All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:06
November 14, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Broadcast excellence is all yours.
You are in the midst of yet another excursion into broadcast excellence, hosted by me, El Rushball, and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Limbaugh Institute, Advanced Conservative Studies.
Happy to have you along.
Telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
If you want to go the email route, that's rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, so I know it started polling for the Republican presidential nomination.
Fox News, Opinion Dynamics, got a poll out.
Giuliani leads among Republicans, 27.
McCain is 25.
Newts at 24.
Other candidates are in there.
And you know what it means?
Nothing.
It means zip zero nada.
How can it mean anything?
Besides, Giuliani has only formed his exploratory committee.
I know that's the first step.
Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, does the name Ross Perot ring a bell with you?
Ross Perot had this phrase that he popularized during the Republican, well, the presidential primary campaign back in 1992.
And that was that giant sucking sound.
Well, it's a crazy ant in the basement.
That was another popularized phrase.
But the one that everybody remembers is the giant sucking sound that you hear of jobs being sucked south of the border to Mexico because of NEFTA and CAFTA and all those horrible things.
So I'm reading the New York Times, and this is two days ago.
Has anybody have you seen anything about Perot in the news in the last two days?
Well, it's in the New York Times, and that's two days ago.
I'm sorry, yesterday.
I'm sorry, it was yesterday.
It was published, but the story is...
No, actually, it did run on the 12th.
They ran a little bit of a correction to it today.
Ross Perot, Texas billionaire, one-time presidential candidate, railed against a North American free trade agreement in the early 90s, arguing it would create a giant sucking sound of good American jobs pulled down to low-wage Mexico.
But things changed.
Last week, Perot's company announced that it was hiring in Mexico.
The Perot Systems Corporation, which manages information technology for companies, is setting up a technology center in Guadalajara where it expects to employ 270 engineers by the middle of next year.
Neither Mr. Perot, who is now chairman emeritus of the company, he founded in 1988, nor his world-class son, Ross Perot Jr., the company's chairman, was on hand for the announcement in Guadalajara last Thursday.
But a company spokesman, Joe McNamara, said that lower pay for engineers was only one of several reasons.
Lower pay for engineers is only one of several reasons why Perot Systems decided to set up in Mexico.
Guadalajara is a fast-developing technology center in Mexico, said the spokesman, Joe McNamara.
There's room to grow down there.
Company also looking at other places in Mexico to set up new operations.
Mexico, very important strategic location for us.
Got to love it.
Just have to love it.
So the giant sucking sound is the sound of Perot Systems hightailing it to Guadalajara and hiring engineers down there because you can get them cheap.
Now, when the story, excuse me, when the story originally ran, there was something wrong in it, so they had to issue a correction in the New York Times, the corrections issued today.
An article in Business Day yesterday about plans by Perot Systems to set up operations in Mexico referred imprecisely to the clients the Guadalajara office will serve.
While a Mexican operation will provide desk and engineering support to Perot clients in Europe and the U.S., it will not do work for the U.S. government.
All work for federal agencies is done in the United States.
So I will leave it to you who voted for Perot to make your own judgments on this.
I have never set up a business in Mexico, and so as such, I'm not qualified to comment.
A Florida Democrat says that he will not concede defeat in his race to unseat Republican Representative Tom Feeney until every vote is actually counted.
We are talking about Clint Curtis here.
Clint Curtis said he is considering a legal challenge to the election results.
In this election, he said, the results didn't match the Zogby pre-election poll.
The results didn't match our internal VoteNow2006.net polling, nor did it match exit polling.
These anomalies need to be investigated and cleared up, not just in my race, but for every district where the count just doesn't add up.
Curtis said he has informed the election officials in all four counties in Florida's 24th district that he is considering a challenge.
According to a news release put out by his campaign, Curtis has worked tirelessly over five years to correct issues in America's broken election system.
Now, as a congressional candidate, Curtis finally has the legal standing to pursue an investigation into the anomalies.
Here's the vote count.
Now, listen to this.
The Feeney-Curtis race was not close.
With 100% of the precincts reporting, Feeney had 52%, 123,557 votes, to Curtis's 48%, which is 89,672 votes.
So after all the votes are counted, 100% of the precincts in, Feeney, 123,000 votes, and Curtis, 89,000.
And yet he's challenging that he's not going to give up until every vote's counted because the results don't match exit polling.
They don't match Zogby pre-election poll, and they don't match his own internal polls.
They tried this in 2004.
You know, all the exit polls had Kerry winning big, and they were thinking of challenging on the basis that once again, the Republicans had stolen the election.
Here's a story from ALAP in New York.
A man fired a machine gun into the air Monday as he walked along streets in a commercial area.
He was shot by the fuzz after he wouldn't drop the weapon, witnesses said.
No other injuries were reported.
Vincent Hull, who was at a dentist's office, said he heard at least seven shots, said it was just pow, Shoppers and commuters on a busy strip.
This in the Jamaica section of Queens scrambled for cover.
The fuzz, who received several 9-11 calls, said they confronted the gunman around 5-4.
I read this and I said, this can't be.
This can't, well, because they outlawed L-Wawed guns in New York.
It just can't be.
There something has to be wrong with this story.
Having guns like this is against the law in New York.
It just can't happen.
I'm wondering if it was a real machine gun, maybe a semi-automatic weapon.
I mean, even it's a semi-auto.
Calling it a machine gun serves the purpose of creating hysteria among liberals and their chance for even more gun control.
And of course, with this new Congress, they'll probably happily oblige.
I also read the story.
I can't find the name of the gunman.
I've watched a lot of video in, say, since 9-11, and I see Saddam out there, and he's a Muslim, and he's out there just firing guns in the air, his pistol and so forth.
And Bin Laden's doing the same thing, and Zarkowi was doing that.
It's the way they celebrate in many cases.
You ever wondered those bullets they fire in the air come down and hit somebody?
I've often wondered what goes up has to come down.
They have to come down somewhere.
At any rate, there's no name mentioned here.
No name, no identity of the gunman whatsoever.
I still don't have my doubts about the whole story because you're not allowed to have guns like this in New York.
Washington either.
And welcome back.
Rushlinboy, cutting edge of societal evolution.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
What a zero in for those of you watching on the Ditto Cam.
And this is going to be tough to see.
Well, maybe not.
It looks pretty clear on my monitor here, but my monitor looks nothing like this.
Actually, it looks out there.
One of my often-level complaints at engineering that always go unanswered.
What you see here are two pictures, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm sorry for those of you not watching on the DittoCam.
I will describe them for you.
Two pictures here from the groundbreaking yesterday at the Martin Luther King Center in wherever this was.
This was in Washington.
And now, the picture on the bottom is the new brothers, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, smiling and mugging for the cameras.
The picture above, on the right, as you look at that, that would be former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, who, of course, in the story accompanying these pictures, his racist comments and his former association with Walmart were not mentioned.
Were he white, they would have been.
Next to Andrew Young is the Reverend Jackson.
And I can't decide here.
I need to zoom tighter.
Do I need to zoom?
Okay, look.
All right, let me.
I think it's as tight as I can go.
That picture there, I can't decide if that is the Reverend Jackson crying or being attacked by his hand.
I'm not sure.
To me, it looks like his hand is attacking him.
But everybody else around smiling.
That's why I'm thinking the hand's attacking him because I see smiles all around.
He appears to be the only one that might be in tears there.
So we'll see if we can find these.
I got these in an email out there, and I will see if we can get these up to the website so you can decide for yourself.
Interesting story from the Scotsman, ladies.
What, Mr. Snerdly?
They were worried in there when they said I was going to describe it on the ditto cam.
They got worried.
Last time that happened, it didn't go well out there in the drive.
That's what you're talking about.
You're talking about the Michael J. Fox flap, right?
Yeah, see, my hand has never attacked me, so I don't know if I'm qualified to discuss this in the case of the Reverend Jackson.
Nevertheless, story from the Scotsman.
Fears of a skinhead earth devoid of any trees appear to be unfounded, according to new research, which shows forests making a comeback in China and India.
An international team of scientists, including Aberdeen University academic professor Alexander Mather, found that 22 out of the world's 50 most forested countries were now increasing the amount of woodland and predicted that a great restoration of the landscape could begin by 2050.
What has happened is they have discovered, ladies and gentlemen, this research team has discovered something shocking.
Trees grow back.
There were parts, the research team was stunned because there were members of the team.
Actually, once a tree was uprooted or fell, that was the end of it.
Once the tree's gone, it's gone forever.
They have discovered that trees grow back almost like a crop.
I mean, they don't grow back as fast as corn or strawberries or artichokes or peanuts, but they do grow back.
And this has given them new hope in their research that the earth will not be skinned alive by others.
Now, here's the thing.
This story even says the earth did suffer an epidemic of deforestation, but now humans may help spread an epidemic of forest restoration.
The bottom line is these researchers say we now have more trees.
I am not buying it.
I don't believe it, ladies and gentlemen.
There is nothing ever happening as far as the environment is concerned.
It's good.
There is no good news in the environment.
We're destroying the planet.
We're ripping it to shreds.
We're burning it alive.
We're wiping ourselves out slowly but surely.
There is never any good economic news, and such, I don't believe this.
There's something screwy behind this story.
There has to be, there's a gimmick.
They're playing a trick on us.
Something's happening here.
I cannot accept this, just like I cannot accept that somebody opened fire with a machine gun in New York.
Guns are illegal there, illegal.
I cannot accept that we're winning the forestation battle because no good news ever gets reported.
Listen to this.
Correct me just to say, but listen to this.
Global warming could wipe out most birds, world wildlife.
Now, that's more like it.
That's the kind of news I expect.
That's the kind of news I trust.
That's the kind of news that I have come to know and love from the environmentalist wackos.
This is an Al Reuters story from Nairobi.
Unchecked climate change could drive up to 72% of the world's bird species into extinction, but the world still has a chance to limit the losses, said the World Wildlife Federation, from migratory insect eaters to tropical honey creepers and cold water penguins.
Birds are highly sensitive to changing weather conditions.
Many are already being affected by global warming.
Birds are the quintessential canaries in the coal mine.
I thought it was frogs.
I thought it was frogs that were the canaries, three-headed frogs and so forth.
Yeah, I tell you what, I was, where was I?
Golf course?
Yeah, golf course was sun.
I saw the biggest damn grasshopper I have ever seen.
I thought it was, I saw it hopping along.
I thought it was a frog.
I thought the thing was a bullfrog.
And I saw what a guy was playing with was trying to catch it in his hat.
He's trying to force it to jump into his hat.
And I finally got up there and said, look at that thing.
It must be going to town on all the fertilizer up there.
We're creating mutant grasshoppers here on the golf courses of Florida.
Now, what am I missing about the forestation story?
What am I...
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Well, no, don't be silly.
Snurdley, he's telling me that the forest is responding to the Democrat win.
Trees do not grow that fast.
Trees, I don't, there's no truth to the story anyway.
I mean, the environmentalists say that there's more forestation out there.
Can't be.
There's never any good news.
I'm not buying it.
There's a gimmick here.
Something happening.
I have learned from these people.
You know, I'm not old gullible Rush like I used to be.
Two things here at work.
A, it's in the drive-by media.
B, it's the environmentalist.
C, it's good news.
That doesn't wash.
Doesn't make sense.
Rusty, Orlando, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Romeo Ejuli.
Did I tell you, Rush?
Thank you.
In this Florida 24th, the Democrat running against Feeney, let me add a little background for you that you may have missed.
This guy is a member of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.
He claims that five years ago he had a...
Who is that?
You're talking about this guy, Curtis?
Yeah.
He claims that five years ago, he had a meeting with Feeney when they were switching over to touchscreen machines, and that Feeney wanted him to find a way to reprogram the machines to rig the election and basically ran on the fact that Feeney has been spent the last five years trying to rig elections.
Well, that's not the tinfoil hat crowd.
That's the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Well, he claims, though, that it's Feeney that was behind it all in the whole state of Florida.
Yeah, Feeney, Debold, Hugo Chavez.
What's the difference?
There's still people out there monkeying with the machines.
Anyway, it didn't help this guy.
He's down 89,000 votes to 123.
That's 33,000 votes, roughly 34,000.
He'd have a prayer.
But he's saying that his pre-election polls, the Zogby poll, the exit polls don't match the results.
And so there's obviously something wrong here with the real count.
I tell you, folks, in a sort of detached way, there's something about these people you just have to love because they come through for you.
They come through for you every time.
When you want somebody to act stupid, crazy, wacko, and insane, just look for the next Democrat to walk down the street and your wish will be granted.
All right.
A little economic news here, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from the Globe and Mail up in Canada.
The Quebec government says that last summer's out games, which featured thousands of gay athletes from around the world, ended up losing more than $5 million.
The municipal affairs minister, Nathalie Normando, Normandow, Normando, not sure how he or she, it's Nathalie, by the way, N-A-T-H.
Who knows?
Oh, it's a she, says she's disappointed with the outcome, especially as the province gave organizers more than $3 million.
So, wait, if they gave them the $3 million, they ended up losing $5.
It's a total of $8 million.
What could they possibly organizers initially announced a $200,000 surplus, but an auditor hired by the Quebec government found the games, the out-games, are actually in the red.
Many of the cultural and sporting events drew far fewer spectators than expected.
Well, it shocks me.
Country like Canada, the gay games, the out games, and not very many spectators.
How can that be?
How do you lose $8 million on this?
You can't spend that much in Vaseline.
Cannot fool me.
Ralph in Louisville, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Sunny autumn.
Good afternoon from Derby City.
It's great to have you.
It's still summertime down here, man.
I mean, the humidity is up.
We're driving around with the windows up and the air conditioner's on.
It's great.
Well, glad you like it.
I kind of like the fall here.
Well, I like fall now and then.
I like all the seasons, but it's still green and lush down.
You would think it's August down here.
My word.
Well, what I had today was a question.
I wanted to get your comments and thoughts, if I may, on a couple of articles that have been printed in the National Review by Jonah Goldberg, who his position is that the way we should go in Iraq would be to have a plebiscite, a vote, get the people to vote on whether or not they actually want to have Americans there.
Want our troops to be there, want us to be doing what we're doing there.
I must say, I find his talking on the subject persuasive.
I would like to hear your opinion, sir.
Well, I don't know that Jonah is qualified.
I don't know that he's ever run an election.
I don't know if he's ever been to Iraq.
I don't know if he's qualified to make a policy suggestion like this.
The idea of a plebiscite is, I guess it's intriguing, but it must follow the assumption that we might lose that way, where the people don't want us.
What happens if they vote that they do want us to stay and the Democrats have pulled us out?
I don't think right now we can do anything that would challenge the Democrats.
The American people spoke.
The American people want the Democrats to run the country.
That includes get us out of Iraq.
That's what the vote means.
And if we take any steps that would indicate the Democrats are wrong about this, we'll be hell to pay.
And besides that, let me ask you this: which vote is the more important?
A vote of the Iraqi people or a vote of the United States and its population?
In the United States, the United States vote.
No, I mean the Iraqis.
No, no, no.
Determining policy in Iraq.
The American people have voted.
They want the Democrats to pull us out.
They want to get out of there now.
They want to get out of there yesterday.
They want this situation solved.
They don't care if we lose.
They just want us out of there.
What if the Iraqi people in this plebiscite vote, no, no, stay?
Then what do we do?
We do nothing.
We wait and see what the Democrats do because I think this would spike them.
Well, what makes you think the Democrats have any respect for the Iraqi people?
I'm not saying they're trying to be funny.
I mean, the Democrats haven't once cared about what...
I mean, they're out there saying the place would be better off with Saddam back in.
I'm not kidding here, Ralph.
I mean, that won't put the Democrats on this.
That'll just show how they'll just say the Iraqis have been brainwashed and the military stuffed the ballots or what have you.
Or they'll say the election.
Yeah, the election was rigged and that sort of thing.
I don't know.
I think it's moot point right now.
What is Jonah?
I haven't read Jonah's piece.
What's his reason for suggesting this?
His reason for suggesting it is that basically America is not going to back down against bullets or bombs, but if asked to leave, would in the case would honor ballots.
I would think that would be in the American principle.
After all, we're not there to fight the Iraqis per se.
We're there to presumably escort them into a democratic regime.
But if they don't want to be escorted, should we be there?
If they don't want to be escorted.
Well, I think at this point, the question has been answered as far as the United States is concerned.
The voters went to the polls last Tuesday.
They elected the Democrats.
I believe that Iraq was one of the top three, maybe number one and two of the top five issues was Iraq.
And so the American people have spoken.
Now go ask the Iraqis what they want.
It's a little late for that.
It's a little after the fact.
Whether they want us there or not.
I've not heard any stories they want us out.
I've heard just the exact opposite, in fact.
But who knows what you can believe with stuff coming out of the drive-by media.
But it seems to me we're getting ready to pull out.
We've got the Iraq Study Group.
I mean, see, you know, it's not just the Democrats.
You've got the Iraq Study Group.
You've got Lee Hamilton, James Baker, and whoever else, Bob Gates, and everybody right now is fashioning the exit.
Nobody any longer is talking about winning.
I mean, the Iraq Study Group's objective is not to come up with a way to win.
Their objective is to find a way to get out of there Iraqiization, peace with honor or what have you.
That does appear to be what's going on on this side of things.
Yeah.
Well, and so I don't think at this point the Iraqis have a voice in what we're going to do.
And as far as the Democrats are concerned, they never have.
So I wouldn't expect the Democrats to respect what they say or, I mean, hell, John Kerry's out there calling our troops terrorists.
And we're trying to, you know, the Democrats are coming up with the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights to make sure that any of these terrorists that are captured can't be convicted of anything.
I'm saying Saddam had the country in much better shape than it is today.
When Saddam was mass murdering people, 300,000, all these mass graves that have been found, there was no concern from the human rights activists of the left and the Democratic Party.
So why all of a sudden today they would be concerned with what the Iraqis want, I think, is a moot question.
But I appreciate the call out there, Ralph.
Thanks.
Terry in Fair Hope, Alabama.
Welcome to the program.
Well, thank you so much, Rush.
It's a pleasure and an honor to speak with you.
I've been listening to you for years, and you're just the best.
I'm going to allow my wife, Iris, of 34 years to kiss the hand that holds this phone.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
I've grown trees in my front yard, and I've hunted in clear-cut, so I can speak of this, okay?
It might be capitalism, one of the alternatives that you didn't think of and the New York Times might not have mentioned, that's causing these farmers to renew their crops to grow trees.
You mean the Hammer Hill, the paper companies?
Yeah, I've heard that there was a rumor some years ago that for every tree they cut down, they plant 50 because they need more.
I mean, they need trees to make the New York Times.
And it's some fast-growth technology in the pine trees that's helping that too.
Yeah, but see, now you can't fool me because I have read these stories, and I know what the environmentalists have said.
They don't count these replanted trees as true forestation because of what you just said.
They're not natural.
They hormone technology to speed the growth of these trees, and they're going to get cut down again anyway.
And so they don't count.
This is still stripping the land bare by a bunch of evil capitalists.
But have you grown trees personally?
No.
So I'm really not qualified to comment on them.
Okay, thank you.
What you said is true, but I don't know how you don't count what's that.
If you hit it with your car, it'll slow your car down significantly, but it's not there.
Is that what the environment is?
Essentially, yes.
If it's planted by a major corporation, it wasn't there.
You could back your car into a tree on a foggy night and dent the hood, but it really didn't happen if that was a tree planted by paper mill people.
I wonder if they know that or if they're stockholders.
Well, it's really not that complicated.
What you have to know is that big corporations are evil and are destroying the plant.
I don't even believe the story.
As you know, you can cite all this evidence.
You think capitalism is responsible for all this new forestation.
Remember, where this is happening is China and India.
You're telling me that I got some form of capitalism in India, and maybe some in China, not in the outlying regions, outside of the major cities.
When I see good economic news in the drive-by media, my antenna go up.
It just can't be true.
They don't ever report good news, so there's a trick here somewhere.
I thought that, change the subject a little bit, but I thought in the outlying regions in China, there was significant capitalism like small farms and the like.
They might be part of the ones that are contributing, and they might, environmentalists might like it because doesn't it clean the air a little bit of the calf latest?
Yeah, but it also destroys the trees.
I mean, it cleans the air, but then the pollution destroys the trees.
You have to understand, you're making a valiant effort here, and I applaud you for it, but there is no good economic or environmental news.
There's just none.
You can sit out there and wishful think all you want, but there's no good environmental news.
I'll have to listen to you more to recheck my economics because I thought buy low and sell high was good, but apparently it's not.
Well, see, that's another problem.
Buy low and sell high equals profit, and that's sin.
You've got a long way to go, but you're off to a good start.
You're the best.
I've listened to you for years, and you're still the best.
Terry, thank you very much for the time.
I have a private day, Richard.
Appreciate it.
You bet.
I apologize, ladies and gentlemen.
I have never grown a tree, and yet I chose to comment on it.
My bet.
Booker T and the MGs of Green Onions.
I have been thinking about a problem that we all know exists.
Ladies and gentlemen.
How do we get the media, the drive-by media, to report successes, not just presidential successes, but successes of the country that are owing to Republican leadership?
How do we do this?
There is an opportunity now.
And I want you to follow me on this.
Some of you will find this screwy.
I assure you it's not.
For these next two years, the media cannot do the standard thing that they do when the Republicans are in power across the board, and that is really paint news as horrible.
The economy stinks.
Rumsfeld stinks.
Rice stinks.
Unemployment numbers are whatever.
They're not good.
Nothing's good.
When Republicans are running the Congress and had Bush in the White House, everything was rough.
They can't do that now.
And we see evidence of it all over.
Core inflation drops by record amount.
Walmart profit up, up, beat on holiday.
All of this news that we've had lately, Afghanistan, happier than they've ever been over there.
The new, you've seen it.
You've seen the trends.
The drive-by media simply cannot paint a wholly negative picture the next two years because there are Democrats running the House of Representatives, or will be, and Democrats running the U.S. Senate, plus they have to promote Hillary in 08.
So in order to do that, I mean, they can't promote Hillary by ripping the country to shreds.
It's going to be a problem for them.
It really will.
So I think one of the ways that we could illustrate what their objective is, at least on this program, is to credit Hillary herself for all of these successes.
And we can go back in time and give her credit for things that have happened.
For example, it's all based on this.
How does this president ever, with this biased media, ever get credit for any of his accomplishments?
He doesn't, does he?
He hasn't gotten credit for one accomplishment.
So here's what we say.
Well, George W. Bush became president the same year that Hillary Rodham became a senator.
And look at all of the wonderful things that have happened since Mrs. Clinton became a senator.
And so, so, so many things have happened, and she hasn't gotten hardly any credit for it at all because the media has been busy trying to destroy Bush by painting all the news as bad.
So, in order to break through with the drive-bys, we have to do it this way.
Hillary Clinton's decision to liberate Afghanistan and Hillary's decision to liberate Iraq brought freedom to some 50 million Muslims.
This is how we can report the story and get it covered by the drive-by media if Hillary is credited for all of these successes.
There hasn't been one terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate.
Hillary Clinton's decision to cut taxes brought an economic recovery and a boom and then prosperity to a nation that had been crippled by a dot-com crash, a recession, and a costly attack on our homeland.
Hillary Clinton bravely attempted to reform Social Security.
She had the courage to challenge the third rail of politics.
And even though she didn't succeed, history will vindicate her wisdom.
Hillary Clinton reduced the cost of prescription drugs to seniors, got no credit whatsoever.
In fact, was ripped to shreds for trying this.
Hillary Clinton was labeled the dumbest politician in our history, but she proved herself to be smarter than those with the smart label.
Hillary Clinton came to Washington and immediately set out on changing the tone.
I mean, if we if we, the list is limitless here because there's all kinds of good news that's happened.
If we just credit Hillary Clinton for it, we can perhaps illustrate in a sometimes you have to go through the back door with people to get them to understand things because they're bent over forward looking at something.
And when I, I mean, you have to come up from behind.
When you go up and tell people, yeah, you know, Bush did, I, Bush, I hate Bush.
Do you know how great things in this country have been since Hillary Clinton was.
Yeah, look at how the economy's going.
The objective is not to get them to praise Hillary.
The objective is to get people to understand that there are really good things that have happened.
More on this at a later date.
We must break away now, ladies and gentlemen, another EIB obscene profit timeout.
Stay with us.
Well, that ends, brings to a screeching halt, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in mere minutes.
I will reopen this line and begin an interview with Michael Barone for the upcoming issue.
the post-election issue of the Limbull letter.
Look forward to be back here tomorrow and revved up, making sense about whatever is happening out there as you have come to know, love, and expect to see you then.
▲
Export Selection