All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 15, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
January 15, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey views expressed by the host on this program, now documented to be almost always right 99.5% of the time.
It's Friday, and it's good to have you here.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday.
I'm trying to squeeze in some more phone calls today in this hour.
But a lot of important stuff here to do.
800-282-2882.
You want to be on the program?
The email address, Ellaushro at EIBNet.call.com.
I have a poll here from an outfit I have never heard of.
It is a poll done by Pajamas Media and Cross-Target.
Now, Cross-Target is a strategic research firm based in Alexandria, Virginia, and they use state-of-the-art technology to provide innovative research strategies for their clients' varying needs.
Cross-Target has provided their services to candidates for orifice, state, and local party committees, issue advocacy organizations, trade associations, think tanks, as well as corporations.
Now, their poll is a poll of likely voters who talk to a machine, not a human being.
And a lot of people, when they call a pollster or they receive a call from the pollster, their answers sometimes are influenced by what they think the pollster is going to think of them.
And that's not happening in here in this case, especially if it's a union poll.
But here we have a machine basically calls you up and takes your answers.
And in this poll, Scott Brown is up 15%.
Byron York is reporting that the bottom has fallen out of Coakley's polls as the Democrats are preparing to explain her defeat and to protect Obama.
Obama's going up there on Sunday.
Now, Monday is a holiday.
It's Martin Luther King Day.
Now, New England Patriots are out of the playoffs.
But all afternoon, Sunday is the second greatest weekend in NFL history.
There's three great weekends in NFL in any season.
Opening weekend, the divisional playoff round, and the Super Bowl.
We have the two championships, four weekends, I guess, the championship games, too, which will be a week from Sunday.
I'm going back and forth here trying to analyze the decision here to send him in there because the smart part of my brain says that they wouldn't expose him like they did.
I mean, they should have learned their lesson going into Copenhagen for the Olympics into Chicago and have that turnout humiliating.
I mean, the Olympic committee voted us out first.
And they were a little bit offended that Obama strutted in ego-wise and thought just his presence could change things around.
Mayo Daly got all ticked off about that.
Obama got ticked off about it because Mayor Daly wanted him to go.
He didn't help Creed Aides.
He didn't help John Corzon.
So there's no track record of him helping.
Same thing with Bill Clinton.
But Massachusetts is a liberal state, very liberal.
And the area where Coakley's hurting is turnout, particularly urban turnout or black turnout.
So I think they're sending Obama in there trying to gin up a minority turnout.
And I can't believe that they would send him in there if they didn't have polling data that shows his appearance could push her over the top.
Then the other part of my brain says he can't stay out.
It's so high-profile a race.
It's so important that he can't stay out.
No matter what happens, he's got to go in there.
And going in on Sunday as opposed to Monday, which of those two days does he get noticed the least?
I don't know.
I'm asking.
Monday, Martin Luther King Day, fewer people working, maybe fewer people paying attention to the news.
Sunday, people watching football, not paying attention to the news, not much news made on Sunday.
I don't know.
I'm surprised he's going if these polls showing the bottom falling out of Coakley are true.
The bottom line is we don't know what's going to happen there until the votes are counted.
Now, one other thing, and I mentioned this earlier this week.
For those of you up in Massachusetts and all of you paying attention, be very, very aware of something.
The Boston Globe makes the New York Times look like romper room when it comes to agenda reporting.
Don't be surprised if the Boston Globe comes in with a very late hit against Brown sometime over the weekend, akin to the George Bush DUI story a couple days before the election in 2000.
We know that Scott Brown, sometime ago, 1980, someone posed nude for Cosmo.
That's out there.
But just don't be surprised if they come with a late hit piece over the weekend so the smear can spread throughout state-controlled media, but Brown will not have time to respond to it.
Just be prepared.
And that could be another reason why they're going to send Obama up there.
Harry Reid, majority leader, yesterday said there is room on the busy Senate calendar to bring up a sweeping energy and climate change bill this spring.
This is from thehill.com.
Apparently, no off on Mr. Reed's stupid switch.
Those are my words, not the Hills.
Or maybe this is just part and parcel of his contempt for America's stinking citizenry.
His comments in a speech before a geothermal energy group in New York come amid speculation that tackling controversial plans to impose limits on greenhouse gases may fall by the wayside.
My friends, my memory is telling me here, doesn't drilling for and exploiting of geothermal energy trigger earthquakes?
There's a major geothermal project in the U.S. in Northern California.
Yes, Northern California been shut down, squandering who knows how many millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars because of earthquake problems it was causing.
I wonder if anybody brought that up to Mr. Reed when he talked about it in his speech.
He said, yeah, we have lots on our plate.
We have to finish reforming health insurance at Wall Street.
We also must help bring Americans out of unemployment, but we're not so busy that we can't find the time to address comprehensive energy and climate legislation.
Well, that's just going to put more people out of work.
The assault on the American private sector is relentless.
It continues.
Interesting story from the Associated Press: how Wall Street boldly saved big executive bonuses.
There's always a workaround to these things.
And does Obama really believe this new tax will do anything other than raise fees to customers?
The banks are just going to pay out.
Your ATM fee lookout is going to go up.
If you bank at one of these 50 big banks that have paid back their TARP money with interest and are now going to get taxed.
By the way, did you hear how mad he was when he spoke about these guys, these banks?
This guy, out of control, angry.
The things that make him angry and the things that don't make him angry are quite telling.
Boy, he's got it in for these bankers.
And he's got it in for the insurance companies, too.
He really does.
The way the Republicans ought to frame this tax on the banks is Barack Obama just raised your bank fees yesterday.
Your checking account charges, your fees, your ATM fees, these banks are going to pass it on.
They do.
Mark my words.
Here's the AP story.
The Fat Cats were supposed to get their comeuppance.
After Wall Street's most prominent firms helped cause the 2008 financial meltdown and got bailed out by the government, they were supposed to stop handing out million-dollar bonuses to their employees.
No one was supposed to get seven and eight-figure rewards.
Not after the Great Recession left one in 10 Americans unemployed.
Not after President Barack Obama, who on Thursday called such pay obscene, had promised to clamp down on lavish bonuses.
But it turns out little actually changed.
Americans will cease that starting today when J.P. Morgan Chase and Company releases its 2009 financial results.
They have, and it's a huge profit for J.P. Morgan Chase.
I think $3.3 billion?
$3.3 billion.
It's not chump change.
The other big banks will follow.
The messages will be the same.
Compensation is at near record levels.
The form of pay is changing.
Instead of cash, bonuses will be paid mostly in stock that cannot be redeemed for years.
But the numbers are still staggering.
Today, the sixth biggest U.S. banks are on pace to pay $150 billion in total compensation for this year, 2009, rather, slightly less than the record $164 billion in 2007 before the financial crisis struck.
How this happened is complicated, like most things involving Wall Street and Washington.
It involves a remarkable financial turnaround to the banks, but one that was fueled by the federal bailout.
It shows the power of the financial lobby, and it highlights the age-old debate about how much U.S. companies need to pay to retain talented bankers and traders.
Scott Talbot of the Financial Services Roundtable says keeping those workers from going to overseas firms is critical.
And he said an undeniable truth.
The market will find a way to pay these people what they're worth.
Talbot's chief lobbyist for the industry group representing some of the largest financial firms.
This is not a giant talent pool.
There's only a few people who can catch a touchdown in the Super Bowl.
And that's how he's comparing these people.
And it's probably true to a certain extent.
The best performers and executives stand to earn millions of dollars.
What we've allowed is for the banks to be nursed back to help with various forms of assistance provided by the government, but they haven't been required to change their ways, said Representative Brad Miller, Democrat from North Carolina.
Yet, little Barney Frank and Chris Dodd get ahold of them with their Financial Services Committee, Banking Committee reform of financial regulations and so forth.
But at any rate, intelligent people will find a way to get paid what they are worth.
That's one of the big problems in capitalism is everybody sees the different salaries and compensation people get.
They don't know why.
It's the age-old argument, teachers, how come teachers get paid so little compared to athletes?
Because people think that teachers are far more valuable than athletes are.
And you may be able to make that case.
Although, well, I'm not going to go there.
But in purely economic terms, supply and demand, achievement, talent, there's no comparison.
The amount of revenue generated for the business.
How much money do teachers generate for the school business?
How much money do they generate?
No, no, no.
Serious question.
I'm not being derogatory at all.
But how many fans does Ben Rothlessberger pull in for the Pittsburgh Steelers?
How many fans did George Brett pull in for the Kansas City Royals versus how many fans are going to see the Royals now when there is no George Brett?
I mean, it's simple.
And they get whatever they can get as a percentage of what they are creating, even though they don't own it.
But how many people are paying to watch teachers do what they do?
And how do you associate the money that goes to school systems with teachers and what they're doing?
I know that sounds callous to many people and heartless and insensitive, but it's not.
It's economics.
Speaking of economics, Fortune magazine, more and more states are on the budget brink.
California hurtling into the budgetary abyss, and it's not alone across the nation.
State tax collections in the first three quarters of 2009 posted their steepest decline in at least 46 years, according to a report this month from the Public Policy Research Arm of the State University of New York.
Now, they've talked about this this week.
As they go into deficit and as the money they got from the stimulus gets spent, they're going to have to start laying off workers at the state level, the city level, and it isn't going to be pretty.
Here are the states that are in debt and how much?
California, 14.4 billion.
I actually think that they're up to 19 billion now in debt.
Illinois, 12.8 billion.
New Jersey, 8 billion.
New York, 6.8 billion.
Florida, 4.7 billion.
Let's see.
Who runs these states at the top of this chart?
California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York.
Well, you'd have to say Democrats do.
You got Republican governor in California, but hard to know he's a Republican by virtue of his practices.
You got a Republican governor in Florida and a Republican legislature, but in California, the Assembly and the Senate, full Democrat, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, all Democrat.
Who runs these states that have the biggest deficits?
And there are ways out of this, but everyone seems to just be waiting for it all to collapse, like they've given up.
There are ways out of this, and new taxes are not the answer.
Here comes conservatism again in its ascendancy.
Cut taxes, spur job growth, revenue will soar.
Cut taxes, incentivize investment.
Don't punish achievement.
Reward it.
Would you punish your kid for getting a good grade?
Saying it's not fair you got an A and our neighbor's kid got a C, so you're both going to get B's.
Would you do that?
Would you punish your own kid?
Why do we sit by and let successful people get punished?
Because they've succeeded.
Reward it.
Incentivize it.
Then get out of the way for all the jobs created and all the revenue flowing into federal, state, and city coffers because tax revenue will be up.
Might be a good time to start working the waste and fraud in Medicare that Obama is always promising to do in order to pay for yet another entitlement.
They all seem to be just sitting and waiting for something.
Nobody's trying the obvious solutions.
It's kind of weird to watch this.
It's twilight zone-ish.
It's like they're thinking Obama's going to come and save them with another deficit or another bailout, rather, stimulus, slushman.
What have you?
I got to take a break.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Stop me up.
Stop me.
Okay, people are sending in their ideas as to why Obama's going up there.
Idea number one, his excuse for Cokely losing will mirror his stimulus package rationale.
It would have been much worse had Obama not gone in to help her.
And another suggestion, possibility.
It may be a message to those in the Democrat Party that Obama will stay in the bunker with them.
Maybe going up to campaign in a losing campaign to demonstrate he's not abandoning Democrats, blue dogs or otherwise.
