All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:33
June 5, 2014, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There is another trade.
Obama's made another trade.
You really thought I wasn't going to persist in this.
He's made another trade.
Our guy that gave up five Taliban commanders for one possible army deserter.
We've just cut a deal with Canada.
He's trading the Smithsonian and the Washington monument to Canada for Brian Murroney's to pay.
Yeah.
There's a larger point, see, in ridiculing these trades, and I think most people know what they are, although I think I'm starting to lose them myself.
One of the things that I like to do on my program in Milwaukee is deal with the ideology of the left at face value.
Now, some argue that a lot of it is insincere, that they don't believe in basic American standards, they don't believe in the things that traditionally made us great, and that a lot of the tactics that they use are merely to demonize those on the right.
All true.
Still, I think that their arguments need to be confronted on the level they make them.
If they aren't confronted, they stand unchallenged and become part of the orthodoxy.
I'm fascinated by this obsession that Michelle Obama and so many others have with making us live healthier lives.
Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York.
He's got this soda thing that is in court right now.
In fact, it's going to court this week.
The New York State Court of Appeals considered the legal challenge to this ban on sodas.
When Bloomberg was mayor of New York, he passed this ban that in most places you can't buy a sugary soda or a sugary drink that was more than 16 ounces in size.
It was the so-called big gulp bad.
There are some exemptions, small mom and pop stores, a few other places, but by and large, if the drink was loaded with sugar, you couldn't sell one of those for larger than 16 ounces.
The soda industry has been challenging it in court along with several others, and it's now in front of the New York State Court of Appeals.
I think the whole thing is fascinating because it makes you examine liberal prioritization and their worldview of things.
Now I'm not saying that all liberals agree with Bloomberg's thing.
There's not every not everybody on the left thinks that we ought to place a limit on how much soda you can drink, but many do.
Just as many on the left believe that Michelle Obama is a hero for trying to starve kids to death with her reforms of the school lunch program.
So I like to deal with these things on the level that the liberals give them to us.
This is what liberals believe.
Liberals believe that Americans have an absolute right to choose to have an abortion or to choose to smoke pot, but not a soda.
That's their belief.
Now, what I just said sounds ridiculous, but it is what they believe.
They argue on the terms of a woman has a right to control her own body, that she therefore has a right to have an abortion, but not a soda.
Because the soda isn't what?
Good for her.
Most liberals support liberalization, if not legalization of marijuana.
They believe that this is a matter of personal choice.
Yet in New York, Bloomberg wants to limit soda size.
Now I'm just telling you where liberals come from.
They can explain their own inconsistencies themselves or try to explain where some logical sense comes of that.
Life-style choices.
Liberals believe that two gay guys can marry, but they can't buy a 24-ounce Mountain Dew.
They believe that same-sex couples Have the right, constitutional right, fundamental American right to marry.
They don't believe that society ought to be able to legally describe who can get married and who can't.
But they do believe the same society that is not allowed to restrict marriages between same-sex couples, that that same society is perfectly within its rights to restrict the size of a sugary soft drink.
Now, all of this is contrary to freedom.
I'm not a libertarian.
I'm accused of it all the time.
I'm not a libertarian.
I think that libertarians often take things too far.
I think you have to live in a society with some rules and some order.
I just don't like to have a lot of rules.
I think that we have to live in a giant box where we conform to certain behaviors, but I want that box to be very, very big, and I want Americans to be able to essentially live their lives the way they want to.
We were premised on that.
We broke away from Great Britain and created a society in which Americans could do within a broad range, pretty much whatever we wanted to.
We've had the most open free speech and free speech free free press rights of any nation in the world.
We've allowed remarkable levels of dissent.
We allow extreme organizations to advocate their points of view.
We believe that this is what freedom is all about.
Liberals, though, I think have a different view of freedom.
Liberals want the freedom to do what they want to do, but they want to compel others to live the way they believe they ought to live.
See, liberals don't believe in individual freedom.
They believe in liberal freedom.
All of the things that they fight for are things that they want to do.
They want to smoke their pot.
If they're gay, they want to marry.
They want to be able to have their abortions.
But then, after demanding this freedom and demanding that society not cast judgment, you can't impose your moral views on us because you think same-sex marriage is wrong, you can't dictate.
Because you think abortion is wrong, you can't dictate.
But they themselves turn around and dictate when it becomes a demand of their choice.
And their demands are remarkably trivial.
The way they choose to micromanage people's lives.
You can drive a gas guzzler.
I don't like that you have an SUV.
We've got to spend stop spending all this money on highway construction.
We need to force you into mass transit.
You can't let your kid eat all that fatty food.
Your kid is going to get fat.
Your kid's going to be obese.
Their notion of freedom ends when it comes time for them to be able to boss people around.
Look at the speech codes that they have in place.
The kinds of things that you cannot say on a college campus anymore.
The requirement to post notices that some content might be offensive to others.
They stand up for hip hop artists who have the most vile, misogynistic, violent lyrics that one can imagine because a lot of liberals like hip hop music.
Jay-Z and Beyonce and all those guys, I mean, they're tight.
Kanye, they're tight with liberals.
They're tight with the Obamas.
So that's okay.
That speech is fine, and a tolerant country has to allow that type of speech.
Why we can't censor.
But look at the things that conservatives are slapped down for.
If you express Christian views, you can't even have a show on the HGTV network.
So I think that the Bloomberg soda ban is all part of this bizarre worldview of liberals, that they want to micromanage and control everyone else, but then they demand the right to do whatever they feel like doing it whenever they want to do it.
Right down to determining that you can have an abortion And someone else's view that it is murder is something that can't be taken into consideration.
That someone who feels that gay marriage is sinful has no right to that point of view and can't impose it on anyone else.
They would at least be consistent if they weren't so determined to impose their own standards on everyone else.
I've got to I've got to do the Maureen.
Maureen Dowd, the embittered liberal columnist in New York Times.
She apparently ate a marijuana candy bar and it didn't.
This is her column from yesterday.
Sitting in my hotel room in Denver, I nibbled off the end, and then when nothing happened, it nibbled some more.
I figured if I was reporting on the social revolution rocking Colorado in January, the giddy culmination of pot prohibition, I should try a taste of legal edible pot from a local shop.
What could go wrong with a bite or two?
Everything as it turned out.
Not at first.
For an hour I felt nothing.
I figured I'd order dinner from room service and return to my more mundane drugs of choice, Chardonnay and mediocre movies on demand.
But then I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain.
I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinary state for the next eight hours.
I was thirsty but couldn't move to get water, or even turn off the lights.
I was panting and paranoid.
Sure that when the room service waiter knocked and I didn't answer, he'd call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.
I strained to remember where I was or even what I was wearing, touching my green corduroy jeans and staring at the exposed brick wall.
As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.
Maureen Dowd OD'd on a pot candy bar.
Now I suppose when you're when you start off semi-delusional as most people who write for the New York Times are, it doesn't take much to take you to the next level.
She learns lessons from this.
You might guess where this is going.
And I've just always found it fascinating that the liberals want to legalize pot at the same time that they want to ban cigarettes, ban sugary soft drinks, they want to micromanage the school lunch menus on the basis that all of this stuff is bad for you, but they are they want to legalize marijuana with all of its ill effects.
So any of it, in any event, Maureen Dowd has figured out what the answer to all of this is.
Apparently the problem is is that she ate too much of these pot bars.
It took all night before it began to wear off distressingly slowly.
The next day a medical consultant at an edibles plant where I was conducting an interview mentioned that the candy bars that are supposed to be cut into sixteen pieces for novices, but that recommendation wasn't on the label.
She then quotes Andrew Friedman, the state's director of marijuana coordination.
The whole industry was set up for people who smoked frequently.
It means how it needs to learn how to educate new users in the market.
We have to create a culture of responsibility around edibles so people know what to expect and feel.
This is the logical extension of the pot legalization movement.
Now they're going to regulate it.
Now the pot's gonna have warning labels on it.
Don't smoke this much.
If you're gonna eat your pot candy bar, make sure to only eat them in segments of one sixteenth.
We need to warn people.
So now that they've decided to turn America into a nation of potheads, they're going to be a nation of warned and regulated potheads.
Why, it's just terrible that we've allowed all of this pot to be legalized, but people aren't equipped as to how to handle their pot.
Maureen Dowd's so in c I will admit, I am kind of surprised that Dowd didn't have a little more knowledge of pot.
Nonetheless, apparently she didn't.
There she is chowing down and eating all this pot, and the next thing she knows, she is ODing worse than somebody on an LSD trip off of her legal Colorado pot.
And it's all because we've legalized the stuff, but we haven't educated people about it.
So now you're gonna have in all the states that are legalizing pot, the huge marijuana bureaucracies That are going to offer advice and input.
And then there's going to be the bureaucracies that are set up to deal with the individuals who become addicts.
And then we'll have the bureaucracy set up to encourage individuals to use pot in a healthful fashion.
So you have the two competing themes of liberalism here.
The need to protect and regulate, along with the need to allow people to get as stoned as they can possibly get.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling filling in for Rush.
Let's cover some political news.
They held the election in Mississippi yesterday.
A lot of people were watching this.
It was a major challenge to an incumbent Republican named Thad Cochran.
Thad Cochran is a staunch, longtime member of the GOP establishment Senate leadership.
Most in the party's mainstream strongly supported his reelection.
A lot of the so-called conservative insurgent challengers to incumbent Republicans so far this spring have lost.
In Mississippi, the challenger down there, Chris McDaniel, was given a strong chance to unseek Cochrane.
They held the election yesterday, and it was so close that they have to have a runoff.
McDaniel, the challenger, ran slightly ahead, fractions of a percentage point over Cochrane, and this probably gives him the upper hand in the runoff election.
The spin from the left is great.
This is great.
He's the next hot achet.
McDaniel is a loose canon, he's going to say things that will embarrass Republicans everywhere.
There's been a bad analysis of this fight within the Republican Party, I think from almost everyone within the media, and even some within the party.
Senator McConnell, the Senate Republican leader said we're going to crush every challenger to every incumbent.
Some who are part of whatever is being described as the Tea Party today said we need to knock off all these establishment members.
The media has looked upon this as this fight for the soul of the party.
I just don't think it's been that.
I think that conservative voters have been extremely pragmatic in their election selections.
Some very strong conservatives have won primary elections, and they've done so in states where the Republican Party is so strong that the Democrats have no chance of winning.
That is a pragmatic and real decision.
The SAS candidacy is a perfect example of this.
Nebraska.
It's going to be an outstanding United States Senator, and one in which the Republican voters could legitimately choose the most conservative candidate.
There is dissatisfaction among many conservatives with Republicans who have been in power in Washington or for years and have done nothing to deal with the significant problems that we have of excessive government spending, a federal government that is too large.
And there is a need to deal with it.
But I also think that some may have made the mistake a couple of years ago of saying throw out anybody without being discriminating about who it was that you were voting for.
The Todd Aiken situation was a debacle.
There were other conservative choices just as conservative as him, but candidates who weren't going to say things as stupid as some of the things that he said.
What happened this year in Kentucky, I think is instructive.
There was an insurgent challenger to Senator McConnell in a Republican primary.
I talked to a friend of mine in Kentucky.
She is she's to the right of me, she might be to the right of Rush.
Yet she said, I'm voting for Senator McConnell.
I don't think the other guy can hold the seat in a general election.
Our highest priority has to be to regain control of the Senate if we're going to do anything to neutralize President Obama and start to fix our country.
Whether she was right or wrong, it was a pragmatic decision that was made.
In Mississippi, a state that is going to go Republican in November, the voters can afford to choose a better candidate than Cochrane.
I think Republican voters are getting this exactly right.
William F. Buckley Jr. had this famous quote in which he said, I always vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.
If you're not going to win, if you're merely re empowering another Obama Democrat, we're not accomplishing anything.
But if you can displace a Republican who has been part of the sellout brigade in Washington with someone who is more reform minded and more understanding of conservative principles, of course you can do it.
I'll note that in California yesterday, the moderate candidate for governor on the Republican side, won.
I wouldn't have voted for him.
I would have voted for the other candidate.
But I see where California Republicans are coming from.
They want to give themselves the best chance of prevailing, and that is not a bad strategy.
Yeah, Russia's on vacation this week.
Rush Limbaugh.com is never on vacation.
Updates from Rush, the Rush Theft, Russia's Wisdom in the World, and every now and then.
A little bit of a gem from We Guest hosts, uh Russell Limbaugh.com while you're there.
Join Rush 24-7.
That's how you get to watch Rush on the Ditto Cam.
Sadly, you can't watch me on the ditto cam because I don't want to be on the ditto cam and Rush doesn't want me on the ditto cam, and no one else wants me on the ditto cam.
You can also get podcasts of this radio show and all the rush programs, that's Rush 24-7.
You can get that at Rush Limbaugh.com.
One eight hundred-28282 is the Rush Limbaugh phone number.
Let's go to Beth in Santa Ana, California.
You're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Oh, yes, good morning, Mark.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Um I am calling regarding um the veterans administration scandal that's apparently taken a uh back burner to what's occurring now.
Yeah, it's not even on the media's stove right now.
And that is that is one thing that did happen as a result of the justifiable outrage over Bergdahl is that the VA scandal isn't being talked about and hasn't been for the last several days.
Well, my point is that I really find it hard to believe that President Obama says he wasn't aware of what was occurring uh when his wife is professes to be so involved with military families, and uh I can't believe that in her travels around that she ha there wasn't some discussion brought up by someone that they were having to wait uh a long period of time to get health care.
And then in the course of a husband and wife's conversation, wouldn't you feel if it meant so much to her that she would have said to him, We have a problem.
And wouldn't you have thought if he cared so very much about our military families that he would have uh set about trying to make it right and and fix it before it ever came out of the way?
I think you raise you raise a very shrewd question.
Either well, think about this.
Your your point's really good.
Michelle Obama, who has been largely ceremonial as first lady.
All of these events she's held, the talk with military wives and so on, given the fact that there wasn't widespread knowledge, I did not know that there were these terrible waits at the VA.
The people who would know would be the veterans who were having to wait forever.
If you were someone in that situation and there is a meet and greet, and there's the first lady, this is the perfect opportunity to raise this issue to her attention.
I think you're right, it's probably very likely that that comment would have come up, and it would have come up to someone precisely like Michelle Obama who's doing the meet and greets and the handshaking and so on with the families of the veterans.
I think the reason that they were so super sensitive in the dumping of VA Secretary Sinsheki is that the president probably had some knowledge of this.
Every time there's a problem in his administration, Benghazi, the IRS, fast and furious, it's always the president didn't know.
The president didn't know, the president didn't know, as if it's some sort of defense of his administration that he doesn't seem to have anything any knowledge at all of anything that happens under his watch.
Yet I think they feel this need to let the public think the president wasn't aware.
I think that it is likely that he was briefed.
In general, they don't want you, you know, when you're an aide to the president of the United States, you don't want the boss caught by surprise.
I think he probably was aware of the problem, giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe they tried to manage it Through, or maybe they just tried to conceal and cover it up.
Whether or not it came from the VA, from Michelle Obama or somewhere else, it would certainly explain why they didn't make the VA secretary a sacrificial lamb and ceremoniously fire him.
Instead, he resigned.
And the they made it very clear that the president accepted the resignation with regret.
I guarantee you he's going to be taken care of.
They're not going to allow him to become the brunt of the criticism for the failure.
He'll no doubt end up with an outstanding job somewhere in friendly territory in the private sector.
He's going to be taken care of because they can't have the story coming back that President Obama knew about this for some time, but I think you're right.
The likelihood is that he would have.
Now, the alternate scenario would be that Michelle Obama might have heard this from one of the wives and not brought it up to the president, which would imply that she couldn't care less about military families.
But you're right.
I think that the likelihood is that the president did know, and it's very possible that in her travels, Mrs. Obama picked up on this.
Why wouldn't she have if indeed she was really talking to these veterans about what the problems were?
We know that the Way Times existed at a lot of VA facilities, and it was enough that it was frustrating lots of veterans.
That's the reason that the story came out.
Thank you for the call.
Let's go to Yuma, Arizona.
Jeff, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
I'm Jim in Arizona.
Oh, Jim and Jim and Arizona.
Go ahead, Jim.
Not a problem.
Thank you.
I'd like to say that I love your British accent.
I think it ends on an air of respectability to your argument.
I think that might be Stein and not Bellinger for example.
Um, I thought the humor was bad on the part of the guest host here.
I mean, now we're getting you should leave the humor to me.
It's bad, but I at least have a certain bar that I won't go below, Jim or Jeff, or whatever your name is.
What did you have?
What's in your mind?
Okay.
Well, you were saying that we have to answer the liberals' arguments or they stand and and and they're allowed to deliberate.
But some arguments need to be answered by just pointing out the logical inconsistency that they're a canard like the um the disparity in income of the rich and the poor is a meaningless statistic.
The fact is that 20% of people in poverty over time, those 20% of people are not the same 20%.
People in this society move out of that income bracket, not class, but income bracket, and generally, hopefully, and and hopefully it's not generational.
In America, we have that ability.
Yeah, you're you're right about one thing.
There will always be, if you're going to have numbers, there's always going to be a number that's high and a number that's on the bottom.
If you've got 500 people in the United States, one person's going to have more money than everybody else, and one person's going to have less.
And your point is that that number changes, and therefore that the income inequality argument is a canard.
Here's where I disagree with you.
I think over the last several years of Obama, those people at the bottom haven't much changed.
That we are abandoning the notion of the American dream.
And that's the part where I believe the income disparity issue is real.
We've killed off the manufacturing sector in the United States.
If not killed it off, we've damaged it badly.
We have harmed the ability of people to be able to develop entry-level jobs.
The whole notion of increasing the minimum wage is going to be devastating to people at the bottom.
I think that the thing that we conservatives have to be committed to is speaking to people who are lower income and telling them that the conservative ideology is for them.
When when the only voice that people who are of lower income hear from are those remember the woman who, in talking about Obama in 2012, said Obama does all this stuff for the poor.
You got the Obama phone and all the other programs that she cited.
And then the other side is you had that terribly stupid comment from Mitt Romney in which she appeared to be writing off 48% of the people in the United States.
They're constantly dependent on aid.
That's wrong.
The conservative message is one that I think speaks to.
Most people who currently are poor, lower income, lower middle class, but don't want to stay there.
The answer to help you isn't to make you subsistent for the rest of your life on a government program.
It isn't to give you government health care and government food and government energy subsidies and government phones.
It's to give you the opportunity to move forward and make something of your life.
And that means a private sector that has entry level positions and positions that you can grow in.
It means a private sector in which companies want to do business in the United States.
It means a private sector in which companies are making so much money and are so profitable that they expand, hiring new people and promoting from within.
It's the only way people have ever been able to get ahead.
You have to have an opportunity for people who are low income to try to start their own business.
We still do have an entrepreneurial class in America in inner cities, and it's largely people who've immigrated here.
You take a look at all of the convenience stores and a lot of the gas stations in central cities, they're often owned by people who have immigrated to the United States working 90 and 100 hours a week, often in dangerous neighborhoods, trying to get ahead.
That's the message that ought to be embraced.
That it isn't a country in which you can't succeed, and it's not a country in which we want to constantly subsidize poverty and build up all of these programs.
We want to have a country in which you can move forward, you can get ahead, and you can have an opportunity to access the same things as people who are more well off than you.
And I think Republicans have made a grave mistake in not communicating that message.
Reagan, we shouldn't always have to go back to Reagan.
Reagan, I think, was able to speak to lower income Americans.
Many lower income Americans are by nature conservative people.
The income inequality portion that problem that I'm talking about is people that are stuck in poverty, given up.
You've got this enormous number of people who aren't even listed as unemployed anymore because they've stopped seeking work.
In some cases, because the programs that are out there for them are enough for them to live on, and in other cases, because there just aren't jobs available.
President Obama has presided over a jobless economic recovery.
All the growth that we've seen have been in assets, corporate profits, and so on.
Wages have not gone up again under Obama, and jobs have not been created.
That's a failure that ought to be held on liberal policies.
The point that I'm making is that conservatives need to speak about how a free market capitalism-based society that believes that you're not stuck in poverty just because you were born poor, that believes that because your skin color is not white that you don't have a chance, that that's wrong.
That conservatism works for you because the only way anyone can get ahead is if we have a vibrant, thriving private sector that is hiring people, promoting people, and giving them the opportunity to succeed financially.
I'm Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Last caller's point about the income inequality and that it isn't always the same people that are in the poverty category.
That's changing.
Under Obama, it is.
You've got more people trapped in long-term poverty who are locked out of the job market now than at any point in decades.
I think that the number of people that are now not actively seeking is it at an all-time high, an all-time American high.
Well, who's the guy that says that he wants to lift people out of poverty that says he cares about income inequality?
It's his policies that are keeping people poor and trying to subsidize poverty rather than give people an opportunity to move out.
My life is an argument that you can move from being lower income.
I'm not rich.
Nobody ever thinks they're rich, but I'm upper income.
Look at Rush.
He's kicking around until something worked for him.
We believe in an America where that can happen.
You know, there is still an American dream, but a lot of people are opting out of it.
And all Obama's rhetoric is is to try to reinforce to people that it's somebody else's fault, obviously not his and obviously not yours.
Somehow it's the man's fault.
And therefore the way that you need to counter this is to vote for people like me because we care about you.
Well, they say they care, but what have they done?
His presidency's been a disaster for lower income people, at least those who want to no longer be lower income.
I know the political result here.
This Henry Waxman district.
Henry Waxson's been a Democrat in Congress for 852 years.
He's not running for re-election.
This is like This is the Hollywood district.
His district goes from I've got a description here.
From LA South Bay.
It runs through Malibu, Santa Monica, Brentwood, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, into Hancock Park.
This is the Hollywood elite.
There are like a million candidates that are running.
All liberals and one Republican.
One of them that was running is Mary Ann Williamson.
She's the spiritual advisor to the stars.
She was big like 15 or 20 years ago, and a lot of Hollywood types would go to her, and she was she was their guide.
She was their guru.
It was all this feel-good new age stuff that certainly wasn't specific about who God was, and there wasn't much, if any, mention of Christianity or anything else.
It was all belief in the power of you and feel good.
The exact sort of thing that hedonists like the Hollywood culture would be into.
Well, Marianne Williamson got to be a millionaire off of all of this, and she had the richest clients, and she was at all the right.
She ran for Congress.
And she was backed by Spielberg endorsed her, Katzenberg, Geffen, all the big time Hollywood celebrities, the Hollywood establishment.
Marianne Williamson was their candidate.
She didn't make it.
She finished sixth.
Bunch of liberals divided up the vote.
The number one vote getter.
This is beautiful.
State Senator Ted Liu finished second.
Elon Carr was the leading vote getter.
There's one thing that distinguishes Elon Carr from all these other liberals that were running in the Hollywood district.
He's a Republican.
Republican ran number one.
Now, he's probably not going to win the general election.
Under California law, the top two candidates advance to the general election, and all the other Democrats will endorse Ted Leo, the Marianne Williamson crowd, and all the Hollywood.
They'll get behind the Democrat there.
It's a hard seat for the Republicans to win because it's an overwhelmingly Democrat district.
Yet so many Democrats divided up the vote that you actually had in that primary election, the number one vote getter in one of the most liberal districts in America, a Republican, a very pro-Israel Republican as well.
If nothing else, he's going to uh he's going to annoy the Hollywood crowd in the general election.
Marianne Williamson didn't make it.
Faith and the power to be me.
Remember her?
She was did all the TV stuff.
She was on the Oprah shows and all that.
She wanted to be in con.
Part of me kind of wishes that she had won.
I mean, to add to that, that entire California Democrat contingent contingent is half out of the wacko bin.
Having Marianne Williamson go in on all the TV talk shows and speaking her form of liberalism would have been great comic relief.
I think there might be one more trade to tell the audience about.
Mark Bellinion for Rush.
Tyler Keppner, who is the best baseball writer in America, New York Times, has a great piece on Don Zimmer.
What a classic, just a classic American story.
Don Zimmer, the longtime baseball guy, he died yesterday in Tampa.
Don Zimmer played second base for the Dodgers when they won the World Series.
He was the third baseman for the Mets when their franchise started out and was so miserable.
Managed the Red Sox in the 70s, managed the Cubs when they actually made the postseason, and then for so many years sat at the right hand of Joe Torrey as the bench coach for the New York Yankees.
Remember that fight he got involved in with Pedro Martinez?
Just a classic American figure whose entire life was in baseball, Don Zimmer.
Said we had one final trade.
Obama has swung.
Barack Obama, who thought it was a good deal to give away some Taliban commanders to bring home someone who might have been a deserter.
Barack Obama has swung one more trade that I can share with the Rush audience before we close up shop today.
He traded his own wife, Michelle DeKany for Kim Kardashian.
▲
Export Selection