Gloria Steinem Wants Clinton

Someone forwarded a NY Times column by Gloria Steinem, and this, like roughly 98.76% of Steinem’s columns, was about woman and how bad off they have it or how much they are discriminated against.

The premise is set up by her opening paragraph, which reads: THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father - in this race-conscious country, she is considered black - she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

My immediate answer was, hell no! Was this because this person was a Black or a woman? Don’t be ridiculous! I am a conservative—I looked at the pertinent data: a state legislator for 8 years and less than a 1 term US Senator. The other stuff was irrelevant. The ages of the kid, our race-conscious society, her race or gender; totally irrelevant! No way should this person be the president of the United States—the most powerful person on earth. In fact, if this person had any personal integrity, they would not even consider running for president.

Now, obviously, Steinem’s point here was, there are a significant number of people out there who were reject this candidate because she is a woman (combined with the other things); and that what are we doing, seriously considering a Black male presidential candidate with this bio?

Well, I completely agree with her on that point. Not because he is a male, not because he is Black, not because he has 2 children, but because he has absolutely no executive experience.

Of the original 8 Democratic candidates, only 3 of them had any real executive experience at all: Gravel, Richardson and Kucinich. Now, I liked both Gravel and Kucinich because they were entertaining during the debates. I could not stand the other candidates, quite frankly, and none of it had to do with age, race or gender; it had to do with their socialistic positions. Richardson, arguably, has a real executive record. He was reelected to an executive post by a comfortable margin. I also think he is much more intelligent than he sounds (much like Bush). However, I disagreed with him on pretty much every issue.

Now, I will admit that, out of the 3 Democratic candidates left standing, Hillary is easily the most qualified. She is not qualified to be a presidential candidate, but she is head and shoulders above Obama and Edwards. Furthermore, since she will likely depend a great deal on polls, even though she is a socialist at heart, and the damage she will do is probably going to be less than the damage done by Edwards or Obama in a presidential position (since Obama seems to vote present of so many of his votes, it is difficult to determine his core values).

Let me meander back to Steinem’s article: She asserts: So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I bet that when Steinem gets madder than this, she just goes into the kitchen and beats those pots and pans together—as loud as she can.

Her fundamental mistake is, a lot of people do not like Hillary because she is Hillary; not because she is a woman. I’ve seen Obama rallies—I frankly don’t think much of them, but you cannot help but recognize that he gets his people pumped up and Obamatized. I don’t think candidates from either side can pump up their crowds like Obama can. It is a fact of nature, and it has nothing to do with sexism. Now, could there be an element of reverse-racism here? Probably. But there is no denying he generates excitement among the faithful. Hillary doesn’t. The difference is not gender; it is charisma. He has it and she does not. Get over it.

Steinem: I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I'm not opposing Mr. Obama; if he's the nominee, I'll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

Steinem is exactly right here. There is probably not a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary and Obama. Where she is wrong is, her last statement. I will absolutely agree that a Clinton or Obama presidency is a strong possibility. But, I will also predict that, if they go forward with their ideologies, they will be one-term presidents, because the economy will not take more socialism. One of the reasons Bill Clinton stayed in office was, he worked with Republicans and took a few conservative positions on some important legislation. He was poll-driven, not ideology driven. He made incredible foreign policy blunders, but, like more foreign policy blunders, they often take a few years before they are recognized (allowing Pakistan to get nuclear weapons; actually giving North Korean nuclear technology, treating Islamic terrorism as criminal acts—these were flat-out stupid things for Clinton to do).

What would I like to see? Hillary should run to become the governor of New York and Obama should run to become the governor of Illinois. If, after running a real executive position, and if they are reelected, then either would be reasonably ready to run for president. And let me repeat this, because this drum is beat by liberals so it seems to drown out all else: it is not a matter of racism, it is not a matter of sexism, it is a matter of experience. None of the top 3 Democratic candidates has a dime’s worth of experience in an executive position.

