All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:55
April 18, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I'll tell you, I I uh folks, I was up late last night.
I was in New York, annual cigar dinner was last night.
I flew up after the show and uh had the annual big cigar dinner, big fundraiser for the prostate cancer foundation.
I got back here very late, fighting fatigue here.
Maybe a little giddy.
You know how these days can go.
And what do I get up to today and start doing show prep?
And I find out now that our commander in chief has been quietly waging yet another war, this one on dogs.
Great to have you on the EIB network, Rush Limbaugh here, 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program, and the email address.
L Rushmore at EIBNet.com.
This makes me really, really uncomfortable.
Uh it just it just does.
I mean, I a lot of people are having fun with it and joking about it, uh, but j I don't know, it just makes me uncomfortable.
You've uh you probably heard the outrage.
The Romneys putting their dog on the roof of their car in an enclosed kennel back in 1983 and heading down the highway.
Which apparently is a fact so horrible.
The Democrats have created a website and uh and a fundraising organization around this.
Meanwhile, the Obamas are showing their love for dogs by putting well that their dog's name is Bo.
And they're putting that dog Did you know that, Snurdly?
Dog's name is Bo, and and they're using that dog as a prop in all kinds of fundraising drives.
But we what I stumbled across, you I'm sure you all have heard about it uh by now.
Maybe you haven't.
Um we have discovered that Obama mentions eating dog in his first autobiography.
Did you know this?
Well, I think it was I don't know.
I yeah, we here's we we've got it.
I mean, Obama narrating his um his book, it's it's uh the dreams of my father.
This is the audio from 2005.
With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner, plenty of rice, and away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat, tough, snake meat, tougher, and roasted grasshopper.
Crunchy.
Like many Indonesians, Lowell followed the brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.
He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate.
One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.
As I say, this just makes me extremely uncomfortable.
But I mean, it's it's gotta be discussed because Obama's trying to make hay out of a Romney's putting their beloved dog on the roof of the car in a kennel, and now Obama, in his own autobiography, writes of having eaten dog.
And I doubt folks very much.
Are we are we gonna hear Reverend Wright soon?
Mid Romney!
He never had to eat no dog meat.
And Barack had Barack news poverty.
Mid Romney never had to eat no dog meat.
That's pretty good, Reverend Wright, isn't it?
Ha!
Just off the cuff there.
Moving on, ladies and gentlemen.
According to reports, the judge in the Zimmerman case is gonna recuse herself.
Uh the judge is Jessica Rexidler.
It might be Siedler that she pronounces it.
She announced last week that she had a possible conflict of interest in the case because her husband is a law partner of a legal analyst hired by CNN to comment on the Trayvon Martin shooting.
I would think this judge would be happy to get out of this case.
A lot of people are saying she's not qualified, she's too young, she's she's not experienced enough.
But would you want to be the judge in this case?
With the new Black Panthers running around with bounties and everything, and Jesse Jackson saying, This ain't nothing.
This is just a first step.
The arrest, that ain't nothing.
That should have happened long ago.
He's he's he's making it clear that if the outcome isn't what they want here, that uh we we should look forward to uh to other things.
Now, this is interesting to me.
There's a story here from uh guy named Bob Owens at uh PJ Media, a blog.
Angela Corey's filing against Zimmerman bears the hallmarks of a career ender.
This is yet another analysis of the charging document, the affidavit that she wrote and released that Dershowitz has commented on and said, No judge is ever gonna let this see the light of day.
This is never this is not gonna get past any judge.
Andy McCarthy, my buddy, who was the in the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan for all of those years charging uh and trying the the the blind shake.
He has weighed in.
Uh my buddy Mark Levin, Landmark Legal Foundation.
Everybody, every legal beagle who's commented on this charging document says it is rank amateurish.
It is embarrassingly insufficient, it's purely political, and it reeks of incompetence.
And now we've got another guy weighing in, Bob Owens, on this incredibly thin, speculative Zimmerman affidavit.
Here's a little bit of what he wrote.
Last week, Florida prosecutor Angela Corey stunned many within the legal establishment when she announced her office was filing a second degree murder charge against George Zimmerman.
The uh four-page affidavit of probable cause filed by her office shocked legal experts ranging from Dershowitz, liberal law blogger, Geraldin Merritt, uh, Andy McCarthy, Mark Levin, among others.
The affidavit starts out typically listing the names and qualifications of the two investigators used by the special prosecutor, then begins to bill a case against Zimmerman.
He goes through the affidavit and claims that there are unsubstantiated assertions throughout the affidavit.
Here's the one of the early paragraphs.
On Sunday, February 26th, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community, Sanford Seminole County, Florida.
That evening, Martin walked to a nearby 7-Eleven store where he purchased a can of iced tea and some Skittles.
He then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman.
Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime.
And Owens here points out, like a lot of other people have...
Not one paragraph into the meat to the affidavit, and Corey's team already made two unsubstantiated claims.
First, there is no publicly known evidence that supports the contention that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin.
A second unsubstantiated claim.
They say that Martin was not committing or preparing to commit a crime.
Well, Zimmerman became suspicious because he saw a figure who struck him as a person casing houses for burglary potential.
Unbeknownst to Zimmerman at the time was the fact that Martin had been suspended from school for the possession of a burglary tool.
We don't know what Martin was thinking, but his actions were erratic enough to prompt Zimmerman to want police to investigate.
That represents a lot of unsubstantiated speculation by a prosecutor trying to build an affidavit to support a second degree murder charge, and that's just from the first substantive paragraph.
The next troublesome claim or troublesome claim is the lead sentence of the following paragraph.
Zimmerman, who also lived in the Gaved community and was driving his vehicle, observed Martin and assumed he was a criminal.
Now maybe it's hair splitting, but there's no evidence to support her claim, the lawyer's claim that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal.
Anyway, it goes through the whole affidavit and basically rips it to shreds.
Now here is my question.
Everybody Dirk Dershowitz and practically every other accredited legal expert who has looked at this affidavit has said that it won't get past the judge.
Whoever the judge, I don't know whether it's this new judge, the judge that recuses herself, new judge, who knows, they're saying that there's no judge that's going to let this things ever see the light of day, and people are speculating that maybe Angela Corey wrote it this way to take the target off her back, to have it be so inept and incompetent, it has to be thrown out, and then the case has to go to the grand jury, which will then indict, and then the target will be on them, and they're anonymous, theoretically.
You know what worries me about this?
I'm just gonna I'm gonna assume here for a second that all of these legal experts are dead right.
Just for the sake of telling you what concerns me here.
If these people who have analyzed this affidavit are dead right, and if this is the product of abject incompetence, embarrassing incompetence on the part of the prosecutor,
Angela Corey, given our culture, given our education system, might a judge look at this prosecutor as a teacher would and say, well, you know she tried, and go ahead and let it fly.
That's what happens in our schools.
That's what outcome-based education is.
Kid thinks two plus two is five, it is, with an A for effort, until they figure out that two plus two is four, and then they argue about that.
But what if my point is that throughout our culture, excellence is not the objective.
Not offending somebody is, not hurting somebody's feelings, not humiliating them.
We are a culture, and particularly in our schools, why we teach self-esteem.
Why that is the most important thing that we can give our kids self-esteem.
Now I don't know how old Angela Corey is, but I'm gonna presume that she's young enough to have gone through the American public education system in the formative years of her life with conflict resolution as a big course and self-esteem and outcome-based education.
And I just telling you I won't be surprised.
All these legal experts with the highest of standards, these are the best in the field.
And they, of course, have impeccably high standards, but we don't have high standards in our education system.
We don't have high, in fact, the more accomplished you are, the more suspect you are.
We have been in our culture rewarding mediocrity because we feel sorry for it.
We have been rewarding averageness, because for so many years the average and the mediocre have been taken advantage of.
The average and the mediocre have been taken advantage of and they have been mistreated.
They have been humiliated, they've been bullied, their feelings have been hurt.
Well, what if we get a judge who doesn't want to hurt the prosecutor's feelings?
What if we get a judge who's not concerned with whether it makes any sense or not?
What if we get a judge that basically says, you know, it's an affirmative action affidavit.
She did the best she could.
She did the best she could, and she really tried hard, and uh, it's a tough case, and goes ahead and permits the affidavit to stand.
The only reason that I I say this is because all of the legal experts see having standards matters to me.
