All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:43
July 29, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With talent on loan from God, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, a thrill and a delight to be with you today, ladies and gentlemen, as we are in the process of celebrating our 20th anniversary coming up on Friday.
We're dillying and dabbling here with pre-celebration ingredients now and then thrown in.
The program content, and I'm going through this stack of stuff looking for some stuff here.
Phone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
You think that there's still not anger at the Democrat Party over what happened to Hillary Clinton?
I have to read excerpts of a column in the San Francisco Chronicle today written by Robin Lakoff, rhymes with.
I do not know if this woman is a relative of George Lakoff, rhymes with, who was hired by the Democrats to help them come up with language to camouflage their liberalism and relate to average people.
They eventually threw Lakoff, rhymes with, overboard, and they went out and they found somebody else.
Robin Lakoff rhymes with is professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley.
She is the author of The Language War, Talking Power, and Language and Woman's Place, three different books.
It may seem as though the Democrat Party can give a sigh of relief.
Women have returned to the fold and will support the Lord most merciful Barack Obama for president and presumably his party after all, but not so fast, writes Robin Lakoff, rhymes with.
While I and many other women in my demographic, older professional liberal, are likely to vote for Obama in November, our feelings about his party and ours are not so clear.
We remember the perpetual misogyny and sexism of the media during the primary campaign.
Misogyny aimed less at Hillary Clinton herself than at uppity women, like ourselves in general.
And many of us feel that the Democrat Party is even more to blame than the media, writes Robin Lakoff, rhymes with.
Let me mention a couple of reasons why I am thinking this way, she writes.
First, of course, the failure of the party leaders to comment on the sexism rampant in the media, especially the liberal media, for months on end.
Second, and this factor bothers me and no doubt others, perhaps the most, why did the superdelegates move in such numbers to support the Lord Messiah, Barack Obama?
Why did this occur, especially after Clinton victories?
For example, I'm thinking here of Robert Byrd after Clinton's impressive victory in West Virginia.
The senator and elder statesman representing that state came out in support of Lord Obama because the superdelegates were created to ensure that the Democrat candidate be a centrist.
Why did so many superdelegates, including liberals and many women, support Obama?
Two arguments were made.
They wished to follow the will of the people in their district, and they believed that Obama was more electable.
But as the Byrd case shows, the first claim was often false, and no one has any idea which of the two, Clinton or Obama, would be more electable in November.
It seemed to me that the term was more often used as a kind of excuse.
I'm voting for Obama, but I really can't tell you why than a reasoned argument.
Now, I suspect Ms. Lakoff rhymes with, actually knows the answer to her questions.
What do you think the answer to the question is?
Why did superdelegates, every time Hillary won a primary, she's right.
Operation Chaos was in full tilt.
Every time she won a primary, more supers announced for Obama as he was losing primaries.
Why?
That's part of it.
But that's only half of the answer.
It is true that many of the superdelegates, true that many of the Democrat Party are tired of the Clintons, particularly Mrs. Clinton, and just they didn't like her inevitability and wanted her out of there.
Just get her gone.
There's no question.
But there's a second reason, Mr. Snerdley.
A second reason.
And that second reason is race.
There was no way the superdelegates, the Democrat Party, when he had even a lead that was only visible through a microscope, were going to not give him the nomination.
They would not risk the outcry that would befall them if they were to deny the nomination to Obama, whether he could win or not.
And I suspect that Robin Lakoff rhymes with, is fully aware of both of these, and is the first one, the fact that they hate the Clintons in that party, that really has her teeth off here.
But this gets even better.
So many women, she writes, feel that the election was somehow stolen and by their own party to boot.
They thus feel much the way many Democrats feel about the 2000 election, bitter.
When one side feels that they lost an election fairly, any bitterness recedes early on.
Think of the 2004 election by comparison.
But when the adjective stolen leaps to mind, bitterness is apt to prevail, vanquishing any desire for reconciliation and cooperation.
That is what many former Clinton supporters are feeling now.
Now, folks, do you realize the importance of this?
This is July 29th.
We are 30 days away from Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the convention, and they are still writing about how mad they are over what happened to Hillary with a campaign that's supposed to unify and bring everybody together, kumbaya, and change things.
But wait, it gets even better from Robin Lakoff, rhymes with, in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
We are disgusted with the party that we have long trusted to represent our interests.
And she refers to herself and her friends as uppity women because that's how she thinks the party looks at them.
We are disgusted with ourselves for being snookered again.
We assess the party leaders' rejection of Clinton as a cynical strategy.
If Clinton had ended up as the candidate, the Democrats stood to lose the votes of many African Americans who then might not vote at all.
But if they made Obama the candidate, well then, women always vote and they will come around.
Women always come around, no matter how badly they're mistreated.
Women always come around.
Battered liberal syndrome, we call it here.
And now the final paragraph.
You think they're not.
They are just.
If Robin Lakoff rhymes with, is still writing this stuff on July 29th.
And when was the last meaningful primary, June 5th?
I am reminded, she says, of a particularly chilling passage in Vladimir Nebokov's novel, Lolita.
Have you read Lolita, Mr. Snerley?
Then you know of the character Humbert Humbert.
Humbert Humbert, Dawn, stop talking to him and listen.
This is important.
Humbert Humbert, after raping the 12-year-old, is pondering why she's come back to his bed.
You see, Humbert tells the reader she had absolutely nowhere else to go.
That's just how I feel, writes Robin Lakoff, rhymes with.
And they want my enthusiasm.
Oh, she married to George.
This is a George Lakoff rhymes with wife.
Even better.
That's just how I feel, she says, and they want my enthusiastic support.
The Democrat Party can fend for itself.
Robin Lakoff rhymes with, has just written a piece in the July 29th today, San Francisco Chronicle, in which she feels like the Democrat Party has raped her.
Except she's not going back to Humbert Humbert.
They can fend for themselves.
Rush, it's Rich Lowry of National Review.
I just want to give you the heartiest congratulations.
You've been an affliction to liberalism for 20 years.
And to the rest of us, you've been an inspiration, a joy, a comfort, an education, and a friend.
You long ago joined the annals of conservative greats, the defenders of ordered liberty, our civilization's highest accomplishment.
I know how proud Bill Buckley was of you.
I know he's proud even today from his celestial seat.
Rush, it's been an inspired 20 years.
Now we expect 20 more.
Take care, and God bless.
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review.
Great bunch of people there.
Thanks very much, Rich.
I appreciate it.
More than you can know.
Everybody who's offered one of these fine greetings and tributes, as I keep saying, I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but the simple thank you sounds insufficient.
20th anniversary week rolls on here at the EIB Network.
By the way, permit me a brief reaction to the column I just read by Robin Lakoff rhymes with in the San Francisco Chronicle.
I understand you're mad, ladies.
In fact, I understand, tried to convey to you my ability to relate to your anger.
But at some point, isn't it time to get over this?
What is it about Mrs. Clinton that inspires this never-ending hatred and anger, which is based on some sense of entitlement that you women must have?
I mean, we men, we've been losing elections for years, close ones, stolen ones.
We've been the victims of all kinds of dirty tricks.
We play them on each other.
We have them played against us.
It's part of the territory.
It's the lay of the land.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Well, Al Gore's, he's still, he whines about it too.
I think that's part and parcel of liberalism is a certain amount of whining.
But come on, ladies, get over it.
Because we all know, Ms. Lakoff, you feel like the 12-year-old in Lolita has been raped by Humbert Humbert.
And you say you're not going to go back to Humbert Humber, either Democrat Party to be raped again.
You, on November 4th, where are you going to be?
Or whatever election day is, November 5th, you're going to be back in a voting booth, and you are going to open yourself up for more abuse.
You're going to do it.
We know how this is all going to turn out.
From the Antelope Valley Press, this is in California.
Story ran yesterday.
It's a problem that has baffled German engineers, auto industry experts, Kern County road engineers, and most importantly, Samuel Wattles of Rosamund.
How do you make a left turn in a new smart car?
Waddles waited a year and a half for his smart car, a tiny two-passenger car, gets more than 40 miles a gallon, only to find that the car is not heavy enough to set off the sensors that activate left-turn signal lights at intersections.
So he can't safely make a left turn in his smart car.
It will only turn right.
And I got a picture of Samuel Waddles standing outside his smart car here.
And he's all bent out of shape because the thing will not turn left.
So why couldn't the smart car set off a magnetic sensor?
Well, spokesman for Smart USA, which imports the German and French-made smart car, said he's never heard of anything like this.
Even called the company representatives in Germany, Germany smarts, a subsidiary of Daimler AG.
They make Mercedes.
Is it the first time we've gotten this question?
We've not heard of this before.
We've never heard of one of our cars and won't turn left.
This guy's got a smart car.
A smart car.
It's stupid.
Back to the phones.
Angel in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
We own Allentown.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Congratulations, Rush.
Oh, it's on hell.
I bet it's on hell, right?
No, I go, Angel.
You do, Cole.
Okay, Angel.
Okay, good, cool.
Yes, sir.
I briefly wanted to mention that people have been talking about the trade deficit is, you know, the doom and gloom that the media always gives off.
Right, Okay, and T-Bone Pickens is on his message saying we have $700 million going out in oil revenue.
So if we were able to get to the point that we would be able to drill all our own oil, be independent, our trade deficit would nearly disappear.
It would be down $200 million, and that would balance itself out because more people would be buying our products.
When you threw T-Boon Pickens in there, I lost a little bit of it.
Are you suggesting we need to drill more oil?
Oh, of course we do.
Of course.
But.
What did you throw in there about T-Boon?
Well, T-Boone's commercials are saying, well, we're spending $700 million in oil, sending it overseas.
$700 billion, actually.
I know what T-Boone wants.
T-Boone wants wind energy and natural gas, but he also wants to drill for everything we've got.
He's not an anti-drill guy.
Oh, I understand that.
And I hope that the president will take the second step after he lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling will mandate at the Congress will not move forward on any legislation on this.
And Angel, I wouldn't expect him to do this before the election.
Now, this T-Boon Pickens thing is fascinating.
T-Boone has been buying commercials on this program.
He wants to invest in wind.
And he wants you to invest in wind.
And he wants subsidies for wind, but he wants a lot of natural gas and he wants to keep drilling for oil.
This has led to some very critical pieces of T-Boone.
I have one right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers in a Los Angeles Times: T-Boone-Pickens Clean Secret.
Well, Californians can clarify exactly what dime it'll be.
Ours.
This is T-Boon's idea.
Along with being the country's biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backer of stealthy proposition, can't read it, 14, probably whatever it is, small type here, on California's November ballot.
This measure would authorize the sale of $5 billion in general fund bonds to provide alternative energy rebates and incentives.
But by the time the principal and interest is paid off, it would squander at least $9.8 billion in taxpayer money on Pickens' self-serving natural gas agenda.
So what's happening here is we have a piece by Anthony Rubenstein in a Los Angeles Times ripping T-Boone for basically saying that T-Boon wants to be subsidized by taxpayers in his plan.
And that T-Boone's plan is going to cost everybody a whole lot of money.
And that T-Boone's plan is not right because T-Boone is investing in the very thing that he wants subsidies for.
It's going to lead to him getting even richer while we pay the freight.
And this is not right.
Well, I don't think this is, excuse me, totally accurate.
But why do we not get these kind of stories about Al Gore, who is in, and he plainly asks people to invest in the things that he has invested in.
He plainly asks people to send him money.
And he's out there scaring people to death, or trying to, saying that we've only got 10 years.
Every time there's a crisis, these Democrats and these liberals come up with a 10-year number.
Can I give you the dirty little secret of all this?
Any green energy plan is going to clobber us financially.
That is the point, my friends.
All of this green energy stuff is a flat-out hoax.
Most of it is designed to increase taxes, raise governments' profile and reach and power.
And it's all based on the fallacious notion that this green energy stuff is going to clean up the planet and stop global warming, man-made global warming and all that.
I think people had better understand very quickly, I don't care if it's T-Boone Pickens, if it's Al Gore, I don't care what green energy plan comes along, it's going to cost everybody a lot of money, which is why people are doing it.
If you think this green energy stuff is being done out of altruism, that people want to save the planet, you got to wake up.
It has nothing to do with that.
There isn't a green program out there.
A lot of corporations actually given up this green marketing stuff anyway because their customers aren't buying into it.
Which is a good thing.
Don't misunderstand.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Ha!
