Yes, America's anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in Mark Stein.
No supporting paperwork whatsoever but I am anxious I'm panting to come out of the shadows and take that first tentative step on Newt Gingrich's path to legality.
1-800-282-2882 Rush is traveling today, but he will return tomorrow to take you through the end of the week with full strength all-American excellence in broadcasting.
For today, he's outsourced it to Sinister Foreign Guest Host.
Don't forget, if you go to rushlimboor.com and you're a Rush 24-7 subscriber, it'll be like he's not gone away.
But he will be back here behind the microphone tomorrow to take you through the end of the week.
1-800-282-2882.
We were talking in the first hour about the differences between Newt and Mitt, Mitt and Newt, because that's what it's come down to now.
It doesn't look as if anyone else, I mean, whoever else is out there and wants to jump in and get in has got to do it double quick and get in before Iowa and New Hampshire, which are just a few weeks away now.
And basically all the ground staff have been signed up by the campaigns and all the endorsements have been had.
I mean, basically everyone in New Hampshire, for example, has endorsed Mitt.
All the governors and congressmen and senators and all your big shop political establishment types have endorsed Mitt.
And the union leader has endorsed Newt, and that's what it is now.
Newt's rocketing ahead in the poll.
He's nipping at Mitt's heels.
Mitt Romney's support in 2008 was very soft.
Again, it was exactly the same thing as this time around.
He had all the money and all the endorsements and his whole thing was to try and run out the clock in New Hampshire and just hold on to enough of a lead so he could actually win New Hampshire.
And it didn't work and it didn't work for him.
That's not actually a good strategy.
And he's found himself back with that one exactly this time around.
He's actually got to come out.
Mitt at some point actually, he's done very well in this debate just from not getting mixed up in all the kind of spats with Perry and Kane and Gingrich and Buckman and Santorum and all the rest of them.
But at some point that has to stop and he's going to have to demonstrate that there's some passion there, that there's a real urge to win.
And what I find very odd, by the way, about this campaign generally is that, as I mentioned earlier, you know, we are in epochal history-making times.
The United States is basically on a rendezvous with Oblivion.
It's got $15 trillion of debt.
It needs guys who are going to stand up there and tell the truth.
For a start, you've got to know something.
This is why Newt's done well and why Herman Kane.
And if you want to call up and defend Herman Kane and say he's, you know, no one's interested in Syria, so not knowing where Syria is just shows how in tune you are with public sentiment or whatever.
Go ahead and make your argument for Herman Kane.
I want a guy who doesn't have that deer in the headlamps look when you ask him a question on something that's slightly outside his comfort zone.
Thing about Newt, as big a pill as he is, is that he has a huge comfort zone.
There's nothing that you can toss at him that he won't give the impression of knowing everything about, regardless of whether he does know anything about it.
So he has that advantage.
But at some point, you know, we've got to get, this is a serious election.
I don't understand why the seriousness is.
I'm astonished, by the way, at how many people out there, including most of your liberal neighbors, don't know that this country's broke.
In Connecticut the other day, they had the governor of Connecticut proclaimed Diaper Need Awareness Day.
I don't know whether you saw this.
Is because the governor of Connecticut and the Connecticut Congressional delegation want the federal government to hand out free diapers, okay?
Not to grown-ups, by the way, not yet, not yet, not to you.
Don't worry about it.
You're not going to have to wear the diaper just yet, but just for the babies.
Free federal diapers for babies from Maine to Hawaii.
Diaper Need Awareness Day.
I think we need a multi-trillion dollar debt awareness day.
We don't need any more awareness days for new stupid programs with the stupid new diaper need awareness ribbon.
We don't need any of that.
We need a multi-trillion dollar debt awareness day.
We need an impending societal collapse awareness day.
And the level of urgency most people, an astonishing number of people, still do not get the basic fact that this country is broke, that this country now has a government model where it spends $4 trillion but only raises $2 trillion.
And we think that's normal.
You can't close that gap.
You can't close that gap by taxing Warren Buffett the same as you tax his secretary.
There aren't enough Warren Buffetts.
It's a very bizarre thing.
I was watching, I was in a hotel and tuned around the channels the other night.
And it was fantastic.
Whenever I came across anything I wanted to see, it turned out to be PBS.
It turned out to be some PBS thing.
I came across something, I think it was the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show, and I thought, oh, that's great.
And then they show the clip, and then the two dreary anchors standing in front of the telephone bank come on to Elliot's Pledge Week, and they're not going to show you another clip from the Beatles on Ed Sullivan Show until you call up and pledge $250 in return for which they'll send you a Bill Moyers tote bag or whatever.
And then so I tuned away to the channel, and then there was a bit of like Frank Sinatra singing in the Dominican Republic somewhere.
I thought, oh, that's pretty good.
And then the number ends, and you cut to another two people standing in by phone banks saying, they're not going to show you any more of the rest of the concert until you call 1-800 Support Public TV and they'll give you.
And I thought to myself, why do we, you know, this is actually how America thinks of itself.
We no longer think of ourselves as a commercial republic with hard-headed national interests, but we think of ourselves as a kind of one of those, you know, foundations that underwrite something boring and worthy on PBS.
We think of ourselves, America basically ought to register itself as a 501c3 non-profit.
That's how America, that's how we think of ourselves.
We don't think of ourselves as a nation state with national interests anymore.
That's the problem.
And at some point, we might as well be driven to pledge a PBS-type pledge week.
We might as well have a thing where they come out and they say, yes, we're going to raise $15 trillion this hour, and then we'll give you a bit more Medicaid.
We just need $15 trillion is our total operators are standing by, and they'd show you the empty phone banks.
And don't forget, for a pledge of $1 trillion, we'll send you a Harry Reid tote bag.
It's as likely to work as anything else.
That's the state of the nation.
A nation that thinks of itself not as a hard-headed nation-state with a national interest, but as some kind of benign, not-for-profit thing where it can make all kinds of feel-good gestures about diaper need awareness and whatever other cockamame scheme comes up, eventually finds itself in the same position as those degrading PBS pledge drives.
They've been doing those pledge drives now for whatever it is, 45 years, and they haven't managed to get any good at them.
I mean, I don't understand.
It's embarrassing.
I personally would be, I would be, I don't even know why guys license stuff to them for PBS Pledge Drive Week.
You know, imagine if you're a great performer.
What was the thing I saw the blind guy doing the holiday?
Andrea Bocelli with David Foster doing his big all-star holiday concert with Natalie Cole and Reba McIntyre and all the rest.
You're thinking, wow, what time?
If I was Reba McIntyre, I'd be embarrassed.
You know, you sing a song and then the whole thing grinds to a halt for 10 minutes as they go, call now, operators are standing by and we'll send you a free tote bag.
That's what America is.
America ought to have the all-time greatest PBS Pledge Week appeal for this $15 trillion debt.
Because unless you've got it, and that's what all these celebrities, by the way, supporting the crazy path we're on, ought to be doing.
If you think it's normal to spend $4 trillion when you're only raising $2 trillion, and that's before we get to the appalling state of the state and municipal finances in this country, if that's the way you're doing it, you're going to need the all-time greatest PBS pledge drive.
For a pledge of $1 trillion, we'll send you a Nancy Pelosi snood.
That's what it's going to come down to if we don't turn this thing around.
And James, and I don't, Mr. Cernley wants to know what a snood is.
Honestly, I'm not here to provide my own subtitles.
I'm just talking about PBS.
I'm not actually PBS.
It's not one of those.
It's not some Czechoslovak cartoon from the 1980s that's been conveniently subtitled.
If you don't know what a snood is, look at it, okay, I'll change it with your own Nancy Pelosi wimple.
How about that?
Okay, if you don't like a snood, have a wimple.
I love you, a wimple and a snood.
Anyway, my point: my point is that this country has got nothing left.
It's all out of ideas.
We might as well have the PBS pledge drive to close the $15 trillion gap.
But what is fascinating to me about this is that there's no sense of that urgency on the liberal side.
If you listen to liberal media outlets, the assumption is always that if government just okay, the government spending didn't work last time.
The trillion-dollar stimulus was a bust.
The half a billion dollars to Solyndra was a bust.
Nobody's buying the Chevy Vault.
But if we just, if we just, if we just get some more money for some more government and we spend it in a different way, then this time round it will.
There is no money.
The money's all gone.
The money's all spent.
The money is gone, gone, gone.
Your children's money is gone.
Your grandchildren's money is gone.
There's no precedent for this in human history.
And yet, half, at least half of America doesn't even understand that.
They still think we need a federally funded diaper program.
We do need a federally funded diaper program.
They should issue it to all 300 million of us and we can all tape them to our heads and avert our gaze as we slide off the cliff.
But other than that, other than that, there is no money for any new federal programs.
There's no money for the existing federal programs.
And we are having a tap dance election debating on whether we need to bail out the Titanic with a thimble or a teaspoon.
It isn't going to be enough.
And that's not where the debate needs to be right now.
Mitt versus Newt, Newt versus Mitt.
Who do you fancy?
As the Republican primary draws down to the final round.
1-800-282-2882-Mark Stein in for rush.
Mark Stein, in for rush on the EIB network.
Let us go to Dave in Colchester, Vermont, a Vermont town I know well, Dave, right up in the northwestern corner of the state there.
Dave, great to have you with us.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Well, thanks, Mark.
And what's on your mind today, Dave?
I called a little while ago about the Gingrich Romney thing.
I mean, the first time I saw Gingrich speak in politics was years ago and thought he was such a smart guy.
Why couldn't he ever be president?
And then time passed and now he's on the brink of being able to actually do that.
And I've just thought all along through the debates.
He's the only one that has any brains in his head up there.
That's just my opinion.
Well, wait, what makes you think, what makes you think he's so smart, though?
Why is that?
Because he has, you know, an answer that makes sense to me about the things that he's talking about, the things that are being debated.
Whereas a lot of the other people that are on the debate seem like they've got their own take that pretty much supports who's supporting them.
I don't think Gingrich really cares who's supporting him or not.
He's looking at the problems that we face.
Okay, but what do you like about his solutions to the problems, for example?
You know, God bless the guy that can, that one person that can fix the problems, you know, this is where there's a lot of solutions that are going to have to be made.
I'll give you a good example of this.
You know, he talks a good game, this.
My book has a statistic, quotes the Cato Institute in a report it gave in 2000, which said that the combined budgets of the 95 programs, the 95 major programs that the contract with America promised to eliminate, in fact, wound up increasing by 13%.
This was whatever it was, six years after, five years after they were supposed to have been eliminated.
Not only weren't they eliminated, but their budgets had increased.
In a way, look, in a way, it's easy to come up with great ideas.
What is it?
I mean, what is it about when Newt was, I'll tell you another great Newt moment.
He was appearing, I think it was at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire a couple of years ago, just after the Iraq war.
And someone asked him, this was before the 2006 election, someone asked him what happened to the way the Republicans were running the House and the Senate, because it didn't seem to be a very conservative kind of government by about 2005, 2006.
And Newt said, well, what you must understand is Republicans aren't used to being in the majority.
So in other words, at that point, Saddam Hussein had just been toppled and he'd been overthrown and the Bath Party was out of office.
And Iraq is somehow expected to pick up the hang of self-government in 20 minutes.
But the Republican Party can't get the hang of competent government after 10 years.
That was basically the answer that Newt gave.
So in other words, what is the evidence?
Aside from the fact that unlike Rick Perry and Herman Kane, he doesn't actually freeze up before your eyes.
What are the smart solutions of Newts that you like?
You know, Mark, again, I'm not as politically savvy as you are, or Newt Gingrich, or a lot of other people.
But I look at the situation, the problems that we're facing, and look at the other people that are running for ⁇ like you said earlier, we're down to three now, right?
Two in the Republican Party and one that's in office.
And out of those three, who do I think would be the best choice to tackle these problems that we're facing?
I don't think it's, I think it's a no-brainer, you know.
Did you see what is better out of those three?
But wait a minute.
We're talking about a guy.
I don't, I'm consistent on this.
I've never thought there was climate change.
Back when there was a momentary slight heating trend in the early and mid-1990s, I wasn't worried about it.
Since 1998, there's been a slight cooling trend.
I'm even less worried about it.
Newt, a couple of years ago, was all for cap and trade, a big government solution.
He's just sitting next to Nancy Pelosi on the sofa, arguing for what would have been the biggest exercise in punitive liberalism ever inflicted on free citizens, which is this phony baloney cap and trade nonsense about climate change.
Now he says that was a big mistake because Nancy's a toxic person and he shouldn't have been sitting next to her because it made him look bad.
But wait a minute, what about the climate change part of that?
Where does Newt stand on climate change, Dave?
I don't know.
And, you know, the thing is, I look at Mitt Romney, I look at Barack Obama.
They both are just part of the problem that's been going on and on and on.
Okay.
I know the new Gingrich was part of the problem years ago.
I think that he at least presents himself as the person that has some legitimate ideas.
I know you're questioning, you know, what about this?
What about that?
You just look at the three people that you say are still left in the race.
And if I'm given a choice of those three, I'm going to take the guy that at least has his own, it seems, you know, that's the perception.
His own ideas, his own, he has a grasp of all the issues.
Some solutions may not work, some may work, but at least he has an idea where I don't believe that the other two guys have a clue.
I mean, that's just my opinion.
But I think.
Okay, Dave.
Thanks.
Thanks for your call.
Dave is in the Green Mountain state of Vermont, and he thinks that Newt is the smartest guy out there.
And he may be onto something there.
And that in itself is a sad reflection on what the nominating process has come down to this year.
1-800-282-2882.
We're taking your calls on where the Republican primary is likely to end up.
Do you remember the way it was this time last year?
Huckabee was on the verge of a surprise victory in Iowa.
This time round, Iowa social conservatives are apparently discussing ways to unite their voice behind the non-Romney candidate.
And the question is whether they'll coalesce behind Gingrich.
Hey, great to be with you.
Rush returns live tomorrow.
And this, in the meantime, is your undocumented anchor man struggling to take the first step on the pathway to legality.
Mr. Snerd suggested you try this with your long-term girlfriend, that instead of offering to marry her, you just take the first step on the pathway to legality.
It should work out just great.
I'd love to see how that conversation goes.
You know, when Dave was talking about how Newt is the smartest guy out there, there was the great piece, I think it was at Pundit and Pundet, which is a website out there.
And the pundit suggested that, in fact, what people think of as Newt with his giant brain and his multi-point solutions, that most of the action is actually all in the adverbs.
And she suggested that you can try this at home.
This came up at Thanksgiving, and she said, instead of saying, you know, gee, Aunt Martha, this new pumpkin pie tastes delicious, you could spice it up with a few of Newt's favorite modifiers, and your simple compliment will take on a grand and weighty significance.
Try it for yourself.
This dramatically reconfigured, deeply compelling pumpkin pie tastes extraordinarily delicious.
That's what it is with Newt.
You watch him in the debates.
It's all profoundly, dramatically, deeply compelling.
the actions uh in the adverbs uh he's he's not one of my problems again with newt is he's like bursting with ideas that uh that all sound as if they've come from a self-help manual um If you remember, back in his heyday in the 90s, he had something called the Triangle of American Progress, and that evolved into the four pillars of American civilization, which in turn expanded into the five pillars of the 21st century.
And just the fact, by the way, just the sort of grade inflation going on in his multi-point plans makes him sound a wee bit of a dodgy prospect when it comes to actually slashing back government.
So he had the triangle of American progress, the four pillars of American civilization, the five pillars of the 21st century, the nine zones of creativity.
No, no partridges in pear trees.
No partridges in pear trees.
Well, that's the Newt Gingrich 12 Days of Christmas, isn't it?
Or the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me.
And then how's it going?
14 steps to renewing American civilization, nine zones of creativity.
Five pillars of the 21st century, four pillars of American civilization, a triangle of American progress, and a partridge in a pear tree.
That's the Newt Gingrich.
The 12 movement.
No, it's not going to be on next year's Christmas CD.
There's no way, not even if you do the Newt Gingrich version, there's no way you can make the 12 Days of Christmas interesting, even if you turn it into Newt's 14 Steps to Renewing American Civilization.
Anyway, he's got his nine zones of creativity, the 14 steps to renewing American civilization.
He flits from these things.
He flits from these, like the frog on the lily pad.
Let's go to John, who's calling us from I-70 somewhere in Kansas.
And let's hope he's on a bit of scarified pavement sitting in one lane in second gear going down the highway because they're rebuilding it.
They're skimming it under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Which bit of I-70 are you on now, John?
About 100 miles to the west of Salina.
Okay, great.
Well, take it.
Don't try to pass any trucks while you're talking to us.
What's on your mind today?
Well, as a conservative constitutionalist who's stepped away from the Republican Party for the past several years, I've got to wonder how the Republicans can still claim to be the conservative base when they support moderate and left candidates like Gingrich and Rami and continue to shut out candidates who are constitutionalists and really conservative like Ron Paul.
Well, I don't think they shut out Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's been in the debates and he's actually had a very good run in these debates, wouldn't you say?
He's been there and he's kept his issues in play.
And one difference between now and four years ago is that the stuff you thought was cookie back then, like people when he was begun on about the Federal Reserve and people thought, well, what the hell is this guy on about?
He actually, the Federal Reserve is an issue now.
The Federal Reserve and the quantitative easing and America buying 70% of its own debt simply by pushing a button on a computer laptop.
Ron Paul actually made the Federal Reserve an issue.
He actually, in that sense, he can reasonably claim to have helped transform the debate.
He's been there in all the debates, and he's had a good run.
But you don't honestly think that Ron Paul is going to be the nominee or would get elected, do you, John?
Well, no, that's actually the problem, is mainstream Republicans tend to shut him out as being too extreme, too right-wing.
And I'll agree that sometimes he is, but I think that might be what we need, is somebody who's not a standard politician who has a standard he judges by.
He judges by the Constitution and by actual conservative standards instead of what will keep him in office.
But let's assume for the moment, which is the, because we all have, you know, we all have favorite candidates.
The reality is it's going to be Obama versus, and then the name in that other box is going to be, as things stand now, barring some dramatic event that is entirely unforeseen between now and Iowa, it's going to be Romney or Gingrich.
What does a guy like you do then, if it's Obama versus Romney?
That is the question.
It's a six of one half dozen or the other.
If they all have the same opinions on things, obviously it's better to get somebody who's at least claiming to be conservative in there.
of the two i'd probably favor romney just because uh i've seen gingrich in the past which one do you think will for the republican party which which one do you think will you know the other thing by the way that ron paul is right about is when he starts going on about fiat currencies which again is like people think is wacky stuff uh that
Currencies that in effect are propped up basically by the perception, by little more other than the perception of the government's soundness.
As we see in Europe at the moment, a continent-wide currency is likely to disappear.
The Euro, which is the currency for the other half of the Western world, basically, apart from Japan and the United Kingdom and one or two other places, the currency for the other half of the Western world is about to disappear.
It's going to go.
Ain't going to be any more Euros anymore.
And I see from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London is advising Britons abroad on the continent of Europe that they should prepare for widespread rioting and looting and civil disorder if they happen to be in one of those nations on the day that the Euro disappears and vanishes as a currency.
And Ron Paul, one of the things I like about Ron Paul is he actually gets you thinking about what's propping the dollar up.
You know, what is the U.S. dollar?
The U.S. dollar is a piece of paper with George Washington on it.
