All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:26
February 14, 2008, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I'm holding this right here, my nicotine-stained fingers.
I just got this.
I did not know about this.
It's I guess it's I guess it's accurate because uh the source is Congressional Quarterly.
A respected publication inside the Beltway greetings, welcome back.
Nice to have you here, Rush Limboss serving humanity while having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Uh once again, high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan, telephone number 800 282-2882, and the uh email address is L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
President Bush, by the way, has announced he's going to delay his trip to Africa in order to push Congress on this terror surveillance.
Members of the House, the Democrats, and I'm going to take the bill up, the bill passed by the Senate on uh Tuesday.
Uh if this bill does not get signed by the House passed by the House, uh FISA, foreign intelligence service uh surveillance, basically ends as we know it uh at uh midnight tomorrow night.
This is not politics, this is life and death for the country.
Democrats are playing politics with it.
The uh Republicans just recently walked off the floor of the House of Representatives because John Conyers was up uh forget he was filibustering uh some making some attack on a Bush administration official.
Uh the Republicans walked off to protest the fact that Democrats are doing nothing on the FISA legislation.
But this from Congressional Quarterly, I had not heard anything about.
Capitol Hill news sources have been buzzing for the past couple of days about backroom negotiations in the House that may bring comprehensive immigration form light, reform light to the floor, congressional quarterly,
is reporting that uh Congressman Joe Baca, a Democrat from California, chairman of the Hispanic Caucus, is leading the fight for legislation that would provide a five-year amnesty visa to illegal aliens currently in the United States.
Joe Baca said the five-year amnesty visas uh would be available to illegal aliens who can prove they have a job, pay taxes, and pass a criminal background check.
This is from yesterday's Congressional Quarterly.
The negotiations for the uh five-year amnesty visas are already taking place at the highest levels of House leadership.
They include Pelosi and the Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat California, and are reportedly bipartisan in nature.
Speaker Pelosi, however, denies there has been any firm decision to move forward.
Not surprisingly, jumping on the visa bandwagon are business interests that have been attempting for months to secure an increase in H2B visas.
These are visas for unskilled workers.
Uh those business interests have made repeated but failed attempts since the demise of the Bush Kennedy Amnesty Bill to increase the number of H2B visas so employers could import more cheap foreign labor.
Uh now they're at it again, and Congress seems willing to listen even during a period of economic downturn.
Congressman Xavier Becara, Democrat California assistant to Speaker Pelosi, confirmed that leadership was attempting to find some relief for employers who cannot get enough foreign labor due to the caps set forth by law.
That from Congress daily.
Commenting on the negotiations.
Uh said that I think there is some type of deal in the works.
Uh senior manager for immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that.
So this should not be a surprise.
Doing it behind closed doors under the cover of darkness, so to speak.
Been working on it for the past 48 hours, five-year amnesty visas, because of the downturn of the economy, business unable to hire cheap foreign labor, uh because some of the states are, you know, the natural attrition is taking place.
Some of the illegals are actually leaving certain states, some leaving the country because states are enforcing the law.
We all told you, ladies and gentlemen, that uh just because uh McCain Kennedy was stopped.
Don't expect this to go away.
Don't Expect your representatives to have seen the light.
Don't expect them to have learned the lesson.
I mean, Senator McCain himself was asked if McCain Kennedy, if your if your comprehensive immigration reform bill came across your desk as a president, would you sign it?
Yes, yes, I would.
But we're past that point now.
It's not going to happen.
But he said he would sign it.
They want this.
They're going to get this done by Hooker Prook, Hooker Crook.
And they know that they're going to have to do it in secret and in private, but now here it is.
It has uh it is leaked out.
Again, this is uh yesterday Congressional Quarterly reported that Joe Baca, who is chairman of Hispanic Caucus leading the fight for legislation to provide a five-year amnesty visa to illegal aliens currently in the United States.
Good.
Let's bring this front and center to the presidential campaign.
Our buddies at the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere are writing it's not a big issue.
Nobody cares about it anymore.
Let's bring it front and center and find out.
If it's not a big issue anymore.
Mrs. Clinton this afternoon, Lordstown, Ohio, sort of, took off the gloves going after Obama.
Speeches don't put food on the table.
Speeches don't fill up your tank.
Speeches don't fill your prescriptions or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.
That's the difference between me and my democratic opponent.
My opponent makes speeches.
I offer solutions.
There's a lot of talk in this campaign about what kind of change will bring.
Well, you know, change is going to happen whether we want it or not.
Change is part of life.
The question is who will deliver progress to America.
That's the kind of change we want.
We want progress, not just any old change.
There's a big difference between us.
Speeches versus solutions.
Talk versus action.
And we're learning a little bit more about what's going on in the House of Representatives regarding the FISA bill.
Amanda Carpenter writing at Town Hall.com.
She's a columnist.
As Congress debates giving immunity to phone companies that assisted the government in tracking terrorist communications, trial lawyers, prosecuting those phone companies, have poured money into the coffers of Democrat senators, representatives, and causes.
Court records, campaign contribution data, revealed that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against three phone companies, donated at least one and a half million dollars to 44 different current Democrat senators and Democrat causes.
All of the trial lawyers combined only contributed $4,250 to Republicans in comparison.
Those contributions were made to John Corning, Tom Davis, Lindsey Gramnesty, Mel Martinez, and Arlen Specter.
And those donations totaled a mere $4,250 compared to the million and a half the trial lawyers have given to Democrats.
One maxed out lawyer donor, Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats.
In the 2008 cycle alone, he has donated $78,300 to various campaigns.
Now, Bergman's law firm's website says that he also specializes in identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence, and uh developing legal theories on holding offending companies accountable.
In 2004, his firm split a 4.3 billion dollar payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms.
30 million of that was delivered to their firms asbestos victim clients.
On Wednesday, the Senate held a crucial vote on an amendment to the FISA reauthorization that would grant the immunity to the phone companies.
It passed.
Twenty-nine Democrat senators voted against it.
Twenty-four of them have accepted campaign contributions from trial lawyers who are suing the government over those activities.
Two of those Democrats are running for president.
Senator Barack Obama, who is the um in the running for the Democrat nomination, was given $28,650 from trial lawyers listed as counsel for plaintiffs who are suing Verizon, ATT, and MCI, because those companies turned over phone records as part of President Bush's covert phone surveillance program.
$19,000 of that was donated last year, uh, or in the last year.
Senator Hillary Clinton also a contender.
The Democrat presidential bid accepted money from trial lawyers on the case.
Uh records show that those lawyers have poured $34,800 to her and her husband's campaigns over the last year.
So this is now making sense.
Senate passed it.
Pfizer reauthorization containing immunity for the phone companies, prosecution.
The House is holding it up because of one and a half million dollars in donations from the trial lawyers who want to prosecute the phone companies, who want to sue them on behalf of victims, customers.
And of course, the trial lawyers are a huge constituency.
So said earlier, this is not politics.
The heavy artillery's coming out now, folks.
This is this is gonna shine the light of attention.
This is the kind of stuff President Bush hates doing, by the way, and I'm sure he you know he doesn't want to go into areas like this, but he's canceled his Africa trip to push this thing and get it done because it's crucial.
This is about finding out what the terrorists over there and anybody else that plans ill for this country, finding out about it in advance.
And a Democrat saying, screw it.
Our trial lawyers are donating to us.
Two of the Democrats are running for presidents.
Screw it.
Uh trial lawyers donating to us, so we we we got to be more loyal to our trial lawyers than we do to the country.
That's how it appears.
That's the heavy artillery that's uh that's coming up.
Wanted to update you on that.
A brief time out.
We'll be back and continue here after this.
And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I know some of you are saying, but rush, but rush, the trial lawyers, the trial lawyers are influencing the Democrats.
Well, that's a special interest.
And the Democrats, they say they don't want to get the special interest out of politics.
No, no, no, no, no, folks.
You must the liberals and the drive-by's of Democrats, they get to define special interests.
And the trial lawyers, they're not special interest.
They're for the little guy.
Trial lawyers are standing up for the for the little guy that and the unions and teachers, other little people.
Uh trial lawyers are standing up for people who want to sue for a million bucks or 200 million bucks because they spill some coffee on themselves.
Yeah, just you've got to understand liberals get to define what a special interest is.
Uh I've had this story.
I meant to, I meant to do this story in the first hour, but you know, things just happen here.
This, folks.
FISA is one thing.
That's an eminent threat, but so is this.
This is just astounding.
The cost, this is a USA Today.
The cost of government benefits for seasoned citizens soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007.
Each seasoned citizen.
$27,289.
That is a $24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000.
Medical costs are the biggest reason.
Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than social security payments for seniors age 65 and older.
The average social security benefit per senior in 2007 was uh $13,184.
David Gertner, legislative policy director of the AAARP, which represents seasoned citizens, says we have a health care crisis.
We don't have an entitlement crisis.
Yes, we do have an int.
What the hell is that?
We have a health care crisis, not an entitlement crisis.
Here are the numbers.
The federal government, for all of you weenies out the we need to get out of Iraq, Mr Lemba, so we can spend money on that through Caethen and my health care for our children.
The cost of government benefits for seniors, $27,289 per person in 2007.
The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits up from $601 billion in 2000.
It's the biggest function of the federal government now.
It's the biggest function of the federal government, senior care.
Nothing against you seniors.
We're all going to be there someday.
But it's it is what it is.
States chipped in another 27 billion in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.
Now, who was it to try to do something about this back in 2005?
It was George W. Bush.
And he wanted to reform Social Security.
And he wanted to do it in the private sector.
Private accounts and so forth.
And it was a great courageous idea.
It's going to have to be done at some point, but of course, there's this word called security.
And people think security means it's always going to be there.
Social security.
You couple that, you say, okay, they're going to private accounts, let you invest your money.
Investment equals what?
Not security.
To a lot of people, it equals risk.
Anytime you have a market fluctuation, correction goes down, the opponents of privatization.
She can say, you that's good.
That's your Social Security money that's being lost right there if you put it in a private account.
But regardless, this is escalating this cost to provide benefits of all kinds to senior citizens, most of whom are not working.
This expense is rising faster than people know or projected.
And something is going to have to be done about it.
is a crisis.
35% of the federal budget is spent on benefits for senior citizens.
It was 32% in 2004.
35%.
The cost, if you're not a seasoned citizen, the cost of senior benefits is equal to $10,673 for every non-senior citizen household.
And this is only going to get worse.
The boomers are just starting to join that group known as the seniors.
Known as the seasoned citizens on this program.
And there are a lot of those boomers.
This this is liberalism.
This is the result of unchecked, uncontrolled liberalism, which contains many elements.
One of the most insidious elements is liberalism poisoning the minds of people into believing that because they are Americans, they are entitled to be taken care of by other Americans.
This whole entitlement mentality, this dependent mentality...
I know this is angering some of you seniors, but I don't mean it to be doing that.
You're just, you know, playing along according to rules when you were growing up.
And I understand that, but at some point it's just like the automobile companies cannot sustain it anymore.
They can't continue to pay health care, retirement, and pensions for people are no longer working for them.
So what if they look to the government to take it over?
The government takes a portion of it over, and the airlines are doing some of it.
It just doesn't, but the math, they're trying to figure out the delegates and the Democrats and the math of this does not work out.
Unless something about this has changed.
Because the tax rates necessary to support this kind of thing are going to be so prohibitive, nobody's going to bother to work.
If nothing happens on this, this is this is culturally destructive.
You gotta be kidding me.
Well, we'll say we'll see what they want, and if it's uh if it if it if it uh passes mustard, we'll grant we'll grant the permission.
We're here at the EIB network.
Welcome back, Rush Limbo.
Sorry you're you're caught us here in the middle of doing some business, ladies and gentlemen.
Uh more New York Times requests for their website.
See what happens when you reach out?
We're best buds now.
And I did not cross the aisle.
They're coming to my side of the aisle.
See, Senator McCain, it can be dang.
Now, I just shared with you the shocking, shocking numbers of the status of entitlements in this country just for senior citizens.
It is the largest element of the budget now.
Senior care.
We're not talking child health care and this is just the seniors.
Yes, but Mr. Limbaugh, that wouldn't be a that wouldn't be threatful if we weren't a rock and wasting money and losing our breath of fold earth bodily fluids and life.
You stupid libs.
You just you just know, and they're doing this on purpose.
They want to make everybody as dependent as they can.
Oh, this is what's so frustrating.
But it gets even worse because we have uncovered, we have dug deep, and we have found something Obama has done.
It is called Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007.
Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007, would require the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty,
the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the millennium development goal of reducing by one half the proportion of people worldwide between 1990 and 2015 who live on less than one dollar a day.
Clint Kincaid at Accuracy and Media has studied this, has written it up.
Uh a says a hugely expensive bill called the Global Poverty Act, sponsored uh sponsored by Obama, quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States.
In a column that Cliff put on his uh the accuracy and media uh website, he noted that Senator Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was trying to rush Obama's Global Poverty Act, Senate Bill 2433, through his committee without hearings.
The legislation would commit the United States to spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion above what we already spend on foreign aid.
It was scheduled for a Thursday vote, was moved up a day to Wednesday and rushed through by voice vote.
Kincaid learned, however, that conservative senators have not put a hold on the legislation in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.
Now that the House, I should say, the House passed this bill in September.
It's now getting rushed through the committee in the Senate.
The Biden committee soaked the U.S. taxpayers again to fund global liberal feel-good garbage.
Senator Obama wrote the bill.
This is just the tip of the iceberg should he win.
This is the kind of stuff he wants to do.
Blame the United States for the problems of the world, meet with all the thugs and the bad guys, say, what's wrong with us?
What can we fix to make you like us?
While he's out there talking about these platitudinous, vapid change speeches where he says nothing.
And by the way, I find it very interesting that Senator Biden was trying to rush this through the committee without hearings.
And to get this thing to the floor, would this not have been a great thing for Obama to be able to talk about the presidential campaign trail when people say he hadn't done anything and he's got enough got no record?
Well, I have a global poverty act.
We're gonna we're gonna cure poverty around the world.
Oh, he's so wonderful!
We're gonna cure Obama's going to end poverty.
And of course, who knows what Mrs. Clinton's reaction would have been.
The point is there is substance to Obama and it isn't good from our standpoint.
Now, Washington, uh sorry, Wall Street Journal today has a story.
The Clinton team seeks to calm turmoil.
And again, the uh the sources for the story are Clinton people.
Uh, and you gotta you have to understand the first thing, these people lie.
Clinton lies.
The Clintons lie.
The campaign lies.
So they put out these stories that they're in deep trouble.
Big deep trouble.
Could be a sandbag, could be an attempt for sympathy.
This is Clinton working so so hard.
Maggie Williams, apparently now bringing all the old White House chums in, getting rid of some of the uh the dead weight.
Patty Solace Doyle.
Uh by the way, the Hispanic group wrote Hillary a letter.
You better not have fired her because she was Hispanic.
Not kidding.
But this story in the Wall Street Journal has this little paragraph about Patty Solace Doyle, who's been with Hillary since Arkansas days.
Ms. Solace Doyle recently returned home after two months on the road to find a family accustomed to her absence.
When her six-year-old son cried out one night recently, he rebuffed his mother saying, I want daddy, I want daddy.
Ms. Solace Doyle, a mother, flew out of the room in tears and told her husband, Joey doesn't want me.
Joey doesn't want me.
And then screw this campaign, I'm quitting.
Now she's the source of it.
It says here, um, she told colleagues about the story when she, well, she somebody in a campaign leaked the story.
So now we've got a mommy moment, another mommy moment in the Clinton campaign.
Now, I can imagine there's trauma here.
You're away from home for a couple months, kids forget about you, grow accustomed to you not being there.
Daddy is a good housewife.
Right.
Serving your country is a real pain in the rear end.
Screw that.
Go home.
Not only serving your country, but serving the one and only great Hillary and Bill.
Yeah.
So you go home, your six-year-old, doesn't care that you're back.
Kid cries out in the middle of a nightmare.
You mom runs in, I don't want you.
I want you a daddy.
Reave the room in tears.
Go to the husband.
Joey doesn't want me.
Screw this job, I'm quitting.
Another mommy moment in the uh in the Clinton campaign.
But it is gotta be trauma if this is true.
Um I know it's it's it's a six-year-old, but to liberals, you know, six-year-olds have more sense than you and I do, H.R. They could sue you.
The six-year-old will be able to.
That's absolutely right.
Six-year-olds under Hillary care back in these.
You can six-year-old be able to sue their parents.
She was for that with children's defense fund.
Remember that?
Yeah, for neglect and so forth.
Uh the exact Mr. Snerdley is asking me in the IFB in a very disbelieving tone of voice, whether who would tell the press that this happened in their family?
Well, the root supposedly is that Solas Doyle told colleagues.
And apparently it is colleagues who told the Wall Street Journal.
Uh which, you know, uh you know, Mr. Snerdley, it's not sweetness and light in any group of people.
There are always, there are always people.
Uh real good friend of mine has his he's coined a really great phrase.
He's a boss, he's a CEO, and he's had some problems at his company recently because they started small, they've gotten really big, and he's got problems with divas and people who think they ought to be having the big jobs other people have, and so all the success has gone to their head, and he wrote them a note.
Negative people aren't gonna live here, negative people make positive people sick.
And I am not gonna have my positive people get sick, because you negative people know who you are and you are on notice.
Well, in or every organization, you're gonna have negative people, and you have jealousies and so forth.
So if Solas Doyle didn't tell the Wall Street Journal this herself, but you gotta do a liberal might think this lake makes her look good.
This is how they struggle.
This is how they suffer, and life is suffering and struggle to liberals.
And it's a sympathy play.
I was working so hard for Mrs. Clinton, my own son didn't want me anymore.
It's terrible, but I was doing it.
So this they you might know that might think some liberals think that can guard them some sympathy.
It could be that Patty Solas Doyle's colleagues, some of them who didn't like her, wanted to put the story out to embarrass her.
Who knows?
Doesn't matter how it got out there, it's out there.
The question really, do we even believe this?
All right, I gotta correct myself, because I've never heard the name pronounced, because I don't have the audio on on television.
And if I don't think a name is difficult to pronounce, I don't ask anybody.
Apparently it's Patty Solis Doyle.
Instead of Sola's Doyle.
I've I've not heard the name pronounced, but apparently it's now Solistoy.
And you know, I'm I mean this is excellence in broadcasting here.
This is uh got my accuracy rating.
Of course, this is not an opinion, so it won't count against uh the opinion audit.
Uh Doug, Fayetteville, North Carolina, nice to have you, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Sir, I appreciate you taking my call very much.
Thank you, sir.
Uh by the way, I do I love your promos.
They're great.
Uh I was wondering something I've been asking people, and I haven't gotten a good answer from anybody about it if I would ask you.
It concerns McCain.
Uh for years he's been the media darling, the maverick.
He goes against his own party.
They just I mean they love each other.
And my question was if he becomes the president, then he's no longer going to be a maverick, he's going to be the establishment.
And what's going to happen when all of a sudden the media turn against him because he's no longer the lovable maverick that they've had before.
Well, I think that might happen before he wins the presidency or is inaugurated.
It uh it depends.
But if he wants to hold on to the Maverick label, it'd be simple as pie to do it.
Especially after he, if he wins the White House, it'd be its easiest.
And he's gonna have a pretty look at we've talked about this yesterday.
You have to you have to think, just based on voter enthusiasm.
I hope this is not true.
I mean, this is conventional wisdom right now, but all uh, you know, even the Republicans whose business it is to calculate these things will tell you that the Democrat majorities in the House or Senate are going to increase.
Right now they're pretty narrow and they can't get a lot done, plus they got Bush vetoing things, but they're gonna have a bigger margin.
Only needs 60 votes in the Senate.
If they get up to 53 to 55 senators, they're gonna have four or five liberal Republicans that'll join them to get the 60.
Uh and and the House majority, Nancy Pelosi says that if Obama wins, he's gonna bring 75 new seats to the House for Democrats.
If all that happens, McCain's gonna have no choice but then to work with the Democrats.
Because all presidents want to get things done.
And they unfortunately today, you define getting things done by the number of bills you passed in a bipartisan way, and how much you advance the liberal agenda.
That's how getting things done is defined.
And so all presidents want to be thought of as, you know, I got it done.
McCain's gonna find it so easy to continue being maverick.
Just agree with the Democrats today.
He's gonna practically have no choice if these projections are right.
So um, you know, that uh I don't see any problem for him holding on to the Maverick status.
It's during this particular stage, during the uh, you know, leading up to the convention, at the convention, and then on to the general election.
I mean, that's that's where he's um in fact.
Let's go to soundbite.
So I got a couple soundboards.
Ron Reagan, I'm not gonna play the soundbite.
Ron Reagan was on Larry King Alive last night, Larry King Alive back to his old tricks, talking about people like me as wackos.
And he asks Ron Reagan uh what his dad's version of the wackos today might be.
Ron Reagan gives his answer, but he does say, look, if McCain starts naming cabinet members to mollify the right wing of his party, i.e.
the base, a lot of independents are gonna look at that and say, I don't want any part of this.
So Ron Reagan, thinking that he's agreeing with Larry King that I'm a wacko, is essentially agreeing with my secret plan to not endorse McCain because were I to do that, I'd drive independents and liberals away from McCain, just like Ron Reagan thinks a conservative cabinet or vice president would do the same thing.
Later on in the program, they brought in James Carville.
And Larry King said, now, James, most of the times politicians win the nomination and they run to the center.
Does McCain run to the center?
Now that's Larry, I know you got a distinguished career here, distinguished career.
But McCain is already at the center, and he's got a tiptoe or two on the left.
Look at this.
You know, everybody's talking about McCain's uh what is it, is conservative rating, conservative voting record, lifetime voting record, and they touted as an 82 on conservative issues.
Well, Ann Coulter ran the math.
His rating in 2006 was 65.
John Kyle from Arizona in 2006 was 97.
In the past ten years, only four Republicans have had a lower conservative rating than McCain.
Lincoln Chafey, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and the Maverick Arlen Specter.
But the past two years, McCain, the past three years, McCain has not been anywhere near the top of the rankings in conservative votes in the Senate.
You have to go and take his whole Senate career and average it out to get that 80 number.
But last ten years he hasn't been that.
So he's already, he's at the center, Larry.
Anyway, here's Carville's answer to this idiotic question.
I don't know.
51% in Virginia is a pathetic number.
And I mean, I don't say that as a Democrat.
And Virginia is typically a very orderly state.
I think the breach between McCain and and and the conservatives is real.
And it's not just a Washington or the radio talk show people.
Those conservatives out in the hinterland don't much care for McCain.
And I suspect he doesn't much care for them either.
Carville is on to something.
One thing, I mean, he may be uh irritating now and then, but he's he's not stupid.
And he knows.
He knows that uh it's not that it's not just conservative talk radio.
McCain has a problem with there.
There are people.
Um, he refers to him as the hinterland.
I refer to it as the you know place where the people who make the country work live.
Uh but he's he's at least right about do we have time to squeeze one more in here?
Uh Mary, I got I got 55 seconds.
Can you do this in 55 seconds?
Good.
Yes, I can.
I think the conservatives need to pimp ourselves for one day.
Those would be Texas and Ohio conservatives, and let us just take the Clintons out by giving them vote for Obama.
We have our candidate.
The country needs to get rid of these people.
Some people would say to you, be much easier to defeat Hillary and a general than Obama and get rid of her then.
She's a criminal.
And I don't want any uh prequel quoted quo's between her and the superdelegates and the party and everything else.
All right, so you don't want to take any chances she could win.
You want him vanquished now?
A lot of people feel that way.
So she says, Mary and Elmherst, Illinois, let's re Republicans in Texas pimp yourselves for a day.
Vote Obama in the Texas primary.
All right, we uh we have to make haste and split the scene, ladies and gentlemen.
But open line Friday is only twenty one hours away.
Always exciting, unpredictable.
You never know what's gonna happen, just like every other day of the week.
Can't wait.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection