All Episodes
Previous Next
April 8, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:44
April 8, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Isn't one of those days.
I guess it's like every other day.
You never know what's going to happen here, which I like.
I like the unpredictability of this, the most listened-to radio talk show in America, Rush Limbaugh.
And the EIB Network, great to have you with us.
One hour to go.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Is it not great, ladies and gentlemen?
We just had a call from Michelle in Clark, New Jersey, who lived in Pittsburgh, outside Pittsburgh and New Kensington, saying that their governor there is right.
Democrats in Pennsylvania are racist.
Damn Democrats, they're racist as they can be.
Fast Eddie knows his people, eh?
Governor of the governor of Pennsylvania.
We need to help our Pennsylvania brothers overcome their racism, ladies and gentlemen.
In fact, the whole Democrat Party seems like it's a bunch of racists.
I know that race speech of Obama's really helped, didn't it?
I think we need another one.
You know, let me say a couple things here about Michelle's call.
She was nice.
But boy, I did not say I want government in my life, the way she interprets government in her life about abortion.
I want the federal government to be limited to what is allowed, it's allowed to do under the Constitution.
As I say, anybody who says that the founders of this country owned slaves and then they leave it at that hasn't the slightest understanding of our history.
Of course, conservatives believe government ought to protect life.
We support law enforcement.
What's law enforcement?
It's protecting life, liberty, property, is it not?
We support the military.
What the hell is the military doing?
The military is protecting our lives.
Of course, conservatives want government to protect life.
If government doesn't stand for life, who's going to?
We support criminal laws against murder.
We oppose the misuse of the courts and the Constitution.
It creates a right to abortion where no such right exists in the Constitution.
I don't want to turn this into a debate on abortion, but conservatism is very simple.
It's not, well, it's simple, but it's an intellectual pursuit.
You just can't sit around and feel and be conservative.
And I'm telling you, any person or any organization that is not conservative by definition will become liberal.
That's why it is a constant battle.
We are for life.
We are for liberty.
It's the liberal folks who tries to rationalize death even to the point of supporting partial birth abortion.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to rationalize death in any number of ways, refusing to condemn Jack Kvorkian, Dr. Death is one example.
It's the liberal who defends the criminal, the rapist, the murderer, the robber as being a creation of our corrupt and polluted society, deserving special treatment, special understanding.
It is the conservative who rejects this view and approach.
We support life and liberty.
It is the conservative who supports a strong military to protect life and liberty in this country, to come to the aid of allies who share our values and are also threatened.
It is the conservative, my friends, who comes to the defense of the unborn child, many of whom can survive outside the mother's womb.
It is the conservative who insists that the government do that which it is empowered to do and do it vigorously, but do nothing more.
The best way to ensure life and liberty.
Look what happened to life when the government got involved.
It got cheapened.
Supreme Court's part of government.
Roe versus Wade cheapened life.
But when somebody's going to call here and ask me questions and then talks over me, not interested in my answers, I don't think she has any intention of opening her mind to conservative views.
Too many people want to talk in their platitudes and reflect their indoctrinations and so forth.
But we on this program try as often as possible, without being repetitive, to pound the principles of conservatism daily, weekly, often doing so by reacting to the latest folly or danger that has been brought forth by liberals.
By the way, yesterday we had the news, and I'm sure you heard it too, that Condoleezza Rice was actively pursuing the vice presidency with Senator McCain.
He didn't know anything about it.
Elizabeth Boomiller in the New York Times says, is Secretary of State Rice campaigning to be McCain's running mate?
If so, McCain said Sunday he hadn't noticed, I missed those signals.
I didn't see them.
I haven't heard a word.
Nobody tells me who's going to be my vice president anyway.
I'm going to decide that.
It's my decision.
I'm going to decide it with honor.
I'm going to decide it with vigor.
Nobody.
Nobody tells me who's going to be my vice president.
And Condoleezza Rice says, I don't know what this is about.
I don't want to be anybody's vice president.
She's always said that.
You know what I smell here?
I smell the Obama campaign.
I smell the Obama campaign passing a rumor of Condi being the GOP feep to certain drive-by people to scare the Democrat voters and the superdelegates that if they don't put Obama on the ticket, the Republicans will get to have the first black person on the presidential ticket.
That's what I suspect.
I've never heard her say.
In fact, I've heard her say the opposite, that she is not interested in this.
