All Episodes
Previous Next
March 11, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:11
March 11, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we got it.
And it's good.
It's juicy.
The Pelosi soundbite.
We got it.
We have everything here.
We had everything you want and more on the EIB network.
Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number if you want to join us today, 1-800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIVnet.com.
Yeah, I'm going to answer this morality business here in just a second.
You know, it's a good question in the sense that there are a lot of Republicans who get sick and tired of elected Republican officials being tossed out or getting in trouble because they stand for standards, family values or moral standards or whatever.
And then, of course, when they publicly fail, they are hypocrites and they got to go.
The Democrats have no standards.
They don't make a morality play on anything.
And so when they fail, it's not failure.
It's nothing.
And there's no real public pressure for them to go because they're not being hypocrites.
Hypocrites, hypocrisy is not a crime, but it's treated like one, at least on the Republican side of things.
But look here, first, Nancy Pelosi today in Waltham, Massachusetts, talking about a Clinton, Obama, or Obama-Clinton ticket.
For those of you in Rio Linda, this is whether Hillary's on top or on the bottom.
And this is what Pelosi said.
I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Obama.
I think that that ticket either way is impossible.
Well, now, wait a minute.
Didn't I say just the same thing the other day?
I said it a little different.
They all accused me of racism.
You know, I said, Clinton, Obama, Obama-Clinton, that ticket doesn't have a chance.
Nancy Pelosi is saying the same thing.
I think the Clinton administration fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Obama.
And that's the 3 a.m. telephone ad that she's talking about.
So Pelosi's saying, I think that ticket either way is impossible.
Now, what's behind this?
This is more chaos, more chaos that has broken down the Democrat Party, thanks, of course, to you and your rush the vote crossover strategery in Ohio and Texas last week.
And the real story here is that Pelosi wants nothing to do with Hillary Clinton anywhere near the White House, president or vice president, the Queen Bee syndrome.
In fact, I said, Mike, do me if I'm talking to broadcast engineering, we need a sound effect of a bumblebee buzzing around anytime we have a Pelosi soundbite from now on.
Especially if she's talking about Hillary.
But we just need this because the Queen Bee syndrome is alive and it is in place.
And Pelosi here has demonstrated that it is alive and well and functioning in Washington, D.C. Let me just ask you a question.
Did you ever think, go back to the 90s, did any of you, and you know how frustrated we all were back then, Clinton was getting away with everything.
All the lies, all the interns, all everything.
And the public opinion poll numbers kept him in the mid-50s and the low 60s.
And the press was back there marveling and the Democrats circling the wagons.
Did you ever think that you would see the day where at least half the Democrat Party is dumping on these two?
I never thought there'd be this many Democrats alive to do it.
I never suspected that I never thought there'd be this much courage in the Democrat Party.
The press was the first to turn on the Clintons.
And now others, Greg Craig and I mean, all kinds of Democrats are turning on the Clintons.
And it tells me that there has been a pent-up frustration for a long time over the fact that Clintons have been running the Democrat Party show.
And now that there's an opportunity to take them out, there are a lot of Democrats that want to do that.
And don't think the Clintons don't know it.
Now, about this morality business.
Our last caller wanted to know, and he's a Republican, but he doesn't like this morality in politics.
It's not in the Constitution.
Actually, it is in the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers in the section in which the criteria for the president was being debated and written about, the number one aspect in the Federalist Papers, I think it was John Adams in this case.
It could be John Adams writing, number one, number one, most important thing in the executive was character.
If there was an absence of character in the executive, then the Republic country would have big problems.
Now, what is character if not morality?
So it's easy to say you don't find the word morality in the Constitution, but if you're not familiar with the Federalist Papers and if you haven't read them, you don't understand the importance that the founders placed on morality, character, integrity, these kinds of things.
It was crucial.
It was there.
Leadership by example.
There are ways that society stays cohesive.
There are ways that society stays strong and evolving.
When there are no guide rails, no guardrails, for example, on a highway, the opportunity for you to drive off is easy and get into big trouble.
Morality is simply guardrails and behavior.
And by the way, you know, the thing about the law, a lot of people get very upset when you say that law descends from morality.
People just don't like hearing that.
But the fact of the matter is that the law and morality are linked in our society and in our country.
They may not be direct descendants, but in fact, they do have a lot to do with one another.
Human dignity.
You know, this is something that is rooted in morality because everybody has choices.
You can choose not to live as best you can.
You can choose to be a reprobate or what have you.
Reprobates are not the kind of people we want leading the country or holding elective office.
And by the way, making something legal does not make it moral.
Don't misunderstand.
And how does making something legal make it right?
How does making something legal address the destructive effect, for example, of prostitution that it has on the family and therefore society in general?
I mean, to look at prostitution as a mere commercial transaction is to reject the entire moral belief of conservatism and the structure of conservatism, because these are attitudes that lack a moral belief structure.
The law is intended to reflect the standards of a society.
Presumably, those standards include moral attitudes of the society.
So how can one say, for example, that it's okay to legalize prostitution even if it is morally repugnant to the society and even if everybody knows it's wrong.
What was it that Moynihan said?
He had a phrase to defining deviancy down.
Senator Moynihan, a Democrat, by the way, looked out over our culture over the course of his life and he saw a degradation.
And he saw a cheapening.
He saw a coarsening of the culture.
He saw morality going by the wayside.
And he said, the way we're dealing with it, rather than trying to straighten it out and fly right, we're simply saying, okay, it's no longer a crime.
So what used to be immoral and what society had judged as destructive, we say, you know, we can't stop it.
So we'll just legalize it.
We'll no longer make it illegal.
So we define deviancy down.
Now, some people may like that, but the fact is the standards by which a society governs itself and defines itself can go by the wayside.
By the same token, if an elected official does not have the integrity to do what's right in private, and by the way, you can define character, integrity.
One of the best definitions of it I've heard is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.
A lot of people can do the right thing when everybody's looking at them.
A lot of people, when they have an audience, they know people's eyes are on them.
They'll do their best to do the right thing.
Character, integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is looking.
So if a public official, an elected official doesn't have the integrity to do what's right in private, then how do we know that his lack of respect for what's right won't carry over into his elected office?
He can do whatever he wants, but we can say, no, thanks, we'll elect somebody else next time because you've done this.
We have standards.
Now, the political equation on the presence of morality in the Republican Party is simply this.
A lot of morality is rooted in religion.
And the Republican Party is the home of the Christian right.
Not just evangelicals, but just Christian people who are conservatives.
And it is one of their standards.
It's one of their measuring sticks.
And they're going to judge people on that basis and vote for them on that basis, then that party is going to pay attention to it.
Problem is that too many people, elected officials, mouth the words, but don't live the life or walk the talk.
But then again, it's hard for everybody.
I mean, it's impossible for any of us to walk the talk and be clean and pure as the wind-driven snow 100% of the time.
It's impossible for us not to sin.
So it's a tough, it's a tough question.
But if somebody's not even trying, if somebody's making no effort whatsoever, we all have a little voice inside ourselves, folks.
Call it the conscience.
Call it whatever you want.
We all have a voice inside ourselves that when we're about to embark on something we know is wrong, we know is wrong.
Why?
Because a little voice is telling us, conscience, our upbringing, we know it's wrong, and yet some of us still do it.
If people would just listen to that little voice inside them, they could spare themselves a whole lot of trouble.
For example, you can't convince me that Spitzer didn't know what he was doing was wrong.
He knew full well it was wrong.
Now, you can go the Dershowitz route and say, yeah, but he wasn't thinking with his brain.
He was thinking with the male sex organ.
Yeah?
Is that an excuse?
A lot of men would love for it to be.
I have a whole different theories about this.
I think you've got a guy like Spitzer.
No question, arrogance is his number one characteristic.
I think he believes that he's insulated from the standards that would apply to everybody else.
And I think people like him think if I get caught, I get away with it.
My wife will stand by me.
I'm a Democrat.
Voters love me.
New York needs me.
Who knows what kind of things these people tell themselves.
But somewhere he knew it was wrong and yet still did it.
I'm convinced he knew that what he was doing trying to ruin people on Wall Street was wrong, and yet he still did it.
Why?
Power.
It wasn't just the desire to acquire it and hold it.
It was an obsession to use it.
You know, having power is one thing, using it is another.
Spitzer used it in ways that were clearly immoral and wrong, unfair, and what have you.
But he had the power of being the attorney general behind him, the power of being governor behind him.
And he threatened people left and right.
John Whitehead, who used to run Goldman Sachs, wrote a letter or column, I think it's Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street Journal, defending Hank Greenberg when Spitzer was going after him.
Spitzer was going after Greenberg and AIG, threatened to indict AIG.
When you indict a company, that's the end of the company.
Spitzer said to Greenberg, you quit and I won't indict.
And the board of directors said, Hank, you're going to go.
To this day, Maurice Hank Greenberg's never been indicted for anything, nor has he been apologized to.
Whitehead writes a note, writes a column, writes a letter defending Greenberg.
Spitzer gets hold of Whitehead.
That letter, I'm coming after you.
That letter is going to be the biggest thing you regret in your life.
Nothing happened, but that's the kind of guy Spitzer is.
I have some golf buddies who have been targeted for ruination who haven't done diddly squat by Elliot Spitzer.
I was on the golf course here in a place out in West Palm Beach back in November, and I bombed a drive to the fairway to the left.
I went out there, and all of a sudden, as soon as I get out of the golf cart, some guy drives up and says, You have a name for a good criminal defense attorney?
Well, why?
Elliot Spitzer's after me.
Part of this stuff going on in New York involving Joe Bruno, and look at that episode too.
This is who the guy was.
So clearly, you're looking at somebody that morality didn't matter.
So if you want to look at, if you want to say, okay, morality, why does it matter in politics?
Look at Spitzer.
Look at Clinton.
Are these the kind of people that we want setting the standards of leadership for everybody else?
That's why it matters.
These guys aren't even trying.
It's one thing if somebody falls off trying to do right and be as good as they can, but these people weren't even trying.
They didn't care.
They were invincible.
They were untouchable.
So what they're doing in their private life is an indication of what they'll do.
What they're doing in private is an indication of what they're doing in their public life.
If Spitzer's out there essentially treating his own family with disgust and disregard, might he do that in his job?
He did with the way he went after people he thought were his enemies.
I got to take a brief time out here, folks.
A little long in this segment, so the next one's going to be appropriately shorter than normal.
You have been warned.
Oh, yeah, it was James Madison that wrote, actually, he wrote one-third of the Federalist Papers, the forerunner in the Constitution.
He also was the principal author of the Constitution.
It was James Madison in the Federalist Papers who laid out the requirements for the executive, number one being character.
It's crucial.
We've seen what happens when we have elected officials without it.
And if you want, well, it did call for an informed public, and we're working on that snurdy.
Public of this program is informed.
Now, let me take this a step further, all right?
Let's take this character stuff.
Let's take this morality stuff that some of you, it makes a lot of people nervous because it's judgmental.
If you have morality, you're going to be judged, and some of us don't want to be judged, and we don't, because nobody else is perfect.
But you know, just because people do something wrong doesn't mean they're disqualified from knowing what's right.
We all make mistakes.
Sometimes the mistakes we make help us and inform us, and we can become better coaches, better parents, advisors, teachers because of the mistakes we've made.
But libs want to say whenever you make a mistake and fall off the moral wagon, you're disqualified from ever being able to talk about it again because they don't like the judgmentalism of morality, which is why they have none or why they subscribe to none.
In your wildest dreams, would you think that any group of people, smart or not so smart, could come up with a plan as incompetent as this so-called Democrat primary race?
Could any group outside the funny farm, the cuckoo nest, come up with a scheme that is this inept?
We're not talking about ordinary people here.
We're talking about the smartest people in the room.
People that got the best grades at the best schools.
The liberals who care more about your needs than you do, supposedly.
And this is what they give us?
This is what they begat?
I mean, we've had our fun watching these liberals suffer through the mess that they alone created, their uncivil civil war.
What they do to their own party, what they do to their own voters is their business.
But I want to drop the other shoe on this.
I don't care what they're doing to themselves.
I'm interested in what these same inept boobs want to do to us.
These people that can't even manage their own primary, these people that try to come up with a scheme to get somebody coronated, it's all fallen apart on them.
And now it's an absolute joke and there's chaos throughout their party.
These are the same people who want to design your health care.
These are the same people who want to manage your health care and control and ration your health care.
These are the same people that want to run the oil companies.
They want to run retail businesses.
These are the people that promise a universal health care utopia and they can't even run their own business in a way that makes any sense whatsoever.
I have more on this coming up.
Don't go away.
All right, here's somebody.
I just sent this up to Coco.
We're going to link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
Federalist number 69, 85 Federalist Papers, number 69, written by Alexander Hamilton, the character in the executive, the character of the executive.
And I want you to read it when we update the website this afternoon, this evening to reflect the contents of today's program.
Because it was said earlier here today that I don't see the word morality in my Constitution.
Federalist papers inform the Constitution.
Same founding fathers that wrote the Constitution participated with the Federalist Papers.
They were forerunners of the Constitution.
And so it's not accurate to say that morality is not part of the Constitution.
Now back to the Democrats.
And with the same theme here.
I mean, here we have a bunch of people who cannot even run their own business.
They have gunked up their own primary.
They can't blame this on Republicans.
They can't blame this on voters.
They can't blame, I mean, they might try, but they can't.
They goofed up their own business.
Now, the Democrat hierarchy, when this whole shebang started, put these primaries together in order and in a concentrated fashion so as to coronate Hillary Clinton on February 5th.
And that she would have all the rest of this year to hone her message, learn how not to screech, go out and raise a bunch of money, and be able to pummel whoever the Republicans nominated.
It's gone all haywire.
Nothing that's happened here has been planned.
Nothing was anticipated.
In fact, Mrs. Clinton was so certain of her own coronation by February 5th, she didn't have campaign organizations in any states following February 5th.
And yet she lied to her own people.
I knew it was going to come down to Texas, she said a day or week before Texas primary.
These are the same people who want to run your health care.
They want to manage your health care.
They want to tell you when and where you can go get health care.
They want to design your health care.
They want to control and ration it.
These are the same people that want to run big oil.
They want to take their profits and throw them into alternative energy sources or whatever other gunk that they describe.
These are the same people who buy into the global warming hoax.
These are the people, if you look at their enemies list, it is every successful U.S. corporation and business in this country.
You know why they hate Walmart?
It's not because Walmart's not unionized, although that's a factor.
They hate Walmart because Walmart does more for the American people than the U.S. government and liberals combined have done.
Walmart brings products at prices people in the middle class and the lower classes can't afford.
Democrats can't do that.
All they can do is try to give it away and create dependence and so forth.
They despise people that do what they claim to do better than they do it.
And they don't want to try to destroy those people so there's no competition.
Liberalism does not like competition because it'll lose on a level playing field.
So now we're back to morality.
Now we're back to integrity.
Why, the Democrats said that if Florida and Michigan went ahead and ran their primaries prior to when the National Committee said they could, that their delegates wouldn't be seated.
I guess that's out the window now that Mrs. Clinton needs them.
So if they can change the rules on Florida and Michigan, can't they change the rules on examinations and procedures when it comes to health care and so forth?
If they can't decide what a winner is in Texas, how can they decide what good health care is in your hometown?
How can they decide whether or not big oil is being fair with you?
But see, here's how the Democrats get around this.
We're back now to morality.
There are no rules.
And if there are no rules, they can't be broken.
They're only traditions.
They're customs.
I'm not making this up.
You watch, they're not going to be breaking any rules here.
By the time this all happens, if Florida and Michigan have these primaries with write-in or mail-in ballots, they're going to be talking about the fairness of it all.
They're going to be talking about disenfranchisement and how the Democrats don't stand for that.
That's what Republicans do is try to disfranchise people.
But we Democrats, we think every vote ought to count twice.
But they're going to be breaking their own rules, even though there aren't any rules.
This is how they get around it.
I mean, if you are a person without integrity and character and morality, how can you have rules?
Rules are simply a way, a life, a game, a contest.
The business is governed and administered, not for fairness alone.
However, that is a factor, but that doesn't matter here.
And I Wish I could say I came by this whole analogy of rules and no rules versus customs and traditions on my own, but I can't.
This was pointed out to me some years ago when talking to a friend who is a member of a famous golf club in this country.
And it's not in the Southeast, so don't really get any ideas.
And when this man was newly asked to join, he went in and he was assigned somebody to explain to him how things worked at this club.
And he said, what are the rules here?
He said, why?
We don't have any rules at this club.
We only have customs and traditions.
Well, how do I know what I can and can't do?
Well, there's nothing you can't do unless it violates a tradition or customs.
You know what the traditions and customs are.
The point is, the concept of rules is something the club didn't want because it didn't want to be seen as restrictive or what I'm telling you, the Democrat Party, when it comes down to all this, doesn't have any rules.
There are no rules here.
And they're not going to be breaking rules as a result.
They're just going to be maintaining the great traditions and customs that every vote counts twice, that every vote matters.
Now, what's happened with all this?
What's the upshot of all this?
What's the rush?
What's the morality?
What's the integrity?
Well, where are we?
According to the rules of the Democrat primary system, we've got a winner.
On the pledge delegate side, there is no way Obama can lose this.
But wait a minute.
We've got these superdelegates.
And those superdelegates, by definition, go to whoever they want.
So what does it matter, these pledge delegates for Obama?
How about all these people who have voted for Obama, whose votes may never count?
And we're not talking the electoral college system here.
We're talking a superdelegate system that dates back to the McGovern era because that was such a debacle that the Democrat Party said we have to find a way to protect ourselves from the idiocy of our own voters.
So if they nominate somebody as hapless as McGovern, again, we've got to have a system whereby we can go in and overrule them.
Morality, integrity, character.
You won't find it here.
What you're finding is a bunch of ski.
But Rush, this is politics.
That's my point.
Exactly right.
Politics.
It's exactly what the Democrats have made of politics.
It's what liberals have made of politics.
And unless we are prepared to take them on in this way, I'm not suggesting we become them, but if hypocrisy is a crime only we can be accused of committing, it's time they got a taste of it because they're engaging in more hypocrisy here with their own stupid primary system that is inept and it is incompetent.
It has been blown sky high.
And these are the same people that want to run your life and every aspect of something you consider the most important thing in your life outside your family, and that's your health care.
And I ask you to look at what they've done with their own business and ask yourself then what makes them qualified to run something they really don't know anything about.
Is it not frightening that so many doomcal Americans will be willing to turn over the administration of something as massive as one-seventh of our economy to this bunch of klutzes, this bunch of power-crazed klutzes who don't care about your health care, who don't care about your health.
They care about their power.
Acquiring it and using it is what they're all about.
Hello, morality, character, integrity, don't tell me it doesn't matter.
If this bunch is willing to take away the decisions of their own voters and give them to their superdelegates, what's to stop them from taking your health care away from your doctor and giving it to a doctor they prefer?
What's to stop them from telling you you can't go to that doctor?
You can't use that procedure, you can't spend this much, and by the way, you have to buy insurance and you have to do the government program.
If you go private, you're really screwed.
If the liberals and Democrats can screw up something as simple as a primary contest in their own party, imagine what they can do with something as complicated as national health care.
Imagine what they can do trying to punish the oil business.
Imagine what they'll do in the whole field of energy.
You can talk about your health care and all that, yada, yada, yada.
The last I looked, we're not dropping like flies in this country.
Life expectancy is getting better and longer.
General health is improving.
We want to punish the drug companies who have helped contribute to that, by the way.
You let them get their hands on the program of energy creation, development, and usage in this country, and you watch what happens.
You think that you are losing a little liberty here and there and a little liberty now.
You wait till these people have a chance to get hold of the energy program via global warming and that hoax.
I am warning you, it matters whether somebody has integrity, character, and morality, knowing full well that nobody's perfect.
We all sin.
But there is a difference between people who try and those who aren't trying when it comes to morality and integrity and character.
And we don't want any part of those who aren't even trying, folks.
Trust me.
All right, before we go to the phones, a couple sound bites here.
If you want, number 18 and number 19, this is, you got to hear these.
This is whether or not Obama should be in the top or bottom of the ticket.
This is Clinton people saying that Obama should be on the bottom of the ticket.
And some say he shouldn't even be on the ticket at all.
Howard Wolfson in a conference call of reporters yesterday talking about Obama and his qualifications.
Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not, at the time of the choosing, passed the national security threshold, period.
But we have a long way to go between now and Denver, and it's not something that she is prepared to rule out at this point.
He's not even going to win this, Howard.
She doesn't lead anything.
I'm telling you, these people are going to tear down this party in order to get this.
They will do it.
She's already acting like she's wrapped up.
She's playing off.
And Obama's going to cream her tonight in Mississippi.
It's going to be huge.
And they're still going to be talking.
Hear what Wolfson said?
Well, he's not qualified to be vice president now.
It's a long time between now and Denver, which is August.
In August, he might be qualified.
We're not to that point yet.
Here's Lanny Davis on Anderson Cooper 180.
The CNN last night.
Cooper said, Lanny, it's interesting.
Obama said if he's not ready to be president, as she's indicated, why does she think he'd be such a great vice president?
Let's just set the record straight.
She didn't propose that he be vice president.
She's responding to questions that came up first at a debate in California and the answer when both of them showed openness to the possibility of that dream ticket and that combination.
There was a huge ovation, and she said, You can have both of us.
Suppose she had answered the question, No, I wouldn't consider Barack Obama as vice president.
Then she'd be accused of awful stuff.
Why is he so offended by her saying, If you want both of us, you might have a chance to have both of us?
That's all she said.
So I don't really get the level of his reaction.
It doesn't matter what she said.
The campaign lanny is out there saying it, that she should be on top of a dream.
The campaign said we're open to this.
But now they're trying to obfuscate.
Here's Mrs. Clinton herself in Scranton, Pennsylvania, yesterday.
And as usual, she doesn't know anything about any of this.
This thing has really been given a life of its own.
You know, a lot of Democrats like us both and have been, you know, very hopeful that they wouldn't have to make a choice, but obviously Democrats have to make a choice.
And I'm looking forward to getting the nomination.
And it's premature to talk about whoever might be on whose ticket.
Well, you better shut your staff up because they're the ones doing all the talking.
This is how Hillary slithers out of all this stuff.
I don't know.
I don't know what they're doing.
These are the people who want to run your health care.
Here's Glenn in Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
Glenn, welcome.
Hello, Rush.
Hey.
Greetings from the Magnolia State and specifically the Mississippi Guff Coast.
Hey, a quick story, and I'll let you go.
I woke up at 3 a.m. this morning and wondered what it would feel like to be a Democrat.
So I said, okay, well, why not be a Democrat for a day?
Then the next thought, I said, well, which Democrat would I want to emulate?
The first person that came to mind was John Kerry, because, of course, he's a Vietnam vet and I'm retired Air Force, so we have that military component.
And then I said, What better day to exercise this hypothetical than on Mississippi's primary election day?
So in March of 2007, well, let me back up.
You know, his.
No, no, let's keep going forward here.
Yeah, because time is dwindling.
Okay, his vote on the Iraq war was he voted for it before he voted against it.
Right.
So I thought, well, if I'm going to be John Kerry, I might as well vote like him.
So in March of 2007, I voted for the Hillary Barack ticket before I'm going to vote against it in November.
So you voted.
Wait a minute.
Who'd you vote for today in the present?
Barack.
You voted for Barack.
Right.
Then you voted for the Barack Hillary ticket.
Roger Roger.
Before I'm going to vote against it in November.
I see.
All right.
So, well, I can't claim credit for this one.
Look at it was Ohio, Texas.
I haven't urged anybody to.
Well, I understand that, but I'm not going to mess with Mississippi.
I'm not going to tell Republicans to go over there and vote.
I don't think I have to anymore.
I think everybody understands here.
But I want Obama to win this tonight.
I want Obama to win Mississippi.
I want Obama to win everything that we get to Pennsylvania.
Then it's a different ballgame.
Then we start being on American again.
Then, to quote liberals, then we start the sabotage all over again.
The key about that is, though, you've got to be registered with the party you intend to vote in Pennsylvania by, what is it, March 24th?
That's early, like less than a month before, almost a month before the election date, which is April 22nd.
So be thinking about that, folks.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Total la completa.
Fini, we have to split the scene from the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Thanks so much for being with us today, and we will see you again tomorrow.
Three full hours coming up then.
Cannot wait.
▲
Export Selection