All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
November 16, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Wait till you hear what I have for you.
The drive-by's working in concert.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Rush Limbaugh back in action here behind the Golden EIB microphone and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
We go back to audio soundbite number two from today, David Brooks.
On Stephanopoulos' show yesterday, Stephanopoulos asked Brooks, look, 415 pages, David.
Looks like it's a fair amount of score settling in her book.
A combat with the McCain campaign aids is 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.
Talk show host.
Sarah Palin is a talk show host.
Barack Obama's trying to handle the war.
He's serious.
He's serious.
Barack Obama is also destroying the economy, David.
He's serious.
So not long ago, on Andrea Mitchell's show on MSNBC talking to Jonathan Martin of the Politico, Andrea Mitchell says, we know that Rudy and Newt over the weekend both praised her, but do you agree or disagree with David Brooks?
No Republican office holder or potential future office holder wants to offend Sarah Palin and her followers, so they are going to do this delicate dance every time the question is raised.
David Brooks doesn't have to do that dance because he only speaks to his readers.
But the fact is, David Brooks raises a fascinating question here.
Should we in the media treat Sarah Palin like a conventional politician who may run for office someday or a political personality, somebody on par with a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity?
That's what Brooks is getting at.
And that's going to be, I think, a question that we have to wrestle with here in the years ahead.
And that's a different test.
Oh, so now Brooks puts it out there.
And so now the media has to wrestle with this.
Ooh, maybe Brooks is right.
Maybe she's just a talk show host.
Maybe she's just a political personality.
Maybe she's not a serious candidate.
We're going to have to really figure this out.
We're going to have to really sit down and talk amongst ourselves and figure out just exactly how we are going to characterize Sarah Palin.
Yeah, Brooks has an interesting point there, Andrea.
We're going to have to sit around.
We're going to have to email each other.
We're going to have to talk.
And we in the media are going to have to decide how she is going to be presented.
Now, she is a retired governor, right?
She has one elective office, right?
She's not a talk show host, right?
Does she have a talk show that I haven't heard about?
She doesn't have, I mean, everybody else does these days.
She doesn't have a syndicated radio.
She's right, Snerdley.
Does she have a television talk show?
Does she have a local access cable show in Watsilla?
Does she have, I mean, does she does she does she have her video?
Does she have a video camera that she records herself sitting on her living room couch speaking?
And she goes to Facebook.
That's right.
Goes to Facebook, writes some stuff.
She's not a talk show host yet.
They're going to have to really struggle here with whether she is, because Brooks raises a fascinating question here.
Well, the female Rush Limbaugh, know what they're going to try to do.
They think it will be diminishing to her to put her in the talk show host category.
But my question is, I mean, I'm a talk show host, and am I not running the party?
I mean, they have said, these same guys have said I, a talk show host, am running the party and that everybody's afraid of me and that they don't want to offend me.
And that if I'm making all these decisions out there, so is it necessarily in their own world, using their own lexicon, is it necessarily bad for them to say that she is a talk show host?
How do you know she's not a talk show host?
How?
Yeah, well, certainly that's not a good test.
Nobody has a plane but me.
I mean, they don't have, you can't, you can't use that as a test.
You can't use that as a test.
I mean, they might charter, but they don't have their own.
So you can't, just because she didn't have her own plane, you can't say that she's not a talk show host.
I mean, where were you getting that from anyway?
All right.
Well, I know they are jealous of that.
I see Rush fully reclined there on his Gulf Stream with his Cuban cigar, reading Talin's book.
Okay.
You know, I've always told you to keep an eye on Venezuela because I can see us heading in that direction.
And I don't need to recount the various stories last week, the energy stories, rationing of shower time, rationing of electricity, even though they are an energy colossus because the state's running it and they don't know how, blah, blah, blah.
Latest is that Chavez is going to get on a couple airplanes and go up there and seed the clouds.
They're going to make it rain because there's a drought there and that's one of the reasons they're having hydroelectric power problems.
So Chavez is going to work with Cuban experts.
They're going to experts from Cuba and he himself is going to go up there in the airplane and he's going to make it rain.
But I want to ignore Venezuela.
That's just the latest.
I think we also need to keep an eye on the UK.
I have two stories here.
First from the Telegraph.
Everyone in Britain could be given a personal carbon allowance.
Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number, which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets, and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement will be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they're using.
If their carbon account hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
Not stop polluting.
They would have to pay to get more credits.
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.
So this is a personal carbon trading plan, cap and trade, that is nothing more than a tax increase.
And the tax increase is designed to hit people in their hearts, to make them think they're destroying the country, and now they will save the country if they go along with this program.
No, it's true.
It's true.
Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a green new deal to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference today.
An environmental agency spokesman said that only those with extravagant lifestyles would be affected by the carbon allowances.
He said a lot of people who cycle will get money back, it'll probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.
Bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.
However, some have criticized the move as Orwellian and say it would have a detrimental impact on business.
Well, no kidding.
It will have a detrimental impact on businesses.
Something else that's going to happen.
If people go along with this, if they ever implement this in 20 years and they go along with us and they don't use up all their carbon, they are going to face an underusage tax.
They're going to be penalized because they won't be contributing a fuel tax.
If they're not buying their allotment of fuel, they will be taxed because they're not paying sufficient energy taxes.
Now, the next story from the UK.
Health and this is the UK Sunday Times.
Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents.
New guidance drawn up at the request of the Department of Health urges councils and other public sector bodies to collect data on properties where children are thought to be at greatest risk of unintentional injury.
Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stairgates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards, and window and door locks.
The draft guidance by a committee at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been criticized as intrusive and further evidence of the creepy nanny state.
Until now, councils have made only a limited number of home inspections to check on building work and so forth.
But the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, NICE, also recommends the creation of a new government database to allow GPs, midwives, and other officials who visit homes to log health and safety concerns they spot.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not making this up either.
The proposals have been put out to consultation and, if approved, will be implemented next year.
Matthew Elliott, the Taxpayers Alliance, said it's a huge intervention into family life which will be counterproductive.
Good parents will feel the intrusion of the state in their homes and bad parents will now have somebody else to blame if they don't bring up their children in a sensible safe environment.
About 100,000 children are admitted to hospital every year for home injuries at a cost of 146 million pounds.
So you see what this is really all about.
Well, it's about they're using the rubric of saving money and saving injuries and lives as they grab even more power to intrusively, putting it minorly, intrude into people's homes.
Now, that's the UK.
Two stories.
Now here's the story out of Cleveland by Kevin O'Brien and the Cleveland plane dealer.
There was a time when you and I could be trusted to change a light bulb.
In those days, powerful people who made weighty decisions understood that if a light bulb burned out, even the dimmest of us would know how to remove it from its socket and choose a suitable replacement, install it.
We made jokes about it because it's so simple.
Apparently, all of the weighty decisions have been made because powerful people have now worked their way down to telling us what kind of light bulb we will use and even bringing some to us, apparently fearing that even the brightest of us common people might botch the job.
How is it that an act whose very simplicity spawned a genre of humor based mostly on ethnic, sexist, and sectarian slurs has suddenly become a complicated, labor-intensive, expensive public endeavor?
In just a few days, people dressed in green t-shirts and green caps will begin the rather enormous task of delivering two 23-watt warm white compact fluorescent light bulbs to every residence that First Energy, which is the power company, serves.
They won't ask whether you want them.
Stick with me here.
This is Cleveland.
They'll just leave them on your doorstep in a bag that will contain a brochure called More Than 100 Ways to Improve Your Electric Bill.
Now, don't folks stick with me on this because we haven't even gotten to what's really outrageous about this.
They're not going to ask for payment.
As you might expect with an electric utility, that's already been taken care of.
These whiz-bang new light bulbs, which cost First Energy $3.50 each and which you could buy yourself at any number of stores for even less if you were still trusted to do that sort of thing, will cost you $21.60 for the pair.
$350 each is what the power company has to pay for them.
