All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
January 29, 2009, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where we every day have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Great to have you along here, folks.
The telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address LRushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
I want to change the soundbite order on you, Mike.
I want to do one.
I want to go back and play Matt Wauer cut four before we get to policy.
I want to replay this again simply because I, ladies and gentlemen, I've reached my absorptive limit on one of the tacks the drive-bys are taking to try to marginalize me.
There's been a lot of partisan banter going back and forth this week.
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, had this to say, and I'm paraphrasing here, but he said, we're being told we have to hope he succeeds, referring to the president, that we have to, and then he made reference to getting into kind of a subservient position just because he's the first black president.
Now, that's not surprising.
That's what Rush Limbaugh does.
That's how he makes a living, and he's pretty good at it.
But the president addressed Rush Limbaugh directly, speaking to...
All right, that's good.
Now, this technique is going on throughout NBC.
It's happening on the NBC network.
It's happening on the MSNBC cable channel.
And I did.
You know, I said on Hannity, that's exactly what I said.
I said, we're being told we've got to support the guy because his father was black.
It's just another way of saying he's the first black president.
Now, I've said I got over the historical nature of this stuff a long time ago.
But Matt and the rest of you, Nora O'Donnell tried this yesterday with Mike Pence.
I didn't get a chance to go through our whole roster.
I wonder if Cookie, if she's got that.
Because Mike Pence was just fabulous yesterday afternoon on MSNBC with Nora O'Donnell.
Yeah, yeah, we've got it.
Number 13.
Have that coming.
Have that standing by.
Because the, in fact, let's play it now.
And I'll react to Matt Wauer and Nora O'Donnell at the same time.
But this was Mike Pence from Indiana, Republican Indiana, on the phone yesterday.
Well, he was actually live on television with the anchor Nora O'Donnell, and they were talking about the stimulus package and a number of other things.
On that specific thing that we have to bend over because this is the first black president.
Why don't you feel like you could denounce something like that?
Are you so beholden to someone like Rush Limbaugh that you can't say that that's not the type of rhetoric when America's trying to come together and do something for the unemployment rate in your state of Indiana, now 8.2%?
Is that the type of rhetoric we need?
I don't believe Rush Limbaugh has got a racist bone in his body.
And if you're suggesting that his statement had a racist element to it, I would commend you to a greater understanding of the positions that he's taken.
He's a man that's about opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race, creed, or color.
And I think that's why he's so admired and appreciated all across America.
Rush is out there championing the kind of stimulus bill that'll put Americans back to work.
We're grateful for that.
Now, in both instances, you see how this is spread out through NBC.
But that's just a great answer from Pence.
These guys are not backing down to these phony attempts.
But about this, they're trying to imply that I'm racist or making a racist comment here.
Nora and Matt and the rest of you in the drive-bys, it is you who have been harping on this man's race since he first announced his intentions.
It is you who are telling us that this is historic because of his race.
It is you who made and your fellow Democrats who made race a fundamental prominent issue during the Democrat primaries.
It is you guys who are constantly using race.
I'm simply reacting to what you've been telling everybody.
We're not supposed to look at the details of this debacle, Nora, because he's black.
We've got to support him because he's black.
What else reason other than he's a black liberal?
So you hit two birds with one stone here.
The guy's the first black president.
It's historic.
Plus he's a liberal.
Bam, bam.
We support whatever he wants to do.
And you don't even look at it.
There's not one job created in this bill that's worth anything.
There are temporary jobs created, laying sod on the mall and this kind of thing.
There aren't any careers.
This bill is a job killer.
America is trying to come together and do something for the unemployment.
America is not coming together on this.
46% of America did not vote for this, Nora.
That is why my stimulus plan in the Wall Street Journal today is a genuine compromise.
Genuine bipartisanship.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the truth about this.
So there's this never-ending effort here.
And by the way, this, if I might say, this is part and parcel of Obama calling me out on last Friday, he wanted the media to pick this up.
He wanted the media to make a big deal out of this.
He wanted the media to carry the water to try to marginalize me on this.
It's all out of the rules for radicals by Saul Velensky.
And rule number 13 here, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
That's what they're attempting to do.
Cut off the support network for the target.
Isolate the target from any sympathy whatsoever.
Go after people and not institutions.
People hurt faster than institutions.
The real question ought to be aimed at Nora O'Donnell and Matt Lauer.
Why do you support something you haven't even bothered to explain?
Why do you support something you won't tell people what the truth is?
Why do you support a piece of legislation that is morally wrong?
Why do you support a piece of legislation, Nora, you probably haven't even seen?
It is because he's black.
It's because he's a liberal.
It's because you're under this impression that every American wants him to do whatever he wants to do with no checks and no balances.
You've bought into this whole hope and change business, and I'm telling you, you are destroying your own reputations and your own credibility.
It is so obvious that you're in the tank.
Newspapers are dying left and right.
Your ratings at MSNBC are now going through the tank, except when you talk about me.
You guys go ahead and try to isolate and marginalize me.
You're just making yourself look like fools.
But that's the way this is shaking out.
Here's Pelosi, by the way, audio soundbite number 24.
This is where Pelosi, she didn't go to Washington to be bipartisan.
We didn't come here to be.
I didn't come here to be partisan.
I didn't come here to be bipartisan.
I came here as did my colleagues to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest.
I take credit for the great action taken by the Congress, one week and one day since the president called for bold and swift action.
Your principal opponents were not John Goehner or Eric Canter, Rush Limbaugh and Matt Frege.
I don't speak to that.
I'm a Speaker of the House.
I don't get into it.
I don't get into that.
I don't get it.
I don't get into the pop culture.
I'm not interested in that.
That's Nancy Pelosi today on Capitol Hill.
Not partisan.
I didn't come here to be partisan or bipartisan.
I came here to be nonpartisan.
She is the most partisan - this is deceit.
She's the most partisan.
Next to Harry Reid, person in Washington.
There's a website out there called Wow Oh, Wow, Women on the Web.
And it's a bunch of old clucking hens that get around and basically bitch and whine.
And they put this little story out.
House passes $819 billion stimulus, but no help for potential mothers.
Economic help may be on the way, but not for everybody, including poor women who can't afford to have a baby in this horrible economy.
Women's groups are reeling over the news that family planning and so forth, the money for abortions was taken out of the stimulus package after Rush Limbaugh and others blasted its inclusion.
Planned Parenthood yesterday urged people to call the White House directly to voice support for the Medicaid.
Now, here, what's wrong with this?
This is why I called him a bunch of clucking hens.
Nancy Pelosi just got through telling you, babes, not to have any kids.
Nancy Pelosi just said that abortion is part of the stimulus because it is going to save money down the road.
No help for potential mothers.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't want mothers.
I hate to be the one to remind you of this, but she doesn't want anybody having babies.
It's just that simple.
All right, brief timeout.
We've got more right after this.
Don't go away.
Ha.
It's El Rushbo.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, George Soros, a long piece at Financial Times called The Game Changer.
The two important pieces in the George Soros piece are these, at least as I read it.
The American consumer no longer can act as the motor of a global economy.
The American consumer, in other words, what Obama said yesterday is not right.
The American consumer is not a factor in economic recovery.
He also said that Obama must implement a radical, comprehensive set of policies.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, before we go to the phone calls here, I want to point something out to you because I mentioned, and I'm not trying to depress you.
I am trying to inform you.
This stimulus package passed the House.
It's going to pass.
This pork bill is going to pass.
There's nothing the Republicans can do to stop it.
What the Republicans can do is position themselves in such a way that they have no authorship of it so that when it bombs out, they cannot be harmed by it and, in fact, can use their opposition to win reelection and pick up seats in both the House and the Senate in the next two and the next four years because this kind of overreach is going to continue.
And that's the point of this next item.
As I have said, and as I will now prove, the Obama administration, Obama himself, is trying to redo the New Deal.
They are trying to replicate what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, not for the good of the country.
They are doing this to cement Democrat Party majority power for decades in the future.
They're trying to fix and correct their power losses that occurred in the 90s, as I so brilliantly write today in the Wall Street Journal.
But Obama and many on his support team have examined the New Deal.
As you know, they think the New Deal ended the Depression.
It did not.
They will admit that Roosevelt made some mistakes, and this is where it gets scary.
Obama and his support team believe that Roosevelt's mistakes in the New Deal were not spending enough money soon enough.
Not spending enough money fast enough, and that's what they want to fix.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
We knew this during the campaign.
We tried to tell people, as many people would listen.
This stimulus, this porculus, is just the tip.
We've already got $700 billion at TARP.
We had a stimulus last year at about this time as we were heading into what they were predicting to be a recession.
We've got bailouts over here, bailouts over there.
We're looking at multiples of trillions in government spending, all under the auspices of doing right what Roosevelt did wrong.
November 10th, 2008, Paul Krugman, who is one of the disciples in the Obama administration, Franklin Delano Obama is the title of his opinion piece.
And I join it in progress here.
Now, there's a whole intellectual industry devoted to propagating the idea that FDR actually made the Depression worse.
It's important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.
It did not solve, it did not fix the Depression.
It might have brought relief to some, but it didn't fix anything.
Anyway, that said, writes Krugman, FDR did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms.
This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving.
But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the 30s by an economist at MIT reached a very different conclusion.
Fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful by Roosevelt because it was not tried.
Now, stick with me on this one.
It says, fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful in Roosevelt's first two terms, not because it didn't work, but because it wasn't tried.
This may seem hard to believe.
The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll, but they didn't spend enough money soon enough.
The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase enacted by Hoover, whose full effects weren't felt until his successor took office.
So blame it on Hoover and blame it on the fact that Roosevelt didn't spend enough money soon enough.
From the Cybercast news surface, Friday, January 9th, incoming House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said Tuesday that Franklin Roosevelt did not spend what was needed to get people back to work during the Great Depression.
His comments were made following a House steering and policy committee hearing about the current need for an economic stimulus package that could cost anywhere between $775 billion and $1 trillion.
It's estimated that the Roosevelt administration spent $500 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars to try to get America out of the 1930s Depression.
So here's Waxman.
They didn't spend enough money, didn't spend what was needed soon enough.
Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
And let's see, this is from National Review Online.
Congressman Frank Lucas, Republican Oklahoma, offered a radio station in Oklahoma an illuminating glimpse into Obama's much-discussed stimulus pep talk with House Republicans.
According to Frank Lucas, Republican Oklahoma, Obama expressed his belief during the meeting that a major problem with FDR's New Deal is that it didn't spend enough money in the early going.
Here is a partial transcript of the congressman's interview.
The president offered a comment in the conference the other day.
He said that the spending program that Roosevelt used in the beginning of the Depression, real problem was Roosevelt slowed down on public spending the first two years.
If he had just kept on spending that money, we'd have gotten out of the depression quicker.
Congressman Lucas said, I think that's an indication of what's coming.
Maybe not just an $825 billion increase in the national debt for additional spending this year.
But if the economy continues to sag over the course of the year, don't be surprised, based on his comment about the 1930s, if Obama proposes another increase in the national debt and another big spending package after this.
So in other words, Obama thinks the FDR's plan was laudable, but faltered because it didn't spend more money.
Henry Waxman saying the same thing.
Paul Krugman.
So that's the new mantra on why, because they're being stung, properly so by the criticism, wait a minute, FDR didn't solve the Depression.
The New Deal didn't solve the Depression.
World War II did.
So they've got to have a retort to that.
And the retort is, well, he helped a little bit later on, but if he'd really spent early on, why it would have fixed everything.
So they're playing off the historical popularity of Roosevelt.
Everybody loves Roosevelt.
Saved America.
World War II, the Gypsies, so forth.
I'm just warning you, this is going to be an epic battle.
These people in the Obama administration are moving left at roadrunner speed, and they're having to be kept up with that way.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Now, this will equal, this will result in these people overreaching.
This porculus bill, more and more Americans are already seeing what's in it, and they're fed up with it, and they said it's no change.
If anything, this is Washington as usual on steroids.
They want no part of this.
More and more Americans, I don't know how many, certainly not a majority yet, more and more Americans are learning this is not anything about creating jobs.
And when you have tax credits of $500, this is from the New York Times today, tax credits of $500 to $1,000 for illegal immigrants, when you try to sneak in there $335 million for condoms and contraception and so forth, when you try to sneak in there in a stimulus bill, money to fund abortions in this country and around the world.
And when you have the Speaker of the House saying, well, yeah, because we need fewer people, we've put less strain on the health care system, less strain on our public works programs and projects and all of our public assistance programs, it is certainly an economic stimulus to have fewer people born.
So you put all that together, let people know about this, and they become angry and outraged.
But it's too bad.
They could have been told all this en masse before the election, but they weren't.
And in fact, the media is supporting Obama to this moment doesn't dare tell people the truth about what's in this bill.
All right, let's go back to the phones because I want to reward these people who have been patiently waiting.
And Bismarck, North Dakota.
Boy, it's been a long time since we had a call from North Dakota.
It's good to know that they haven't all moved out there.
Mike, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Mega Dittos, Rush.
Thank you.
I know you say you don't get mad, but I got to tell you, I'm mad, I'm disappointed, and I'm frustrated.
This coming from a 37-year-old man with a 35-year-old wife, middle-class family, I would say.
Been working for 14 years since college.
On average, we probably make about $42,000 a year.
We have four kids, one on the way in April.
Yes, we're going to have a kid during the newest depression.
And I guess I've always been told that the American dream is working hard and making good choices.
Yep.
Now, we have no mortgage, we have no debt.
We live, I think, pretty comfortably because we've managed our money and lived well within our money.
Hang on a minute.
People need to hear what you're doing here.
Did I hear you correctly that you and your wife, on average, make $42,000 a year?
Yeah, well, on average, over the last 14 years, yes.
Last 14 years, since college.
Yep.
Yet you, do you have a home, a house?
Yeah, I have about $165,000 home.
And you don't have a mortgage?
I have no mortgage.
You have no debt on that house.
I have no debt at all.
Now, I have to.
This is fabulous.
Don't misunderstand here, but people are going to wonder how the hell you did that.
We've lived way beneath our means.
Well, you've got a $165,000 house, and you've either paid cash for it or you paid it off.
We've paid it off.
Oh, you did have a mortgage?
You just don't know.
You've paid it off.
Yeah, well, I haven't had a mortgage for over two years.
Okay.
All right.
And you do all of this on $42,000 a year for the last 14 years.
Yep.
On average.
All right.
So the reason that's important is I know you're in North Dakota and things are, you know, they cost less there than in other states.
But still, that's amazing that you can do that.
Well, just to back up a little bit, we moved from the state of Michigan out to North Dakota in 2006.
So we did this while living in the state of Michigan, too.
Damn.
I don't understand that.
That's no, I guarantee there are people.
How does he do 40, 42, this is the combined income for you and your wife?
42 grand in Michigan.
Yeah.
And you paid off your mortgage on your $165,000 house two years ago.
Yes.
Wait, was the house in Michigan or the house in North Dakota?
Well, we pretty much had the house in Michigan paid off.
When we moved out here, it cost me some money to move out here.
And the housing wasn't as cheap out here as we had anticipated, because housing out here was going.
Okay, I get it.
All right.
So I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I'm sure people were curious about that.
So you, you're $42,000.
You have four kids, did you say?
Four and one on the way, yeah.
Four and one on the way, and you started to say you've worked hard, you've done the American dream, you follow the rules, but you're mad.
Yeah, because I'm confused.
I'm extremely confused.
I thought I was educated, and I thought I was doing things right.
And no one's talking about me and my wife doing a good job and recognizing us, but we're recognizing everybody else who's made poor decisions, and we're going to help those folks out because we feel bad for them.
I know that's a little bit sarcastic, but I'm confused.
Well, I understand your confusion.
This is well, actually, no.
What are you confused about?
Why are you confused that we have a government of majority Democrats who want to make as many people victims as possible and prop them up?
Why does it surprise you?
That's been going on for a lot of years.
I mean, it doesn't surprise me.
It just frustrates me that when you do things the right way and you try to live the American dream, there's really no kudos to you for doing the right thing.
Well, to certain people, that's right.
To many liberals, you playing by the rules and prospering, that's not fair because there's so many people who haven't.
This bailout, this stimulus, whatever you want to call the porculus bill, it's from people like you that money is going to be taken to pay the people who have failed, the businesses propped up which have failed and so forth.
You're not alone in your anger here.
How about the guy still paying his mortgage and he's barely making the payment, and yet people who can't pay are being told that the house can't be foreclosed on.
They've got to stay there.
How do you think those people feel?
While the value of their home is plummeted at the same time.
Well, again, you've got to make good choices.
Maybe they've made bad choices and maybe they move out.
Well, no, I'm assuming they made the right choices other than maybe who they voted for is the point.
There's some people who want to change the rules you play by in the middle of the game.
But the notion of propping up, look, Dick Gephardt said it, the life lottery of people who won life's lottery, meaning success like yours is just good luck.
And that's not fair because some people have had bad luck.
They want to pick the winners and losers.
This is, you know, I'm frustrated too.
The thing that frustrates me is that what's right in front of everybody's eyes, the destructive nature of liberalism, somehow isn't seen.
And it's really nothing more than public relations.
Liberalism wins the PR battle as compassionate and caring and so forth.
And conservatism is seen as mean-spirited, cold-hearted, cruel.
And it's where that kind of thing is partially why we're where we are now, everything being 180 degrees out of phase.
It'll change around, but it's still, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to have a profound impact before they overreach and get thrown out and replaced.
So batting down the hatches.
Mike in Foxborough, Massachusetts.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you, sir.
I guess it's thermal underwear-wearing dittos here from chili Foxboro, Massachusetts.
Home of the New England Patriots and Ghost Eelers.
Yeah, my sentiments are with you, pal.
Okay, well, look, it's on the side.
I started, I'm looking for my 20-year chevron here for listening to you.
A former employer of mine turned me on to you.
You were on an obscure western Massachusetts state station back in, I think it was like 78, 87, or 88.
I remember that obscure western Massachusetts station.
It was near Amherst because I went up there and did a Rush to Excellence tour at some point.
I forget what the station was.
Oh, excellent.
No, that's great.
It might even still be on that station.
With me on it, it is no longer obscure.
Oh, boy, I'll tell you, we had all we could do to pull it in.
Well, of course, you're in Foxborough.
You're all the way across the state.
It was a low-power radio station.
I think it was 1,000 watchers or maybe 5,000.
But at least you made the effort, see?
That's what Coach Dungy was talking about.
You reached up from common status, and you became uncommon by doing what you could to pull in that signal from the obscure station on the western part of the state.
God love you.
Well, look, as I spoke with Bo, which is also an honor, I want to talk about the great economic news that we received today, which I read this morning in the Wall Street Journal.
Yeah.
And that is that China is not going to buy our paper.
And that's the.
Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait a minute.
Just a second, Mike.
You have to remember that there are Obama voters listening here, and they have no clue what you mean.
The Chinese aren't going to buy our paper.
What he means, folks, is the Chinese are no longer going to buy our Treasury bills and invest in our national debt.
These Obama people might think you're talking about the New York Times, and that would upset them.
Oh, you got me there.
Well, as an update, everybody should read that the Chinese are taking a hard look.
They've made a lot of investments in this country.
And also, it's time to re-examine Alan Greenspan's statements to Congress about irrational exuberance.
And in that same time frame, he did talk about the amount of debt that the Chinese were buying from the United States.
A lot of people have been concerned about the Chikoms and the level of our debt that they hold because if they decided to call it, we're up creek.
Now, they won't.
They wouldn't do it because they're too dependent on this economy thriving.
We are a consumer of Chinese goods, cheap, expensive, lead-filled or not.
We are a consumer of Chinese goods.
Cars and the television, they're getting into all kinds of things.
Computer parts, computers, I mean, the iPhone's made in China.
Milk products, milk, eggs.
There's a lot of high-ti-shoes and so forth made in China.
But I wouldn't worry, Mike, because nobody, nobody is buying all of this debt.
We are printing some of this debt.
There's nobody buying all this.
Some of the debt's being purchased, of course, but the Chi-Coms have gotten out of the game.
We're printing this, and I'm amazed that inflation hasn't ticked up yet with all this.
And it has to at some point.
It has to.
And when that happens, they got to somehow do what they can to tame that because that's the biggest wealth killer that comes down the pike.
And that's another one of the ancillary effects of all this spending that you don't even want to contemplate.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
And we go back to the phones.
Terry, in Mobile, Alabama.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi.
Common ditto to you, sir.
I'm with you, Rush.
I applaud the Republicans in the House.
They made that look so easy.
And it really is easy with sticking together when you need to.
My question to you is: why does it seem so easy to stick together when we're out of the minority and when we're in the majority and have the opportunity and the power to do something or stop things, we seem to fall apart?
I am so glad you asked me that question.
Well, good.
Do you have the answer, sir?
I would love to hear it.
I'm going to tell you the answer.
Excellent.
Don't doubt me.
I won't.
The Republican problem in the House, forget the Senate because that place exists practically as an independent body from the executive branch.
But the House, when your party also has the White House and the president of your party is not engaging in the implementation of a conservative agenda,
when your president is creating a new entitlement, which is not what conservatives do, Medicare Part B, when your president is inviting Ted Kennedy to come up and write the education bill, when your president, in establishing his new tone, is reaching out to Democrats because he thinks that's the only way he can get things done because there aren't enough Republican votes in the House.
As a Republican member of the House, you have to go along with your president.
If you oppose your president on bill after bill after bill, you are hurting the party.
It's a party.
These guys were in a no-win situation.
Now, that doesn't excuse some of them who lost their conservative loyalties even before all this started to happen.
But it certainly didn't help.
For example, you remember the Republicans in the House, Terry, finally stood up to the president and McCain on amnesty.
They finally did it late in the president's second term in the summer of 2007.
But that was one of the first times that they did.
So when you say, oh, yeah, easy for them to be unified when they're out of power, when they can't stop anything anyway, if your president, president is your party, you almost, he's lobbying you.
You have to support the president, his legislation.
That's what comes down from the party.
That's why I'm not a party man.
That's why I'm an ideologue.
That's why I'm a conservative.
Well, I am a party person, Rush, and I'm a member of my local party, and I'm a member of my state party.
And I just don't buy into the philosophy.
I mean, like you said, if it's right, it's right.
It's wrong, it's wrong.
And the inconsistency that we have seen for many of our members is very disheartening.
And even our president, who I love and adore George Bush, but he and our Republicans in power, not people like me and you, grassroots folks, have gotten us Barack Obama.
And what we're listening to today with Pelosi and that group.
So it's very frustrating, but I hope they keep it up.
Well, look, let me, I understand intellectually what you're saying.
I understand emotionally what you're saying.
But let's, you know, we talked to Coach Dungy earlier today, the National Football League, and any successful coach will tell you that when your team does something right, you don't go the first time or one time.
You don't go overboard and praise them to the hilt because they think it's, you give them a little praise, and that's the way to be.
That's what we expect next time.
And that's what we expect next time.
And that's what we expect the next game.
That's what we expect the time after that.
You don't go, oh, well.
Now, a lot of people today are going, oh, well, look at Republicans.
Damn it.
That's so good.
That was wonderful.
You guys, and I love them.
Don't misunderstand.
But this is just the first.
And don't it's fine to go back and relive 2001 through 2008, but we're in 2009.
They did the right thing.
And the effort now is to inspire more of that doing the right thing rather than ripping them for what they did, which they can't change now anyway.
Absolutely.
Well, I hope it's a new day today, and I'm one of those that are thrilled, and I hope it empowers them to keep this up.
I think it will.
Let them hear from you.
It will empower them.
They know they've done the morally right thing.
When you do the morally right thing, you are empowered.
Trust me, and when you, it's not that hard to do, but boy, when you do it, it feels good.
We'll be back.
What a fun day, folks.
What an absolutely fun day.
Don't forget the Wall Street Journal op-ed is at the Wall Street Journal, linked at our website.
Audio and video from my appearances on Fox and CNBC this morning.
And Tony Dungy's book, Uncommon.
Again, I want to thank the coach for his half hour with us in the second hour today.
And we'll be back here tomorrow, folks, Open Line Friday, where, of course, there are no rules.
▲
Export Selection