What is propping it up, though, in terms of its value is the fact that it's the global reserve currency.
That is nothing other.
The fact that it's the global reserve currency really rests on nothing more than perception.
And in this case, the perception is getting on for several decades out of date.
If people were sitting around a table today, nobody would make the dollar the global reserve currency.
You wouldn't make the global reserve currency a country that's got $15 trillion in debt.
I mean, Ron Paul, in that sense, is getting some of the real issues out there.
But, John, that's the function.
He may still be a nut, Mr. Snurdley, but the nut, the nut, the purpose of the nut in a debate is to be sufficiently non-nutty to get his issues in there and part of the conversation.
So that you take the nut, as Mr. Snurdley puts it, Ron Paul the nut, and then Mitt the non-nut with the fabulous hair.
And by Ron Paul being in the debate, the guy with the fabulous hair is forced to genuflect in some ways towards the nut guys concerned.
That is the function of a guy like Ron Paul, John.
But Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee.
It's like Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum says very little with which I disagree, but Rick Santorum's not going to be the nominee.
Sometimes that's just the way it is.
Nobody quite knows why it is.
It's because, I mean, you look at Ron Paul, for example, in his like his in the in those ill-fitting suits, I think they're rather charming.
The way he's got his sort of his like neck sticking up out of that flapping shirt collar that's like four sizes too big for him.
I think it's all rather cute and charming when you look at some blow-dried, airbrushed, photoshopped candidate like Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney now goes around with a hair out of place.
Have you noticed that in the last few debates?
He's got this one hair out of place.
But it is strategic.
HR's right.
It's a strategic hair out of place because the criticism of Romney was that his hair was too perfect in 2008.
So this year he hired his $600 an hour stylist to lube up one strand of hair, put a little bit of gel on it so it sticks up.
Not all of him.
He doesn't want to look like he's been sleeping in the park before the debate, but they just have one little strand of hair sticking up to make it look as if Mitt Romney's kind of loosened up.
He's not like your 1950s department store mannequin guy anymore.
Yeah, he's just got like, yeah, he's like, he's a little bit, he's a bit loose.
He's gotten into, he wants to make it look like he got into a, you know, an incredibly well-choreographed bar fight just before the debate came in.
But the point, but in the end, in the end, it's on such subtle things that the difference between credible candidates and incredible candidates rests.
I don't know, for example, why people, there's a lot of people who seem to think Michelle Bachman is not a credible candidate, is not a serious candidate.
I agree with practically everything Michelle Bachman says.
And at one point after the Iowa Straw Bowl, it looked like she was in the game there.
She looked as if she was going to be in there with the top tier of candidates.
And then next thing you know, Rick Perry jumps in and Rick Perry's the hot new thing and nobody pays any attention to Michelle Bachman's Iowa Straw Poll victory.
And it's very unfair.
It could be in fact be a life-changing thing for her.
There's someone who might well have done well enough in the primary process that whoever actually won, she may have been the nominee, but if not, she would have been a contender for vice president.
And instead, yeah, and I didn't agree with what she said.
I don't agree, by the way, with the state mandating that your eight-year-old daughter has to be pumped up with this and pumped up with that.
But I think she went too far when she swung out in Perry at it.
But, but, but it's a very subtle thing, this difference between who's a credible candidate and who's an incredible candidate.
And Newt, who was frankly in the sort of Ron Paul camp just a few months ago, managed to cross that line.
That's actually quite an achievement when you're just marginal, when you missed a 1.3% in the polls, when you're a joke candidate, when people assume you're just doing it to boost your speaking fees or your next book deal or whatever, and suddenly you become a serious candidate.
He's still got very little money and very little ground stuff and very few endorsements, and he's actually leading in the polls.
And Mitt Romney, who's the Mr. Establishment guy, who here in my corner of New Hampshire, my executive counselor, Ray Burton, who's been in office, I think, since the Civil War, and Ray Burton knows, he knows who the establishment Republican is as much as anybody else.
And the first thing that happened, you know, one of the first endorsements for Mitt Romney.
Mitt sucked up all the establishment candidates.
He's the establishment endorsements.
He's the establishment candidate.
But, but, Newt, having none of the money, none of the endorsements, none of that, none of the ground crew, simply on sort of sheer force of personality in these debates, has managed to cross from being an incredible candidate to a credible candidate.
And that in itself is quite an achievement.
We'll take more of your calls in just a moment.
Mark Stein, InfraRush, more straight ahead.
Mark Stein, Infra Rush on the EIB Network.
Let's go to Richard in Lakeland, Florida.
Richard, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hello, Mark.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate hearing you sometimes.
But when you start comparing a man of character and quality and class like Herman Kane to a classless whoremonger like Wilt Chamberlain, you've crossed the line, and I really don't appreciate it.
Say what you want about his policies, about his opinions, but when you care, when you participate in what the left wants to do, by comparing him to a man like that, you really have made me very angry, angry enough for me to stand online for over an hour just to tell you that.
Now, Wilt Chamberlain, I made the reference to this woman who's come forward and said she's had a 13-year affair with him.
As a result of which, by the way, Herman Kane is reconsidering his campaign as we speak.
He's going to apparently make a decision in the next couple of days as to whether he's going to go on with his campaign.
When he has people like you jumping on a bandwagon like the left with no evidence whatsoever comparing him to something like that, who could blame him?
Wait a minute.
We're talking about this man, Herman Kane, for example.
As I said, by the way, just to get things straight here, I don't mind a guy coming on and running as Silvio Berlusconi and saying, yeah, like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, who survived as prime minister longer than most guys in Italy have since the Second World War.
In fact, I think he's actually the longest serving guy since Mussolini.
And he was basically Mr. Swinger.
He said, yeah, I dig the chicks.
I'm with them all the time and all the rest of them.
What we're talking about here is a fella who comes out and in this case, he finds himself on TV discussing the degree of his 13-year relationship with this woman.
He did not issue a blanket denial or any of the rest of it.
He has issued a very equivocal statement.
The fact of the matter is that Herman Kane decided to take a flyer on running for president, as he himself said.
He's a successful businessman who ran a pizza company and decided he knew how to save the American economy and he'd fill in the gaps on the foreign policy and all the rest of it.
And as a result, a segment of the Republican base decided to take a flyer on him.
And then that's irrelevant.
Don't you think you owe him a measure of respect to at least allow him to respond, to find out what the charges are and to respond to the power.
He did respond.
He was on TV.
He didn't jump on the bandwagon.
That is irresponsible on your Well, I said that we're getting into Wilt Chamberlain territory now.
Wilt Chamberlain was the guy who, the basketball fellow who claimed, I think, to have had sex with 40,000 women or whatever.
It's only 20,000, Mr. Snow.
Assures me.
So there you go.
I've done Wilt Chamberlain a great injustice, too.
it was only uh 20 000 women i'm not saying he is wilt chamberlain i'm just saying that if you now add up all the women who have attached themselves to the various presidential candidates in the republican nominating field uh that herman cain has more encrusted to him than even newt gingrich which is quite an accomplishment because I've lost track of how many wives Newt has had.
There's nothing wrong.
By the way, Richard, if you think your candidate can't stand a comparison to Wilt Chamberlain, and by the way, if you don't like the Wilt Chamberlain, I'll come down to Claude Francois, the French pop singer who wrote My Way and who electrocuted himself in the bathtub.
And I believe I'm right in saying that he said he was the guy who said he'd had sex with 40,000 women.
This is irrelevant.
We're looking for a guy to run the free world.
We're looking for a guy who's going to prevent America sliding into the abyss.
And I make it crack about Wilt Chamberlain.
What are you looking for this November, Richard?
Yeah, now it's getting worse.
Wilt Chamberlain has just called from Virgin Central in Paradise to complain about being compared to Herman Kane.
He says he's had at least 19,997 more women than Herman Kane has.