They're going to charge their customers $2,160 for the pair of 23-watt bulbs.
You will pay for it over the next three years at 60 cents a month added to your electric bill.
Hang on.
The bulbs you would buy at the store might come from China like First Energies do, but they wouldn't come with delivery vans or brochures or paid bulb valets clad in green shirts.
Providing energy-efficient light bulbs is just one way we can help our customers save money while also helping the environment, says First Energy's website.
Except that First Energy isn't really providing them.
You are.
First Energy is just inflating your cost tremendously by having them brought to you.
And by the way, the $21.60 that you'll pay for those bulbs in Cleveland also includes a little assessment to cover the cost of the electricity First Energy won't be selling you because you're using the bulbs.
Think of it as paying money to save money so that First Energy won't lose money.
So can I set this up for you?
The utility in Cleveland is going to deliver two 23-watt compact fluorescents to every customer.
You're going to be charged $21.60 for the two of them when the utility is buying them for $350.
You will pay for them over the course of three years at 60 cents a month added to your bill.
But because they ostensibly save power and you won't be using as much, you are going to be assessed an additional charge to make sure that First Energy does not lose money by having you install the new bulbs.
The purpose of which everybody believes is to reduce power consumption to save the energy or to save the climate because we're not going to be emitting as much carbon.
You follow that, folks.
No, it's not insanity.
It's liberalism.
Pure and simple.
It's liberalism.
This is after they rope everybody in on all of this save the planet stuff, save the planet stuff.
We've got to reduce our carbon emissions.
They're going to charge you for saving the planet.
They're going to charge you for not using the electricity they tell you you should not use.
They're going to bring the light bulbs to you.
The General Assembly passed a law last year requiring Ohio's utilities to reduce their customers' energy use by 22% and to shift 12.5% of their power to renewable sources, solar and wind, by 2025.
So this utility is just following the law as passed by the Ohio legislature.
But liberalism is behind this.
Rasmussen had a poll number out there.
64% of Republicans said they would consider voting for Sarah Palin.
She reflects their values.
Gallup just said that 70% would consider voting for Mike Huckabee.
Now, Huckabee has a talk show.
Huckabee has a Saturday Night Talk Show on a Fox News channel.
Sarah Palin does not have a talk show.
So a shout out here to Jonathan Martin at the Politico.
Are you and your guys going to get together to wrestle with the fact that you might also have to call Huckabee a talk show host?
Because he actually is.
He actually has one.
Now, apparently Oprah asks Sarah Palin her show today about a talk show and she wants to have one or host one and she doesn't answer it.
So apparently that's where all this talk show stuff with Palin got started.
Here's Bill in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
How you doing there, Rush?
Megadeth.
Thank you.
Hey, I want to go into this business of the terrorist trial in New York.
Listening to Eric Holder and his desire to make this trial quote-unquote legal, I just wonder if he took in consideration that these defendants' lawyers will also insist that there's going to be a certain percentage of Muslims on the jury or there could be a violation of their civil rights and leading to a mistrial because he virtually guaranteed that there would be a guilty verdict.
Yeah, they've done a lot to sabotage themselves here.
But I've heard, I'm going to have to confirm this, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already said he wants to represent himself.
He doesn't want to have a lawyer, which means that he himself personally will have access to all of the intelligence data, all the stuff necessary.
Remember, the president's already admitted the guy was tortured.
So all the sheikh has to say is, hey, yeah, I said I wanted to be martyred and I said this and that.
But I tell you, that confession was coerced.
They waterboarded me and no less than your president admitted it and said that it shouldn't have happened and called it torture.
And so your president admitted that your country tortured me and I've got the documents to show who the people are.
And these are the people that tortured me.
And he's going to list the names.
Well, you know, I look at this.
Was this the same Eric Holder that at the end of the Clinton administration admitted that he screwed up in one of the pardons?
I don't know if he admitted he screwed up, but he did pardon 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, FALN terrorists.
They didn't want it.
The thing about that is he forced the pardon on them.
They suspected a trick.
And the reason Holder pardoned these guys was to help Mrs. Clinton get the Puerto Rican vote in her Senate run.
Holder was also in on the Mark Rich pardon as well.
But your question as to the jury, whether there would have to be Muslims on the jury, they're being given constitutional rights, even though they're not citizens.
So here comes this jury of their peers business.
And jury, a jury of their peers.
Well, we went through a list of people, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Senator Durbin.
Let's see.
Any number of people.
We had a great graphic at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's still up there, in fact, from Friday's show to show who the Muslims?
Yeah.
But you may not need them as long as your jury pools from the village and the upper west side.
And we're back, Al Rushmore, serving humanity just by showing up, folks, just by exhaling with vocal vibrations.
How can the people in Cleveland at First Energy get a...
Certainly, it's not a question of them getting away with it.
It's that they're obligated to do it by the legislature.
Or the, what is it called in Ohio?
The General Assembly.
Let's see.
The General Assembly passed a law last year requiring Ohio's utilities to reduce their customers' energy use by 22% and to shift 12.5% of their power production to renewable energy sources, solar, wind, by 2025.
The great light bulb boondoggle is the leading edge of an energy reduction effort to comply with commands the government of Ohio has issued to the tides of technology.
Those commands to foist immature and inefficient generation methods on consumers and push aside less expensive, more efficient power sources like coal will be enforceable only at great expense to the public.
People are upset about First Energy's light bulbs, as folks with sore ears at the Puco will attest.
But let's keep this in perspective.
$21.60 is nothing compared to the expenses we'll pay if the green shirts drop a bag full of cap and trade taxes on our front porches.
Call your senators and your congressional representatives.
Tell them you've had enough of command economy and virothuggery and invite them to put cap and trade in a place where a solar array would be both impractical and painful.
Now, again, the author of this story, let me get to the front page of it, is Kevin O'Brien at Cleveland.com.
Cleveland.com.
So now, I don't know if the legislature, the General Assembly in Ohio mandated the price structure.
Could be that the power company did that.
I mean, folks, two light bulbs, $3.50, is what it costs the power company in Cleveland to buy them.
And they're going to sell them to you for $21.60, although you have no choice.
You're going to pay for them, whether you put them in or not.
And you're going to get billed 60 cents a month for three years.
But since you're going to be using less electricity because of those two light bulbs, they're going to assess you a fee so that you'll be paying what you would have been paying had you not put the light bulbs in.
If health, well, but snurdy healthcare costs aren't going to go down.
He's asking if healthcare costs go down, like the government promises when they run it, they're going to raise fees to keep the price up.
The healthcare costs are not going to go down, just like utility costs are not going to go.
Nothing is going to go down.
For Krang Island, no price is going to go down.
Not forever and not.
You have dips and prices and so forth with sales and a number of other factors.
But as a general rule, prices of everything go up and they will continue to go up.
So I actually think that there's a when is the ban on incandescent light bulbs go into play?
It's not that far down the road, a couple years, right?
A couple of three years.
I actually think, and I don't think anybody knows about this.
I mean, this is not the same as requiring you to go to digital on your TV.
This is not the same as that.
Is bringing a light bulb into your house that requires a hazmat team to throw away because there's mercury in it.
And when people find this out, this could be one of many tipping points that wake up all these precious moderates and independents out there that say, What do I have to do?
You're telling me I got to put these little spaghetti light bulbs here, and you're going to charge me more for it, even though I'm supposed to save the planet by using less electricity.
Oh, I read a story the other day that somebody had a fire in their house that broke out.
They tried to hook one of these things up to a dimmer, and somehow there was an impedance mismatch or something like that, and the dimmer caused sparks, and the house caught fire.
I know fluorescent, oh, well, but some fluorescents don't work on dimmers, so somebody tried to hook one up to a dimmer and they changed the wouldn't be an impedance mismatch.
You need incandescence to work on dimmers.
Well, I don't know what you're supposed to do with the dimmers in your house.
You better get rid of them or make sure that little kids can't get in there and start playing with them.
Okay, all right, all right, all right, all right.
Now I'm going to go kind of question.
Well, what about those romantic nights when all you want to do is just have the lights?
That's not the way you're going to be doing it.
You're going to turn fewer lights on.
But whatever lights are on are going to be bright.
Snerdley is asking me if I know how, do I know how crazy it all sounds?
Who do you think has been warning everybody that this crap is headed down the pike?
Of course I know how crazy it sounds.
It doesn't sound crazy.
It is.
All right, back to the phones.
Linda in Tucson, you're next in the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, dear Rush.
Hi.
Mr. Snerdley said, I have to get right to the point.
May I take one moment to thank you for your influence in my life?
Thank you.
I have been listening to you since 1980s.
And I was a college graduate and with a skull full of mush and a lot of liberal principles in my mind from a Northern California college.
And I stumbled onto your radio show and have been listening ever since and feel like you have had a huge impact on my life.
And I just want to thank you for being a profound friend.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that, Linda.
I really do.
You're amazing.
Well, several calls ago, there was a woman who called in and said she feels like that we're fighting a war.
And I want to put a picture into one of your wonderful artists' minds because maybe they can bring this to life.
I have felt since January that every day President Obama pulls out a waterboard, straps me onto it, lays my head back, and pours some wave of something over my head to make me feel like I am drowning in hopelessness.
And then I listen to you because he'll bring on some crazy policy that is going to have disastrous effects.
And I shake my head and I say, what can I do?
And I write letters and call people and do what I can do.
But if he would stop waterboarding me every day, now I'm thinking that he said that he was going to outlaw waterboarding.
And I think he is on the terrace, but instead he's strapping individual citizens in this United States to that waterboard every day and pouring water over our heads to make us feel like we're going to drown.
I actually like the analogy.
We're being tortured.
We're being tortured with the fear of hopelessness to control our lives.
That's exactly it.
the daily waterboarding.
So I would love one of your fabulous artists to design this and show President Obama pouring water over a citizen every day and tell what the policy is about.
You know, we have a great graphics artist at rushlimbaugh.com.
That would be fabulous.
She did a great graphic last week of the jury of their peers of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Ramzi bin al-Shib and the other terrorists who are going to be brought here for trial in Manhattan.
So I'm sure she's listening to this because she loves it, loves the show.
She listens to it every day.
And I'm sure she'll come up with a great graphic for this.
I would love it.
And maybe we can get it through to his mind that waterboarding is probably just fine as a tactic to get information out of people that are our enemies.
But this waterboarding of our regular American citizens every day has got us.
Yeah, they're not trying to get information from us.
They're just trying to make us feel hopeless.
You're right.
It's like, throw up our heads.
Ah, hell with it.
Can't deal with it.
And that's what they realize.
I mean, they're not.
The reason why they're not afraid of us is because they think we're powerless to stop them.
And nothing we can do.
So they don't care if we get it or not.
They don't care if they're insulting us.
They just know that we can't stop them.
Or they think that.
They think that we can.
Got to go.
Back right after this.
You know, back to this, the terrorist trial in Manhattan, whenever this thing happens.
Jennifer Rubin, posting yesterday at commentarymagazine.com, their blog, says, what are they thinking?
Bringing these terrorists to New York for trial.
There's one other element here, in addition to everything that I have mentioned about this.
Don't forget one of the key elements, and I mentioned this in the first day.
Holder and Obama do not have the guts to charge Bush and Cheney officials with war crimes.
They know that's a non-starter.
But you have a trial as opposed to a military tribunal.
You have a trial where all of these techniques, the president has admitted torture, the president has said it was torture, and that their commission so the lawyer or the sheikh can say, hey, confession was coerced, blah, blah, blah, gets all the access to all the interrogation data, gets the names.
And if some world court somewhere full of radical leftists wants to indict Bush and Cheney administration officials on war crimes, they could do it.
And I trust you, trust me, Obama and Holder would love that.
There's no sensible judicial or justice-related reason to have these people tried in a civilian court.
None whatsoever.
Zip0 Nada.
From the New York Times, from today, the headline, drug firms raise prices ahead of reform.
Now, I'm going to just, for the sake of a teachable moment here, I'm going to assume that the story is true.
It's the Times.
They hate big business.
So it may be all fabricated.
They hate big pharma over there.
But let's, for the teachable moment aspect of this, let's assume it's true.
Even as drug makers promise to support Washington's health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation's drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.
Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases.
Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending in coming years.
A Harvard health economist said he found a similar pattern of unusual price increases after Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago, giving tens of millions of older Americans federally subsidized drug insurance.
Just as the program was taking effect in 2006, the drug industry raised prices by the widest margin in half dozen years.
Now, speaking of that, there's a story somewhere in a stack here that that's Medicare Part D, I think.
That's the Bush entitlement.
It came in under budget.
It has worked.
It's come in under budget.
But the point here is the drug industry, the New York Times says that they know that constraints are coming.
They know that pressures are coming.
And so all of this talk, folks, about how to save you money, people just do not roll over and allow themselves to get spanked when government takes aim at them.
People find a way around it.
And the drug companies here are not going to find themselves pushed out of business or made, they're not going to tolerate themselves being made into a nonprofit, which is what Obama would actually love to do.
Everything ought to be nonprofit with the government running the show so it doesn't have to make a profit.
So Congress is out to kill an entire industry here.
Anytime they get their hands on it, death of the industry is GM, do you see?
A $1.2 billion loss, and it's called progress.
I thought Obama fixed General Motors.
$1.2 billion loss.
And it's progress.
The Obama Motor Car Company.
I keep getting, I must have had five of them this morning when I was checking emails from people whose I don't want to say life because that's going a bit far, but I mean, a lot of their hard work was saved by Carbonite because they've backed up their hard drives.
You know, when you back up your hard drive with Carbonite, it's off-site, but it's online.
It happens every time you're backing up.
Every time you're connected to the internet, you're backing up.
It's going to get to the point you're going to forget you have it because you never see it happen.
It doesn't get in the way of any other operation of your computer.
It's just backing up.
And it only backs up the things that have changed from the last time you were connected after it does the initial backup everything first.
The real beauty of carbonite is when your hard drive goes kaput on you and it will.
Then it's a simple matter to restore what you've lost, even if it's everything.
And this is happening to people left and right.
And I get so many thank you emails, I can't keep track of them.
Carbonite costs $55 a year.
That's less than $5 a month.
It's the most inexpensive insurance you will ever buy.
All you have to do is go to carbonite.com, use the offer code Rush.
They'll give you a free 15-day trial, and it's a genuine 15-day free trial.
You don't have to give a credit card with a promise to buy later.
You just get the 15 days free and two free months if you decide to buy.
Carbonite.com, offer code Rush.
Tom and Houston, welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you here with us.
Tea Party Dittos, Rush.
Thank you.
Rush, you're right to disagree with that lady last hour who was fearful of Sarah Palin being the Republican candidate in 2012.
I think that the media fears that there's many more women who would vote for a woman candidate than there were the 98% of blacks who voted for a Marxist back in November.
What is this?
I've got to find a story here before you go.
I think you have a point there.
I got to find this.
I got to find because it's a stunning number.
Not even I knew it because I got so caught up in this concept of the gender gap.
And I've always responded to the gender gap by saying a dirty little secret is that people that win elections win it with white males.
But it's a story that the vast, how many elections in the past have been, ah, let's see.
Let's see.
Yeah, maybe it's in this.
I think it is in the last four or five elections.
Here it is.
Democrats have not won a majority of white women since 1964.
Democrats have not won a majority of white women since 1964.
They go Republican.
So the guy here from Houston may have a point.
Well, the Christmas season is drawing near, ladies and gentlemen, and it's time to put yet another damper on everybody's good cheer.
A new survey out there says that only 38% of Americans say they'll give a holiday charitable donation compared with almost 50% who did so last year.
It's the Obama economy that has everybody in a sour mood.
Not just a sour mood, it's the Obama economy that has everybody broke.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection