All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
May 14, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh, Lord, it's a Monday and a fill-in host.
I know, I know.
All right, a couple of things.
First of all, it is a Monday in what is still a free country for the moment, greatest country in the world.
Rush is back tomorrow.
I'm Mark Davis.
We tend to have a pretty good time.
So, all right, chin up.
Let's go.
Let's dive in, see what happens.
All right.
It was a busy weekend.
From here, the EIB Northern Command in Midtown Manhattan is a cloudy but warm day and a lot of hot topics to get us good and heated up.
1-800-282-2882 again.
Rush is back tomorrow.
Rush is back tomorrow.
Get the important stuff out of the way first.
Let's talk about the important stuff from the weekend, though, and let's dive right in.
A pleasure to be with you and a pleasure to have an interesting, interesting weekend of news.
The big story, it's kind of funny.
There are big stories, and then there are big talk show topics.
They are not always one and the same.
Sometimes little stories can be huge talk show topics, like this nonsense of Romney bullying somebody.
I mean, please.
Rush had a wonderful, wonderful observation about all of this last week.
Many, many people have, that there are events and there are patterns.
If there's just an event that seems plucked from someone's distant past, I'm prepared not to care.
Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, I don't care if it's something you did decades and decades ago and it doesn't seem to lend to some narrative about the way you are now.
It's irrelevant.
So, anyway, little things can sometimes be big talk show topics.
Sometimes big stories don't get a lot of talk show traction.
So, the converse of that.
And by that, I mean this whole JPMorgan Chase thing, which just instantly I could feel your eyes glazing over.
So, I'm going to be brief about this.
I'll do as much of it as you want.
But the bottom line is that just a little bit before airtime here, the chief investment officer at J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the highest-ranking women on Wall Street, she will retire.
Ina Drew is 55, and she will retire after more than 30 years with the company.
And this is all as a result of this massive trading mistake which they made.
And it'll complicate the efforts of banks to fight certain regulatory changes.
So, let's lay down some basic truths about this that do not in any way require some intricate familiarity with the ins and outs of what the trading errors and miscalculations were that J.P. Borgen Chase admittedly, self-admittedly, engaged in.
Number one, this stuff is going to happen.
Companies will do things, banks will do things, brokerage houses will do things.
If they are illegal, we have laws to address that.
If it's just bad decisions or mismanagement or losses, these things happen.
It's called the marketplace.
And if these things happen, if you provide some absurd artificial safety net in the form of needless additional regulation, and rest assured, this will be a week in which people will be rushing, stampeding to various cameras and microphones saying, Well, here you are.
Here is just exhibit A, that we need a lot more regulation.
Well, I would suggest, no, we don't, because the earth still turns on its axis.
JP Morgan Chase, also by their own admission, is still going to make a lot of money.
This is not something that comes without harm, but we never get the guarantee of a life without harm.
And if you want to talk harm, I'll tell you about harm.
Every other company in the same situation as JP Morgan Chase is going to study what they did and not do it and try really hard to avoid their error.
That is a good thing.
It is a bad thing if government rushes in with nanny state regulations to protect that next JP Morgan Chase from making the same mistake.
This is why all bailouts are wrong.
Banks, car companies, radio stations, popsicle stands, if they succeed, they succeed.
And there's a lesson in that.
If they fail, they fail.
And there's a lesson in that.
Let us learn from the lessons of success.
Let us learn from the lessons of failure.
They are cleansing.
There, J.P. Morgan Chase in about four minutes of radio.
Moving on.
And listen, I'll revisit that to whatever extent you like on the phones.
But the Sunday chat shows were filled with all kinds of the main springtime themes of election 2012.
Some of them, in fact, before diving into some Romney talk and the Obama ads about Romney's business resume.
This is wild.
This is a nervy bunch.
This is a really nervy bunch.
This is chutzpah.
When you have a president with zero experience running anything, surrounding himself with an administration filled with academic theoreticians, most of whom have run nothing, and they've got the gall to wag a finger at somebody about the way in which he has run things, especially when it's Mitt Romney, who by any stretch of description has far more successes than failures,
far more pluses than minuses.
And oh, how they will harp on Bain Capital, how they will harp on Bain Capital.
Probably on the always emotional storyline of job losses.
Well, how many people lost jobs as Obama took over General Motors?
As the ripples and waves of things moved through dealerships and they were forced to contort themselves in all kinds of strange directions that were contrary to the marketplace.
I mean, what kind of concussion did that send through the auto industry?