How are you, Rush Limbaugh, with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair?
Today, ladies and gentlemen, we learned that Merrill Lynch, Merrill Lynch, wrote off $5.7 billion in bad mortgage debt.
That brings a total loss at Merrill Lynch since last June to more than $46 billion.
Boy, those predatory lenders really cleaned up, didn't they?
They got whacked.
$46 billion in assets, a pile of money all but impossible to visualize.
Up in smoke.
Well, they're described as predatory lenders.
They may be idiots, but they're not predatory lenders.
And they may not have had any choice given the hot air breathing down their necks from Congress demanding they make these stupid loans.
So they got to take the hit at Merrill Lynch.
They got to pay the price.
They got to tighten their belts and they have to rebuild.
While everybody's wondering, will they make it?
And confidence is low.
Unlike bureaucracies, however, their bad decisions, their bad laws, their bad regulations, they don't have to do anything.
Just find a scapegoat, raise taxes.
All you class envy Americans out there feel better.
Only the rich are going to be taxed.
And when it comes to taxes, you who aren't paying them have no idea how rich you are.
Los Angeles has finally done it.
They have finally done it.
Well, they're close to doing it.
The city council is going to vote today.
They may have voted by now on a plan to ban fast food for a year in an impoverished southern part of the city.
South Los Angeles neighborhood.
Fast food, the easiest cuisine to find.
And that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.
The city council poised to vote today on a memorium on new fast food restaurants in a swathe of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand in hand with obesity.
Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods, said City Councilman Bernard Parks.
The aim of the year-long moratorium, which was approved last week in committee, is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food.
California Restaurant Association says the moratorium, which could be extended up to two years, is misguided.
Fast food's the only industry that wants to be in South LA, said Association spokesman Andrew Cassana.
Sit-down restaurants don't want to go in there.
If they did, they would already be there.
This moratorium is not going to help them relocate.
There you go.
This is just the Los Angeles City Council, New York TransFats.
Every day, folks, every day, a little bit of freedom and liberty just gets trickles away.
By the way, the AP has a big sob story for government.
Soaring fuel prices and other economic strains have led Americans to cut back sharply on driving, which everybody said we should do.
Save the planet, burn less fossil fuels, less pollution.
We should do this.
So we've done it.
But now this is jeopardizing the federal fund for highway construction and repairs.
Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May 208 than May 2007.
This is according to federal data released Monday.
3.7% decline in miles driven was the third largest monthly drop in the 66 years the Department of Transportation has been collecting the data.
People are choosing to drive less in the ways they can, a spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration, and they're cutting the number of car trips they take.
They're walking, they're taking carpools, and sometimes they're staying home instead, which is everything they've told us to do.
And now they're bellyaching and whining over lost tax revenue.
NEAP is singing a swan song for them.
Drivers are turning into mass transit.
That's also what they told us to do.
And so you're driving less.
You're going to pay more taxes.
You wait.
Why do you think in Congress they're dilly-dallying around here under the cover of darkness, thinking about raising the fuel tax a dime a gallon on gasoline and diesel?
They are, my friends.
We have warned you about this.
At the National Press Club today, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, he also runs a Congressional Black caucus, I think.
James Clyburn claimed that African Americans are disproportionately impacted by climate change.
A report released earlier in the week arrived at the same conclusion, advocated a tax on polluters that would eliminate the financial burden of global warming on low-income minority households.
Kid you not?
Kid you not.
The answer, the question is not how.
We're not supposed to ask the question.
This is one of these things we accept.
Women and minorities are hardest hit by everything.
Global warming, minorities, blacks, hardest hit.
So now Clyburn wants a tax on polluters that would eliminate the financial burden of global warming on low-income households.
I do not.
The thing that he is forgetting.
Here's the thing he's forgetting, ladies and gentlemen, about this.
And forgive me for pointing this out, but Dusty Baker, no less than authority, when he was manager of the Chicago Cubs, made this observation.
Clyburn is from a race of people who are known as the Sun People.
They're not the ICE people.
They're supposed to do better in the heat.
That's what Dusty Baker said, well-known scientist and sociologist who also on his side light managed the Chicago Cubs.
Leonard Jeffries, who was a brilliant, brilliant writer and professor at New York University, established the whole concept of Sun People and ICE People, which is where the estimable Dusty Baker picked it up and took the concept even further into national discourse by talking about it after baseball games that the Chicago Cubs lost.
So what's the big deal, Mr. Clyburn?
I mean, if some people, this is, how can it hurt?
Is the question.
How can it hurt?
See, folks, they're just going to keep coming at us.
No matter what, for more taxes on virtually anything.
Are we going to go to the audio soundbites?
I'm getting emails out to Wazoo Rush.
You haven't talked about this story going around about you wanting to buy the St. Louis Rams.
Yes, I have talked about it, but just not on this show.
I have talked about it with the St. Louis Business Journal, and I have talked about it.
I talked about it yesterday with CamOX in St. Louis, our affiliate there.
But nobody's called and asked me about it.
They did.
So I replied.
Cookie put together a couple of soundbites here today.
This is a portion of a report put together by a reporter at CamOX, Brett Bloom, from the interview I did on the morning show at CamOX yesterday.
But the Cape Torado native says it's not because he's a big Rams fan or anything, adding that sentimentality and the ownership of a sports franchise don't miss.
The worst thing could happen is for a fan to buy the team.
When I say this to people, they say, well, that's crazy.
It would be fun to do.
Look, it's a billion-dollar business.
Limbaugh says NFL ownership is a billionaire's club.
It claims he's not a member of that club, just in good financial shape.
I don't owe anybody anything except the monthly bills, and to do this would require a major change.
Limbaugh, whose show can be heard 11 to 2 weekdays on KMOX, made his comments as a guest on Total Information AM.
Right below me 1120 KMOX News.
And this morning on ESPN2, the following was reported.
If the St. Louis Rams are placed on the selling block, count controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh among those interested in buying the team.
The Cape Gerardo, Missouri native admits he's not in the billionaire club, but says he is in good financial shape.
The Rams owners say the team isn't for sale, but there is speculation they could be swayed by the right offer.
I think they could be swayed by the right offer because the estate tax, the estate tax makes it difficult for the offspring of these owners to hold on to the teams once it changes hands.
The estate tax is one of the things that's causing all the problems with the Pittsburgh Steelers.
There are other factors there, too, that I happen to be privy to.
This is a deep one.
That Steelers thing has been going on for two years.
But the estate tax has a fundamental role in it.
At 55%, you have to sell the asset that you have inherited in order to pay.
This is how Wayne Heisinger ended up with the Miami Dolphins.
Joe Robbie, his family had to sell the Dolphins after he passed it down to them after he died.
It's absurd.
It's simply absurd.
And you get Liberal Democrats that they're supporting all this.
So I feel bad for Chip Rosenblum and his sister who owned the Rams.
But people keep writing, what do you mean it would be bad for a fan to buy the team?
Folks, it's a billion-dollar business.
NFL teams today, give or take $100 million are worth a billion dollars.
It's difficult to lose money in the NFL because of TV money, but some of that, as the future moves forward, there's some unknowns.
There is revenue sharing in the NFL, but it's not equal as it used to be.
They don't share all revenue equally.
There are markets that have far more advantages than other markets do, and it requires creativity.
But what I meant by them, it would be a mistake for a fan to buy the team.
I'm a fan, and I would be part of an ownership group.
What I meant was, and I think I said this to the business journal reporter in St. Louis.
One of the things that you cannot do as a football person or the owner of the team is get sentimentally attached to players.
Because if you do, you'll hold on to them past the time they are productive and you'll overpay them out of the sentimentality.
If you look at the New England Patriots, one of the, every year they have a massive roster turnover.
Look at the Steelers.
The Steelers got rid of Joey Porter.
They let Alan Fanneca go, a perennial all-pro player.
They got both were 30, 31 years old, and they wanted more money and could get more money in the open market than the Steelers are willing to pay them.
Bob Kraft and the Patriots are the same way.
There's just no sentimentality.
The Packers are trying to be this with Brett Favre.
There's no reason to bring Favre back to Green Bay right now from a business standpoint, unless you're sentimental and you think there's got one good year left in the tank.
But the Green Bay Packers' future has got to be more than next year.
So that's all I meant by this fan comment.
You can't let the sentimentality that a fan relationship has or is with a player impact the business decisions you make on employing various players plus what they're paid.
Brief time out.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with 5.6 SMAG earthquake near Los Angeles felt all the way down to San Diego.
5.8.
I'm sorry, I said 5.6, 5.8.
Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator today calls our attention to a book review in the Los Angeles Times today.
A book, was it today, recently?
Not sure of the exact days.
Very, very, very close.
The book is liberal journalist Jane Mayer, The Dark Side, The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals.
This is a book devoted to the chronology of the supposed torture that was ordered from the White House down.
Tim Rutin, who reviews, it was July 15th, but Tim Rutin reviewed the book in July 15th, on July 15th in the L.A. Times.
And I want to read you a paragraph from Tim Rutin's review.
Finally, in the years ahead, our country must still come to grips with our national acquiescence to the politics of fear, which has led to the detention and the abuse of hundreds of individuals.
Among the necessary steps will be restoration of freedom to innocent detainees, accompanied by public apology to the detainees and some monetary restitution for the years they lost to incarceration.
Furthermore, Congress needs to accept responsibility for its complicity with the executive in laws that denied suspects rightful appeal.
A National Truth Commission should be instituted to establish political accountability for these decisions, policies, and statutes that place suspects outside the protection of the law.
We're talking about prisoners of war.
We're talking about terrorists.
Now, this paragraph was not written by Tim Rutin.
He cited this paragraph, approvingly so, from the editors of the Jesuit magazine America, the National Catholic Weekly.
It was in the July 21st issue that the National Catholic Weekly wrote that paragraph, which essentially suggests, and of course now cited by Tim Rutan favorably, so it's in the L.A. Times, citing it favorably, suggesting reparations for al-Qaeda prisoners at Club Gitmo.
Phil in Cincinnati, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you today?
Fine, sir.
Thanks much.
Omega Dittos, and congratulations on your 20 years, a long time listener since the late 80s when I first heard you on my car radio.
Wow, here's somebody that believes the way I do.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, listen, on this whole thing with the media not understanding with after all the great coveries they're giving Obama and making him presidential and messianic, why the poll numbers aren't going up.
I think they're unwilling to acknowledge, I mean, they probably know it, but they're unwilling to acknowledge the power of conservative talk radio.
Guys like you and Sean and Mark, millions of people listen to you every day, and you're exposing him continually with all the.
You know, that's an excellent point.
Because I don't have an extraordinarily large ego and don't think about myself much.
When I was reading that story about why the press is so puzzled why Obama's numbers are not higher, you're right.
There is an alternative media out there now that has a different perspective for people on everything that drive-buys try to put forth as mainstream.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, I agree.
And millions of us are not looking to them.
Their ratings are dropping continually because we gave up on them a long time ago as being truthful.
And we're looking to folks like you to give us the real truth.
Well, I appreciate that.
I think there's also been a loss of respect for some of the drive-bys.
There certainly is a lot of distrust.
Here is Larry in Bend, Oregon, a cell call.
Larry, I got about a minute here, but I wanted to squeeze you in before I had to go.
Well, million Dittos from a second time caller.
Thank you.
And I just appreciate what you've done.
It was late 80s when I first heard you on KPMW out of Eugene.
I was holding Mogs in the Coast Range of Oregon.
And I remember exactly where I was at the first time I tuned you in.
And I was so worried I wasn't going to hear this guy again because he was so right on.
And just every point he hit, he was right on.
And I was thinking, man, who is this guy?
And it's been a great 20 years.
Now, why were you afraid that you might not hear me again?
Because you think they'd frog march me to jail after somebody heard me?
Well, you know, good things don't last, but I guess you're an exception to the rule.
I guess so.
I guess so.
Well, look, that's very nice of you to say.
I appreciate it.
And I've never had anybody say, I was afraid.
Well, actually, that's what Ditto means.
Ditto means don't ever go away.
I hope this show never ends.
But his first thought being, my gosh, hope I can listen to this guy again.
I know that a lot of you probably, the government's not going to allow this.
The Democrat Party's not going to allow that.
They're going to take care of this guy before we get to Google.
Just enough time to say goodbye.
Thanks for being with us today.
It's always a thrill and honor to be here hosting this program with you.
▲
Export Selection