I am sending this commentary to some Democrats: do you want to screw up your party? Elect Hillary or Obama. I will guarantee you that will screw up your party for a long time. When you elect someone to a position for which they are not qualified, and they are presented as the best the Democratic party has to offer, your party will suffer big time. Even though most newspapers and mainstream televison will cover for them, they no longer have a media monopoly, and there will be very loud voices pointing out every mistake that they make—and, having no experience, they will make a ton of mistakes.

Steinem: But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

Clinton is inherently a divisive person (when running in a primary unopposed, about 40% of the Democratic constituent voted against her) and Obama has soft-pedaled his positions—so, to a Democratic audience, he appears to be unifying, but he is not.

Steinem: What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.

No one should vote based upon a person’s color or gender. When will Gloria understand this? Okay, let me be serious: it is possible that the women voters who voted for Obama just liked him better? Do they have to vote for Hillary because she is a woman?

Steinem: What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old - for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy - while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

Reporters do not have easy access to Obama, and that is by design. Throughout most of the mainstream media, liberals are given an automatic pass (with the exceptions of Russert and Stossel who do not give their interviewees passes). What Hillary is used to is, a media bias which favors just the Clinton’s, which is what they enjoyed through most of the 90's. Now there are two popular Democratic candidates, so the mainstream media is going to split its loyalties. Too bad, so sad. I am sure it is based upon sexism, as, they do tend to be liberals.

Now maybe I just missed the reason this person sent this article to me—maybe the idea was, here is a woman in her 70's still putting together coherent thoughts, albeit living in the past, when writing down her ideas. The entire article may be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

A Bible Column

In case you don’t know, I put this little thing together for fun in about 3 or 4 hours mostly after church on Sunday. The first few things are original, and then, the last few pages are a few of Rush Limbaugh’s best moments for this week.

I’ve decided to add a new column, where I try to deal with a Biblical topic in about one column. This is not easy for me, as I tend to be long-winded and go off on several tangents. I’ll try not to be too much of either.

This first entry is going to deal with the idea behind parables, something I have never seen properly explained before. A parable is something thrown down along something else; and, more specifically, a story, common to the experience of those hearing the story, which teaches some spiritual truth. Most people understand this, even if this misinterpret half of the parables taught by Jesus Christ.

Here is what you don’t know: why did Jesus teach in parables? Why didn’t He just say what was on His mind straight out and let it go at that? Here’s why: most of what is found in the Old Testament are parables—they are real, historical incidents, but they also represent something else. God has always taught us spiritual truth in parable form, so, when God comes to us as a man, then it would only make sense that He would continue to teach in exactly the same way. The Bible is the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16)—both Old and New Testaments. So what we find in the Old Testament tells us all about Jesus Christ and His purpose for coming to us in the New.

This helps to explain the downtime between the Testaments. God was making sure that there was no confusion that everything in the Old Testament clearly was written before the New Testament. We know the Old Testament was translated into Greek around 200 b.c. and we have some manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls which can be dated around 100 b.c. So, when we go to the Old Testament and find Christ dying for our sins, it is clear that God has been telling us this from the very first, but in shadow or parable form. Jesus continued to teach in this same form, so that (1) we can understand one of the greatest purposes of the Old Testament is to reveal Jesus Christ; and (2) because the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same God—and He communicates to us in the same way, whether teaching us before or after the 1^st advent of Jesus Christ.

The festivals and sacrifices were designed specifically to teach Christ to us, as a shadow of the substance which is Christ (Col. 2:16–17). This can be extended to the real, historical incidents recorded in the Old Testament—they have meaning which help to explain Jesus Christ to those who live in the Old Testament. To be continued.

The Nevada Democratic Debate

Yawn!

You probably didn’t see it. You did not miss much. I cannot imagine a dozen or so more debates with these 3. Obama had many chances to get Hillary but he never did. Somehow, the Clinton’s have made it known that, if you question another Democratic candidate’s policies or stated positions, that is dirty politics. So, these candidates struggled to reach agreement on almost every issue. There was a brief moment where both Obama and Clinton said they would consider nuclear power, and then Edwards forcefully pointed out that he is absolutely against nuclear power, so what do Obama and Clinton do? They back off of their positions. They qualify their original answers. They give a more nuanced position. How pathetic!

I can, without any problem, state strong differences between some of the Republican candidates (I will admit that Huckabee and Romney are harder to pin down). McCain, Rudy and Thompson all have fairly clearly delineated positions, and positions which may be differentiated from one another.

Change

Okay, I admit, I miss some things entirely. Obama began talking about “change,” making it his every third word. Then I thought, after hearing every other candidate cry out “change” that they are making a mistake, following Obama’s lead in this. I was wrong. Since every candidate has taken up the mantle of change, it makes Obama’s call for change seem hollow. Astute political move to all involved.

200,000 Veterans Under Bridges

Bill O’Reilly made some great points concerning John Edward’s dishonest political position about veterans and the economy. What Edwards has been quite vociferous about is, there are 200,000 veterans sleeping under bridges, and it is all because of this terrible economy and the two Americas.

O’Reilly made the following points: Fine. Here's the truth about poverty in America, Mr. Edwards. Listen up. You might learn something. And you need the lesson.

If you earn less than $10,000, you are poor. If a family of four earns less than $21,000, they are poor. Yet according to the government census, poor households in America have lots of stuff.

Ninety-seven percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.

So if the poor are not destitute in America, and they obviously are not, why are so many veterans sleeping under bridges, John Edwards? The answer is they're mostly addicted or mentally ill. It has nothing to do with the economy.

Edwards is a charlatan, a man either too uninformed or too dishonest to be elected to anything. I am tired of hearing this nonsense from him and other callow politicians.

O’Reilly Factor Political Coverage

From O’Reilly’s talking points this week:

It is estimated that 47 million Americans listen to talk radio each week. And the radio airwaves are dominated by conservative hosts, people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

There are many reasons for this. The mainstream media - print and TV - is largely liberal, so talk radio gives conservatives a voice, so to speak.

Liberal radio networks like Air America have been disasters, with low ratings and even lower presentations.

So throughout the USA, radio talk tilts right. There's no question about it.

This evening we will look at how three conservatives and three liberals - all of whom bloviate on the radio - are handling the presidential race. What are the rules? Can you say anything about candidates you don't like? Can you shill for somebody you support? We'll zero in on those questions.

Also, do talk radio hosts have a responsibility to be honest? Or can they embrace propaganda? Is that legitimate?

On my program "The Radio Factor" we do not endorse candidates, and we criticize all of them. Even when we disagree with candidates, we treat them fairly. You saw that last night when NBC News distorted Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark. We called them on it, even though Hillary Clinton is not exactly a big fan of mine.

There is no question that President Bush benefitted from talk radio, and Bill Clinton overcame talk radio in their presidential campaigns. So this year, anything could happen.

One further comment: "Talking Points" will go after political candidates whom we believe to be dishonest or irresponsible.

This season John Edwards has taken a beating on "The Factor" because we do not buy his "two Americas" nonsense. Mr. Edwards has consistently demagogued the economy, distorting many facts and ignoring others. So he has gotten hammered by me.

But there's nothing personal in that. My determination is based upon what is real and what is hype. I believe John Edwards is hype.

Be that as it may, other talk show hosts have other people in their sights, and during the next hour we will find out who is doing what to whom.

And that's "The Memo."

Smoking Causes Rectal Cancer

RUSH: So, did you see, ladies and gentlemen, the story here that smoking can lead to rectal cancer? I saw that story, and I said, "Some people just don't know how to smoke.

Is Rush too Rich and Out of Touch?

A caller complained to Rush that he was too out of touch with real America because he was too rich and did not know what it was like to struggle or to not be able to afford health care. Rush answered:

RUSH: No, no, no. Let me tell you something about this wealth business. I've been broke twice in my life. When I was 31 years old, I was making $17,000 a year. I have been fired I forgot how many times. Seven times! So I've been there. This constant refrain that I'm "out of touch," is just bogus. That's another thing that really bugs me: this movement within the Republican Party to claim that the middle class is in great suffering and pain. I understand if you own a house, and your value of your equity in your house is plummeting, that you're worried, and I understand that totally. What you need to hear is the truth of why it happened, so that you can make plans in the future. These are cycles, and everybody in every country and every society goes through them, and ours are not nearly as bad as people around the rest of the world are. I know health care is expensive. That's why I'm focused not on making it more expensive, but on making it cheaper, and how do you do that? You do it with conservatism! I'm by no means out of touch on this. If the health care industry were priced like every other industry is on the patient's ability to pay, then we'd fix the problem, and that's the direction we have to head in.

But if we're going to keep this notion that everybody's entitled to have whatever they want medically paid for by their neighbors, then we are finished. We are finished as a country; we are finished as a society. You can talk about my wealth, but let me tell you something, sir. I don't depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn't want to be obligated. I didn't want to be dependent. I didn't want to owe anybody. I don't buy into insurance plans because it's a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don't have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it -- and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that's conservatism again. People are much better than they know. They have much more potential than they know. But when you've got a Democrat Party and a movement telling them they suck, telling them they can't get anywhere because the deck is stacked against them and the people stacking the deck are Republicans and so forth, then you are diminishing the country; you're diminishing the future, and you're destroying people's lives.

That's what today's liberalism and Democrat Party is doing. You want to fix health care? You make it like buying a hotel room. We have all kinds of choices. You can go to a Motel 6 and you can go to a Ritz Carlton. Depends how much you want to pay. Why is health care any different? Health care's different because the government's been involved in it for so long. They're trying to make people dependent on government and people in government for power, and wait 'til they start doing that with other businesses, too -- with energy, and everything else. We're faced with real, real challenges here, and the debate over health care is not how "we Republicans" can best make sure everybody gets insured, because that's just accepting the Democrat proposal and their position. Our target ought to be: How do we make this reasonable? How do we reduce costs? And there are countless proposals out there. It's the same thing with public schools. Most people despise 'em. Most people, particularly in urban neighborhoods, would love to get their kids out of these rotten schools -- and every time they have a chance to send 'em to a private school, they jump at it.

Who stands in the way? The Democrat Party, the teachers unions, who are interested in maintaining substandard schools with substandard education so they will have jobs. I'm not the problem, sir. I'm not the one standing in anybody's way. I'm trying to tell people how to get out of the rut. I'm trying to show them that they can. I'm trying to demonstrate that it's possible, and it's possible if you understand certain conservative principles that are indeed rooted in freedom, self-reliance, and achievement. Not whining, not moaning, and not complaining. Because you can whine, moan, and complain all you want, and then what are you going to do after that? Wait for somebody to come in and tell you that they're sorry and offer you some solution to it? The solution to the health care mess is just out there, the same as the solution to public schools: vouchers. People are spending property tax money through the nose to prop up a worthless education system!

Let 'em take the money that's being taken from them; give them control over how to spend it on their own kids' education, and you watch how it changes. Ditto health care. The solutions to the problems that ail this country are found in capitalism and the free market, the true agent of change. Not from Washington with people despising policies rooted in nothing fundamental, policies that are simply designed to make people think Washington cares and Washington is "doing something." Well, how many years have you heard politicians run for office whining and moaning and telling you they hear you, on the mess that is health care? The Clintons in the nineties. "We got 37 million uninsured. We're going to fix this." Today it's 47 million uninsured, they tell us. A lot of that, people are choosing to be uninsured because they're young, and they want to spend their money on other things. But that's not good enough for Democrats! They're going to be mandating coverage for everybody, if they get their way. Has the problem been solved? Or is it getting worse?

The health care problem in this country is getting worse, while people are voting for people who are making it worse because they hear these people saying, "I'm going to fix it." Well, the people in charge of fixing it have no interest in it getting fixed, because, if it gets fixed, you don't need them. You can rely on yourself. This health care debate is one of the most infuriating things I witness every day, because I get so sick and tired of people buying hook, line, and sinker a lie. "I'm going to get everybody covered. I'm going to make sure everybody gets health insurance in this country. We're going to make sure it's not just the rich." It doesn't happen, does it? When you have government telling private industry how to operate, this is exactly what you get, and it's going to happen in energy. It's already happening in a number of other industries, too. It's happening in the auto industry. You bring the auto industry up. I'll tell you what Mr. Lutz told me: He can't make the cars he wants to make, because of these CAFE standards! (sigh) It's frustrating as hell.

I said, "Well, why don't you fight? Why don't you guys, all you auto companies get together and fight this hoax?"

He said, "Because we gotta give the customers what they want."

I said, "What do you mean?"

"Well, the customers believe this stuff."

That's right. The American people have bought hook, line, and sinker this hoax of manmade global warming. Carbon dioxide, which we exhale, is a pollutant! How stupid can anybody be to believe this? The Good Lord created us. Are we pollutants? We are destroying the earth? That's what the Democrats and liberals and environmentalist wackos want you to believe. The very fact of our existence pollutes the planet so we are sinning and we have to be made to pay! What's that? Higher taxes. More liberals in power telling us how we must atone. Well, screw that, and screw them! You want to revive the auto industry? Let people that ought to make cars people want build them.

McGovern Repents

One of the problems with political liberals is they have never ever had to run a business; they have not had to take the risks, they have not had to lose sleep over their business, they have not had to make a payroll, they have not had to be burdened with government regulation.

This is an edited portion of a conversation Rush had last week with a caller about George McGovern, which morphs into the reason why so many liberals and politicians are so anti-business:

CALLER: There was a comment earlier this week on the radio about the lack of experience of the Democratic nominees for the presidential race had, and I remember in 1972 I voted for George McGovern, and years later, listening to PBS I heard an interview with Mr. McGovern, and he had gotten into a business venture in New England and it was a bed-and-breakfast that went bankrupt. He and his partner lost money.

RUSH: I remember that.

CALLER: And he stated that if he had known what business was like, he would have voted differently in the Senate.

RUSH: He said specifically, your memory is fabulous. He said if he had known what it took to make a payroll --

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: He had never run a business. It was a little hotel or something, and it was in New England.

CALLER: He and his partners lost it, and so that sort of brings it to the forefront. What is your opinion of the experience level of these different Republican as well as Democratic people that are trying to get into the White House? I mean, like Bush, he always seemed to be what he was, you know? And that's why I voted for him. But after that thing from McGovern, it really -- I always thought, you know, who knows what they're doing, you know?

RUSH: This is not hard to understand. It's hard to explain why voters don't care about it, but it's not hard to understand. You're familiar with David Broder, the dean of Washington columnists, the Washington Post, right? He wrote a piece yesterday, said, you know, these Democrat candidates are running around here and they're talking about all this experience, and they don't have any. They don't have any businesses. Not one of them has ever run a business. None of them knows the first thing about it, and he said, "This is really going to come back to haunt them on Election Day." Right now it doesn't matter because it's primaries, but any number of these Republicans are going to be able to say that they have run businesses, that they've made payrolls, and they've turned them around and they made big successes out of their businesses in the private sector.

Now, the Democrats, Hillary [and] Obama...don't care [about the difficulties of running a business]. If you listen to Hillary and Obama, what are they going to do to business? They're going to punish it. They're going to take ExxonMobil's profits. Hillary said this. They're going to make sure that these businesses stop screwing the American people. Business to them is a competitor. To them, the only thing that matters -- they're liberals -- the only thing that matters is government. That's their source of power and that's where they're going to utilize it, and everybody is a potential target to liberals, including business.

So, to them, having no business experience is perfect, because they could say we haven't been corrupted. They think -- or they want people to believe that they think that all business is corrupt; that it cheats people; that it steals; that it treats employees unfairly; that it fires 'em left and right. They only pay the CEO a lot of money, and they deserve to be punished. They get votes on this basis. It's called class envy. So I think Mr. Broder -- I hope he's right, but I don't think that a lot of Democrat voters, a lot of liberal voters give a rat's rear end about the fact that Democrat candidates don't understand business. But it does point out one of the real, real problems, is that when you're liberal and you believe in government, folks, your big enemy is capitalism, your big enemy is freedom and liberty, enjoyed by the American people. Your biggest friend is an always expanding government with more and more power.

That's why liberals get so cranky and out of sorts when they don't run government because they can't do anything without it. They cannot empower people -- well, that's mistaken to say. They don't want to empower people. They want to enslave people. They want to make people dependent. They can't do that if they don't have control of the government. They are totally at a loss. When the government's not actively engaged in creating more and more dependence, people more and more fend for themselves. This is the ongoing battle, and that's anathema to liberals. So it's a great question. I'm glad you called with that, because as far as liberals and a lot of their voters are concerned, business is to be screwed, business is to be gotten even with, business is to be cut down to size, CEOs are to be punished, taxed through the roof so the little guy feels like the big guy feels some pain, too, pure and simple.

Rush on Chris Matthews’ Apology

RUSH: [The other night on TV] Matthews apologized to Hillary. The one time Matthews gets something right and he apologizes for it because of pressure from the Hillary front group, Media Matters for America. If you didn't hear this, you have to hear it. Here first is what Matthews said that got Media Matters and everybody all upset. This is on January 9th, and this actually was on Scarborough's show in the morning, Morning Joe, and this is what Matthews said about Hillary.

MATTHEWS: I think the Hillary appeal has always been somewhat about a mix of toughness and sympathy for her. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it; she didn't win on her merits, she won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened.

RUSH: He hit the nail on the head, folks. Hillary Clinton is where she is because she is the most cheated on woman in the world, not the most cheated on woman in America, but the most cheated on woman in the world. Now listen as Hardball last night turned into Suckball.

MATTHEWS: Concerned people like you who watch this show so faithfully every night, people like me who care about this country think I've been disrespectful to Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying, and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say, in fact, normally like me. If my heart does not always control my words, on those occasions that I have not taken the time to say things right or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I'll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women, of all people, the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So I get it. Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive.

RUSH: Well, this is what happens to you when you want to be liked by the libs and when you don't want the libs getting mad at you. This is what my show would be every day if I sought the approval of the libs. So Hardball became Suckball last night. He got it right the first time when he was on Scarborough because what else recommends her? In fact, Krauthammer had an even better line today, I read his column at National Review Online, and he said this whole bid for the presidency is just one giant alimony payment (laughter) without the divorce. So, yeah, we're the ones paying for it. That is exactly right. A giant alimony payment and we're the ones paying.

Huckabee’s Fried Squirrel Meals

(I totally enjoyed this segment):

RUSH: On Scarborough's show yesterday. This... This... (sigh) This is Huckabee.

HUCKABEE: I bet you never did this. When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us use in the dorms -- and we would fry squirrel in popcorn poppers in the dorm room.

SCARBOROUGH: Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!

WOMAN: O-kay.

HUCKABEE: Bet you never did that.

RUSH: Nope. Nope. Nope. How could I kid about [this?]...That was [really] Huckabee. Play it again. That was Huckabee on Scarborough yesterday.

HUCKABEE: I bet you never did this. When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us use in the dorms -- and we would fry squirrel in popcorn poppers in the dorm room.

SCARBOROUGH: Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!

HUCKABEE: Bet you never did that.

RUSH: Okay. Well, I don't think he's reaching out to the culinary workers because they're in Vegas; he's in South Carolina. But this is the kind of thing the Drive-Bys just salivate about. "Please, God, nominate this guy. Please? Pleeeease?"

By the way, Obama, Obama has come out for animal rights. Do you want to hear pure pandering? (interruption) The squirrels are safe because of Obama. Wait until Obama hears that Huckabee fried squirrels in that popcorn popper. "Democrat Barack Obama, in Nevada, says he won't just be president for the American people, but for the animals, too. A woman shouted during his town hall meeting outside Vegas yesterday. He was discussing issues that relate more to humans, like war, health care, and the economy," and some liberal babe in the audience said, "'What about animal rights?' Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, quote, "not only because I have a nine-year-old and a six-year-old who want a dog.' He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.

If Huckabee's elected president, do you think we now have an idea what the menu would be at the first state dinner? Fried squirrel.

Hillary on the Tyra Banks Show

RUSH: Hillary is back to playing the victim again. Monday she was on the Tyra Banks Show. What is the Tyra Banks Show? I know Tyra Banks is a model, but I didn't know she had a show. Where is this show? Is it on Sirius or XM? Is it on cable? (interruption) It's TV? It's a syndicated TV show. Oh, gee. Oprah-like. You know, it's stuff like this that just really, really impacts my optimism on the future of the country. Something like this, a nonbroadcastette has a TV show. Anyway, Hillary was there, playing the victim again, and Tyra Banks said, "How did you persevere during the darkest moment in your life?"

HILLARY: Well, because I had tremendous faith, number one, I really had to dig down deep and think hard about what was right for me, what was right for my family, and I never doubted Bill's love for me, ever, and I never doubted my faith and my commitment to our daughter and our extended family. But I had to decide what I had to do, and I think it's so important to be able to hear yourself at a moment when it's hard.

RUSH: This is so much smack! To act like this was a surprise when everybody knows -- we're talking about Lewinsky here. It wasn't a surprise. She had been in charge of the bimbo eruptions. The only thing she was probably upset about was she was probably angry that he was stupid and he got caught. Now, a bunch of jive gobbledygook about you gotta be able to hear yourself at a moment when it's hard. Somebody tell me what that means. You have to be able to hear yourself. So next up on the Tyra Banks Show, the question then to Mrs. Clinton, as she now, in this sound bite, offers advice to other doormats out there. Question: "Were you embarrassed?"

HILLARY: Well, sure. I mean all of that, but I also, I was just praying so hard and thinking so hard about what's right to do.

BANKS: Do women come up to you and ask for advice, my husband -- you know, my husband stepped out on me, and I'm going through hell right now, what do I do? Have they done that?

HILLARY: Yes.

BANKS: What do you say?

HILLARY: I say you have to be true to yourself. You know, no one story is the same as any other story. I don't know your reality. I can't possibly substitute my judgment for yours, but what I can tell you is, you must be true to yourself. You have to do what is right for you.

RUSH: Now, what does that mean? In Hillary's case, okay, I am the most cheated on woman in the world and I'm going to get something for this. There's a price, and it's right for me, and that is being president, because I, the most cheated on woman in the world, not the country, but the world. So she's telling you that you can't do that. If you're a doormat and you're being cheated on, not as much as Hillary because she's the most cheated on woman in the world, but if you're a woman and you're being cheated on, she's saying, "Look, I can't judge for you." What that means is, you don't stand a prayer becoming president like I do, but you might be able to join the culinary workers and endorse Obama, if you really set your sights high.

Is Hillary a Woman or a Feminist?

RUSH: Fort Wayne, Indiana. Bruce, nice to have you. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: An honor, sir. Is Hillary Clinton a woman or a feminist? Because, frankly, I can't tell anymore. I need your help.

RUSH: Both. Hillary Clinton is a man -- well, she's a woman who wants to be someday viewed as a woman but treated like a man and other days vice-versa. Some days she's a feminist, other days she's a victim. She will morph into whatever she has to be on that particular day based on what is happening in her campaign and what's called for. And that's nothing new. I mean, she's always been that. And I'll tell you, you go back to this crying episode in New Hampshire, it's not going to ever be reported this way, but what an actual blow for feminism. To have to play the victim, to have to say, "I can't get anywhere because these men are making fun of me, just so hard, it's so hard, I don't know how I get up and do my hair every day." That brought out all kinds of pent-up rage that women have for men. This was not a good day for the feminist movement. Of course it's not going to be reported that way. But, yeah, she's a chameleon. She'll do whatever she has to do whenever she needs to do it.

Rush on Bush’s Stimulus Package

RUSH: The president had a little press conference today and announced a stimulus package, $145 billion consisting primarily of tax cuts. Normally, when people start proposing or talking about stimulus plans -- I have just one question. Okay, so we're supposedly heading into a recession. I want to tell you, the numbers are not there yet, folks. There aren't any numbers for recession yet. I'm not predicting there is going to be or not, but the numbers are not there in this recession business.

We're living here in a sort of surreal universe where the whole concept has been created with daily reports by the Drive-Bys coupled with the fluctuations going on in the markets on Wall Street. So everybody's convinced, and you combine that with the subprime crisis and so forth, and people are convinced that we're either in one or it's going to happen. So voila, what do we do? We start talking about stimulus packages. My reaction to this is, if we have the ability, which we don't, by the way, that's another point for a moment later. If we have the ability to stimulate the economy with packages like this, why don't we do it every damn day and make sure there's never a recession? Why didn't we do this six months ago to keep this day from ever coming? It's because we can't. Government can't. The market's too big, it's too complex.

So here's what we got. The administration's gotta talk with the people in Congress, and Harry Reid, there was a conference call yesterday, it was hilarious. Harry Reid and Pelosi, others in the congressional leadership on the phone with Bush and his team at the White House, and Reid blew up.

Dingy Harry blew up on the phone because Bush was going to go ahead and do this and propose something without getting a deal with Congress first, i.e., he was going to go and be unipartisan instead of bipartisan, and Dingy Harry didn't like that. He started screaming on the phone, from what we're told, and had to be calmed down by other Democrat leaders on the conference call. Bush today just mentions it, says, "I had a productive call yesterday with members of the congressional leadership and I was happy they shared their ideas with me." I can just see this little gnome, Dingy Harry, on the phone yelling and screaming as it's reported.

Now, will we do plan A or plan B? It depends upon if you're serious or if you are a politician. Plan A, pass out a few bucks, walking-around money to every voter, every household. It's never worked. Plan B, boost economic activity, produces growth, cut taxes, make tax cuts permanent. On one side you got plan A, stimulus package, on the other side you get plan B. Plan A has never worked. Plan B always does, when you try it. If you want to give a boost to the economy, whether it's needed or not, you would think the answer would be obvious, do plan B. Plan B's the one that always works. My friends, this is an election year. Plan A doesn't work, but it gets votes. That's the problem. Plan A, just give money away. As Fred Thompson said, just send helicopters out and drop crash in all your neighborhoods.

Plan B is what President Bush proposed. Now, I'm being cautious here because I don't know if he or some in his administration later on are going to propose elements of plan A to go along with plan B. The saddest part of all this is that everybody knows that plan B is the way to do it, but many in Congress are going to reject it as vigorously as they reject victory in the Middle East. I just want to remind you, probably blowing against the wind here, but the numbers that signal recession aren't there yet, and it's going to be months before they are. I'm not going to call a recession. I don't know. But I just know that we're not in one now.

Hillary’s Experience/Republican Experience

RUSH: I have two stories here on the Democrat side, first from an ABC News blog. Hillary Clinton pouncing on Barack Obama, saying that she's ready to be a CEO and a COO, and Obama isn't. Hillary is ready. David Broder today, in the Washington Post: "A Democrat Field Without an Executive." He says, "By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing."

Romney also ran a huge business in the private sector and straightened out the Olympics. So Broder says, if experience is your issue, the Democrats are lacking. If you can't control the smears that your bureaucracy are putting out, in the case of Mrs. Clinton -- you know, the Clinton campaign is saying, Heather, that all these smears of Obama, "Why, my staff has nothing to do with this." And that's not nearly as big a bureaucracy as the federal government is. If she can't control that, if she can't run that -- Now, where's this been for a year? I'm glad Broder finally got in the game here on this. But you talk about having experience of running big organizations, or turning failing financial organizations around, that experience is going to be found in droves on the Republican side, nowhere to be found on the Democrat side.

Here’s Broker’s column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603444.html