All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:25
February 6, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, welcome back.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, and America's Doctor of Democracy.
All combined here is one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882. The email address, rush at EIBnet.
I'm sorry.
By the way, where's Mitzi?
El Rushbow at EIBNet.com is the, who's Mitzi?
Mitzi is Brian's wife, and she's bringing me a couple things here.
She's supposed to have been here an hour and a half ago.
It's like Santa Claus.
She's bringing a couple of 16 gigabyte iPhones.
It's like Santa Claus being late.
Oh, I was.
I didn't wait for Santa Claus.
I started digging around the closets.
Anyway, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com is the email address.
Washington Post today, Libby Copeland.
The fetching doggedness of John McCain.
Let me just, this story speculates that one of the possibilities for McCain's vice presidential running mate would be Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of New York.
Although the McCain camp says that's premature.
And then there's a quote here from Neil Rossman, 62, at a Boston rally, talking about McCain.
He looks tired, but I'll take him as tired.
It's a character thing.
Rossman's a Democrat who once vowed never to vote Republican.
He says I'd shave my head and move to Burma before voting for Romney.
The truth is, Rossman said of McCain, I don't consider him to be a Republican.
As a matter of fact, he's almost a Democrat.
This phrase McCain doesn't necessarily want, not while he's battling a perception within certain corners of the Republican Party, that he's not conservative enough.
Back to the audio soundbites.
This is Gloria Borger, CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Jeffrey Toobin.
They have this exchange about McCain and talk radio.
If, in fact, John McCain does not sort of wrap it up tonight, they will then say, you know what?
Our influence among the conservative radio talk shows is a lot more serious than some of these Republicans think.
But they still have yet to settle on a candidate to challenge John McCain.
Sort of a Romney to a certain degree.
Okay, so what they were saying, and this is before the results were coming, and they were a little fretful, ladies and gentlemen, that if McCain didn't wrap it up last night, oh, it might put Limbaugh and his talk radio buddies in the driver's seat.
They're just so jealous.
They just, you know, they got all this kind of attention from Clinton, but Clinton never named them.
But they're just beside themselves.
This is Joe Scarborough today on MSNBC or DNC-TV.
Scarborough with Mika Bzezinski, Tim Russert, Pat Buchanan have this exchange.
How about me?
Rush Limbaugh.
I think the only person he likes less than John McCain is Mike Huckabee.
So if you have a McCain Huckabee ticket, then you've got Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingram going on from.
And you say, I'll tell you what.
You look at George W. Bush winning in 2004.
He won because evangelicals, conservatives, Rush Limbaugh listeners stood in line around the block in the rain in places like Pensacola, Florida.
And southern Ohio.
And southern Ohio.
How do Republicans win if people like Rush Limbaugh and those value voters?
Look, what they're going to have to say is when it comes down to it, McCain, you will say to these guys, look, do you want Hillary?
Be my guest.
Because that's what you get if you don't get me.
Exactly.
I tried my very best.
I could not unite you.
Right.
Thank you.
She can.
Yeah.
Yeah, here he goes.
Here's the great uniter.
You believe this?
Hillary will be the great uniter.
McCain's going to say, well, be my guest.
Vote for Hillary because that's what you're going to get if you don't get me.
You think that's what he'll say?
You think that's what McCain's attempt at unity will be?
It's, you know, these guys, I mean, Buchanan pretty much, he knows these players.
Be my guest, Limbaugh.
Go ahead.
If you don't get me, you're going to get the witch.
You know it, and I know it.
Is that what you want?
Is that what you want?
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Make my gay Limbaugh make it.
Will that be the outreach?
You don't think, you don't think I care about you guys?
How about Bloomberg?
You know Bloomberg.
You like Bloomberg.
No, no, Senator.
No, no, no, no, not Bloomberg.
What about Huckabee?
I got Huckabee wrapped in my little finger.
Do whatever I say, whenever.
Same thing with Lindsay Graham Disty.
Well, it is fascinating to imagine the outreach that will take place.
Here's Bill Bennett last night on CNN.
Anderson Cooper says to Bill Bennett, how does McCain make inroads among those conservatives?
He needs to say the right things, but he also needs to tell people to look at his record.