Both of those are very credible possibilities.
And we also make the mistake of assuming is people are smart.
No smart people would have sent him into Copenhagen or wherever it was that the Olympic competition was going on unless presidents just don't do this.
You don't burn capital this way.
You don't have a summit with somebody before knocking down, nailing down an agreement before you even get together.
The summit is symbolic.
Sad news out of Haiti.
Port-au-Prince, this is Fox News.
Hundreds of U.S. troops touched down and shattered Port-au-Prince overnight.
As U.N. and other aid organizations struggled today to get food and water to stricken millions, fears spread of unrest among the Haitian people in their fourth day of desperation.
Desperation in Haiti as aid is snarled and looters are roaming.
But wait, but wait, but wait.
The AP has a story today saying that Obama's brilliantly got aid in there much faster than Bush did after Katrina.
The facts on the ground.
Don't back it up.
To the phones.
Gonna go to Burning Illinois.
Joe, it's nice to have you, sir, on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Listen, I just wanted to remind people, you know, back in the summer of 2008, oil was hitting $150 a barrel, and then Bush lifted the executive ban on oil drilling, and there were contracts issued, and suddenly the price dropped from $150 a barrel all the way down to $30 a barrel when Obama was sworn into office.
Bush basically stuck it to the oil speculators.
He broke the back by opening up oil drilling.
Then Obama gets in office, he breaks the contracts, he reinstates the ban, and the price goes back from $30 a barrel up to $84 a barrel last night.
that's like a 300% increase in the cost of oil.
And if your job is dependent upon energy...
Now, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
It didn't jump from $30 to $84 last night.
No, it was $30 when Obama was sworn in.
Yeah, okay.
And then it's a $100.
No, no, no, no, wait, wait.
It never got down to $30, did it?
No, $32, $33.
$33, okay.
I'm ballparking it, but it was right there.
It plummeted down to about $30.
Obama reinstates the ban.
The supply of oil dries up, and suddenly the speculators are having happy days once again.
Well, now we've got expensive gas, expensive oil, and if your job depends on cheap oil, guess what?
You're in trouble.
This is precisely what the law of supply and demand is all about.
And people just aren't paying attention to it.
Well, but it's interesting.
I had the story yesterday that oil inventories and gasoline inventories are way up, which is why yesterday and the day before the price of oil was below $80.
And people were trying to figure out how is it?
The media, well, why are these inventories up?
Well, in the case of gasoline and oil, of course, you got more unemployed people who are not driving to work and not driving as much.
Yep.
That's why there's a surplus right now.
The inventories are up.
So the price going up, I haven't seen the price go up to $84 a day, but I will trust that you're right.
It was $84 yesterday or the day before.
So it's right in that neighborhood.
I can't, don't hold me to being accurate, $1 or $2.
But yeah, that's what happened.
It almost tripled in cost from the time that Obama got into office.
Imagine that.
And Obama was going to make things easier for everybody.
I'm glad you called, Joe.
Thanks for your patience and hanging on.
I'll check the barrel oil of price right here during the break.
You know, we had a call a minute ago that said we ought to send the 82nd airborne.
We don't need an open port.
We don't need an airport.
The 82nd airborne could parachute into Haiti, and they could have been down there on Wednesday.
Well, here's a story from Forbes.com.
What white Americans regard as a recession may feel more like a depression to certain minority groups in the U.S. According to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute, 9.7% of American adults were unemployed at the end of 2009, 10%.
That's what they're talking about here.
Anyway, minority unemployment, African Americans, 15.5%.
And among young people in the black community, 25% unemployment.
Hispanics, unemployment, 12.4%.
But 25% unemployment among young blacks, 15.5% overall.
That's where we need to send the 82nd Airborne.
I mean, how's that hope and change working for you?
You realize the Congressional Black Caucus is all upset about this.
Obama hasn't done enough for the hood.
