I'm going to have to do one more thing to find out.
But we had a caller who said he was reading a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is called Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs or something.
But I have a story here that posted this month from foreignpolicy.com about insurgents and how they can't win.
How insurgents rarely win and Iraq won't be any different.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here of the EIB Network.
Telephone number, 800-282-2882, if you'd like to join us.
Donald Stoker is the author of this piece.
I got curious about this guy's call because it really, if this is the CFR publication, I was intrigued by the fact that they would publish this, given who they are.
I mean, they're think tank, basically.
They have scholars from across the political spectrum.
Still, I mean, the CFR is basically a liberal bunch.
Vietnam taught many Americans the wrong lesson that determined guerrilla fighters are invincible.
But history shows that insurgents rarely win, and Iraq should be no different.
Now that it finally has a winning strategy, the Bush administration is in a race against time to beat the insurgency before the public's patience finally wears out.
That the insurgents can't be beaten is a myth because history shows otherwise.
The cold hard truth about the Bush administration's strategy of surging additional U.S. forces into Iraq is that it could work.
Insurgencies are rarely as strong or successful as the public has come to believe.
Iraq's various insurgent groups have succeeded in creating a lot of chaos, but they're likely not strong enough to succeed in the long term.
Sending more troops to Iraq with the aim of pacifying Baghdad could provide a foundation for their ultimate defeat, but only if the United States does not repeat its previous mistakes.
Myths about invincible guerrillas and insurgents are a direct result of America's collective misunderstanding of its defeat in South Vietnam.
This loss is generally credited to the brilliance and military virtues of the pajama-clad Viet Cong.
The Vietnamese may have been tough and persistent, but they were not brilliant.
Rather, they were lucky.
They faced an opponent with leaders unwilling to learn from their failures, the United States.
When a Viet Cong went toe-to-toe with U.S. forces in the 6810 offensive, they were decimated.
When South Vietnam finally fell in 1975, it did so not to the Viet Cong, but to regular units of the invading North Vietnamese army.
The Viet Cong insurgency contributed greatly to the erosion of the American public's will to fight, but so did the way President Johnson and the American military waged the war.
It was North Vietnam's will and America's failure, not skillful use of an insurgency, that were the keys to Hanoi's victory.
Insurgencies generally fail if all they are able to do is fight an irregular war.
Successful practitioners of the guerrilla art form, from Nathaniel Green in the American Revolution to Mao Tzetong in the Chinese Civil War, have insisted upon having a regular army for which their guerrilla forces serve mainly as an adjunct.
Combating an insurgency typically requires 8 to 11 years.
But the administration has done such a poor job of managing U.S. public opinion, to say nothing of the war itself, that it has exhausted many of its reservoirs of support.
One tragedy of the Iraq War may be that the administration's new strategy came too late to avert a rare, decisive insurgent victory.
Now, Donald Stoker is the author of this piece, is professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College's Monterey program.
His opinions are his own, it says here, as the author of or editor of a number of works.
And again, this is foreignpolicy.com.
That may be what the caller was referring to.
Could quite possibly be the case.
Along the same lines, it's strange to read a piece like this.
As I read it, is it not strange for you to hear it?
That we're doing well and we could win and we could do even better.
Here's another piece like that that runs in a Canadian newspaper.
And it's sort of sad and odd that you have to read this point of view in a Canadian newspaper.
It's by Paul Jackson.
He says, President George W. Bush is going to persevere and prevail in beating world terrorism and bringing stable democracies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
There will be no wavering and no withdrawal.
These were the heartening words given me by U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins.
So the mischief makers, the defeatists, the fellow travelers in the liberal left cabal better get out their handkerchiefs and start sobbing.
Their ignoble cause will fail.
The course of decency and democracy will win.
Now, Wilkins, who visited The Sun, which is the newspaper here, for an editorial board meeting this past week, is very astute and articulate.
He spent 25 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 11 of them as Speaker.
During those 25 years, he was on the cutting edge of most major reform initiatives, from welfare reform to property tax relief and from educational accountability to truth and sentencing laws.
He's affable, engaging, but has a steel-trap mind.
It's very much like his boss back in the White House.
As noted by Sun columnist Salim Mansoor, the best commentator by far in Canada and on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism, Michael Novak, the noted Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher, recently described Bush as the bravest president for staying firm and confronting the contemporary barbarians despite the venom of his peers.
The U.S. Ambassador echoed those sentiments, pointing out that Bush will determinedly do what's right rather than what the polls may say is unpopular.
America's salvation matters more than what the temporary up-and-down swings in the polls say.
The 9-11 attacks in the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, when Bush had been in the White House little more than one year, changed the entire direction of a president.
The piece goes on and on and on praising Bush.
Now, admittedly, the source for this is our ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, but the columnist readily agrees with it and supports it.
You just don't see this kind of stuff in the media.
You don't see praise of Bush for his, I mean, even to the point now where in Republican circles, conservative publishing circles and this sort of thing, you're starting to see, what is this guy?
Is out of his mind?
He's not listening to anybody?
Is he tone deaf?
They're asking all these questions about him because the inertia for failure and defeat has been increasing, and it's been consistently going on for a long, long, long time.
And it's just both these two stories in foreign affairs, I'm sorry, foreignpolicy.com and this Canadian newspaper are so rare that they stood out.
A quick time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
More phone calls.
We got audio soundbites still to come.
Senator Kennedy once again on a roll over the minimum wage and the problems they're having in the Senate getting the tax cuts for small business out of the minimum wage bill.
Sit tight, be right back.
Okay, I finally had time to look it up out there.
And I was wrong.
Foreign policy is not part of the CFR.
Foreign policy, the article from which I just read, is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which is even more striking.
Because the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, you don't get more left-leaning than that crowd.
And they get some guy publishing a piece on how insurgencies rarely win.
And if we just have the fortitude to tough this out, we could prevail because the Iraqis do not have a regular army.
Well, they do, but it's on our side.
David Broder in the Washington Post yesterday just slammed Hillary Clinton to the floor.
Big time.
General Petraeus wasn't welcome at Clinton's listening session, is the headline.
When General Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander.
They knew of his reputation.
They recognized the difficulty and importance of his new assignment.
Few of the questions were naive, self-serving, or off on tangents, but virtually the entire membership of the committee was present.
And senators of both parties recognized the value of probing this experienced and candid witness, with one exception.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.
She had no questions to ask.
McCain asked Petraeus 14 questions, for example.
Last week, Clinton began her presidential campaign as she did her first race for the Senate in New York by saying she wanted to do a lot of listening.
She sure wasn't listening to General Petraeus, let alone asking a question.
Washington Post, David Broder, the dean of the D.C. punditocracy, slamming Mrs. Clinton to the mat, to the floor.
It was huge.
By the way, we had a hacker get a couple of these conversations she's having on her website.
We'll play those again, but we've got people on the phones.
We have a controversy here, folks, and we have to resolve this.
We'll start in Jackson, New Jersey with Lee.
Lee, welcome, and it's great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you.
Former Democrat, now Republican, had to respond to the Cal Lady about Barbara.
No can do.
Horses have to mount a mare or a phantom.
That's it's called.
Yeah, wait, now wait, wait, wait.
Let me bring callers up to speed.
As you know, each broadcast minute here brings a new audience, and they may be wondering, what is this?
What am I talking about?
Yeah, we've had a woman called earlier saying that this whole Barbaro business, the horse was kept alive much longer than he should have been because of money, because of the stud fees, and so forth.
And the caller implied that it is possible to obtain semen from the horse for artificial insemination, even though I pointed out this a violation of rules in thoroughbred racing.
And then she claimed that there are techniques.
I jokingly said, Well, do you know how to masturbate a horse?
I figure they only know how to do that in Washington.
And she said, Oh, there's a technique, and I'm certified.
That is why Lee here is calling.
And that's why Lee explained to us that the start at the beginning.
Now, the stallion has to mount.
Yes, he has to stand up on his hind legs, which, of course, Barbara couldn't do because he had a broken hind leg.
And he has to mount a mare or a fake mare called a phantom in order to produce, as the Cal Lady called the essence.
Yeah.
So, as you said, even if he could.
What is a fake phantom?
This could come in handy sometime.
It is an oblong thing on legs that they train the horse to jump for certain registries that do allow artificial incentives.
Wait a second.
They can trick a male horse.
I'm getting a picture here that they can trick a male horse into thinking a piece of wood is a mare?
More or less, yes.
That's simplifying it a bit, but yes.
Well, simplifying it is oftentimes the most powerful way to make a point.
Well, that's it, in a nutshell.
Well, not quite a nudge.
So, but that's only half the story, Lee.
Yes.
They can't do it with thoroughbreds because even if they could have gotten him to do that, all thoroughbreds are DNA tested, and he would not have been able to register any of his offspring because he did not live cover a mare.
So his essence would be virtually useless.
There's no artificial way to extract the essence.
Well, there probably is by a veterinarian other than jumping on a mare, but that is the way that is always done for artificial dissemination.
Okay, I'm not going to ask any more questions.
Yeah, you don't want to get into it.
No, I really don't.
The picture here is enough.
There's got to be a thing is there has to be a third party involved in this mounting business.
Right.
Yeah.
And what that person's doing is what I'm curious about.
Well, yes, he's using what they call an artificial vagina, if you want to go into the details.
And it's put on the horse.
It's just, it's so unfair to trick these stallions like this.
I think.
That's why the thoroughbred and the jockey club people don't allow it.
But anyway, the Jacksons are lovely people.
They, I'm sure, had the horse insured for mortality.
If all they cared about was money, they would have put him down right away.
They cared about the horse an awful lot.
I'm sure they did.
Major medical is almost impossible to get, and even then, only for very, very minor problems.
Do we really want to go there?
The horse had more health care than some Americans get?
No, you can't get it for racehorses.
They don't give it.
They will give mortality.
But racehorses, you can't get it.
Well, it sounds like a health care crisis for thoroughbreds to me.
It's a huge challenge.
It's afflicting 46 Americans or a bunch of thoroughbreds that can't get health care coverage.
We need Hillary care for thoroughbreds.
We certainly do.
Well, we're learning so much here with the life and death of this great champion, Barbara.
Thanks, Lee, for the phone call.
I appreciate it.
Jim in Shasta Lake, California.
You're next.
Hello, sir.
Yes.
Hi, Rosh.
Hi.
What I have to say is going to kind of dovetail a little bit towards what your last caller is.
That's why we took your call now, yeah.
But I, for many years, used to assist, and then I got to where I was able to do it somewhat myself.
You're talking about what I think you're talking about.
Yes, yes.
Masturbatory techniques.
Okay.
We didn't use an artificial mare.
Used a mare that was in season, a mare that was ready to receive a stallion.
Yeah.
And we'd bring the stallion out, and he would become excited and ready to mount the mare.
And he would mount the mare, and just upon, as soon as he mounted the mare, a very well lubricated neopreme or nylon or type condom was slipped over the sheath of the horse.
Who the hell did that?
The veterinarian would do it.
And the stallion with this sheath that was slipped over him, he thought that he had entered the mare because it was a completely different feeling.
He would start his one or two or three pumps or thrusts, and he would ejaculate down into the end of this sleeve into a sterilized container.
And that was the semen that you could get from a stallion.
And whereas Barbaro, he wouldn't be able to do that for quite some time until his leg strengthened because a horse has to stand on his two hind legs.
Right now, his leg wasn't strong enough.
But he could have done that maybe had his leg gotten better.
He could have done that in the future.
And they would have took his semen.
No, wait a minute, let me finish.
They would have been able to take his semen, and they could inseminate great mare.
They could not inseminate a registered thoroughbred, a grade mare that would produce something that would run at county fairs and places like this, not in the big three, the Kentucky Derby, Pimlico, and so forth.
But they could have told me that let me ask a quick question.
We got one minute here.
After this sock condom with the lubricant, which will interest Senator Reed because he represents lubricants, big lubricant industries in Nevada.
What's the mare do?
Does the mayor figure out here that, I mean, the mare gets tricked along with the stallion.
The stallion thinks everything's normal.
What's the mare doing here?
She's standing there sort of in a squatting type position, ready to receive the stallion, which she never does because the shaft of the stallion's penis doesn't enter the mare.
Well, that's the point.
How long is the mare going to put up with this?
Before trying to walk away.
I got to figure something's not happening.
The stallion's having a ball, and the mare, nothing.
You're not painting an intelligent picture of these beasts.
Rusty's tied up in a breeding stall.
Oh, she's a prisoner.
She's like a reverse dominatrix.
Okay, now it makes sense.
I'm thinking this happens out in the open, you know, in the middle of the corral.
You never know what you're going to learn here, folks.
Let's say we're close to that today.
Since we have been talking about essence and sperm, that's got to be a brave veterinarian to get.
Man, there are heroes out there, courageous people.
You just wouldn't, you wouldn't know the things people do.
But speaking of all this sperm business, you remember when Lurch, Senator Kerry, visited the Kennedy Space Center during the 2004 presidential campaign, and he looked like a sperm.
He had done some costume and called a bunny costume, and he was his white tubing and stuff climbing through it.
And it looked like a sperm.
And this goofy smile on his face.
Well, Apparently, it turns out that the whole visit broke the law.
His visit to the Kennedy Space Center violated the law, according to a federal watchdog agency.
NASA allowed Kerry to conduct a political stump speech and rally at the Space Center and broadcast it to Kennedy Space Center employees, and that part violates the law, according to the orifice of the special counsel.
Beaming the presidential campaign rally to government employees all over the spaceport violates laws prohibiting electioneering using federal resources.
They just, you know, no big deal now because lurches and Davos avoiding extradition on this.
But it was the visit, as they say here, that was more famous for a picture of Carrie that showed him in a standard issue money suit climbing inside a space shuttle orbiter.
That's not what I saw.
He was in white tubing, dressed up in that money suit, and he looked like a sperm in there.
And that's what we call, I'm sure that we've got an archive at rushlimbaugh.com and we can put that picture back up.
Now, there's a story here from the Washington Times, sorry, Washington Post from Sunday.
And I just got around.
It's a long story, and I'm not going to go through the whole thing with you.
It's written by Linda Hirschman, and it's just amazing.
Let me give you just a couple of quotes here.
In every election, there's a chance that women will be the decisive force that will elect someone who embraces their views, yet they never seem to have done so.
My own theory is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors.
They don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in the direction they want it to go.
Instead, they vote on impulse and on elusive factors such as personality.
Linda Hirschman, the author of this, is a woman.
She's a feminist.
She's describing these women, all the women in America as little empty-headed, pretty little deers pulling the lever for the nicest or the cutest candidate.
So you get a feminist insulting women.
Let me just give you some spare quotes here.
As much as it pains a feminist like me to say it, a lot of Hillary Clinton's campaign will have to involve putting her on the couch and analyzing her character and motivation.
Again, my own theory is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors.
They don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in their direction the way they want it to go.
Instead, they vote on impulse and on elusive factors such as personality.
With Clinton's candidacy on the horizon, I decided to test my theory by asking a few white married women, the key demographic, what they are up to this time.
If any women were going to be politically aware, I figured it would be those in the Washington area.
So I contacted half a dozen members of the Wednesday Morning Group, a D.C. area organization that provides speakers and programs mostly for stay-at-home moms.
A 49-year-old former public relations executive in suburban Maryland told me she votes the political agenda she learned from her lefty father.
She reads the Post, but there are no books on her bedside table.
She counts on her husband to tell her what's in the Nation magazine and on the web.
36-year-old former financial sales executive considers herself an independent, reads only the style and weekend sections of the Post and the marketplace and personal journal sections of the Wall Street Journal.
She counts on her husband, a Republican, to tell her what's interesting in the rest of the paper.
A former human rights activist told me that she still reads the New York Times, skims The Economist, and gathers political information from the news hour on PBS, a local broadcast from the BBC, and her church.
Her church?
A liberal getting political information from her church.
Most of the women read people and real simple magazines.
They all listen to news and the car radio, mostly NPR.
Mostly all of their full-time working husbands consume immeasurably more political information than they do.
Now, hang on, this gets even better.
Because I, after every, we've had these year-of-the-woman elections, and we've had the soccer moms, and we've had the drive-by media and propagandists telling us every year that the candidate that wins has to get women.
And every year I break down election results, and I find out that whoever got the majority of men is who wins.
Presidential races I'm talking about here.
Now, here's Linda Hirschman in the Washington Post on Sunday.
Any campaign, she says, that needs women to win would have to break the 88-year record of women failing to produce election results that men oppose.
Can I read that to you again?
Because it makes my point.
Any campaign that needs women to win would have to break the 88-year record of women failing to produce election results that men oppose.
To this day, even as my D.C. area correspondents seem to confirm, women just aren't as interested in politics as men are.
Worse, women consistently score 10 to 20 percentage points lower than men on studies of political knowledge regardless of their education or their income level.
Two million more men than women read either Time or Newsweek.
More men listen to radio news and talk radio, read a paper, and get news online.
Only broadcast television news plays to more women than men, and a lot of that is TV news magazines and morning shows.
So-called liberal women are the majority of swing voters, those tantalizing independent late deciders in every election.
While men remained committed to Republicans Ronaldus Magnus, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush throughout the campaigns, women polled heavily for Democrats Mondal, Dukakis, and John Kerry as late as September before settling in to vote Republican or anemically Democratic in November.
The second lesson, I'm just reading excerpts here.
The second lesson is that elections turn on the female electorate bear an unfortunate resemblance to a popularity contest.
The Republicans have succeeded with women at the polls when they've made Democrats look not just mistaken, but clownish or geeky.
Reagan in blue jeans beat Jimmy Carter in a cardigan.
George H.W. Bush looked like John Wayne next to Dekakis in the tank.
And who knows what would have happened if Kerry hadn't donned a wetsuit to go windsurfing?
It wasn't that.
It was just that.
It was the sperm picture.
It was, you know, reclaiming, mounting his swift boat and taking Boston Harbor again on his way to the convention.
He was a clown all the way through.
Now, if Hillary Clinton's going to stand a chance in 2008, her campaign may have to discredit the Republican nominee.
As political scientist Diane Bestrom has found, it doesn't hurt female candidates when they go negative.
And if women are going to make their political decisions based on impulse, then anyone needing their votes, women's votes, is going to have to make sure no one wants to sit with the other guy in the cafeteria.
It was illuminating how often the Wednesday women spoke of Clinton's toughness.
This sounds like women never get out of high school.
And there's a feminist writing this.
There's a feminist in the Washington Potente right.
This is almost a case for taking away women's right to vote because it's irresponsible.
It's a popularity contest.
It has nothing to do with policy.
They depend on their husbands to tell them what's important in a newspaper.
You can say that Ms. Hirschman is making the case, partially, that one of the biggest mistakes in American history was women's suffrage.
Now, you people in Riolinda, that doesn't mean suffering and all that suffrage is vote rights, voting, the right to go vote.
Look it up.
There's no E in it.
Jim in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Glad to be speaking to you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
It turns out that this thing about Harry Reid acquiring the property in northern Nevada for a song versus its actual valuation is a lot bigger than it appears to be.
In fact, it apparently crosses over into being a potentially serious crime because Harry acquired the property from a pension fund.
All IRS-qualified pension funds are regulated by the Department of Labor and the IRS.
When an employer establishes one, the money must be paid into a separate trust exempt from the claims of the employer's creditors that's legally required to be administered by the employer in the sole interest of the covered employees.
Yeah, but this is even worse than that because this pension fund was owned by a friend of Harry Reid's who had dealings with him before Congress.
This guy was in the lubricants business.
That's right.
And we're talking about here, folks, the Los Angeles Times story yesterday, and they've done a number of these on Harry Reid, and none of them stick.
None of them go any further than the Los Angeles Times.
But you're right.
He got land that was valued 10 times what he paid for it.
He paid $10,000 for 166 acres or some such thing that was undeveloped at the time.
And the point is that the owner of the land, the administrator of the pension plan, did not have the legal right to make the sweetheart deal selling the land for such a minuscule amount.
It was in effect an embezzlement from the pension plan.
Interesting.
Why can't they sell it for whatever price they want to sell it for?
What if they wanted to sell it to me?
I have no relationship with them.
I can't do anything for them in Congress.
Why couldn't they sell it to me for whatever price they wanted?
If it was much less than the market price, they couldn't because they're legally required to administer the plan in the best interest of the beneficiary.
A pension plan trustee is a fiduciary, and he's a fiduciary who's legally required to act in the interest of the plan's beneficiaries.
I know this.
I'm a retired lawyer, and I spent many years working administering pension plans.
All right.
Well, quick question.
I got no more than 20 seconds here.
Do you think anything will come of it?
Unfortunately, no.
I think that'll happen as soon as pigs fly without airplanes.
Exactly right.
We can talk about that every day on this program, and it wouldn't get picked up, and it would go nowhere.
Would not happen.
L.A. Times may run follow-ups, but it won't get beyond the L.A. Times.
Yeah, the pensioners aren't going to raise a stink because this company is owned by the lubricants guy, and he basically is the pension plan.
I mean, that's not – I have to reread this, but I – the whole thing looks fishy to me, and it is.
There's no question.
Anyway, I have to run here, folks, because of the constraints of the busy program format here.
Back in just a second.
All right, just in case, uh, have Soundbots 20 and 21 standing by.
A couple of news items here, folks.
Uh, Moktader Moktada Al Sadr, Muki, the radical Shiite cleric, uh, has changed his mind and has ordered his militia not to confront U.S. forces.
In fact, has endorsed negotiations aimed at easing the deployment of American troops in his strongholds.
The Soderist movement has given its blessing to an initiative led by one of two mayors of Sauter City to negotiate terms under which U.S. forces will be able to deploy freely there.
If the negotiations succeed, forces, U.S. forces will be welcome in Sauter City.
Second such story in two weeks.
There was one last week.
Now, you know, you got to be careful you don't walk into a Trojan horse trap here, but still interesting.
A lot of myths about the Super Bowl, and they're not true.
And here are some of them: two-thirds of all avocados sold in the United States purchased for consumption during the Super Bowl.
Water Department officials across the country fearfully await the halftime flush.
Lingerie sales jump in the days before the Super Bowl as women look for ways to woo their men away from the big game.
None of those are true.
False, false, and false.
And yet they come.
And there's always another one at some media watchdog group, Fair something put out, claiming that more spousal abuse is rampant on Super Bowl Sunday.
And it isn't the case either.
So anyway, a great story in the Washington Post today by Geo Battagori, the bogus science of secondhand smoke.
Former National Cancer Institute head honcho says that secondhand smoke studies are not slam dunk science.
It is a guess that secondhand smoke is deadly, and that guess moves to consensus to advance a cause.
It's political.
There is no consensus in science.
Now, on page three of this story, this guy says, hey, look, you know, reducing smoking is laudable, but don't lie about it.
Don't lie to do it.
There is no provable death rate associated with secondhand smoke.
Here's Cliff in Susanville, California.
Hey, Cliff, welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
That traitorous old nag has raised her ugly head again, and I'm referring to what was her name, Barbarella?
Oh, I thought we're talking about other horse.
Well, same, same, I think.
Yeah, I mean, isn't it interesting, folks, that Jane Fonda comes out of what?
Pickling for the last 34 years and has to lead the anti-war movement again.
I mean, there's no, can we get a new face?
We're all tired of Sean Penn.
We're tired of Susan Serena.
We're tired of who the hell else?
What's his name?
Tim Robbins.
It's the same old character.
Who?
Sean.
Sean Penn.
Yeah, what did I say?
Sam Penn?
We all know who I'm talking about.
Jane Fonda to lead the thing.
I mean, half that crowd was on Prep H.
The other half are wearing diapers.
Well, I mean, the point is that the anti-war movement has not grown.
It has not recruited new young people or anything of the sort.
Let's see.
Well, there's just not enough time to be fair with another caller, the Senator Kennedy soundbites.
We have to save these for tomorrow.
A couple of others too.
And Cookie, just give me these Hillary sound bites in a separate page.
Have them so Mike can keep them standing by every day because this is not going to vanish or go away.
Oh, I forgot to get to the sound bite where my name is mentioned by someone as possibly one of the evil men that Hillary Clinton was discussing.
We'll be back and close it out here in a second.
Just sitting here looking at the latest issue of the limbo letter.
Hot off the presses.
I got mine first because I own it.
This issue, have we lost our toughness?
Look at that logo, the official mascot of feminists today.
It's a lizard, fire-breathing lizard dragon.
This is the February issue.
You guys will get yours in March, but I have mine now.