All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 20, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:56
November 20, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Hi, I'm Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, Maha Rush Nishi.
Here behind the Golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's great to have you with us.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
So Obama, Obama at a Manchester, New Hampshire has scroll in response to a question, admitted to HASSCRUL students that he had sampled illegal drugs as a HASSCRULLE himself.
He was basically a goofball in high school.
He sampled adult beverages.
In his memoir, he said that he had also tried cocaine.
He should do one of these anti-drug PSAs.
I'm Barack Obama.
And my ears got this big after I tried cocaine.
These could be your ears on cocaine.
And just wipe this out.
You know, you got to stay in front of this stuff.
I checked the email during the break.
Many, many people are really fried over this San Francisco healthcare story.
So let me dig deeper into it and tell you how it actually works, just to refresh your memory.
It's the story of the most important piece of plastic in the wallet of Cheng Wang.
His new medical ID card featuring a picture of a heart in San Francisco's signature skyline.
He came here from Taiwan.
Excuse me.
He came here from Taiwan.
He has diabetes.
When he left Taiwan, he grabbed enough pills to last seven months.
Gets off the boat in San Francisco.
The airplane, after seven months, runs out of pills.
He had no medical insurance, and it scared him.
Then he learned about a groundbreaking San Francisco City Health Plan that provides a network of care to residents regardless of their ability to pay, regardless their immigration status or existing medical condition.
He's a proud man with oversized glasses, and it's important to him that the program is not purely a handout.
It's a bona fide medical plan offering free care free of charge to those who can't pay and on a sliding scale to those who can't afford to contribute to their care.
So I wonder what would happen.
Let's say I had diabetes.
And let's say I decided I wanted to go to Taiwan or Hong Kong or Shanghai, go visit the ChiComs.
And I didn't have any money.
And when I got there, and seven months later, my diabetes pills run out.
I wonder if I walk into some building in Hong Kong and say, hey, you know, I got diabetes and I'm out of pills.
You got a program for people like me?
Yeah, and they'd grab a pistol.
You want a pill?
And they'd aim the pistol at my head.
Now, here's how the program works.
Officials in San Francisco stress that their universal health care plan is not insurance.
The program does not travel with members who are only covered for visits to participating clinics and the public hospital in San Francisco.
It also does not cover dental or eye care.
Those below the federal poverty level, $10,210 in annual income for a single person, $20,650 for a family of four, pay no fees.
Starting next month, the plan will be open to individuals with incomes up to 500% of the poverty level.
This is S-CHIP on steroids.
Quarterly fees on the sliding scale range from $60 to $675.
Co-payments for those who don't qualify for free care range from $10 to $20 for clinic visits, $200 to $350 for a hospital stay.
The goal of Healthy San Francisco is simple.
Get involved earlier in preventive care for city residents before chronic illnesses become serious enough to require hospital care at the county's expense.
Our system didn't serve the population, said program director Tangerine Brigham.
Yes, you heard me correctly.
Somebody actually named her daughter after a fruit.
It was easy for people to do episodic care or seek no care at all, said Tangerine Brigham.
The idea was, well, if I don't have my own Marcus Welby, I might wait for trauma care.
Well, we're trying to give everybody their own Marcus Welby.
Tangerine Brigham added, referring to the fictional family doctor of the 1970s TV drama.
Universal health care, whether you can pay for it or not.
And you get a card, you get a little ID card, a little ID card, and who knows, you may be able to go vote after that.
Which is what this is really all about, my friends.
A top UN official reported to the UN Security Council that recent developments in Iraq have opened an opportunity for progress.
UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pesco, briefed the UN Security Council that sectarian tensions are still problematic, but that recent trends, including recently released figures that show September having the lowest number of casualties in 2006, are reason to believe there is opportunity for progress.
And in fact, ladies and gentlemen, front page above the fold with pictures today, the New York Times, the security improvements in most neighborhoods are real.
20,000 so far have returned to their homes in Baghdad.
Iraqis sound uncertain about the future, but defiantly optimistic.
Many Baghdad residents seem to be willing themselves to normalcy, ignoring risks and suppressing fears to reclaim their lives, pushing past boundaries of sect and neighborhood.
Front page above the fold, New York Times.
This story has just got to make the Democrats livid.
Particularly Hillary, particularly Reed and Pelosi.
In a related story from, let's see, where's this from?
It's the Daily Star.
Don't know where that's from because the top half of the page of the web link is clipped.
Can't read it.
Only half of each letter showing.
Iraqi army raid, Shiite militia strongholds, finds cache of Iranian-made weapons.
These were from Muki's boys, the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr.
And from Mosul, Abu Nawal, a captured al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, said he didn't join the Sunni insurgent group here to kill Americans or to form a Muslim caliphate.
He signed up for the cash.
I was out of work.
I needed the money, said Abu Nawal, the nom de guerre of an unemployed metal worker, paid as much as $1,300 a month to be an insurgent.
Well, now, wait, folks, Abu Nawal and his captors agreed that the Iraqis were joining the insurgency out of economic necessity.
Well, wait a minute.
I thought all along we were creating all these terrorists.
I thought Bush was so wrong and so bad and so horrible.
And John Kerry and the whole Democrat Party elite, they were running out.
Yeah, we're attacking Islam.
And so these people are a proud Muslim bunch.
And we're attacking Islam.
And they're joining up.
We're creating more terrorists.
No.
They were mercenaries.
It was also a way to stay alive.
Of course, we hate the Americans, they say, here, but we needed the money.
As one general referred to them, it sounds like they're the Iraq branch of the Sopranos.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Touched on this last story or this next story briefly early on.
I'm going to spend just a little more time on it.
From the Washington Post Foreign Service today, new report to show UN overestimated AIDS epidemic.
Why would they do that?
Why would the UN overestimate the AIDS epidemic?
Can anybody say money?
Same reason.
Yeah, Ted Denson overestimated the death of the oceans.
Can anybody ask the same question about global warming?
Why would the UN be overestimating the destruction from global warming?
United Nations top AIDS scientists, quote unquote, this week plan to acknowledge that they long have overestimated both the size and the course of the AIDS epidemic, which they now believe has been ebbing for nearly a decade.
AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily impacted areas of sub-Saharan Africa, but the sweeping revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgement of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the UN's portrayal of an ever-rising epidemic on the march across the globe.
Just take the AIDS epidemic out of here and put global warming in it, and you've got an identical story in about 10 years.
The latest estimates due to be released publicly tomorrow put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million.
That's a cut of more than 40% from last year's estimate.
Documents show.
Having millions of fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news.
However, as is the case with the drive-by media, there is always a however after the good news.
Some researchers have contended that persistent overestimates of the UN's widely quoted reports have skewed funding decisions while also obscuring potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV.
Critics also have said the UN officials overstated the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.
Oh, okay.
So they did it strategically.
They were smart.
They lied on purpose to get our attention to make sure we knew just how rotten it was going to be and to make sure that governments around the world and individuals threw money at AIDS programs all over the world administered by the United Nations.
Can anybody say global warming overestimated?
Same bunch of people.
In fact, this last line, last paragraph, I never thought that I would see this in the Washington Post.
Beyond Africa, the AIDS epidemic is more likely to be concentrated among high-risk groups such as users of injectable drugs, sex workers, and gay men.
More precise measurements of infection rates should allow for better targeting of prevention measures, researchers say.
Yeah, I don't want to rehash a bunch of history, but I'm sure you all remember back in the 80s when Ronaldus Magnus was president and the AIDS epidemic was spreading because Reagan didn't care and he had never uttered the word.
And if we weren't careful, this was going to spread to the heterosexual population in a geometric fashion.
It was going to be devastating.
And so then we started teaching kids how to use condoms using various what do we use?
Bananas and stuff in school?
Yeah, it's cucumbers, bananas, and the condom craze started and all this because it was going to spread to the heterosexual community and so forth.
There was never any evidence that it was spreading to the heterosexual community, not sexually anyway.
If you said that, then you were guilty of a hate crime and profiling and discrimination and all of that.
Now, remember, what is fundamentally involved in all this?
Science.
Science told us it was going to spread.
It was going to spread to the heterosexual community.
Science told us it was going to spread to geometric rates.
And it was a consensus of scientists.
Scientist, scientist, scientists told us that this was all going to be one of the most devastating things around the world.
It was time to cough up money for education and condoms and cucumbers and all that.
And we had rock stars like Bono establish philanthropic careers on the basis of all this.
All based on science.
Science.
I think I read the other day, correct me if I'm wrong down the road, but I think that we've, somebody has discovered the original case of age in this country is brought in by a Haitian immigrant.
Is that right?
In the 50s?
Whatever.
It wasn't the 80s.
It wasn't.
Reagan had nothing to do with it.
The left politicizes virtually everything.
All right.
Here's Matt from Jacksonville, Florida.
Hi, Matt.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
That's a hard copy of dittos to you, sir.
Thank you.
Sure.
Hey, I wanted to ask your opinion, really, about this whole Clinton mess.
Of course, I don't want to make you blue or anything, but what's your opinion on, since you've outed Hillary for a lot of the things that she's done and Bill also, and the driver's license mess and everything, what do you think if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination, is that going to have a profound effect on her the end of her term as Senate?
Oh, would it impact her ability to be re-elected in the New York Senate?
I think it would have to.
No, but here's the woman.
She tries to run for president.
Look at Snurdley's giving these look like he can't believe me.
Look at it.
You've got to put everything in context here.
Here's the woman, the candidate of inevitability, the candidate who the nomination was hers secured fait accompli matter of time.
Then gets to the point where she doesn't get the nomination or gets it and loses the presidency.
I'd say more likely it would have a negative impact if she didn't even get the nomination.
I would think so.
But she would lose the Senate seat and probably Clinton Inc. would start to go really downhill then.
Now, there's another alternative, there's another possibility that you have to examine.
And that is, okay, she loses, but how?
How did the Republicans cheat it out of her?
How did they?
Because everybody knew it was over before it began.
She was the next president.
She was the first female president.
We all, we were going to get universal health care.
And then here come the usual Republican dirty tricks, stealing votes, screwing voting machines, so forth.
They could make her the biggest victim in the history of presidential politics, and she'd love to be it, guaranteeing her.
She'd be a senator.
She's a senator for life.
That's right.
I have one other comment about Hillary.
You played a soundbite on Friday, and it seemed as though she denounced the gender card in the beginning and by the end replayed it in order to erase it, but then again, use it.
She said that, no, I don't think they're picking on me because I'm a woman.
They're picking on me because I'm winning.
And then she went through this whole thing to get rid of the woman card.
And then at the very end, she says, I'll be proud to be America's first woman president.
Right, exactly.
And she's also out there saying things like, I can't wait when I'm president again, we're going to have she said that a couple times too.
But I don't think you've got to remember, liberals are rewarded for failure because they are then the premier victims.
Jimmy Carter, the head of the class, is an absolute disaster as a president.
But he's up there at the top of the heap.
Sandy Bergler, you name it, failure is a resume enhancement because the Dems don't look at it as failure.
They look at it as they got screwed and the poor candidate who got screwed deserves to be hoisted up and shown to be a great figure in person and so forth.
It's how they operate, it's how they think.
This is Pat, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush, mega Vietnam veteran, retired economic professor Didoz.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I want to take you back about an hour on the show when you were talking about the cable and the NFL.
Yeah.
It sounded like you were putting your free market capitalism on hold when the NFL and the cable companies get involved.
I hope I didn't hear you wrong.
Yeah, I know I'm on fumes today, but what did I say that made you think I was putting my capitalism on hold?
Well, because you were talking about the government getting involved to settle this thing.
Well, I wasn't advocating that.
I'm just telling you the government's going to appoint it.
They're thinking about a binding arbitrator.
I think that's absurd.
Thank you, because that is absurd.
These are private companies.
People are writing their congressmen.
They're writing local legislators asking them to do something, quote-unquote, about the cable company.
Cable companies are taking the PR hit here.
Yeah, this is a free market world.
If these guys want to fight it, I'll let them fight.
Exactly right.
No, I'm not for the government.
In fact, I made the point there's nothing Congress can do about it.
Now, I don't even know under what auspices somebody's appointing the arbitrator.
Oh, my father built one of the very first cable systems in the country.
So we have a capitalistic bias here.
Yes, I do.
Thanks for the full disclosure.
Yeah, well, we go way back to when we got in trouble with the Vikings because we used to pump their signal from Iowa back into Minnesota when people didn't want to go sit in the cold.
So we got sued, and I think we had something to do with the original distant signal rule.
And it went all the way to the courts.
I have no doubt.
Yeah.
Well, anyway, thanks for asking.
You know, the cable companies, look at, I want you to hang on because I have a question for you.
You're a retired economics professor.
Yep.
And I want to ask you a question from the standpoint of cable guys because the cable guys are livid about something that they would love to have, but the NFL will not let them have.
Back in just a second.
You know, let this be a lesson, ladies and gentlemen.
When you want something, you have to ask for it.
It was just a little over an hour ago that I asked a broadcast engineer to add a song to the bumper rotation, shaken all over by the guess who.
So the broadcast engineer went out and found it rather quickly.
Since that time, I have heard it once.
I made the mistake of assuming the broadcast engineer would understand that I wanted to be blown away by it for the rest of the show.
I've heard it once.
So what I should have said was, you can't assume, you can't assume people know what you mean simply by asking a question.
So what I should have said, go out and find, shake it all over, but a guess who, and then play it a bunch of times before the show is over.
There we go.
That's what I've been jamming to the past couple days here.
Kind of a.
That was kind of a rocky edit.
Even I with my cochlear implant, but I know that was a hurried up edit.
I know that in future days we'll have a seamless version of this, and we'll edit it on Pro Tools, and we will not need, you will not even notice that there has been an edit in it.
Play it again so that people can hear the edit.
I will not talk over it.
Okay.
There was the edit.
This is the end of the song, the absolute least appealing part of it, which should not have appeared in the bump and where proper editing wouldn't be.
All right, Pat in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
We're talking about cable and the NFL.
Now, here's the question.
Here's the thing.
This is a question I had for you.
Okay.
And it is this.
The NFL offers every football game played on Sunday in the afternoon, not the night game, on the NFL Sunday ticket to DirecTV.
The cable operators are livid.
They want that package, and they claim there's restraint of trade.
Why should they not be able to get ⁇ they get the network offerings that are local market determined, but they don't get the Sunday ticket.
And now they're being asked to pay what they think is an inflated price for the NFL network.
And of course, there are a lot of fans.
Not everybody can get satellite.
Not everybody can afford it.
Not everybody can put a satellite up because it's got trees and so forth.
But it's very expensive, like $750 million that DirecTV is paying for it.
So put that into the equation of the cable guys being upset over the fight over the NFL network.
Well, it's just basic economics, Rush.
I mean, if I'm a cable provider and I have to pay $3 for a show to provide it to a customer, what's going to happen to my pricing?
Now, and the other thing is, DirecTV doesn't have the infrastructure that cable does.
With DirecTV, I grant you, the satellites are not cheap, and putting them up is not cheap.
But the infrastructure difference between cable and satellite is horrendous.
And what does satellite do?
They come out, they give you a box, you turn it on, you plug in your phone so you can dial movies over the phone.
But the bottom line is that's their infrastructure.
The antenna on your roof and the box on the top of your set.
If you compare that to the tens of hundreds of thousands of miles of cables and cable amplifiers, and you start looking at the economics of one versus the other, it becomes very clear why cable can't pay what DirecTV or satellite broadcasters can pay.
Okay, so it's a cost thing.
Right, but what the cable guys are saying, how come it's exclusive?
Why NFL you'll charge Direct TV or whatever, DirecTV will pay whatever they have to to keep this, and it's exclusive.
Well, what's wrong with that?
It's a free market, Rush.
It's like telling me that Microsoft, remember the Microsoft lawsuit, okay?
People have a right to their product, and they have a right to sell it to whom they want to.
And if you don't want to pay the price, you don't get it.
I can't go get a Cadillac for $4.95.
I understand that.
And the cable companies didn't want to pay what DirecTV is paying for the Sunday ticket.
And that's all it is, because if cable company does pay what DirecTV pays, their subscribers' rates would go through the roof.
And it really isn't, you know, the cable companies come out to being the big bad guy, but this fight's been going on since day one about how bad the cable guys are.
In the early days, the phone companies and utility companies wouldn't even rent space to the cable company to hang their wires on the poles.
They had to be sued to get space just to hang the wires.
This stuff goes back to day one.
Cable is nothing more than a community antenna, okay?
And they have infrastructure costs.
DirecTV and some of these other people.
Look at a phone company now.
The phone company is going to give you TV eventually.
They're going to give you digital TV over your phone line.
Okay.
Well, most of the time.
Those of us that use Apple Macintoshes already have that.
Exactly.
But what was their additional infrastructure cost to do that?
Almost nothing.
So what's going to happen to all this coax laying in the ground?