Frankly, I think these folks, and a lot of them are my best friends, need to move a little forward on their own.
There's a kind of Trotskyism going on here, you know, purification of the party.
We're Trotsky.
I love this.
Incorrect, isn't it, to say that we want purification of the party?
We're trying to stop the wanton destruction of the party, the wanton dilution of the party.
We're trying, we tried to stop the influx of liberal Democrats into our party as liberal Democrats.
Again, I ask, what is so magical about being able to reach out to the other side when you reach out to the other side, you totally agree with them and they get what they want?
Where's the courage there?
We never hear about them.
Hillary Obama, do they talk about reaching out to us?
No, they talk about defeating us.
They demonize us.
Let's see.
Ah, Karl Rove last night.
Rove made his debut, his debut as an analyst on the Fox News channel last night, and Chris Wallace was assigned to ask him the questions to get his analysis.
And Wallace said, okay, a McCain-Huckabee ticket.
Huckabee is vice president.
What would you think of the politics there?
That's called doubling your trouble with people like Rush Limbaugh furious with McCain.
I don't see how it improves it when you pick the person that they're also furious with, Huckabee.
You probably say, what's so funny, Rush?
I don't know.
It just, it's sometimes, folks, you just have to put yourself in my position.
You're watching this stuff.
Your name pops up all over the place.
With Rush Limbaugh, you're doubling your trouble.
With Huckabee, you're doubling your trouble.
All right.
Here's McCain's speech last night, or a portion of it in Phoenix.
And this is, I guess we call this the promise that he made to conservatives last night.
I'm not only running for the highest office in the greatest country on earth, but that I'm also running for the great privilege of leading the party that has been my political home for a quarter century.
I'm grateful for and humbled by the prospect.
And I promise you, if I am so fortunate to win your nomination, I will work hard to ensure that the conservative philosophy and principles of our great party, principles that have done so well by the country we love, will again win the votes of a majority of the American people and defeat any candidate our friends in the other side nominate.
That's the beginning of the outreach.
And so one thing I guess we might be able to assume here that McCain could say is that, look, you know what I had to do to win this primaries?
I had to reach out.
I had to reach out across the aisle.
It's my nomenclature.
It's how I know how to do that.
How to get the media support and so forth.
But now that I got the nomination limbo, now I got the nomination.
Now it's peddling the middle with full speed ahead, 360, full speed conservatism.
You can trust me.
Well, no, we're speculating here what the outreach will be.
By the way, in the past, Senator McCain said there won't be any.
I mean, he'll take our phone calls and so forth.
And by the way, I don't expect, don't misunderstand, I don't sit here and view myself the way all these other people do.
I do not feature myself as some potentate, some mullah, some tribal leader, some chieftain demanding a phone call.
I honestly don't see myself this way, ladies and gentlemen.
Anyway, before we go to the break, an item here in the non-political stack is give you the headline, Booze Bra Gives Women a Wine Rack.
Could this be the reason Amy Winehouse seemed to have sprouted such a heaving chest when she left rehab recently?
For those occasions when booze just isn't allowed, a wine-holding bra has been created for the ladies of the world.
Be it a rock concert, simply a trip to the restroom, women simply need to fill up the sports bra device with their favorite booze, and then once inside, suck the liquid out of the special teeth.
There's a picture of this here.
The bra serves the double purpose of also making the wearer's wine rack look more full until the alcohol is all consumed and the woman goes from a big-chested beauty to a big-bellied Betty.
Anyway, there's a bladder inside this bra, and you can fill the bladder with whatever you want in there.
They use wine here as an example.
And then there's this little stopper thing that you go to bathroom or whatever and you there's a little valve inside there and you attach this and you draw some, it's sort of like a syringe.
You draw some of the liquid out in this little bladder type thing, or this syringe type thing looks like it's about two or three inches long, and you take a hit and then you head back to where you were going in public so nobody knows what you've done and it's all hidden in your bra.
And when the bladder of the bra is full with the adult beverage of your choice, of course, you appear to be larger than otherwise nature made you.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, I knew that because I am a highly trained broadcast specialist.
Michael Gerson, who was the first head speechwriter for President George W. Bush, now a columnist at the Washington Post, a compassionate conservative.
He is a compassionate conservative.
An excerpt from Mr. Gerson's piece today, in the general election, McCain's ideological heresies will suddenly transform into strengths.
Because of his immigration views, he's the only Republican candidate who can make a serious appeal to Hispanic voters.
His positions on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independence.
But McCain has at least one serious political drawback, and it's not the temperament issue.
I've yet to hear a serious argument for the proposition that a short fuse should be disqualifying for high office.
The peaceful are not always polite.
Theologian Stanley Hauerwiss says I'm a pacifist because I'm a violent SOB, any more than the tightly coiled are always warlike.
But those who know of McCain report a general lack of interest in domestic policy compared with his engagement on foreign affairs.
Sometimes unfairly argued that Bush is intellectually uncurious, says one former member of Congress.
But on domestic issues, that really is true of McCain.
Now, let's go back.
Because of his immigration views, he's the only Republican candidate who can make a serious appeal to Hispanic voters.
Told you?
I told you?
I told you that's what this I told you.
And it means they're going to do whatever they have to do to get those Hispanic voters when we're not looking.
He's the only Republican who can do that.
His positions on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independence.
And my good friend Bill Bennett says that we are the Trotskyites.
The Trotskyism exists on the McCain side.
The Trotskyism exists there.
They're the ones urging us to purify with McCain.
Now, this is the summation.
This paragraph, Michael Gerson, President Bush's first speech writer, these are reasons recommending McCain's election.
He can reach out to Hispanics because of the amnesty bill.
His position on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independence.
Mr. Gerson, have you guys stopped to think what these very issues are doing to McCain's base support?
Have you stopped to think for a moment why it is he is not getting a majority of the conservative vote and in certain key states, not even a majority of the Republican vote?
Is it really that much more important to all of you on the McCain side of things to get independents and liberals voting for your candidate or our candidate?
I think, folks, what else can you conclude?
But then they're really trying to run us out of the party.
Now, I went back and a little research.
January 10th of this year, there was a story at National Review Online by Roy Cordato.
Roy Cordato is an economist.
He's VP for research and a resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation, public policy think tank in North Carolina.
And this bounces off Mr. Gerson's praise of Mr. McCain's global warming position, making it easier for outreach to independence.
Well, what is McCain's global warming policy?
Well, for one thing, it's costly.
What do John McCain, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Pew Center on Climate Change have in common?
They have united to support a massive new tax increase on energy, which will raise costs throughout the economy and threaten the vitality of, among others, the oil and automobile industries.
I suspect that many who would be significantly harmed by McCain's wrong-headed tax plan, say blue-collar workers in Michigan, have never heard of it.
The Arizona senator's position on federal tax cuts is better known.
Nearly all of his opponents in the presidential campaign have criticized him for voting against both of President Bush's tax reduction plans.
What is not widely understood is that he is currently sponsoring legislation that in the name of fighting global warming would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas.
The proposed bill, co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman, mandates an energy rationing scheme that all economists acknowledge is equivalent to a broad-based energy tax similar to Bill Clinton's 1993 BTU tax proposal.
Energy would be taxed at a back door by placing a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that energy-producing companies can emit.
It puts a legal limit on the amount of energy that can be drawn from conventional sources like coal, oil, and natural gas.
McCain's energy tax would kick in whenever an energy-producing company wants to expand its output above the cap.
If, for example, a utility company that's bumping up against its emissions cap wants to increase its production generated from coal, oil, or natural gas, it'll have to buy permission to do so by purchasing unused permits from other companies.
The same would be true of an oil refiner.
The purchase price of the permits is a tax, and it'll have the same effects as a tax on the market.
It would raise the price of the energy source, coal, oil, et cetera, and therefore it would likewise raise the costs of all production that relies on those sources, as well as the price of oil and all goods and services that are produced using these products.
Over the next 100 years, CO2 reductions from the tax will result in temperature change so small nobody will even notice, but a massive tax increase gets instead.
Guess who joining the bumper rotation?
Back to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Bruce in Boaz, Alabama.
Hi, welcome to the program.
It's an honor, Rush Limbaugh.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
I wanted to take a stab why you are the de facto candidate for the Conservative Party.
Go for it, sir.
Go for it.
I believe the lines began to be blurred as soon as George Bush I took office when he told us to read his lips and it didn't mean no new taxes.
And then as much as I love George II, I believe George II really blurred the lines on fiscal policy.
And I believe that you're the most qualified voice for the conservative viewpoint, and you won't let them blur the lines even more with John McCain.
And so they're trying to get you, who is a conservative by conviction, to shut up.
So John McCain, who is a conservative by agenda, can get on with his agenda.
McCain is not a conservative.
I agree.
So you misspoke.
Well, let me ask you a question.
You seem to have got this figured out.
Do you think this is accidental?
So you have Bush 41 who runs as Reagan's heir and says, read my lips, no new taxes.
And then, bam, eventually we read his lips and there are new taxes.
It makes a deal who with?
Foley?
And then we have Bush 43, who Peggy Noonan, in disagreeing with me, says has destroyed the Republican Party, not John McCain.
because he's not governed as a conservative on many things while having conservatives in the House, he stymied them.
Let's say, do you believe all that?
Let me just first ask you, you've pretty much made the same case.
So you believe that, right?
I do believe that.
Okay, so the next question I have for you, is this just coincidental?
Is this just accident?
Or is there, do you think that there is on the part of the country club blue-blood Republican set a desire to rid the party of its Reagan conservatism?
Oh, absolutely.
I think that is the agenda.
I think the agenda is to, I am a conservative by virtue of my convictions, and I listen to you because of your convictions, not because of your agenda.
Right.
We are driven in the South more by what we fear than we are by anything else, which is why we'd rather vote for a backslidden Southern Baptist and a non-practicing Presbyterian than a practicing Mormon.
And so those of us who are driven by our convictions are few and far between.
It's just too much work.
Yes.
Those driven by ideas.
So you just repeat this.
This is why we'd rather vote for a backstabbing, did you say?
Backslidden.
Backslidding Southern Baptist.
That would be Huckabee.
That would be Huckabee.
Than a non-practicing Presbyterian.
That would be McCain.
That would be McCain.
Than a practicing Mormon, and obviously that would be Romney.
Yes, because we're afraid of Romney.
Understand that.
I voted for him, but I won't admit it in church.
I understand that.
I understand that.
Actually, evangelical votes being split between Huckabee and Romney is not all going to the huckster.
That's an affectionate term.
Don't misunderstand you hucksters out there, you think I'm insulting you.
I'm not with the term.
Okay, so you think that there's an ongoing concerted conspiracy?
And by the way, conspiracy doesn't mean something we don't see.
It just means that people are conspiring.
They're working together for an objective.
In this case, the objective is to simply rid the Republican Party of conservative influence and power.
Yes.
Quick example.
My six-year-old granddaughter in Virginia recently, this week, was told to take two animals, an elephant and a tiger, and to put them together and make one animal out of them.
And the whole idea was to try to teach her how we must all get along.
Well, I don't intend to get along with people who want to kill me and destroy my ideas, but I have convictions.
Yes.
Very few in politics have convictions.
Are you telling me you don't understand the importance of reaching out to Democrats to get things done?
I don't want to reach out to them.
I want to defeat their agenda, that my convictions and my dreams.
Amen, bro.
Amen.
So what did you, your six-year-old granddaughter, Virginia, was told to take two animals, an elephant and a tiger.
This is obviously a paper exchange, a paper exercise.
Correct.
How did that turn out?
Well, it turned out to be an elephant Iger.
So she told me on the phone, and she was so excited about getting an A and making the two animals be peaceful.
She got an A for creating an elephantiger?
That's it.
That's correct.
Could we pronounce it elephant Eiger?
Because some people are not going to.
You have my problem.
But that's a crazy thing.
That is a crazy.
So they took an elephant and a tiger, and the teachers come up with a brand new animal.
Does she have to draw what the animal looked like?
She had to draw it, cut it out, paste it together, and then write a story about it.
What did it look like?
Did you see the elephant eiger?
I saw it on my webcam, Rush, and it looked like the head of an elephant with the backside of a tiger.
Was it gray or did it have stripes?
It did.
It both gray and had stripes, or it was.
It had an elephant's head, gray, and a tiger's body with stripes, and it was glued together.
So, really, what your little six-year-old granddaughter was being told to do was to learn there's no differences between us.
That's it.
We can all get along.
We can all, all the little little animals.
And I believe that's going to happen in heaven, but not in this earth.
Well, but no, but that exercise, that's going to extend to people.
Okay.
The whole point of that exercise is to show there's no difference in anybody.
If you can take an elephant and a tiger, put them together, come up with an elephant eiger, and it makes sense to somebody, well, imagine what other differences we can rectify on paper with some little creative artwork.
Absolutely.
And we can have a John McCain who can reach across the aisle, and he can bring us all together and make Ziggler.
They're no different, except the conservatives.
Nobody will ever be able to draw a conservative with anybody else because they just won't mix.
That's next to be taught in school.
Absolutely.
Don't forget the elephant's a GOP symbol here, and a tiger's a tiger.
And you know what happens.
And, Rush, you're our true Ronald Reagan voice of conviction.
Well, I appreciate it.
I really do.
By the way, you know this elephant tiger?
You need to go out and trademark this thing and sell it to Apple Computer.
They can name their next operating system after this.
I could love to see that.
From the political today, race, comma, sex.
Divide Democrats, ideology splits, Republican Party.
The political guys get it right.
That's exactly what's been going on.
There's a big war going on in both parties.
Ours is over ideas.
Theirs is over race.
Race and sex.
Here's Jason in Cripple Creek, Colorado.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Nice to talk to you, Rush.
Yes.
The pundits are out there trying to make the point that the Republican Party is moving to the left, thereby departing to you because they're voting McCain.
But I think they're missing the point that not only did conservatives not vote for McCain, half the party didn't even show up to vote last night.
You mean in Colorado?
In a lot of places.
A lot of places.
Yeah.
Well, even in some states where the Republicans did show up, he didn't get even, he didn't get half of the vote of the Republicans.
I think Tennessee was one state.
A couple others that slipped my mind, but he didn't get over, in one case, didn't get over 20% of the Republican vote.
I'll tell you something else.
Here's more exit poll data.
And this is from our buddy comrade Bill Schneider at CNN.
Let's see.
Among those Republicans who disapprove of the war, anti-war Republicans, Jason, half of them voted for McCain, while only 20% of anti-war Republicans voted for Mitt Romney.
And even though McCain spent the past few weeks trying to portray Romney as more liberal on the war, moderates seem to simply prefer McCain even when they don't square on the issues.
I think the point is a lot of conservatives stayed home because there was no conservative camp camp.
Yeah, I know, I know.
If this doesn't change, I'm telling you, Republicans are in for a shocker in November.
It's a long way from now, though, folks.
We're a long way out here.
This is only February.
But I don't, I don't, by the way, you know, I just remember we forgot to replay the call from Suzanne.
And we've, you know, I don't want to wait till Lamar to do that.
That's kind of who we got up here.
Now, let's wait till Lamar to do it because these people here have been on hold for a long time.
It'd be unfair to give a caller two shots in one day while people are on hold.
This is Carrie in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you very much.
I keep hearing that we need to be loyal, Republicans, and support McCain if he becomes our candidate.
But I question why we should have to be more loyal to the party than McCain has demonstrated.
I can't believe that someone who is only barely tolerating the car by his name.
That is brilliant.
It is brilliant because I made the same point yesterday.
Do you realize that they are demanding of us a party loyalty that is not demanded of McCain?
Well, exactly.
And he has shown he's been ready to bolt to the Democrats a couple of times.
Yep.
But I also think that it just shocks me that he is being elevated to one of the highest positions in our party when he demonstrates that he doesn't really like us.
Default position.
There is nobody else that is preferable.
But I could have voted for any other Republican candidate.
And some of them I would have had to hold my nose a little more than others.
But McCain, I just cannot get behind him at all.
And as a good citizen, I do feel like it is my duty to vote and not stay home.
But the choices are not looking good.
And I feel myself considering just doing a write-in.
And at least I can go, and at least the candidate I write for, I can support.
That is clearly an option.
The write-in is clearly an option.
It's clearly permitted.
Whether it'll be counted is another thing.
Right, but at least I'm not staying home.
Well, that's good.
I appreciate that.
I understand your civic sense about that.
I'll look at, believe me, folks, I understand the conundrum.
I understand the conflict and the struggle here.
This is nobody's happy.
There hasn't been anybody in his whole roster to go, yeah, ratto, ratto.
It's not there.
And so we're settling.
I'm just telling you, when you settle, there's nothing.
I mean, we have no choice here, but when you settle for things rather than holding out for the best, never works.
Well, it never leads to happiness.
Never does.
Scott in Tyler, Texas.
You're next.
Hello, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, Rush Mugadittos.
Yes, sir.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Appreciate that, sir.
Thank you.
I've got a, well, I think we can all pretty much agree that I think John McCain's going to pretty much get this nomination.
And if he does, I think I have a solution.
I've been tossing this around and has been pulling my hair out saying, what am I going to do?
I mean, I just can't vote for Hillary.
I mean, she drives me nuts.
I always, you know, I've always said Republicans will crawl through broken glass with their legs blown off to vote against this woman.
But under this circumstance, John McCain is, I'm sorry, but he could try to come over to our side in a general election and say, well, I'll do this and this.
I just don't believe him.
You know, he's done more to hurt us.
I mean, he's right up there with Dashel and Harry Reid as far as obstruction.
Yeah, you're right.
You're right.
You're absolutely right.
And if he gets elected, I think we can agree we're either eight to 16 years of not having a conservative in the White House if he gets in.
You're right about that, too.
Now, as far as sitting out the election, I can't do that because my senators are Kay Billy Hutchinson and John Cornyn.
They're good senators.
I think what we need to do is not vote for president, let Hillary get in there, try to get the Senate back.
It seems how that is where treaties are ratified and where we get our judges.
We need to increase our margins in the House and the Senate.
Keep our good people.
And let the Clintons do what they do best.
Susanna, you have really hit on something here.
But I'm going to tell you, don't give up the House of Representatives.
That could end up being the focus of our attention as we get into the fall, and that is electing Republican conservatives in the House.
Exactly.
Let district by district by district.
Get it done.
Focus on that.
Focus in the Senate.
Realizing what we're going to have in the White House is six of one and a half dozen of the other, regardless which party wins.
Let the Clintons do what they do best and let them increase Republican majority in midterm.
That's right.
And we've got a chance to get it all back in four years.
But we let McCain in there, we've lost it.
You know, the damage that the liberals can do to this country in 8 to 16 years, I don't know if we can recover from that.
Well, now, it's interesting you say that, too, because remember, read Tony Blankly's piece today about 1964 and what happened with the Goldwater loss and the disunity that occurred in the Republican Party then.
And, of course, when we lost in 1964, we lost that landslide with LBJ.
And what did we get?
That's where we got, folks, the next 20 years is the disaster we're living with now.
We got the great society.
We got the war on poverty.
We got national health care or the seeds of it that were planted.
We had Nixon came along and trying to get along with these Democrats and gave us OSHA, the EPA, affirmative action.
The 20 years following the landslide defeat of a conservative led to the real cultural problems that exist today.
So the argument there is, you know, sometimes losing is not what you want because if you think you're only turning over, say, the White House for four years to somebody, it may be 20.
If McCain's in there and the Kyoto Protocol comes up or any other treaty and he has the Senate, our guys are just going to try to support the president and we're going to end up with 70, 80 senators voting on these treaties that can trump our Constitution since treaties do become, when they ratify, they become law.
I mean, we can lose our guns.
We can lose any.
I mean, the global warming thing, so the Senate is, I think, the most important thing.
Although I agree with you, we don't need to write off the House or the governors or anything else.
We need to get as many Republicans in as possible.
But just deal with the fact there's going to be a liberal in the White House.
Let it be their liberal.
Wait a minute.
I got to go.
The time went away for me.
Well, this is really cool.
Play Start It Up as we're wrapping it up here on the EIP network.
But 21 hours, and we will be right back and do it all over.
▲
Export Selection