A Mom in Charge of the Nanny State

RUSH: Oh, look it! Pelosi’s got one of her grandkids sitting there with her! She’s about to become the first woman speaker. Isn’t that lovely? It’s “for the children.” In fact, let’s go to the audio sound bites. Let’s hear number seven. Number seven. This works with what I’m seeing on TV with Pelosi right now. Is it ready to go? It is.
PELOSI: This Congress is going to be about children.
RUSH: What isn’t?
PELOSI: When I receive that gavel tomorrow —
RUSH: Yes?
PELOSI: — I will be receiving it on behalf of the children of America.
RUSH: Oh, puke.
PELOSI: You’ve heard me say that over and over again —
CONGRESS: (Applause.)
RUSH: Puke.
PELOSI: — and that everything we do, when we call that house to order, will be with the eye to what the impact is on our children —
RUSH: Actually, I take it back.
PELOSI: — and on America’s future, which is our children’s future.
RUSH: I can’t keep “bashing” her.
PELOSI: America’s working women, or women working at home, whatever women choose to do, that they have friends in the Capitol of the United States. (Applause.)
RUSH: Nannies. Nannies.
PELOSI: And that they have a friend, and they have a mom in the speaker’s office.
RUSH: That is just? It’s beautiful, ladies and gentlemen. I think this represents a sensitivity in this office that has never before been there: a woman with the very real and sincere and unchallengeable thought that every bit of legislation that comes out of the House of Representatives from now on will be about the children. That, ladies and gentlemen, we should not take for granted.
We don’t know how fortunate we are this day.

RUSH: I have to explain something. I’m getting a bunch of e-mails. ?Rush, why are you so snide when it comes to Pelosi saying everything is going to be done for the children.? There are two reasons, folks. The first one is everything always is done ?for the children? by human nature. Those of you who have kids, you work to support them. You educate them. Everything you’re doing is for them. She’s trying to stake out territory here as though the children are being ignored for the last 12 or 14 years or whatever. It’s poppycock.
It’s more of a political imagery. It’s out of the Clinton playbook.
For the Children. Who can oppose the children? It’s like environmentalists and clean water and clean air. I mean, who’s for dirty water? The way they set themselves up, if you oppose them you must be for dirty air and dirty water, must be for pollution. (If it could cure Alzheimer’s I’d be in favor of pollution, by the way, and it may well be proven to do that. You never know. Madcap scientific discoveries happen each and every day.) This business of the children, it’s nothing more than a trick, and it works! This is what bothers me: it works. People, they just melt. ?Ohhhhh, for the children!” Even when Hugo Chavez came to the United Nations and smelled the sulfur in the room, the devil is in this place after the Bush speech, the next day he shows up at some church in Harlem somewhere, and he’s surrounded by a bunch of kids sitting on his lap. ?Oh, he can’t be a bad man! Why, look at him. Children gravitate to this man. He loves the children and the children love him.? They’re just political props. The idea that people don’t care about kids? it’s a political notion that we have to have people care about kids because we had a bunch of people that don’t is just sophistry.
The second thing is, I don’t have kids, and I got to wondering how many other childless people there are in this country who when they hear that Pelosi and the Democrats say that every bit of legislation that is going to come out of this new Congress is going to be “for the children,” ask: What about those of us who don’t have any? Are we not being left behind? Are we not being left out? So I did some quick research here during the break, and 2002 is the most recent year I could find in my quick search. The Census Bureau said that there were 26.7 million women of childbearing age who had no kids in 2002, which is a 10% increase over what it was in 1990. So 26.7 million women in 2002 who are childless, and you gotta figure there’s a lot of men in that number, too. So the 26.7 million women means that a certain number of men are also childless, so let’s double it just for the sake of argument. Forgetting artificial wombs and insemination and so forth, let’s just say 50 million childless people in the country out of a population of close to 300 million. That is not an insignificant percentage of the population that are childless, yet the childless pay taxes; the childless support schools. The childless donate to PACs. The childless vote.
I think it actually may be time for a new lobbying group, the childless lobby, because clearly we have just been told today — those of you who are childless — we’ve been told basically (raspberry)! You don’t count here. You don’t figure. (interruption) What do you mean, “pay for your own kids lobby?” Oh, I see what you’re saying. No, that would be unnecessarily confrontational. This is not about jealousy or envy. We want to be noticed, too. We are the childless people and we are Americans, too. We want legislation aimed at us, not just kids. We don’t want to be forgotten. We pay taxes. We help build the roads. We help build the schools. We do all kinds of things, and we’ve basically been told that we’re irrelevant! So, the childless lobby. That’s how lobbying groups get started, when people think they’re being left out and ignored in the system.
END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT