All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
April 21, 2008, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh, Sink Yusuck, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Operation Chaos, behind the golden EIB microphone, the Rush Limbaugh program, and the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
They're running a lot of things here, a lot of organizations.
I'm in charge of all of them.
In fact, tomorrow's morning update heard on all these EIB affiliates.
It will be an address to the troops from me, Cink Yusuck, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Operation Chaos, to the troops as they take to the battlefield tomorrow in Pennsylvania during the Pennsylvania primary.
If you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is Il Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
Nora Effronte, the Huffington Post, another example of how stupid and racist, a racist liberals are.
She begins this way.
Here's another thing I don't like about this primary.
Now that there are only two Democrat candidates, it's suddenly, horribly, absolutely crystal clear that this is an election about gender and race.
Well, Nora, it's always been about gender and race and sex and bigotry and so forth.
This is identity politics.
That's what the Democrat Party's known for.
She correctly then asserts this has always been true.
May have always been true, but weeks ago it wasn't so obvious.
Once upon a time, there were eight candidates, and although six of them withered away, their presence in the campaign managed to obscure things even around the time of Ohio when there were primarily three candidates.
The outlines were murky because Edwards was still in there picking up votes from all sectors.
But now there are two, and we are facing Pennsylvania, and whom are we kidding?
This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women.
And when I say people, I don't mean people.
I mean white men.
How ironic is this?
After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still into third grade, even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder, after all this, they turn out surprised to have all the power, as they always did, by the way.
I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.
Hey, Nora, I want to raise my hand.
You ought to have a profound respect for me, ma'am, because it is I, El Rushbo, who've been pointing this out for 18 years on this program.
Go check out every presidential election, look at the returns, find out who gets a majority of the white male vote, and you'll generally, you know, practically every example, you'll find the winner.
Who is it, Nora, that's been trying to disabuse white men in this country for how long?
Has it not been your precious little feminist movement taking root in the late 60s, early 70s?
Has it not been the Democrat Party which has sought to disparage white men as predators, child abusers, veritable brutes?
It's your party, madam, which has sought to characterize men this way.
It is your party, which is a minority party and based on the empowerment of minorities, that has had your ammo trained on white men because they were the majority and you hated them.
Or the Democrat Party did as a group.
And now the truth comes out.
And now it's who do white men hate most?
Notice that she doesn't characterize it or put it in the positive.
Who do white men like the most?
Could it not be, Madame Efron, that if Obama happens to get a majority of the votes tomorrow, it's unlikely, but if he does, couldn't you say that a lot of white guys like him?
If Hillary happens to win, couldn't you say a lot of white guys like her?
No, can't be.
White men have to hate.
White men are bigots, they're racist, they're sexist, they're homophobes, and all of that.
And so she has to put it through the lens of negativity.
She then continues, to put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them, white men.
Yes, Madame Efron, as foretold by me for 18, 20 years on this program.
The outcome of Tuesday's primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain.
A lot of them will.
White men cannot be relied on, as all of us know, who have spent a lifetime dating them.
White men.
Yeah, it's right here, Mr. Snurdy.
A lot of them will vote for McCain.
White men can't be relied on, as all of us know, who have spent a lifetime dating them.
Now, if she were being stereotypically humorous here, I'd laugh myself.
Say, it's a great line if she's being stereotypically funny.
Because as you people know, I happen to love stereotypical humor.
You know, how the wife can't drive, but all these things.
I always love, you know, one of my favorite stereotypical jokes is good news, bad news.
Your mother-in-law is driving your new Cadillac, but it happens to be going over the cliff.
So it ain't so bad.
Now, when you tell a joke like that, you're tending to be funny.
I like those kind of.
Oh, you want to hear another good one?
I got this one in the email.
Man and a woman don't know each other.
Get the last two seats on a train, overnight train someplace.
Trains booked, they have to end up in the same birth car.
A bunk bed, one on top, one on bottom.
They don't know each other.
Their luggage is crammed in there.
The guy says, I'll tell you what, I'm going to make it easy.
I'll sleep in a top bunk.
I'll climb up there.
She says, fine.
As the night goes on, he gets cold, needs another blanket.
He's got to climb down the bunk bed to get to the blanket.
So he wakes her up and says, I'm really sorry to bother you, but could you get me another blanket?
It's freezing up here.
She said to him, You know, it's just the two of us here, and we haven't met, and nobody knows we're here.
Would you like to maybe pretend that we're just married for a night?
The guy says, Yeah.
She says, Go get your own damn blanket.
I love that.
I love those kind of jokes.
Now, if Nora Efron here is making a stereotypical joke, and you know, it's tough to read this, but the rest of this sounds so damn angry that I don't interpret this as a joke.
We also know that she used to be married to Carl Bernstein of Woodward and Bernstein.
And we could probably all agree with her that that had to have been formative and had to have been a chore.
Carl Bernstein's a white guy.
White men cannot be relied on, as all of us know, who have spent a lifetime dating them.
And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the torture thing.
As for the Democratic hope that McCain's temper will be a problem, don't bet on it.
A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.
I'm telling you, this is great.
This is a party of love and compassion and tolerance.
We're getting, and this babe, Nora Efron, I have met her.
I've been her dinner partner once.
She's as nice as she could be.
I was at a Barbara Walters party in New York a long, long time ago.
She's nice as she could be, but I'm telling you, she's obviously been shaken.
She's a feminist, and they are angry.
I have known this since the early birth of the modern feminist movement.
She is she attractive, Snerdley.
Why does that matter, Snerdley?
Her picture, you can find it on the web.
She's attractive.
She's attractive.
Now, see, now you're going sexist on them.
See what Snerdley's trying to do here is, well, maybe, maybe she fits Undeniable Truth of Life number 24.
Is that what you're saying?
Undeniable Truth of Life 24, written by me back in the mid-80s, states that feminism was established primarily to allow unattractive, ugly women easier access to the mainstream of society.
That truth alone, that of the 35, that one established me as one of the nation's great thinkers.
But she doesn't fit.
No, no, she's attractive.
No, no, this is pure ideology.
She's a feminist, and she has she just enraged.
They're all mad.
I know.
She's enraged.
Feminism has made feminists mad.
Liberals are mad.
She's got a double dose of mad because she's a liberal.
Liberals are constantly mad.
Feminists are double mad.
You got a mad woman here.
Now, if white men cannot be relied on, I'd like to ask her what men can.
Nora, please send me an email.
What men can be counted on?
What men can be relied on?
From white, well, you got to rule out white men.
Can black guys, are they reliable?
Asians, Native Americans, CHICOMs, Koreans.
Where do we go here?
Arab men?
They reliable?
If white men aren't, who is?
She says, if Hillary does pull it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate because these last primaries will show which of the two Democrat candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anybody but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son,
and who has never had to think of the president of the U.S. as anybody other than someone they might have had circumstances been just slightly different.
In other words, white guys ain't going to vote for a black or a woman.
It ain't going to happen.
But if Hillary wins here in Pennsylvania, it means she has the ability to soften some of these hateful white guys more than Obama does.
And that might matter because she's now saying what we all know.
The Democrat Party is going to need white men in order to win the presidency.
This is why the dream ticket isn't going to happen.
Hillary's case is not an attractive one, writes Ms. Efron, because what she'll essentially be saying and has been saying, although very carefully, is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can.
Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.
She can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can.
I spent the weekend listening to one commentator after another saying that Obama has it locked up.
It's a done deal.
I don't know.
Hillary's the true whack-a-mole, and if she survives on Tuesday, it'll be a whole new ballgame, and it will be all because of white men.
And Operation Chaos, Nora, don't forget that.
All right, let's go back to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting since we began.
Where are we going?
Where are we going to line three?
We'll start.
This is Cecilia in Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Great to have you here.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Yes.
I want to tell you, I am living proof that your optimism for this country is not a false optimism.
I homeschool three children, and my history textbooks were published in 1952.
And I have to tell you, these are very popular in the Catholic homeschooling community specifically.
They foster an appreciation for the truth and the past.
And I swear, based on the Pope's speech in Washington, you would swear that he read them.
And I just want to encourage your friends who get down on it sometimes.
This is a movement that's going on in the United States, and it's big.
And I know what it is.
I know it is.
It was, you know, Pope Benedict XVI loves America.
Yes.
This is his first trip here.
He loves America.
You can tell he knows more about the founding and the history of this country than a lot of Americans know.
And you can hear it throughout his remarks that he made throughout his visit.
But your textbook from 1952 leads me to conclude, I was talking about this with Snerdley here at the top of the busy broadcast hour because I've got a, before I tell you the final version of the story, I have a story here from Reuters.
Young Pennsylvania voters are drawn to Obama.
Initially, I thought I was really going to support Hillary, but I slowly changed because she's just so divisive and I didn't like her tactics, said a senior at Duquesne University, Alexandra Nasir.
She's 23.
Just by electing Obama, I think America's image will improve.
Now, this woman is in college.
She's a senior.
My guess is she has no interest in history because the way it's been taught, it's probably been taught as mundane and boring, and it's probably been taught as a political science class.
I tell you, I have further evidence of the proof of the reasoning abilities that it gives my children.
I brought my 12-year-old son to look at the Drudge Report headline about Hillary Clinton's internal poll numbers, and I said, son, what does this tell you?
And his response was, Operation Chaos is working.
I kid you not.
I had to call you and tell you.
And so.
There is hope for the country.
There is hope for the country.
Absolutely.
If an 11-year-old understands this.
Yes.
Yes.
And they all love you.
All my children love you.
Well, I appreciate it.
In fact, last night at dinner, I said if you could have dinner with three people, who would it be?
And they said the Pope, the President, and Rush Limbaugh.
No.
Yes.
No, I'm not making that up.
Does that make your day or what?
Of course it does.
It's humbling.
Well, you make our day every day.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Cecilia.
I appreciate it.
San Francisco, Jeff.
You a refugee?
Hello, yeah, absolutely.
Here in the capital of bitterness.
Dresh, I wanted to thank you for your cur-a-thon and to testify as to what a great organization the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is.
I was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia last September.
That's a stubborn one.
Yeah, yeah.
And it came at a really difficult time because I'd been ill for over a year and really hadn't getting any kind of a diagnosis.
Then I found myself in the intensive care unit with subdural hematoma.
What were your symptoms?
I mean, it might be helpful to people.
You're suffering from a blood cancer.
You don't even know for a long time that that's what you have.
What did you feel like?
Well, I just kept getting tireder and tired and tired, and my legs hurt.
And after being, I couldn't sleep well.
I felt like I got no rest at all.
At first, they thought it was anemia, and they treated me for that, and nothing got better.
I mean, it was just a and it wasn't until I was hospitalized that they started doing all of the more sophisticated blood tests and finally identified that I have something called the Philadelphia chromosome, which is the indicator.
And thanks to the, I mean, I don't have much family at all.
And the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society really became like family.
I mean, once I contacted them, they gave me all the information that I needed.
They called me to check on how I was doing.
They put me in touch with actually the top leukemia, CML, leukemia doctor in the country who's out here in San Francisco, which is one benefit of being here.
And they're responsible for the development of some drugs which have really increased the life expectancy from five years.
Well, I'm still, the biggest problem is not being able to sleep well.
I mean, I was taking the medication and it was seeming to have an effect, but it also had an effect on lowering my blood platelet count.
And so I've been taken off it temporarily.
I'm due to have another bone marrow biopsy Wednesday, this Wednesday.
But the doctors, you know, they're very encouraging.
As I say, there have been some tremendous advances in the treatment of it.
In fact, there's one drug called Glevec, which was heralded on Time magazine a few years ago.
And since that drug's been introduced as a treatment, largely due to the funding by the Leukemia Society, there's been a 97% success rate.
Exactly.
We've been mentioning Gleevec here during the radiothons for many years.
Well, the great endorsement that you gave, sorry that you had to learn about it the way you did.
Our prayers are with you, and we wish you the best.
Hang in.
A highway train broadcast specialist and professional.
We are all professionals here.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Operation Chaos, the doomsday option.
A doomsday option was put forth by me last week after witnessing a horrible debacle of a performance by Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania debate against Hillary Clinton.
And I mentioned to you that the doomsday option was for the superdelegates to see what they saw.
Because I go back and forth.
There are days I think Obama has already lost the general election.
I think it's over.
People have been asking me the past week.
Can McCain went, yes, McCain can beat both these people and pretty handily.
I think it's over for Obama.
And I think some of the superdelegates know.
Other times I say, yes, except for one thing.
That's our candidate.
Take it back.
I didn't mean it.
Well, I meant it, but I didn't mean to say it.
But the superdelegates of the Democrat Party know this.
I think that they're quaking in their boots, to be truthful.
And I think I have some evidence here.
It's an AP story from yesterday.
Many of the Democrats' superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple.
They just want a winner in November.
Do you understand the importance of this?
The superdelegates, many of us, I don't care what the votes have been.
I don't care what the primary results are.
I don't care who the pledge delegates are.
We need somebody who can win.
And if they think neither of these two can, keep a sharp eye.
The problem is that after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories, and D.C., the superdelegates still aren't sure who that is.
They don't seem to be in any hurry to make up their minds either, and they aren't interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose.
Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discuss their decision-making with the AP in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter, but few said that the primaries would be the biggest factor in their decision.
Gail Rasmussen, undecided superdelegate from Oregon, I think it's really important we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November.
I told you, Operation Chaos, doomsday option, they're already considering it.
Some of these superdelegates of the Democrat Party, remember, many of the Democrat superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple.
They just want a winner.
They are saying they are not bound by the primaries.
Operation Chaos, doomsday option.
Many undecided superdelegates refused to discuss their decision-making process, showing discomfort with the subject.
89 undecided superdelegates didn't return repeated phone calls or emails from the AP in the past two weeks, and 42 refused to discuss their decision when they were contacted.
That's quite telling in of itself.
Who's next?
Mark in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
First time caller.
Thank you.
With the success of Operation Chaos and with the media passing help picking McCain for us, so whether he wins or loses, will the Republicans be smart enough to learn from history and close their primaries in the future or make them on the same day as the Democratic ones.
That's something I couldn't begin to tell you.
In fact, I'm going to use your call to transition to the story I referenced earlier about the governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, because former member of the Reagan administration and a conservative.
It was in the Reagan administration, too, Bush administration, I think, early on, budget director, some such thing.
At any rate, your question has as its premise that the Republican Party is unhappy with the primary process that chose Senator McCain.
And I don't think the Republican Party is unhappy about it at all.
I think there's a battle going on in the Republican Party to push conservatives out of it or to diminish their role and influence.
And the latest bit of evidence, and I've chronicled much of it for you during the course of the recent months.
The latest bit of evidence is this story about Mitch Daniels, the Indiana governor, elicited several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows late last week as he lectured a conservative crowd that it was time to let Ronald Reagan go.
The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow Red Staters at the Fund for American Studies annual conference and donor retreat at the New Zealand in Washington.
He said nostalgia is fine and Reagan's economic plan was good, but we need to look toward the future rather than staying in the past.
Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Senator McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.
Now, he prefaced his remarks with the disclaimer that his comments were going to, many would think that they were controversial.
He hoped that he wouldn't be misunderstood.
Incidentally, applause was somewhat less enthusiastic as he left the stage than when he began by poking fun at Barack Obama.
Now, this sadly is a symptom of what is happening in the Republican Party at large.
The country club blue-blood Rockefeller Republican, and there are some, there are lots of them in the Republican Party, they were not happy with Reagan when he was in office and they don't like Reagan.
They were embarrassed because they thought he was a dunce and an idiot and he didn't come from their stock.
And even though he was winning two landslides, he brought with him these Reagan Democrats, conservative evangelicals, and that brought abortion and that really embarrassed the hell out of them.
And just like Obama and his crowds embarrassed with small-town hicks, there are a lot of country club blue-blood Republican elitists who are embarrassed of their hicks, NASCAR, you name it, pro-lifers, yet they can't win elections without them.
Have you ever heard a Democrat say we need to get over John Kennedy or FDR?
Have you ever heard a Democrat go to a microphone at a liberal conference and say, you know what?
We got to move past FDR.
We got to leave the past behind.
The future is the future.
We got to forget all about this.
And we got to forget about JFK.
We got to let him go.
You ever hear this?
You don't hear it.
There are no mavericks in the Democrat Party.
If they pop up, they get thrown out.
Zell Miller.
Joe Lieberman come to mind.
Hey, Mitch, Governor Daniels, should we get over Lincoln too?
He's in the past.
Well, I just got to get over Lincoln.
This is so contrary to conservative thought.
For me, on the wrong day, I mean, this can be tough to take.
We're supposed to learn from our past.
We are supposed to build on that which works.
This is part of conservative thought.
I tell you what, let's just get over the founders.
You know, the founders of the country are in the past, too.
Let's get over them.
Boy, if people really went back and found out what the founders thought, what they did, it'd embarrass a lot of Republicans today.
Let's just get over that.
Let's just look to the future, Governor Daniels.
Forget about the founders.
Forget about Lincoln.
Let's throw Reagan overboard finally so none of you.
And the reason is that none of them can compare to him.
They don't like people referring to Reagan because none of the current crop is anywhere near in his league.
And they care about the future and they don't want to be thought as a lesser to Ronald Reagan.
Why would we get over Reagan?
Unless we reject the core principles of the party and the nation, why should we do that?
I mean, I think a lot of these politicians who are suggesting that Reagan's an old news, and we've chronicled all of them that have said that Newt said it, the era of Reagan's over, I don't think they can attain the status of a Reagan.
And maybe that's why they insist we get over him.
And by implication, I suppose all great conservatives, we should get over Bill Buckley and we should get over Milton Friedman.
Those guys, it's a past, Rush.
That's right.
You're absolutely right, Rush.
We should get over these people.
So here you have Governor Daniels, and he's not alone, dumping on the very people who made conservatism a viable political option.
In fact, set the stage for his election as a governor, running as a Reagan economic conservative.
So now they want to take the party and the movement, wherever they're going to take it down, but they don't see that.
They think they're taking it to a new dawn, a new direction, one where they won't be plagued by yapping chatterboxes like me, being critical of them because there won't be enough of us to matter.
That is their hope.
So we're supposed to close ranks.
We're supposed to get over Reagan.
We're supposed to shut up.
We're supposed to get over all of these great traditions that made us who we are in our movement and our country and close ranks behind their favorite Republican and Republican candidates while they trash the most successful, policy-wise, and politically conservative in a century or more.
The most successful Republican, in fact.
Sadly, it seems to me that the people that want to get rid of Reagan and want us to get over Reagan, leave him back there in the past, these are people like a lot of libs who cannot compete in the arena of ideas.
They are lousy at communication.
They can't compete with the successful politics of Reagan.
So they insist that we reject him as a standard.
So we have to embrace much less dumbed-down thinking, a loser political mentality.
They want to control a political debate.
They insist that they're the only realistic alternative to the Democrats.
And what we're seeing here with this, with the support of some pseudo-conservatives, is the rise of the country club Republican in back.
Name is Rockefeller.
The Rockefeller Republicans are back.
We're going to have serious electoral defeats, the odds are.
And where we win, we're going to have policy setbacks.
This is the kind of thing that's frustrating.
So if you ask me if the Republicans next time around will learn the lesson and have their primaries on the same day Democrats do and close them off to Democrats, no.
Sadly, the Republican Party has made its decision.
Republican Party has cast its die, and that is they can't win without Democrats and liberals crossing over to vote for us or with us.
They can't win.
And they don't want to win without Democrats.
And by the way, they want to bring these Democrats in as converted Republicans or conservatives.
They're happy to have them come in as liberals and independents or what have you.
So, and I think losing big will not change their mind.
If they lost big, this would not change their mind.
Well, you have to, you know, we're remaking the party.
Of course, Barry Goldwater got lost and defeated in a landslide, too.
Or they'll come up with some other excuse.
The thing is, the odds are the Republican Party is going to win big in November.
The odds are big, folks, at least the White House, the presidential level.
I don't know about Congress and the Senate.
That's looking bleak.
But when we win, what have we won there?
If the agenda is going to be set in Congress.
Anyway, I'm way over time here.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
And welcome back.
It's El Rushball at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Michael in Coldwater, Michigan.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Yeah, I was wanting to ask you about the accepting on the Republican side of the global warming theory.
And I was wondering if you'd seen these commercials with Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich together.
No, I haven't seen it, but I knew they were going to film it, but I haven't seen it.
Have you seen it?
Yes, I have.
What does it say?
What are they saying?
What are they doing?
Oh, they're not in bed.
No, they are sitting on a couch together.
But they're sitting there talking about how Newt's been a lifetime Republican.
Nancy's been a lifetime Democrat.
And they're coming together to bring this whole thing to the front.
Bull, they're not coming together.
Newt's cave.
Newt's moving across the aisle.
Nobody, they're not coming together.
Pelosi didn't move an inch.
Yes.
Yeah.
I mean, this is the whole thing.
We accept the premise.
We accept the premise that the Democrats put forward, and then we do one of two things.
We either run to embrace them to show the arrest of the American people.
We care too.
We care about saving the world and the environment because we agree that we're destroying it.
Or we'll tweak their proposal a little bit, try to add what we think is a conservative twinge to it.
I knew this was going to happen.
I know Al Sharpton's doing one of these with Pat Robertson.
They didn't ask me to do one.
I've been asked to do stuff like this before about different things, but they didn't ask me, and I wouldn't have.
Rest assured.
But here's one of the reasons why.
I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained think a very depressing story by Reuters.
Most people, this is a poll, most people believe oil is running out and that governments need to find another fuel.
But Americans are alone in thinking their leaders are out of touch with reality on this issue, according to an international poll released yesterday.
On average, 70% of respondents in 15 countries and the Palestinian territories.
We poll, what was Jimmy Carter there?
We polled the Palestinian territories on whether or not there's any oil.
You could put 2 billion barrels of oil beneath the Palestinians.
They wouldn't have the wherewithal to get it out right now.
They're too busy killing themselves, everybody else.
Anyway, 70% of the respondents in 15 countries in the Palestinian territory said they thought oil supplies had peaked.
Of course, this is, folks, nothing could be further from the truth.
But this is the success of the drive-bys, working in concert with the environmentalist wackos.
Only 22%, there are 15,000 people in this poll, by the way.
Only 22% of the respondents in nations ranging from China to Mexico believed enough new oil would be found to keep it a primary fuel source.
What's most striking is that there's such a widespread consensus around the world that oil is running out and governments need to make a real effort to find new sources of energy, said Stephen Cull, director of worldpublicopinion.org.
Americans perceive that the government is not facing reality, Cull said.
In the U.S., the world's biggest oil consumer and among the biggest emitters of climate warming pollution from fossil fuel use.
76% of respondents said oil is running out, but most believe the U.S. government mistakenly assumes there can be enough to keep oil a main source of fuel.
70, okay.
Took me a while to get there, but when you have politicians like Newt Gingrich and 76% of the American people think we're running out of oil.
They're in any more.
They believe in global warming.
What do you think a politician is going to do?
When we come back, ladies and gentlemen, we've got a lot of sound bites to review, and I want to review some of the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI.
We'll do that.
Chaney with a nice send-off, Hangar 19 at JFK last night, plus Mrs. Clinton complaining about moveon.org.
▲
Export Selection