Rush Limboy, as usual, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We are here in New York, high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan, just for today.
We'll be back at the EIB Southern Command tomorrow and for the rest of the week.
A telephone number, if you wish to be on the program, is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
This is from the Associated Press.
People asked to rate the competence of an individual based on a quick glance at a photo predicted the outcome of elections more than two-thirds of the time.
Nearly 300 students at Princeton were asked to look at the pairs of photographs for as little as one-tenth of a second and pick the individual they felt was more competent.
This, according to psychologist Alexander Todorov, in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the participants were shown photos of leading candidates for governor or senator in other parts of the country.
They were not told that they were evaluating candidates.
Those who recognized any of the photos, the pictures were not counted.
So when the elections took place two weeks later, the researchers found that the competency snap judgments predicted the winners in 72.4% of the senatorial races and 68.6% of the gubernatorial races.
The findings suggest, are you following me on this?
The findings suggest that unreflective judgments based in a candidate's face can affect voting decisions.
Can?
What says can?
Seems like do 72.4% of the time.
This explains John Kerry.
I'm aware that they didn't test presidential candidates, but I mean, it works for governor candidates and senator candidates.
It have to work for presidential candidates.
This would explain Kerry's problem.
The findings suggest that fast, unreflective judgments based on a candidate's face can affect voting decisions.
Voters are not that rational after all.
So maybe we have...
Oh, I see what this is about.
Voters...
This is the guy that did the survey.
Voters are not that rational after all.
So maybe we have to consider that when we elect our politicians.
So what he's saying is, we can't think that because voters elected Reagan, they were rational.
And we can't think that because voters elected Bush, they were rational.
It's just that they didn't like the looks of the Democrats who were running.
What a sneaky way to attack the intelligence of voters.
I reject it.
I don't doubt that this may have some truth to it, but I don't think it says that voters are irrational.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, your host is in the process of another mini smear.
And that mini smear is taking place out in the left-wing blogosphere, and it is centered around the false allegation that I attacked a 12-year-old kid, Graham Frost, of the famous Frost family, of the famous response of Graham Frost to President Bush's radio address in trying to sell a bogus, lying, distorted version of the expansion of the S-CHIP program.
Well, we're hoping Pelosi will send a letter on this, but she's in deep doo-doo with her own people.
I think she's worrying about salvaging herself leadership-wise before dealing with me.
But now, get this.
This is from the Washington Post today.
A Maryland family caught in the partisan crossfire over a children's health bill in Congress is now stepping back into the divisive debate, advocating this time for state legislation that would expand coverage for adults.
Oh, I get it.
Up until now, the Frost family was just an innocent victim, an innocent bunch of victims of an unfair and unjust U.S. health care system.
And President Bush was the evil Darth Vader trying to prevent them and their kids and others like them from having adequate health care.
That was the lie.
The Frost family was covered under the current structure of the S-CHIP program.
Now we find out that the mother of Graham Frost has become an activist and is advocating for state legislation that would expand coverage for adults.
Thank you, Mrs. Frost.
Then everybody will be covered.
The family, the whole family be covered.
We have S A Chip.
We have S CHIP.
We got everybody covered in the Frost family.
Frost family can then save up all their money to not have to spend on health care.
By the way, folks, about these dishwashers and these tenement dwellers and so forth in Chinatown, $1,000, $2,000 donations to Hillary Clinton.
They can't afford health care.
They can afford a grand or two grand to give to her presidential campaign.
Yeah, right.
Well, the Frost Fett's right.
That's another thing.
Here's the Maryland family caught in the partisan crossfare.
They weren't caught in anything.
They entered it.
They showed up in it.
This story indicates that we were right all along.
This is an activist family.
They were found by some child services outfit in Maryland.
Then, supposedly, this is how the story goes.
The Democrats in Washington were told about this family by the child services bunch in Maryland.
Like the grandparents driving around Florida, happened to listen in a newt's conversation on a cell phone in the car, like we all do.
Three weeks ago, after 12-year-old Graham Frost offered a radio appeal for expansion of VestChip, his family became fodder for conservative bloggers.
The Frosts were derided as freeloaders who relied on government insurance for their children, why they sent the two to private school.
Bloggers staked out their Baltimore Row house, declaring it too fancy for a family that can't afford to pay for health insurance.
Commentator Rush Limbaugh imitated Graham.
Oh, oh, I didn't read this far in the story.
Commentator Rush Limbaugh imitated Graham Frost's voice, damage in a car accident.
Said congressional Democrats were using the boy to advance the distortions.
I wasn't imitating his voice.
I've never heard his voice.
And my classic little kid voice.
See, this is when you've got people, this is media matters.
Media matters again.
They don't listen to the program, so they don't know the context.
They don't know that I have a little 12-year-old voice, a little kid voice.
I use it.
I've been doing it for 18 years.
Even longer than that.
So now I'm imitating the kid's voice when I was it, just like I was not making fun of Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson's disease.
Anyway, the Democrats came to the kid's defense, accusing conservatives of distorting the family's finances and attacking Graham unfairly.
And then we had a Doonesbury cartoon yesterday, but now we find out that Mrs. Frost wants to expand state health care for adults.
She said she didn't hesitate to join the Maryland effort despite the events of the past three weeks.
I'm not going to let these nasty bloggers scare me away from standing up for what's important.
Well, hubby, hubba, hubba.
So this is, I mean, this is, if anything, this is vindication.
However, it's not just about vindication, folks.
It is the fact that this bunch is actually interested in the expansion of government to fund everybody's health care.
When you start talking about adults being included, they're Democrat pawns.
I think they like the attention.
I don't know what their activist status was prior to all this, but they clearly like this attention now.
A lot of people do.
Everybody gets their 50 minutes of fame.
Everybody wants that.
Now they're stars, even though they're in the middle of a controversy.
Drive-by media defending them, so their virtue is intact as far as they're concerned.
So go for it.
Let's get even more involved.
And that's the thinking behind this.
The Clintonistas, the Clinton war machine, Clinton War Room, Clinton Inc., has decided to go after Rudy Giuliani.
The same crowd that condemned the politics of personal destruction has sent Charlie Wrangell out now to bash Rudy on his marriages.
It's a situation room at Wolf Blitzer.
Talking to Wrangell, Blitzer says, you lashed out at Rudy's personal life, some of the experiences he's had, his multiple marriages, among other things.
Two people, six spouses.
It's a little complicated if you're not religious, especially when you're running against a Mormon.
But I'm just saying that America has to look at all of these things and that there are enough moles on this man that embarrasses those of us who have sought public life.
When we get involved in public life, it means we're in a goldfish bowl.
And it would seem to me with all the breaks that the mayor's had and touching with Carrick and being involved with his personal problems that he would thank God he's got as far as where he did go without making the politicians get involved in his personal life.
What do you mean?
Without getting the politicians involved in his personal life, they all have been.
They've run stories on his kids, and the kids have been interviewed, unlike Chelsea, who was sequestered and protected.
What is this?
Two people, six spouses.
It's a little complicated if you're not religious, especially when you're running against a Mormon.
A little gratuitous there, gratuitous there, Chuck.
Chuck Wrangell here.
I know you're incredulous listening to this.
To try to say that Rudy has baggage like this and ignored the Clintons.
He talks about the Clintons.
He said, well, at least they stay married.
Well, maybe the fact that she stayed married solely for the political advantage to a serial adulterer who also committed sex acts with cigars in the Oval Office with a young girl, young enough to be his daughter, does that not embarrass you, Democrat?
No, it obviously doesn't.
But for some reason, we've got to go out.
We can hit on Rudy for all his stuff while claiming that the Democrats never get involved in any of this.
You know, in a sane world, in a sane political environment, where Charlie Wrangell isn't shooting off his mouth, what the Clintons have done is something to be ashamed of.
It's actually a resume enhancement for them.
This is a window into how nasty this is going to get next year.
We got one more, excuse me, one more bite from Wrangell, and this is where he talks about Clinton Blitzer.
He said, look, if Rudy's personal life becomes an issue, that opens the door for Hillary, your candidate.
Her personal life becomes an issue as well.
This woman got married, stayed married, the same husband.
When they had problems, she stuck with him.
You tell me what her personal life is something that she should be ashamed of, and I want to talk about it.
But I tell you one thing, that whether you like it enough, personal lives, once you throw your hat in the ring, then you're vulnerable to anything.
And I can't, for the life of me, see how you could compare anything that has been suggested that Hillary Clinton has done as she's been exposed to public scrutiny and compare it with some like Rudolph Giuliani.
No comparisons.
We did this in the opening of the program.
Campaign finance scandals, engaging in acts that are dubious at least.
But you throw her husband in the ring standing by this guy, running the bimbo eruptions, Charlie, controlling them, listening in on wiretaps to people.
I'm telling you, this is how dirty it's going to get.
And this is an illustration, folks, of the position of arrogance and certitude the Democrats are coming from.
Nothing that they did, nothing that Clintons did can be held against them because the Clintons don't stand for standards.
The Democrats do not make a point of having standards.
The Republicans do, so they get held accountable to them.
Democrats don't.
So there is a double standard here, and they are going to try to take quick advantage of it.
Ladies, may I have your attention, please?
I'd really like you to listen to this.
And I would really love to know your thoughts on what you're going to hear here.
I know it's going to be difficult because not all of you can reach me by way of telephone.
This is a story from the Associated Press about three hours ago is when it hit the wire.
In the headline of the story, Clinton talks about Bill's romantic gifts.
Clinton talks about Bill's romantic gifts.
Do you think this is coincidental coming the day after Charlie Wrangell goes on CNN to rip into Rudy's personal life?
Nothing that happens with the Clintons is coincidental.
However, that's not my point.
I want you to listen to some of the words Mrs. Clinton uses to describe her marriage.
I want you ladies to do this, and I want you to see if they are words you would use.
Hillary Broadham Clinton says that husband Bill often brings her romantic gifts, a giant wooden giraffe from an African trip, for example, and a Chanel watch that reminded him of teeth.
Romantic gifts, a giant wooden giraffe, and a Chanel watch that reminded him of teeth.
I haven't gotten to the good part yet.
I'm having trouble understanding the romantic aspects of a giraffe in any circumstance or form.
Well, let's not go there, Mamon.
But a watch that reminds you of teeth?
Oh, he's so romantic.
The former first lady said in an interview for the November issue of Essence magazine.
He's always bringing me back things from his trips.
The watch had a bracelet made of white cubes.
I had dental surgery.
He said it reminded me of teeth, she said.
Well, you know, that's sort of like sending somebody a dozen roses when it's her time of the month.
You know, I mean, that's dental surgery?
The New York senator, now a presidential candidate, said she is satisfied with the decisions that she has made in her marriage.
Now, obviously, she says, we've had challenges, as everybody in the world knows, but I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in, even in the midst of those challenges.
And I'm really happy I made that decision.
Okay, invested it.
Does this sound like the language of love?
When you feel the love in Mrs. Clinton describing her marriage as this probably stretchable giraffe, this stretchable wooden giraffe, or maybe a flexible wooden giraffe, and a watch that reminds her of teeth, or that Bill said reminded him of teeth, because she'd had dental surgery.
Now, she is happy she invested in the marriage.
This sounds like a political speech.
I mean, Clintons use investments to talk about tax increases.
In 1998, news unfolded about her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
While sticking it out might not be for everyone, Mrs. Clinton said, women should support each other in the choices they make in their marriages.
Now, this is a direct appeal to ladies.
Mrs. Clinton here is asking you to support her for her decision to hang in there.
But we all know her decision to hang in there is based on one fact.
In order for her to have any political viability whatsoever, her last name has to be Clinton.
That's the investment.
The investment is keeping her last name Clinton.
So this doesn't sound like love and romance, and yet the headline is, Clinton talks about Bill's romantic gifts.
While sticking it out might not be for everyone, Mrs. Clinton said women should support each other in the choices that they make in their marriage.
Women should support each other?
It takes a village to keep a marriage strong.
In order for a marriage to work, women in the village must come together and support the abused, mistreated, taken for grant of, taken for granted of wife.
Well, let's not go there.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not talking about that.
Just talking about emotional.
I think it's so important for women to stand up for the right of women to make a decision that is best for them.
Now, I'm just your average run-of-the-middle guy, ladies and gentlemen.
But these are not the words that I would use because these words would never occur to me when talking about marriage.
Words like prison, obligation, honeydews.
Well, and at the outset, love, devotion, forgiveness.
I mean, the marriage vows, ladies and gentlemen, I have yet to be at a wedding where the preacher says, do you, H.R. Kit Carson, invest in your wife and promise to maintain that investment through thick and thin?
It just doesn't happen.
It's just, well, yeah, maybe at the John Kerry Teresa Hines wedding.
Mrs. Hines, do you promise to invest in John Kerry regardless how little he's able to earn on his own through thick and thin, even when he needs to sell half of the house you own to fund his presidential race?
While Kerry's out marching doing what it are, I guess there are different kinds of love.
But these are just not the words I would use to describe.
Look, ladies, I'm just kidding about these words like prison and this stuff.
I just love stereotypical humor.
I'm just kidding about this.
I'm serious.
Are these words when you remember, Mrs. Clinton's on a push to attract women that she's nice now and that she's likable despite the 50% negatives?
And yesterday they send old Chuck Wrangell out there to rip Rudy on his personal life being such an abomination.
And now here she comes talking about Bill's expandable giraffe from Africa, the teethwatch.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Lembaugh, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, despair, fires, hurricanes, well, no hurricanes, windstorms, and yes, even the good times behind the golden EIB microphone.
Okay, the BBC has a story here in the headlines: laughable, Cuba begins its election process.
However, critics like the U.S. and the EU, along with dissidents on the island, disagree.
They say the electoral process in Cuba is merely a cosmetic democratic exercise, which has no place for government opponents as it is fully overseen.
You know, I was watching something this morning on the channel surfing around while waiting to go on the Scarborough show.
And they were arguing.
It was Scarborough.
It was Scarborough and that Mika Brzezinski babe, and they were arguing about Iraq.
And they weren't agreeing on anything.
And they solved it.
It was a beautiful thing by saying, well, yes, there are two sides to every story.
No.
Well, there might be two sides to every story, but there are not two sides to facts.
And the facts are that elections in Cuba are bogus.
They are irrelevant.
They don't matter.
A hill of beans.
Elections in Iraq were bogus.
So here we have the BBC.
Millions of Cubans have voted in municipal polls starting an election cycle that could decide if Fidel Castro will officially stay Cuba's leader.
These are idiots.
These are blooming idiots.
Castro's reign is not determined by elections.
Who cannot know this?
What do Cubans do?
Put out a press release?
And the BBC, because it comes from a government of a socialist dictator, believes it?
Debbie right.
And then they got to go to critics to balance the story.
That stupid cable again.
They had to go to critics to balance the story.
There is no, the two sides of the story is such, and it's such a staple of journalism, and it is so bogus.
By the way, there was an election last week, this in Massachusetts, Massachusetts 5th congressional district.
The election of Nikki Tsongus should have been a moment of celebration for House Democrats.
One of the party's most successful and influential franchises, the all-Democrat Massachusetts delegation, gained a new face, its first woman in decades.
A storied name in Massachusetts, a national politics returned to elected office.
Instead, the focus was largely on what some saw as Tsongas' disappointingly small margin.
Amid growing worries, the Democrat-led Congress was going off its rails.
Both the House Republican leadership, the Republican National Committee touted the fact that Jim Oganowski, or Oganowski, I'm sure he pronounces it, a candidate largely ignored by the National Party, had come within six points of victory in a solid Democrat state, a district.
The RNC declared the Democratic wave had finally crested.
The big issue in this election was children's health care and the exertions of Democrat leadership in moving to expand the S-CHIP program.
Blah, blah, It now seems as though the Republicans, despite embarrassments like the scandal surrounding Larry Craig of Idaho, have regained some of their political footing.
Blow me down.
This probably is not unusual.
They create these expectations of a Democrat sweep, a mind-boggling landslide.
Democrats are going to take over everything because the country hates Bush.
The country hates the war.
The country hates Republicans.
Then they have this special election, and it's a six-point win, where it should have been a 20-point win.
And now they're all, oh, no.
No, what does this?
I mean, the headline, Tongass's slim victory signals a derailed Congress.
That slam dunk in 2008 that they've got planned for themselves, getting a little shaky out there.
And it always comes back to bite you when you start thinking you have it in a bag and it's a year away.
And it is from the Washington Post today.
GOP finds hot button in illegal immigration.
Special election in Massachusetts could be indicative of Democrat weak spot.
Where have you people in the media been?
How can you write a headline, GOP finds hot button and illegal immigration?
Did you not see how the amnesty bill was swept aside twice?
Where have you been?
The disconnect between people inside the Beltway, the Washington, New York, Boston axis, that corridor, is stunning.
How in the world GOP finds hot button and illegal immigration?
And then it's portrayed here as more worries for the Democrats.
Immigration is not a winner for them.
Really?
They were counting on immigration being a winner?
My God, we shouldn't have derailed it then.
Well, I don't mean that.
We should have let them keep thinking that they could win on immigration by talking the way they were talking about amnesty is a winner?
Good Lord, ladies.
A good grief, ladies and gentlemen.
Massachusetts race that was close, too close because of that issue.
Republicans led on the issue.
The Democrats want a mini-bill the liberals won't support on all of this.
That's the summary of this story.
But it's the headline here: GOP finds hot button and illegal immigration.
Special election in Massachusetts could be indicative of Democrat weak spot.
Good Lord.
You know what?
We do not know.
We just do not.
We ought to be so much more confident than we are.
We do not realize just how out of it the Democrat Party is with the American people.
As evidenced by their willing accomplices in the drive-by media, they are just out of it.
On seminal salient issue, immigration for crying out loud.
They actually think that Amnesty, the things they supported, was a winner after it got thrown out.
Massive national protests twice.
You know what they think?
I guarantee you, the only thing they know about it, and remember, is they saw these million people protesting back last spring.
That's what they see.
They see public protest, a bunch of lazy people that don't have anything better to do going out on the streets, renting mobs.
That's where they see strength and power.
And they resent.
They resent those of you that called their offices and got this whole thing scuttled.
You are to be beaten.
You are to be overcome.
You don't tell Congress what to do.
No, no, no, you don't.
They tell you what to do.
And this got slapped right back down their throats as well.
Fascinating headline.
Fascinating story.
I think we're in much better shape than anybody's willing to admit.
Don't get overconfident.
Don't even talk to me about that.
I'm just saying, if you look at the disarray the Democrats are in, and you see a story where they now are surprised that immigration is a hot button issue for Republicans.
Sweet.
Jim, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, welcome to the program, sir.
Thank you for waiting.
Yes, Rush, U.S. Navy Dittos.
I've been listening since 1989.
Thank you, sir.
I joined the Navy Reserve about three years ago, largely due to my inspiration I've got from you.
And I've come back from Kuwait in May, whereas I served there as a Swiftboat coxswain in the Navy.
And I just wanted to ask you a couple favors, two favors.
One, if, and I know you used the term in tongue-in-cheek when you use the word Swift voting, scuttling a politician's career.
I do not use it.
I refer to it when Democrats use it, and they use it as a means of unfairly criticizing them.
Swift voting to them is Republicans lying about them.
Correct.
I know, like I said, you used it tongue-in-cheek, but you did still use it.
And, you know, I'm not trying to nip it in the butt so it doesn't become the negative connotation doesn't become too part of our lexicon.
And the other favor I'd like to ask, or one favor I'd like to ask, is I'd like to plug a blog, if I could.
He's been taking this issue up at the Boston Globe, up in Massachusetts, of course, which is John Kerry's backyard.
And it's a site Zachly Wright, Z-A-C-K, L-Y, right.
And he's been pretty much taking it to the Boston Globe.
I think where the term more or less was born, I guess.
With the term Swiftboating?
Correct.
No, The Swiftboating.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran ads.
There's no blogger responsible for the term Swiftboating.
Not to put down the blogger.
Swiftboating, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth ran ads telling the truth about John Kerry.
Not one of those ads facts has been refuted.
They've just been ripped for running the ads.
So the Democrats run around and start talking about the term Swiftboat.
Hey, we got Swiftboated out there.
They think it means to be lied about.
Actually, Swiftboating means you're telling the truth about Democrats, and that you're not supposed to do.
And if you do, the Democrats are going to get even with you somehow.
Kelly in Denver, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you very much.
Honored to talk to you today.
Thank you.
I am very confident in our ability to do just about anything.
You said not to get overconfident, but I tell you what, the Republican Party is more confident, more, gosh, we're stronger than God Almighty Himself.
And I'll tell you where I'm coming from.
I was listening to our ABC affiliate out here in Denver.
The start of your second hour, their news program, I believe they had Barbara Boxer talking, and she was calling for help with the fires in Southern California from our National Guard, but said that they couldn't be expected to do much because she paused for a fact.
All of our equipment was a little quivering.
She says it's in Iraq.
And so this fire is still burning because the Republicans are fighting an illegal war, and we're more powerful than God Himself.
You know, they tried to add to Hurricane Katrina.
This is what they keep recycling the old pages in the playbook.
Nothing unique, nothing original.
That's not going to fly.
I mean, it's going to fly with Barbara Boxer's base.
But the people that are out there being affected by these fires are not going to believe that the National Guard wouldn't have been able to do much more than is already being done if they weren't in Iraq.
That's just sophistry.
That's not even wise.
And it's failed once before, and it's not.
You're trying to make everything about a rock.
It's laughable.
I've just run out of laughing energy today because I really laughed a lot today.
Quick timeout here, folks.
Let me take the, I can continue here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Overloaded with requests today, ladies and gentlemen, by popular demand, Dingy Harry Reed.
And the letter.
I won't care what Media Matters says again.
I won't listen to it.
Fat chance of that.
By the way, we revealed earlier in the program today our official translation, the latest Osama bin Laden tape from Al Jazeera.
I interrupt pressing matters of state to remind you, my children, to remain united and focused in our cause.
There is no room for extremism.
Yes, I mean you, most dingy one.
You and your funny soldier letter.
Where is your brain?
Using Media Matters as a source to attack Rush Limbaugh.
Some of your brothers in the Middle East takes them seriously.
And they trust Al Jazeera.
Look in the handling.
They are not in it for a reason.
Stick with Shorty.
Like the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Repent your gross stupidity.
You're starting to make Pelosi look smart for the turkey face.
And about this chip, though, do not fail to remind the American people.
They could all have free health care if only Bush weren't in Iraq.
Praise Allah.
Until we win in 08, yours also against Bush.
Osama.
Osama.
Dingy one.
Shouldn't have written the letter.
All right, Patrick in Richmond, Virginia.
You're next.
Thanks for calling.
You're on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call, O great one.
You're better than welcome, sir.
Rush, as you know, with the electoral college map, the way that it is, the Republican candidate, whoever it is, will probably have to carry every single southern state.
I think that Thompson probably has the best chance of doing that.
My question to you is this.
Do you honestly think that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, both being from the Northeast, can carry every single southern state?
They don't have to.
They can miss a couple, but it's not going to be that difficult.
I think I was talking about this earlier, and you're going to have to win Ohio in addition to Florida, because the Democrats are going to win New York and California.
That's etched in stone right now.
As to the electability of these guys in the Northeast and the South and so forth, by the time, you know, you're looking at this in the context of primaries.
And when we get to the general, after we've got the primaries, if it's Mitt, if it's Rudy, since those are your two examples, the opponent is going to be Hillary.
The subject, the focus of the election is going to be the future of the country.
Are we going to go toward a socialist, we're going to hand in a more obvious, pronounced socialist direction with government-run health care on the horizon, all of these things, are we going to remain the engine of capitalism that keeps us free and prosperous in the rest of the world?
That's what this is going to be about.
Mrs. Clinton, by the time she becomes the focal point of this with her 50% negatives, I think all these other things are going to be a mistake.
In fact, I would think I would go so far as to say again that if either Rudy or Mitt focus in their campaign as I can win the Northeast, I would advise them not to do it.
I would advise them not to say it.
Talk about winning the country.
Because people are going to say, if I can win a Northeast, they think, how are you going to do it?
You know, out liberal the Democrat in those states?
We don't win by being somewhat liberal to combat them.
We win by being conservative against them.
And there's some states we're going to win, some states we're not.
Quick break, I'm out of time here.
I'm getting email that I made a mistake when I said that Jack Kennedy was the last senator elected to the last Democrat elected president.
I said the last senator elected president.
I know, but somebody misunderstood me, and I'm correcting them.
See, I'm right even when you think I'm wrong.
See you tomorrow from Florida, ladies and gentlemen.