That's why cable is going to diminish and become nothing more than a broadband tool.
It won't really be a TV like it was 20, 30, 40 years ago.
When my dad started it in 1957, we built the seventh system ever built.
Let me ask you a question about COAX.
Is that a one-time investment or do you have to replace it every now and again just because it wears out?
It's pretty much a one-time investment, but what wears out are the line amplifiers and the huge number of technicians.
Plus, those babies are out in the weather.
Not that the phone companies aren't, but you're talking about some.
Well, you know, this stuff cuts both ways, though, because I can remember back in the 80s when I lived in Kansas City, 79, 80, when cable was first made available in my neighborhood, I craved it.
Most of the places I'd lived did not have it.
And they had, you know, they were making exclusive deals with cities for franchises.
There were kickbacks going back and forth both ways on getting these things.
And you were stuck with your cable company.
You didn't have a choice.
And if your cable company didn't provide you what another cable company did, you had to move.
You still have that rush.
You still have cable companies bidding for franchises in various cities.
It's the cities who got greedy, not the cable companies.
And then you had all the telecommunications acts where people like McCain and they told, we're going to lower your cable rates.
The cable rates, cable is skyrocketing cable companies.
And every time federal legislation was passed, magically, cable rates kept skyrocketing.
Exactly.
I mean, think about it.
Just go back to the free enterprise day rush.
Back in the 60s, our cable company, which was located in southern Minnesota, could pick up out of the air, free, from Iowa, the Minnesota Viking game.
Oh, I know.
And people would drive 70 miles south in the dead of winter rather than sit in that old stadium to watch the game.
And the Vikings got a little ticked and filed this huge lawsuit.
Look, we can relive all this history.
I remember going to the movies in my little hometown, Cape Girardo, Missouri, the Esquire Theater.
And this is in the 60s, because that's when I was a kid.
And the theater owner started every movie production, every show, with a little, I guess, a 45 or 50-second, maybe it was a minute film that he had made, urging everybody who saw it to avoid cable coming into our little town because he was afraid it was going to wipe out his theater business.
People would stay home and watch movies rather than go to his Esquire theater.
Then the local TV station owner was also opposed to cable because he said, my signal is just going to be pirated.
They're just going to do nothing but steal my signal.
They're not going to do one thing to produce it.
They're not going to invest in one dime to create the programming that they are going to steal out of the and charge people for.
And there was a huge battle in a lot of parts of the country to stop cable, but it was a wave that was that nobody was going to be able to stop it now.
But don't misunderstand.
I not only love and appreciate free market, I get frustrated at people who don't.
You said, and unfortunately, this is right.
Every question I ask you, Pat, you began your answer.
Rush, it's just basic economics.
Well, the sad fact is basic economics is not understood by a whole lot of people because it isn't properly taught.
Economics education in this country is inept.
I mean, at the Econ 101 level.
Well, Russia says basic economics.
So the reason I asked you about the Direct TV deal with the Sunday ticket versus cable and the NFL network is that there are people on the warpath trying to get Congress to get those games not only off of Sunday ticket, but if not off Sunday ticket, also on cable.
There are people, and these are educated people.
Greg Easterbrook at the Brookings Institution is really, really, really angry that the Sunday ticket is denied him.
He can't get a satellite reception, can't get satellite reception because trees and where he lives.
And he would love to have the Sunday ticket.
And he thinks it's being denied him by the market.
And so he's in favor of busting.
He thinks it's a monopoly.
He thinks Direct TV has a monopoly on Sunday ticket.
But he says, what you said, the NFL has a product.
They can sell it to whoever they want.
The fact is, anybody in the country can watch the National Football League any Sunday, either over the air on cable or Direct TV, or even the Dish Network.
I don't know if they have it or not.
Look at Pat, I appreciate it.
I have to run a brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
Sit tight.
We'll be back after this.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
Rush Limbaugh here.
North Carolina mistress says, I do sound tired.
I'm speaking very slowly today.
She said I'm speaking so slowly, she hasn't even had to listen fast.
Here's Weston in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Rush, my hero, how are you doing today?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
I wanted to raise the issue of Hillary's participation with her brother in providing pardons through Bill Clinton's presidential office when he was getting ready to leave office.
Yes.
That was a nasty piece of business that she did, and her brother was getting paid, I think, $100,000 for each pardon issued by Bill Clinton.
