All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
June 11, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Have you been watching the television and seen pictures of this flooding in Illinois and in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?
Levees have broken in Lawrenceville, Illinois.
A town is flooded.
Where is FEMA?
Where's the president?
Cedar Rapids is on the verge of the same thing happening.
You've got sandbags out there protecting their levees.
Where's FEMA?
Where's the president?
Where's all the people that care?
We care.
President's in Europe.
That's right.
Oh, where's Cheney?
You know, where's Colin Powell?
Where's somebody to go out there and hug some people?
Greetings, friends.
Welcome to have a welcome and great.
I got too much to say here.
My mouth can't keep up with my brain.
And it's sort of like Obama-Idis, except in his case, his brain can't keep up with his mouth.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to be with you on a middle-of-the-week Wednesday, hump day, we call it.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
The email address is LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
I had a great night last night.
My friend Professor Hazlett was in town.
He came by, watched a little bit of the radio program yesterday.
He was dazzled.
He was fascinated.
He still can't believe.
He said to me last night, he said, you know, you've really come far from that little shack that you call a house in South Natomas, which is Sacramento.
And he said, you did it.
You did it without ever going to college.
You're almost as smart as I am.
And I said, well, I appreciate that, Professor.
His Windows machine froze on him.
He couldn't start it.
It wouldn't open up.
He asked me, do you know anything about Windows machines?
And I said, are you kidding?
I looked at his machine, a tiny little thing.
I said, that thing looks like it just came back from a rock.
How old is it?
He said, it's three years.
I love it because it travels well.
It's very small.
So I put him on the phone with Brian because Brian's a big Windows guy.
Brian was no help.
He wanted to get off the phone fast because he's setting up his new high-definition TV.
I heard him on the phone here with the professor going through the motions.
I don't know what that is.
I don't know what it is.
Call somebody else.
So we called Scott Schaefer, who is our RT guy here, and I said, well, you know, we're not going to get it fixed tonight, Professor.
I mean, I'll probably be able to fix it for you, but not tonight.
So I said, Professor, you want to use my laptop?
I've got a 17-inch MacBook Pro.
He said, sure.
I said, you know how to use Mac?
No, but I'll figure it out.
So I fired it up, put it in front of him on the conference table in my library, and I have never seen somebody, I've never seen a Windows user so quickly adapt to a Mac in my life.
He was sailing on that thing with inside of 10 minutes, trying to open my checkbook, trying to read my, trying to read my emails.
He even tried to steal the thing.
He said, can I take this with me?
I said, no, Professor, I need, besides, it's too big for you on an airplane.
You need a smaller version.
We'll get you a smaller one.
But during our conversation last night, he told me, he said, you know, I'm glad you're focusing on this gradual individual loss of liberty stuff because it's really, you know, he works.
He's an economist, but he does a lot of testifying before government commissions on things in opposition to regulators and other things.
He's a brilliant free market economist.
And he said, do you remember the story earlier this year that was in the New York Times about the Endangered Species Act and how it ends up killing animals?
I said, no, I didn't see it.
We searched and we found the story, and it's fascinating, and it is a great illustration of the dynamics of regulation and how, when the federal government, the do-gooders and the environmentalist wackos and whoever they are, the leftists, try to impose a restraint on freedom, how people get around it.
This is January 20th in the New York Times.
Unintended Consequences is the title of the story.
And it's by Stephen Dubner and Stephen D. Levitt, the case of the red-cockated woodpecker.
Do you know what a red-cockated woodpecker is?
We had red-cockated woodpeckers on our property when I was growing up in Missouri that sit there and they just pound themselves silly on the trees.
Here, get this.
Consider the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which protects flora and fauna as well as their physical habitats.
The economist Dean Luke and Jeffrey Michael wanted to gauge the Endangered Species Act's effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker, a protected bird that nests in old-growth pine trees in eastern North Carolina.
By examining the timber harvest activity of more than 1,000 privately owned pine trees in eastern North Carolina, by examining these timber harvests of these various plots, 1,000 privately owned plots, Luke and Michael found a clear pattern.
When a landowner felt that his property was turning into the sort of habitat that might attract a nesting pair of woodpeckers, he cut the trees down to keep the woodpeckers out so that he would not come under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act, and in which case, the woodpeckers might die or have to go somewhere else where another landowner spots and says, oh, I got to get rid of you guys before the feds show up.
So he cuts down his trees.
Even if they're not ready to be cut down or even if he's going to take a loss doing it, it's a short-term loss versus permanent loss of the use of his property.
In some cases, property owners have been known to actually kill an endangered species they see on their property to get rid of it so that the feds won't see it and put their land off limits to their own use.
And isn't this exactly what happens with tax cuts?
Isn't this exactly what happens with any number of regulations?
Okay, so you got some landowners here, and they got the Fed government, they got an Endangered Species Act, and they know that if these species are spotted, they're cooked.
They can't use their land anymore because the red cockaded woodpecker in this case may live on it.
One notable wrinkle of the Endangered Species Act is that a species is often declared endangered months or even years before its critical habitats are officially designated.
This allows time for developers, environmentalist wackos, and everybody in between to have their say at public hearings.
What happens during all these public hearings?
Well, in their new working paper that examines the plight of the pygmy owl, the economist John List and Michael Margolis and Daniel Osgood found that landowners near Tucson rushed in to clear their property for development rather than risk having it declared a safe haven for the stupid owl.
The economists make the argument for the distinct possibility the Endangered Species Act is actually endangering rather than protecting species.
Exactly right, folks.
This is exactly what everything liberals do has the unintended consequence of harming what they intend to protect or to help.
And so the New York Times concludes with this, does this mean that every law designed to help endangered animals, poor people, and the disabled is bound to fail?
Of course not.
But with a government that's regularly begged for relief these days from mortgage woes, healthcare costs and tax burdens, with every presidential hopeful making daily promises to address these woes, it might be worth encouraging the winning candidate to think twice before rushing off to do good.
Because if there is any law more powerful than the ones constructed in places like Washington, it's the law of unintended consequences.
Stephen Dubner, Stephen Levitt, the authors of this story, are authors of the book Freakonomics.
There's also a story, the very first story in this article that they have written is about a deaf babe who injures her knee and has to go to the doctor, an orthopedist, to be treated.
However, she's deaf.
So she has somebody call the orthopedist, say, look, I got to come in for an exam, but I'm deaf.
Can you deal with me?
The orthopedist says, sure, sure.
Come on in.
Woman gets in, says, I demand sign language interpreter.
The dentist says, the orthopedist says, fine, if you want to bring one in, you pay for it.
A patient says, no, The Americans with Disability Act says that you have to pay for it for me.
And this guy couldn't believe it.
So he looked it up and he found out that she was exactly right.
He researched the law, found that he was indeed obliged to do as the patient asked, unless, that is, he wanted to invite a lawsuit that he would probably lose.
Now, if he ultimately operated on the woman's knee, the orthopedist would be paid roughly $1,200.
But he would also then need to see her for eight follow-up visits with the interpreter at $240 each time.
So by the end of the patient's treatment, the orthopedist would be solidly in the red.
I mean, you run the numbers eight times 240, 2,000 bucks, and the surgery he will be paid $1,200 for.
He's out $800, not to mention the pre-exam before the surgery.
So he spread the word to other orthopedists.
If this scam, if you get deaf people calling you telling you, don't take them.
See, this works?
So the intended consequence here of the Americans with Disability Act is to get them treated fairly.
Then they write the law so that it punishes the caregiver.
It punishes the doctor.
All it takes one doctor to find out what's going to happen to him.
And the word spreads.
Somebody deaf calls you and wants an exam or so you just know what's happening.
And so more and more doctors are not going to see these people.
What do you mean, Snerdley?
Well, how the hell are they going to treat them?
Well, pay for.
I don't know.
Beats me.
I'm just, it's a problem.
How are they?
It turns out the woman didn't need surgery.
In this case, physical therapy would be the problem.
But then, for physical therapy, needs a sign language interpreter there for somebody to tell her what to do in the therapy.
Finally, this.
This is from Seattle.
The website is mynorthwest.com.
A couple on Queen Anne Avenue, I guess.
Wendy and Peter Lagozzino have lived and gardened on Queen Anne.
Maybe it's an island.
I don't know what it is.
Pardon me for those of you in the Northwest.
Wait, what is it, Snerderly?
Big Road.
Main Road.
Okay, so Snerdley, who lived there and hated it, has told me that Queen Anne is just a major artery, big road.
Okay, thank you for that.
A couple on Queen Anne, Wendy and Peter Lagozzino, have lived and gardened on Queen Anne for 36 years.
They have a beautiful garden on their parking strip.
Is that what they call driveways in Seattle?
They got a beautiful garden on their parking strip.
Now they've gotten a letter from the city complete with digital photos, and the digital photos are in this website, at a city employee took, telling them since their flowers hang over the sidewalk, they are facing a $650 fine, that it presents some kind of hazard.
Phil went up to their house yesterday, took photos of their hazard, and you can see the photo guy.
We'll link to this at rushlimbaugh.com.
There's no hazard here.
There literally is no has this is this is just classic.
This is happening to us here in Palm Beach with our turtle lights.
I mean, it's happening everywhere.
I know, I promised I wouldn't make any of this personal because I've told you all about turtleite business.
I don't need to bleed on you anymore about that.
I do have more details, but I'm going to hold them back.
But bottom line is that, oh, one more here.
Columbia, South Carolina.
When Rock Hill screwal officials tell commencement crowds to hold their applause until the end, they mean it.
Police arrested seven people after they were accused of loud cheering during the ceremonies.
Home of the brave land of the free.
Six people at Fort Mill Haskrill's graduation were charged Saturday.
And a seventh at the graduation for York Comprehensive High School was charged Friday with disorderly conduct.
The police said the seven yelled after students' names were called.
I just thought they were going to escort me out, said Jonathan Orr of Rock Hill, 70 miles north of Columbia.
I had no idea they were going to put handcuffs on me and take me to jail.
Orr is 21, spent two hours in jail after he was arrested when he yelled for his cousin at York's commencement at Winthrop University Coliseum.
Rock Hill Police began patrolling commencement several years ago at the request of scruple districts who complained of increasing disruption.
Those attending commendments are told they can be prosecuted for bad behavior and letters are sent home with the students, said Rock Hill Police spokesman Lieutenant Jerry Waldrop.
I wonder what pep rallies are like.
Can you believe this?
Carted off in handcuffs for cheering at a commencement goes on your permanent record.
You cheered at a commencement.
That might harm your job search.
Graduation police, flower police in Seattle.
Endangered Species Act resulting in dead animals and trees.
I love that, by the way.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, America's truth detector and the doctor of democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, over the course of the recent past, I, El Rushbo, your host, have been openly speculating that there has to be somebody behind Obama and his campaign.
Somebody who had the idea.
Somebody said, Obama, you're the guy to deliver us from bondage, the Democrat Party.
Hillary can't do it.
We don't like the Clintons anymore.
You are unassailable because of your skin color.
You are articulate.
You have this messianic quality.
We'll write your speeches for you.
We'll put your campaign together.
Plus, as an added bonus, Obama, we'll make it look like it's all your decision.
Do you remember in the early days of the Bush administration after the 9-11 incident, Bush made some soaring speeches?
Do you remember this?
And what was the drive-by reaction?
The drive-by media's reaction was, who's writing these speeches?
Then they found out it was Mike Gerson.
And then Gerson was getting all kinds of puff piece stories in the drive-bys, the New York Times, The Washington Post.
Anything to further the notion that Bush is an idiot, couldn't tie his shoes or tie his tie without some assistance.
But have you noticed in the Obama campaign, we don't hear anything about anybody behind this guy.
We might hear about David Axel.
Well, you don't.
I do.
I tell you about David Axelrod.
You might hear about his campaign manager, his guy named Fluff, but you don't hear about it much.
They have succeeded in presenting the picture, the image, if you will, that Obama is totally in charge of everything that happens.
He's in charge of everybody that gets hired.
He's in charge of writing every speech.
He is the brilliant strategerist and tactician.
I mean, this, there's no question.
And I've said, this can't be.
This guy just does not have enough experience to be pulling all this off the way he is at writing these speeches and so forth.
So I said, there's got to be somebody, not an Oz.
I don't mean this.
In a conspiratorial way.
I don't mean some Oz behind a curtain.
Yanking the strings, but somebody, some pro, some hack that has made a strategic decision that Obama is the perfect front man for the leftists and the radicals to take back the party.
Lo and behold.
From Thomas Lifson, who runs the American Thinker blog, Soren Dayton of Red State, also one of our favorite blogs here, notices that Barack Obama's choice of Jim John Johnson to vet vice presidential choices is worse than previously understood.
You've heard about this Johnson guy, he's a lobbyist.
He goes, but he's got ties to the countrywide, the home lender, very close ties to Angelo Mozillo, the guy that ran it.
He's a Democrat Party hack, lobbyist in all this.
The exact opposite of what Obama claims his campaign is all about.
However, according to Red State, there is more on Johnson.
In 2001, he joined Purse LLC as vice chairman.
Purse has a number of funds.
Among them are the Purseus Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund LP, which Purseus co-manages, was formed in 2000 with capital commitments totaling $449 million to make investments in life science companies.
So Purseus, might be Purseas, I'm not sure.
I've never heard it pronounced, but it's P-E-R-S-E-U-S.
Purse is a business partner with George Soros and Johnson, one of Obama's vice presidential vetters, is the vice chairman.
Incidentally, the Say Anything blog notes that Purse also seems to own the publisher of the Scott McClellan book.
So George Soros' business partner is helping select Obama's Veep.
How interesting that Obama just keeps coming up with friends and appointees with great dubious associations who are no more than Democrat Party hacks.
Some change, eh?
This is, I don't know, and by the way, Obama, we've got a soundbite.
I want you to hear this.
We've got a soundbite on Obama describing the controversy of these guys and his selection process, VP, and all that.
Right after this, sit tight.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
I know.
Professor McCarthy has just sent me a brief note saying it's Perseus, or Perseus is one of the two.
He's the hero of Greek mythology who killed Medusa.
That's the name of the company that Jim Jones or Jim Johnson, whatever, the guy vetting for Obama's VP works for, founded by George Soros.
Welcome back, folks.
El Rushbo here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Here is Obama describing the head.
And I get this now.
He's describing the head of his vice presidential search team.
And this is what he said about the guy.
Vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages.
These aren't folks who are working for me.
And ultimately, my assumption is that this is a discrete task that they're going to be performing for me over the next two months.
Everybody who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships.
I would have to hire the veter to vet the veters.
This is unbelievable.
This is exactly what I mean.
By the way, I was wounded to the heart today, or last night, because as you all know, I have the deepest admiration, the most profound respect and love for Camille Paglia.
I think Camille Paglia is absolutely brilliant at what she does.
But she's in the tank for Obama.
And she has a little paragraph in her latest column that takes to task conservative talk radio, which she's been listening to and very much enjoyed it for 20 years.
20 years.
I'm the only one been doing it for 20 years.
She doesn't mention any names, but she says we're just going off the deep end here with these criticisms of Obama that he can't speak without a prompter, that he's really not that bright, that whatever.
I've never called him a Marxist.
Maybe some other people have.
Why haven't you called him a Marxist?
We've been waiting.
I haven't called him a Marxist.
I haven't gone into this Muslim business.
But anyway, it's clear that she included me in some of this.
And she's such a brilliant lady.
But you listen to this bite.
Camille, listen to this with me again.
I want you, Mike, play this on the top, and I want you to start it with the sound up from the beginning.
Because the last time we aired this mere moments ago, we left out three key words.
He is asked here.
Well, it's at a press conference in St. Louis.
And he's describing.
I might start and stop this, Mike, just so you know.
A portion of his remarks on the head honcho of his vice presidential search.
I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages.
Stop the tape.
Why not?
Why not, sir?
This is a comment in reaction to the fact that this guy is in bed with Countrywide, which is under some scrutiny because of their role in the crisis.
I don't know what culpability they've got, but they're not looking good right now for a lot of reasons.
And that's where this guy is.
He's got an association with the guy that heads up Countrywide.
The whole mortgage thing is something the Democrat Party is trying to make political hay out of and blame predatory lending.
Well, predatory lending might equal countrywide.
And yet this is a guy Obama's gone out to secure his search committee who's got ties with all of this.
And this is another illustration here that there's nothing new and nothing unique and there's nothing refreshing.
It's just a recycling of the same old party hacks.
Look, Camille, I'm sorry.
Obama doesn't know anything about picking a vice president.
He probably only figured out where the Senate dining room was six months after he got.
I mean, this is, this is, he's just not been there very long.
There's something else going on.
I don't mean a conspiracy.
They just, it's just something else.
Okay, hit the tape.
Let's resume it.
These aren't folks who are working for me.
Stop the tape.
What?
These are not folks working for him.
If you dig deep, as I have, what you find out is that Obama means he's not paying them, that they are volunteers.
But they're not working for him.
They are the guys, this guy, and his partner in crime, Eric Holder.
Eric Holder, by the way, was the guy who secured the pardon of Mark Rich when Clinton was fading into the sunset while stealing some China on his last day in the White House.
Ain't not working for him?
These guys don't work for Obama?
Maybe true.
They might be working for Soros.
The other guy don't work for me.
What the hell?
Here's the next bite.
You know, ultimately, my assumption is that this is a discreet task that they're going to be performing for me over the next two months.
Stop the tape.
Wait a minute.
They're not working for you.
They're performing for him.
They are performing for Obama.
Ah, they are court jesters.
They are clowns.
You know, the court jester in the old days where there were court jesters, these guys to keep the king all amused and so forth.
Kings were generally insane, in a bad mood all the time, and chopping people's heads off.
They'd bring in the court jester, and they called him the fool.
There was this at such a low, low, low opinion of entertainers back in those days that they called him the fool.
So these guys are fools.
They're not working for Obama.
They're performing a task.
I know, I know.
Russ, you're going a little bit too far here in parsing this.
Okay, let's listen to more.
Everybody who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships.
Stop the tape.
Tangentially?
I know this is a challenge for those of you in Rio Linda.
Let me define tangentially involved in the campaign.
Michelle Malkin put it best.
Michelle Malkin said, tangentially, Obama is the cleaning lady at your Iowa campaign headquarters.
Somebody choosing your vice president and vetting candidates is not tangential.
It's not a tangent.
It's not something that is irrelevant.
It's not something unimportant.
So he's just said these people aren't working for him, that they are performing a task for him.
He's not vetting the search committee for their mortgages.
And everybody who is tangentially related to our campaign is going to have to hold a host of relationships.
Of course, he said, of course, people are going to know some scoundrels in my administration.
I know some scoundrels.
Everybody in my campaign is going to know some deadbeats.
Everybody in my campaign is going to have some questionable associations, but I can't go out there here.
He's already wrapped up.
I would have to hire the veter to vet the veters.
No, you haven't hired veters because they're not working for you.
They're not working.
He hasn't hired veterans to vet the veterans.
It wouldn't be a bad idea, given the veterans that he's got.
I think it'd be a smart thing for Obama to get some veters on these veters to vet the veters.
I mention all this, ladies and gentlemen, simply to illustrate that the image that is being created of Obama is not deserved.
In fact, there's a buddies at Newsbusters, Mark Finkelstein today, has a post.
Andrea Mitchell, it's really funny.
Who's the guy?
Who's the guy?
Republican operative Frank Donatelli.
Yeah, he was chatting this morning with a friend.
He's emailing her, I am instant messaging with a friend in London, and he's got MSNBC on in the background, the Scarborough show, and he's listening to what he thinks is an Obama campaign worker describes some policy, and he looks at Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.
So Donatelli says, wow, this is Andrea Mitchell.
I thought I was listening to an Obama campaign official.
Anyway, what was happening here was Andrea Mitchell was saying that old-fashioned supply-side economics of McCain's versus Obama's centrist economics is oriented toward helping people.
Now, there are two things.
And then there's a column by Jim Wooden today and James Wooten at the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, in which he's a little upset, and we have been here as well, over the fact that the Republicans are playing patty cake and pussyfoot with Obama.
And we're not going to be prepared to attack the guy.
And they quote Huckabee as saying he thinks we should not, as a party, demonize Obama.
Now, how does Huckabee define demonizing Obama?
Huckabee defines demonizing Obama by calling him a liberal senator.
So we are demonizing Obama if we call him a liberal anything, and Huckabee thinks we shouldn't do it.
Then there's a guy in Oklahoma, a bitter clinger, a Democrat congressman or whatever from Oklahoma.
Last name is Borgin, I think.
He's not going to endorse Obama.
He's going to vote for him at a convention, but he's not going to endorse me, and they're going to vote for him because he's too liberal.
So Democrats can say Obama's too liberal, but Huckabee says that our guys can't do it because that's demonizing Obama.
Then there's an LA Times story today about the Republicans preparing to make mincemeat of Michelle My Bell Obama and how that wouldn't be wise.
And they quote Frank Luntz.
They got hold of Frank Luntz, Fox News favorite pollster.
And Frank Luntz says, I hate the fact that they're going to do this, that they're going to attack Michelle Obama.
I hate the fact they're going to do it.
Why, it's just unseemly, I'm paraphrasing, it's just unseemly.
This is if the L.A. Times got this right.
Now, we always have to acknowledge that I'm often misquoted out of context.
We have to allow for the fact this might have happened here with Luntz.
But they quote him and saying, well, I'm paraphrasing it, that it's just not right.
It takes basically a political neophyte like Michelle Obama, who doesn't quite yet understand what it's like to be in the fire of politics and treat her like she's a veteran.
I hate that we're going to do this.
Luntz is quoted as saying, now, here is the thing, what's going on.
There are two things going on here.
Two things going on.
Drive-by media is trying its best, trying its hardest to mainstream Obama's radicalism.
And they are also trying to demonize Republican and conservatives who criticize him or any of his associations.
That's the big switch and bait or bait and switch.
There's nothing radical about Obama.
What's radical is the way the Republicans plan on attacking him and being critical of him during his campaign.
Media, drive-by media in full swing now.
All of their legs are tingling, not just Chris Matthews.
They're going to do everything they can to demonize Republicans and conservatives who criticize Obama while mainstreaming all this radicalism and the radicalism of his associates.
So then they go out, and in this pursuit, they get quotes from people like Luntz and Huckabee to help their cause.
I know what's going on here.
I am a student of the drive-by media.
I understand exactly.
They are more agenda-oriented than at least openly.
They are more open about their agenda and what they want to happen because they, you know, with the rise of the conservative media, they have now recognized they're in a competition here.
So all their journalism is becoming opinion journalism, unidentified as opinion journalism.
And they're just doing it to advance their agenda.
One more thing here about Obama.
Prior to hitting the next commercial break, Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor today regarding a Democrat majority's failure to address the need for increased production oil and support for a gradual adjustment upward in the price of the pump.
And wait till we get to McCain on this.
This is just maddening when we get to McCain on this.
McCain, by the way, has admitted he didn't know how to use a computer.
He's computer illiterate.
He's just Cindy does all that.
Cindy does all the computer stuff.
McCain doesn't know how.
Anyway, here's what Obama said.
Obama suggested that rising gas prices are not the problem.
The problem he suggested is they've gone up too fast.
He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment.
So your Democrat Party presidential nominee is all for rising gas prices.
He just wouldn't have had them go up this fast if he'd had anything to do about it.
There'd have been a more gradual increase.
Murray Head minus the Trinidad singers.
And one night in Bangkok.
One night's not enough in Bangkok.
And we're back.
All right, from the Associated Press today, here's the headline, McCain.
Oh, oh, no, no, no.
Before we go to McCain, folks, the Messiah has started smoking again.
I have it right here from ABC News.
ABC News Sund Miller reports that Messiah Barack Obama told reporters in St. Louis yesterday he's fallen off the wagon and he has smoked cigarettes in the last few months.
He's been open about his smoking past.
Once a heavy smoker, he publicly gave up the habit per his wife's request to run for president.
Since quitting, Obama has indicated in the past that he's fallen off the wagon, but before today was not specific.
Months, Obama said of the last time he has smoked.
He regularly chews Nicorette while not at campaign events, but apparently smoking again.
That tangential cigarettes.
I'm just wondering, this is the guy's new hope, future, change, inspiring a lot of people are fainting.
I mean, it must be okay to smoke cigarettes if the Messiah, if the Messiah is smoking cool menthols, then it must be fine to go out there and smoke cigarettes.
Obama does it.
That's right.
Menthols have been exempted in legislation.
They don't want to be racist.
I don't have time to relive that right now.
John McCain, big oil should return some profit.
Says prices for gasoline probably won't drop any lower before the election.
Big oil should return some profit.
Here he is on the Today Show today with Matt Lauer.
Matt Lauer says, How can you and the other CEOs sleep at night when people are having to choose between feeding the families and filling their tanks?
Are those people reacting out of pure emotion?
Is there some logic to people who are asking those questions?
There's logic to it and emotion to it.
I mean, after all, look what's happening to Americans who are on fixed income, particularly low-income Americans.
The oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways.
And there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits.
Sharing their profits?
I have a friend who used to own a major travel agency.
He retired.
He's on a fixed income.
About $4 million a year from his municipal bond portfolio, tax-free.
He's on a fixed income.
When is his wife going to share her profits from the beer distributorship?
We need a windfall profits tax for beer distributors, folks.
Has Congress ever investigated how beer distributors get to be beer distributors?
I mean, if we're going to demonize oil companies and other businesses, why do we leave out beer distributors?
It's like printing money to own one of those things.
And what about book deals?
Those politicians make lots and lots of money from publishing houses, which are corporations.
Has anybody ever held hearings to determine why second-rate politicians get so many lucrative book deals?
How is it that certain executives live free and clear of harassment, but others do not?
This is not the Republican Party I have known with the tangential standard bearer making these kind of attacks.
Okay, folks, we're going to be getting to your phone calls in the next hour as quickly as possible.
I appreciate those of you who are on hold and will appreciate your patience.
You're there because we wish to speak to you.
Make no doubt about that or have no doubt about it.
▲
Export Selection