Pursuing excellence matters, being the best you can be, whatever that is, pursuing it, trying for it, that matters to me.
Encouraging others to do the same, having high expectations of people.
We don't have that anymore.
We don't, as a rule, whenever you learn that that a teacher has been particularly hard on a student or really high expectations were demanded of somebody.
That's the it's it's almost the exception of the rule.
We now applaud people for not hurting the feelings of the average or the mediocre or the incompetent, because life is tough enough for them.
And look at how our institutions are crumbling all around us.
See the secret service business, uh, the general services administration, the simple notion that's being popularized to the American left today that achievement and success are to be suspected, and those people are to be targeted, that it isn't fair that somebody should be demonstrably better than anybody else.
Not fair, somebody should get better grades than somebody else, not fair.
Well, we in a lot of places are doing away with the valedictorian saludictorian.
We're getting away from identifying people who do the best at what they do.
And when we're not wafting away from it, we're pointing fingers at it and impugning it.
And we're trying to find reasons to explain why somebody is better than somebody else.
Not because they worked harder, and not because they might be smarter, and not because they might be more industrious, but because they cheated or they had an unfair advantage, or their dad was rich, or dad was powerful or whatever.
We are going out of our way not to reward excellence.
It has bothered me for the longest time, and we're right smack dab in the middle of it here throughout our culture.
Everybody's so afraid to hurt somebody's feelings, everybody's so afraid to offend somebody.
If we get a judge that comes from this way of thinking, he might get this affidavit and look at it and say, Oh, this poor, poor lawyer.
Oh, she really tried, but is it really her fault?
Wonder where she went to school.
Maybe she shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
Maybe she's really not qualified, but they had to hire her because it's on quality.
Who knows what?
I mean, these are the kinds of things that people look for to excuse less than excellent work.
Less than acceptable work.
It's called defining achievement down.
Just like Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked of defining deviancy down.
I'm not predicting it's going to happen.
I just wouldn't be surprised.
It's let me give another analogy.
It's going to be tough for me to come up with.
I uh a lot of people will look at a political gaff.
I don't care what it is, a political gaff, and they'll say, well, that's it.
That's that's the end of the line.
That's just so-and-so just cooked the goose, and I always said, No, they didn't.
No, they didn't.
Twenty, thirty years ago, yeah, maybe, but not today.
Mediocrity triumphs.
Stupidity on parade.
The president of the United States is seeking re-election, pandering to the stupid.
Let's take a brief time out.
We'll be back, we'll continue.
Snerdley, you know what I mean here.
You know, every you all know what I'm talking about here.
And you all, now that I brought it up, you know you know Rush may have a point here.
You know I do.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limboy here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800 282-2882.
So I go check the email.
No, my my voice is not scratchy.
I've got a little bit of a head call today, coupled with the fact that I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night after a night of revelry and good cheer in New York.
Attention, New York State auditors, I didn't work.
It was a dinner.
You know, it's a cigar dinner.
It's a cigar dinner, and it's at the four seasons.
Julian Nicolini's place.
It's a great, great restaurant, one of the most famous restaurants in New York.
In the old days at the cigar dinner, you could smoke throughout.
You show up at the cocktail hour.
I don't now because I can't hear in those things.
So I show up, the dinners at 8 o'clock.
I got there about 10 till 8.
I mean a B line for the dining room.
Nobody was in there yet.
And I started to light a cigar.
No, no, no, no, no, you can't.
What?
How do you mean I can't light it?
It's a cigar dinner.
No, no, no, no.
Can't smoke until dessert.
And I remembered that's been the rule for the past number of years, can't smoke because of Mayor Doomberg.
They it it takes Marvin Shankin and the gang a couple of, well, I don't know how long, it's a long period of time to get special permission to hold a cigar dinner at a New York restaurant because of the anti-smoking laws in the city.
But virtually everybody in there, it's a cigar dinner.
Everybody showing up expects to be around and among and even smoke cigars.
John Sally, former great from the NBA from the uh Detroit Pistons, was there as he is usually.
And he made a brilliant observation.
There were more women in attendance last night than ever before.
But even in that, they knew they were coming to a cigar dinner.
So I said, Mar.
No, they didn't.
Well, not to me.
I know.
That's the point.
There aren't any complaints.
I said, Marvin, serve dessert first.
What I don't understand.
But anyway, we had a lot of cigars.
So my voice is not scratching.
A little bit of a head, not even a, I'm not suffering.
It's just a little stuffed up here.
And um and and lack of sleep.
Plus, I got emails.
Some people think I'm not understanding what's going on with the judge and the affidavit.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, great to have you here.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
So as I always do, I checked the email in the break, and a fair question from a couple of people.
How do you know that this uh that this lawyer, the prosecutor, Angela Corey, is incompetent.
You kept using the word incompetent.
How do you know she is incompetent?
That's a good point.
She might have done this on purpose to have it thrown out so that she's no longer on the firing line, so to speak.
And of course, that could be wrong, and this affidavit could be what the experts say it is, an absolute disaster.
But even there's no no well, no, that's not entirely true.
The seminar, I just somebody just said you don't find anybody defending it.
Seminole county judge, this is my point here.
The Seminole County Judge, Mark Herr, H E R R, might pronounce it hair, not sure how, found the affidavit legally sufficient to establish probable cause, which is why he ordered Zimmerman to appear for his arraignment on March 29th.
Wait, it can't be March 29th.
They didn't appear that long.
Whatever it was.
The point is that a judge, not the trial judge, don't believe it's the trial, I don't think it's the trial judge.
A judge found it legally sufficient.
It's okay.
Every legal expert that you would respect has lampooned this thing, has made it sound like somebody who didn't even go to law school put it together, made it sound like somebody is totally immersed in politics, put this thing together.
And yet a judge, hey, good enough for me.
That's my whole point.
Declining standards, good enough for me.
So who are we to believe here?
We've got experts, as as Obama loves to say, from across the ideological spectrum on this.
I mean, Dershowitz, a big liberal.
Uh, my buddies, of course, huge conservatives.
I don't, but but like H.R. says in the legal community, you don't have anybody defending the thing.
But that's not the one.
Emailers were correct.
She may not be incompetent, But the affidavit is.
According to all these experts, the judge said it's sufficient.
It'll fly.
So I take it back about her being incompetent, I don't know, but the affidavit is.
And that's the point.
Was that right?
Zimmerman has not.
So his official arraignment will be May 29th, 2012.
He has not been officially arraigned yet.
That was just an arraignment hearing.
So May 29th is when he'll be officially arraigned because of this affidavit.
It wasn't thrown out.
Now the trial judge, I don't know if it even applies anymore.
So every legal expert that's weighed in on this thing has just effectively been proven wrong.
Won't get past the judge.
It did.
And therefore we, as citizens, are left to ask, well, who's right?
And you know my fear?
My fear is that standards everywhere are just plummeting.
And that there's an attack, there's an assault on excellence.
And one of the it it it it all boils down to you must treat people well.
You must be nice, and that's your problem, Mr. Limboy.
You're very, very mean to people.
But you that we get ahead in America by treating people well, even if they're incompetent at what they do.
This is the point.
Standards on the decline.
Go back to this radio program uh yesterday.
Yesterday, I raised the question.
Because every the conventional wisdom is that, oh, put this in perspective.
Another poll out today, CBS New York Times.
Obama and Romney are tied.
The media is fit to be tied.
The media is panicked.
The media doesn't understand.
It's their own poll, CBS New York Times.
Obama Romney tied.
See, you have to understand the way they look at it.
Romney's the biggest blithering idiot, insensitive, rich, out of touch, 1950s guy has nothing in common with anybody you've ever heard.
There couldn't be one person in this country who wants to vote for Romney.
On the other hand, Obama is the Messiah.
Everybody loves Obama's likability numbers, popularity.
Look at them in the polls.
And then they see Romney ahead by five yesterday in the Gallup Daily Tracking, ahead by two the day before that.
I got CBS New York Times, dead heat, ABC poll, Romney close to Obama.
They're beside themselves.
I asked the question yesterday.
Where is it written?
Who, where is this notion?
That Obama is so likable.
And everybody else in politics isn't.
And this is how I asked the question.
Every one of these polls where Obama is losing to Romney.
Every one of them, the network reporting it, says, but Obama's popularity is at an all-time high, or Obama's likability numbers are skyrocketing.
