All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 3, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:07
December 3, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program are right.
You know it, and I know it.
Don't doubt me.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained broadcast specialist, utilizing talent on loan from God behind the golden EIB microphone.
Great to have you with us, folks.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I'm going to make a little observation for you about this incident that happened at the Hillary Clinton campaign headquarters in New Hampshire last Friday.
You know, in the old days, I can't believe I'm saying I'm 56 years.
I can't believe I'm saying in the old days.
But really, in the old days, you had, if a situation like this happened, actually not that far long ago, you had a situation like this with somebody's mentally unstable or just a hardened criminal who was taken hostages.
Normally what happened was that the perp would be talked to by a hostage negotiator from the local cops, SWAT team or some such thing, and then they would try to solve it that way.
And sometimes the guy would call out, make demands, want an airplane for him and 200 of his friends to fly off to Hawaii or something.
Look what's happening now, at least in the Clinton case, for all the talk about the mental derangement of this guy, he still had the mental acuity to call CNN.
These perps call CNN now.
They want to get on the news.
And of course, his claim was that he didn't have money for health care to have his mental derangement looked at, but he was not mentally deranged enough to know that he was mentally deranged.
I mean, you got to have some smarts to know you're not smart.
And then to call CNN looking for the owner of the place, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton News Network.
See, now you call presidential candidates or you call a news organization hoping to get through to a presidential candidate.
And it just, to me, it's a little frightening and a little disturbing and a little upsetting, if you will, that this guy is probably just a small microcosm of the number of people who get up each and every day and think that unless the president or somebody in Washington does something for them, that something cannot get done for them.
That the family that they're a part of can't do anything.
They themselves can't do anything.
This is one of the major fears.
Fear may be a strong word here, but it's been one of the concerns that conservatives have had as the evolution of big government has continued and government's grown larger and larger and larger.
Just something to think about.
I want to continue this little analysis here of the media's role in choosing presidential candidates, particularly on the Republican side.
And just to recap, right now it's Huckabee, and Huckabee is rising in the polls, particularly in Iowa.
Rasmussen has Huckabee trailing Giuliani by three nationwide and only trailing Mrs. Clinton by one point in a national poll of presidential preferences.
So what happens here is that politics is perception.
Perception is reality in politics in many cases.
And so the vote in Iowa is going to be taken at the Hawkeye Caucasi.
And whatever happens there, the media is going to massage it and present it in such a way as to get the result they want.
And right now, it is obvious the media wants Huckabee.
And the reason the media wants Huckabee is because they know that they're going to down the road be able to portray him as a nutcase Bible-thumping evangelical who's going to take his religion and God into the Oval Office.
And they'll use that to incite fear among liberals and progressives and so forth.
And they're out there trashing Rudy's family and his marriages, even though the Clintons' marriages are off-limits.
Can't talk about me.
That's politics of personal destruction.
You're doing about the Clintons.
But if Rudy Giuliani, fair game.
Fred Thompson out there singing a lazy bum.
Doesn't even want the job, even though he's campaigning as hard as anybody else is.
They built McCain up.
McCain loved it when they built him up.
They tripped him up over the war, and now they're trying to revive his campaign again.
There are going to be multiple other efforts beyond what CNN did during that debate to influence the outcome of this election.
Remember Dan Rather's effort to take out Bush with the lies about his military service, the New York Times effort to beat the drum over Abu Grab.
Do you realize how many consecutive days Abu Ghrab was a front-page story in the New York Times?
It's something like 20.
On and on.
These examples will continue.
They are now trying to create impressions of our candidates, Rudy, Romney, Thompson, which they hope will stick and that they will then try to reinforce, just as they tried to enforce this notion that we were losing and couldn't win in Iraq, and then use that information to drum up negative polls about the whole thing to try to influence that outcome.
The point is the drive-bys, they don't just sit around and report, and they're not just biased, and they're not just liberals.
They are trying to influence the outcome of events in ways, of course, in which they choose.
Now, it's interesting to consider the different strategies of the Democrats and the Republicans right now.
Huckabee is relying almost exclusively on Iowa, and he's hoping that that will give him a big push that the media will give him even more push outside of.
If he does well in Iowa, then what he's hoping is that the media, whoa, Romney, Huckabee, whoa, look at this, what is this?
And thereby influence the New Hampshire vote.
Right now, if you look at polling data, the internal data, you'll find that Huckabee doesn't do nearly as well with evangelicals in New Hampshire.
There aren't that many of them.
He owns the evangelical vote in Iowa, however.
So in order for Huckabee to do well beyond Iowa, he's got to go beyond the evangelical vote and bring on the drive-bys to try to make that possible.
And don't doubt that they will, if he does, do extremely well in Iowa.
Romney's focus has been on winning the first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire.
He wants to build momentum, which he hopes will carry him to Michigan, where he has some muscle there because his dad was governor in Michigan, George Romney.
Fred Thompson, his strategery appears to have drawn the line at South Carolina, where he is seeking to be the southern candidate and the most conservative of the candidates across the board.
So Iowa and New Hampshire are not in play for Thompson, South Carolina.
So if you play this out, Huckabee does well and maybe wins Iowa, which I asked you to think about two or three weeks ago.
What happens after that?
What I was talking about, what's the media going to do with it?
And to what extent will the media's treatment of that influence New Hampshire voters?
So if Romney doesn't win Iowa, and that was supposedly in the bag for him, and Huckabee does an upset there, then New Hampshire's up for grabs.
We'll see what happens there.
Thompson does little in either state, but comes out and wins South Carolina.
That's just what if this happens, despite all the hubbub about Huckabee coming out of Iowa and going into New Hampshire.
So it's still, it's extremely, it's extremely fluid.
Rudy appears to have tried something few others have been willing to do.
He apparently has seeded Iowa and New Hampshire, not even competing there, thinking that he can't win either of those states.
And what he's doing is banking on subsequent larger states where he hopes to pile up delegates for the convention.
By the way, folks, at the end of the day, it is delegates at the convention that determine who gets the nomination.
That's the name of the game.
So Rudy is focusing on states with lots of delegates seeding both New Hampshire and Iowa.
McCain's strategy, he seems to be running more of a general election right now rather than a primary.
Would you not agree with that, Mr. Sterling?
McCain really doesn't seem to be running any kind of a primary at all.
He's running more of a general.
He's not strong in Iowa.
The Manchester Union leader just endorsed him.
We'll see if that has an effect.
They endorsed him in New Hampshire.
Romney is expected to win there.
In South Carolina, McCain was counting on Lindsey Graham for help, but there may not be enough as McCain's lagging behind there.
And Lindsey Graham's sphere of influence is somewhat questionable now after his role in the amnesty bill.
Now, I'm not trying to be clichéd here, but there is a tremendous amount of fluidity in the Republican side.
On the Democrat side, things are starting to heat up here.
We'll have details of all this as the program unfolds further today.
But the pundits, who are frankly rarely right, were talking not long ago about Hillary's flawless campaign just last week.
They were marveling, as they do at anything the Clintons do.
They were marveling at her flawless campaign, her fundraising juggernaut, and her commanding, insurmountable lead in the polls.
But she's got problems on all fronts.
She's not necessarily, these problems are not deadly, but they are worrisome for her, and she didn't expect to have any worries in the race.
And she's reacting in such a way that the drive-by is a little concerned here that she's overreacting and acting like she's down by double digits in some of these states when she's not.
Her fundraising, as is the usual case, this is why if Obama, folks, it's just sitting there.
For Howard Wolfson to go out there and say that Obama's PAC is a slush fund, what's the Clinton library?
What's Media Matters for America?
What's moveon.org?
What are all these Clinton organizations, if not slush funds, that are designed to promote her candidacy and to make her president?
And so she's run around.
Her campaign advisor says that Obama's PAC is a slush fund.
She got a PAC, too, called Hill PAC.
All he's got to do is come back and say, I can't believe that the leader of slush funds is accusing me of having one.
It's what the Clintons do.
Mrs. Clinton's also saying that you can't get a straight answer out of Barack Obama.
Maybe not, but you're never going to get one out of Mrs. Clinton ever.
So she's setting the table for Barack if he's got the onions to get serious about this.
He can't just sit out there and rely on Oprah to try to persuade people.
He's going to have to show that he can get in there and roll up the sleeves and respond to this sort of stuff because he's got the ammo on his side.
Look at her fundraising.
Unlawful contributions from Norman Hsu to the Chinese dishwashers in Chinatown.
Her campaign is not flawless.
It has not been flawless.
She blew it big time on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and she's considered all over the map on the war.
She is a big spending, high-taxing leftist.
She has flip-flopped all over the place.
She's used her gender as a defense, claiming victimhood.
Her husband, Bill, is as much as a liability as an asset with his tendency to pop off.