Well, I get a note here from Snerdley.
Has MSNBC sent you a thank you card for keeping them in business?
Looking forward to another great year of us distorting.
No, they haven't sent me a card.
They should, though.
I am single-handedly responsible for the ratings that they've got.
And I never appear there.
We had a call also about oil.
The oil price is $78.
I just checked it.
The barrel price of oil right now is $78.
It's not $84.
I thought it was under $80.
It dropped to $80 a couple of days ago, then went below $80.
And that's when I had the story about the rising gasoline inventories and oil inventories overall.
It's because in this country, there's just less of it being used.
What?
Mm-hmm.
Well, I know.
When it's $70 at first, when it's on its way up to $150, the media was all over.
But we had a Republican in the White House then, Snerdley.
It could get up to $120 a barrel.
They still wouldn't talk much about it with Obama there.
It'd have to get up to $140, $150 again.
Now, speaking of oil, we have a great sponsor here, but it's a real challenge because you can't go to a store and buy their product.
But they have the best product in the world for what they do.
It's BG Products.
BG Oil Service cleans both the fuel and the oil system and offers a free lifetime protection plan.
If you have a choice between simply getting another oil change or a BG oil service, which both cleans the fuel and the oil system and offers a free lifetime protection plan, which would you take?
That's easy to answer.
It'd be the BG oil survive service.
I mean, we have three SUVs in the property, and I use BG Oil Service in every one of them because it adds value and life to the cars.
BG products started in Wichita, Kansas almost 40 years ago by six decorated World War II veterans.
And like all entrepreneurs, they had a dream, and their dream was to provide the very best fluid maintenance products available for automobiles.
And they told their customers that BG products will help their cars last a lifetime.
And BG Products backs up their products with a lifetime BG protection plan.
They really do.
Now, how do you get the stuff?
Because you can't go to a store and buy it.
No, you have to go to a repair shop or a dealership that uses it.
And how do you find one of those?
Well, you go to the website, BGOilService, at bgfindashop.com.
The website is bgfindashop.com, and then find the BG Oil Service tab there, and it'll tell you where the nearest place you can go to get a lifetime protection plan and guarantee on the engine of your car because you're using BG Oil Service.
Same thing with transmission fluid, too.
So it's findbgfindashop.com.
Here's Sherry in Port Byron, Illinois.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I just love your satirical way.
I have to thank you so much for what you do.
Well, thank you very much.
Yes.
My issue I want to discuss on Open Line Friday today is illegal immigration and the smoke and mirrors that the Obama administration has put up.
And I know George Bush didn't deal with illegal immigration, but if people think about it, just briefly, the primary catalyst for out-of-control health care costs are due to illegal immigration.
If he really wanted to fix health care, if the Democrats really wanted to reform health care, they would look at that bleeding artery of illegal immigration and stop it.
Also, national security.
While we're looking to the sky, who knows what could come across our borders.
The third point is I think the GOP needs to beat this drum relentlessly before the time comes that them try to shove amnesty down our throats.
I think we need to start making this point very clear and very out there that illegal immigration is a huge threat.
Wait, wait, wait a minute.
I don't understand.
Have we gone back to the summer of 2007 here?
The Republicans stopped it.
We stopped it.
We stopped it.
Right now, we got to stop health care.
Sherry, I'm sorry, but we got to stop it.
And the whole amnesty bit, they're going to come back and try for it again.
But Sherry, you got to understand something.
They're governing against the will of the people.
Only 35% support health care, and they're still trying to ram it down our throats.
They're going to do the same with cap and trade.
They're going to do the same with amnesty.
It's going to happen.
We're going to have to keep fighting and fighting and fighting.
We're going to have to retake the Republican Party.
These elections, well, next Tuesday is a big one, but in November, they're going to be huge.
That's the clearest way that we're going to be able to stop this because the Democrat Party is flipping us off.
They are flipping us the bird.
They know exactly how we feel about health care, and so does Obama.
I've never seen this book.
I've never seen a federal government so in the face of its constituents.
A Democrat Party is actually governing against the will of its own constituents in addition to people that don't vote for them.
It's breathtaking to behold.
I had a whole monologue on this earlier in the hour, but you have to trust that when this amnesty thing comes up again, and it will, that there's going to be just as much energy opposing it then as there was in the summer of 2008, 2008, whenever it was, all these years are running together.
I've got a couple sound bites here, number 28 and 29.
This is where Gibbs says Obama is going up to Massachusetts, but that he's not on the ballot.
He sounds a little defensive here about this.
Bill Plant said a lot of the polling suggests the problems Democrats have had in places like New Jersey and Virginia, Massachusetts is based on public dislike of what they perceive to be health care.
Is it getting any traction in places like Massachusetts?
I mean, you've got a candidate who is perceived to be a runaway walkaway winner who's now in danger of losing.
That's why I have elections.
We're not on the ballot.
There's a campaign that's going on in Massachusetts.
We're happy to lend our support.
You heard the president say yesterday, we're going to get health care done, and we'll be happy to have a campaign on whether you're for the status quo, whether you're for protecting insurance industry profits, whether you're for protecting bank company profits, or whether you're on the side of the American people.
We'll be happy to have that from polling that people aren't buying that.
I mean, do you think the president can go turn it around?
I think the president believes he can be helpful and is happy to accept the invitation.
Wait just a second here.
The first thing old Gibbs says here is, we're not on the ballot.
We're not on the ballot.
And then whether you're for protecting insurance industry profits, whether you're for protecting bank company profits or on the side of the American people, what?
The American people are opposed to profit?
What do you think employs them?
What the hell employs the American people?
Why did we bail out the banks, Gibbs, if we didn't want them making a profit?
What the hell was that all about?
We wanted to save the banks, right?
You told us, and everybody else told us, if banks failed, the financial system of the world would collapse and we're all going to be in poverty.
So we had to save the banks.
We had to save Wall Street.
That means keep them profitable.
So now profit is an overall big enemy.
And they try to make it sound like the American people oppose profit too.
How do these people think businesses stay in business?
We're not on the ballot.
We're not on the ballot.
Major Garrett of Fox News, Bob, meaning Gibbs, you told us when asked earlier this week the president was not going to Massachusetts.
What changed?
That's it.
That's all.
You don't think that her prospects, Martha Coakley's, are better now and there's more likely that the president can be productive in this trip and not suffer any negative consequences if she doesn't lose.
I think the president believes that it'll be a productive stop, whether it was announced on Tuesday or now.
We have an invitation from the Coakley campaign and we're going.
And you never had one until today.
Until today.
Really?
Is this it's not believable, Gibbs, that you only today got an invitation to go up there.
And Gibbs says, well, Major Garrett said the president can be productive in this trip and not suffer any negative consequences if she loses.
Has this all changed?
You don't think her prospects are better now?
Just invited today.
I'm sorry, folks.
Just not believable.
We mentioned earlier Obama is going to write a cover story on Haiti and the earthquake for Newsweek magazine.
He was axed by John Meekum, who was the editor.
Now, like a lot of publications, Newsweek was forced to start its week over when the earthquake hit Haiti.
They're owned by the Washington Post.
They lost $25 million in the first half of 2009, so they reinvented the magazine.
Not that anybody would notice.
Of course, Obama would never, never, never use the Haiti tragedy for political gain.
I mean, that would be unthinkable.
But he's doing the cover story.
The cover story?
Newsweek readers, Newsweek was writing a story, readying a story about the Google China problem when the earthquake hit.
Well, now I wonder why it didn't occur to Newsweek to ask Obama to weigh in on the Google China problem.
Why did they only ask him to weigh in on the Haiti earthquake?
Because clearly he wouldn't politicize this.
I mean, the only desperate people, stupid people, politicize everything.
People like me, Rush Limbaugh.
Obama, clean and pure as the white wind-driven snow, would never politize anything, right?
I think it will burnish his image.
Yes, of course, it'll burnish his image.
You think his picture will be on the cover?
You think the cover photo of Newsweek will be Obama, maybe with a montage of disaster pictures behind him?
Yeah.
What about the U.S. economy?
Never mind.
Yeah, they're going to put him on the cover.
It's a story about Haiti.
I'm sure it's going to be about all the wonderful things we've done or going to do.
By the way, voting Democrat causes cancer.
Voting Democrat causes cancer.
Latest research, details coming up.
Barney Frank has told reporters in Washington this afternoon, quote, if Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill.
The Massachusetts congressman said the Democrat candidate Martha Coakley should have campaigned harder for the seat.
Held for decades by Edward Kennedy.
Is he throwing her under the bus here?
I mean, should have campaigned harder?
He's sounding like it's over.
No, oh, sorry.
Nonetheless, Frank said he thinks Coakley will win Tuesday's contest.
But if Brown wins, healthcare is dead.
Voting Democrat causes cancer.
This is from Randall Hoven at theAmericanThinker.com.
Voting Democrat is associated with over 150,000 cancer deaths every year, according to the Hoven Institute for Studies, just as valid as studies cited by Democrats.
To help visualize the data used in the study, consider the two maps below.
In the map, first map, high cancer rates are indicated by red, and low cancer rates are indicated by blue.
In the second map, counties that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 are indicated by red, and those that voted for Al Gore are indicated by blue.
Now, I can't show you these, but we'll link to this piece at rushlimbaugh.com.
Now, the source for the cancer mortality rate is the National Cancer Institute, and the counties that voted for Bush versus Gore is USA Today.
Now, the maps appear to be roughly the inverse of each other.
That is, locations that tended to voted for Al Gore tended to suffer higher cancer rates.
Now, to analyze this phenomenon more rigorously, the Hoven study looked at the cancer mortality rate and the percentage of 2,000 presidential votes going to Al Gore for each of the 50 states.
And the result is shown in a figure below.
The figure also includes a linear regression trend line, and the slope of that line is 1.24 cancer deaths per 100,000 person years for every percentage of vote going to Gore.
That's a lot of cancer.
I mean, this is, the Hoven study concluded that voting Democrat is associated with cancer mortality.
The conclusion is similar to that of the study Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults, cited by Democrats in support of their version of health care reform.
The latter study concluded that uninsurance is associated with mortality.
So Democrat votes are associated with cancer.
Yeah, there was that survey.
Anyway, people watching on the ditto cam, I'm holding just to show you.
I keep telling you about Zycam.
This is a red box, but this is the cold and flu daytime form.
This is not the cold prevention.
The Zycam cold prevention liqualizes and so forth.
It's a box about this size, but it is an orange, and it works.
They come in lozenge form now, liquilize.
So all you do is take it the first sign of a cold, and it'll reduce the duration, and your symptoms will not be as severe.
This has been proven to work in countless millions of people.
I hear from them all the time.
But the trick is catching the cold early.
It has to be on the first day, preferably the first hour that you notice it.
We'll be back and wrap it up after this.
I'm not sure here, folks, but it sounds like that Martha Coakley asked for White House support days ago because I got a story in the Boston Herald here from yesterday.
Coakley said yesterday, Wednesday, that she hasn't heard from the White House.
I welcome his support, but we got a lot of support here in Massachusetts.
I think he's got a lot on his plate.
Robert Gibbs said yesterday, Wednesday, the president had no plans to visit Massachusetts, even though he realizes there's a lot at stake.
So it's just not believable that he was only asked to go up there today.
And when Gibbs says, we're not on the ballot, that's almost throwing her under the bus.
But look out for the Boston Globe and a late hit piece on Sunday.
▲
Export Selection