Because government was coming to run everything.
So if we want to talk, once again, maybe we return to the general notion of gall.
If there is any president who should think twice, three times, and four times about lecturing others about losing jobs, the effect they've had on the job market, it's these people.
It's these people.
So we have all of that in the world of 2012 talk.
But as we begin here, and I guess this is probably a dream come true for the people at Time and Newsweek because, hey, quick, when's the last time everybody was talking about Time and Newsweek?
But look what they have to do.
Look what they have to do to get us to talk about them.
Of course, fact of the matter is, they have succeeded.
Last week, we had Time magazine with the young lady breastfeeding what appears to be a seventh grader.
I mean, I don't know.
The cover said the kid was three.
Ah, boy, that's something else I need to see birth certificates on.
Sorry.
The story was actually, what is it about attachment parenting or something?
And you had to let the kids sleep with you.
Blah, blah, blah.
It's fine.
But the buzz last week was about time and the degree to, I mean, I can't really remember the last time That a news magazine that you might see at the airport is something that you would need to divert your child's eyes from.
It was not so very, very graphic.
Your average copy of Maxim or FHM, which is probably at the airport right in the shelf alongside, is certainly more provocative than this.
But it had people talking about Time magazine and whether these things are going the way of the dinosaur.
They certainly are thinner than they used to be, both in terms of merit of content and amount of it.
And now we have, and now we have Newsweek.
And now we have Newsweek.
I almost have to hand it to Newsweek because you can either think this is preposterous or think that it has some merit, but at least we are talking about them.
And that is the Andrew Sullivan cover story about the first gay president.
Now, is this intentionally provocative?
Of course it is.
It's President Obama with a big rainbow halo over his head, first gay president.
What?
All right, a little bit of context.
Obviously, let's just stipulate: President Obama not gay.
So what are they talking about?
Well, you have to go back a few years.
You may recognize President Obama.
Historically, we will probably recognize, when I say probably, we will recognize President Obama as our first black president, and the nitpickers will rise up to say he's just as white as he is.
Yeah, yeah, great.
Another show, another show, another time.
President Obama will be the first president of color, technically, racially, ethnically speaking.
But remember, when people called Bill Clinton America's first black president, of course, they didn't mean it in a literal sense.
They just meant that he had done, that black America had really for the first time an ally like maybe they had never had before.
I mean, obviously, LBJ was the guy who came along after the Kennedy years, moving forward with civil rights legislation and such.
But after that, you have Nixon.
I mean, you have Carter, who has certainly got a lot of the black vote, as all Democrat presidents do.
But Carter was, Carter's presidency was so brief, not brief enough, and largely discredited and insignificant that people don't pay a lot of attention to that.
So along comes eight years of Bill Clinton.
Eight years, it is the first time in American history that black America, or the 88 to 90% of it that votes Democrat, had a president that they absolutely unabashedly loved.
Hence came the somewhat affectionate usage of Bill Clinton as America's first black president.
Kind of quotation marks, air quotes, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
So it is in that context that we now take a look at President Obama with a very interesting week in a fraction here, in which he has done us the favor of starting to actually tell the truth about his feelings about gay marriage, something which he has always favored, always, please.
And so we'll talk about this in a couple of ways.
I want to share a little bit of Andrew Sullivan's writing.
Andrew Sullivan is a very thoughtful guy and is a good writer, and he makes me crazy.
I suppose anything that I write or anything anybody writes, anything anyone says in the world of punditry, in the world of columnizing, in the world of writing, Andrew Sullivan's thing, Andrew Sullivan, not to shock you, is actually gay.
And I think you have a responsibility, you know, whether you're gay or black or of a particular religion, writing about that religion, that is to see when you are seeing things through the lens of self-interest and perhaps only self-interest because sometimes your self-interest will not objectively deserve to prevail.
You know, the slow 5'6 guy does not have a right to be in the NBA.
I know that's not apples and apples about gay marriage or anything else, but I'm just talking about the concept of self-interest.
Rare indeed, rare indeed.
And there probably is the gay man or woman who realizes that they may wish for legal equality for their unions, but that those who oppose it have an absolutely principled point to make that has not one drop of homophobia in it.
And if you have not heard that argument, well, perhaps I should once again make it for you.
And I will on today's show.
And we'll have an interesting time with that.
Other things from the weekend are fair game.
It's really when I'm here, honestly, it's kind of open line Monday.
You get my drift.
So just grab a line and let's see what happens.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for Rush on this Monday.
Rush back tomorrow.
And I'm back in just a few minutes on EIB Network.
It is the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis in, but just today.
Rush is back tomorrow.
All right, we have some J.P. Morgan Chase calls and various things on the stories that are springing off the weekend.
But I said I was going to do something, so I might as well go ahead and do it so that we can use that as a springboard to other things.
Clearly, President Obama has done us an interesting favor.
The dialogue, the continuing narrative of gay marriage and legal equality for gay marriage, it's a familiar fixture.
It's an issue forever.
But with the president's, and now insert your own noun here, evolving view or flip-flop, and we'll talk about the difference between those a little later on in the show, it just places it front and center.
Here is the newsweek cover, America's first gay president.
And so, you know, rather than immerse ourselves in the minutiae of that issue once again, I think the interesting next step is to see has the president helped himself or hurt himself.
And the gauge of that, we may not know until the election.
And in fact, we may never know, because if the president wins by a sliver, was it because he did this?
If the president loses by a sliver, was it because he did this?
I mean, you'd have to go back in a time tunnel, have him continue to do the Clintonian have-it-both ways tap dance with gay marriage and see how it worked out to compare and contrast.
Without that, it may be impossible to know what the effect is.
But there is one thing that we do know.
It will be the task of Mitt Romney.
It will be the task of Republicans everywhere.
It will be the task, it is the task of conservatives everywhere, to offer up opposition to this in a way that is not scolding, in a way that is not bigoted, in a way that is based on principle, so that we can come across as not being against something, but rather for something.
So in order to do that, let me just lay it out for you.
Because what is odd is that this is, what makes it harder is that this is one of the most miscast, misdefined issues in the history of issues.
And even the president, in the midst of his statements about this, said that he had reached some clarity, that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
To the president and to anyone similarly foggy on this, gays can marry today, anywhere they wish.
They may secure a haul and officiant, hire a band, lay out a buffet, and get married right now, wherever they wish.
The only question is whether those marriages will be granted the same legal status as heterosexual marriages.
So, all the sloppy usage is what gets us into instant trouble.
The unforgivable use of a term, you know, gay marriage ban, conjuring up images of stormtroopers at the church door.
We got some same-sex people in there getting married.
Get out, get out, get out.
This will never happen.
It does never happen.
So, the miscasting of this comes from the failure of nearly everyone to recognize that marriage has three components.
Okay, only one of them is everybody's business.
Two of them are not.
There is a religious component.
You may have a marriage that is filled with religious imagery, or it could be none, it could be purely secular.
That is totally the business of the happy couple, how religious or secular you want your marriage to be.
So, there's a religious component.
The second is the social component, the recognition by friends and family and people around you that you are married.
And now, those two that I've just mentioned, the religious and the social, aren't those the most important?
The vows you make before God and the recognition among your family and friends that you are indeed husband and wife, or husband and husband, and wife and wife, depending on the nature of the union.
The third one, and the only one, by the first two, by the way, are nobody else's business.
Nobody else's business.
They are not society's business.
The third one is, and that's the legal component of marriage.
The legal component.
The question of which marriages will be recognized and which will not.
Granting or denying the various benefits that come from marriage in areas like the tax code, estate laws, property rights, and things like that.
Now, the nation's founding fathers were visionary, but they never thought we'd have talk shows about this.
They probably never thought we'd have talk shows.
That there would be serious arguments for marriages between two men or two women to be the legal equal of heterosexual marriages.
As such, the Constitution is silent on this, and it is left to the states.
So, in those states, what is the principled opposition?
Not just the opposition to gay marriage.
That's not even the way to phrase it.
If two gay people want to get married, it is none of my business.
The only thing that is my business is: will those marriages be recognized as the legal equal of mine?
My opposition to this has nothing whatsoever to do with any distaste for gay folks, any low regard in which I hold them, or any thought that I may have about the nature of their proclivities.
It has to do with society and history and the sacred difference, not between gays and straights, but between men and women.
We're at the bottom of the hour here, so that I'm about 70% done.
So, I'll come back and give you the last minute or two of this, because the bottom line is that when we think about this as only about gay folks and straight folks, the danger here involves the blurring of the line between what it means to be male and what it means to be female.
And when we blur those lines, we head down a ruinous, ruinous road.
And I'll tell you what I'm talking about here in just a moment.
I'm Mark Davison for Rush on the EIB Network.
It is a Monday, and we're about to head to your calls as soon as I get to the end of a couple of paragraphs here that I hope to be of service to conservatives seeking to make an argument.
And it's funny because there's an asterisk alongside all of this, meaning that everything that we're talking about here in terms of conservative positioning on this issue is designed to reach out to those independent voters and say, we are reasonable, we are rational, and we're fighting for something here in our opposition to legal equanimity for gay marriage.
It's not because we don't like gay people or we think they're going to rot in the lake of fire or anything.
No, no, no.
And in fact, I'll say once again, before I resume, that if two guys want to go get married, it is none of my business.
If two young ladies want to go get married and they consider themselves married and their friends and family consider them married, that that too is none of my business.
What is my business and yours is which marriages are legally recognized as such with the attendant benefits that come.
Now, the most important thing I can say about those attendant benefits, like rights of inheritance and hospital visitation and stuff like that, basic human decency should take care of that.
We should be able to afford to those gay couples looking for the benefit of hospital visitation or certain property rights or whatever, we should confer those just because we are decent people.
And we should be able to take care of that without having to confer with it a blurring of the definition of what marriage is.
So why is it important?
Why does it matter to have marriage uniquely defined as one man and one woman?
What is the non-homophobic, non-bigoted argument for that?
And that's sadly a qualifier I have to make because the way that those who have argued for these rights have that I have to hand it to them anytime you can grab a hold of the throat of public opinion on this successfully, it means you've done something right.
It is now viewed as an article of empathy.
It's kind of like our Mormon friends.
If you don't absolutely consider the LDS church to be just another way to be Christian, like Episcopal or Methodist or Lutheran, you must be a religious bigot.
Well, no, no, no, words, words have meaning.
And in this particular case, the argument goes like this about the value of uniquely recognizing one man and one woman.
Is some of it about procreation?
Of course it is.
And then instantly you'll say, well, some marriages are childless.
Are they less blessed?
Are they less valuable?
No, not at all.
Not at all.
But marriage exists because it is one man and one woman who unite for the purpose of procreation.
Of course, they also unite for the purpose of spending the rest of their lives together in monogamous unity, ideally.
And yes, there are plenty of heterosexual couples making a disaster of that tradition.
I know that and know that full well, but that doesn't change the ideal.
The ideal is one man, one woman uniting, and the reason for that dynamic is procreation.
But even if you take kids out of it, and for this next portion of the paragraph, and these are some mighty long paragraphs, so thank you for hanging in there with me.
I want to throw some props to a great thinker, a great writer, and a fellow talk show guy, Dennis Prager, who has made it almost mathematical in the following way.
You remember math?
That if A equals B and A equals C, then B equals C. Here's what I mean: if it is the same thing for me to marry a man as it is for me to marry a woman, and the law says so, that is the law saying that manhood and womanhood are the same thing.
Not equal rights or equal pay or anything like that, but it is the law saying that manhood and womanhood are in fact the same thing.
It is a distinction without a difference.
And from this, what do you get?
How then do you argue against the drafting of women if manhood and womanhood are the same?
Remember one of the dumbest stories of the last 10 or 15 years where some dudes filed suit to work at Hooters as waitresses?
I know the visual of that makes me not even want to think about it, but that was properly hooted, pardon me, out of court because it's like, guys, you're guys, and this company has the right to hire whomever they please.
Remember Liberty, how that generally worked?
But how do you argue against that if manhood and womanhood are in fact the same thing?
And then also, finally, you get to motherhood and fatherhood.
I had a speaking engagement recently, and it was a wonderful room filled with diverse opinions, my favorite kind of thing.
And I was making this very point.
And when I said that the ideal for adoption is a man and woman married, I got pushback.
I got resistance to that.
Really?
I mean, listen, someone could argue all day that single moms, single dads, and gay couples do a bang-up job of raising kids sometimes.
Maybe a lot of times.
Fine, I understand that.
But we go from that to a nuking of the ideal.
We go from that to the necessity that becomes an article of empathy.
It becomes an article of enlightenment.
That you have to say that a single mom, a single dad, or a gay couple is exactly the same thing as being adopted into a household with a married man and woman?
That's the same thing?
So, this is the road that we head down.
And it is not a road I want to head down.
Not because of anything that I feel about gay folks.
You know, honestly, you know what my main thought about gay marriage is?
It's better than gay promiscuity, just like heterosexuals.
And there's plenty of that that's none of my business.
But the part that is my business, the ones that the law recognizes, when the law says that gay marriage and straight marriage are the same, that is a step toward the law saying that manhood and womanhood are the same, and all kinds of distinctions, all kinds of, you want to talk about a war on women, all kinds of protections that women uniquely enjoy in the workplace.
Gone if manhood and womanhood are in fact the same thing.
All right, so there we are.
I'll stop.
You can hop on, glom onto that whatever way you wish.
Let us head phone word and see what's happening at 1-800-282-2882.
Lots of 2012 talk from the Sunday chit chat shows, lots of JPMorgan talk as we head to Elizabethtown, Kentucky.
Jerry, Mark Davis, in for rush, how are you, sir?
Doing very well, Mark.
You know, I'm listening to this whole thing, and it just aggravates me to no end.
You know, the Democrats and the media may not understand how markets work, but that doesn't mean that nobody understands how they work.
Somebody's on the other side of each of those trades that they're unhappy about with JPMorgan Chase.
And the thing I'm wondering about is: should those people be prohibited from their trading opportunities, opportunities to make money?
I mean, this is to me, an attack on people being able to make economic decisions.
Correct.
And the second thing I'm thinking about is: gee whiz, if that's supposed to be prohibited or if they think that's a bad thing, do they think it's a bad thing that whoever's on the upside of those trades, you know, should they not have to pay taxes on this?
Because they are.
Indeed, they will.
And, you know, it just, it's myopic to no end that these guys can't, they don't have any vision of this.
They don't understand that, you know, people should be able to enter into contracts.
You know, each of us thinks that we're getting the better end of this thing.
Are we going to now ban contracts, ban commerce?
Sure, because every single, because every relationship, it features an upside and a downside.
Rare, maybe even non-existent, is the relationship, the stock purchase, the business deal, in which both sides come off exactly as beneficially or exactly as detrimentally.
There is usually always some type of winner and some type of loser.
And in the lily-livered status quo of today, our fear of loss, not just fear of loss for ourselves, we should all be concerned about losing ourselves, but we don't want loss for anybody.
Loss is something.
It's funny, you mentioned myopia, which is short-sightedness.
You're right, but I think they see it.
It's not that they're blind to it, it is that they are hostile to it, that the left is hostile to something they see right in front of their faces, and that is that loss and downsides are instructive, they are cleansing, and they teach lessons.
And without those lessons, you get more mistakes.
If the lessons are learned, you get fewer mistakes.
And in that regard, the marketplace works.
Jerry, thank you.
Mark Davis in for Rush on the EIP Network.
Hey there, Mark Davis in For Rush, who returns tomorrow.
Little J.P. Morgan Chase, a little gay marriage.
A talk show is taking shape before our very ears.
1-800-282-2882.
I've got plenty more from the weekend shows and various things that people have said.
And in fact, in our next hour, we'll talk a little bit about there's so much attention being paid to the notion of the woman voter.
And I think a lot of this is overblown because you will notice that conservative women do not feel that there is a war being waged against them by conservative policies.
That ultimately, the way a woman reacts to an issue like forcing companies to have contraception as part of birth control or abortion rights or anything like that, that how a woman feels about that is pretty well the same dynamic of how a man feels about that.
In other words, it depends on whether the brain inside the female or male head is liberal or conservative.
And the liberal man and the liberal woman are going to be all about the contraception and all about the abortion rights.
The conservative man and the conservative woman are going to be about restricting abortion rights and being against Obamacare, particularly the portions of Obamacare that require Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals, Catholic employers to include contraception in their health care plans.
Anyway, more on that as we progress.
Let us head back to the phone, see what's cooking in Dallas.
Keith, Mark Davis, in for Rush.
How are you, sir?
Hey, great.
Thanks for having me on, Mark.
It seems to me that with this whole Romney and Obama thing, that there's just a blatant media double standard.
Wouldn't you agree?
There are about three ways in which you could mean, actually, there are 10 ways in which you could mean that.
Tell me which one you're referring to, and I'll follow you.
Well, you know, it's like I think most people are really aware that the media is the mainstream media like CNN, MSNBC, are really failing them.
It reminds me of this, you know, Occupy Bilderberg 2012 Facebook page that they've put up because the media is failing to cover the Bilderberg group meeting right now in Virginia.
Well, that is a curious twist of subject that leaves me as bewildered as the rest of the audience.
Would you like to go with what you called and mentioned about, or are you going to take us down a bizarre conspiratorial trail that will just get you nuked?
Well, definitely, definitely Google search Bilderberg.
No, well, your decision is made, and hey, I respect it.
However, out of respect for people listening to the program, let's go with there's a certain charm to that, man.
If you feel like I've somehow cheated you, within the ensuing 60 seconds, the words trilateral commission would have also been mentioned.
So that you missed nothing.
You missed nothing.
And at some point, we would have gotten to road scholarships and things like that.
Anyway, the double standard, the double standard.
Let's talk a little double standard in terms of what is a flip-flop and what is an evolving position.
Let's talk about the last two times we've heard that a major politician has had a very, very important, earth-shattering, evolving position, the most recent of which, of course, is President Obama, who, after very serious discussions with both of his daughters and friends and family and whatever, has decided that his position is evolving on the equanimity of the legal status of gay marriage.
Not so much prior to that, we had Mitt Romney evolving on abortion.
I'm going to be genuinely bipartisan about this.
I think we're getting hosed by both guys.
Now, it's not apples and apples, because here's what I mean.
In the case of President Obama, please, please, you know, he has always favored legal equality for gay marriage.
Always, always, always.
He simply viewed that as too hot a button to hit, and that if he had been, you know, wearing that on a sandwich board in the last 10 years, that he would not have ascended to the U.S. Senate, much less the presidency, perhaps.
So that was just something he held close to the vest and found a Clintonian way to do a little kabuki dance there and nuance that and play both sides against the middle.
In terms of Governor Romney, who is clearly way more pro-life now than he was when he was running against Ted Kennedy.
Now, look, I've always said in terms of a flip-flop, if someone changes a view and they move in the correct direction, I'm probably not going to give them too much heat for it.
I might not give them any.
If you change your mind about something and you go from being wrong to being right, only thing I want to tell you is good for you.
Now, if I feel it's being done for political expediency, I'll say so.
And in Governor Romney's case, that may well be the case.
But I'll tell you this.
I believe that Governor Romney's real values are what he's talking about now.
And we'll also spend some time today talking about Governor Romney's real values because he was out at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell country, welcomed by a student body that certainly has some nuts and bolts theological differences with him.
But they recognize that Governor Romney, with all of the Mormon trappings that he brings with him, is much closer to conservative Christian values than someone who comes out of that hateful cauldron of bizarreness at the Trinity United Church of Christ that Barack Obama sat in for 20 years.
So what we have in terms of a flip-flop or an evolving position, I think that we saw Mitt Romney posturing back when he was running against Ted Kennedy.
I think he pitched himself as more pro-choice than he actually is.
I think this is the real Romney now.
And I don't say that just for convenience because he's obviously my party's nominee and I kind of need to believe him.
I say it because what makes more sense?
What makes more sense?
The LDS faith is a real pro-life group of people.
I mean, how many really serious pro-choice Mormons are there out there?
The answer is some, but I tend to believe the Mitt Romney of now.
I mean, when Romney ran against Kennedy, I remember thinking, really, what?
Is he just sort of playing a little bit pro-choice in order to appeal to the Massachusetts voter?
I do not believe that about Romney now.
It's kind of funny.
So in that regard, whether it's President Obama talking about his embrace of the equanimity of gay marriage in legal terms or Mitt Romney talking about how pro-life he is, we're actually getting both guys telling us the truth on those issues.
So let us judge them accordingly.
All right, you can judge various things as you wish from today's slate of topics, which is ever growing.
Mark Davis in for Rush.
I'm back on the phone with you in just a moment on the EIB Network.
Wrapping up the first hour of the Monday Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush will be back to host the Tuesday Rush Limbaugh Show, which has smiles all around.
All right, let us head back to your calls: 1-800-282-2882.
We are in Franklin, Tennessee.
Bill, Mark Davis in for Rush, how are you, sir?
Doing well.
Thank you for taking my call, Mark.
My pleasure.
Can you hear me okay?
I surely can.
Oh, good.
I wanted to respond to a previous caller.
It may have been the last.
I agree that for every trade, there's a winner and a loser, but in this particular case, with this amount of money, I really think we have to think about who's on the other end of that trade and who made the profit.
It could be out of the country where no taxes would be paid, and it could even be with one of our greatest enemies, the Chikoms, the Russians, who knows?
I'm fine.
Anytime something arises that makes our eyebrows go up and where there has been a lot of loss, which means somebody got something, I'm okay with a perfunctory investigation to see if there's a reason for alarm.
That seems like something that should present itself fairly quickly.
There's not always subterfuge under every rock.
Sometimes things like this just happen.
But additional scrutiny is never bad.
Not looking to sweep anything under the rug, and J.P. Morgan Chase may have various additional things to answer for other than just ineptitude.
▲
Export Selection