The dirty little secret about that is, and I think they've probably come to this conclusion, that it'd be much easier for people to think they're re-electing him than electing Hillary, because he's far more popular than she will ever dream of being.
Now, you might say, well, wouldn't that upset her ego?
I don't think so.
Their quest for power is all-consuming.
However, they get there, I don't think is relevant.
Unless we're making a miscalculation about Clinton's ego, he may be trying to sabotage her.
People are still holding that out because he doesn't want.
He wants to be the only Clinton that was ever president.
We'll see.
All these things remain to be seen.
So, Iowa, Iowa could be up for grabs as far as the Democrats are concerned.
If Hillary loses there, her invulnerability becomes obvious.
It's like Wesley Pruden said last week in the Washington Times.
Candidates of inevitability cannot lose even once.
If you are inevitable and you lose, then of course you weren't inevitable.
But you were at one point, and somehow the inevitability vanished.
What happened?
All sorts of question marks get raised.
Her tendency will be to resort to angry, shrill personal attacks because that's who she is.
And it's already starting these angry, shrill personal attacks on Obama.
Brief timeout.
Be right back after this.
Stay with us.
I also mentioned to you in the previous hour that, in fact, we've got the soundbite.
Well, number 20, what is it?
Number 19.
It's number 19.
Grab number 19 out there, Ed.
Mrs. Clinton got booed on a phone.
She's appearing at an Iowa event by phone Saturday, couldn't get there because of weather.
The immigrant and refugee rights member Billy Lawless has asked her a question.
He's not happy with her response.
He asked her, will you in the first hundred days, will you come up with comprehensive immigration reform?
Well, I'll do my president.
She did the usual Hillary dance around it.
Didn't mention the first 100 days, so he fired back with this.
What about the first 100 days, Senator?
Well, you've got to get the Congress to pass the legislation.
The president can do as much as possible, which I will do.
That was a second that she got booed three different times over that question and the subject of illegal immigration.
This is just a day after she had looked so presidential and so authoritative in dealing with this crisis at her campaign headquarters in Rochester, New Hampshire.
Then there's this from Joe Klein at Time magazine.
A few days after Thanksgiving, I asked Mike Huckabee what had surprised him about voters over the past six months of campaigning.
Huckabee said immediately, the intensity of the immigration issue.
I honestly don't know why it's gotten so hot.
Quote unquote, Mike Huckabee.
Joe Klein continues, Huckabee gets points for candor.
Most of the presidential candidates I've spoken with in recent months feel the same way, but they aren't about to say so.
It's difficult to spend a day on the trail and not see the anger explode over illegal immigration.
This is especially true in the Republican Party.
McCain, the sponsor of immigration reform legislation, has been a target and goes on to talk about some of the attacks and reactions he's gotten.
There are signs of festering intolerance rights, Joe Klein, even among Democrat audiences, noticeably in Iowa, which has seen a surge of Latino immigration in recent years.
The Democrat candidates are uniformly in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, i.e. amnesty, including a path to citizenship for those who've entered the country illegally.
But, writes Mr. Klein, they receive sharp, pointed applause when they say illegals should have to speak English before becoming citizens.
When I asked Hillary about that, she said she'd noticed it too.
And added this, during the 1990s, I can't remember being asked about immigration.
Why?
Because the economy was working and average Americans didn't have to go around looking for someone to blame.
Mrs. Clinton, who just had a royal screw-up with driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in which she came out and admitted she is for amnesty, now claims that the only reason you and I are upset about illegal immigration is that the economy is bad, and that's because we don't have as many jobs as we would like to have.
And so we got to blame somebody for our economic melees.
And so we are blaming, because we are nativists and we are racists and we're bigots and we're sexists and we're homophobes because we're conservatives.
That's what they believe.
We're blaming illegal immigration.
Now, this whole piece by Klein is designed to illustrate how nobody understands why this is such a hot-button issue.
Why don't you just grant them the amnesty and move on?
What was the big deal here?
Huckabee doesn't understand it.
The Democrat candidates don't understand it.
Republicans don't understand it.
But nobody will be as honest about it as Huckabee when he admits he doesn't know why it's gotten so hot.
Mrs. Clinton says it's an issue of economics.
I continue to be literally stunned at how tone deaf, despite all of the outpouring of sentiment, the expression of opinion by the American people en masse, I don't care whether it was during the amnesty vote and the phone calls to Washington or if it's in presidential polls or issue polls, why they don't see what this is really all about is beyond me.
I can't believe that they really don't see what it's all about.
It is an issue of law.
It's about the rule of law.
It is that simple.
Plus, people have become sophisticated with the knowledge they've acquired of this to understand that both parties, and I think predominantly the Democrats, both parties are looking at these people as potential voters into hell with whatever havoc they wreak on the culture or on the society or on the rule of law.
And if these people don't get this issue, particularly the Democrats, it's going to haunt them more than they can possibly imagine.
I don't know how much it matters, but it's just been pointed out to me that Robert B. Rice, shh, on his blog, and I just read it, is all upset at Mrs. Clinton for her attacks on Barack Obama.
He doesn't understand it.
He doesn't understand why she's stooping so low to challenge his courage, why she is stooping so low to challenge his health care plan and other things.
This is beneath what Democrats stand for.
Says Ruff.
It's alternative universe time.
Anyway, I guess the bottom line of it is that there's some people out there in drive-by media circles, the Democrat Party, what is this?
They don't understand why Mrs. Clinton's turning.
This is who she is, Mr. Rice.
Can't believe that all you Democrats have no clue who she really you obviously you do.
I think these are just warnings to her to pull back because they know exactly who she is and they know exactly how destructive it's going to be if she doesn't get a handle on this.
You can say what you want about Obama, but he's not an unlikable guy.
She is unlikable, but he's not.
You know, he's running around.
He seems this nice, soft-spoken kind of guy.
Seems deep.
Seems deep.
He seems to care, has all the requisite requirements for a Democrat resume.
He cares, number one at the top.
He's not mean.
He hadn't been out there attacking anybody.
He hadn't done anything like that.
And so Mrs. Clinton to turn on him like this, it's like, I'm telling you, there are people think that their internal polling shows that her support is just crashing.
And I'm guessing beyond Iowa.
But don't think that they think they can lose Iowa and handle this because they've pumped this candidacy of inevitability.
Go to Naperville, Illinois.
Bill, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Ditto's rush.
Thank you.
Hey, you've often said that the Clintons were always in Bill Clinton was always in search of a legacy.
And I think what you saw with Harold Wolfson yesterday or Howard Williams.
The issue is, my thought has always been that the Clinton legacy is how they do politics.
And look at it.
They deny everything.
They accuse their accusers and they take credit for anything.
I mean, here, she will go out, sends her minions out to accuse Barack Obama of having a slush fund.
I mean, they've taken this to an art, they've taken slush funds to an art form.
Right.
And then they'll have the audacity to take credit for anything.
I look back.
I remember the one where Bill Clinton denied that he was having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, you know, accused other people of the vast right-wing conspiracy, then went out and took credit for the drop in the unwanted teenage pregnancy rate.
Right, because he'd popularized a new form of sex.
You know, it was just unbelievable.
I could not believe, you know, and they did it countless times.
Yeah, but there's only one reason all this can happen, and that is if you've got a drive-by media that will promote it and amplify it, or else look the other way.
Do you think they're really going to look the other way for, you know, for the next nine months?
Well, I think one of the reasons that we're starting to see a little bit more pointed reporting from the drive-bys about Mrs. Clinton, as I mentioned last week, Ron Fournier had this piece called Good Hillary, Bad Hillary.
And it was one of the toughest pieces I have ever seen, or Good Bill, Bad Bill.
And it was one of the toughest pieces on Bill Clinton I've ever seen.
It quoted him as a hypocrite.
It talked about him as being self-centered and self-absorbed.
Even while he's on the campaign trail trying to talk about his wife, he mentions her seven times and himself 97 inside a 20-minute speech.
And I think maybe these guys are feeling a little like whores because for eight years they covered up all this stuff for these people.
And now here it is on vast display again.
And I don't think they want to continue to be whores.
But, you know, at the end of the day, it's like battered wife syndrome.
They're still going to go back and continue to get beaten up.
And they're going to go back and they'll continue to be whores when it's all said and done because they're liberal Democrats themselves in the drive-by media.
And they're not going to support a Republican at any point in time for the presidency.
It just isn't.
I mean, journalists are registered 9 to 1 or vote 9 to 1, Democrat to Republican.
It's like 90%.
So I think the biggest threat to Mrs. Clinton is not really the media, is that she's got to pull off an act for about another year.
And the act is not answering a question.
The act is avoiding and getting away with it.
The act is and trying to make sure she doesn't cackle and trying to make sure she doesn't get shrill and lose her temper.
And that already cracks in this facade that are starting to happen.
I just think, look, it's like I said six months ago.
Don't ask me who I endorse because I don't endorse in primaries.
And besides, so many surprises left to happen out there that nobody can predict.
And now look at Huckabee is leading in Iowa and Obama is leading Hillary in Iowa.
Nobody thought those two things would ever happen, and yet they have.
So now the drive-bys have to get in gear and try to manage the outcome in Iowa and New Hampshire and use their ability to persuade people of what the real perceptions of these upcoming results are going to be.
But at the end of the day, I don't see the drive-bys abandoning the Clintons.
But I do say that the reporting on them is different this time around.
It's well, give you some headlines here from the Hillary stack.
Obama draws Clinton's ire over early ambition.
Clinton attack on Obama could boomerang.
Chicago Tribune.
Let's see what these others losing ground in Iowa.
Clinton assails Obama.
This is Ann Kornbloot of the Washington Post.
I've been waiting for Ann Kornblut to do a 180.
Ann Kornblut used to be at the New York Times.
Ann Kornbloot has been writing some pieces here about how Mrs. Clinton is getting away with not talking to reporters, that she only talks to certain editorial writers and pundits, and she is a reporter, and Mrs. Clinton won't talk to her.
And there's, I've detected, I'm not sure I'm right, but I've thought I've detected some Maureen Dowd is creaming Mrs. Clinton in her column in the New York Times.
Now, it could well be they're just getting it all out of the way now, getting ready for the general in which Mr. Snurdley just asked me, what is Maureen unhappy about?
That would actually the way to frame that question is, what is she happy about?
That would take much less time to answer.
Sorry, Mo. Reggie in Chicago, you're next.
EIB network, hello.
Hi, Rush.
I think you've been over the last half hour, you've been hitting the nail right on Ted.
You know, the mainstream media has been literally falling all over Governor Huckabee.
And I'm real suspicious about that.
And I wanted to give you an example.
I watched that YouTube debate the other night.
And at the end, they had like a panel on at the end.
They had Bill Bennett, a conservative commentator, and three or four liberal commentators.
And at the end of it, I think Bill Benton said something nice about Governor Romney.
And then the other three picked Huckabee.
And then, you know, even Bill Clinton has been saying nice things about Governor Huckabee.
So I'm just really suspicious of why the mainstream media is so much falling over for Huckabee.
Well, you said I hit the nail on the head.
Why do you think?
Well, because I think that they think he's going to be the easiest one to beat in an election if he ever is to get the nomination.
But, you know, I mean, they're just all over Huckabee.
I mean, I've seen interviews with Huckabee.
They don't ask him any tough questions.
And it's just like all pup pieces.
And no wonder why he's going up in the polls because every he's on a show, you know, it's just a puff piece.
Well, he's going up in the polls in Iowa largely because the evangelical votes decided that he's their guy.
They've coalesced around him.
As to other states, primaries, you could be right.
But I think you have a good point.
Again, the CNN debate is very instructive because while CNN's out there making this point, hey, look at this was the voice of the peoples.
Why, we had 5,000 submissions here from peoples that wanted to ask Republicans.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, right out, right, out, right.
Fact of the matter is, CNN chose them.
Those were CNN questions.
That is how you have to view this.
Those were not questions voiced by average Americans.
I want to see what they turned away.
Those questions were CNN's questions because they chose them.
And those questions were what?
They were all oriented around the liberal clichéd view of conservatives.
Guns, God, Jesus, Bible, abortion, you name it.
And homosexuality, gays in the military, all of these things that a Republican, a genuine Republican debate with undecided Republican voters, those questions would not have been brought up, and many of those topics would not have been brought up.
And if the topics have been brought up, they would not have been asked by genuine, undecided Republicans the way they were asked in the CNN.
So, where am I headed with this?
I'll tell you.
Why you might say, why is the drive-bys, why are they pushing Huckabee?
Because they think that Huckabee is a nut.
They think that Huckabee is a Bible-thumping preacher that's going to be marching into every woman's home and telling her, no, you must not and cannot have an abortion.
And then they think he's going to hijack the Constitution and write Roe versus Wade out of it without even going to the Supreme Court.
And then he thinks he's going to make every liberal kid go to Sunday school.
This is what they think of him.
This is what they think of any God-fearing pastor or conservative religious person.
And as such, they think that would be easy to beat.
And as such, they are scared to death of it at the same time.
But they figure that Huckabee is still, you know, an outlier in terms of top-tier, middle-tier, even though he's doing well in the polls.
But you have to know who these people are.
You have to understand how they intend to influence the outcome of Republican elections.
And their objective is to see to it that Republicans don't win the White House.
I'm talking CNN drive-bys, I don't care who it is.
And a Republican doesn't win the White House on their watch.
And the best way to do that is to get one nominated that has no prayer as far as they are concerned with their jaundiced view of things.
And that's clearly what's going on.
I'm not, don't, you Huckabee people out there, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying he doesn't hadn't earned this.
I'm not saying that he's unqualified or anything of the sort.
I am simply commenting on if he does win Iowa, and look at all of a sense he's risen in the polls.
Look at how they're reacting.
Imagine if he does win Iowa, and let's say he wins it with a significant margin.
You are going to, I'm just predicting to you, the reporting you're going to see is unlike you've seen yet.
And they're going to do their best to say this is going to sweep him to the nomination.
Mike Huckabee coming out of nowhere to win Iowa, who would have thought it's on a New Hampshire.
They're going to try to influence a high vote for him in New Hampshire.
Because what they really don't want is Romney or Rudy or Thompson.
They'll be happy to have.
I'm not saying they're right about this.
I'm not missing Telling you how they think so that you will have a better perspective of analyzing how they work.
Back in a sec.
And here's another thing to consider, folks, about the drive-bys and their attempts to influence the perception of Republican primary votes in Iowa and New Hampshire.
They need a George W. Bush on the ballot.
So much of Democrat turnout will hinge on hatred for George W. Bush.
The only problem is that Bush isn't on the ballot.
They've got to find somebody, therefore, who can be portrayed as Bush.
And Rudy certainly can't be portrayed as George W. Bush.
See, can Mitt Romney be portrayed as Bush?
No.
Can Fred Thompson be portrayed as Bush?
No.
And here's why.
One of the things about Bush that they despise is that he is public about his faith in God and his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his savior.
And that just tears them anew.
And you do not understand how that scares the pants off of these people.
It just does.
That's as big a reason they hate Bush as any policy thing that he's gotten into.
Ron Emmanuel, who, you know, a big-time Clinton Inc. guy from the White House days, now congressman from Illinois, said that Bush will be on the ballot.
I mean, they're going to run against him anyway.
What better way to have Bush on the ballot than to nominate a candidate that they can say is George Bush all over again?
Particularly in the way that scares the left so much.
And if they can portray Huckabee as in any way pro-Iraq, pro-war on terror, you know, this is one of the reasons he's exciting to them.
They need a Bush on the ballot.
They've invested too much in running against George W. Bush when he's not running.
John in what is this?
Schwinksville, Schwinksville, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you, sir.
Well, thank you, Rush, and thank you for everything that you do for us.
Appreciate that.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you.
The reason I'm calling has to do with the complaint of the person who took the hostages in Rochester, New Hampshire, saying that he couldn't get insurance.
Insurance is really not the issue here.
What we've got is a person with serious mental illness, probably schizophrenia, who is seriously mentally ill, but there are government agencies in every state to help this.
For instance, New Hampshire has a Department of Human Services, and in it is a Bureau of Behavioral Health.
But they provide crisis emergency services 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
That's exactly my point.
And the family of this guy knows that.
Yet what'd they do?
They called CNN, the Clinton News Network, trying to get hold of Hillary, the owner.
Yeah.
Well, now, something's awry here.
At the least, this is just a trend that's happening.
More and more people think if the federal government doesn't take care of me, I'm not going to be taken care of.
Well, in this instance, we really don't know what this person was thinking because of his mental illness.
That's right.
He may have been given the right information or the incorrect.
But when he says that he's turned away by a psychiatrist, turned away by hospitals, either something's wrong with the mental health services within the state of New Hampshire, or the fellow didn't listen to it, or his family and other loved ones didn't help.
We got 20 seconds.
What do you think?
Your silence is speaking volumes of.
Oh, what do I think about it?
What do you think the answer is?
Well, we're running out of time now.
I wanted to know what you thought about the question that you posed.
Either they've got lousy services there, the family didn't know about them or didn't want to use them.
Well, I think the state of New Hampshire needs to re-examine what they're doing up there.
Okay, that's good.
I got to run because of time.
Okay, that's very generous of you to say that.
I really do think that's very generous.
A brief break coming up here at the top of the hour.
▲
Export Selection