All Episodes
Previous Next
May 7, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
May 7, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away today, and this is your undocumented anchor man filling in, spreading across America like Steinflu, seeping across the border.
And it's one of these things you think you think that you think Steinflu, what the heck is that?
It's lethal.
So you're carrying in fear.
And then it turns out to be completely weedy and ineffectual, so you don't have to worry about it.
But Mark Davis will be here tomorrow.
And Rush will be back on Monday and ready to go at the start of another week.
And probably lighter too.
And he signed off yesterday.
He was boasting about how many pounds he'd lost.
So what's the figure now?
£42 he's lost.
That's not bad.
The British economy has lost £1.4 trillion.
So Rush still has quite a way to go.
Anyway, Rush will be back on Monday.
42 pounds.
That's pretty impressive.
You know, I was talking to John from Libertyville, and I got a big point I was working up to.
And then I did my Doris Day image and got totally distracted and forgot whatever the hell it was I was meant to be talking about.
So anytime, if I mention Doris Day again, just like use the electric shock button and get me off that, because obviously it's not.
But what I wanted to, the point I wanted to make to John is this whole business of, he said moderation is the opposite of moderation is extremism.
So that when you're the party that is presenting itself as moderate, the other guys must be the extremists.
And it's very interesting.
The US media basically helps that along.
When I was talking about Colin Powell earlier, I had a quote from a New York Times profile of him by a guy called Todd Perdham.
Now this appeared, this was not opinion or analysis.
This was on the front page as a news story.
And this is what the New York Times guy said.
This was, whatever it was, I think 2003.
And I was very taken by it when I was looking at Colin Powell's track record of moderation.
He goes, quote, Mr. Powell's approach to almost all issues, foreign or domestic, is pragmatic and non-ideological.
He is internationalist, multilateralist, and moderate.
He has supported abortion rights and affirmative action and is a Republican, many supporters say, in no small measure because Republican officials mentored and promoted him for years, unquote.
So that's what it means to be.
He's basically saying this guy's Republican just because Republican guys promoted him.
He's got no philosophical affinity with the Republican Party whatsoever.
But beyond that, what was interesting is all those words.
Supporting internationalism, multilateralism, abortion, and racial quotas means, according to the New York Times, that you're, quote, moderate and non-ideological.
According to the New York Times, it's non-ideological to be in favor of abortion and affirmative action, and that anyone who feels differently is therefore an extremist and ideologue.
And that really gets to the heart of the nonsense with this moderate extremist thing.
That they're essentially emotional terms.
If you happen to think that abortion is wrong and should be illegal, then Colin Powell's position is not moderate, and it's certainly not non-ideological.
How can it be non-ideological in the eyes of even the New York Times to support abortion?
And that is essentially the problem that conservatives and Republicans have.
A neighbor of mine in New Hampshire, he was running for the state legislature in New Hampshire.
So he's had like old home days, like a kind of town fair they have in every town in New Hampshire.
And he's there and he's selling some of his maple syrup products and he's selling some pelts that he's got from skinning and hunting and this kind of thing.
But he's also got little cards, just little cards to say that he's running for the state legislature as a Republican.
And the lady who's running the fair comes over and says, oh, you can't have your little cards, business cards saying you're running for the state legislature out because this is a non-partisan event.
So he goes, oh, okay, and he puts the cards away.
Ten minutes later, she comes around with the Democratic candidate for the state legislature, who she's squiring around to every stall and introducing the Democrat candidate to all the people who are attending the fair.
And my friend said to me, he goes, that's the thing.
He goes, if you're the Republican conservative, that is extremist and partisan.
Whereas if you're the Democrat, that's just the way it is.
It's part of the air we breathe.
It's the atmosphere.
It's so moderate, it's like CO2, not the bad CO2 that causes all the global warming, but it's just like the air.
It's the air we breathe.
It's the air we breathe.
And that's why we shouldn't talk in terms of moderate and extreme.
Who cares if it's moderate or extreme?
It might be extreme, and it might still be right.
It was extreme to nuke Japan, but it was still the right thing to do in terms of bringing the war to an end.
Sometimes the extreme thing is the right thing to do.
That's essentially what Obama's line is on the economic crisis.
It may be extreme to spend trillions of dollars.
It may be extreme to fire the chairman of the automobile companies.
It may be extreme to nationalize the banks.
But sometimes the crisis means you have to do the extreme thing.
So moderate and extremists are like emotional terms.
You shouldn't talk about politics in those terms.
I had enough of that when I was accused of hate crimes up in Canada.
People kept talking about hate speech, hate speech.
The very concept is absurd.
If you happen to support a policy, then the fact whether it's moderate or extreme is nothing to do with it.
It should be debated on the merits.
But this idea that somehow it's the left, the left's policies are, as the New York Times says, moderate and pragmatic and non-ideological, and therefore almost by definition, anything the right proposes must be off the charts, is a big part of why the political debate is so stunted.
Rush said yesterday, and this is a very important point, that the left has beliefs.
And something like belief, that's why they're so eager on things like the environment.
Say, the science is settled, the science is settled, because that way you don't have to talk about it.
It's borish and quibbling to discuss whether or not the oceans are actually rising and they're going to flood all the coastal cities.
Don't want to get hung up on facts and hung up on details.
This is beyond that.
It's about an emotional identification.
If you're concerned about the planet, it says something about you.
It's like with recycling.
When you point out to people that recycling costs far more money, wastes everything, when you point out to people that it's a racket and that half the stuff that's supposedly recycled just ends up being, you go through all your recycling and you sort your H1N1 out for, no, hang on, that's the swine flu, isn't it?
You sew your H2P2H2R2D2 from your whatever your one plant, you sew your soda bottle from your milk carton, and you put them in the separate bins, and then they and you do all the mandatory recycling, and then they take them and toss them in the dumpster and toss them all in the same big landfill anywhere.
I mean, it's like the whole identification of it as an act of belief, act of faith, impervious to reason.
And so, this idea of even discussing public policy in terms of what's moderate or extreme is essentially an emotional reaction to it.
It's a complete waste of time to do them that way.
Sometimes the extreme thing, even if it sounds extreme, is right.
We'll talk about that.
We'll also talk about some of these economic developments this 1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh show.
One thing I find strangely weird about this idea that somehow the conservative movement should meet the Liberals halfway is actually, if you look at it in rational terms, there is a lot of evidence out there already.
I mean, America is basically just catching up to Scandinavia with half this stuff.
This stuff has been practiced in Europe now for 30 or 40 years, and the evidence of where it leads is actually pretty explicitly clear.
For example, with healthcare, if you make the government the principal provider of health care, then what you do is wind up rationing its supply to the consumer, because that's the only point at which you can ration it.
There's a lot of evidence for that.
It's not something you have to guess about.
You don't have to look very far.
You don't even have to go to Canada because you can talk to any of the many Canadian doctors and Canadian nurses working in American hospitals, or even the tons of Canadian patients who are down in American hospitals getting treatment for things they've been waiting two or three years to get up in Canada.
There's actually a lot of evidence on where this stuff leads.
There's a lot of evidence out there that the major problem facing the Western world at the moment is that governments are spending more money than they can raise from their citizens and their economies, and that somehow that eventually that catches up with you.
It's not an experiment Obama's embarking on.
We've had the experiments in Western Europe and most other advanced democracies over the last 40 years, and we know where it leads.
And when you get into that hole, it actually takes an awful long time to climb out of that hole.
So, we're not talking about anything particularly new he's planning here.
What he's actually doing is he's basically saying America is going to be the last advanced nation to try all the stuff that's failed everywhere else.
That's essentially what Obama has spent doing these first hundred days.
So, 1-800-282-2882, we'll talk about General Motors losses and some of the other economic woes staring us in the face straight ahead.
Mark Stein filling in for Rush on the EIB network.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Breaking news.
Breaking news.
Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, has decided he's not going to challenge Senator Arlen Spector next year in the Senate race in Pennsylvania.
Tom Ridge, another famous of these famously moderate Republicans, he was the first Secretary of Homeland Security.
And it's interesting to me that again, one of the problems with moderation is almost by definition, you don't have a lot of fire in the belly.
It's like 1996.
Colin Powell could have been the first African-American president, and he just decided he wasn't going to run.
He had this huge, huge, fantastic numbers.
He would have won, but he decided not to run now.
His fellow moderate Tom Ridge has decided he's not going to run.
Let's go to Justin in Enid, Oklahoma.
Justin, you're on the Rush Limbush show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey.
Hey, great to you, too.
You're live on the air, all the way from Enid.
What I was wanting to know, I wanted the one to get your opinion on what you thought about Obama not really celebrating the National Day of Prayer.
He's just kind of taking low-key and staying in his office and not having an event like the other presidents had.
No, no, he's not having one of these National Prayer Day breakfasts.
Now, I remember, people say this is only the George W. Bush did it, but I remember, I distinctly remember Bill Clinton actually during the impeachment trial of all things, going to a National Prayer Day breakfast.
You remember at that point he had like he had thousands of spiritual advisors.
As soon as a new problem arose, he'd appoint another two or three spiritual advisors.
So he and his phalanx of thousands of priests all went to this big National Prayer Day breakfast.
So it wasn't just a Bush thing.
This is lower than it was in certainly in some of the Clinton years.
Why do you think it is, Justin?
Oh, Justin's hung up.
He just won it.
He's gone.
Okay, well, I'll say what I think it is.
I don't think.
I think this is a complicated matter for Democrats.
One of the things that the Democrats most disliked about Bush, the Bush years, was his conscious and rather artless professions of faith.
I know people mock him for this, but in fact, he's very sincere about it.
And it was one of the things that Democrat used to drive Democrats nuts.
And it used to drive Europeans even nuttier.
I mean, the French, two days after September 11th, there was a big piece in Le Monde, I think it was, saying that this was a battle of the two fundamentalisms.
There was basically Taliban-type fundamentalism and then Bush-type fundamentalism.
And shortly before the Iraq invasion, I think it was Martin Amos in The Guardian in London wrote a big piece that saying, well, Texas and Saudi Arabia are very much the same, both these dusty lands full of oil wells run by religious fundamentalists.
A lot of people in the Obama base are not comfortable with public expression of religion.
I don't think myself, you know, none of us know this, but I don't think I personally wouldn't sit 20 minutes in Jeremiah Wright's church.
And so when a guy sits there for 20 years, but then claims, oh, Goddamn America Sunday, oh, sorry, I must have missed that one.
And the one where he said AIDS was a plot by the U.S. government to decimate the African-American population.
I think I must have been out of town for that one too.
Oh, and what was the one where he said we shouldn't have, we got it coming on September 11th?
Oh, no, I wasn't there for that either.
So essentially, this guy he claimed is a spiritual mentor and who was responsible for this, married him, responsible for the spiritual education of his children, he had to disown him.
I think that was, I don't seriously think Barack Obama paid that much attention to what Jeremiah Wright was saying.
And no doubt, when he did the goddamn America riff and the little dance, maybe Barack Obama was the only guy in the church sitting on his hands.
But clearly, his reason for being there, if it wasn't that he agreed with Jeremiah Wright on all these matters of faith, it was that it was just a sort of necessary political feint if you want to advance your career in that particular section of Chicago.
I don't think he wants to get into all that again.
So the idea of having to get up there, have a big formal breakfast with different leaders, I just don't think that's Obama's bag.
I don't think he's, I think actually, he's essentially someone who genuflects to faith when it's convenient, as he did with Jeremiah Wright.
But it isn't really a bad thing.
But I think it's, you know, I think it tells us a lot.
It's something different about the character of this president and the previous one.
1-800-282-2882.
Let's go to Alan in Columbus, Ohio.
Alan, you're on the.
Good.
How you doing?
I'm doing great.
How about you?
Not too bad.
Listen, you've been talking about several different things here.
The argument that that guy made from Illinois about moderates being the opposite of extremism is a fallacy.
Extremism assumes diametrically opposed positions.
So extremism would actually be the opposite of extremism with two diametrically opposed ideas.
Moderation, by definition, is in the middle.
But, you know, in talking about the economy, Mark, I'd like to see conservatives talk more economic truth to our country because we're not getting the education.
You know, one of the most basic truths, fundamentals of economics, you know, you'll hear, for instance, Republicans will say, well, you know, if corporate taxes go up, you know, that's just going to be passed along to the consumer.
You know, it's going to raise the cost of doing business.
And that's not true.
That's true.
You know, a favorite term that economists always like to use is all other things being equal.
There's never anything where all other things are equal.
What happens is when corporate taxes go up, when cost goes up, profitability goes down.
And when profitability goes down, that doesn't affect the price.
The market sets the price.
Cost of a product has nothing to do with the selling price, absolutely nothing to do with it.
What happens when costs go up, like Obama with all these tax increases that he's going to levy on just about everything, profitability goes down.
When profitability goes down, the first thing that's cut are variable costs.
The first variable cost that's cut is labor.
Right.
And we don't do a good enough job of connecting the dots to say, okay, yeah, you know what?
If you work at a manufacturing plant and the costs go up, your price isn't going to go up against the Japanese or against price is going to stay the same.
Your job is going to be gone.
That's what's going to happen.
Yeah.
There is the basic reality here, Alan, is that a lot of people seem to think that the taxes can be paid by non-human entities.
And in the end, that's not possible.
That's not possible.
You've got to be a human being to write and sign that check.
And so, as you say, you can tax a GloboCorp Inc., but at some point, GloboCorp Inc. is going to have to pay that bill either by cutting jobs or imposing costs elsewhere, but in the end, it will be human beings who pay that tax.
And we'll talk more about that and some of these other economic issues straight ahead.
Mark Stein sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Davis will be in tomorrow on EIB.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein, Stein flu infecting America.
You cannot seal the borders.
Alan was talking about what happens when you increase taxes on corporations.
And I said that corporations don't pay taxes.
You know, the only people, you have to be a human being physically to pay taxes.
that when we think that we can impose an environmental tax on automobile makers, in the end, that tax has to be paid by real human beings somewhere along the way.
That cost has to be paid by some human beings.
And as Alan pointed out, you can cut labor.
In some ways you can pass the costs onto the consumer, but the market eventually will rebel against that.
But at some point, it will be a human being on whom the burden of that tax will fall.
So the idea that you can say, well, we like Mr. and Mrs. America, and so we're going to give them a tax cut, but we're going to tax the hell out of Mega GloboCorp, Inc.
And you can balance the books that way.
That in the end will not work.
And as Russia always says, America has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world.
We have higher corporate tax rates than Sweden.
And at some point, this becomes a very unattractive economy in which to operate a business.
Now, we've just had these things that General Motors has posted a loss.
It burned through $10.2 billion in the first quarter as it failed to cut costs.
Now, it's got these agreements with its unions that make it impossible, in effect, to make a profit on any car.
General Motors cannot make money by selling cars.
For the purposes of comparison, Honda and Nissan make a pre-tax operating profit per vehicle of around $1,600.
Ford, Chrysler and GM make a loss between them of between $500 and $1,500 on every vehicle.
So you look at Chrysler.
If they're losing $1,000, let's average it out, say $1,000 in every car.
So they sell 10 cars and they've lost $10,000.
If they sell 100 cars, they've lost $100,000.
And if they sell a million cars, they've lost $1 million.
At a certain point, they have got to correct that defective equation.
They've either got to find a way to make a vehicle at a price that someone is prepared to pay for it, or they've got to go out of business and leave those brands to someone who can.
But you know, it's not extremist to point that out.
And again, it's not extremist to say that a government automobile industry is no solution to anything.
I've lived in countries where the government makes you automobile.
I don't just mean in Eastern Europe.
I've worked in Eastern Europe.
I made a film for the BBC in Hungary.
There was a co-production with Hungarian television.
They gave me this Hungarian car.
It was very environmentally friendly.
The exhaust pipe was just under the rear passenger seat.
So all the exhaust was basically pumped straight out the side of the car, came in.
My lungs were black after 10 minutes of this thing.
Then Britain, you go to Britain.
Britain, they made everything part of the same government car company.
You cannot, in the end, the government did not know how to make a car because it doesn't make its decisions with regard to the market.
The minute you put politics in the process, it makes its decisions with regards to the political climate at the time.
That's incidentally how we got the whole subprime thing going along.
It was essentially a political interference in the mechanism of the market whereby significant players, instead of starting thinking about serving the market, serving the customers, instead start thinking about serving their political regulators.
It's not extremist to point that out.
And it's not moderate to be in favor of the government making your automobile.
You know, I'm sure that John in Libertyville and other people who agree with them really believe that their views are non-partisan and that it's only our guys who are being partisan.
But that is absurd.
And what is interesting to me is that the so-called moderate position is actually often at odds with the majority of the American people.
Well, I don't know why, for example, it's thought that being internationalist or multilateralist is something that's typically uncontroversial or American.
Americans are not notable supporters of internationalism.
The New York Times says that Colin Powell's belief in affirmative action makes him a moderate, even though the majority of Americans are opposed to racial preferences.
The New York Times says Colin Powell being in favor of abortion makes him a moderate.
But Americans, in fact, are about evenly divided on abortion in general.
But you can find polls that show 86% oppose third trimester abortions and over 80% favor parental notification.
We often have a situation, if you look at immigration, huge numbers of Democrats are opposed to illegal immigration.
Yet apparently an issue that has the support of the overwhelming majority of Republicans and a significant number of Democrats is an extremist position.
This is crazy talk.
What we see in effect is that a lot of these so-called extremist positions are actually the mainstream position, and there's fewer people who support the moderate position.
But, you know, that's emotional terms and isn't really an effective way of looking at it.
Let's go to Mike in Trenton, New Jersey.
Mike, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hi, Mark.
It's real honor, my friend.
How are you?
Great.
How are you?
Good.
I called actually to really disagree with John from Libertyville.
He and others seem to think that Rush came by his opinions willy-nilly.
And in point of fact, Rush's opinions, and I mean all of them, are based on logic, reason, constitutional principles.
And I think the day that we start saying the constitutional principles are extreme, then we're in real trouble.
Well, you make a good point there because the United States Constitution has stood the test of time.
And like most others, if you look at other Western nations, the French Constitution dates back to the 50s, and so does the Italian Constitution.
The Spanish Constitution dates back to the 70s.
And I think that actually gets to the heart of the problem.
I think that a lot of liberal progressives don't think that the Constitution is a founding document that, in a sense, is there for all time.
But they have a kind of semi-European way of looking at it, that it's basically a work in progress that you should be able to make mean whatever you want.
And one of the problems I think that conservatives have is that the minute you say Constitution to liberal Democrats, they roll their eyes.
They're very good at subverting it.
They're very good at finding judges who will claim to be able to detect rights to partial birth abortion or gay marriage or whatever in the Constitution.
And they think it's just something to be gamed and not a document of fundamental truths.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
It's interesting, too.
That's how words like democracy have kind of crept into our language, even though we're not a democracy.
We're actually, in fact, a democratic republic.
But democracy back in the 1800s was actually the beginning of the idea of a socialist democracy.
It's crazy.
Yeah, and you're right.
And actually, just to look at it in the broader sense, you know, Americans have lived in liberty not for two and a third centuries, but roughly for a period of three centuries, I would say.
Because if you look at the New England colonies and the mid-Atlantic colonies in the 18th century, they were self-governing towns and counties.
And in fact, generally speaking, the citizens in those communities enjoyed more liberties than they did back in the mother country back then in England.
And so what happened when the Constitution was eventually written was it codified truths that the American people had been living for most for at that point for most of their lives.
This wasn't some theoretical document.
We'll write it up and see how it works out.
They understood the truths in the Constitution because they had been living them.
And this idea that it's now just some dusty bit of parchment to which we should pay lip service or which we should get out, you know, next time, I don't know what's going to come after abortion or gay marriage, but the next time there's some great big liberal cause, you know, we were talking, I was talking with HR before the show about adult consensual incest.
Not because either he or I are planning it for the weekend, but just because it happened to come up in discussion.
But it would be easy to, at some point, the Liberals will claim to detect a right to that in the Constitution.
But that was not how it was when it was written.
It was a document that expressed how American, it was the expression of the lived experience of the American settlers on the eastern seaboard.
You think it's still relevant, Mike?
In fact, I was just trying to comment that all of it was based on Anglo-Saxon principles of the idea that a family, first of all, even beyond that, a community, were able to govern themselves.
What we need less of is the big government idea of stepping in, taking care of the banks, taking care of everybody on our street.
And more of the idea of families and then communities taking care of themselves.
That's an excellent point, Mike.
Thanks for the call.
You know, America actually is the exception to the rule that big countries don't work.
If you look at the last 20 years, big countries are bust up.
The Soviet Union bust up.
Yugoslavia bust up.
Countries, even Czechoslovakia split up, Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Countries have been breaking up.
That's the story.
Why is, and if you look at the wealthiest societies in the world, too, they're also small countries.
They're all these places like Luxembourg and Norway.
Why is America been the only wealthy, big, wealthy nation, the only big country that's held together and hasn't busted up?
And there was a book written about this a couple of years ago, and the guy made the point that if America had been as centrally governed as France, in other words, if it had a centralizing constitution, it would have split up, you know, circa in the early 19th century.
It wouldn't have lasted.
It was precisely because it is a decentralized federation that it has hung together.
And now we're hearing that the solution to everything is big national federal solutions.
You're at a grade school in South Carolina and you've got peeling paint on the walls, call 1-800-Obama and he'll send you some money from Washington.
That is a recipe eventually for the crackup of this country.
Mark Steinsting in for Rush, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Russia.
This story.
It's a great headline for the New York Post.
Cow on the Lamb in Queens.
A condemned cow made a desperate bid for freedom yesterday, bolting from a slaughterhouse and leading cops on a wild chase through the streets of Queens.
This is in New York City.
I would love to have seen this.
I was chilling in the yard when a cow came out of nowhere, said Adam Kahn, 20, who lives in the home where the fugitive black heifer, nicknamed Molly, was finally cornered.
I got to, yeah, what a great love.
I was chilling in the yard when a cow came out of nowhere.
That is, this is how the world ends.
It's not going to be the space aliens.
It's going to be an invasion of mutated black heifers.
You'll be sitting in Brooklyn.
They'll come out of nowhere.
You'll be chilling in the yard and the cow will come out of nowhere.
And I personally don't think it's any coincidence that this happened on the day that Barack Obama had a hamburger.
You know, you feel, how do you think you would feel if you were a cow in the slaughterhouse and you don't get chosen for Barack Obama's hamburger?
I mean, this is, I think this cow was making a break to get from Queens, get on I-95, head down to Washington, and just charge into the White House and say, oh, President Obama, eat me now.
Just, I want to be your hamburger.
It was wonderful.
It was wonderful watching the coverage of the hamburger visit.
He's amazing, Obama.
He's a regular guy, eats a hamburger with Dijon mustard.
Dijon mustard, John Kerry couldn't get away with that stuff, but he makes it seem just like a regular thing to do.
Now I see that some of the left-wing commentators are saying, why are people making a fuss about the Dijon mustard?
But that's just an example of the way Obama is able to enlighten us.
There was a famous, I think prior to Obama's hamburger, I think the most famous fast food item in American history was in 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the present Queen's mother, visited the Roosevelts in Hyde Park in New York State.
They'd been up in Ottawa.
I made this journey yesterday myself, so I know from the driving hell that it's quite a trip, but I think they had a nicer time.
They came down from Ottawa to Hyde Park and were hosted by the Roosevelts.
And the Roosevelts served the royal family the very first hot dog ever consumed by a member of the royal family.
And there's audio of this and of Eleanor Roosevelt saying that the servants are doing the hot dogs.
And Eleanor Roosevelt says to King George VI, And now, Your Majesty, here is your hot dog.
So Eleanor Roosevelt clearly isn't eating a lot of hot dogs.
She sounds far grander than the king.
He eats the hot dog.
And I had never heard this thing sound.
You think, wow, this is a time warp.
Everyone's all, the press corps are standing around marveling at the great king eating a hot dog.
It's 1939.
It's taken us 70 years to get back to the exact same position.
And at this time, it's not some foreign monarch eating the fast food item.
It's President Obama.
But people are playing, oh, King Barack is eating a hamburger just like regular folks do.
And okay, he's got the Dijon mustard on it, but at least it's not the aubergine coolie that John Kerry would have had if he'd had to have a hamburger.
This is, at some point, it's amazing.
These gods can descend from the heavens and walk among us, and they do such a convincing job of it, too.
I'm sure Obama hated to have that.
Even with the Dijon mustard smothered on it, he hated to have it.
But, you know, I don't know how long we can keep, I don't know how long we can keep this up, but it's good to know it's not the press corps and that this escaped cow escaped from the slaughterhouse on 158th on Beaver Road near 158th Street in Queens.
If you live in that part of New York, by the way, and you want to stand well back because these heifers, maybe a few jersey in there, I don't know what they, oh, probably no, that's for milk, Holsteins, maybe some Holsteins in there.
They'll be stampeding out.
Want to get down to Washington and be Barack Obama's next cheeseburger.
I mean, this is an amazing man, and I think this is just an amazing thing that he can just appear so normal that he can eat a hamburger like a regular human.
He can eat a hamburger almost as convincingly as King George VI at Eleanor Roosevelt's hot dog.
This is an amazing, an amazing thing.
More straight ahead on the Rush Limbaugh Show, 1-800-282-2882.
Update on Molly the Cow, by the way.
Molly the Cow isn't going to be slaughtered now.
Apparently, Molly the cow has been given some reprieve and will go to have enjoy some long life.
I hope poor Molly doesn't end up with Al Gore.
Do you remember Al Gore when he announced his campaign for president the first time around?
He rented a herd of cows to stand behind him at his farm.
He went to, I don't know where, how do you rent a cow?
Go to Herds Rent a Cow.
Anyway, that's where he rented his cow herd from.
And to stand behind.
He's the only presidential candidate ever to rent a herd of cows.
So I sure hope that poor old Molly doesn't wind up having to graze behind Al Gore in perpetuity, releasing those climate change bovine flatulence emissions all over Tennessee.
It would be a tragic fate for Molly, who made such a brave break for it.
▲
Export Selection