All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
November 16, 2009, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
It's broadcast excellence time.
That means time for me, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
It's great to have you with us, as always.
I know.
I know Obama is over there bowing to the Japanese emperor, and I know he's making a fool of himself, and I know that Sarah Palin's out there and that are fact-checking Sarah Palin's book.
I still, folks, in all that's going on out there, I still cannot get past this decision to bring these terrorists up to New York for this trial.
I just can't get past it.
Andy McCarthy has a great piece today at National Review Online saying, what if these guys decide to defend themselves?
They can make that decision.
They can choose to defend themselves, which means they personally would get access to all of the intelligence data, all the stuff that they need.
This is such a wrong-headed decision.
And the idea that these guys are going to be acquitted is very real.
Even without a jury pool that includes Greenwich Village and the Upper East Side, we are bringing non-citizens to the United States for trial in a court after they are thus going to be conferred with what amounts to U.S. citizenship rights.
Now, we know they weren't mirandized.
They have not been read their rights by the president's own admission.
They have been tortured.
By the president's own admission, they have been tortured.
And then they can say a message must be sent to the government.
This will not be tolerated.
And depending on the judge, the motion might be granted.
I mean, to dismiss the case.
You know, if I'm a lawyer or if I'm the terrorists defending myself, the first thing I do is make a motion to dismiss this thing.
I mean, I'm in a U.S. criminal courtroom.
I haven't been mirandized.
I haven't been read my rights.
The president of the United States has admitted to torturing me.
Therefore, my confession is tainted.
I confessed.
Yes, I admit I confessed.
I have no defense, but I confessed under the duress of waterboarding and under torture, which your president admitted happened to me.
Now, let's go to some audio soundbites, and this is unbelievable.
This is Eric Holder last night, or Friday night, actually, on the news hour with Jim Lara.
And Jim Lara said, did you run the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decision by President Obama?
Just informed him of the decision.
So you just told him what your decision was.
You didn't say, what do you think about it, Mr. President?
Nope.
Told him last night or had relayed to him what I was going to do last night while he was on Air Force One on his way to Asia.
Did you talk to anybody outside the government?
I talked to my wife about what she thought.
And I actually talked to my brother, who's a retired Port Authority police officer who served in New York, New Jersey, and who lost friends and colleagues on 9-11 in the towers.
And talk to them about what was it appropriate to bring it in New York, the symbolic significance of it, the possibility of getting a good and fair, detached jury.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you had any doubt about this, you can now rest assured that Eric Holder is a stranger to the truth.
The idea, the very idea that all that happened here was Obama was informed of this decision.
I don't believe that for a minute.
And that he consulted what?
His brother and his wife?
His brother, who's a retired Port Authority cop who served in New York and New Jersey, who lost friends and colleagues on 9-11.
He talked to his wife and a brother.
He didn't do anything but inform Obama of the decision.
I'll tell you what, Obama, what they're trying to do here is grant him deniability, plausible deniability.
No, I didn't know it.
I was not aware.
I was only informed after the decision was made, and I didn't want to undercut my attorney general.
Folks, this could very well be Waterloo for Obama.
He has stepped in it with this Khalid Sheikh Mohammed matter.
All the frenzied writing and protests.
I mean, that's just the beginning.
But what's happening here, this is an in-our face weakening of our security, which means that if a civilian target is hit again, particularly New York City, Obama is toast.
He's done.
The American people will tolerate a lot, but not a grotesque mishandling of security based on a contempt for your own country.
You know, the only reason anybody could want this to happen, the way it's going to happen, is for these words and these attitudes and these opinions to be aired around the world about the United States, that the United States is guilty, that the United States is immoral, the United States is unjust, the United States tortures.
The United States may in fact be complicit in this crime because of the way we have treated nations and people around the world since our founding.
And the people of the world finally had had enough and told us they don't like us the way we are.
We need to be cut down to size.
I've always thought that it's a serious problem that we've elected someone who was raised to believe what Obama believes about this country.
And he has been educated to believe what he believes about this country.
He does not believe in American exceptionalism.
And to say that this decision is symbolic to bring these guys back to so close, at a courthouse, so close to ground zero, getting a good and fair detached jury.
That's nothing I would do.
I would ask for a change of venue.
I would ask for a change of venue if I'm the lawyer for these guys or if they defend themselves.
Well, just on the basis that you might not get a fair jury.
They'll probably think about it.
No, we probably could get a fair jury here.
We probably could find enough people who think or at least going to sympathize with our plight once we explain it to people.
Now, on State of the Union CNN yesterday, John King interviewed David Axelrod, and he said that you mentioned that this was the Attorney General's decision.
How involved was the President of the United States?
Well, the President was informed of the Attorney General's decision and his reasoning for the decision.
This was a decision for the Attorney General to make in concert with the Secretary of Defense.
The president was informed of the Attorney General's decision and his reasoning.
It seems to me that there was a press conference last week before Holder went out there and spoke, and Obama was asked about it.
And he said, I don't want to steal the thunder of the Attorney General's press conference, but he is going to have some things to say about this.
I just, they're asking us to believe too much here that Obama was just an innocent bystander.
And Holder made this decision after talking to his wife and his brother, a retired Port Authority officer.
Sunday morning, ABC is this week.
George Stephanopoulos talked to Hillary Clinton.
Is it true that during World War II, we tried Nazis who crossed our borders in military courts, military tribunals?
Why is it so important to have these trials in federal criminal courts?
This is a decision that the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense have made after extensive, exhaustive review.
The Attorney General has determined after consulting with veteran prosecutors that this is a case that appropriately can be brought in our federal courts.
Other cases will be brought in the military commissions.
I'm not going to second guess the Attorney General.
Wow, well, of course not.
But, you know, the guy that blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he's going to get a military trial.
He's going to get a military tribunal because, you know, if we were going to be consistent here, we'd bring them all to court.
And, you know, she really didn't answer the question why it's so important to have these trials in federal criminal courts.
You know, these military tribunals, the Democrat Party started ripping them to shreds during Bush's term, but they've been used by every president.
FDR did use them exclusively.
They've been used, Clinton used, they've all been used.
But somehow they're unconstitutional.
It shows the world that we are bad people.
We're going to show the world our values and so forth.
It's just the more I thought about this over the weekend and the more I thought about it and the more I learned about it, I just the more incredulous I become.
I think this is this is going to be see Obama is vulnerable, folks.
You got to trust me on this.
He is not that popular.
His base is what's keeping him supported.
Independents are abandoning Obama in drones.
His policies are unpopular.
And it's people, I think, slowly but surely are awakening to the fact that this is not the man that they thought they were voting for back in 2008.
Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace talking to Liz Cheney.
What do you worry about most?
The security threat to New York, the possible danger that intelligence secrets will be disclosed, the possibility one of these guys will get off?
Something else.
What's your biggest concern?
The President of the United States simultaneously is denying our troops on the ground in Afghanistan the resources that they need to prevail to win that war while he ushers terrorists onto the homeland.
He's going to put these terrorists into a courthouse that is six blocks from where over 2,000 Americans were killed on the worst attack in history on the American homeland.
He's going to give them a public platform where they can spew venom, where they can preach jihad, where they can reach out and recruit other terrorists.
And it is totally unnecessary.
Khaled Sheikh Mohammed asked 11 months ago to be executed for Allah.
He asked to plead guilty and be executed.
We should have said, all right, you've got it.
Right.
And now, again, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can go into court and say this ought to be dismissed because I was not read my rights.
I was not mirandized.
And that confession got to be thrown out because I was tortured.
Your president admitted that I was tortured.
We'll be back, folks, 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Hello.
Okay, so we have Obama.
We have Eric Holder and we have Afghanistan.
Now, if we are to believe that Obama did not discuss this decision with Eric Holder, then why in hell is he so involved in the Afghanistan decision?
Why not just leave that to the general?
And why not leave that to Gates and have them inform him of their decision?
But Mithril Limbaugh, Mithril Limbaugh, he is the commander and thief.
He is in thy, he's president.
He's in charge of Holder, too.
He's in charge of the Justice Department.
He's in charge of everything.
So if he's just going to let Holder decide what to do and when to do it and say, okay, thanks for keeping me posted, why not in Afghanistan?
My point is, I don't buy it.
How stupid do they think we are?
You know what?
It's not that they think we're stupid.
It's that they know we don't have any power to stop them right now.
That's what they know.
Folks, this is the most incredible thing.
The drive-bys, the state-controlled meeting, predictably, are going bonkers over Sarah Palin and her book, her appearance on Oprah.
We'll be talking to her tomorrow afternoon at 1 o'clock, the top of the second hour of this program.
We did an interview late last week with her for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
The Associated Press got an advanced copy of her book, Going Rogue.
They assigned 11 reporters to try to find any errors in it.
You hear about this?
The 11 reporters collaborated on an article titled, Fact Check, Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts.
In fact, though, the AP's catalog of alleged errors, they found six in a 400-page book, is very thin at best.
The Powerline blog people reported this.
Took 11 people to find six mistakes.
That's not even one mistake per reporter.
Here's how the AP starts.
Palin says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking only for reasonably priced rooms and not often going for the high-end robe and slippers hotels.
The facts?
Although she usually opted for less pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $700 per night Essex House Luxury Hotel, Robes and Slippers come standard, for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October.
With airfare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000.
Now, Palin says she didn't often stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying, yes, she did one time that we could find.
She didn't say, I never.
She say, I didn't often.
I usually, you know, did not often stay in these high-priced hotels.
So she says she didn't often stay at a high-end hotel.
And the AP counters by saying, yes, she did.
Yes, she did one time.
Yeah, that's why she said not often rather than never.
Now, what's indisputable is that Palin sold the governor's private jet and flew commercial.
I even talked to her about that last week in the interview.
That saved taxpayers a large amount of money, qualifying her as a frugal traveler.
Here's another.
They quote her from the book as writing.
Palin rails against taxpayer-finance bailouts, which she attributes to Obama.
She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, you'll have to be brave enough to fail.
The facts, according to AP, Palin is blurring Obama's stimulus plan, a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs, and government contracts, and the federal bailout that President George W. Bush signed.
Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate.
In September 2008, she said taxpayers cannot be looked to to bail out Wall Street.
The next month, she praised McCain for being instrumental in bringing folks together to pass the $700 billion bailout.
After that, she said it's a time of crisis and government did have to step in.
Now, the AP doesn't quote Palin, so it's hard to say whether she blurs the bailouts or not.
But by the AP's own account, Palin has consistently opposed bailouts, except that during the presidential campaign, when she has to loyally support her running mate, who is McCain, the presidential candidate.
That's what vice presidential candidates are supposed to do.
This is not a fact check.
This is what vice presidents do.
That's why she was running.
Frustrated us all, if you'll remember, running around using that word maverick all the time because the campaign wanted her to refer to McCain that way.
They thought that characterization was going to put McCain over the top.
He's a Maverick.
He's a Washington outsider.
He can reach across the aisle and work with the Democrats.
The next one, the people at Powerline say, somebody don't believe Palin welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory as governor.
She says she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went in favor of the people.
Facts, that response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million to $2.5 billion.
Palin said that she was extremely disappointed.
It was tragic.
So many fishermen and families put their lives on hold waiting for the decision.
Now, again, in this supposed fact-check, AP doesn't quote her, but rather asks us to take their word for the fact that Palin welcomes the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision in her book as a ruling that went in favor of the people.
Now, she is, they are mischaracterizing what she says in the book.
She criticized the Supreme Court decision at the time, as did most Alaskans, and cited it as a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed in the Katie Couric interview.
So, this is it, folks.
I mean, this is the kind of error 11 AP reporters, just like a wave of Democrat lawyers and reporters, was set up to Wasilla and Anchorage and Fairbanks when she was named the vice presidential running mate to McCain to scour the countryside for any dirt they could find on her.
11 Crackerjack AP reporters assigned to fact-check her book.
Do any other author's books get fact-checked like this?
Not that I can recall.
But anyway, this is the best they could do.
This is the best they could find.
We have a brief timeout coming up here, ladies.
Well, I know that liberals took after my book, but I mean, that's, I mean, anybody on the other side gets fact-checked.
Nobody does.
We'll be right back.
Antel Rushball on the cutting edge of societal evolution, as always, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Look, folks, this bow business.
You know, all fine and dandy here to act all agitated by this, and it's proper to be agitated.
But you have to understand what's going on.
Obama envies these monarchs.
Obama wants to be bowed to someday.
That's my interpretation.
He's over there bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, bowing to the emperor of Japan.
There are pictures all over the internet of all kinds of world leaders meeting the emperor of Japan, not bowing, simply shaking hands.
Besides, Obama blew the bow.
They're calling it a bow and crotch shot.
Because if you're going to bow, you bow, but you don't shake hands.
If you bow, you keep your hands at your side.
You bend a little bit forward from the waist and you bop right back up, but you don't bend forward, lower your head, and shake hands.
And remember Obama and Michelle and the media telling us all during the 08 campaign, now this guy studied international relations.
Obama's a far more worldly man than that cowboy, George W. Bush.
Obama understands the world.
He understands the protocols.
Obama understands the world.
And we'll be far, far, far, far better off with someone like Obama.
By the way, the New York Times dug this up.
June 19th, 1994, blasted Bill Clinton for bowing before the Japanese F-slight bow.
It was not even a full-fledged bow.
It wasn't a bow exactly.
Douglas Jell here with the story, but Mr. Clinton came close.
He inclined his head and shoulders forward.
He pressed his hands together.
It lasted no longer than a snapshot.
But the image on the South lawn was indelible.
An obsequient president and the emperor of Japan.
So Obama's not the first, but he did botch it.
More Americans are going hungry.
The Washington Post, of course, this is Obama's America.
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food.
Have you ever heard it written that way?
It's like who lack access to affordable health care, who lack access to affordable health insurance.
This is Amy Goldstein writing from the state-controlled Washington Post.
The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million.
That's the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a government report released today that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
Wait a minute.
Wait just a second.
Steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.
Does that mean when families with children go to the grocery store, the food hides?
Food is scarce, particularly among families with children.
How does the food know?
How does the food know when to get scarce?
Do you realize how nonsensically that's written?
Among people of all ages, nearly 15% last year did not consistently have adequate food.
Of course, that's not defined compared with about 11% in 2007 who did not have adequate food.
The greatest deterioration in access to food during a single year in the history.
How can this be?
With all of the food stamps, all of the millions and millions and millions, tens of millions of Americans who get food stamps, how can food hide itself?
How does the food get scarce?
When I go in to buy food, well, I don't actually go in to buy food, but when I send people in to buy food, they never come home and say where wasn't any.
It was scarce.
And now when they come home and say, hey, by the way, I was able to get all the food you sent me out for, I'm going to say good, because the food knows I don't have a family.
Food knows I don't have any kids.
Food only gets scarce among families with children.
What the hell does this mean?
This is a takeoff on the old template news story, colon, women and children hardest hit or women and minorities hardest hit.
Just imagine, just imagine the outrage if these numbers have been reported while Bush or Reagan were president.
Remember, when Reagan was president, he had him sneaking across the street to the park and stealing the homeless cans of pork and beans and taking them back to the White House and opening them up and eating them and rubbing his stomach, saying, Ah, I'm happy the homeless are going hungry.
They actually caricatured Reagan that way.
But because it's Obama, if you read the whole story, the Washington Post treats us to all the plans Obama's working on to end hunger.
Sorry, access to food.
See, access to food in this story is not even defined as hunger.
It just says people can't get it.
Now, see, we got a Democrat in power now, so this problem, oh, it's so horrible.
Oh, we got a guy working.
Obama's working on access to food, improving it for every American.
However, they do manage to continue propping up the president who doesn't have a clue about economic policies that actually lift people out of poverty rather than doom them to eternal dependence on Obama bucks, which is what this is all about.
There are ways to lift people out of poverty.
Obama doesn't know them, or if he does know how to do them, he doesn't want to do them.
I think this is what he wants.
I've said this over and over, eternal dependence.
He wants as much dependence on the part of as many Americans as possible.
Theory being that this will create a Democrat Party in power in perpetuity.
In documents here, this report, Census Bureau, both Americans who are scrounging for adequate food and people living with some amount of food insecurity.
Have you ever heard that term, food insecurity?
Anyway, they got big-time charts and graphs.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Remember last week after reading Sarah Palin's book and interviewing her, I said that it was one of the most substantive policy books I've read in a long time.
And I said that the people that read this on the left are going to totally ignore it.
They're going to focus on the soap opera stuff, the 10 pages or so out of 400 plus where she squares the record on the McCain campaign and what happened there.
And lo and behold, and I know these people like every square inch of my continually shrinking, glorious, naked body.
Rush Limbaugh calling it one of the most substantive policy books he's ever read.
A policy book?
Rush Limbaugh says that this book is the most substantive policy book that he's read.
Rush Limbaugh calls it one of the truly substantive books I've read.
Rush Limbaugh today told his millions of listeners this was the most substantive policy book that Rush had ever read.
Now, maybe Rush hasn't read any other books.
I heard Rush Limbaugh the other day say it was one of the most substantive policy books he'd ever read.
Rush, I cannot imagine you in full recline on your Gulf Stream, Cuban cigar in hand, struggling to get through a more substantive policy book than Sarah's index and footnote-free score-settling campaign memoir.
No mind-numbing charts or graphs, no big words, no scholarly Latin phrases like caveat mtor.
And I'll bet the pictures are like amazing.
Now, that's Lawrence O'Donnell.
He was where, I guess he was on MSNBC, former West Wing writer or consultant on the TV show when Martin Sheen was the president and liberals in America actually thought they were watching the presidency when they watched that show.
Now, let's see here.
Some of these people actually admit to having heard me say this, which I don't believe.
I think they all read it probably on a website or else a facts or an email was sent around.
Why is it that the left doesn't get this?
I think there's a reason, maybe hard to explain, but let me give it a shot.
Sarah Palin in this book, and you have to read somewhat here between the lines to get this, but she's not a navel gazer.
She doesn't spend a lot of time in self-analysis in this book.
She doesn't spend a whole lot of time on her inner life, meaning she doesn't analyze her own thinking.
She's not preoccupied with her own thinking and how her mind works and explaining why she thinks, which is what elites are obsessed with.
These elites and intellectuals are obsessed with showing you how smart they are and that they're the smartest people in the room.
And they run around and they analyze them.
They're total navel gazers.
Obama's a navel gazer.
Their whole objective is to make you think they're smart.
And they are probably some of the stupidest smart people running around in the country today, as evidenced by their policies.
I think she is foreign to intellectuals, both parties, and people in D.C.
She doesn't spend a whole lot of time and space in the book recounting what she did in Alaska to fight corruption, marshal all the competing bickering forces and solve her number one issue, get at the gas pipeline deal.
She just explains how it happened.
She doesn't go into, she's not into self-praise.
And a lot of these people are.
And so when they don't see themselves reflected, then of course it's foreign to them and they have to lash out.
Here's David Brooks Sunday morning on this week during the roundtable.
Stephanopoulos is got, let's see, Brooks, I guess, a question is asked of Brooks.
A little bit of bluntness there from Sarah Palin.
The book is out 415 pages.
David Brooks looks like it's a fair amount of score settling.
Folks, I told her this in the interview last week, and I mentioned this to you on Friday when I told you what I told her, that people are going to focus on the score settling.
And the score settling is not score settling per se.
It's setting the record straight.
And it's by nowhere anywhere near the majority of the book.
It's a few short pages compared to the 415.
But Stephanopoulos says to David Brooks, look, it looks like it's a fair amount of score settling, and the combat with the McCain campaign aides has continued straight through the weekend.
Yeah, she's a joke.
I mean, I just can't take her seriously.
We've got serious problems in the country.
Barack Obama's trying to handle war.
We just had a guy elected Virginia governor who's probably the model for the future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonald.
Pretty serious guy, pragmatic, calm, kind of boring.
The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it'll never happen.
Voters, Republican primary voters are just not going to elect the talk show host.
This guy has got me on the brain.
I mean, you all think he's attacking Palin.
He's not.
He's attacking me.
And I can take it, folks.
They have no fear.
All right, one more soundlight on this.
David Brooks just said on this week with Stephanopoulos, she's stupid.
She's a joke.
Can't take her seriously.
People like this country aren't going to elect a talk show host if she's a talk show host, which she's not a talk show host.
So Stephanopoulos said, but David, why don't you take on David Korn's question about whether this is taking away from her personality, this whole Palinism that we've seen.
What impact does that have on the Republican Party going forward?
There is a populism in both the Democratic and Republican parties, which is against Wall Street, against intellectuals, against Washington, against New York, against the coasts.
But if you look at the sort of populism that has won in this country, this is not William Jennings populism, which is hostile and negative, which Sarah Palin sometimes is.
It is the populism that is Ronald Reagan-esque, which is simply, we're for small towns, but we're not angry at the big cities.
The anger turns people off.
Representing small towns is fine.
But what she does, which is turning into a hostility toward intellectualism in general, that just doesn't work.
This guy has got thin skin.
He can't take it.
He literally can't take it.
He's taking everything she's saying personally.
And he is amplifying her meaning and taking it as a personal insult.
Hostile and negative towards intellectuals like himself.
This is the guy who now says we need to be more Reagan-esque.
This is also the guy who said the era of Reagan is over.
He was one of the many people who said that.
And I think, again, you have to understand that people who think of themselves as intellectuals also have a very, very, very high opinion of themselves.
I mean, they are conceited.
They are arrogant.
And if anybody sounds angry, I mean, I've listened to Sarah Palin speak, and I've heard these two bites from Brooks, and I've heard other things Brooks has said.
Brooks is a guy that sounds mad.
Brooks is a guy that sounds angry and jealous.
I think he's jealous of the attention that she gets and me, other so-called opinion makers, because he doesn't move the opinion dial one way in any direction.
I mean, he's a static zero.
If he were an opinion meter, the thing would never move.
It just points straight up, you know, out into nowhere.
Which is, I guess, what he wants, you know, being considered a good moderate.
But they miss, in their arrogance and in their conceit, they miss her appeal.
They miss her optimism and the things that she's positive about, and they totally don't understand why people are drawn to her, and it scares them.
Now, I have a challenge to the Associated Press.
They sent these 11 reporters out there to fact-check her book.
Hey, AP, I got an idea for you.
Assign those same 11 reporters to Al Gore's book and see how many facts you can find, not errors.
What is his stupid book, Earth in the Balance?
No, no, that was the preview.
What's the book or slideshow out there?
Don't look it up.
I don't care.
But whatever the current book is on global warming, I made the slideshow out of it and so forth, and that little movie that the kids in school were required to watch.
Assign same 11 reporters to that book and find out how many facts you can find.
Let's go to the audio tape again.
Morning, Joe, today, MSNBC Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and a co-host Mika Zezzinski.
She says, Sarah Palin taps into something.
She draws the crowds.
The question is, what can she do with it?
She can sell a lot of books.
Think about it compared to Howard Dean in 2004.
He was exciting too.
And he had these huge crowds, and people said, this guy is going to win the Democrats.
I'm sorry.
It's big crowds and it's excitement, but it doesn't translate.
I'm going to enrage conservatives.
But, you know, I've got to.
I know Howard Dean.
I've spoken to Howard Dean.
It is such a disservice.
I think Howard's way left on that.
But it is such a disservice to compare Sarah Palin in any aspect to Howard Dean.
Yes, because that is an insult to Howard Dean's intelligence.
Now, that was Joe Scarborough.
And, see, we have to define what is intelligent.
Because Howard Dean is wrong about almost everything.
As a far-left fanatic, radical Democrat, he is wrong about pretty much everything.
So here is, again, the arrogance and the conceit and the contempt, by the way, that is associated with intellectualism, even intellectuals on the right, or perceived intellectuals.
I love it when people think they're intellectuals and when they're not.
But the temple is she's automatically stupid.
It's just unfair to compare her to Dean because it's an insult to Dean's intelligence.
It all adds up, folks.
Human nature is human nature.
It doesn't change.
And they'd never admit this, of course.
But for some reason, they're scared of her.
For some reason, they're scared to death of her and what she might achieve.
We'll be back.
And let's remember, folks, Barack Obama's policy book entitled Audacity to Hope, Reclaiming the American Dream, and it didn't have any footnotes.
There weren't any footnotes in that book.
And the liberals are out there thinking he's the greatest writer since Julius Caesar.
AP, I got, if you don't want to fact check Gore's book, how about reading the health care bill?
How about reading the House health care bill, AP, and tell us what's in that and find any facts or errors you can find there.
Or go through one of Obama's books.
Why don't you?
▲
Export Selection