All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
July 14, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Why would Time magazine run this story?
Now it's it's on the website.
You know, Time magazine is what if they had 40 covers, 40 covers of Obama in like 20 weeks.
And uh it says here Obama's stimulus plan failing by its own measure.
And here's how it's written by a story by a guy named Stephen Gandalf, and the lead to the story is the $787 billion stimulus planning out to be far less stimulating than its architects expected.
See, this is where everybody's missing it.
This stimulus plan is doing everything its architects intended it to do, and that's prop up the states first, then prop up Democrats second, prop up unions first and second, uh, and not ever stimulate the economy.
Now I have to think if for Time magazine to run this story, there has to be some sense that they better cover their rear end on this.
Journalistically.
And this Time Magazine, I'm they have been in the tank.
I'm uh it seems like every week or every other week, Obama is on the cover.
Time magazine or newsweek.
And if it's not Obama, it's Michelle My Bell on the uh on the cover.
From um CNN Money, national health care may never happen.
Latest polling looks great for President Obama, shows that Americans love national health care.
Yeah, but what's the rub?
Well, if history and polling trends are any guide, that'll change.
Voters right now are in what the famous pollster Daniel Yankilovich called the wishful thinking stage, a moment in the life of an opinion analogous to the dreamy early days of a relationship.
Uh this piece goes on to say that uh Americans love the idea of health insurance for all until they realize how much it's going to cost them.
And this is not speculation here.
Similar scenarios played out in 1992 when the Clintons pushed for their health plan, and in 1998 or 1988, after Congress passed an insurance plan to protect the elderly against the costs of catastrophic illness.
1988 polls had shown that Americans overwhelmingly favored such a plan in the abstract, and large bipartisan majorities passed it in both houses.
Only the top 40% of seniors would have paid a tax surcharge to fund it.
But those were the people who tended to carry supplemental insurance already, and once they realized what was happening, they howled in a way that legislators couldn't ignore.
Remember this, this is when Rostinkowski, Danny Rusty Rusty got beaten up by constituents in Chicago outside his car.
Uh Congress repealed the provision.
It never took effect.
Today, with more ambitious reforms on the table, a scenario not unlike 88 could be taking shape.
Dig deep into the latest polling.
You'll find that while Americans believe health care is a serious problem, 77% say they're satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.
Now, why is Obama then pushing it?
Well, Obama is pushing health care.
And he wants this done by August.
He's got to get this done by August.
He wants to get this done by the recess.
Because the economy is tanking.
I'm going to tell you why he wants it fast.
The economy is tanking.
Obama knows better than anyone else that it's tanking.
And he also knows that by the end of the year he cannot pass health care because the state of the economy is going to be so bad that everybody will know it.
So the tactic here is speed and deception.
The same tactic being used with Sotomayor in her confirmation hearings.
The public is not going to be in any mood for a massive new spending program of any kind when the depth of the current spending and its disastrous consequences are known, and they will be known, and they are going to get worse.
The circumstances are going to get worse.
Mort Zuckerman today has a uh uh a piece in the Wall Street Journal.
The economy is even worse than you think.
Mort Vuckerman is the chairman and editor of U.S. News and World Report.
He owns a New York Daily News.
The average length of unemployment is higher than it's been since government began tracking the data in 1948, is the subheadline of his piece.
Now we got Timmy Geitner out there saying, Oh no, is it Geithner?
Who was it?
Somebody said we're going to have a jobless recovery.
Was it Geitner?
Was it Larry Summers?
Somebody said, I got it here somewhere.
If we have a job, how do you have a jobless recovery?
Oh, I get it.
Wall Street comes back.
Goldman Sachs is doing fine in a $3.4 billion profit.
Goldman Sachs is doing fine.
Wait till Americans find out about that.
They thought Goldman Sachs of Wall Street was going to be punished by Obama.
I mentioned a piece yesterday by Robert Samuelson in uh Newsweek magazine on the rich not being recession proof this time.
And uh I read that again.
And the most important part of the article, the Samuelson piece yesterday is a discussion on a Wall Street Journal article and the reaction thereto.
Now, in in here's here's from the Samuelson piece.
Quote In April, the Wall Street Journal ran an article sympathetically portraying families with incomes around 250,000, uh, the level of Obama has targeted for tax increases.
Sympathetic to those people.
By most measures, families at 250 grand rank in the top 2% to top 4% of the income spectrum.
But many and possibly most of those people see themselves as upper middle class and not rich, said the Wall Street Journal.
The wife of a surgeon who makes about $260,000 was quoted.
She said, I'm not after sympathy.
What I want is a reality check on what rich means.
I can pay my mortgage and I can buy some clothes.
I'm not going without, but I'm not living a life of luxury.
The mayor of San Jose, California, scoffed at $250,000.
That's what a two engineer couple might make, he said.
It put them in the upper working class, but it wasn't enough to buy a home in Silicon Valley.
So how can you say you're rich if you can't buy a home in Silicon Valley?
And the article triggered the journal piece, uh, triggered an outpouring of emails, many applauding that somebody had finally described their harried plight.
Others sarcastically wondered what planet the whiners lived on.
How can you make 250 grand a year and be complaining about it?
But uh so much angst against uh uh among the affluent, however defined, attests to something else.
Samuelson, this is his point.
The present recession, unlike any other since World War II, has deeply shaken the nation's economic elite.
And that was that was the theme of his story, but I I I didn't mention to you the his quoting of the Wall Street Journal piece in April that makes the closes a loop.
Now, this illustrates very well why it is so dangerous to allow the government to pick and choose tax winners and tax losers.
If you make $10,000, you're okay taxing the rich guy making $25,000.
If you make $25K, tax the rich guy making $50, because he doesn't need it all.
On and on and on and on.
Make $75, tax the guy making $100.
You make $250, you're getting soaked, and everybody wants you to get soaked.
Forty-three percent of taxpayers now do not pay income tax.
They pay FICA, payroll and but they don't pay income tax.
Now, how can you have a representative republic?
When half, almost half of people do not pay taxes.
And when those people don't pay taxes, they understand who's supporting them.
So they favor tax increases on everybody else.
The natural human tendency, I mean your average Democrat is to think that anyone and everyone who makes more than you is just a selfish bastard if he complains about taxes.
Obama.
Politicians like Obama know this.
They deliberately twist and use that class envy reaction under the big lie of fairness to gain even more control of the economy, and then use that control for their ends and best interests, not the nations.
So this is why flat tax, fair tax uh works, this this arbitrary setting of rates based on what Obama thinks is rich.
It leads to even further diversions and divisions in the country among the uh among the population.
Plus, it doesn't raise any money.
And this is the fascinating thing.
If if if you were listening yesterday and you heard me saying you didn't want to see, you don't want to listen, and you don't want to believe me that Obama's purposely destroying the middle class, purposely destroying it, purposely raiding it, taking capital away from the private sector and transferring it to governments and unions and so forth.
If you don't want to believe that, if you just can't bring yourself to believe that anybody we would elect president would want to destroy, because you can't believe that somebody like Obama grew up hating America, being told it was unjust and immoral, now has a chance to fix it.
You just don't believe it.
Then ask yourself this.
We're running huge, as uh Jim Sasser in Tennessee used to say, deficits.
We got deficits coming out of everybody orifice.
We got deficits coming out of the mouth of every river in this country.
We got deficits everywhere.
We've got two and a half trillion budget deficit this year, 12 trillion forecast, and there's more spending to come.
Now, wouldn't you think that given that reality, one of the first things on the mind of people in Washington would be revenue generation.
And isn't that what you think taxes are for?
Yes, that's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
We're taxed.
This is the voice of the new Castrati.
That's right, Mr. Limbo.
We are taxed so that we citizens can do our civic duty and pay for all of the goods and serve that our government generously provides for us.
Okay, you believe that.
You believe it's a purpose of taxes, raise money for the government to provide our roads and bridges and our schools and uh toasters or whatever the hell else.
Have you seen the uh decline in revenue being generated by virtue of taxes given the recession?
There are more and more people out of work.
More and more businesses are closing.
One of the reasons the deficits are so high is that there is far less tax revenue being produced.
It's just a simple matter of math.
So here we have the smartest people in the world, the Obamas and the Larry Summers' and these guys, and their policies are creating less revenue, less revenue to run the country to provide the goods and service that we the citizens need and crave.
And yet they're not bothered by it.
They continue with policies that will result in less revenue still being generated via taxes.
And what are they going to then do?
Raise taxes on the remaining people who pay them.
Oh, by the way, you make under 250 grand and they do this health care, you're going to get soaked like everybody else.
If you're one of the 43% and not paying income tax, get ready, you're going to get soaked with a value-added tax, a VAT tax, you're going to have some kind of sales tax.
It's going to happen.
You're all gonna, we're all gonna pay higher taxes.
Under the theory that that will raise more revenue.
It's gonna reduce revenue because it's gonna slow down the economy even further.
It's gonna cause more people to lose their jobs.
We're gonna have fewer taxpayers, and when you have fewer taxpayers, you have less tax revenue.
Yet none of this bothers them.
They are prepared to fully implement every stage of this to create less revenue, more unemployment.
It can't be that they're just naive and mistaken.
And even after a year of this, they're talking a second stimulus now.
After the abject failure of the first and the first stimulus, we've only spent six percent of it, and it's all gone to the states to help with their own budget deficits and to the unions.
We haven't even spent it.
They know it's not going to stimulate anything economically.
Now they're talking about a second one.
There is no other conclusion than there is an ongoing effort to remake the structure of this country from a free market capitalist system to a command and control government-run system for the express purpose of making sure that everybody's equal or as equal as they can make it, that nobody has any more than anybody else.
If they do, they'll tax that.
That's who these people are.
They have grown up, they have been taught, they have been raised that America is unjust and immoral.
Obama goes over there and says we got to get rid of all missiles, all these dropping bombs and firing missiles in Afghanistan.
This this CIA program in New York, the New York Times knew about this program, by the way, in 1992, we found out they knew about this program.
They talked about on Sunday.
They knew about it back in 1992.
It was a program designed to kill at close range, not with missiles or bombs, at close range Al-Qaeda leaders in 2001, which makes total sense, right?
After 9-11, you want to go get those guys.
Everybody said, go get them.
Torah Borg, go get them.
The Democrats all that, well, you didn't get Obama, or Osama, so you failed.
And Leon Pennett has cancel the program.
Canceled the program.
While Obama is implementing it in Afghanistan.
We're dropping missiles, we're going in trying to get these guys in close range.
Oh, another story in the stack of stuff.
You know what?
He may not be able to close Gitmo in January.
It just, it might, he just might not be able to do it, and it's Bush's fault.
What?
Bush didn't tell them how fully intertwined Club Gitmo was with the war on terror and how there was nowhere else to put these prisoners because nobody else wanted them and so forth.
It's just like Biden said that we, you know, that we were what did he say?
We misre we underestimated or misread how bad the economy was because Bush didn't tell us.
We didn't have the right figures, same thing with Gitmo.
That's my whole point.
They did know how bad it was.
We all knew how bad the economy was.
Everybody knew how bad it was.
They knew how bad the economy was.
This is all smoke and mirrors, because they still want people to believe in Obama's oriented towards fixing it.
What they don't know is he is fixing it his way.
It's working.
Exactly.
His whole point is to go out there and convince people that it's coming.
The recovery and the rebound and your job, it's coming.
It would be even worse if we hadn't done the first stimulus.
I gotta go.
Quick timeout here, we'll be back.
Your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh with talent on loan from a god.
Very strategic announcement by President Obama this morning during the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor.
President Obama at the White House after a meeting with the Dutch Prime Minister, had some words.
And nobody broke away from the hearings to uh cover this.
Well, not on the channel I was watching.
It was for two channels, and I didn't see them break away from Soto Mayor.
They played video later after it happened during a break in the hearings for Soto Mayor.
But here's President Obama.
Now, if you're gonna make this announcement, what better time to do it than when the world is focused on a Supreme Court confirmation hearing?
My expectation is that we will probably continue to see unemployment tick up for several months.
And the challenge for this administration is to make sure that even as we are stabilizing the financial system, we understand that the most important thing in the economy is are people able to find good jobs that pay good wages.
Now, how's that hope and change working out for you?
This, folks, is outrageous.
The challenge, he tells us unemployment's gonna tick up.
He could he could announce a couple things today that would not turn the job situation around immediately, but change attitudes immediately.
Eliminate corporate taxes or reduce them to 25%, whatever capital gains, personal tax cuts, any number of things, and I tell you, Wall Street to go nuts, and so would the private sector.
But he makes he's got to stabilize financial system first.
He says it here.
Um, the challenge to this administration is to make sure that even as we're stabilizing the financial system, like coming up with more money to give people to pay their mortgage when they're out of work.
That's going to stabilize the financial system.
We understand that the most important thing is are people able to find good jobs that pay good wages.
Now, very careful here, because he doesn't mean a word of that.
If he wanted circumstances or people to able to find work at good wages, he wouldn't be doing the policies he's doing.
Oops.
Thought I was finished.
I still have seven seconds to go.
So I'll say it again.
If he really wants to create jobs, he wouldn't be saying and doing what he's doing.
No mistakes.
Welcome back.
It's happy.
Uh we are happy to have you with us, Rush Limbois and the excellence in broadcasting network.
The political today.
Obama's rosy scenario turns thorny.
This is by Gene Cummings, I believe.
Uh President Obama's economic forecasts for long-term growth are too optimistic, many economists warn.
A miscalculation that would mean budget deficits will be much higher than the administration is now acknowledging.
Alternately, if Obama clings to current optimistic forecasts for long-term growth, he risks accusations that he's basing his fiscal plans on fictitious assumptions, precisely the sort of charge he once leveled against the Bush administration.
And on page two of this story is a Clinton administration, uh economic advisor, uh, actually, Robert Shapiro.
It's also dangerous and risky to forecast all this optimism because if the forecast doesn't come true, you've undermined the basis for the rest of your policies.
That's exactly why.
They're doing health care by August.
That's exactly why they're trying to do everything before it bombs out, and it's gonna bomb.
They know it's gonna bomb, they want it to bomb, they want to get this done before it bombs.
If you have ever trusted me on anything, trust me on this.
This is intentional.
The speed at which they are proceeding to get all this done is to get it done before it gets so bad, everybody has to acknowledge how bad it is and how wrong the plans to fix this have been.
Obama's first forecast after the stimulus bombed, is what the politico says.
They're saying forget growth.
He's so wrong on deficits, we're not gonna have any growth by design.
If you have never trusted me before, trust me now, all of this is by design.
It has been pointed out to me, by the way, and this is a good point, that the Democrats, Biden and these guys are saying the same thing about the economy.
They said about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All of these Democrats, remember how eager they were to go in there and take out Saddam, Hillary, and all that bunch.
They believed 1998, we have the audio of all of them saying a Saddam's got these nuclear weapons, mass destruction weapons, we gotta go in there, we gotta get them out.
It's bad, bad, bad.
When Bush said so, they did, same thing.
But then, when no weapons of mass destruction of significance were found, all of a sudden, what happened?
Well, Joe Wilson surfaced, and that started this whole parade of Bush lied.
Bush lied to us.
And that's essentially what Biden's saying.
The same script when Biden says, we misread, we uh we guessed wrong, we didn't we didn't know how bad it was.
They're saying they've been lied to again.
These poor old Democrats lied to again.
No, no, Obama didn't lie to him.
Bush did.
Bush lied to him about Gitmo.
Bush lied to him about Iraq weapons and mass structure.
Bush lied to him about how bad the economy was.
So now the phrase is Obama lied and the economy died.
Obama lied and the economy died.
Never mind.
Never mind that anybody can see the economic numbers just as we can see them, and these people can see more economic numbers than we do.
They are members of Congress, after all.
But we didn't know.
Bush lied.
We didn't know how bad it was.
Same tactic.
All right, now Snerdley is asking me how long is it going to play?
Look, that's that's the question.
How long does any of Obama play?
I we don't know.
How long does it play with his voters?
Now the CBS poll, interestingly, that has Obama falling to 57%.
Let me uh let me find this.
The if you dig into this, 57% in the the same that's his approval number.
And that's down from 62.
The CBS New York Times.
57% say that the country's on the wrong track.
He has lost six points in his approval numbers almost entirely from Democrats and independents.
And the poll says it's the economy that's hurting him.
So maybe the questions in the process of being asked or answered, but as you heard, Harry Smith and Schiefer doing their best to cover it up and maybe even blame the poll a little bit.
Now there's one thing about this poll I have to tell you that could mitigate it all.
Republican support for Obama has actually risen by a point.
It is Democrats and independents that account for his drop.
So Colin Colin Powell proud, uh yeah, the Colin Powell Republican crowd loves the guy.
They probably call McCain, I'm sure he said he approves.
And I'm sure Coley called Colin Powell, I'm sure he said he approves of the way Obama's doing things.
But he's down six points or uh five points.
Independence.
Six points, six points uh from Democrats and independents.
Okay, back to the phones.
We go to uh Cheshire, Connecticut.
John, thank you for holding, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush.
Uh second time ditto's from Cheshire.
Thank you.
Um, you know, uh diving into this, how long does it play issue?
And something you brought about up early uh in the uh in the show with this 12 billion dollars that he wants to spend now of money that we don't have on community colleges.
And you know, part of my thought process is uh, you know, number one, we're not giving uh basic education to our kids at the high school level.
So what's happening is community colleges are taking the place really of what kids used to get in high school.
You know, you are exactly right.
I I don't want to offend anybody here, but of course I'm me, and that's generally not possible for me to avoid is offending people, but I I happen to, over the last five or six years have uh run into some people that were taking courses at a at a community college.
And I had them in junior high.
Yep.
And high school.
I had junior high and high school.
So whoa, what is it and and then but I've always wondered about this, why we need job retraining centers?
What the hell school for in the first place?
Right.
I mean, there used to be a vote uh program that was out there that kids could take that wanted to do that sort of thing.
But along the lines of, you know, yes, how long does it play?
I mean, I I see this as kind of, you know, again, another 12 billion dollars of money that's coming to keep people in the system for another two years.
You know, we talk about the nursery school indoctrination where they want to start the kids earlier.
This is a way of keeping people in school for an extra two years, and the brainwashing process can continue because if they're not out there actively seeking a job and maybe, you know, falling on their butt in terms of life, uh, and they're sitting in a classroom for two years, getting, you know, God knows what out of it in terms of the indoctrination.
And if they're losing their jobs and their health care is not portable, and they're scared to death about losing their health care, they'll support health care.
It's like Marie Antoinette.
Now, she didn't actually say this.
Marie Antoinette has been crucified theoretically, philosophically by history.
You know, the whole thing, um, they don't have any bread.
Fine, let them eat cake.
In fact, when I first heard that, you know, I was a kid.
And uh I said, what's wrong with eating cake?
I'd much rather eat cake than bread.
Give me a good old fashioned white cake, a yellow cake anytime over bunny bread or some of this you know, store-bought processed.
No, no, no, the the bread back in the cake back in those days was the scrapings from the oven.
I said, Oh, okay.
But let's go along with historian.
Marie Antoinette, they don't have bread, let them eat cake.
Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, they don't have jobs.
Let them hear about universal health care.
That's the plan.
You're right on the money out there, John.
I appreciate it.
Charles in Jefferson City, Missouri.
Great to have you.
It's a state capital out there for those of you in Rio Linda.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello.
Yes, Texas size dettos from a former resident of Hamler, Ohio.
Hey, I wanted to say uh something about Sotomayor.
Uh years ago I read your book, and of course, I've listened to you through the years, and one of the things I've learned from you is that liberals excuse themselves from the rules and laws that they put on others, and Sotomayor is just like that.
She lies, she uh she gives a misrepresentation about what she really believes, and uh, you know, that's that's typical.
It's not just a reflection of Obama, it's a reflection of every other liberal.
It's a reflection of Leahy, of Reed, a Pelosi, of all these people.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
You have these people who don't dare publicly say what they really, even in her legal opinion in Ricci or in her testament, don't say what you really believe because it's it's killer.
So you have to act.
This is one of the things that heartens me as I say it also it gives me pause at the same time because it still works, but it heartens me that these people still can't be upfront honest about who they are and what their plans are.
Interestingly enough, though, I will contradict myself.
Obama is.
Obama is doing exactly what he wrote in his books he was going to do.
Now, in his speeches, he is not out saying, I want to destroy the U.S. economy.
He is saying I want to remake America.
And they mean the same thing, but he doesn't have the guts.
He didn't have the guts to tell us the liberal, and they don't care what you think.
The more of you who disagree with them, the more contempt for you they have.
Democratic and liberalism cancel each other out.
They conflict.
Quick time out, we got much more straight ahead.
To the phones, we continue.
Rapid City, South Dakota.
Tom, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
Uh, welcome back.
Thank you.
Uh, Mark did a wonderful job.
Appreciate knowing that.
Uh I heard that from a lot of people.
Uh I was gonna ask you, Rush, about uh Judge Sotomayor.
Um, will anybody on the committee ask her about her affiliation with La Raza?
Um, I guess she's been a member for like six years now.
I don't know if they will or not.
I could only hazard a guess.
And that is they won't.
Because they all want the Hispanic vote.
And that means they all want La Raza liking them.
So I don't think you're going to have anybody go there.
I think as far as they'll go I could be wrong.
Lindsay Grahamnesty may shock us all.
Uh we will just have to wait.
Speaking of Sodomy, let's go to some sound bites here, folks, uh, delaying this.
Because here's Leahy, and I mentioned at the top of the program.
He's starting to sound more and more like Larry Flint.
Larry.
And I I keep I just constantly want to clear my throat when I'm listening to Leahy.
But here's um here was his question to Sotomayor on the controversy over the wise Latina comment.
During the course of this um nomination, there have been some unfortunate comments, including outrageous charges of racism made about you on radio and television.
One person uh referred to you as being the equivalent of the head of the Kukas Klan, another leader in the other party referred to you as being a bigot.
You've heard all these charges and countercharges that wise Latina and on and on.
Here's your chance.
You tell us what's going on here, Judge.
And here is what she said.
My speech to a variety of different groups, most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly of young Latino lawyers and students.
I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do.
The context of the words have created a misunderstanding, and to give everyone assurances.
I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.
Yes, she does.
I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.
There was no way to take it out of context.
There was no way to take the wise Latina out of context.
She said she'd hoped that a wise Latina, Latina woman would okay.
I don't believe in any ethnic racial gender group has an advantage in sound judging.
I do believe she thinks that.
I don't I don't think she's talking about sound judging.
She's talking about empathy.
These people know what it's like to have a tough and hard and miserable life because of the majority in this country, and they, because of the disadvantages and the discrimination that they have held, they are going to be able to make wiser rulings to help them.
That's what she believes.
It's not about sound judging.
It's about reversing power and using the law to do it.
From a flawed perception of who has power in the first place.
She's got this minority mindset, and part of the minority mindset is you're always getting beat up, you're always being discriminated against, you're always being treated unfairly.
I'm going to fix it.
And everybody who comes from that rich background of being untreated and fairly and uh discriminated against.
We know how to get even.
That's what she's not talking about sound judging.
Then she rambled on here, uh, blaming Sandra Day O'Connor for her words.
What the words that I used, I used agreeing with with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was attempting to convey.
I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.
Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions.
It can't mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that.
So her literal words couldn't have meant what they said.
She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial.
Okay, so it was uh Sandra Day O'Connor's fault.
Sandra Day O'Connor could not have meant what she said.
Sandra Day O'Connor had to mean what I said.
Sandra De O'Connor, probably playing golf in Arizona, finds out about this, going, Whoa.
What do I do here?
Do I uh stay loyal to the women, or do I chime in here?
She said, she hoped that a wise man, a wise woman come the same decision.
There is, you know, there is such a thing as wisdom.
Even though people come to different conclusions, and not everybody who comes to a different conclusion is wise.
Some people come to wrong conclusions.
It doesn't mean they're wise.
Anyway, that's it.
Blame Sandra Day O'Connor.
Blame Sandra Dee O'Connor.
She meant O'Connor meant what I said.
So take that committee.
Take, take, take that.
Fast as three hours in media.
We have with the we we are not just concluding the second hour.
We only have one more hour to go.
And I know most Americans are disappointed by that.
But you know it's the old performers' creed.
You always keep them wanting more.
And there is more coming up in mere moments.
▲
Export Selection