Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Actually, Mike, I want to start with cut one, and then we're going to go to number 18.
All right.
Sorry, I had to do that, folks.
I had to change the order of the audio sound bites here because I just decided, after my microphone was turned on, to change up the order.
Anyway, great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh, back behind the golden EIB microphone at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
A special welcome to those of you watching the program today on the DittoCam.
And a special thanks to Charlie Brennan and KMOX in St. Louis.
They had me on for 10 minutes this morning, about an hour and a half ago, to discuss Mr. Buckley some more, which I want to continue to do today, but from a different standpoint.
Remember, I said yesterday that I was noticing some of the early obituaries and columns about Mr. Buckley were missing so much about who he was, what he was, and what he meant to the country, not just the conservative movement.
Since the program ended, there have been other entries, and they are frankly absurd.
I can give you an example of one here that was posted on Katie Couric's blog yesterday afternoon.
Richard Corliss at Time magazine weighs in on the same theme.
The Washington Post with an editorial, the basic theme is, oh, woe is us.
Oh, now Buckley's gone.
The end of civility.
Isn't it too bad that Limbaugh has inherited conservatism?
Buckley would be spinning in his grave if he knew that Limbaugh, all of these things, the end is back when Buckley was a conservative.
Why?
And when he was leading the movement on television, why?
Everything was civil and everything was sweetness and light.
Unlike the hate mongers of the conservative movement today.
And I have two sound bites that I want to play for you to show you the so-called civility Mr. Buckley encountered and inspired all the way back to 1968 at the Democrat National Convention.
He and Gore Vidal were debating Democrat convention coverage in the Vietnam War.
And by the way, we're not going to bleep this bite because if we bleep it, you miss the whole point.
That if you don't like the Lord's name taken in vain, if you don't like slurs used to identify homosexuals, and you will not want to hear this, I want you to turn your radio off.
I'll give you ample warning.
The second bite is a seven-minute excerpt of an interview that I did with Mr. Buckley on this program about that very subject.
Civility, incivility, is it really worse today than it's been in the past?
That interview took place here on July 13th of 2004.
But before getting to those two bites, and you have ample time now not to listen to the first one, I have warned you.
I have given you ample warning.
And if you do not heed my warning, if you think you're going to be offended by this, then don't listen to it because if you do listen and call somebody and complain, nobody's going to listen to you because you were warned.
We're not going to shock you here.
But here, let me just give you one little excerpt from this entry at Katie Couric's blog.
It happened yesterday afternoon.
Some guy named Ward Sloan.
Have you ever heard of Ward Sloan?
I haven't either.
In a way, it's sad that people like Rush Limbaugh are today's mouthpieces for conservatism.
What a far leap they are from the quick-witted and smart Buckley.
I think it's fair to say that even Buckley's ideological enemies admired him and respected him.
That's because Buckley was not a hate monger.
He was a serious-minded person who made reasoned and rational arguments for his cause.
No apologies to Limbaugh, his listeners and adherents.
They are no substitute for Buckley's class and intellectualism.
Okay, I have a question for you, Mr. Sloan.
If Mr. Buckley made reasoned and rational arguments for his cause and he was very smart, why, Mr. Sloan, are you still a liberal?
Why, Mr. Sloan, do you not list some of Mr. Buckley's better conservative arguments?
If he was so brilliant, and if he was so admired and so respected and so quick-witted and so smart, then how come you are still a liberal?
And how come you can't cite the brilliant arguments that Buckley made?
The truth is, all of these people like this clown, Ward Sloan or Richard Corliss, and I'm sure you've read similar entries such as this, the truth is that all of these liberals would love it if all conservatives would just shut up.
We would be easier to ignore.
And that's what they mean when they talk about civilized and mild-mannered.
The point is, these people can't win these debates.
They can't win these arguments.
And so they want us to shut up.
This is nothing new.
They want us to shut up or they will shut us up on their own.
We are in a battle in this country.
Too many conservatives on our side of the aisle don't see the battle for what it is.
Instead, they seek detente and they seek acceptance from people like Ward Sloan.
They want to be reasonable and they want to be civil and they want to be mild-mannered because they think that's what will gain the respect of liberals.
And what it gains is liberals claiming victory because they've shut them up or they have made these conservatives start sounding more and more like liberals.
As I say, we have a soundbite excerpt, Mr. Buckley and I discussing this very concept.
And it's about seven minutes long, so I'm going to have to get to it after the break that's coming up.
Another little passage here from Mr. Sloan and his Katie Couric blog post.
The conservative movement in this country is badly in need of someone who can make a point without demeaning and demonizing liberals and moderates.
Liberals seem to have somebody, the need.
I think what liberals need is somebody who can just make a point.
Instead, they give us feel-good platitudes.
They avoid talking specifics.
They try to deny that they're liberals.
They mask and camouflage who they are.
If they'd quit trying to turn the country into another Cuba, we would stop criticizing them.
We are talking here about the traditions and institutions that have made the country great that are under assault by the American left.
Why should we sit around and let that happen so that we can be called civil and mild-mannered?
And by the way, since when did liberals start making points without demeaning and demonizing people?
Robert Bork, anyone?
Do you want me to start listing the names of liberal Democrats have sought to destroy, not just defeat?
Because we can do it.
And if you want to start discussing who started all this, I'll be glad to get into that discussion with you, too.
One more little excerpt.
Surely there are better uniters than Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly.
Are there any conservatives who think that the limbaughization of conservatism may have something to do with its fractiousness?
After all, one man's hate is not necessarily another's.
That is not William F. Buckley's conservatism.
William F. Buckley, Mr. Ward, Sloane was accused of being a hatemonger many times.
He was accused of being a Nazi.
I'm sure one of your idols, Mr. Sloan, Gore Vidal.
I was watching Buckley on Phil Donahue's show one afternoon, and he was there being who he was.
Answering questions from Phil about a book that he had written and whatever the current issues of the day were.
The abortion was being discussed.
And as, you know, usual, Donahue ran into the audience with his wireless microphone.
A black woman stood up and started pointing her finger at Buckley.
You're a racist pig.
And he had the most perplexed look on his face.
Didn't know what to do with it.
He'd never been called.
I mean, he wasn't a racist.
And here he was dealing with this.
He knew exactly what it was to be stereotyped, is my point.
To think it didn't happen to Bill Buckley?
To think that liberals have always been sweetness and light till we came along?
The fact that liberals have not been sweetness and light is why we're here.
What real conservatives hate, Mr. Sloan, are the dangerous positions that people like you take.
And unless liberalism is exposed for what it is by somebody who's willing to take it on, it'll continue to erode this country's institutions, its economy, its sovereignty, and its morals.
It's that simple.
True conservatism cannot tolerate dangerously stupid ideas, whereas liberalism seems to be able to tolerate everything from terrorism to pushing environmental wacko-propaganda on our kids.
The only thing you can't tolerate is conservatives.
Conservatives, I'd be happy to put my arms around a liberal.
We will be happy to embrace liberals when they stop trying to implement policies which history has demonstrated do not work.
I'm going to address this further with these couple soundbites coming up right here after the break, so sit tight.
All right, I'm going to give you an example of the civility that existed in Bill Buckley's day back to 1968.
ABC TV, if you are offended by language that just turn it off, give you five seconds.
If you don't turn it off, you're on your own.
Five, four, three, two, one.
It's Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal.
You must realize what some of the political issues are here.
People in the United States happen to believe that the United States policy is wrong in Vietnam and that Viet Cong are correct in wanting to organize their country in their own way politically.
This happens to be pretty much the opinion of Western Europe and many other parts of the world.
If it is a novelty in Chicago, that is too bad.
But I assume that the point of the American democracy and some people are not afraid of the people.
And you can imagine any point of view you want to see.
Shut up a minute.
No, I won't.
Some people were fellow Nazi, and the answer is that they were well-treated by people who ostracized them, and I'm for ostracizing people who egg on other people to shoot American Marines and American soldiers.
I know you don't know.
I know you're not.
The only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself.
Failing that, I will only say that you can't have.
Now, listen, you have to say that.
Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi.
Let's stop calling names.
I'm not going to let you get you in his goddamn face.
Let's stay plastered.
Gentlemen, let's go back to his pornography and stop making any allusions of Nazi infantry in the last war.
All right, so there you have Gore Vidal calling Mr. Buckley a crypto-Nazi, and Buckley responding by calling him a Q-word and then using the GD words, and you're going to plaster your face.
So there's an example of the civility the liberals miss.
Now, here's Mr. Buckley and I discussing this and other things from July 13th, 2004.
Well, you know, Bill, you are a true Renaissance man.
You're in the clouds above so many other people, and it's a real treat to bring you to people who, you know, the audience in this program spans the demographic spectrum, many young people, for example, who have not read God and Man at Yale, which was one of the things that established you and put you on the map.
And so let me ask you about that.
For people who've not read the book, but maybe have heard about it, why'd you write it?
What was the point?
What's its staying power?
Well, what happened there was that as a student at Yale, in my junior and senior year, certain paradoxes sort of crystallized.
One of them had to do with Christianity.
Although Yale was at least ostensibly a Christian-oriented college, having been founded as such 200 years earlier, there was a kind of a nagging inattention and sometimes hostility to religion in the classrooms.
And then it was, I'm talking about 1945, 46, 47, 48, there was a great infatuation with post-war socialism so that the socialist government in Great Britain was spoken about here and there as sort of a high point of political sophistication.
So when I pulled out, I thought that these paradoxes should be examined in the framework of a book that says, what is a college supposed to do by way of furthering missions?
And who is entitled to vote on what should be in that mission?
My point being that the alumni who sustain the college should have a significant voice in it.
What really was extraordinary, Rush, was the reception to that book.
It was simply feverish.
I quote some excerpts from it, very respectable people in the book, people who spoke as though I was going to appear the next day as the head of the Ku Klux Klan.
It is, in retrospect, amusing, but 50 years ago, it was kind of off-putting to think that anybody would interpret a reasonable book making this point as an invitation to totalitarian interventions in the college.
Yeah, it doesn't sound like things have changed too much in terms of reaction to conservative thought.
And if that was the reaction back in 1945, you've gone through the whole period since, that book and then National Review, you have gone through these years as arguably the leader and the go-to guy for the definitions, the explanations of modern conservatism.
How have you been reacted to over the years?
And did any of it surprise you?
Well, what happened when we started National Review was that we acknowledged that it was necessary to excrete the kuk.
There were anti-Semites in the conservative movement, and there were people whose sense of balance was disordered.
I think you cited the John Birch Society in which we were in the world.
There was the John Birch Society.
So we had to gently but very firmly say to these people, look, the conservative movement is very wide and is capable of many, many voices, many, many interpretations.
But in the course of progressing, one has to engage in exclusion.
If you believe a set of things today, that set of things is arrived at by rejecting certain other things.
And that included, in our century, a rejection of the kind of racial animosity that culminated in Germany in what you and I both know and weep over.
So that figured, and you ask about the reaction to my own role.
You were sometimes pretty feverish, pretty unfriendly.
It would have been unthinkable back then to have somebody of your stature say pleasant things about my work.
That has changed by no means totally, but it has changed in a changing the direction you and I would approve.
What are you going to do when somebody like Ronald Reagan, who was an early enthusiast of National Review, is elected president of the United States?
You can't rule him out as a right-wing fanatic.
Not that some people didn't try.
Oh, they still do.
Well, but Bill, as I study things today, you are now treated and received, and properly so, with great affection and great respect.
And there are some who say that, oh, we wish for the old days of Buckley conservatism when it was urbane and erudite and polite.
They say that the modern era of conservatism has descended into harshness and other things.
That's the weapon.
People use that when they want to be anti-limbo.
They will say, well, Limbo belongs in that school of polemical thought, which really should be excluded.
They do that to Bill O'Reilly.
And, of course, they've done it to me in the past.
It is, I'm not saying that that criticism cannot be leveled.
Sometimes it can be leveled.
But to level it with the license that they use against you and O'Reilly speaks to me of a different motivation.
They want to argue with you by simply outlawing your voice on the grounds that it is eccentric and extreme.
It is, as I say, simply a polemical device.
Rather than debating the issues, disqualify and discredit the voice, then.
I think that's true.
Bill Buckley from July 13th of 2004, discussing the very thing that today's left is writing about is so civil.
Mr. Buckley was so he was as attacked in his day as we are today.
If there's any hate mongering going on in our country today, it is spawned on the left.
And welcome back.
Happy to be with you, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
There are plenty of more soundbite excerpts from my interview with Mr. Buckley.
It was an hour long back in 2004.
And we'll space it out, probably keep some of them until tomorrow on Open Line Friday because there are, as always, news stories that are effervescing out there, bubbling up to the surface.
Senator McCain, this is the Little Green Footballs.
Wait a minute.
Gateway Pundit.
I'm getting confused.
It's the Gateway Pundit website, but then there are sites to Little Green Footballs and another blog.
Apparently, McCain is out attacking the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
I have details on that coming up.
For those of you who think I have a problem with Senator McCain, wait till you hear George Will's column on Senator McCain today.
The drive-by media continues to misreport, either by design or by accident, this whole controversy over Obama's middle name and me twice now in drive-by coverage, misconstrued, either laziness or malice, and perhaps both, the context of what I have said.
The first time was when the New York Times smeared McCain on this lobbyist and the sex angle.
The drive-by said that conservatives rallied to McCain, even Rush Limbaugh, and they were all, I mean, I don't care where you go, whatever cable network you went to, whatever newspaper you opened up, Limbaugh, fellow conservatives, rally to McCain.
I never addressed support or non-support for McCain.
I was talking about the issue on the table, which is, this is what happens when conservatives seek acceptance from liberals, be they in the Democrat Party or be they in the drive-by media.
They're out to savage us.
They're out to destroy us.
They're not out to get along with us as we seem to be trying to do with them.
And it was just evidence.
So I suggested to Senator McCain, maybe the lesson to learn here is who your real friends are.
Likewise with this Hussein name business.
If I've read it once today, I've read it twice that I constantly refer to Obama using his middle name, which I don't.
And in fact, the last two days I've made a point of saying we don't make a big deal out of it here because frankly, there are other ways of going about dealing with Obama that are going to require far more finesse than just throwing out his middle name or whatever you want to try to imply by using his middle name.
And one of the things I addressed in great detail yesterday was we're dealing here with people who are attached to a candidate, in this case Obama, on the basis of faith, not knowledge, not policy, not ideas, faith.
You know how tough it is to get people to give up their faith.
He's leading a movement here.
He's not running a political campaign.
And so attacking his candidacy in the traditional ways of going about an opposing campaign, at some point you'll have to do that.
But in addition to that, you're going to have to find a way to separate some of these faithful followers from him.
And the more you criticize Obama, the stronger the attachment the faithful are going to have to him.
It's human nature.
I made it plain.
Now the drive-bys are insinuating that I think calling Obama by his middle name to highlight something Muslim is legitimate wrong again.
I have never said, all I said was, we're going to let these guys tell us what we can't say.
We can't, you know, Obama doesn't like his middle name being used, so we can't use it.
What are we going to call him?
Barack Fitzgerald Obama?
Barack Earl Obama.
Want to give him some other middle name?
Are we supposed to we know I can I can call the drive-bys every day and say, you know, I really wish you wouldn't say this about me the next isn't going to matter.
But somehow when Obama doesn't want his middle name used or if he doesn't want to be called a liberal and our guys.
Okay, okay, oh, hoke, fine, fine, whatever you want.
So defensive and so afraid.
That's what I pointed out.
I've never said he's a Muslim.
Other kooks out there doing that.
I'm not wasting my time with that.
Only an idiot would insinuate.
I'm out there trying to make a connection between Obama and some radical Islamic faction.
This is, as I say, this is either laziness or malice when these people include me in all of these rantings of some people out there who are attempting to make that connection.
We don't do it here.
I hardly ever use his middle name.
And I'm not the one, by the way, that came up with this Obama Barack.
That was Ted Kennedy at the National Press Club.
And yet I still get credit for that.
I spoke about it as a free speech issue, and we're now allowed to say about Obama or how we're allowed to address him.
No, liberal can't use his middle name, so what's next?
I've been very clear in all of this.
Five to seven minutes running of commentary clear, and yet the drive-bys mischaracterize it nonetheless, and I have to think on purpose.
So I wanted to set the record straight on that because it's, you know, here we go again.
We're supposedly the ones that have brought in civility to American politics.
People like me, hate mongers and so forth, sit here and routinely are lied about and mischaracterized.
And normally, as you know, I don't even talk about all this because it happens so much each and every day.
But now with the death of Mr. Buckley, the left getting an opportunity here to revive the thing that first hit me 20 years ago, hate monger, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
Oh, too bad, Mr. Buckley's gone.
Civility and erudition have gone out the window.
And it burns me because the sanctimony, the arrogant condescension from a bunch of small-minded, genuine hate mongers just, I don't know, there's certain human characteristics rubbed me wrong.
Arrogance is why I hate arrogant people.
Whether they have any so-called qualifications to be, or I hate sanctimony, and I hate superiority.
I hate these people that run around think they're better than everybody else when they don't know that two plus two is four.
And that's many in the drive-bys.
It's many in modern-day liberalism.
There's a sanctimony and an arrogance that attaches to them to the point they don't have to explain what they believe.
They don't have to define it.
They just are, and what they are is.
And anybody who's not what they are is a racist, a sexist, a big homophobic kook.
You know, and it's, it's one thing I admire about Buckley.
He did something I don't want to do.
He walked into the dead.
He talked to these people all the time, debated them on his TV show Firing Line.
He had fun doing it.
After a while, folks, I've had my share of talking to liberals socially and after it ceases to be fun.
It just becomes frustrating because of the sanctimony and the arrogance and the idea that constantly conservatives have to defend themselves of what they think and what they do and so forth.
So my desire is not to subject myself to that kind of just rubs me wrong.
Other people look at it a different way.
And I certainly don't want to go out of my way to make these people like me by becoming like them.
I don't know, not seeking their approval, and it burns me.
It just burns me when I see so many smart people on our side seeking their approval and acceptance.
It's like they're the parents and we are the wayward children.
And we've rebelled and rebelled, but now we want the parents to let us back in the house so we can live at home.
And sorry, that's not me.
McCain and Obama are having arguments here over the Iraq war.
McCain making good points here, Obama illustrating his ignorance, but he's also demonstrating his deafness at eluding the serious punches.
I will demonstrate with audio soundbites when we come back.
I know, Brian, I'm listening to the tune.
I like Tone Loke here.
Funky, Cole Medina.
The Republican National Committee yesterday afternoon scolded the Tennessee Republican Party over their use of Barack Hussein Obama in an official press release, and they warned, the RNC warned the Tennessee Republican Party, that they will be denounced by the National Committee if they use the Democrats' middle name again, said a GOP official close to the RNC.
The RNC has notified the Tennessee GOP that they do not support or agree with their approach.
If they don't refrain from doing so again, they will be publicly repudiated by the Republican National Committee.
The source said the National Committee had not asked the Tennessee Party to retract their statement, but effectively put them on notice for the future.
You have been warned.
You have been warned.
Also, Howard Dean showed up to talk about Black History Month at Georgetown and ended up talking politics.
It was Tuesday night.
And he ended up basically saying that with a woman and an African American as the two frontrunners, a Democrat field looks like America, while the all-white male Republican field looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.
So this is Howard Dean attacking the ethics of John McCain.
Dean accused him of violating FEC Commission spending limits during the current primary.
McCain does have a problem with this.
He does have a problem with it.
I'll explain this.
If I did it last week after the New York Times piece hit, but he does have a problem with this.
It could be a problem.
Even George Will writes about this today in his column.
And if you think, you think there are people out there like me who don't like McCain, read George Will today.
Anyway, I think this is just Howard Dean trying to talk about how young and energetic his team is and how old and decrepit our team is.
Well, I know, I know, this whole notion, we need a cabinet that looks like America.
Remember, that's a line that Clinton used in 92.
That's right, Limbaugh.
We're going to have a cabinet.
That looks like America.
And of course, if anybody's got a cabinet that looks like America, the definition of looking like America is having a bunch of people of color in there, that would be George W. Bush far more than William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
But see, this is the divisive politics of Democrats.
We don't look at it this way.
We don't look at people by skin color and categorize them.
The Democrats do.
Liberals do.
Here's Howard Dean.
Our ticket looks like America, black and a female.
That's America.
These old white guys, that's not America.
That's the America of the 1850s.
So what can we say, Howard Dean engaging in anti-white racism?
What it sounds like.
To the audio soundbites, Tuesday night, CNN Live.
This is the debate.
Barack Obama said this about being president.
As commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests.
And if Al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.
Yeah, this is after Obama had said he'd pull everybody out of there.
He'd pull all the troops out of there, and then he was asked, well, what happens if Al-Qaeda goes in there and starts remaking a base?
Well, I'll reserve the right to make sure we're looking out for our interests.
If they're forming a base, we'll have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad, which is pure pap.
It is pure.
And McCain took the opportunity to attack Obama.
Senator Obama made the statement that if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws, then he would send military troops back if al-Qaeda established a base in Iraq.
I have some news.
Al-Qaeda is in Iraq.
It's called Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
And my friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base.
They'd be taking a country.
I will not surrender to Al-Qaeda.
All right, so then this gets back to Obama in Columbus at a campaign rally.
McCain thought that he could make a clever point.
Like I wasn't reading the papers.
I didn't know what was going on.
I said, well, first of all, I do know that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, and that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets.
But I have some news for John McCain.
There was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.
That's manifestly not true.
But more than that, do you hear how, wait a minute now, as far as his supporters are concerned, remember we're talking about people who are attached to him by virtue of faith.
Facts don't matter.
This was a deft turn on McCain's charge.
He didn't answer the charge.
What McCain was trying to do was to say, this guy is a fool.
He's going to pull us out of Iraq and then put us back in if Al-Qaeda tries to establish a base.
They are already doing that.
They're in the process of being defeated in that effort, by the way.
McCain was trying to point out this guy doesn't know what he's doing and barely knows what he's talking about and is going to pose great risks to our country if he's in charge of these kinds of things.
But Obama got to turn it around and say, well, we wouldn't even be talking about this if you hadn't gone along with Bush and sent him there.
The retort to that, if I were McCain or if I were Obama's opponent, say, Senator, with all due respect, that was then and this is now.
And the reality is we are facing this enemy, not just in Iraq, but we're facing them everywhere.
They have made no bones about their intentions.
And whether you disagree with how we ended up in Iraq, the fact is we are there.
We are the United States of America, and we do not lose unless we have people like you in charge.
Now, I don't know if McCain responded further to this, but this is, you know, this is, I mean, this is clear on the facts and on the competence experience.
This is a clear slam dunk for McCain.
But as far as Obama's supporters, they think that Obama just wiped the floor with McCain without any concern for any fact, without concern for any of the relevancy and importance of what the whole debate was about.
A quick phone call.
Nick in St. Louis.
Nick, thanks for the call.
Nice to have you here on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes, a pleasure, Rush.
With regard to what you were saying earlier, the same criticism of the conservatives by the left, which we've outlined today, is the same rationale the Democrats are using to reject the Clintons.
You know, you and all the other conservatives for the last 16 years are being vindicated for all the critical words and comments you've had about the Clinton for the past 16 years and the Democratic actions here in the primary process so far and the rejection of the Clintons is a justification for all your criticisms because in essence, they're agreeing with you.
Yeah, that's an excellent point.
For sure.
I mean, that's Bill Buckley kind of intelligence that you've just exhibited here.
Oh, my goodness.
That is.
That's the kind of analytical reasoning that's inspiring.
You just made a point that few people have come up with on their own relative to this specific event, and that is the Democrats are drumming Mrs. Clinton out of their party using the same techniques and the same arguments that conservatives have made about the Clintons since they showed up on the national scene in 1992.
That they're control freaks, that they're old-fashioned, that they're whatever the arguments are, you're exactly right.
I'm glad you called.
Brief timeout, first hour, going like that.
Fastest three-hour.
Well, Barack Obama was asked the question, is it by a magazine interviewer, boxers or briefs?
And Obama's answer was, I don't answer those humiliating questions.
But whichever one it is, I look good in them.
Little swipe there at Bill Clinton and a deft answer.