But then after I thought about maybe it was a Hillary Camp that let it out to scare the superdelegates and primary voters that the Republicans could have the only woman on the ballot this fall.
Then I decided that either case is plausible.
And then I came to the conclusion that nobody on the Republican side leaked it.
It had to have come from someplace on the Democrat side.
New York Times today, story by Jan Hoffman, Obama's young backers are twisting their parents' arms.
Kids, the upshot of this story is that children have been twisting their parents' arms and they just want their parents to vote Obama.
And the parents are saying, okay, kid, I'll vote for Obama because they want to impress their children.
As though kids twisting parents' arms is something new.
This has been going on for years.
For some waffling primary voters, the relentless push by their children was good enough reason to capitulate.
Eager to encourage their offspring's latest enthusiasm, parents have been willing to toss up their hands and vote for Obama if only to impress their children.
So it says in the New York Times.
By the way, we've got some audio soundbites.
We haven't yet.
I don't think Obama has gotten his turn yet with General Petraeus at the Senate committee today.
But this morning on the Today Show, co-host Meredith Vieira talked to Obama, and she said, What's the key question, Senator Obama, you want answered today?
Number one question you're going to ask General Petraeus.
So I think the most important issue is still the one that was asked in September, which is how has this war made us safer?
And at what point do we know that there's success so we can start bringing our troops home?
Well, that's a brilliant question.
Carl Levin has already laid down the gauntlet, thrown down the gauntlet.
Carl Levin said in the hearings today that the Maliki government, the Iraqi government, better start meeting these benchmarks.
And they better start being able to pay their own way over there because they got to do that quick.
And of course, he will not say that to his own constituents.
He will not say that to Democrat voters who are wallowing away in misery of entitlement.
He will not demand they start meeting personal benchmarks.
He will not demand that they start paying their own way.
But here he will do so of the government.
This pretty lame question.
How has this war made us safer?
I don't know that that even comes under General Petraeus' purview.
Senator Obama, let me take a stab at it.
Have we been attacked since 9-11 on this country, sir?
Had we not responded, sir, can you guarantee us that the same zero attacks would have occurred since 9-11 of 2001?
Meredith Vieira then said, so how can you guarantee that you can pull out those troops in just 16 months?
We are going to set a timetable and we will have a prudent pace of withdrawal, one to two brigades per month.
At that pace, we can have combat troops out within approximately 16 months.
That will be about two years from now, Meredith, which means that this war will have lasted seven years.
Irresponsible answer.
Totally irresponsible answer because he doesn't know what he's going to face in January of next year.
He has no idea what the situation on the ground is going to be, and he has no idea what his commanders are going to tell him.
One more here before we go to the break.
Meredith Vieira said to him, well, look, Frank Rich wrote, quote, really, Barack Obama and Hillary should be ashamed of themselves for libeling McCain.
In fact, Senator McCain never said he wanted 100 more years of war.
He just felt American troops should be a long-term presence the way they are in Japan and South Korea.
So, Senator Obama, are you willing to admit that you have distorted his statements?
That's just not accurate, Meredith.
We can pull up the quotes on YouTube.
What John McCain was saying was that he is happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq.
Happy maybe overstating it.
He is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years.
In fact, he said 10,000 years, however long it took.
That was his argument.
This is sitting duck for McCain.
This is, you know, we hear talk about how smart Obama is and so forth.
He's very, very dumb the way he's dealing with this because there's nobody, nobody who thinks McCain said that he wants to stay in declared hostilities with war going on for 100 years.
He did not say that.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Lots more straight ahead.
A giant see I told you so coming true.
New Jersey moved yesterday to become the third state to require companies to offer six weeks of paid leave to workers wishing to care for a new child or a sick relative.
The state senate voted 21 to 15 to approve the bill.
It would offer up to six weeks paid leave.
The Assembly approved the Democrat plan last month.
Democrat Governor Corzine said he will sign it soon.
Can't wait to sign it.
Under the plan, backed heavily by organized labor and opposed by Republicans and business groups, parents could take paid leave any time in the first year after a child's birth or adoption.
Workers would be allowed to take paid leave to care for a sick relative receiving inpatient care in a medical care facility or under continuing supervision from a health care provider.
The program, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, will be paid for through a payroll deduction that legislative officials estimate would cost workers $33.
There is no deduction.
It is a payroll tax increase.
What is this payroll deduction garbage?
They are going to deduct it from your payroll.
Meaning, it's a tax increase.
Workers who take leave would get two-thirds of their salary up to $524 a week with an estimated average weekly benefit of $415.
Opponents liken the payroll deduction to a tax.
Well, liken it, it is.
And they fear it'll increase if the program doesn't earn enough money to meet its needs.
Tell you what, folks, I mean, if you tell people, all right, gang, six weeks unpaid leave, go adopt a baby.
Some people will do that just to get six weeks off work paid and put the baby back up for adoption after the six weeks are over.
AP, Americans who spy against the United States are increasingly motivated by ideology rather than by money.
Nearly half of those known spies since the end of the Cold War showing allegiance to another country or cause, according to a government report.
Doesn't surprise me.
We are well aware, are we not, that there is a healthy and vibrant blame America First crowd among our population.
Hate America First crowd in our population.
On Sunday, Hillary and Obama are going to have a, well, it's not a debate in Pennsylvania.
They're going to have a compassion forum.
This is what this is being called, a compassion forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.
The sponsors are quick to say it's not a debate, despite the fact that Obama and Hillary have accepted invitations to attend.
CNN is going to handle this.
Cable network announcing that it will provide live coverage of the 90-minute forum at 8 o'clock on Sunday night.
CNN election anchor Campbell Brown and John Meekum of Newsweek will moderate what's being called a compassion forum, which will take place nine days before the Pennsylvania primary.
This is a small Christian college outside Harrisburg, sponsored by Faith in Public Life, billed as a setting for wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to pressing moral issues that are bridging ideological divides now more than ever.
I don't know what's gotten into this college, what they think they're going to hear morality-wise from these two.
I'll make you a prediction that the morality they discuss is what government's role is.
That's how they define morality.
If the government's involved in it, it's moral.
If the government isn't involved in it, it isn't moral and needs the government involved in it.
This place is going to be filled with ponytail-type guys.
Remember that from the debate back in 1992?
The ponytail guy standing up asking Perot, Clinton, and Bush 41, treat us like you're children, and what are you going to do to take care of us?
And George Bush looked at his watch.
Perot stumbled on the way to the microphone.
Clinton got there first.
Nine days before the primary.
Hillary needs a new story that's nice, too, by the way, so she may be...
Compassion?
This doesn't...
This doesn't fit.
Chris in Middlebury, Connecticut.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Thank you for waiting.
Thank you so much.
Before I make proper greetings, I just want to be sure to get this name out.
Stuart Kaufman Autocatalytic Sets is the theory.
Now for the proper greetings, oh, great one.
I've been a big fan of yours for a long time.
My late father was too, and I just love what you do.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for everything.
I just hope I can convince you that the big tent of conservatism and the Republican Party is big enough for Darwinists, too.
I'm a deacon at a church, but I'm also a Darwinist.
I think that a lot of elements of Darwinian theory would find approval among conservatives.
Among them, the idea that evolution requires a conservative mechanism, which in us is our genes.
It does require innovations, too, but those are mutations, and they usually fail.
It requires a selective mechanism as well.
Those are the trials of life itself, and unfortunately, socialism often leaves those out.
And generally, when a government program isn't working, it isn't selected out.
It's just given more money, which is sort of the reverse of evolution.
So I just.
No, it's a perfect liberal evolution.
Liberal evolution rewards failure.
But it's not expands it.
It's not progress, though.
It's not progressive, I think.
It goes backwards.
In fact, I don't like to call them liberals, Rush.
I think that liberals are supposed to be tolerant of other ideas.
They're not.
I find they're not at all.
You know what you ought to do?
Ben Stein's movie is called Expelled, and it comes out at either 12th or the 16th of this month.
I'm having a mental block on which, but it's all about Darwinists on campus all over the country and all over the world who are summarily getting rid of and firing people who don't subscribe to it and who even just question and investigate scientifically the whole concept of intelligent design.
And that's wrong.
I mean, dialogue is necessary for progress to be made.
And I don't think Darwinists who are doing that are really abiding by their own ideas.
Yeah, here's the problem.
The Darwinists that are featured in this movie are a bunch of arrogant superiorists who have no more proof of their belief than anybody else has.
Everything they believe requires faith.
Well, I think where it comes from is this idea.