My question to you is, that is such a serious occurrence, especially with the numbers.
A convicted felon.
Why have the media blitz on Hillary not picked up on this?
I think it's a very important occurrence.
They have.
Out of the media, somebody's brought it up because she's answered it.
We play the tape.
She didn't know anything about it.
She knew nothing about the.
She knew nothing about it.
Her husband handled the pardons.
She didn't know anything about him.
Well, how about her brother in the law firm that provided his expertise in taking the hundred grand for these people?
She can't be held accountable for her family.
I mean, everybody has a family, and everybody has people and families that are doing things that are president then, Hillary or Bill.
Well, but that's great.
I got you to crack up.
I like that.
We needed that today.
Yeah, look, I'm glad you called because I do have a pardon story here, though.
But she has answered that question.
I forget.
It might have been back then.
It might have been back then when somebody asked her.
Maybe it hadn't been brought up in a campaign, but she's already answered.
She's going to say, I didn't know anything about that.
It's an answer.
The drive-bys have accepted it, Mr. Snerdley.
She passed the envelope from her brother to her husband, but she says she didn't know what was in the envelope.
It was a request for the pardon, but she says she didn't know what was in it.
I remember this like it was yesterday.
It is an answer.
I didn't know.
It's just like, I can't remember.
My mind's jello before the grand jury.
I don't know.
You know, and look at with the Clintons.
Everybody lies about sex.
Everybody plants questions and debates.
Whatever they do that's below the line, their answers.
Everybody does it.
Well, every president pardons people.
I can't be expecting everything my husband's doing.
You should know that by now, she said.
I don't know everything he's doing.
And here's the story about the Pardons.
And where's the ABC News, the blotter?
Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Massage Parlor opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.
Yet the blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the donor list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.
The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument, said Sheila Crumholtz of the Center for Responsive Politics, which is a watchdog group in Washington,
an employee of Walter Carl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told ABCNews.com that the company made a list of more than 38,000,000 donors to the Clinton Massage Parlor available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May of 2007.
A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.
Let me guess.
You know, Info USA, Vin Gupta, paying Clinton all this money, let him flying around on his planes.
This is who benefited from the sale of the donor list.
They won't go public with it, but they have sold it.
There's no legal requirement for presidential massage parlors to disclose the identities of their contributors.
Donors, including corporations and foreign governments, can give unlimited amounts while the president's still sitting in office for his massage parlor.
This is one of the few places that remain under the veil of secrecy.
There's really no good reason for it, says Crumholtz.
Disclosure is important because the money is often being raised while the president is in office.
And in this case, with the Bush family, they can be given for currying favor with persons other than the president being honored.
You know, it's a dirty little secret about who donates to presidential libraries.
One of the largest donors happens to be the government of Saudi Arabia.
That's just what they do.
It's cost of doing business for them.
And it is key.
They can donate to his library and massage parlor while he's still in office.
A related story, headline AP.
It's unlikely that Arkansas papers on Hillary Rodham Clinton's years as the state's first lady will be released before the 2008 election, says the director to Little Rock Library that holds Clinton's gubernatorial files.
Limited staff and delays in renovations for two new archives have prevented processing thousands of boxes of documents from the administration of the former governors Clinton and Mike Huckabee.
The papers aren't likely to include any bombshells about the former first lady, said Bobby Roberts.
Let us be the judge of that, Bobby Bob.
Of course.
No, no, no, Bobshell's in there.
Says a guy who's seen them.
He's director of the Central Arkansas Library System, storing the Clinton papers at its main library.
At any rate, he doesn't expect any state documents on Senator Clinton to be released before the election.
Well, of course not.
Of course not.
This much that I know, folks.
If these Arkansas papers showed her to be the most brilliant, loving, caring First Lady of a state in the history of the country, these papers would have been released years ago.
You know, she talks about how she turned around the Arkansas education system, and she did.
It was making progress.
She turned it around, and it finished 49th of the years that she was in charge of it.
The Boston Globe Today column by Derek Jackson.
It basically says that the Democrats, Bill Richardson, is saying, Bill Richardson is saying that Democrats need to stop raising the trust issue about Hillary because it's nothing more than mud slinging at Hillary.
Bill Richardson, proving that he angling for Veep, ladies and gentlemen, we will see you tomorrow with, among other things, the real story of Thanksgiving.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection