All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:22
December 4, 2008, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, folks, we're going to give this a go today, but I cannot guarantee how far we're going to get before I erupt into coughing spasms.
I appreciate your patience out there.
I have been bogged down with a combination of the flu and bronchitis that hit me late Saturday night, and it has not really improved much.
But I was getting bored and feeling worthless, not contributing or achieving anything.
So here we are.
We're here, and we're going to give it a go.
Telephone number today.
If you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address is lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
It's been interesting.
I've spent a lot of time in bed, but I have watched some news.
I've always said that if you pull yourself away from things for a while and look at things not as a, well, I have to watch news as a business.
And I've been watching it purely as a consumer, and it's laughable.
I don't mean the media.
I mean the things that are happening in the country.
It is literally laughable to see what is happening here.
Right now, these big three automakers, the CEOs are up there.
And the one thing that, and they're begging for this bailout money here.
And the one thing that nobody's asking is what got them here in the first place.
And what about this bailout is going to fix what got them here in the first place.
And what strikes me, ladies and gentlemen, is that just as we've had in previous occasions, what we have here are these three automobile executives up begging the very people responsible in large measure for the problems they have for the solution.
There's not one person that's listening to these auto executives today in the House of Representatives of the Senate has the slightest business sense and idea how to run a business, and yet that's what they've been doing.
They have been directing the automobile companies how to build cars in this country.
And it's just, we're looking at cowardice.
You know, long, just like the big oil companies finally said, you guys, you're the ones that are causing us to have all these problems.
You won't let us drill where there's oil.
For the longest time, all these big, tough business CEOs have gone up to Congress and they've been over and grabbed the ankles.
And they do it because they're scared because of all the power government has.
And we already know that liberal Democrats have made big business and their CEOs their number one enemies.
They're on the target list.
But it's about time some of these guys went up there and said, if you guys would get out of our world, if you would get out of our business and let us run the business as we know how to do it, we wouldn't be up here begging you for money.
Don't you find it interesting that every business in the country and every state in the country is begging for money from the U.S. government?
Isn't it interesting?
Why is this?
Why is all of this happening?
Is everybody in the private sector this stupid?
Are all of these people that dumb that they do not know how to run a business?
I ran across something fascinating.
Let's see.
This was automotive news and it's dated December 3rd.
Well, that's the date.
I'm sorry, the date I received.
It's dated, excuse me, just say November 25th.
And it's by a guy named Peter Brown, who's the editorial director.
And its title of his piece here is In Defense of Detroit.
Before I read this, let me give you the reality here, though, folks.
Happy as I am to be back here with you behind the golden EIB microphone, I still look at this as a sad day.
Today, the leaders, I mean, the titular leaders of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler show up now hat in hand before a gaggle of politicians who are posing as business leaders.
We have the 105-year-old Ford Motor Company.
We have the 100-year-old General Motors Company, and we have the 83-year-old Chrysler Corporation.
And they appear before TV cameras and Congress.
They dance when Congress says dance.
They listen attentively when politicians upchuck their wisdom.
They nod positively when the focus group lines dribble out.
It would take, ladies and gentlemen, more than one monologue, more than one program, more than one week to explain how they got here.
But the point today is that they are here.
They have come back after their homework assignment over the Thanksgiving holiday to come back and come up with a plan that the Congress can vote for because most of the people in this country are opposed to this bailout.
Here is what today and tomorrow is all about.
Now, I don't know this for a fact.
These are just my assumptions, intelligence guided by experience.
Congress knows that they are going to bail out these companies.
They know that the public, 61, 63% of the public is against bailing out the companies.
The automobile executives also know that Congress is going to bail them out, despite the fact that 61, 63% of the public is against it.
The automobile unions, the United Auto Workers, they know that Congress is going to bail them out.
The union voters.
So they have to fake these tough decisions to help out.
They have to fake these concessions that they are going to make.
It's sort of like Jim Wright, the former Speaker of the House in Texas.
We only want to help you.
We only want to help the president.
The car companies will give their pounds of flesh.
And what's going to happen?
New mandates, new standards, new regulations, the greening of the automobile industry.
The unions, after the car companies give their pounds of flesh, the unions will give their ounces of flesh with the illusions of lower labor costs.
But the net net is the U.S. Congress will give up nothing in terms of freeing up rules and regulations, standards and restrictions, all of that.
As a matter of fact, rather than give up anything, Congress will gain more control over the U.S. auto industry.
And along with Congress gaining control of the U.S. auto industry, so does Barack Obama.
I'm happy to be back, but I'm sad to report this reality.
We all know this is what's going to happen.
Now, there's some talk that they, by the way, we might go along with bankruptcy if it's prearranged and if there's no liquidation and so forth.
And we need $2 billion to survive the next two weeks and so forth.
Now back here to Peter Brown, Automotive News in defense of Detroit.
Whose fault is this?
Imagine that your home market is a large country whose energy policy can be summed up in two words, cheap gasoline.
Would your vehicle fleet reflect that?
Then suppose that your government tried to regulate fuel economy amid this sea of cheap gasoline, and the regulations established a high fuel economy standard for one type of vehicle, say cars, and a very low standard for another, for example, trucks.
Would your fleet reflect that?
Then imagine that your foreign competitors received huge subsidies to build greenfield plants in America to augment their imports to the U.S. Imagine that your foreign competitors have no retirees to take care of, and you have millions in the only major country where employers have to provide health care benefits.
Then imagine that your home country's financial system collapsed under essentially a huge pyramid scheme by banks and investors, drying up credit and sending the nation into a deep recession.
And if I might add, imagine during all this, the price of gasoline doubled to four bucks in a relatively short period of time, and that caused pure havoc in your business.
Can we acknowledge that many of the problems of the Detroit 3 were not entirely their fault?
Let's look at one main criticism.
Detroit stupidly became reliant on gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks.
Well, that's true.
But the Detroit 3 didn't lead us to SUVs.
See, this is what everybody misunderstands about how markets work.
The consumer, driven by cheap gasoline.
We all know Americans want big cars.
The love affair with big cars because of big families and safeties is pure Americana.
And with cheap gasoline, the consumer bought the products the car companies made.
The consumer led us to the SUV.
Not the evil car companies.
The consumer.
Driven by cheap fuel, corporate average fuel economy regulations pulled them there.
In the early 90s, after a huge investment in mid-sized cars, General Motors scrambled to convert car plants to truck plants to catch up to the American consumer.
In those days, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and other competitors found themselves with inferior or no SUVs.
But they did just fine in America with cars that worked for them elsewhere around the world.
Meanwhile, they developed lots of trucks themselves.
Alas, Toyota and Nissan developed huge pickup trucks and SUVs just at the end of the truck party.
And they built huge southern plants to make lots of them.
Even Japanese automakers can make mistakes, but it's rounding error for Toyota, not core as it was for the North American automakers.
Certainly, Detroit should not have battled increases in fuel economy regulation, and GM's creation of the Hummer brand was almost criminal in its short-sightedness.
So Senator Shelby says these knuckleheads should die, die, die.
Detroit's failed companies don't deserve any help.
Remember, he's in Alabama, a manufacturing backwater until Daimler-Benz opened a Mercedes plant there in 1997.
Again, I'm reading here from a piece in Automotive News by Peter Brown called In Defends Kind of Detroit.
There's more to this that gets into some hard economic numbers, too, and how these states profit by subsidizing the creation of jobs with these plants to make cars in places like Alabama and so forth.
But the bottom line here is that General Motors and Chrysler and Ford have been told how to make cars, have been told what the fuel standards ought to be, all the different types of gasoline that have to be formulated here, engines made that will run those get these formulations of gasoline, all for the purposes here of environmental protection, global warming, or what have you.
And some people say the government ought to bail them out because the government's the one partly responsible for putting them in this position.
Anyway, brief timeout.
I just think it's getting to the point here where we're bailing out everybody and everybody wants to be bailed out.
And a lot of these entities that need to be bailed out are people that are overly regulated by a bunch of goofballs and haven't the slightest idea how to run these businesses they're regulating in the first place.
And it's getting worse.
I give you some interesting numbers here about the auto industry in Alabama.
And I'm not jumping on Senator Shelby here.
I mean, naturally, Senator Shelby, he thinks these guys are running rotten businesses.
They ought to go down the tubes.
My only question here is that if they're running rotten, they may deserve to go down the tubes, but it's for allowing, for being cowards and not standing up to government and telling them to go to hell when they're doing things to ruin the business.
Like the big oil guys finally stood up and told these guys in Congress, let us drill.
At any rate, now, Senator Shelby is from Alabama and a bunch of foreign automakers went into Alabama.
Why?
Well, Alabama recognized that a local auto industry was a huge generator of jobs and taxes and prosperity.
So the state of Alabama gave Daimler-Benz, makers of Mercedes, $253 million in incentives to build a Mercedes-Benz plant there.
Daimler invested $300 million, and this combined investment created 200,000 direct jobs.
The state's cost per automaker job was $126,500.
That's how much the state invested in Daimler-Benz building a plant, their share of the state's cost per automaker job, $126,500.
The investment was so successful, Senator Shelby's Alabama has since given more than $400 million to Honda and Hyundai.
Now, Congress is being asked to lend $25 billion to keep the Detroit 3 and their 260,000 employees plus their suppliers and dealers alive.
It's a road to nowhere, and it's a big burden on the American taxpayer, Shelby said.
Even if after a couple of years, the companies default, the investment would be less than $100,000 per Detroit 3 employee in the U.S. and much less if you amortize it over the millions of people who depend on the Detroit and would have remained employed and insured.
Is Shelby right?
The Detroit 3 business model can't work.
Well, Chrysler was the world's most profitable mass market automakers in the 90s until Daimler-Benz bought them and ran it into the ground.
Let's acknowledge there are reasons that each of the Detroit 3 faces the same catastrophe.
What are the odds that every Detroit 3 exec of the last 35 years has been an idiot?
You don't have to forgive them all their errors to say that our government's policies have helped lead them to where we are and that millions of American workers deserve a chance.
Anyway, compared to subsidies from Alabama, Tennessee, and other states, the proposed bailout is a heck of a bargain.
If we didn't have a domestic industry, we'd say, gee, for $25 billion, we could earn more than that in taxes in the first year, even if they don't live forever.
Pretty good deal in a pretty bad situation.
Pardon the sniffles here, folks.
Nevertheless, it's interesting to me anyway to try to look, why are we here?
How did this happen?
And we just were running the risk here.
I think actually we may have passed the point of no return on this.
Everybody thinks private sector doesn't work.
Everybody thinks free markets don't work.
Ignorance, the number one most expensive commodity in this country, was on display.
Did you see the Saxby Chambliss runoff results?
I mean, it wasn't even close.
It wasn't even close.
And the Democrat down in Georgia ran on Obama's change and hope and all that rot gut, all that platitudinous nothing.
And they had all the rappers out there.
They had all the right people saying the right things.
And guess what?
Sarah Palin rolls in there and just swamps the Obama candidate.
Obama, he didn't have time to go down there.
No, he's too busy.
And I'm starting, I'm watching Obama, and I'm beginning to wonder, does this guy want to be president or does he want to do president?
Well, what I mean by that is, I think he's going to sit up there and look at himself in the mirror every day and say, man, I got elected while all these Clinton people out there running a Clinton third term.
I think he's excited about being president.
I think he really believes this notion that American kids are going to feel happier about themselves and the world's going to love us even more, except, of course, in India, after his election.
I think he, I'm going back and forth.
I haven't figured it out yet.
I haven't come to a conclusion here yet on what I actually think about this.
Speaking of this, Barbara Walters has her 10 most fascinating people of the year special.
It runs tonight at 10 o'clock after Gray's Anatomy.
I am one of the 10.
I didn't realize this.
The first time she did this show in 1993, I was one of the 12.
There were 12 most fascinating men.
And since then, it's been reduced to 10.
And I sat with her disease three weeks ago for the interview.
And one question was, we got to do a what if.
It was known that Hillary and her camp had leaked the fact that Obama was thinking of nominating her to be Secretary of State.
But it was still in the leaking stage, in the denial stage, in the negotiation stage.
Barbara Walters said to me, well, I got to ask you a question just in case he nominates her and she accepts it.
What do you think of it?
I said, oh, okay.
So she rolls tape, asked me the question.
I gave her the answer.
And the drive-bys are all over my answer here.
Some of them are getting it, but most of them have totally misinterpreted what I said.
They said, well, they said I gave my blessing to this.
They said, oh, a brilliant move on the part of Obama, as though I agree with the concept that there be nobody better as Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton.
It's stunning to what the drive-bys love me from NPR to the view that they love me because of this.
It's incredible.
A couple of them got it right.
We'll give you examples of what I'm talking about after this brief obscene profit timeout.
Don't go away.
All right, I'm trying to get off this automobile stuff here, folks, but stuff just keeps coming across the transom.
This is from Commentary Magazine.
I think it's some Commentary magazine.
Let me check and see.
Nope, it's from the Detroit News, and it is a commentary by Henry Payne.
And it says, California wants to raid big three bailout cash for green cars.
Taxpayers should be wary of bailing out unviable electric car maker.
You think the $25 billion is to help save the big three automakers and preserve manufacturing facilities essential to national security?
Think again.
Detroit Automaker's Best Hope for Washington aid is a bipartisan plan to speed the release of $25 billion in already approved loans under the Energy Independence and Security Act.
Long simmering hostilities between the California and Michigan delegations on automobile issues threaten the deal.
California legislators want that money to subsidize their own Silicon Valley-based auto industry, which they argue is the future of American transportation.
This is so convoluted.
This is so intricate, and it's all being manipulated here by environmentalist wackos who have everybody invested in a hoax, and that is man-made global warming.
And by the way, there's even great news on that, folks.
Even great news on that top scientist dismayed at spending imbalance on climate and poverty.
The head of the world's top climate scientists says he is stunned at the trillion-dollar checks that have been signed to ease the banking crisis when funding for poverty and global warming is scrutinized or denied.
Now, if as a scientist he could prove that the spending would fix poverty or fix global warming, then maybe we could talk to him about it.
But this is, this is, these guys are now all upset in the science climate community.
They're upset because this is the kind of money they wanted tax increases to go for.
And they realize that the more this keeps up, we're not going to be able to afford any more spending on their pet issue.
And isn't it interesting how people have lost interest in global warming anyway since November turned out to be one of the coldest Novembers in recent memory?
Isn't it interesting that the world has not warmed up since 1998?
Anyway, another shocking bit of news, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from the business section of the UK Times Online.
Sales of electric cars in the UK have fallen by more than half this year, according to figures released two days after the government's climate change advisory body predicted a huge increase in the number of sales.
Get this.
Only 156 electric cars were sold from January to October, compared with 374 for the same period last year.
Now, why is this?
Electric cars, that's what these jerks out in Silicon Valley are talking about.
That's what they want the money from Detroit for.
They want to come up with this new electric transportation system out there for the Silicon Valley.
I can't imagine buying a car with a limited range to travel.
Seems semi-dangerous to me.
If I play in the NFL, I want to go to a nightclub on a Friday night with a loaded gun.
I need to have a car that's going to get me there and get me out of there to the hospital when the gun goes off.
Supposedly accidentally while I'm reaching for a drink.
If I'm an NFL player going to a nightclub, I sure as hell don't want to be in some little electric putt-putt.
They're going to get me to outrun the cops as I'm on the way to some super secret location in a hospital.
If I'm some NFL player, I don't know that I'm going to put a gun in my sweatpants anyway and go to a nightclub because the last time I heard of a gun stopping anything in a nightclub was never.
Last time I heard of guns in a nightclub, a guy named Pac-Man Jones, who now plays for the Dallas Cowboys, was running around while a guy was paralyzed from the neck down after the gun went off.
I don't know.
I've never heard of an athlete stopping a crime with a gun in a nightclub.
But regardless, I sure don't want to be trying to outrun the cops and my team in an electric putt-putt.
Folks, these more power to GM.
I hope electric cars are a hit for their sake.
But they seem to go against the grain of white people buy cars.
People buy cars for freedom.
People buy cars of personal expression.
I mean, folks, look at it.
Can we admit some things here about people in their cars?
Don't you drive around and you see people in a car you wouldn't dare be caught in.
And they're not cheap.
I mean, these are not people driving the cheapest thing they can afford.
There's some people drive pieces of junk I wouldn't be caught, but they think they're cool.
They think the car's them.
They think the car is going to attract babes or do something.
It's like back in the 70s, I worked with a guy who actually had three or four two-tone green leisure suits from Kmart.
He thought they were cool.
He thought he looked good in them.
Nobody else did, but he did.
Point is, people buy their cars for personal reasons.
Nobody's out there buying cars, save the planet, except a couple of wacko liberals that you'll find in every pocket of every population.
So much about the auto industry as consumers, we know.
This is frustrating to watch all this.
It really is.
All right, let's let's, I've been teasing you long enough.
On, let's see, this was Starborough Show Today, MSNBC.
The co-host Mika Bzezinski plays a clip of the Barbara Walters special with me, and here is the exchange.
What do you think of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
I'm stunned that she took it.
Hillary has always worked for herself.
I think this is a brilliant stroke by Obama.
You know, the old phrase, you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
He puts her over at Secretary of State.
How can she run for president in 2012, no matter how badly he does?
I'm sure he's figuring that if she goes over there, she's going to have to quit in 2010, running for president's a two-year job.
And then she's got to run against the incumbent and be critical of him, the one who made her Secretary of State.
So I'm surprised she took it.
Okay, so that's the clip they released, and they're playing it all over the place that we just happened to take that from Morning Joe today.
So that's what I said.
Now, Snerdley, you heard that.
What does it sound to you like I'm praising Obama for?
Pretty stealth political move.
Because here's Hillary Clinton, who you knew no, wants to be president.
The one thing that I forgot to tell Barbara Walters, you know, go back in hindsight and fix anything, but I forgot to say, plus, Barbara, there's one thing I should point out.
It'd be much easier to undermine his administration from within it than from over in the Senate.
But I forgot to say that.
So anyway, I'm praising Obama for taking her out of the presidential sweepstakes in 2012.
Because if she's got to start running in 2010, you know how early people start running.
I mean, even if you're going to run against the incumbent in your own party, you've got to start raising money, you've got to make obvious moves that you're doing it.
That will look like very an act of disloyalty.
And to go after first black president in your own party, very, very difficult move today.
And I am surprised she took it on that basis.
So let's now take a tour around the rest of the drive-bys.
Tuesday morning, CNN's American morning is a montage of Jim Acosta's report about the nomination of Hillary as Secretary of State.
You'll also hear Krauthammer in this.
This is not the honeymoon Democrats expected.
Some high-profile Republicans are praising Mr. Obama's national security team.
Republican reaction to Barack Obama's national security team is being described as a love fest.
Boy, that's a change I can believe in.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, a brilliant stroke, says Rush Limbaugh.
Ditto says President Bush's former media guru, Mark McKinnon, who applauds Robert Gates staying on at the Pentagon.
As for all of this gushing from the right, it may have less to do with Mr. Obama's pragmatism and more to do with a bipartisan desire for the country to get on the right track.
As one Republican strategist put it, enjoy it while it lasts.
These people are hopeless.
This is just, that is one of the most idiotic bits of analysis.
How could you say, who is this guy, Jim Acosta?
And he says, it may have less to do with Obama's pragmatism and more to do with the bipartisan desire for the country to get on the right track.
And they throw that, they throw me in with bipartisanship as a reason for have you ever have you, you people with parents, with, well, elderly parents or young kids.
Do you ever get frustrated over how long it takes them to understand what you mean when you're saying something as plain as day?
I mean, if there's one person in the big media who has been consistent and definable for 20 years, it is me.
And now all of a sudden, I have become a pragmatist with one lifted bite from a Barbara Walters interview.
Here's NPR gushing over the whole thing.
President-elect Barack Obama's national security team has won praise in surprising quarters.
His choice for defense secretary is acceptable to the Bush administration since President Bush chose the same man.
Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State won praise from Rush Limbaugh.
The conservative radio host told ABC News it was a brilliant stroke for political reasons.
MSNBC is so excited about my supposed support for Obama that they now want to put him on Mount Rushmore.
I think he's looking already towards being the fifth face on Mount Rushmore, and that you want the story to be written of a smooth launch of the administration where he was able to have some of the biggest names in our country fill key spots and that the storyline is just much better with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State than with anyone else.
And Bob, what about Hillary Clinton's perspective?
I mean, Rush Limbaugh told Barbara Walters that this is a brilliant stroke by Obama because it eliminates, say, Hillary Clinton as a potential political rival and opponent.
Do you think that Hillary Clinton is essentially taking your presidential aspirations off the table?
Well, you would have to think so, given that it would be very difficult for her to challenge Barack Obama in 2012, even if Obama has a difficult first term as president in the 2012 primary.
With MSNBC last night on David Gregory's show, he had Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Forum, and she was asked about my analysis of Obama's brilliant stroke.
Such strong praise from Rush Limbaugh for this move.
I don't know what Rush is thinking about.
I actually know him personally, so I know he's got a strategy behind what he has said to Barbara Walters.
Maybe Rush is right.
If she were to start running for president while she is Secretary of State, should she be confirmed, it would be disastrous, and I think that she would not win, and it would look very bad for her legacy.
So Rush is probably correct, and this was a stroke of genius on behalf of the president-elect.
So even the people who understand that I was praising Obama's political acumen here with this brilliant appointment are still associating me with everybody else who's saying Obama's brilliant period.
See, this is how easy it is.
And I wasn't even trying for this.
This is how easy it is to make the libs like you.
Now, I'm going to destroy it all here in the next couple hours.
One five-second little comment on Barbara Walters.
They love me all of us.
All right, we're going to get to your phone calls in the next hour.
I promise if you're on hold, please stay there.
We'll get to you.
I'm going to need you anyway.
I can't keep up this feverish pace without breaking out into a coughing spasm for the next two hours.
We got three soundbites here.
And to start the next hour, it appears that Barbara Walters, it was an hour interview, and I didn't, it's got a five-minute segment for everybody, if that.
All these ten fascinating people.
So I didn't know what she was going to use.
Well, what she's used is she asked me about this comment that I made some time ago about nobody wants to watch in our culture, nobody wants to watch Hillary Clinton or any female president age and wrinkle daily before our eyes.
And she tried to take me to task for that.
And I corrected her and set her straight.
This led to a long debate and discussion on the view today among the panelists there.
So we'll let you hear how that turned out.
But let's stick here.
This is CNN last night or Monday night in the Situation Room.
Wolf Blitzer and the Dana Milbank of the Washington Post.
I mean, they seem to think that I've endorsed Obama's national security team.
He's getting rave reviews for this so far.
Obviously, the risk is down the road whether this deteriorates.
But certainly everybody from Rush Limbaugh all the way to the far left has been quite quiet about it unexpectedly.
So he's really gotten away with it.
It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
I haven't heard a mainstream Republican complain about it at all.
They seem to like it.
Well, clowns don't even know I was out sick Monday.
Here's the view.
This is Tuesday.
Joy Behar and Elizabeth Hasselbeck are talking about the Obama national security team.
And Behar said, you know, the accusation that he wasn't experienced enough, he certainly has overcome that by appointing every experienced person that she can find.
And she added this.
And right-wing Luxembourg's choices, even Rush Limbaugh was actually Hillary Clinton.
Johnny wanted Elizabeth.
Tell the truth.
Archie Randy.
Please don't talk to me.
What is it?
I'm waiting.
I told you.
I had a very excited moment.
I feel like I'm excited to see what happens.
I think given the choices he's made, I feel as though they're sensible.
Win winner will picture.
But if you listen to what he's saying, he actually sounds a lot more like George Bush.
They're talking about the national security team.
Look at, this is no surprise to me.
Folks, who was it?
It was I. I'll just not even ask you the question.
Was it that told you that there's no way the Democrat nominee for president, if he won the election, was going to hang the loss of any war around his own neck?
There's no way he's pulling out of a rock before we have clearly won it.
There's no way the Democrats, this is what makes them so reprehensible and irresponsible.
They were trying to secure defeat during the campaign.
They were trying to secure the defeat of the United States and the U.S. military for two to three years prior to the campaign so they could saddle it around Bush's neck and so forth.
But they're not going to saddle themselves with defeat.
I mean, their leftist wacko nuts are going to be very disappointed when Obama does not pull out of here.
And I'll tell you something else, he's not going to close Gitmo.
I'll guarantee you that they're going to find it's going to be much tougher to close Gitmo than he actually thought.
Nobody wants those reprobates that are in Gitmo.
Where do you take them?
And they're not going to bring them here for trial.
The left-wing trial bar may be disappointed about this and a kuklect-wing fringe ain't going to happen.
Just this is their, they're going to have to, especially after this Mumbai thing, Bombay, for those of you who voted for Obama, this, they're just, you watch it, how little is going to change.
Hanselbeck here actually swerved into some things.
This team is going to end up looking a lot like George W. Bush when they come out of the gate in January, when the Obama team is inaugurated.
Brief time out.
Wait till you hear me next hour what Ted Turner said he could have done with me.
All right, the first hour of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network in the can.
▲
Export Selection