All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:27
January 10, 2008, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, not necessarily those of the staff management nor sponsors of this station, but most of the people at this station do agree, and all will in a matter of time.
Greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the most listened-to radio talk show in America.
The most informed, engaged, educated audience in all of media, according to the Pew Research Center.
Great to have you with us, folks.
A telephone number here, 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Now, this is going to come as quite a shock to many of you, particularly those of you on the Democrat side, and particularly many of you Independents, who have an impression of Barack Obama that is false.
That impression largely that he is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
He's new.
He's an outsider.
He's lofty, messianic, untainted by scandal, not into any of this for himself, cares nothing about power, wants only what's good for America.
And of course, he intends to end the tyranny of oil.
But how did Obama come on the scene, ladies and gentlemen?
No, not hope had nothing to do with it.
No, it wasn't hope.
And it wasn't change.
And it wasn't anything as ethereal as that.
It was good old-fashioned brass knuckle politics.
Obama had returned to Chicago.
This, by the way, Kyle Ann Scheiber, AmericanThinker.com, Obama had returned to Chicago and practiced civil rights law for three years when he spied an opportunity to run for the Illinois State Senate.
A longtime widely revered matron of the civil rights movement named Alice Palmer had held the seat for a number of years, but she announced that she wanted to run for Congress.
So Obama seized the opportunity and proclaimed his intention to run for her open seat.
So far, so fine.
Well, Alice Palmer lost her congressional race and then decided she wanted to hang on to that hard-won state Senate seat.
Most of the community leaders tried to persuade Obama to withdraw and wait his turn.
He was a newcomer, after all, and she was a matron and an icon of the civil rights movement.
Widely revered.
Instead, Obama performed his first real act of political jiu-jitsu.
He sent his aides to the courthouse to carefully examine all of Alice Palmer's signatures to see if enough could be disallowed to knock her off the ballot altogether.
And indeed, some of Alice Palmer's signatures were fake.
The aides also found enough other fake signatures on opponents' ballot initiatives to take them off the ballot as well.
By the time Barack Obama walked handily into his state Senate seat, everyone there knew him as the man who knocked off Alice Palmer.
Quite a feat indeed for the newcomer, the young whippersnapper with the odd name who practices hope.
Then now, well, it wasn't, I don't think it's disenfranchisement.
Why do you mean it's disenfranchisement?
Because it's black voters, no doubt, whose signatures were invalidated.
Well, point of point of that point of the matter is, here's the point of the matter.
You might be out there saying, Rush, the woman had a bunch of fake signatures.
She shouldn't have been qualified.
Ah, yes, but this is the Democrat Party.
Fake this and fake that is common.
You had here a young upstart. who wanted to get rid of an icon, wanted to get rid of a civil rights icon, dispatched a bunch of goons to dig up whatever they can find at this qualifier.
My only point here is this is a guy well steeped in politics as usual.
He is not some angelic figure that has come floating from the heavens on two wings with hope and revival and renewal and repair and all of that.
Now, another thing that you might want to consider about this, we're talking Chicago, talking Illinois.
As we all know, the dead can vote there a number of times and have been known to do so.
So this is Illinois.
This is Chicago.
Who are we, outsiders, to question signatures?
Somebody, somebody alive had to sign those documents.
One thing, dead people can vote, but they can't sign.
This we know.
So the bottom line is here goes, here goes Obama, and he just got where he is, good old-fashioned, dirty politics, as usual.
And this is probably going to stun a number of people.
Speaking of civil rights, have you heard what happened to Kelly Tillman?
I don't know where the American...
No, this story is widely, and a lot of people have written about this.
That's the point.
The story is widely known.
It's just not talked about because it doesn't fit the image that Obama is putting forward.
Remember, who started these puff pieces of Obama with the image that he's got?
You know, your memories aren't this short.
Let's go back to last spring.
Remember all these Washington Post, New York Times puff pieces on Obama?
We're all scratching our heads.
What is this?
What?
Are they trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton?
What is this, Obama?
No, no, no, no.
This has been a well-crafted image.
The story of Alice Palmer has been out there all over the place.
It's just, it doesn't fit the narrative of the drive-by media.
I mean, how could they report this after the image they've created of the guy?
Remember, the drive-bys are as important for what they don't report as they are for what they do.
Have you heard about what happened to Kelly Tillman at the Golf Channel?
I guess it was last week that the Mercedes Championships out there at Kapalua on Maui.
And she's talking to Nick Fowlo in a booth.
She's the anchor for the coverage.
And she makes a comment about these young guys coming up challenging Tiger.
And she said, you know, these young guys are going to have to take this guy, take Tiger in a dark alley, a back alley, and lynch him.
That's her only prayer.
Her point was, nobody can beat the guy.
They're going to have to take him out.
Well, she apologized for this.
Tiger is a friend of hers, accepted the apologies.
Ages, this is no big deal.
We don't need a big deal made out of this.
We don't think she had any ill intent about it.
Come on, it was handled perfectly the way adults ought to handle these things.
Company dealt with it right.
She apologized right off the bat, trying to clarify what she meant, apologized for poor choice of words.
Tiger said, go big deal, don't worry about it.
But then the phone rang, and on the other end of the phone was the Reverend Sharpton.
And by the time the comments spread beyond the Golf Channel and other news outlets, by the time the Reverend Sharpton joined the fray by demanding that she be fired immediately, everything in the dynamic changed.
The golf channel didn't know.
I mean, they've suspended her now for two weeks.
Kelly Tillman suspended her for two weeks.
After it had been dealt with responsibly and maturely by adults, Sharpton gets involved.
Now, the golf channel says they don't know who's going to replace her in a booth this week at the Sony Open, which is in Honolulu, or the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic next week.
The Golf Channel, after having dealt with this in a very mature way, Kelly Tillman, Tiger Woods, then Sharpton calls a suspender for two weeks, and they issue a statement saying there's simply no place on our network for offensive language like this.
Kelly Tillman became golf's first female infobabe anchorette last year when a PGA tour signed a 15-year deal in which the golf channel broadcasts the first three events of the year and then weekday coverage of all tour events except the Masters, which ESPN has on Thursday and Friday.
Nick Faldo's in a booth with her, and they were discussing young players who would challenge Tiger at the end of Friday's broadcast at Kapalua when she came up with the lynch them in the back alley comments.
So she's been seated.
They've sat her down here for two weeks.
And they have to come up with somebody else to sit with Faldo in the booth.
All right, quick timeout.
We'll be back and roll right on.
Your phone calls all their audio sound bites as well after this.
Interesting case argued before the United States Supreme Court yesterday.
Voter identification law in Indiana, conservative majority on the court, this is the way CNN reports this, appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo ID despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote.
At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud would disenfranchise large numbers of Americans who might lack proper ID, many of them elderly poor, of course, or minority voters.
And all they got to do is just go down there and get a photo ID, a driver's license, what have you.
It is not hard.
Can you believe this?
We've got people in the world who walk three miles to get the family's water supply every day up and down mountains in Afghanistan.
Now, we've got a bunch of wimps in this country.
This is all about the fact the Democrat Party does not want to have to get or give up the possibility of cheating.
And the justices on the court, even Anthony Kennedy seemed to side with the good guys on this one.
He said, I don't see a reason to overturn the statute here.
There's no reason to overturn it.
Now, they started talking about, well, maybe there is a way we can help solve some of the problems we've got here, but maintain the statute.
They also, one of the people on the Democrat side arguing before the justices on behalf of the voter against the photo ID for voter registration and identification, cited a woman who happens to be registered in two other states already.
They were poorly prepared.
They had no idea that the example they were giving was a woman who engages in shenanigans in the first place.
Justice Alito spoke for many of his colleagues, wondering how they should rule in the absence of any clear evidence supporting either side.
Alito said, the problem I have is, where do you draw the line here?
There's nothing to quantify the extent of the problem or the extent of the burden.
Now that's all well and good, but I frankly, I thought the question was whether it violated the Constitution or not.
This is perhaps the biggest voter rights case taken up by the justices since the 2000 dispute, essentially giving Bush the president.
Screw you, seeing it.
Did you just a bunch of irresponsible jerks?
And that paragraph I did, they said that Bush won because the Supreme Court awarded him the president.
It's not what they did.
They stopped a fraudulent vote count in Florida.
Calm down.
It's been eight years and they still won't get it right.