People really like Obama, but they just are not hip to his policies.
Where on the other hand, Romney's looked at as this mean-spirited, Uber rich guy.
My question is, I want to know what is there.
So much to like about Barack Obama.
This guy says cold mean things.
He has policies which are destructive and and uh very harmful to individuals and institutions.
That's right.
He's not a warm and engaging person.
What is this likability?
Where does it come from?
That's right.
If Romney is not liked, why is Obama liked?
None of this makes any sense to me.
I think it's another one of these things the media just says.
Romney has not told, nor has he instructed his campaign people to disregard certain segments of the voting public.
Obama's doing that.
I just don't believe this likability stuff.
I just I'm sorry.
Show prep for the rest of the media.
I say it yesterday, and here is Diane Sawyer last night on ABC's World News Tonight.
This is during a report about these polls that have come out lately showing Romney ahead of Obama, Diane Sawyer and the correspondent David Muir have this exchange trying to figure out why the less likable candidate is winning.
Look, recycling.
Romney is winning.
Hell.
Historically, we do elect the president we think is most likely likable, but could this be the year that personal popularity is not a reason we cast our votes?
With new polls tonight showing Mitt Romney already in a tight race with President Obama, it begs the question in this presidential election, does who you like matter?
Because the race is close, even with Mitt Romney facing a huge gap against the president when it comes to favorability.
From the Romney team tonight, a strategy that concentrates far less on who you like.
He's a nice guy.
I just think he's misguided and over his head.
Expect to hear that line from Mitt Romney if he's nice, but in over his head, the campaign believes they're on to something with that.
And about the favorability number being so low, they make the argument that that number is always low, particularly after a primary battle as bruising as the one we just witnessed.
They say watch the number now without incoming fire from fellow Republicans.
They say also watch the president's job approval number.
So we have to see how quickly he turns that favorability around.
Yeah, see, it's we gotta what how can it be that the least likable guy is winning?
How is that possible?
And so now we have to see how quickly he turns the favorability around.
What she's saying is, we have to see how quickly we can turn the favorability around for him.
But this is a classic illustration of how you are on the cutting edge of societal evolution if you listen to this program.
I mentioned it yesterday.
I bring up the whole subject.
Where is this idea that Obama is so likable, so popular?
And that night on ABC's World News Tonight, they explore that very thing because they can't believe that in their own polls, this dud, deadbeat, boring Ward Cleaver Mormon is anywhere near the Messiah.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Look, let me be honest here.
How did Richard Nixon win two landslide elections if likability matters?
How did that happen?
Now, I'm not denying likability is important, and it but it can be overcome.
I mean, Nixon was not, let's face it.
Nixon was not all that likable, but he was considered to be what was needed at the time.
David Axelrod, who is uh Obama's consigliary, his modus operandi when he's not out creating AstroTurf projects has always been defined, or this this is it.
This is the way he's a consultant, and political consultants have their own signature identities and strategies.
One of Axelrod's signature identities has been defined or create a likable candidate out of somebody who is essentially an empty suit.
Somebody that nobody knows anything about, which is the key.
When nobody knows anything about them, you can make them what you want.
You uh people to think them are think they are.
You can manufacture, you can it's like a canvas, and you can paint whatever you want on it and say, this is who this guy is.
And if there was ever an empty suit that came along in terms of experience, it was Obama.
He didn't have any.
I still I think about this, and I still ask myself, what in the heck has happened here?
How does a guy with no experience at anything pass himself off as an expert in health care and have people believe it?
Well, that's actual Rod's modus operandi.
You create the empty suit, or you find one, and then you make him likable.
And then the key to that Is you have to hope that voters don't notice that their elected representatives are governing entirely against their wishes because the candidate's so likable.
Such a nice guy, such an engaging guy.
He wouldn't possibly want to take away your freedom.
He wouldn't possibly want to change the way the country was founded.
He's too nice a guy.
When you think of somebody who doesn't like the country, you would think of somebody who's angry, enraged all the time, and privately Obama probably is.
Within his own mind, he probably is, but he never shows this.
That's how we got Deval Patrick, by the way.
Uh as as the as the governor of Massachusetts, how we got Obama.
Here, I'll give you an example.
Audio soundbite.
This is CBS this morning.
Charlie Rose.
Charlie's making this show a lot lately since I banned MSNBC.
So we have Charlie Rose here and Eric Hill, the co-host and co-host at, along with the CBS political director John Dickerson.
And they are in crisis over Obama's poll collapse in their own poll.
Obama and Romney, this dull, boring ward cleaver-like Mormon who puts his dog on the roof of his car to drive around town.
They can't understand anybody could possibly vote for that.
Just a dull dryball, an empty suit, and all of it.
This guy has tied the one and they talk about it.
The race between Romney and President Obama is now dead even, according to a CBS News New York Times poll released just this morning.
Forty-six percent of registered voters say they will vote for the president.
The same number say they'll vote for Romney.
Meantime, more Republican primary voters are now backing Romney.
33% say they enthusiastically support him.
That's up five points from January.
What's happening with these numbers?
Well, the Republican Party is slowly gathering behind Mitt Romney.
You do see the Republican Party coming behind Mitt Romney, and he's basically reminding them we're all in this against President Obama.
What's happening with these numbers?
Why are we even doing this story?
Why did we even release the poll?
If the poll shows them tied, what are we even doing releasing our own poll?
Why didn't we wait for a poll that showed Obama way ahead?
Now we gotta sit out here, we've got to talk about it, we gotta make it look like Republican Party's coming together behind Romney.
That wasn't supposed to happen either.
According to these guys.
Let's grab a quick phone call here.
Since, by the way, folks, programming note, I'm out today.
No, I'm here today.
I'm out tomorrow and Friday.
Okay.
No, I'm here.
It was a long, it was a night of revelry, is all I'm gonna tell you.
Here's Jay in Omaha.
Jay, you're up first.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Rush is an honor to talk to you.
Thank you for taking my call.
You better.
I just wanted to say that I love the way you think.
If they made a law that you cannot smoke until after you've had dessert to serve dessert first and you come up with that, I mean it's just fantastic.
They make these stupid laws that make no sense, and that's just a way to get around it.
I love the way you think.
Well, I've been listening for a long time, and I love you.
You should have seen, you should have seen this.
I I I as I said, I walked into the dining room of the four seasons ten minutes before eight o'clock.
Dinner is at eight.
When I got there, everybody was in the bar, which they were using the grill room for the bar, and uh hundreds of people in there, and they're all smoking cigars, but it's it's impossible for me to uh to hear, to have a conversation in such circumstances.
So I just made a beeline for the dining room.
Julian was in there, the owner of the restaurant, and I said, could you tell me the hoops you had to jump through this year to get permission to host this event?
And he pulled out of his pocket a legal document, multiple pages with whereas and what for's, and if you don't do this, jail time in Sylvia.
It was the most incredible for us uh a dinner to raise money for prostate cancer, where everybody in attendance is going to smoke cigars.
And as I say, I I pulled out a cigar to light it.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I remembered.
So I missed last Year because I was ill.
First year.
This is 18 years we've done this.
And last year was the first year I missed.
And I forgot that there were no cigar smoking until dessert and a cigar dinner.
When these dinners first started, you'd have six cigars a night.
You'd have a cigar with every course.
It was part of it.
And all the cigar manufacturers brought their wares, and they delighted in showing, giving away what was new.
You know, hot off of their uh from their factories.
And so I said, why why don't we just serve dessert first?
If the thing says you can't smoke until dessert, what it actually said you can't smoke during dinner.
And I still said, why?
It's a cigar dinner.
For 18 years we have smoked during dinner.
I can remember.
Man, the glory days.
Not that long ago.
Maybe 10 years.
What a great time.
You can walk into 21.
You could sit down and light a cigar at the bar, or while you're having dinner, and if somebody complained, the maider D would move them.
And now everybody, and I in my speech last night, everybody makes some remarks.
I said, we deserve medals.
And I held up my cigar.
We deserve medals of honor because we, with these sticks, are funding children's health programs.
So forth.
That's just it's a sad commentary on what's happening, isn't it?
I actually did say that.
I'll be out today, right?
While I'm right here.
I'll be out tomorrow and Friday.
Fastest three hours in media.
The first one's in the can, but two more.
▲
Export Selection