.
So there's a lot at stake here for CBS.
And this is in a lot of ways.
And so I'm not so sure.
I mean, the odds are something like this would settle, but that's a dangerous pattern that CBS runs the risk of establishing if they do that.
This is Martin in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Hi, Martin.
Nice to have you on Open Line Friday on Thursday.
Maha Rushi.
Hey, I got to know, what did Riolindo ever do to you?
Not much.
I offered to move there if they would change the name to Limbaugh, California, and they didn't do that.
But that didn't offend me.
didn't bother me to you too I guess he's asking me about Rio Linda.
He wants to know what...
Rio Linda is, well, Sacramento's got upset if I refer to it as a suburb.
But Rio La, it's a charming little place.
You drive down the main drag, and the cars that belong to each house are on concrete blocks in the front yard, most of them stripped.
Washing machines and dryers on the front porch.
I drove through this place when I first moved to Sacramento.
This is great.
So it's just my pet little community to amuck.
They love it out there.
And in fact, as a result of this, property values have actually skyrocketed over the course of, what, 22 or 23 years here in Rio Linda.
Martin, thanks for the call.
Let's see.
Where are we going?
Bruce in Greenville, Pennsylvania.
You're next, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
Very good, sir.
Thank you.
I've been listening to you since 1988, I believe it is.
And I talked to you once in 1991, and I was nervous as heck.
And I'm not nervous today because you're like my friend.
Well, thank you, sir.
I appreciate it.
I'm glad you're not nervous.
We like callers that are not nervous.
Well, I appreciate that.
I just wanted to hear your take on one thing, and that is that I have not heard any Democrat yet make any statement where they would be representing that they are running against one of the Republicans who are running for president.
Every statement that a Democrat who's running for president makes it against George Bush.
Yeah.
And you want to know why.
They've lost every time to George Bush.
They just recently lost again with this recent vote.
All right.
Now I just like your take on it.
There are two reasons for this.
Maybe more, but there are two reasons that strike me.
First, let me go back to what I said in the brilliant monologue in which I opened this hour.
You have to understand who liberals are, and most Democrats are liberals.
And you have to understand this.
They are the center of the universe, and their birthright is power.
To them, it's an entitlement.
And precisely because Bush has taken it from, there is a personal hatred for George W. Bush that is driving this.
And it goes back to the Florida 2000 aftermath.
They tried to steal an election, and they failed to steal an election, and they're now running around saying Bush stole the election.
Now, when elected Democrats and all these people run around saying Bush stole the election, they're Nimrod constituents out there who are filled with the same deep personal hatred, which is irrational.
They don't even know the man.
They hate him personally.
So they get on that gravy train, too.
So the elected Democrats start talking about how this election was stolen from them, an election they were trying to steal themselves down here.
And they tried every which way.
They even had a Florida Supreme Court on their side for a while.
So that bills.
George Bush is the denier.
George Bush has denied them what's theirs.
And George Bush has done things they hate.
He has cut taxes.
He is using the U.S. military.
And he is outflanking Democrats at every turn.
And he's a nice guy.
And he doesn't respond to any of their baiting.
And this is not how conservatives are supposed to be.
Conservatives are supposed to look like toothless gun hayseed hicks driving around in red pickup trucks that have been stripped and are on concrete blocks in Riolinda, California.
He doesn't play the role that they have assigned him.
So the hatred's personal.
It is also political for the latter reasons I gave you.
Now, because they have created, I mean, there was a certain foundation for it anyway, amongst general liberal population out there.
But it has been stoked.
It has been fueled.
The liberals and the Democrats have thrown gasoline on that fire so that it is now roaring out of control.
The sole focus of elected Democrats and their supporters, their constituents and liberals, is getting rid of Bush.
And the elected Democrats know that their constituents have now been ginned up to hate Bush.
And so to them, the elected Democrats running against Bush is the best way to keep their base fired up.
Politically, it's asinine because Bush isn't on the ballot, as you correctly observed and pointed out.
Yet they are continuing to run against him.
Now, give them time.
They'll start their little assaults on Rudy to drive by as you know, trying to tear Rudy down and Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
The elected Democrats, their candidates, will get on to it.
But right now, this is primary season.
This is fundraising season, and you have to stoke and keep throwing gasoline on the fire that is their lunatic, insane, deranged, delusional base.
And that base is motivated by hate.
They are miserable people, and they are unhappy, and they believe every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike.
I mean, they are the genuine tinfoil hat crowd now.
It used to make fun of conservatives or the black helicopter crowd.
I'm telling you, the American left today, the Democrat Party and its base, is made up of you take every conspiracy theory you've ever heard and throw them all in a giant hopper, and every one of them is in the Democrat Party today.
And it motivates them and inspires me.
It's elected Democrats know they got to get money from these people, and so they keep throwing that on the fire, and that's the way they throw the gasoline in the fire.
George Bush is a gasoline.
It's, you know, politically, it's kind of interesting to watch because it's so silly.
But when you understand it, as I do, because I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, I know exactly what they're thinking before they think it.
I know what they're going to do before they do it.
I know how they're going to react when something's said they don't like.
I know these people, and I know exactly why they're running against Bush for the reasons I gave you.
Personal hatred.
They just despise this.
Look at how they talk on a dumb hayseed hick.
You've got a tin of chewing tobacco in a back pocket.
And yet he outsmarts them on the things he cares about.
He outsmarts them every time.
Arrogant, condescending, small little people.
Quick time out.
Be right back.
All right, we're back.
And you know, the fundraising scandals and so forth, Norman Shue, the other shoe dropped on shoe today, by the way, with a big $60 million indictment out there.
But you know how the Clintons explain this?
And the drive-bys, even though they characterize him as a disgraced Democrat fundraiser, even though the Clintons run out there and say, this isn't a pattern of corruption.
We heard what Limbaugh said about this.
This is not a pattern of corruption.
This is simply widespread coincidence.
From the 90s, actually with the lipo group and the Riottis and that bunch in the late 80s in Arkansas all the way up to the 90s.
Now, this widespread coincidence.
Here's what we ought to do, folks.
Any of you practical jokers up, nah, don't do it.
This is something I'd love to see.
Just get some of that yellow crime tape and just drape it around Clinton campaign headquarters.
We know what goes on in there.
Everybody knows what just make it a crime scene and be done with it.
Patty, in Westchester County, up in New York, nice to have you on the phone.
I'm glad you called.
Thank you.
Rush, why do you talk about your mistresses the way you do?
I've heard you do it on several occasions.
I don't know if you're joking or if you're serious.
I don't understand it.
Is it a joke?
Let me ask you a question.
Go ahead.
Do you think that if I actually had mistresses?
See, you've just, you've just, I can't do it again.
You've just, you've taken the mystique out of them.
Now I have to admit the joke.
Oh, thank God.
Do you think that if I actually had mistresses, I would be advertising it?
Well, that's what I thought it had to be a joke, but then you said it on several of occasions and it drives me nuts.
Why?
Do you want to be one?
No.
No.
I just, you know, it doesn't match with the image that I have of you.
I used to think you were the Antichrist.
Now I've grown to like you.
And then you come up with these things like this.
It makes me nuts.
Are you feminist in any way?
Is it you are?
Okay, this explains it.
Why?
This totally explains it.
Well, not totally, but I mean, it partially, well, if I put the timeline together, you used to think I was the Antichrist.
Yes.
I mean, 666 and all that.
Yes.
And so you have to have had some liberal leanings back then as a woman.
Tend to believe that many of them are rooted in feminism.
So, simple calculation on my part.
Logic.
Well, I was definitely a child of the 70s and the whole, you know, evolution.
I've met you people back in the 70s.
No, some of the most formative experiences in my life with women occurred when I was 21, 22, in the early 70s, when new era, modern era feminism was being couldn't compliment a woman on her appearance without her being insulted.
What about my brain?
Didn't want a car door opened for them, reading books by Susan Brown Miller on rape.
I remember I had a date once, and this woman, it's all she wanted to talk about, was how rape was a violent.
I understand that, but this is not why.
And she made me go out and get the book.
So, anyway, you've evolved from that.
Yes.
How did that happen?
I matured, and I had a child, and I moved out of California.
Oh, so you moved out of California.
Well, but you're Westchester County.
That's not quite the city, but you're still challenged, I would assume.
Absolutely.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
But I'm learning from you.
I'm a quick study.
Obviously, so.
How long ago was it that you began to question or doubt?
Have you noticed, by the way, Patty, how I've cleverly turned this conversation away from me back to you?
I see that, but I'm assured, reassured by your saying that it was a joke.
I'm trusting you on that rush.
Of course.
But why is that funny?
Why is that funny?
Because it worked.
It worked.
Look at you.
You're Corinne here asking me about it.
I can't believe he's saying that.
Yeah, you should tell.
Why isn't it funny?
Because you're above that, even if, you know, especially if it's true, which I'm glad it's not.
But you're above that.
At least I'd like to think you are.
You know, I listen to the golf.
I listen to the football.
I listen to, you know, this weekend we had steaks on the barbecue and all that, and that's fine.
But it's the mistresses that really pushes me over the edge.
So you have to tolerate the football.
Yeah.
And the golf.
And the golf.
And steaks on barbecue.
Which is nice.
I don't mind hearing about having everybody over the house and throwing cigars on and martinis.
And that sounds.
That's in keeping with my image of you.
Cigars, martinis, drinks, barbecue.
Not the mistresses.
Even the cat.
Even the cats.
What about the cat?
I've listened to the cat, pumpkin.
You know, I don't know.
Don't tell me that that bothers you, too.
No, it doesn't bother me at all.
It's only the mistresses.
By the way, I should tell you.
Yes.
Several of our founding fathers had mistresses.
Okay, so I see the category you're putting yourself in now.
Remember one of my, I want to send you away here with no doubts whatsoever, Patty.
Okay.
Because I don't want you troubled.
I don't want anybody in this audience troubled.
Thank you.
In all comedy, for all good comedy, for all humor that is executed perfectly and well done, there must be a grain of truth.
I know, I know.
What is the grain?
Is there a friend in North Carolina?
Does it email you?
Is it an aunt?
What is the grain?
That's what we need to know.
You're not going to tell.
I can tell by the way you're laughing.
You're not going to give it up.
There's nothing.
You're cute.
Sorry.
Not supposed to say that.
Oh, no, no, no.
I've moved beyond feminism.
You can tell me that all you want.
Okay.
All right.
See what my normal reaction is?
I mean, that's my instinctive reaction based on the formative training in my early 20s dealing with women.
And that's a shame.
It is.
It's a terrible shame.
That's why I have mistresses.
No commitments necessary.
Stop it.
Stop it.
Do you really think if I had mistresses, I would be admitting it?
You know, I don't know for sure.
Then how can you have this lofty image of me with such a chink in it?
That's why I'm calling.
That's why I'm calling.
Trust your instincts.
All right.
Always trust your instincts.
All right, but I'm going to keep an eye out.
I'm listening.
Well, I'm glad to know that you're out there.
Thank you.
That's an awful wifey thing to say, but I'm...
I gotta run, Patty.
I gotta run.
I got to run out of time.
I've enjoyed it.
Thanks much.
We'll be back.
And the North Carolina mistress is now furious with me over that last call.
▲
Export Selection