At any rate, Justice Scalia wondered why the Democrats were the ones filing a lawsuit saying it should have been filed by individual voters who may have been directly harmed by the law.
His questioning suggested he thought the case had more to do with politics than the law.
Justice Kennedy pressed the lawyer repeatedly to show that the law had caused a real burden.
He said, you want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?
Kennedy's vote could prove crucial, and he seemed to want to uphold the Indiana statute, perhaps with some changes.
Chief Justice John Roberts, himself an Indiana native, took issue with assertions that the reasons given for passing a law in the first place had little factual basis.
Look, if somebody wins an election by half a million votes, you may not be terribly worried if some percentage was cast by fraud, but you might look to the future and realize there could be a closer election because it's fraud.
It's hard to detect.
But it would be much easier to detect if you had photo ID for voters.
At any rate, the drive-bys covering the oral arguments were just astounded.
They're in apoplexy here because they thought the Supreme Court would overturn this.
Indiana's law had been upheld by a federal appeals court.
State and federal courts around the country have issued conflicting rulings on voter ID laws.
Missouri's law was found unconstitutional, but similar ones in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan were found to be proper.
The minimal inconvenience here is the thing.
Come on.
You know, I don't know about you.
Are you sick and tired of Democrats making their voters sound like a bunch of helpless, worthless waifs can't get a photo ID?
That means they can't find a way to get a passport.
They can't get a driver's license.
Mr. Limbaugh, you don't understand.
You have lost touch.
We're talking about poor people and black people who are afraid that if they throw up in a government agency, they're going to be put in bondage again.
That's why you don't understand.
That's what the Jesse Jacksons of the world are trying to say.
In Georgia, they reacted to this complaint.
Well, you know, some of these people are old and they're confined to their homes and they can't get to the government center and get their photo.
I didn't sure find a way to get to the mailbox for the welfare check.
Some of these poor people, they find a way to get out and get that, but they can't go get a photo ID for something.
And the Reverend Jackson said, well, you've got to understand is that these people are old and they look at the government as a threat.
And you tell them they have to go to a government agency or government office and they're afraid they're going to get put in jail.
They're afraid that they're being asked to show up to be disenfranchised.
Now, that's just frankly absurd and it is insulting.
But it is based totally on the fact that Democrats want to be able to cheat.
They want to be able to engage in fraud.
This is simply a way to stop voter fraud.
It's a huge deal.
And who's opposing it?
And Scalia's point, wait, how come the Democrat Party's here?
Why don't we have some aggrieved citizens that have filed this lawsuit who claimed that they haven't been able to vote?
But all the justices said, well, hey, Democrats, it's great you came up here.
We're glad we're here in the case, but you can't.
You haven't produced anybody that said this has been to stop them from voting.
You're all dealing here in the future.
It says, such, we can't find any reason to invalidate this statute.
Scary thing is, of course, is maybe we can do something with the statute, keeping it intact to make it fair.
Whatever.
We'll see when they rule next summer.
Here's Jimmy in Atlantic City.
Jimmy, glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Yeah, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Listen, I wanted to comment and say something about this, Mrs. Clinton's latest sideshow.
I've been kind of wondering, like, where the heck are we going in this country when theatrics trumps ability when you're running for the biggest job in the world?
I mean, it's kind of pathetic.
It borders on pathetic, don't you think?
It always has, though.
Ever since the advent of TV, it's the name of the game.
It has, there has, you know, you can define theatrics in a wide, give it a wide berth, but I mean, television politics have become show biz.
You don't do well on TV.
You don't have a prayer.
Now, I know what you're saying.
Here's an act of the sideshow, the tears, and so forth.
But this is by no means the first time.
How about when Al Gore appeared on, I forget what magazine, Men's Health or Men's Vogue or some such thing?
And they retouched these crank was a Rolling Stone magazine.
Al Gore's posed in the new wardrobe chosen for him by noted feminist Naomi Wolf, and he's wearing these tight, crackling jeans.
And they actually, with Photoshop and Touch Up, and they sort of was shadowing, they accentuated the package area of the vice president.
No, they did.
I mean, it's actually quite common.
I understand the desire for serious issues, and I think we're going to get to it once we get nominees.
This is still primary time.
And if we get the nominees relatively early, the Republicans could go to the convention.
I mean, it is wide open.
And the Democrats could be a long time coming, too, but they're nominee.
Let me expand on this when we get back because it's all going to shake out in due course.
Mark my words.
Well, yesterday on this program, I said these pollsters are going to have to dig deep.
They're going to have to do a very objective investigation to find out what went wrong in their pre-election polls and their exit polling in New Hampshire because they blew it big time.
And I said, they're going to have to do this for their reputations.
I said, they may dig deep.
They may never tell us what they found.
They just may say, we got it handled.
Experts on Wednesday said there was no single reason why opinion polls predicting a clear victory for Obama were so wrong.
People who did this are good pollsters.
They worked hard.
They came up with what they thought were reliable numbers.
There's really no single reason.
Sweep it under the rug time.
Andrew Cohut, who runs the Pew Center for the People and Press, has a piece here in the New York Times.
I won't read the whole thing to you.
He goes through four factors and discounts them all.
It was not a general failure of polling methodology.
The inaccuracies don't seem related to the subtleties of polling methods, so they weren't at fault.
Pollsters weren't at fault.
The methodology wasn't wrong.
The mistakes were not the result of last-minute trends that they didn't pick up.
Some people have argued the unusually high turnout may have caused a problem, but that was unlikely.
No, it was the polls.
No, nobody screwed up.
There were no mistakes.
I know I would have been right if there were no mistakes, but the pollsters didn't screw up.
The voters screwed up.
Here's what Kohat says.
To my mind, all these factors deserve further study, but another possible explanation cannot be ignored.
The previous four, we can ignore them.
Methodology, that was fine.
Everything about the polling was great.
But this possible explanation can't be ignored.
The long-standing pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.
In exploring this factor, it's useful to look closely at the nature of the constituencies of the two candidates in New Hampshire, which were divided among socioeconomic lines.
And skipping ahead to the end of the piece.
Certainly, we live in a different world today.
The Pew Research Center has conducted analyses of elections between candidates of different races.
We found that polls now do a much better job of estimating the support for black candidates than they did in the past.
Really?
After Tuesday?
However, the difficulties in interviewing the poor and the less well-educated persist.
Why didn't this problem come up in Iowa?
My guess, says Mr. Kohut, is that Obama may have posed less of a threat to white voters in Iowa because he wasn't yet the frontrunner.
Let me explain this.
No, they didn't touch on the fraud factor, Mr. Snerdley.
Nowhere in any of these stories where the pollsters analyzed themselves was there any curiosity about whether or not there'd been fraud.
None.
What has been decided is that this is key now.
What's been decided is that poor white Democrats are racists.
That's the only thing we can conclude.
We're talking a Democrat primary.
And the pollsters are trying to tell us that these poor white voters lie to them.
That when they call up, these poor white people say, yep, I'm voting a black guy.
And then they don't.
And he explains Iowa by saying, well, you know, he wasn't the frontrunner there.
There wasn't as much fear in Iowa.
Oh, so when they got to New Hampshire, the poor white Democrats in New Hampshire, oh my God, this guy could actually win the hell with that.
I'm going to tell the pollster I'm for the guy, but ain't no way when I get into the booth.
This is what your pollsters are telling you about what went wrong in New Hampshire.
Poor, white, Democrat racists.
I just love it.
Dan in Buffalo, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
It's an honor and a pleasure speaking to you, Rush.
Thank you.
I'm calling you from the home of President Grover Cleveland, the 2008 National Hockey League Snowball, and the state that made Hillary Clinton a U.S. Senator.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm a loyal Rush listener because of your ideas, Rush.
I appreciate that.
And my observation is that the more you mention the honorable senator's contrived tears, the more you unite the liberals of this country.
You are altering the possible outcome of the election in the manner which you may regret.
Actually, I know you're above this rush.
Well, Dan, actually, you know, the drive-by media hit her much harder on the tears than I did.
I'm not saying I didn't, but they were out.
They were really, I mean, some of the things they said were literally vicious and unkind.
But they're responding to your Interpretation of what was going on.
Look at I didn't get here until Monday.
They were all over this Saturday night and Sunday raking her over to Kohl's for that thing, because that happened Saturday night.
Okay, now you could be talking about the way she managed the White House travel department or about all the times that she said I can't recall or can't remember or the non-release of White House documents.
I understand that.
Now, do you know what month it is?
Yeah, I do.
January.
We're a ways away.
That's exactly right.
You've got to keep your powder dry.
This is a Democrat primary.
None of that's going to matter to Democrats.
I got a question for you.
Now, I believe that you alluded to that the Republican Party does not have a pure conservative candidate.
That's pretty true, yeah.
What if Alan Keyes had a billion dollars in his campaign fund?
Would the media treat him as the second coming of Christ because the media would profit more from his advertising dollars?
No.
Why would that be?
Because to the media, Alan Keyes is a conservative.
As a black conservative, he is a traitor.
Number two, they think he's a kook.
Number three, they think he's a kook.
There is no way there is literally no way.
You say I'm about ideas, so are they.
I mean, when it comes to liberal versus conservative, it doesn't matter.
Look at how many qualified black conservatives who aren't kooks have come along and they try to destroy them.
Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell for a while, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Soule.
List goes on and on and on.
And you, you know, Dan, you might have missed this earlier, but I did this brilliant analysis yesterday of why women in New Hampshire flocked to Mrs. Clinton, and it was not because she's a woman, it's because they saw her being mistreated and being mean to by a bunch of men.
And it was time for solidarity.
It was time for screw you, mister.
It was time for some vindication.
Now, what you may have missed, after going through all that today, I mentioned the fact that I watched her acceptance speech on Tuesday night, and I said, I've never seen her look happier.
I have never seen her more relaxed, never seen her more glowing.
She actually looked sexy on Tuesday night.
I don't know if you heard that, but if you think that's going to drive a wedge, I don't know.
I thought she was looked totally different.
I'm not talking about makeup or not.
She's just more relaxed.
She seemed more confident.
She was beaming.
Obviously happy because she had won.
But she looked good.
I'm not making it up.
Michael in Hampstead, North Carolina.
Welcome to the Rush Windblaugh Program.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
First, I wanted to say, who ironed shirts anymore?
The shirts are all polyester, wash and wear.
Not dress shirts.
Dress shirts are sent out to a specialist to be done.
But people don't iron their shirts anymore.
I was an estate manager for the rich and famous, and nobody ever ironed men's shirts.
Well, for crying out, wow, you did, though.
Somebody on your staff did.
No, they were all sent out, and my own shirts were wash and wear, 60% polyester.
All right.
Look, I've been in hotels with people that iron their own clothes.
I wouldn't do it, primarily because I don't know how.
I'm not going to waste my time with it, so I don't know how to do it, and it's not something I want to learn how to do.
But come on, people still iron their shirts.
Women don't get up in the morning and iron their husbands' shirts anymore.
That's the point of it.
Carolina, that's the good old days of long gone, but somebody's doing it.
I mean, there's some people, young people are ironing their shirts.
They're all wash and wear, Rush, I'm telling you.
They come out of the washing machine all ready to wear.
I have not heard.
I would love to believe you out there, Michael, but I have not heard of the falloff in sales of irons.
Well, we still iron our jeans and stuff.
Oh, it's just shirts we don't iron?
Right, that's what the man said.
Well, my shirt.
Nobody iron shirts.
Could have been iron my underwear.
It could have been iron my tie.
The point was, hey, Mrs. Clinton, take this.
You know, be a real woman and do something domestic.
I think they put somebody up to that.
You what?
I think they put somebody up to it.
There's no question.
If that was genuine, those two guys would have been tasered, and by today we would have known everything about those guys.
We'd have known their full records.
The whole thing was set up.
Mrs. Clinton smiled when she saw it.
She was asked for the lights to be turned up so everybody could see it.
She was ready for it.
She didn't hesitate or anything.
No, absolutely right.
Well, they plant old Sunday school teachers.
They plant a couple guys carrying signs.
Look, that's a takeoff of my joke about her anyway.
Clinton's obsessed with me, copying even the jokes I tell about him with a minor little word change.
No question about this.
None whatsoever.
All right, a brief timeout, my good friends.
And we will be back.
Continue here behind the golden EIB microphone before you know it.
Something happened on a stairway to heaven.
Phil Collins here and the EIB network, El Rushmo, serving humanity half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Look, here's a very succinct way.
You know, as I always love to quote Shakespeare, brevity is the soul of wit.
Here is the way, the best way to explain what happened with Hillary in a vote on Tuesday, New Hampshire.
Women voting for Hillary was like the jury and the community supporting OJ.
They were just showing up to man.
It was just, take this.
We know she's guilty.
We know he's guilty.
We know you're right.
But we don't like the way we've been treated.
We don't like the way you're treating her.
Pure and simple.
The OJ syndrome.
Wait till the drive-bys get a hold of that.
Now, that's going to be fun.
Tommy in Brooklyn, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How you doing?
Just good, sir.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Listen, I don't expect it in the liberal media, but I'm very shocked that nobody in the conservative media is bringing up the fact that when, remember with Bill Clinton and Ron Brown's funeral, how he was walking and laughing, and he turned and he camera.
Oh, well, that was an NBC piece of video they aired once, but we gave it life.
It's on our website, yes.
Is there any way of bringing that back to TV somehow to remind the people?
Just let everybody know where Hillary works.
You know, it's all over YouTube now, and we'll post it at rushlimbaugh.com this afternoon.
As far as getting it on television, maybe you could talk to your buddy Howdy.
I don't know that he doesn't have it, but he might.
I'm sure.
I think we've got a broadcast quality of it, copy of it, broadcast quality copy in our archives.
If you haven't seen this, and the point he's making is that the Clintons know how to fake tears.
Bill is really good at it.
This was the most amazing piece of video.
When I first saw this, I must have played it five or six times on one TV show.
And then the next night, again and again.
And every time the audience just laughed and laughed.
What it is, is Clinton walking down the street, heading into the church where the Ron Brown Memorial is to take place.
And he's walking with a Pennsylvania religious leader named Tony Campolo.
And they're yucking it up.
And they are laughing, back slapping joke telling going on, it looks like there's no audio here.
And all of a sudden, Clinton spots the camera.
And in less than half a step, folks, this was uncanny.
In less than one half of one step, Clinton starts faking tears.
That face turns to a sad, morose, forlorn look like a basset hound, bows his head, rubs his eyes, rubs away an imaginary tear.
Meanwhile, Tony Campolo, who's not in on this, keeps laughing and joking and looking at Clinton and yucking it up.
And it was, pictures are powerful, it was the perfect pictorial illustration of these, of the, of these, the, what would you, the pathology of Bill Clinton.
It was just, I defy, and nobody could do this.
Nobody, they could rehearse it if they knew the event was going to happen, but to have this, and that camera was not that close, it was across the street.
My guys like Clinton are always looking for the paparazzi cameras.
They are, it's part of doing business.
You got to know where the cameras are.
You see one, you put on a different.
Folks, let me tell you what happened to me.
It was at this funeral on Tuesday, and I'm a pallbearer.
And all of us pallbearers were walking up following the casket, which was on its carriage, and we were going to put it in the back of the hearse.
I walk out.
I got my brother on my right.
And we have to turn right around the corner to get to the back of the limousine.
And I look up.
I have no clue what my facial expression was.
And a couple photographers are there snapping pictures.
I said, crying out loud.
I said, I wonder what my facial expression was.
I probably, I'm sure I wasn't yucking it up like Tony Campolo was.
I probably had a somber look on my face.
And then after that, I talked to Jeff Long, who is the pastor at the church, sitting there at United Methodist Church.
The pictures going.
So I made sure that time smiled.
But I had reason to because we were having a fun conversation after the flowers had been brought out from the church and everything.
But, you know, the last thing I was thinking about walking out of church was it going to be photographer there.
But most people like Clinton, the first thing they'll be thinking about, where are the cameras?
Where the cameras spot them?
Or not knowing where the cameras are, I'm going to fix my facial expression before I get to the door.
I would hate to have to live that way, but that's people whose lives have been built on that kind of buzz, whose fame has been built on that kind of stuff rather than substance.
Stuff they have to do.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and wrap it up.
Close it up here in just a second.
You know, there's a great piece by Robert Samuelson, who writes for Newsweek in the Washington Post, Change for Our Children.
It really, I'm going to get to this tomorrow on Open Line Friday because it's all these candidates talking about change, and he defines what really good change for the kids, for children, would be.
Things like tax cuts for their parents and so forth.
It's Open Line Friday tomorrow.
We look forward to that.
And we'll see you.
It'd be 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection