All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
April 5, 2010, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, yes, yes, I know.
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, speaking rapidly today because there's so much to get to.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushball at EIBnet.com.
Could we, I mean, would it be okay to ask if Eagles coach Andy Reid has maybe underrated Donovan McNabb, trading him to the Washington Redskins in the division?
I mean, it's not uncommon, but it's pretty weird, especially when the coach Andy Reid said, yep, it will improve the Redskins, which is probably true, but that's not what you try to do, is improve.
So maybe they know something about McNabb that Shanahan and the Redskins don't.
Time will tell.
Get this.
If you're big into the NCAAs, and we've got the championship game tonight, Final Four, and I'm not.
But in the, let's see, this is a Raleigh News Observer.
It's on their blog.
As Coach Mike Shaszewski Krushevsky prepares to go after his fourth title at Duke tonight, report out of New Jersey this morning says that the New Jersey Nets are prepared to offer him a fortune between $13 and $15 million to quit Duke and go coach the New Jersey Nets, which is a hapless team owned by a Russian.
Now, leaking that today, putting that out there today, I mean, this is the day of the championship game.
And now you've got possibly the players at Duke.
Whoa, what is it?
A coach leaving?
I mean, this is, because Krzyszhevsky said as recently as last week that he has no interest in this job.
He said he's Polish.
This guy's Russian.
He doesn't think a Russia would ever hire a Pole.
And he said, even if he did, would a Polish guy work for a Russian?
The answer is net.
They still put it out there.
Women march topless in Portland without incident.
I must tell you, the way that our society and culture have been going, I actually have been wondering about this.
The purpose of this march, women feel it's unfair and discriminatory to have to cover their breasts in public when men don't.
And I've been wondering, you know, how long is this, or the Feminazis going to take to get to this?
So the marchers wanted to call attention to the double standard in society's attitudes toward male and female nudity.
About two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park this afternoon.
This is on April 3rd in an effort to erase what they see as a double standard.
A group of women and men who had shed their tops marched down this Congress Street sidewalk from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park.
Now, in the end of the story, there is this.
Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was enraged by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration.
The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.
However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more aggressive in discouraging oglers.
Now, does this make any sense to you?
They want to walk down the street and they're upset.
They can't believe that a bunch of guys would gather and ogle them.
So they're going to, what?
They should try the, yeah, we try it down here.
We won't ogle.
We'll just show up.
We'll cast curtive, furtive glances, right, Snerdley?
We'll look from the corner of our eyes.
Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Obama administration officials said yesterday the public should not expect any dramatic improvement on the jobless rate.
The regime said that the public should not expect any dramatic improvement in the jobless rate.
In fact, the regime, they had many members on the Sunday show all over the place.
And these guys were saying, let me tell you what's going to happen.
The unemployment rate is going to go up because people who have quit looking are now going to be inspired to start looking again.
When you're not looking, you're not counted.
When you are looking, you are counted.
And so the administration is that this is brainwash type stuff.
But they're setting the table now for what I predicted, a new normal unemployment rate of 9.5% to 10.5%.
And they're just warning everybody out there, jobless rate may rise as many are drawn back to the labor force.
Oil is exploding.
What is it now?
Nearing $87.
And the speculators are getting blamed for this because the laws of supply and demand say the price should be going down.
But the speculators are bidding on the price to go and get this.
Speculators are bidding on the price to go up because of the jobs report.
It means the economy is coming back.
They expect to be greater demand.
When if you look at this jobs number, it's a sham.
It really doesn't indicate anything.
And we're going to get into more detail of that as the program unfolds before your eyes and very ears.
But look at most of the job growth is census.
Temporary people that don't have employment benefits at all.
Who knew that hiring census workers would change the world outlook and cause the oil price to go up?
I mean, that's how you have to look at this.
Oil price is rising because we hired a bunch of temporary census workers.
Is that how desperate the world economy is for good news?
And Hamid Karzai.
Folks, couple stories here.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban.
He is upset.
He doesn't think he has a viable partner in the United States.
He's very angry at the type of control that they are exerting.
And in a story at the UK Independent, Karzai told a BBC, what I said about the election was all true.
I won't repeat it, but it was all true.
The U.S. carried out the fraud.
That's exactly what happened.
The U.S. carried the fraud in our election.
You remember that last fall?
One of the reasons why we waited to send our 30,000 troops was because there was going to be a runoff.
And we had our own candidate running against Karzai.
That was the story.
And Karzai is maintaining now that there was fraud.
He talked to Hillary Clinton on Friday.
He said this Thursday.
He talked to Hillary on Friday and explained his comments, but did not apologize.
And the Wall Street Journal has a story saying that the relationship between Karzai and Obama is disintegrating rapidly.
And of course, Hillary doesn't help out any.
You know, she's over there just like she was in Israel.
We're beating up on our supposed allies.
We are really declaring war against our allies.
Hillary, this is not Arkansas.
Karzai is not a state trooper.
You know, he's a head of state that we installed.
Unemployment benefits expire for thousands.
The Senate was so eager to get out of Washington to get to their Easter and Passover recess, they forgot to extend unemployment benefits for a total of 212,000 Americans.
Yep.
Extended unemployment benefits will temporarily expire for 212,000 Americans today because the Senate went on its spring recess without approving a one-month deadline extension.
The extension, which had bipartisan support, would have cut to what would have cost about $10 billion.
But a lone Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, said no until costs are offset.
He invoked a pay go provision, just as Jim Bunning did.
So you see, this is a story from CNN, and you see, once again, ladies and gentlemen, once again, millions of Americans will suffer because of one lone Republican extrusionist.
It's all because of Tom Coburn.
Never mind that the law which Coburn's trying to obey was implemented by a Democrat majority at the behest of the Democrat Barack Obama and his regime.
And never mind that it should not be very difficult to find a way to at least pretend to pay for a relatively paltry sum, even if you have to private, that we're talking about here.
After all, the talk of paying for anything right now is pretend because we don't have the money.
All right.
As you know, ladies and gentlemen, last, when was it that Obama beat up on me?
Thursday?
In a Harry Smith interview.
So, you know, I got a request from Byron York and the Politico for a reaction.
And I gave him a reaction.
And I said, I've never seen a regime that governs against the will of the people purposely like this.
I've never seen a regime that is so inconsiderate of the American people.
I've never seen a media so impressed and supportive of a regime amassing such power.
This set Chris Matthews on fire Friday night.
Oh, yeah.
We have two sound bites.
He's talking here with F. Chuck Todd.
I don't know that F. Chuck Todd ever appears in our soundbite, but here's the first of two.
I've never seen language like this in the American press, referring to an elected representative government elected in a totally fair Democratic American election.
We'll have another one in November.
We'll have another one for president in a couple years.
Fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country.
And this guy, this walrus underwater, makes fun of this administration, calling it a regime.
We know that word regime.
It was used by recent presidential by George Bush.
Regime change.
You go to war with regimes.
Regimes are tyrannies.
They're juntas.
They're military coups.
The use of the word regime in American political parlance is unacceptable.
And someone should tell the walrus to stop using it.
So, and he's right.
I mean, my use of the word regime is to connote an authoritarian government.
And it fits.
It is a regime.
They're governing against the will of the people.
The election be damned.
Public opinion be damned.
The budget be damned.
The Constitution be damned.
What the hell else is it, but not a regime?
Here's the second bite, but the best is yet to come.
Not this bite, it's what follows.
What about the Walrus, Walrus Underwater, Rush Limbaugh?
What do you make of a guy calling this a regime today to the D.C. newspaper?
He calls this government a regime.
I've never heard that language.
This isn't Stalin.
This isn't some junta.
It was elected the same way any Republican would be elected.
And next time if a Republican is elected, it'll be a Republican administration.
It won't be a regime.
We don't have regimes in this country.
We have Franklin Roosevelt.
We have Harry Trim.
We have Ronald Reagan.
We have administrations.
To use the word regime suggests to me, just like kill the Nazis, regime change.
More part of this neocon lingo.
So Byron York, himself, amused by this, started doing some searches.
And he found out that during the Bush administration, and I might get these two reversed, the New York Times used the word regime 24 times to describe Bush, including Maureen Dowd a number of times in her column.
The Washington Post described the Bush administration as a regime by no less than Howard Kurtz, 17 times total, Howard Kurtz once.
And none other, wait for it, than Chris Matthews himself in 2002, while talking to a panel about Bush's horrible response to 9-11, starts asking Al Sharpton a question.
What do you think this says of the Bush regime?
So the Post has said it, used it, and written it.
Grab some bite six and have it standing by again.
Chris Matthews himself has used the word regime, as have numerous MSNBC hosts in describing the Bush administration as a regime.
Knowing that, listen to this again.
I don't think the president's speaking strategically about it.
I think he's making a factual point about.
No, no, no, no, no.
Number six again.
I've never seen language like this in the American press, referring to an elected representative government elected in a totally fair Democratic American election.
We'll have another one in November.
We'll have another one for president in a couple years.
Fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country.
And this guy, this walrus underwater, makes fun of this administration, calling it a regime.
We know that word regime.
It was used by recent presidential by George Bush.
Regime change.
You go to war with regimes.
Regimes are tyrannies.
They're juntas.
They're military coups.
The use of the word regime in American political parlance is unacceptable.
And someone should tell the walrus to stop using it.
I gather he thinks I sound like a walrus underwater when I say a little what that means.
But nevertheless, Chris, your own network popularized it, your own New York Times, your own Washington Post, and even you, sir, back in 2002, at least once that we could find.
It was all over the left's discourse.
The only difference here is, remember, nobody really got upset about them calling Bush a regime because it had no basis in fact.
The reason these guys are upset is because it's true.
They're upset because I have the audacity to properly describe this as a regime.
Yeah, I just want to hear a little bit of the bass riff there.
The fight to power, Isley Brothers.
Rudolph, my favorite Isley brother, played the tambourine, I think.
800-282-2882.
Chris Matthews doesn't like the word regime, but he also said, in a country of free, fair elections.
Chris, you mean like 2000 when you regime supporters were attacking that election.
And then the White House escalates the fight with Karzai in a fraudulent election there that we are responsible for, according to Karzai, as you did with Bibi, as you did with Honduras.
This regime is taking action against traditional friends and allies.
By the way, on Thursday, April 3rd, 2003, John Kerry.
What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
We need a regime change in the United States, Kerry said in a speech to New Hampshire Democrats at the Peterborough, New Hampshire town library.
Robert V. Reich on his blog.
The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in March.
Great news until you look closely.
In March, the federal government began hiring census takers big time.
These are six-month temporary jobs.
They tell us nothing about underlying trends in the labor market.
It's hard to gauge precisely how many were hired, probably between 100,000 and 140,000, although some people say it's as low as 48,000, but Rice doesn't believe that.
Almost a million census workers will need to be hired over the next few months.
If you subtract these, today's job numbers are good, but nothing to write home about.
So it's a no-jobs recovery.
No less than Robert B. Rice putting it out there.
And Obama milk the heck out of this, out of the employment report on Friday.
More people have jobs.
More people are going to factories.
More people, I thought this was very strange.
More people are going to storefronts.
When's the last time you went to a storefront, Brian?
And just stood there.
More people are going to storefronts?
Well, here's the way to really look at this.
15 million Americans don't go to work.
15 million Americans don't have jobs.
And 15 million Americans don't go to storefronts.
I mean, we need to put this in proper perspective.
Obama seemed very pleased talking about the 162,000 jobs.
And then he sends members of the regime out on television Sunday.
Oh, no, no, no, no big deal.
Look at expect, expect the unemployment rate to keep hovering where it is, maybe even a little higher for the next four to five years.
Because as I said, they expect people all excited now.
We're hiring people.
So those who have given up work are going to start looking for work.
And when they start looking for work, they're counted as unemployed.
The real unemployment percentage is about 16%.
That's called U6 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And if you count the people who are not looking for the people who are, you got 16%.
It's 9.7, 9.8 if you only count the people who are actively looking for a job.
Have you noticed he stopped talking about jobs saved?
No more jobs saved out there.
If he's going to brag about 162,000 new jobs and ignore the alleged 2 million saved jobs, I mean, 2 million is a way bigger number than 162,000.
So I think that tells you that the jobs saved was just Obama speak or Biden speak or Pelosi speak.
But you break it down to 162,000 jobs, 100,000 of them census, 39,000 of them state and city.
The number of public sector jobs, minuscule.
And that's where economic growth needs to take place for us to regain jobs.
We'll be back.
There it is.
What did I tell you?
Republicans blocked extension of benefits.
One lone Republican, there it is, right up there on MS NBC.
Republicans blocked extension of benefits simply by following the law as written and requested by the Obama regime.
Look at this.
U.S. Space Shuttle Blasted Office.
Did you guys get up early enough to watch this thing?
Oh, it was perfect.
You can see this thing perfectly.
When it's 6.21 and it was still dark, a little, it was civil dawn.
I slept about three hours.
I slept about three hours, but I wanted to see the launch.
Anyway, this is historic mission.
More women in orbit than ever before.
But I don't think that's true.
I think Tiger Woods has put more women in orbit than the shuttle has.
But the bottom line is there are four of them, four women in space as the shuttle is blasted into orbit.
I just hope they don't need to breastfeed up there.
We have a big story on breastfeeding.
Did I call this one?
Did I call it?
It's about how important it is.
It's about how much we could save money if more women breastfed and how many lives we could save.
And this, I guarantee you, with the new health care bill, it's going to become a mandate that women are going to have to breastfeed.
Look at this headline from David Show, The Washington Post.
White House starts a $21 million program to aid small business.
In March of 2009, a little over a year ago, the Obama regime vowed to address the drought of bank lending to small companies and announced an initiative to use $15 billion from the federal bailout to unfreeze the markets that finance small business administration loans.
More than a year later, the program was finally launched as a $21 million effort.
So it only launched now.
The program is one of several small business lending initiatives developed by the regime that have struggled to get off the ground.
Meanwhile, lending to these companies has fallen.
Federal data show that lending to small business by community banks declined by about 8 billion or 2% between September 2008 and September 2009.
The officials in the regime say that helping small business get credit remains a top priority.
This is a perfect illustration and a teachable moment.
Small business people are saying we don't have a problem borrowing money.
We don't want to borrow money.
We don't want to go into further debt.
We want an economy that's growing.
$21 billion to aid small businesses?
21 billion, and it's tax credits.
$21 billion when this is the outfit or the arm of business that employs over half, well over half of the American people who have jobs.
$21 billion.
There's two words.
Two words, ladies and gentlemen.
And the words are tax cut.
Tax cuts, it's real simple.
It's so simple, they're not going to do it because it would work, and they don't want this to work.
They want government to be in charge of everything and to be responsible for whatever happens so they can go out and lie about what a success the program, whichever program they're talking about, happened to be.
The development of the Treasury small business initiatives may soon be suffering a blow as Gene Sperling, senior counsel, the Timothy Geithner, and the agency's assiduous appointment on the issue is expected to leave in coming weeks to take the number two spot at the White House Office of Management.
Do you believe this?
Here we have small business, small business which is just caught up in a down economy, rising costs.
There's no growth whatsoever.
The administration's solution is $21 measly billion dollars in tax credits.
And the Washington Post has the audacity to say that the program is now threatened because one guy is leaving soon.
Gene Sperling.
I guess, remember when they told us we got to look past Geithner and the fact he didn't pay his taxes?
He's the only one guy, one guy in America who understands TARP, one guy who can deal with the intricacies here of the TARP bailout and all these financial matters.
So we got to look past his Tax cheat status.
So, Gene Sperling, here we got a measly $21 billion program, which is going to have no effect whatsoever, Zilch Zeronado.
And the Post is wringing its hands over, I don't know, it may not work.
It's in trouble before it even starts because Gene Sperling is that the media treats all of these leftist Democrats as almost gods.
Sometimes I think I'm in ancient Egypt.
Sometimes I think I'm in ancient Rome or Greece, where everybody was a god from Caesar on down.
Gene Sperling's a god.
Obama's clearly a god.
Geithner's a god.
Biden's a god.
They're that special.
It really infuriates me.
Now, speaking of small business, normally, ladies and gentlemen, I don't waste your time with newspaper columns from the New York Times, particularly Thomas Friedman.
But you have to hear this one, at least excerpts of it.
Thomas Friedman, now keep in mind, he has gone to the Obama Jobs Summit.
He is a close confidant.
He has an unlimited expense account, a very, very wealthy wife.
He travels all over the world on the New York Times expense account.
He writes about foreign policy, big into global warming, big into green energy.
I mean, he's just a hack.
And because he's published in the New York Times, he also is considered a god.
The title of his piece that ran yesterday is Startups, Not Bailouts.
But before you think he's seen the light, listen to this.
Here's my fun fact for the day, writes Mr. Friedman.
Providing courtesy, provided courtesy of Robert Leetan, who directs research at the Kaufman Foundation, which specializes in promoting innovation in America.
Between 1980 and 2005, virtually all net new jobs created in the U.S. were created by firms that were five years old or less, says this consultant.
That's about 40 million jobs.
That means the established firms created no new net jobs during that period.
What the hell happened between 1980 and 2005?
Or better yet, what started in 1980?
And what we were coming out of the Jimmy Carter disaster, we had Ronald Reagan tax cuts, entrepreneurs lit the fire, and new businesses sprang up, full of energy, full of creativity, and led to an economic recovery that lasted through 2005 with a couple recessions thrown in there, basically in 1991.
Very small ones, plus the 9-11 disaster caused an economic downturn.
Does Friedman get that message?
Oh, no.
Message?
If we want to bring down unemployment in a sustainable way, neither rescuing GM nor funding more road construction will do it.
So far, so good, but don't hold your breath.
So we got to give him a check mark.
He's right about that.
But he supported all the bailouts.
He supported the stimulus.
All of these shovel-ready projects, construction jobs, none of which have taken place.
What Friedman says, we need to create a big, apparently he's gone out and talked to this consultant.
This consultant was very impressive or persuasive or what have you.
We need to create a big bushel of new companies fast.
We got to get more Americans working again for their own dignity and to generate the rising incomes and wealth that we need to pay for existing entitlements.
Notice why we need new jobs from Mr. Friedman.
Why do we need new jobs?
To pay for entitlements.
We need jobs so people can pay taxes to government to support government.
It's staring him in the face what he's writing about, and he doesn't get it.
We've got to get more Americans working, generate the rising incomes and wealth needed to pay for existing entitlements as well as all the new investments we'll need to make.
It's all about government.
It was just reported the Social Security this year will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, a red line we were not expected to cross until 2016.
Mr. Friedman, you may not have been expecting to see it, but people based in reality have known the day was inevitable long before 2016.
The reason why we knew it was going to happen before 2016 is because our sources for the year 2016 were government people.
Get this next paragraph.
Friedman says, but you cannot say this often enough.
Good paying jobs don't come from bailouts.
They come from startups.
Well, now you tell us.
Who knew?
All of a sudden, we've got this great liberal columnist talking about the free market, although he wants the free market to exist to serve as government.
He says, where do these startups come from?
Well, they come from smart, creative, inspired risk takers.
How do we get more of those?
Let me stop you.
This is just mind-boggling to me.
I read this yesterday, and I couldn't wait to get here to dissect this.
Because the very people he says are responsible for startups are the enemies of the Obama administration.
The people who are responsible for success, who take risks, are the enemy of this administration.
They're the ones who are going to get punished if they succeed.
They're the ones who are going to get punished if they earn too much money.
They're the ones whose work is going to be disincentivized.
Their tax rates are going to climb so high when the Bush tax cut sunset is one thing, then the healthcare taxes added on top, and the Medicare taxes.
I mean, it's clear that Obama's targeting these people because he wants to redistribute the wealth, Mr. Friedman.
Have you missed that?
How do we get more of those?
Get this.
How do we get more?
Oh, by the way, about risk takers.
Mr. Friedman, are you aware that the entire financial reform bill from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank is to take risk out of the equation?
We don't want risk takers because that leads to economic cycles.
We don't want upcycles or down cycles.
We want a steady cycle of ho-hum, a steady cycle of mediocrity.
We don't want any risk takers.
Here's Friedman, one of Obama's closest buddies in the media, talking about the need for risk takers who end up being punished if they succeed by the regime.
There are only two ways to get these risk takers, Friedman says.
Grow more by improving our schools or import more by recruiting talented immigrants.
May I, before the break, share that with you again, that learned Thomas W. Friedman of the New York Times says that the way we get more smart, creative, inspired risk takers is by improving our schools.
I spend more money on education and open up immigration.
Now, he's not talking about illegal immigration.
He's talking about opening the numbers of legal immigrants because the theory is that in India and China, they're much smarter in engineering and that sort of thing than the people we're producing here.
And you've got some Silicon Valley people who do believe that.
So immigration and more schools.
Not getting government out of the way, not tax cuts, not incentivizing success.
No.
His prescription will lead to no new risk takers, and it will lead to no new success and no new entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs are specifically defined by people who are not controlled, not directed, and not constrained.
They are, in fact, risk takers.
So we need to do both, he says, and we need to start by breaking the deadlock in Congress over immigration so we can develop a much more strategic approach to attracting more of the world's creative risk takers.
So there you have it.
I'm still on the first page.
I got to take a break.
Immigration.
Have you followed me?
I mean, this is so convoluted.
It's laughable.
This is what passes for an elitist.
Somebody smarter than all the rest of us.
Back after this, my friends.
Hang in there.
Hey, we're back.
By the way, I heard mere moments ago.
Made a mistake.
I said the administration had a $21 billion assistance program for small businesses.
It's $21 million.
It's irrelevant.
It is insignificant.
$21 million program originally proposed as a $15 million program a year ago to help small business start borrowing again.
Tax cuts.
Here we go back to Friedman here.
Friedman, we need entrepreneurs.
We need risk takers.
We need startups.
Meaning, we need amnesty and we need more investment in education.
That's really what he's getting at here.
Listen to this paragraph.
What is worrisome about America?
Now keep in mind, keep in context everything he said up to this point.
We need private sector entrepreneurs, new startups, risk takers.
The very people Obama's targeting for punishment should they succeed.
What is worrisome about America today, writes Mr. Friedman, is the combination of cutbacks in higher education, restrictions on immigration, and a toxic public space that dissuades talented people from going into government.
This is incoherent.
By the way, Mr. Friedman, have you looked at how rapidly government employment is growing?
Government unions are now larger than private sector unions.
Government unemployment's around 3.5%.
The rest of the economy at almost 10%.
So for risk-taking entrepreneurs, we need restrictions on immigration, i.e. amnesty, and somehow to change the toxic public square to attract more talented people into government.
Together, all of these trends are slowly eating away at our differentiated edge in attracting and enabling the world's biggest mass of smart, creative risk takers.
Mr. Friedman, they don't go to government.
You're not going to find the smartest risk takers in government.
It's not for any reason other than they don't like being managed by bureaucrats.
This is incoherent is the only way to describe this.
It isn't drastic, but it is a decline at a time when technology is allowing other countries to leverage and empower more of their own high IQ risk takers.
If we don't reverse this trend over time, we could lose our most important competitive edge, the only edge from which sustainable advantage accrues, and that's having the world's biggest and most diverse pool of IQ, high IQ risk takers.
But he wants them going into government.
Here, quies deresance.
Mr. Friedman, the New York Times.
We need health care.
We need financial reform.
We need educational reform.
But we also need to be thinking just as seriously and urgently about what are the ingredients that foster entrepreneurship, how new businesses are catalyzed, inspired, and enabled, and how we enlist more people to do that.
So no one ever says about America what the officer says to Tom Cruise in Top Guns.
Son, your ego's writing checks, your body can't cash.
If I didn't know better, I would say this is a satire piece.
Because somebody is writing checks his ego can't cash, and that's the Obama regime.
And entrepreneurs do not go into government.
It is government that dissuades and stands in the way of entrepreneurs.
Be right back.
Don't go away, my friends.
When we come back in the next hour, ladies and gentlemen, two primary themes in the next hour.
One, can the health care bill be repealed if Kentucky is any example?
Yes.
And in its entirety.
Took them 10 years, but it can be done.
And Democrats and Republicans both participated in it.
It was so bad.
And it's identical to Obamacare.
Secondly, who really is the Tea Party?
The media can't quite figure it out.
▲
Export Selection