All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:17
March 10, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we got that picture up of me and Vince Flynn uh Vince Flynn and me uh on the set of 24 from about a year ago at the top of the page at www.rushlimb.com.
And I've I've shed about 30 pounds since that picture was taken, folks, so don't hold it against me.
Anyway, it's open line Friday.
You know what that means.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Goody goody dungrups.
Looking forward to it, folks.
Second hour of three underway.
And uh open line Friday, you want to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
Feel free to do so.
That's what we do on the phones on Friday, 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Despite all that you're hearing about the Republican Party in disarray, don't believe it.
This is this the Democrats.
Well, I've got two, and maybe if I count the Hillary story, I got three stories today on just from mainstream press reporters fed up with them.
Just tired.
Don't they haven't gotten their act together, they have no agenda, they're not willing to say what they for, so forth and so on.
There's a lot of impatience out there with the Democrats, and it's based on the fact that they all think that the Republicans have imploded, that the country is there for the Democrats to take, and they don't see them acting out the opportunity, taking advantage of it.
You can you can say all you want about Bush, but he's getting pretty much everything he wants.
Got the Patriot Act after Harry Reed's out there laughing and clapping his hand saying he killed it.
Um it's not as bad for the Republicans as you think, uh, and it's not as good for the Democrats as they think.
And we'll get to those stories in a mere moment or two.
And if you throw a third story, somebody is dumping on Hillary Clinton, Byron York, uh, has a story at National Review Online today about her ties to sweatshops and Jack Abramov.
Anne Walmart.
Uh it's pretty detailed, but you know, I'm I'm I'm wondering about a couple things here.
And it was just this week that we learned that George Soros and Harold Icky's are attempting to commandeer the Democratic National Committee's donor list.
They're going to go out and start their own data mining operation and actually try to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from the mayor of Cooksville, Howard Dean.
Now, you don't expect Dean and a Democratic National Committee to sit there and let this happen, do you?
I don't.
I don't think they're going to sit there and let this Dean is Dean's not, he's he's not going to sit there and let this happen.
And then same week we get this story on Hillary and Sweatshops and Jack Abramov and so forth.
I'm not saying that the Democratic Party is sabotaging Hillary, and I'm not, I'm not even saying I'm just wondering.
The timing of these things always makes me curious.
That's all I'm saying.
I'll get to the details of that.
But during the top of the hour break, people uh listening on the computer via our live audio or ditto cam feed, uh, heard the uh the tune that the broadcast engineer played at the top of the hour.
It's a tune we've been, it's been in our rotation here for easily seven or eight years, or maybe even longer.
And what's this?
What's that guy's name?
The uh artist.
Oh yeah, Paolo Conti, and the uh the tune is is Happy Feet.
And I for well, you know, I've got this story here about happiness and housework, and a friend of mine sent me an email.
You ought to play that that song as you lead into the story.
So let's get it's it's a it's a cute little song, and it'll it it's very infectious.
Here it is, Paolo Conti.
He does have a cigarette dangling from his lips while he sings.
Or at his hands when he's he looks just like he sounds, is what I'm saying here.
Hoppy feet, hoppy feet.
The Republicans dancing around the polls, P. O. L L S. Thank you, Paolo Conti, and happy feet.
Now I do this because there's a great news story out there today by Carlin uh Bowman.
In 1969, when budding British sociologist Ann Oakley went to register her thesis on the attitudes and work satisfaction of British housewives.
Her colleagues reacted in disbelief.
Why would anybody study housework?
But the young mother of two persevered, and Oakley, like Betty Fridan, her better known U.S. counterpart, found housework deeply alienating today.
The views of Oakley and Fredan reverberate throughout the academic literature, and in many quarters of popular press as well.
In a piece written after Fridan's Fridan's death last month, Judith Warner, author of The Perfect Madness, Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety, argued, well, that sounds like a perfect Oprah book.
Argued that the gender caste system is alive and well in most households.
Housework isn't shared, so the feminist revolution remains incomplete.
Life outside the home has changed for most women, but home life has not.
Ms. Warner, like many academics in this field, starts with the assumption that the unequal division of housework is a problem that perpetuates gender oppression.
But for most people, the imbalance is not a serious problem at all.
In surveys conducted over a 25-year period for Virginia Slims, big tobacco.
No more than 15% of married couples or those living together ever told Roper interviewers that they frequently disagreed with their spouse on how the house is kept.
That's because most men have given up trying.
There was more disagreement.
Sorry, Don, I'm just getting giddy here.
There was more disagreement about whether to spend or save, and about families and in-laws than there was about what men's responsibilities at home should be or how clean the house was.
And get this, fewer than 10% of women answering another question, said they often felt resentful about how much my mate helps around the house because he screws it up anyway.
In this survey, over a 25-year period, fewer than 10% of women answering another question another question said that they often felt resentful about quote, how much my mate helps around the house, unquote.
Another three in ten said they felt this from time to time.
In a study out last week from the University of Virginia, the authors note that almost two-thirds of married women report that they're happy with the division of housework.
That's 67%.
But most of these women also do the majority of chores around the house.
Ultimately, though, resentment may well be uh less common these days because less time is spent on chores and their nature has changed.
Today the process of cleaning clothes is so easy that according to Procter and Gamble, American households do more than one thousand loads of laundry every second.
But even with the labor-saving devices and electricity made possible and fewer children to clean up after time spent on housework did not decline in the first half of the 20th century.
Advances in understanding disease transmission at the turn of the last century persuaded women that household members' health depended on the amount of housework carried out, caused them to spend more time cleaning to keep germs at bay.
The popular home economics movement in the early 20th century sprang from concern about the spread of disease.
It's also true that a large portion, proportion of women and men continue to have what academics scornly refer to as traditional gender ideologies.
In a Radcliffe Fleet Boston study, 97% of 21 to 29-year-old women said that they expected their partner to work outside the home.
Of their male counterparts, only 69% gave that response.
The persistence of traditional attitudes probably explains why chores aren't a big source of familial disputes, and also why sex segregation in chores, women do laundry men take out the trash, remains robust.
Cheryl Mendelssohn's Home Comforts, a book on household arts.
Household arts.
ART, Household Arts.
Whatever, enjoyed a warm reception from the reading public a few years ago.
In it, she writes that housekeeping creates cleanliness, order, regularity, and beauty in our lives.
It's true that not everyone will find chores so glamorous, but uh pace some feminists, the broom is no longer a tool of patriarchal oppression.
You know what I think I I think this has just been another trumped up basis, a 25-year survey.
This has been just a trumped-up fact that's not a fact that the husband won't do the chores, at least all kind of marital discord.
It's it's it it just it it was made to sound like a major factor and characteristic of relationships, and I'll just bet it never has been.
We all just have thought so.
Drive by media strikes again.
It's the Wall Street Journal.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, America's anchor man, your host for life, serving humanity simply by showing up.
We go to Chicago.
Hello, Paul, nice to have you with us.
Hi, Russ.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
Rush, I I have to say that I'm a little disappointed with your take on the Dubai port deal or the lack thereof at this point.
And the reason that I say that is that is that I I've read everything you said.
I've had the opportunity to read the transcripts.
Yes.
It's not emotionally difficult.
Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Oh, the transcript's on my website.
Yeah, okay.
And the issue that I see here, uh, and I understand that you're saying that this that our security is tied to uh two economics, that there's a relationship there.
But my my point was that Go ahead, go ahead.
I uh yeah, I'm I'm having uh I'm I feel should I correct you or let you go on because you're you're you're getting you can't repeat everything I said, so you're taking little snippets, and I'm not being critical of you here, but it's important if when you say security is tied to economics, uh that's that's all true, but I I'm battling the uh desire to jump in here and go on off on a a little monologue about that that would take away from your time.
So I will refrain and let you continue.
Basically, the w from what I understand it, it looks like uh what you what you're implicitly uh stating here is that countries like the UAE should receive the same consideration and credit that a country that shares our cultural history like Britain does,
uh hundreds, if not thousands of years of history with us should receive the same credit uh for that, and thereby we can we can enter into uh a uh a port deal which you are shaky ground, you're on shaky ground here, and I feel like reaching out and saving you before you sink in the quicksand.
Well, now why is that?
Well, what can you tell me?
Give me the cultural similarities between the United States and the communist Chinese who own ports in LA or terminals, they uh they control the terminals and ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.
Uh could you give me the cultural similarities to the country in Singapore that owns uh quite a few port operations, terminals or what have you.
You know, once you start down when you start down this road that you're on, if you're going to be consistent, you have to kick everybody out of this country who poses any kind of a security risk based on these cultural differences.
I know what you're saying.
We don't want Arabs running our ports, but it's not because they're Arabs.
That's correct.
And in order to Do you realize what you just agreed to?
It's not because of the fact that they're Arabs.
If if if Britain also you heard it, I ran, I was conducting a little test.
You heard it and you you smack Deb right then agreed with it.
We don't want Arabs running our parts ports because it's not it's not because they're Arabs.
I think it's more of a uh of again, if it's a cultural thing.
If Britain uh subscribed to the same ideolog ideology and belief and had the same cultural history that they had, then again we would have to uh pr put them in the same uh category.
But but we can't do that.
No, I I I'm okay, then we're we've got to be consistent.
No longer can the United Arab Emirates fly airlines, airplanes into our into our air uh uh airports.
Uh same thing with Saudi.
That if they genuinely were an ally in the war on terror, that that they would be more willing to respect the fact that at this point in our history that we're not comfortable with them uh representing our ports, and I think that we I think that's exactly what's happened here.
You know, but I I also have to note, and I'm I'm I'm I'm glad you called, and please don't I'm not trying to be personally critical.
You have been unable to answer any question I put to you.
Now I understand you want to call and tell me what you think.
But when you do that, when you say we can only have relations with people who have cultural similarities, you better look into what you're saying, and and if if that's what you're really gonna base this decision on and your belief in the future on when it comes to economic development and uh interaction with foreign governments, countries, companies, and so forth, you are going to have to sanitize this country in ways that you will not believe.
You don't know what you but you wouldn't answer.
Cultural differences that we have with the communist Chinese are profound.
Literally profound.
And yet nobody's making a move to get them out of it.
I know they had nothing to do with 9-11, but that's not what you're saying.
You're saying cultural similarities.
And what I think you're doing is dancing around the fact that we don't want Arabs running our ports, but it's not because they're Arabs.
That's you want everybody to believe that.
We do we can't have Arabs running the ports.
But it's not because they're Arabs, though.
Well I'm just war be very careful.
Think about what you're saying here because uh you're you're it's it's not persuasive.
I understand the emotion.
I've understood the emotion that the opponents of this have from the get-go, and I can understand genuine fear up to a point.
But but after a while, if you take the time to look at what this company was and is and where they are, and how we interact with them already and have been for decades, years, whatever.
At some point the emotion will subside, allowing uh the penetration of reason uh in a select few little dark gray cells in the cranium.
And that is going to happen uh as well.
But anyway, what you said, uh, despite the fact that the press today is attempting to say that Bush is involved in another scandal.
Bush secretly pulled the deal, told DPW to pull a deal, Bush and Rove did it.
Whatever, however it happened, and Chuck Schumer thinks he's responsible for it, the republics in Congress think they pulled this off.
Now they're blaming Bush for doing it.
The bottom line is that the DBW people wanted no part of this for the very reasons that you said and a couple others probably.
Back in a sec.
I was just discussing something with myself here, ladies and gentlemen.
I couldn't have this discussion on ESPN, but I can with you.
Welcome back, by the way, to the one and only EIB network.
Um question.
How many uh cab drivers in New York?
There are about 14,000 cabs, 14,000 medallions, last I heard.
So how many cab drivers in Manhattan are Arab?
Or wear turbines.
As I say, I couldn't discuss this on ESPN, but here we can do this.
Now I myself know that there are quite a few because I have ridden with them.
And you know what?
I am alive today to talk about it.
But did I take a risk?
Now, granted, this is before 9-11.
I have I'm just gonna say that I haven't ridden a cab in ten years, but uh I did ride in a cab after the World Trade Center uh 93 explosion.
Yes, I did.
So I have I didn't I haven't ridden in a cab after 9-11.
I'm just asking the question.
We gotta we we're it's on the table here that that we gotta protect ourselves with the cultural differences.
We can't we can't have this.
So it's just throwing the question out.
I mean, uh you you let me share with you an editorial today in the in the Wall Street Journal.
This this editorial warms my heart.
It has practically everything in it that I said the first couple three days of the port deal story.
Dubai Ports World finally threw in the Cafea on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them the uh to a U.S. entity.
A uh hope that uh entity turns out to be Halliburton.
We hope that uh turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.
By the way I've got a soundbite.
You in fact, grab soundbites four and five.
I'll they'll fit well with this editorial.
Let's go back to this program, February 20th, 2006, last month, talking about the port deal.
There's Only one entity that can bring peace to this whole deal.
There is only one entity that we know could successfully run these operations, and that is Halliburton.
Now, if somebody could persuade whoever it is that's running Halliburton to intercede on behalf of America, would not that be great.
Wouldn't you love to see the steam?
You think that there would this a rove trick.
This is a Bush trick.
They knew that this would never go.
They knew the American people would never stand for the UAE buying these ports.
So Halliburton comes.
It was a trick all along.
It was a trick all along.
And now Halliburton's gonna get a steal of a deal, blah, blah.
I would love it.
Oh, it's one of those things that I would I I would make my it would make my weak if Halliburton comes into the rescue.
That was February 20th.
Last night on the news hour with Jim Lara, the uh guest host was Margaret Warner interviewing Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, and uh Margaret Warner said, Hey, Norm, the congressional reaction at first sounded a little cautious.
How do you read it now?
Was it enough to avert a collision?
They've got a dilemma now because there simply aren't American companies that have the uh uh uh know-how and the breadth to do this.
Interestingly, and perhaps uh ironically, what I had heard earlier in the day as they were looking at those that have uh the kind of resources, Halliburton was a name that came up.
And Democrats, I'm sure, are saying, please God, let that happen.
These these guys think that they're the first to hear something, the first to come up with something is wrong.
There are two American companies that do this.
They're small, uh, but the the number of uh terminals here is relatively small.
It's thought that one of them could do it, and neither one of them is uh is Halliburton.
Now, anyway, so here's the Wall Street Journal even suggesting that the Halliburton would be a great company to take it over, and they'd love to see it just for the fun of it.
Dubai ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as a uniquely vulnerable.
But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months.
Following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy UNICAL, a middling American oil company.
If members of Congress want a real security crisis, a financial security crisis, they will keep this up.
What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the reemergence of the national security protectionists.
They were last seen in the late 80s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign investment panic.
The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo.
A Japanese bid for Fairchild semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense.
Those fears seem laughable now, but here we go again with new targets of anxiety.
And I remember the first two days of this reminding you of this exact thing that happened with the Japanese.
Going well, I I know the Japanese they attacked us at Pearl Harbor.
Can't say they weren't involved in 9-11, but they haven't.
I know they're an ally now.
They're not part of terrorists.
I understand that.
But do we know for sure.
Anyway, going well beyond Dubai, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter says he wants congressional oversight of all foreign purchases of critical infrastructure.
Mull that one over for a moment.
If you think corruption on Capitol Hill is bad now, wait until foreigners need approval from Congress for every multi-billion dollar investment.
The current investment review process was designed by the Reagan administration to be discreet, to keep Congress out, precisely to avoid such politicization, and the temptation of graft.
In recent weeks, members of Congress have suggested that the foreign ownership ban should apply to roads, telecommunications, airlines, broadcasting, shipping, technology firms, water facilities, buildings, real estate, and even I just had an idea.
Broadcasting.
I really like these UAE guys.
I like DP.
I wonder if if I offered them a stake in EIB.
Let them invest in 10% of EIB.
Just to give them an investment here, just to show them that we're not all opposed to them.
I'm going to ponder that.
Anyway, this list that members of Congress have suggested banning from foreign ownership, roads, telecommunications, airlines, broadcasting, shipping, technology firms, water facilities, buildings, real estate, even U.S. Treasury securities.
If this keeps up, we'll soon arrive at France, where even food and music are protected from foreign influences as a matter of national survival.
The larger truth is that the flow of foreign investment into the U.S. is a sign of economic strength, not weakness.
For twenty five years, pro-growth economic policies included monetary stability, steep tax rate deductions on capital or reductions on capital and freer trade have created a giant insucking sound of some four trillion dollars of global investment into America.
Economist David Malpus of Bears Stearns recently calculated that U.S. GDP grew by 100% between ninety-two and two thousand five, while world GDB growth measured in dollars grew by only seventy percent over the same period.
The U.S. created four times the number of new jobs as Europe and Japan combined, and all the while we're worried about NAFTA and we're in a manufacturing jobs going south, the giant sucking sound going the way down to Mexico.
We're outsourcing all of our jobs.
We're dead, Russ.
We're live and dead at the same time and they're destroying the country.
And it was the exact opposite.
Welcome drive by media and a bunch of panic protectionists.
Can you tell I'm mad about this?
At any rate, the Dubai episode, this is the last paragraph.
The Dubai episode has been a debacle of the first order.
And while the beltway is toting up winners and losers, the rest of the world is shaking its head and wondering what's going on.
The world's largest economy and its ostensible political leaders seem to be sneering at the very foreign investment that has been crucial to our prosperity.
Let's hope it was a momentary hallucination and not the start of a larger protectionist binge.
Now, one thing I know that really irritates some of the people who oppose the deal is to be called protectionists.
And I know that some of them hate to be called racists and xenophobes and all that.
Uh but so they're not going to be happy with the journal here alleging that really what they're engaged in is protectionism.
But I'm telling you, these are some important statistics.
Our GDP growth versus the rest of the world.
Our number of jobs that we've created, 283,000 uh last month, just got the numbers out.
Wages are up, the economy is roaring, it's been going great guns, and all the while we've had a panicked bunch of people in this country worried about outsourcing, losing our manufacturing base, jobs going south.
Anyone can spread panic, and a lot of people will glom onto it because the fear that the worst is ahead is attractive.
It's just it's exciting, and it also offers people an excuse for failure.
Well, I outsourcing.
That's what did me in.
So sing your sewing machine.
When they sold that to that did me in.
So that stuff makes it easy for people to rationalize their problems.
But the facts are just the exact opposite.
At any rate, my friends, a brief timeout.
We'll come back.
We will continue your phone calls.
We'll uh highlight the next segment.
Same with it.
All right, as promised, to the phones we go.
This is Jay in Atlantic City.
Jay, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Okay, Rush, I wish I could say ditto, but I'm totally against you on the Dubai ports.
Uh I feel like.
Wait a second.
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold hold hold hold it a minute.
You can say ditto's ditto does not mean you agree.
Ditto's means you like the show and you hope it never ends.
Um, I hope it never ends, but I hope you turn around on this because I feel that you're out of touch.
You're going to do nothing but cause the Republicans to lose the house by siding with Bush on this.
I think your job is more to convince Bush to turn his view around than it is to turn the public around.
And let me give give you one side that you won't believe in it, yet I still believe this.
I don't think we're in any more danger by having the Dubai government running the ports than we are who's running them right now.
But let's face it, politics is run on sound bites.
And what is it?
All the Democrats are against this, probably half of the Republican Party that votes out there, all the swing voters are against it, and probably most of Congress is against it.
Who would you rather convince to save the O six elections um all of them or just convince Bush to turn his mind around.
Well does that make sense to you?
I think it makes sense to me.
No, wait, but but I you're basically doing Ross Perot.
Ross Perot caused Bush won to lose that election.
Bush is not running the election.
Ross Perot is not running for anything anymore.
Crying out loud.
Now I'm parole.
I'm an elitist and I'm perhaps I'm not saying you're pro in his views.
I'm saying you're going to cause the unage elections to be lost because of your views.
Jay Jay Oh I would so love to bet.
I don't bet, but I would so love to bet you on that.
But the point is Bush is not running for anything again.
Bush doesn't support the you're in his park and he's against all this.
J Jay I'm going to answer what you say but if you you don't have to let me go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for letting me on your show.
Thank you.
Mega diddos, Jay.
I'm sorry.
All right now the the pr the the the bottom line is by the time we get to November this issue is going to have been long forgotten.
There will be other issues come down the pike.
I know some people are going to campaign how we stop the port deal, we stop the port but Bush is out of it now, Bush Bush is not fighting for it anymore.
In fact the Democrats out there saying Bush secretly called the DPW people and told them to pull it themselves.
That's what they're sniffing around now.
Um the days of persuading anybody on this are over.
It's done deal.
It ain't gonna happen political sound bites.
That's what you gotta you know they're gonna use them like this Swift vote was used on Curry.
They're going to use this as a swift vote.
I can see it now.
Well I say bring it on I just say it's easier to convince than I'm convinced you know you know you one one other thing here.
Um I marvel at at people's perceptions of my work and my job and like your perception that that the my job is to persuade Bush in this case not persuade the American people and you know I have you know make a little joke here about uh I'm not retiring till every American agrees with me including on the port deal but the fact is that's not how I view my job.
I just I spoke to a radio trade group last uh Thursday week ago yesterday and I told them uh how I view the job and I'm not gonna it it took me about thirty minutes to do this.
I'm not gonna spend that much time here but you know I operate a business like anybody else does and the primary objective of my business is to attract the largest audience I can and hold that audience as long as I can so that we can charge outrageously high confiscatory rates for our commercials.
That's objective number one my success is not determined by how many people I persuade how many minds I change how many votes I may be responsible for.
I don't even I don't even focus on that myself my job is to attract an audience and hold it and I've determined in a number of ways to do that the best way for me is to be honest.
Because I have to connect with the audience they have to be believe that I mean what I'm saying at all times.
Even in a parody if I if I do a parody that's confusing I have to close the loop on it at some point or they just get confused and that's not good.
So all I do is come here and I try to make these three hours as much fun or enlightening or interesting combination of all that as I can.
And then I let the chips fall and if people end up agreeing with me and vote the way I want them to vote that's well it's icing on the cake but it's not the objective.
I don't get up every morning and say okay what segment of the population needs to be persuaded on now you may I I'm sure that it sounds like I'm doing that because I'm passionate about my beliefs and of course I want people to agree with me but it's not the purpose of this show and it's a you may have tough time appreciating a difference and it may be a fine line but in terms of of performing executing working it's it is crucial to not cross those two lines.
I am I don't do causes.
If I turn this radio show into what talk radio used to be a bunch of guys urging you to go slash your your oil company credit cards in half Or go march somewhere, send letters or whatever.
This show would cease being what it is.
And I'll let the other guys think that they're the activists.
They can go out there and think that they're changing America and protecting America and so forth and so on.
I'm sure that happens on this program, but it's not the objective, and it's a it's a key difference.
And frankly, I think it's up to the Republicans to win their own reelection.
It's not mine.
I'm not running.
I don't get one vote.
I can only vote one time for president for my congressman and so forth.
Uh so it's up to them.
Uh and if if they want to screw themselves, and if they want to miscalculate politically, I will comment on it when I think they've done it.
Uh and when they're doing things I like, I will do that and mention at the same time as well.
But at the end of the day, uh you have to know your limitations.
I do not get people elected in this country.
I do not affect.
Well, no, that's not true.
I do all that.
But it's not, but I'm not I'm not trying to.
Let's put it, let's let it st it's a very fine-line difference.
I don't expect uh uh an amateur uh to understand this is one of the things I mean when I say I am a uh highly trained broadcast specialist.
But I appreciate the call, Jay.
I appreciate the sentiment, but don't worry.
Everything is gonna be okay because the Democrats.
I'll spend some time on this in the next hour to allay your fears.
The Democrats still haven't given anybody reason one to vote for them.
And politically, the Republicans are on the right side of this issue, so there aren't any sound bites that can hurt them.
Back in just a second.
Okay, folks, uh monologue segment next hour.
I'll treat you to these juicy stories out there in the mainstream press, the drive my media, and how they're frustrated and getting angrier by the day with their beloved Democrats.
▲
Export Selection