If you're looking at a phenomenon, and it tends to be scientists, and I think when they look at a phenomenon, if you simply say God did it, it doesn't explain much about how it works.
What they want to do is say, well, let's go past that.
Maybe God did or didn't do it, but let's just forget about that because it's really, you know, use Occam's razor, which is this principle of eliminating anything you could really help to solving the problem.
The Darwinists that we're discussing here will not allow God to be mentioned.
There's no possibility whatsoever of God to these Darwinists.
Ben Stein speculates and theorizes that it was Darwinism that led to Hitler and his Holocaust of the Jews.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
All right, we're back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained broadcast specialist, Stewart in Morocco, California.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
I really appreciate that.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It was interesting to hear about the Indiana Democrats and the way they're treating crossover voters.
Reminds me of the Mississippi and Alabama Democratic parties of 50 and 60 years ago and their voting test.
Alabama.
Well, it does in a way.
There is voter intimidation going on here.
There's a threat in Ohio to indict me and Operation Chaos operatives.
And then, of course, in fact, Ed, grab audio soundbite number one.
We've heard from a guy.
I think his name is Dan Parker.
His last name is Parker, and he's a Democrat poo-bot, Indiana.
He said, we're going to have people out there.
We're watching.
If these people show up, we're going to have 10 years' worth of voting registration records.
If they just one time registered from Republican to Democrat, we're going to find out what this is about.
And another guy spoke up on Indianapolis television last night, WRTV News, the anchor Dan Spieler, I think it's Spieler, talking to Marion County Democrat Party chair Terry Burns.
Marion County Democrats say they're going to look for what they call possible Republican sabotage in the May 6th primary.
They say this has happened in other states since John McCannis wrapped up the Republican nomination.
There have been some national talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh encouraging Republicans to vote.
Stop the tape a second.
That started to irritate.
There have not been some.
I am the supreme commanding general of Operation Chaos.
Primaries.
In their way of thinking, the goal would be to vote for whoever would make the weakest candidate for the Democrats come November.
We're a big tent party, so obviously we're going to welcome anybody who legitimately has a conversion to the Democratic Party and is truly interested in voting in the Democratic primary and being a Democrat.
But like I said earlier, we're going to be keeping a close eye just to make sure nothing untowards going on.
Voters with a record of supporting one party who then choose the other party's ballot can be challenged, but they can then file a counteraffidavit and their vote would be allowed.
Sabotage?
Last I knew when it was election day, if you're registered, you can vote for whoever you want for whatever reason.
Sabotage?
Sabotage?
This is what they are thinking is happening in Indiana.
And then, of course, the poobah from a Democrat Party, Terry Burns, we're a big tent party.
Obviously, we'll welcome anybody who legitimately has a conversion to our party, truly interested in voting in the Democrat.
How do you know that?
How do you know that every Democrat is indeed that way?
What gives you the right to have that license anyway?
See, this is what burns me, folks.
The Republican Party is out there trying to get Democrats to come into our party as Democrats.
We're not saying, hey, you Democrats want to vote for McCain.
That's fine, but you've got to become conservatives first.
You've got to become legitimate conservatives, legitimate Republicans.
Hell no, we're not doing that.
And the McCain camp's not doing that.
Any Democrat wants to come vote for us?
You feel free, and we're happy to have you as Democrats.
This is what burns me up about this.
This is why we are doing Operation Chaos.
Corey in Richland, Washington.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How's it going?
Good.
A couple of things, actually.
First one was with the new emissions tax down in California.
Yeah, I know all about it.
I'm the host.
Well, they claim that the people that's going to hurt is the rich people or whoever who can go out and buy the big gas guzzler and whatnot.
And they're the ones that are going to end up paying that tax.
But what about the poor people that can't afford to upgrade to the new ultra-low emissions vehicles?
Seems to me like they would be the ones that would suffer more from that tax.
You are exactly.
Your instincts are right on the money.
Anytime these liberals come along with tax increases that are designed to punish the upper tier, they end up hurting the little guy, big time.
It's not, by the way, California is working on its own emissions increase on an increase in the cost to register a car and gasoline taxes.
Los Angeles is working on its own adjunct to this, all under the premise of a hoax.
I got a global warming.
You know what?
I need to get into this global warming stack here because there is some fascinating stuff in this, and I've been stockpiling it here for two days.
First, there is a, you know, one of the things that I have attempted to shout from the mountaintops as often as I can is something I heard Michael Crichton say.
And it's true.
There can be no consensus in science.
Science does not allow consensus.
You don't take a vote on what your scientific proposition is, and whatever the majority thinks ends up being called science.
Global warming, the consensus of science says they essentially refute their own conclusion when they use the word consensus.
And here we have in the Australian, which is a newspaper, good science isn't about consensus.
Australia faced over the next generation at least, and almost certainly much longer, with two environmental problems of great significance.
They are first, how to manage water, and second, how to find acceptable alternatives to oil-based energy.
Global warming is not one of those two issues, at least for me, and I see it as a distraction.
This alternatives to oil thing.
This is going to drive me insane.
This alternatives to oil.
If people would just stop and think for a moment, there aren't any.
The private sector is indeed working on them.
Sorry, I don't want to go through the whole thing because of limited time here, but I've got a brilliant monologue on this in the archives at rushlimbaugh.com.
From, let's see, what is this?
The French news agency, climate change will increase the risk of people losing their sight through cataracts because of higher levels of ultraviolet rays, an expert said Monday.
The three main risk factors that lead to cataract blindness are age, smoking, and UV exposure in that order, said Andreas Muller of the Fred Hollows Foundation.
Climate change increased cataract blindness.
Experts.
Here's another brilliant story.
This is from newscientist.com.
Apart from human devastation, a small-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan would destroy much of the ozone layer, leaving the DNA of humans and other organisms at risk of damage from the sun's rays.
No kidding, nuclear war would be bad for the environment, too, eh?
Who would have thunked that?
Here's the big news, though.
Global temperatures have not risen since 1998.
That is 10 years ago.
Global temperatures, in fact, will drop.
This is the BBC to boot.
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Niña current in the Pacific, according to UN meteorologists.
The World Meteorological Association Secretary General, Michel Giraud, told the BBC it was likely La Niña would continue into the summer.
That would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
La Niña El Niño.
These are the things that can affect global temperatures, not even sure they're in the models, but and then the Daily Mail had the same story.
The world will experience global cooling this year, according to a leading climate scientist.
Same guy, World Meteorological Organization.
And the New York Times on April 6th, they shift in the debate over global warming.
The charged and complex debate over how to slow down global warming has become a lot more complicated because most of the focus of the last few years is centered on imposing caps on greenhouse gases emissions to proud energy users to conserve or switch to non-polluting technologies.
Leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the frauds that awarded half-recipients a Nobel Peace Prize last year, along with Al Gore, have emphasized that market-based approach.
There's nothing market-based about this approach.
It's being governments are demanding that.
What is market-based approach?
There's nothing market-based about this.
Imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
Who's doing the imposing?
Governments are.
You can't call this market-based.
Anyway, all three presidential candidates are behind it.
Yeah, we know.
And it has framed international talks over a new climate treaty and debate within the U.S. over climate legislation.
But no.
With recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency and world temperatures, a growing chorus of economists, scientists, students.
Students.
Yes, my friends, even students are weighing in here, being allowed to make policy.
Students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it'll be too little and it will come too late.
You see, there's nothing we can do.
We're destroying the planet, and it's almost over.
Maryland governor, Governor Martin O'Malley, recently warned that failure to take action on global warming could mean the extinction of the human race.
You know, the claims of these nuts just get wilder by the day.
The whole East Coast now is going to disappear.
St. Louis will be the East Coast.
And we're going to be cannibals.
And we're going to eat ourselves to extinction all because of global warming.
I got to take a brief time out here, folks.
Sit tight.
We're coming right back.
Don't go away.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we go back to the phones.
George in Sioux City, Iowa.
Nice to have you.
Welcome, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
There's a lot of talk out there that President Bush should boycott the Olympics.
And the answer to that is no, he should not.
A little-known fact is that in ancient Greece, if there were two warring city-states, they would lay down their arms in peace and good faith and go to the Olympics.
And after the Olympics were over, they would take up arms again and fight each other.
Yeah, well, it's Democrats are saying that Bush ought to boycott the opening ceremony.
He's already said he's not going to boycott.
He's going to go.
Oh, are Democrats Americans?
Yeah, but the irony of this, when's the last time the Democrats cared about another nation's people being free?
Whenever we talk about that for the Iraqis, the Democrats have a cow.
When we liberated the Soviet Union, the Democrats said, well, they're not ready for it.
We shouldn't get rid of the Soviet system.
Now, all of a sudden, they want freedom for the Tibetans.
During Hillary and Bill's presidency, the Tibetans were being murdered and slaughtered just as they are today.
But the Clintons were taking big money from the Chikoms.
You know, so the irony here, here's Mrs. Clinton saying, you chikoms, you should stop and grant the Tibetans independence.
Well, when's the last time a liberal cared for any people in the rest of the world having freedom?
That's the irony here.
Yeah, we laid down our, we're not even at war with China.
It's the Chinese and the Tibetans, but the liberals today protesting.
I'm just stunned.
I mean, the Chikoms are the leading communist country in the world today, and a bunch of liberals are protesting them.
Very, very odd.
I think the liberals are upset with the capitalism that's found its way into the Chikom markets.
That's what they're really upset about.
Everything else in China, the persecution of the Falun Gong, and that's cool.
But they don't like this Tibet business.
And for whatever reason, maybe, ah, liberals love the Dalai Lama.
I forgot.
They like the Dalai Lama.
All right.
Alan in Summers, Connecticut.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah.
Wonderful opportunity.
It's such a thrill to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
I'm a business owner.
You scoundrel.
You are one of the biggest problems.
You own a business.
That means you're raping and screwing people.
Well, only in a small way.
Then it's okay.
Now, you mentioned that this cycle is cyclical with the recession.
That's right.
And I believe that's true, too.
You know, anybody that's been around really, truly knows that.
Some people deny it.
For example, my industry, you know, leading and lagging indicators.
My industry, you know, we've been feeling this recession for a long time now.
Do you feel like telling us what your industry is?
Well, I mean, you know, excavation, drilling, blasting, that sort of thing.
Excavation, drilling, and blasting.
Okay.
You know, so when the housing industry doesn't do well, we don't do well.
Right.
But we're on the leading edge of that.
But it's coming back.
You know, the thing is, we get into these circumstances.
I guarantee you, if people would stop watching television for a week and stop being pummeled 24-7 with all of this doom and gloom about this, their attitudes and moods would increase left and right.
What evidence, how's it come, you're getting more work now because the housing industry where you are is coming back?
Well, you know, it is coming back.
It's a slow process.
But, you know, you also mentioned that, you know, the big guys are out there looking for opportunities.
Well, you know, the little guys need to look for opportunities too.
Everybody should be looking for opportunities.
Because their opportunities are galore even in a recession.
In this country, a recession in this country would be heaven and nirvana to most people around the rest of the world, including some of our Western Democratic outlaws.
Speaking of what you're saying here, story from the Financial Times from yesterday: experts start to see light in credit gloom.
Is the worst over?
For the first time since financial turmoil began in August last year, some respected experts are beginning to speculate that the worst of the credit crisis may be past.
Stanley Fisher, governor of the Bank of Israel, says that the Bear Stearns rescue might be a turning point.
His view is shared by Larry Summers, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary, who wrote in the Financial Times last week: quote, It is not unreasonable to hope that in the U.S. at least the financial crisis will remain in remission.
Almost like it's a cancer.
Financial crisis like it's a tumor.
So we've zapped it here with the Bear Stearns bailout.
Now it's in remission.
This turn in sentiment is based on the idea that radical action by U.S. authorities has put a floor under the financial system.
Folks, I don't come here to depress you, but I come here to be honest.
And I have to ask you, those of you who are regular listeners to this quality broadcast, over the last year or two years, has it not been true that every story we've done on the economy has featured experts surprised.
Unemployment going down, job applications going up, all kinds of things.
Whatever the economic news was, the experts were surprised.
Now these experts say we've seen a little light.
It might be over.
The experts are always wrong.
I don't want to depress you.
The experts are always wrong.
Larry Summers is what?
He's a Democrat.
The point of this story is to say Democrat liberal philosophy may have choked off the recession.
That's the point of the story.
Back in a second.
Obama event supporters, ladies and gentlemen, very much worried.
Not enough white people are showing up.
We have a story coming tomorrow featuring Obama event supporters shouting, Get me more white people!
Details then.
Have a great Tuesday at afternoon and night, and we will see you tomorrow.
21 hours.
▲
Export Selection