All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:46
June 16, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Getting tons of email today, folks, from people who are surprised and upset over the news that ABC is turning over their network to President Obama eight days from now.
The ABC's World News Tonight will be broadcast from the, what is it, the Blue Room?
Yeah, the Blue Room of the White House.
And then they'll do a special that night on health care.
And everybody's upset about it.
I predicted this.
I predicted this back on March 26th.
And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, ABC is part of state-run media.
What's news about this?
I mean, there's no news here.
This is just a confirmation of what's already going on.
ABC turning programming over to Obama.
They did that back before Inauguration Day.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Once again, the White House has given us a message to the world from President Obama regarding Iran.
Another exclusive message to the world here on the EIB network direct from the White House.
And Rah Emmanuel and President Obama, who promised in that statement not to take over Iran's oil production.
And admitting the election in Iran was all about him and how the Iranians have embarrassed him.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to go back.
I want to play for you here what I said on this program March 26th of this year.
For those of you who read the book 1984, Big Brother was everywhere, no matter where you went.
Big Brother was on television, on the radio, didn't matter where you went.
I have a simple question.
When do all television sets just eventually default to the Obama channel?
There has to be an Obama channel now.
And at some point, the government, the FCC, is going to encode broadcast signals so that your TV or your receiver defaults to the Obama channel all the time.
Same thing with your computer defaulting to the Obama page.
I don't know how many of you read Orwell's 1984, but the Supreme Leader was Big Brother.
And not only was he on TV 24-7, you couldn't get him off of television.
And that prediction has now manifested itself in truth.
ABC has turned over programming to Obama eight days from now, the night of June 24th.
The media and the government cement their relationship as one.
State-run media, ABC, will broadcast the World News Tonight from the Blue Room of the White House.
That'll be followed by a prime time special entitled Prescription for America, which will originate from the East Room, and it will exclude opposing voices on the debate.
1984, I predicted this March 26th.
People say, why did you stop calling them the drive-by media and you start calling them the state-run?
Well, this is why.
This is government-controlled media.
A prime time special in the East Room after the news from the Blue Room.
And no opposing voices in the debate will be featured on the program.
The Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to David Weston at state-run ABC.
Dear Mr. Weston, as the national debate on healthcare reform intensifies, I'm deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24th.
Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime healthcare reform town hall at the White House with President Obama.
In addition, according to an ABC News report, Good Morning, America, World News Tonight and ABC's Web News will all feature special programming on the President's Healthcare Agenda.
This does not include the promotion over the next nine days of the president's healthcare agenda we'll receive on ABC News programming.
In the absence of opposition, I'm concerned.
That really is going to penetrate, by the way.
The RNC is concerned about this.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda.
If that's the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the Democrat National Committee coffers.
President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform, but he does hold a monopoly on the media, which is all he cares about.
The president has stated time and time again, he wants a bipartisan debate.
Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the Democrat National Committee should pay for your eartime.
Weston, the president of ABC News, predictably said, hey, no big deal here.
We haven't compromised our objectivity, and they haven't.
To compromise their objectivity, ABC would have to put on opposing voices.
The objectivity of state-run media is to promote the state.
ABC is state government-controlled media, as is NBC, particularly NBC.
They do a better job of it than ABC.
CBS got to throw them in there.
CNN, no question about it.
And all the derivatives of ABC, CBS, and NBC, along with the Washington Post, New York Times, state-controlled media.
So to be objective, they would have to put or to do I think it'll get ratings?
Well, I've been asked by the official program observer if I think that this will get ratings.
You know, interestingly, on Thursday or Friday night of last week, whenever the DTV switch was, whenever they turned off analog, and if you all have is an analog TV with rabbit ears, you got snow, you didn't get anything, ABC's World News Tonight audience plummeted from 7 million to 4 million in one day or 4.9 million.
And ABC has asked Nielsen to review the numbers because they don't think that that's possible, even with the DTV switch.
Will it get ratings?
Yeah, it'll get some ratings.
But remember now, it's, let's see, the 20th, it's eight days, so it'll be a Wednesday night.
There won't be any other original programming on the networks that night, I don't believe.
Everything's reruns or summer series that nobody watches anyway.
So I don't know if it'll get ratings or not with President Obama on it.
That's a good question, too, because as Bill Maher pointed out recently on his show, there's beginning to be Obama fatigue out there.
He's everywhere.
He's big brother.
He's 24-7.
Now, over on another state-run media network, the David Letterman show last night, Letterman apologized to Sarah Palin, and it was a real apology, but it was also couched in this continuing excuse that he was talking, he thought he was talking about a 14-year-old, not an 18-year-old.
The bottom line here is the joke's inappropriate, whether the age of the woman is 14, 18, or 40.
But he goes on, and we've got tape of the apology and source.
Well, I think everybody is missing what happened here.
I gave the drive-bys.
I gave state-run media a week head start on this, and they still don't get it.
All Letterman did was pull a Katie Couric.
He did what Katie Couric did.
She was desperate for attention.
Her ratings were plummeting, and they have plummeted now to an all-time low for the CBS Evening News.
She got Sarah Palin on.
And remember, that interview ignited everybody because she supposedly embarrassed Sarah Palin, one of the worst interviews Palin had done.
Her star rose.
Katie got an award after that.
She made fun of Sarah Palin.
Now, Here comes Letterman, the same week that Conan O'Brien is starting to take over for Jay Leno on the tonight show.
So you got Conan O'Brien replacing Jay.
You got media.
Everybody asking, how's Conan going to do?
How's Conan going to rate against Jay?
How's Conan going to rate against Dave?
Now, the formerly original David Letterman stole a tactic from the Katie Couric playbook.
If you need liberal attention, if you need the attention of the state-run media, make fun of Sarah Palin.
Just pull a Katie Couric.
He got away with it for five days.
News flashes, split screens, expert opinions, debates on state-run media.
Letterman was everywhere.
He got exactly what he wanted out of this.
I didn't track his ratings.
I don't know how much they improved.
Conan continually plummeted for a while, which is natural.
Was it just a joke?
The bottom line was this whole Letterman thing, just a joke.
Remember now, this was a written joke in the afternoon.
It was put together.
It was intended.
It was not stream of consciousness comment that wasn't written and not on a cue card or a teleprompter.
So now, did he mean Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter?
Did he mean her 14-year-old?
Is Sarah's family fair game?
Are only Republicans, members of fair game, conservatives too sensitive, all this?
And then you had people out there defending Letterman.
They're the ones thrown under the bus today.
But you had a bunch of leftists defending what Letterman did.
And enough people, after five days of this, got disgusted enough with this joke, which was not joke, and there were no truth in it, so it's not funny.
But Dave, in the end, got what Katie Couric did not get.
Katie did not get a trip to the woodshed.
Dave did.
Don't tell me that this thing was arrived at on his own.
You've got people, I'm sure, that are bombarding CBS management with complaints about this.
Well, yeah, I think they do care.
I've met Miss Les Moonvis.
I think this kind of, it didn't go away.
It kept simmering out there.
But whether or not there was pressure on this from higher ups, pressure on Letterman from higher ups, the bottom line, he got what he wanted out of it.
Got what he wanted.
He pulled a Katie Couric.
We got more information on healthcare today.
You know, folks, the CBO came out with its score.
Now, listen to me on this.
Look at me.
$1 trillion is what they say to insure one-third of the uninsured.
Now, my math, I learned math the right way a long time ago.
My math tells me that, and by the way, 10 years, $1 trillion and 10 years to insure one-third of the 50, 47 million uninsured.
Why is it going to take 10 years for that?
How does it take 10 years to ensure 37 million people?
You announced the program.
The uninsured will show up somewhere to sign up for it.
One-third, $1 trillion for one, this is $3 trillion by my math, using what the CBO says.
$3 trillion for this program over a number of years.
And of course, it's going to end up being much more than that.
So now I'm watching television and all of the Democrats are on TV.
Everybody's worried about this cost.
And my question is, just when is it?
Why is it that the BAMSTR and the Democrat machines, politicians, you know, what's the big deal?
Just go out and spend the money.
Borrow at Predit.
What's the big deal about the cost?
The cost of nothing else has mattered.
Why does the cost of this all of a sudden matter?
The cost of nothing else.
They've already run up $12 trillion in debt.
What the hell is $3 trillion more?
Once you start down this path, what the hell?
People want their health security.
Give it to them.
$15 trillion in debt over 10 years.
Hell's bills, man.
Why worry about cost here?
Well, Mr. Limbaugh, the cost of the problem of some members of Congress might not vote for.
They voted for everything.
Take it back.
They didn't.
They haven't voted on a lot of this.
Obama just enacted it.
But this he can't do without legislation.
He can even point a hell.
He can't do this without legislation.
He may try if he doesn't get his way here.
But I mean, folks, honestly, $12 trillion, $15, you know, once you're talking that amount, what does it matter?
Print $3 trillion more.
What's the problem?
If this is so necessary.
And $3 trillion to lower costs.
$3 trillion to lower costs in health care.
And another question.
We had this comment.
We had this story yesterday out of Flint, Michigan, that a local Democrat liberal machine politician wants to bulldoze 40% of the city and then wants to, and Obama loved the plan so much, bulldoze 40% of Flint, Michigan, that they've asked this guy for a blueprint on bulldozing portions of 50 other American cities.
Why is it?
Why I ask you just an open-ended question.
Why is bringing a bunch of bulldozers in and bulldozing 40% of a city brilliant government policy?
But when a hurricane does it, it's a disaster that is the fault of George W. Bush.
The views expressed by the host on this show, documented to be almost always right 99.1% of the time.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, making this look easy.
But do not try this at home.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, our morning update today dealt with an Obama promise that he has broken to the gay community of the United States.
And today, the New York Times has editorialized on this, as usual, a day after we are on the cutting edge of the story.
Here are the details.
A filing by the Obama Justice Department last week surprised hardcore supporters.
Now, as a candidate, Obama had promised the gay community that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
His lawyers urged dismissal of the first same-sex marriage case to reach federal courts.
Despite his promise, his own lawyers urged dismissal of the first same-sex marriage case to reach federal courts.
The plaintiffs, now get these cases here.
The plaintiffs are two guys who got married when same-sex marriages were legal in California.
They claim the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, their free speech rights, and their right to privacy.
Obama's legalizers, his legal beavers, have attacked out there.
They cited Catalano versus Catalano.
These two guys say, look, we got married in the Defense of Marriage Act.
Obama's breaking a promise.
Here's what Obama's lawyers went in to dispute this case.
The first thing they did was cite a case called Catalano versus Catalano that involves a man who married his niece in Italy and sought to have the marriage recognized in Connecticut.
The courts told him to stuff it.
His lawyers then cited a case of an Indiana marriage of an underage woman that New Jersey courts redlighted.
This is a woman married to David Letterman.
She's underage.
I'm just kidding.
But the New Jersey court said that you can't marry somebody underage.
Third case that legal beavers of Obama cited involved the marriage of first cousins in New Mexico, and that was blown out by the Arizona courts.
So the lesbian, gay, bisexors, the transgenders are fuming that Obama isn't dismantling the Defense of Marriage Act.
They are livid that his beavers would cite cases involving incest and people marrying children.
They are also furious at Obama's limp action on the military's don't ask, don't tell policy.
Now, as you know, we have several members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community in this audience.
And you boys and girls in that community, you have to understand something here.
President Obama's getting busy.
I mean, he's got some things that rank ahead of you in your marriage rights.
He has to finish off the economy.
He's got to destroy health care.
And those are pretty big deals.
And in doing so, he's going to end up controlling a whole lot of money, like $4 to $5 trillion currently in the private sector he's going to get his hands on.
Your little defense of marriage business doesn't get him any money, doesn't get him any control of anything.
So for the moment, you lesbian, gay, bisexures, and transgenders are going to have to do what the rest of us have been doing with this guy, and that's been to over grab the ankles.
But don't doubt him.
Your turn's coming, so to speak.
I mean, he's one of you guys.
He's on your side.
You're just not a priority right now.
Man up and deal with it.
Like we've all had to man up and deal with this guy.
It's your turn to man up and deal with a guy.
Stop whining.
Seriously, this New York Times editorial on Obama's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act or his support for it is hilarious.
A bad call on gay rights is the headline.
But then they say, look, if the administration doesn't feel compelled to defend it, it should, or does feel compelled to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, it should do so in a less hurtful way.
The hell is that?
A less hurtful way.
Oh, I guess they mean, well, you could defend it without citing cases on incest, stuff like that.
You can imagine his upsetters, his supporters in the gay, lesbian, and tri-gender brigades would be upset about this.
President Obama just finished a brief joint appearance and miniature press conference with the Republic of Korea, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.
And during the press conference, Obama had this to say about Iran.
You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.
It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections.
Whoa!
What I will repeat, and what I said yesterday, is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people.
He says it's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling, the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections.
What did he do last Friday when the exit poll data showed that the challenger was going to win?
He went out there and started claiming credit for it because of his Cairo speech.
He was meddling even then, claiming credit for this massive result.
Remember, we have this exclusive statement to the world from President Obama sent to us by the White House this morning.
That's President Obama and his address to the world via EIB, but yet in his press conference this morning, he said this.
My hope is that the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices, to express their aspirations.
I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past, and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy.
How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide.
But I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed.
Can I translate that for you?
Let me translate that.
Basically, what he says is he's standing with the Iranian people, but whatever the government there decides is fine with him.
Which means he's not standing with the Iranian people.
Now, since when did Barack Obama become concerned about democracy?
Barack Obama opposed Iraq.
He opposed the plan to bring democracy to the Middle East in Iraq.
Now, all of a sudden, he's worried about democracy?
That's because of his speech.
He is burned, folks.
He is burned.
He thought that speech, I mean, he's got a complex.
He thought that speech was going to have a massive impact on the Iranian leaders and the people.
And all it did was arch and stiffen the backs of the mullahs.
You know, this guy, I tell you, he keeps whining.
He keeps moaning and complaining.
He's dealing with all this stuff that he inherited.
Have you heard that, Rachel?
You heard him complain about that?
Did you ever hear George W. Bush complain about 9-11?
What if Bush had spent the months and years following 9-11 whining and moaning about it?
That he didn't bargain for that.
And nobody told him that was going to happen.
But you know what?
He didn't.
Ever.
All he did was roll up his sleeves, got the country out of a serious financial crisis after 9-11, and pretty damn quick.
Now, Obama knew exactly what he was getting into here with Iran.
Whether he wanted to admit it or not, he knew.
He knew exactly what he's dealing with with Hamas.
He knows exactly who he's dealing with with Hezmallah.
And he seems to side with them, particularly over Israel.
Now, if he thought, if he thought this is going to be so difficult and so horrible, be it the economy, be it foreign policy, then he should not have asked to be placed in the office.
If he keeps complaining about what he inherited and keeps crybaby whining and moaning about it, somebody at some point is going to tell him to just shut the hell up and man up, like I just advised the gay, lesbian, transgender community to do, man up and dealing with this guy being somebody other than what you thought.
To the phones, Manhattan, Kansas.
This is Dale.
Thank you for calling, sir.
It's great to have you here with us.
Honored to talk to you, sir.
I can understand.
Thank you.
My question is, and I'm throwing this out to you.
What exactly is the crisis in healthcare?
I've been hearing about crisis in healthcare ever since the Hillary days.
And quite honestly, I don't see it.
Now, I'm not among the intellectual elite in this country, but I still can't see it.
It means you're a real guy.
Thank you.
You bet.
It's a great question.
The crisis in healthcare is like the crisis in everything else, manufactured.
Precisely.
Take a little survey.
Dale, are you personally fretting?
Are you in crisis mode?
Are you walking around in a general state of fear over the fact you might get sick?
No.
Do you know anybody who is?
Oh, there's a lot of hypochondriacs out there.
Yeah, but I mean, are they worried about losing everything they own if they do get sick?
Well, sure, but there's a real easy solution to that.
And I'm a small businessman out here, and by small, I mean probably micro-business.
I employ anywhere from six to ten people, depending on the economy.
I am able to offer my employees at no cost to them major medical coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas for $150 a month each.
And I pay for that, by the way.
Yes.
So what's the crisis?
Well, that's my point.
That's my point.
There is no, you're asking a very valid question.
There is no crisis.
The crisis in health care is in the U.K.
The crisis in health care is in Canada.
The crisis in health care is in Cuba.
The crisis in health care is with the JICOMs.
The crisis in healthcare is with a lot of other places.
The crisis in health care here has been manufactured.
My point is, folks, just ask yourself in your own circle of friends, your family, community, your neighborhood, whatever, how many people do you know who are actually walking around daily in fear, constant fear, of an auto accident or a major disease going to wipe them out?
This is what we've been told every day.
Just like during the last eight years, well, the seven years prior to this year, we were told the economy was sinking fast, that it was approaching a recession, it was horrible, while employment, unemployment was low, a historical full-time low of 4.7%.
Now it's 9.4%.
When it was 4.7%, we were all being told daily by state-run media that the economy was in a tank and going south and it was all horrible.
It was horrible.
And so they go out and do surveys and polls of people.
How are you doing economically?
Oh, I'm doing fine, but I'm worried about my neighbor.
I guess things aren't so good out there.
Same thing with healthcare.
How's your health care?
I pretty much like it.
Well, I guess there's a lot of people out there uninsured and really have a lot of trouble out there.
That's just been manufactured.
There is no crisis in health care, unless you want to talk about the 47 million uninsured.
And if you break down that number, you find that 60% of them are illegal aliens.
Others make income over $75,000 who choose not to have it.
That's the crisis.
And there may be people, you know, costs are a little bit high, but that's because of government involvement.
Heritage Foundation today, simple to get, great stuff here.
Yesterday, the nonpartisan CBO released a preliminary analysis of the Kennedy-Dodd health care plan.
The results are frightening.
Assessing just Title I of the draft legislation, the CBO estimated the plan.
Now, listen to this.
Look at me.
CBO estimated the plan would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit while only extending health care insurance to a net 16 million more people.
Now, I mentioned this earlier: $1 trillion for one-third of the uninsured.
As scary as that is, what is even more disturbing is what costs the CBO did not estimate.
Quote, our proposal does not include a public plan that would be offered in the exchanges, nor does it contain provisions that would require employers to offer health insurance benefits or impose a fee or tax on them if they did not offer insurance coverage to their workers.
In other words, the $1 trillion cost to insure 16 million uninsured does not include the public option.
And the public option is the deal that Obama wants.
And this cost doesn't even estimate.
What Obama's going to do is throw this out.
They'll say, this is not accurate.
We're going to listen to this.
And he'll have his own Office of Management and Budget do it.
Now, even without the public plan, even without Obama's public option, the CBO analysis undercuts one of the fundamental promises Obama has made about health care reform.
In fact, yesterday, talking to the AMA, he said, if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period.
If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.
No one will take it away no matter what, unquote.
The CBO, so-called nonpartisan CBO, disagrees according to their analysis.
While the Kennedy-Dodd bill would enable 39 million Americans to obtain health insurance, the plan would kick about 15 million people out of the system because their employers would no longer offer insurance.
The employers would opt into the public option.
There are a lot of employers who want to offload this.
Coverage from other sources would decline by 8 million, so 27 million people would be thrown off insurance rolls and have to go public option.
You would lose your choice of doctor.
These numbers will only look worse once a public plan is factored in, and the public plan is just one of the biggest problems of the Kennedy-Dodd bill.
An independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that a public plan will deprive millions of Americans of their current health care plan, depending on eligibility and payments.
The rates could result in up to 119 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage.
This is why it's Trojan horse, and this is why he's able to deny this.
It's not going to happen.
But in the real world, where they never score dynamics, they only score statics in these things.
They score the dynamics.
You got a bunch of businesses with a chance to offload their health care expenses to the so-called public option.
You don't think that some will do it?
And the estimates of the numbers that want to do it will lead up to 119 million Americans being switched by their employer to some other coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage, the public option.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Rush Limbaugh, harmless, lovable little fuzzball with talent on loan from God.
And back to the fonts of Jacksonville, Florida.
This is Chaim.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Hello there, Russell.
Hi.
Russo, super intelligent one, hyper-intelligent one.
How did you not parse Mr. Letterman's remarks yesterday?
Listen carefully, he says, and it was just a joke, and I just read it, and I'm sorry that it was a bit out of line, and I apologize that you were too stupid to understand it.
Well, frankly, I've got the sound bites here.
I've got Letterman's apology, but I don't want to fall prey to this like everybody else did in the media, just give him more publicity.
He said that he apologized, and the point is that he didn't.
He said, I'm sorry that you were too stupid to understand.
No, he did.
Look, he did two things.
It was a real apology.
He apologized.
Palins accepted it, but then he excused it after he apologized.
It he excused it again by getting into this business of whether or not the girl he was joking about was 14 or 18.
As I said at the beginning of the program, that is irrelevant.
A joke like that about any woman is just in bad taste, and it's not funny.
Now, this is his way.
I also don't, when he says that what turned the light on for him was Mark Maxie Shields on the news hour with Jim Lara.
Come on, give us a break.
That's what he heard when Mark Shields said this.
This is indefensible.
That's what woke Letterman up about this?
Mark Shields on the news hour with Jim Lara.
There have to be all of that.
That happened many days after this.
But I mean, to sit here and parse it is to just give the guy a little bit more publicity about this.
He did two things.
It was an apology.
There's no question Palins accepted it.
But he then excused it.
He excused why it happened, missing the whole point that it's not about whether somebody's 14 or 18.
The only reason that he's hyping or harping on this 14 versus 18 business is because somebody, and it wasn't just Mark Maxie Shields, somebody pointed out that A-Rod knocking up a 14-year-old is statutory rape.
And here's Letterman making a joke about it.
And I forget the guy's name, but way back in the 70s, there was a New York TV anchor.
You remember his name?
He told an innocent little joke on television news about rape, and he was never heard from again after that.
Tex Antoine, that was Tex Antoine de Weathermont told a, what was channel four, channel seven, channel ABC at seven, eyeball news on channel seven.
All right, WABC-TV.
So Tex Antoine tells this joke about rape, and he hasn't been heard from since.
It was gone.
He was gone.
Letterman told a joke about rape.
And so the point is, oh, oh, no, I meant the 18-year-old.
Oh, then it would have been okay.
No, it wouldn't have been okay.
But that's the excuse for the joke.
But he did apologize.
It said it would a bad joke and all that.
But they knew it was a bad joke when they did.
This is, don't forget when this happened.
This happened the week that Conan O'Brien debuted subbing or taking over for Jay Leno.
And there was all kinds of about that.
And Letterman hasn't been close to NBC, the tonight show in ratings in many moons.
Hell, folks, Nightline has been beating Letterman.
And who among you watches Nightline anymore?
Same people that watch the news hour with Jim Olara on PBS.
We'll be back.
Back to that CBO report.
The public option, not even part of this $1 trillion.
Obama says nobody's going to lose their health plan.
That's absolute BS.
The UAW, the big unions, big companies are going to dump all their health care costs on the taxpayers.
▲
Export Selection