All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:14
May 18, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Cookie, resend me the Pelosi bites.
I've already lost them and put them in a stack where I can't find them.
Thanks much.
Sorry for the inside baseball.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the telephone number.
If you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
One more thing here on Elena Kagan.
It's a great editorial in the Washington Times.
And it's one of the best I've seen in the times.
They're usually pretty good.
It really cuts to the quick here.
Elena Kagan, philosophically unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our guys are caving all over the place.
Well, we should put it on the fire that the Democrats get their choices, the liberals get their choice.
Yeah, we understand all that, but they're even, well, we're not going to be a filibuster.
The polling date on this is 3939.
I mean, she's by no means a slam dunk.
And I don't know why there is this instinct to just get out of the way and not fight this.
Well, I do know why.
We're on different worlds.
We're conservatives.
They're Republicans.
And they have fears of what the press is going to say about them.
And as long as the Democrats keep nominating women or Hispanics or African Americans, they're going to be able to shut up every elected Republican official in the country.
Would Elena Kagan outlaw common sense?
Ms. Kagan's work on First Amendment free speech issues suggest that she might restrict Thomas Paine, circa 1776, from distributing his famous pamphlet, Common Sense.
She has said that pamphlets are eminently something that the government can regulate, the speech in pamphlets, because it's political.
And she said all this because in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision saying that corporations can participate in elections by making donations.
This has thrown the left a big curveball.
They're knocked sideways on this.
They're reeling and they're trying to fight back on this.
And they're doing it in ways that are very instructive.
You just listen to them and they'll tell us who they are.
She at first said that certain books might be banned.
We might have to restrict certain books because of the publication or who pays for them.
The government's the one that has to judge this.
And then, and this was, she said this before the Supreme Court in oral arguments.
And John Roberts, I was stunned.
He couldn't believe what he was hearing.
He said, what about pamphlets?
Well, pamphlets even better, she said.
Pamphlets, because those things are purely political.
Well, common sense, Thomas Paine, was a pamphlet.
It could well be, if you take what Kagan has said on this, you could say that she might outlaw the Federalist Papers if the founding fathers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton refused to say who paid to publish their essays.
Now, these views on the First Amendment are troubling enough to raise serious doubts as to whether the Senate should confirm Kagan for the Supreme Court.
It was Obama who put the focus on her First Amendment theories by highlighting her efforts to restrict the ability of corporate entities to engage in political speech.
As Governor Frank White, former Governor Frank White of Arkansas put it, the president thus opened a whole box of Pandoras.
Ms. Kagan's First Amendment work repeatedly promotes the idea that speech rights are granted by government rather than being inherent in the God-given nature of man.
In her Supreme Court oral arguments against the corporate speech case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission, Ms. Kagan hedged on whether government could ban corporate-funded political books.
But she did say a pamphlet would be different.
A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering and thus subject to campaign restrictions.
So sorry, Mr. Madison.
In the government's brief in a case called United States versus Stevens, Ms. Kagan elaborated whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.
Now, who does the balancing here?
Judges, bureaucrats, the Almighty President, whoever it is, it will be radical leftists who will determine whether the balancing needs to be done to make sure that societal costs are low.
While it isn't always fair to ascribe personally to solicitors general the positions they argue, it is fair if the arguments they use in court echo ones they made in private practice.
Ms. Kagan's record suggests that her personal views match her solicitor general arguments.
In a 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article, she argued that speech restrictions are allowable if the government's motive is acceptably non-ideologically or not ideological.
In academic prose, Ms. Kagan openly mused about the merits of the redistribution of expression in quotes, the redistribution of expression.
The simple answer, and then the question in every one of these cases is whether the government may use direct regulation of speech to redress prior imbalances.
That's what Kagan asks.
The simple answer to the question is no.
Individuals, not governments, create wealth, and individuals acting in a free market of ideas can use speech to try to redress any perceived imbalances.
Ms. Kagan's apparent view to the contrary is disturbing and should be disqualifying.
Amen.
Now, as I say, often I am in the free speech business.
And anytime I hear anybody come along and suggest that the government needs to regulate it, by the way, the First Amendment, when it was written, really focused on political speech being free.
That's all speech is, but that's what they focused on.
And here's Kagan and Cass Sunstein and Obama wanting to regulate it.
If it hurts somebody's feelings that they're a limbois, then they shouldn't be able to say it.
And that's all Ms. Kagan is saying.
The final cause, we must take into account people's feelings.
And if they're feelings are hurt, then people shouldn't say things that hurt other people's feelings.
That's essentially what they're saying.
And it gets even farther than that, because the left will say, and anything we don't want it.
What is political correctness, by the way, if not censorship.
Political correctness specifically is the censorship of free speech.
It is a very affirmative attempt to suppress speech versus or via intimidation.
Practitioners of political correctness want to frighten people into shutting up.
You can't say that.
Why, you can be fired for saying that.
You can be fired for thinking that.
We can ruin your life for saying that.
And it all boils down to what liberals don't want to hear.
I don't know very many conservatives who practice political correct.
Well, they practice it.
They don't believe in it.
They don't advocate it.
And they didn't originate it.
But make no mistake, political correctness.
Imagine if the government, if the political correctness were not just some sort of societal abnormality.
And of course, on campus, it's become more than just a societal abnormality.
It's the law of the land on campus and within certain corporations and companies.
But it's all based on fear.
Corporations are fearful of what might happen to them if they allow certain things to be said in their name.
Universities do not want opposing points of views said at all, stated at all.
And so it really is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate people into shutting up.
And this is what Elena Kagan and her supporters, Cass Sunstein, Obama, this is what they envision with the government being in charge.
Imagine the government being in charge nationally of political correctness, extending to every media form, from the internet to radio to television to your iPod, iPad, iPhone, telephone, cellular phone, what have you.
This is what they want.
And she believes that there is a constitutional or ought to be a constitutional provision for somebody like her or Obama or Cass Sunstein to be the decider in what can and cannot be said.
And if something is said, does it cost society so much that we can't allow it to be said again?
This is who they are.
This is what they want.
This is what happened in the old Soviet Union.
People went to their bathrooms where they were pretty sure they weren't bugged.
They went to their bathrooms to tell each other what they really thought.
They were afraid to speak out anywhere else.
So once again, this administration nominates people to high positions and in doing so acknowledges that it is much closer to oppressive totalitarian regimes in our past than to great American traditions and institutions which have defined our greatness.
Be right back.
You know, no matter how egregious it is to misrepresent your service, your military service, such as Blumenthal saying he served in Vietnam, I still think that pales in comparison to the things that Jack Murthy said about our Marines in Haditha and throughout the Iraq War.
I don't care what Blumenthal said.
It's not a surprise a liberal would lie about it.
What surprises me, you know, Tom Harkin made up the same story, that he had served in Vietnam when he didn't.
Now, these guys all hated it.
They all hated Vietnam.
Why do they want to appear to be so valorous or valorous about having served there?
I guess it's typical liberalism.
You speak before a certain group and you lie to them about who you are.
You say what you think or know they want to hear.
So, yeah, Blumenthal's what he is, but Merthyr for crying out loud, rapists, terrorist murderers?
That's what Mirtha said.
And now his pip squeak aide is running for his seat.
That's one of the interesting races taking place in Pennsylvania.
Now, Elena Kagan talks about all these distractions, and Obama talks about all these distractions in his commencement speech.
Distractions.
iPads, iPhones.
Remember?
These are distractions, too much information.
It makes it impossible to govern when there's too much information because it makes it impossible, well, makes it more difficult to get away with your lies.
Well, if it weren't for all these distractions, like the iPad, the internet, so we wouldn't know about Blumenthal's lies about this.
Were it not for all of those distractions?
Speaking of which, here's Tom in Kansas City as we go back to the phones.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Oh, thank you, Rush.
Ditto's from Kansas City.
I am a Marine veteran, by the way, and I was calling about Mr. Blumenthal's comments about his service.
But I'm glad you brought up Congressman Murta's affiliation to the Marine Corps as well, because a lot of Marine veterans, when they hear this type of talk from our supposed leaders, you wonder what Marine Corps they were a part of.
Because the one thing that the Marine Corps teaches you, one distinctive value is your honesty, your ability to have some type of character.
And when something like what Mr. Blumenthal said, that was easily confirmed, that he was never even in Vietnam, and he says that publicly just like five or six times.
I saw that on the internet over a five or six year period.
It's on accidents.
The internet's a distraction.
You might not have ever seen it if you didn't access the internet.
Obama's cursing the internet.
You wouldn't have ever known it.
Oh, definitely.
So what do you guys think?
What do you Marines think when somebody comes out like General, by the way, General Blumenthal, Attorney General Blumenthal?
It's not Mr. What do you think when a guy comes out and says, when I served in Vietnam when he didn't?
What do you think?
Well, we actually have a label for those types.
We call them posers.
Posers?
Posers.
Yes, sir.
I mean, like people who preen in front of a mirror.
Exactly.
Phonies.
Someone who's admiring themselves for something that they really didn't do.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, like phony soldier.
Exactly.
Yeah, okay.
The Marine Corps, you're taught to earn things.
And although you go to Vietnam, that's not by choice, or you go to the Gulf War, that's not by choice.
Being in the Marine Corps is.
And choosing how you represent yourself is a choice.
And that goes back to one strong fundamental is the point of the character issue.
And that's what I was hoping to get across to hopefully you and your listeners is just don't judge it by he may have just lied, but judge it with their character, too.
I mean, because that's what it's all about.
You're electing character.
And that's one thing that you've hit on for over 20 years that I've listened to you.
Yes, that's absolutely true.
The argument was sort of destroyed, though, you know, during the Lewinsky era.
The argument was, well, somebody's character didn't get in the way of his running the government, didn't get in the way of his doing his job.
So it was rationalized away.
It always will be rationalized away for Democrats.
I was thinking that exactly why I was waiting on hold to you, is I was trying to think, how far, when did character stop mattering?
And it did happen to happen during the Clinton administration.
I would have to say that, unfortunately.
Well, I think it happened during the Clinton campaign of 1992, actually.
Because we already knew of the bimbo eruptions.
Well, that's true.
That's true.
Lewinsky should not have surprised anybody.
And it certainly didn't surprise Hillary.
I don't care what she says.
It's, you know, when was the next one going to happen?
You know, you just never know.
I mean, if there was one Lewinsky, there's probably a lot more.
Well, but we just got the news today that some Souter, some Congressman Republican from Indiana had an affair with a female, by the way, officed it.
Well, he's, I know he's resigning.
He's resigning.
Yeah, no, I thought that he was resigning.
I mean, why doesn't they just write his term out?
I mean, it isn't as if he's going to get re-elected.
Our guys resign.
It's not a resume enhancement for our guys, even if it is a woman that you're having the affair with.
Exactly.
But I guess enhancing your military profile for things you didn't do is enhancing your career, too.
Well, look, I'm glad you called, Tom.
I appreciate learning that you guys have a word for these phonies who claim they served and they didn't.
Posers.
Yes, sir.
All the best.
That's a great call.
Thank you very much.
John Doe in Phoenix, Arizona.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Wild West Ditto's Rush.
One of the reasons why I wanted to reign Anonymous is because I wanted to stay off the regime's radar.
But with regards to the immigration issue and the recent law passed here in Arizona, I have many ideas that I could go on and on and on for.
But one of them I wanted to tackle with you was my bone with the media to pick.
The mainstream media has been covering the anti-immigration protest rallies and only mentioning the fact that 60 or 70% of Americans support it.
While we have to sit here in our homes quietly watching the media cover all this garbage, I would like to ask, why can't we just for a day, a week, take the lead from the New York Times, bury it in the tent page, perhaps not even cover it?
You know, just to aggravate the liberals for a couple days.
I mean, would that be so much to ask for Fox to maybe suspend coverage of this for a couple days?
Wait, I understand.
You want Fox to stop covering the anti-immigrant.
Who are you talking about?
I'm sorry, I misspoke.
Not the anti-immigration, but the immigration rallies.
The people rallying and protesting.
You want the coverage of people who are for the violation of the Arizona law to not be covered.
You want their rallies not to be covered.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, even if but for a day or a week, I mean, why is it that people who support the law have to sit in their homes and watch this crap?
You know, when we have to, we have to, you know, we have to sit through Chris Matthews and all these other anchors, you know, about socialism and capitalism and pushing their agenda.
John Doe, how old are you?
I am 31 years old.
Well, you should have learned by now.
I mean, you are fantasizing.
You are, I mean, you're really, I don't, I'm worried to hear about your grasp on reality.
Well.
Because you know full well why they're doing this.
You know full well why they're covering it.
They are gleeful.
They are joyous when they see these anti-American, anti-Arizona law protesters.
They want them to win.
They want you to feel like crud.
They want you to feel like you're the minority.
They want you to feel like human debris.
Don't let them get away with it.
The Arizona immigration law.
Since we're discussing it, let's go to the audio soundbites.
Yesterday, on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing Senator McCain had a chance to question Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, big cis.
And McCain said, Tell me, have you had a chance?
He reviewed the law.
Tell me.
I have not reviewed it in detail.
I certainly know of it, Senator.
So you're not prepared to make a judgment on it?
Senator, that is not a law.
Let me just say this, as you know and are well aware, that's not the kind of law I would have signed.
And for what reason?
Well, because I believe that it's a bad law enforcement law.
I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement or puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in.
They're not complaining, and she hasn't read it.
It is stunning.
So who else hasn't read it?
Eric Holder hasn't read it.
And now Janet Napolitano says she hasn't read it.
It is being distorted and taken out of context.
Well, he's next.
P.J. Crowley.
Seems like this guy's been around ever since Clinton was around.
He's been speaking for some agency since 92.
P.J. Crowley this morning on Fox News America's newsroom, Greg Jarrett, interviewed the State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
And Jarrett said, have you read the law?
Have I read the law?
No.
Short 10 pages.
I got it right here in front of me.
You're talking about the context of this law and you haven't read it?
I'm simply responding to a challenge that says that we at the Department of State were apologizing for America.
We are standing up to America by saying this is how we function in a civil society.
This is how we function under the rule of law.
And it continued with this.
Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder both have sheepishly admitted they haven't read it, and apparently you haven't either.
What's going on here?
Again, all I want to try to do this morning is say that we had a vigorous debate and discussion with our Chinese delegation last week promoting human rights here in this country and promoting human rights around the world.
Now, the reason why Jarrett was pressing this is because, remember now, this Michael Posner guy, who's big open borders guy, human rights first, big, big open borders anti-immigration worldwide radical leftist group, was leading our delegation to human rights talks with the CHICOMs.
And the Chikom started berating us about our high degree of poverty, our rising crime rate, our homelessness, and racism.
And our guy agreed with them.
It's not unusual for the Chikoms or any communists to rip us because we're out there ripping them.
Because they are indeed huge violators of human rights.
We always rip them, but they say, well, who are you?
I mean, look at your Arizona law.
Look at your racism.
Who are you?
And our guy agreed with them.
So P.J. Crowley was invited to come on Fox this morning to kind of defend what this Michael Posner guy did.
And when they got around, they said, well, you're agreeing with the Chikoms.
You're blaming your own country for this Arizona law.
Have you read it?
No, I haven't read it.
I'm just here talking about the human rights.
The question is, who in this administration has read it?
You see, folks, it doesn't matter.
In fact, it's easier for them to say they haven't read it because then they can say about it whatever they wish.
If they read it and blatantly mischaracterize it, which they're already doing, then it's even tougher on them.
But this is sort of, well, I know what's in it.
I'm being briefed.
I have a basic outline of the bill, but no, I haven't.
I haven't read the whole thing.
Of course not.
Why not?
It's only 10 pages.
Well, I got other things to do here.
Basically, we know what this bill is.
It's a racist bill and the racist profiles.
It fits the agenda.
It fits the template.
And they don't want to know anything else.
They don't want to know that what they are saying about it is not true.
They lie.
They have to lie.
They wouldn't get the first base in an election in this country nationally if they were honest and forthright about their agenda.
Now, yesterday at the White House press briefing during the QA, Robert Gibbs had a QA or a session exchange with an unidentified reporter.
And you'll hear Les Kinselfinger from WCBM Baltimore also weigh in on this.
What they're trying to ask Gibbs about is the story that's in this new book about me coming out later this month that somebody asked, the author of the book asked a ranking Democrat strategerist if Obama would play golf with me and waited for a couple days and the strategist came back and said, no, Limbaugh can play with himself.
So the subject came up in the press briefing yesterday.
We have a couple of sound bites on it.
My second question.
Do you have any on it?
There's a new book that's quoting someone from the White House on Rush Limbaugh, telling him what he can do with himself.
You're going to have to be more specific.
What do you think?
You guys are just.
This is our colleague on talk radio.
I'm just asking to be more specific.
I don't know why you think I'm disparaging.
Okay, so the White House continues the joke on this.
Remember, this is the White House.
This is the press secretary for the President of the United States continuing with this whole thing.
The exchange continued.
There's a book quoting a senior White House official responding to an invitation to golf with Rush Limbaugh by saying that Limbaugh can play with himself.
And there's some that have speculated that the source of that quote was the president via an aide, wondering if you can.
I don't know the answer to that.
Lynn, do you have the president ever said anything like that?
Not in my presence.
Not in my presence.
No.
So they finally dealt with it seriously.
So the White House is now denying any.
Well, Gibbs is denying that they had anything to do with the comment.
Folks, I'm not offended by it.
I just think they were confusing me with Bill Clinton.
But I think it is interesting that the subterranean level to which this White House has sunk and descended, it's quite striking from the dignified days of presidents of the past.
Naples, Florida, and Amy, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Great to have the ability to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to speak every day when I can.
And remember having you autograph a book for me.
My talk on my feelings today as an ex-New Yorker and someone who went to Hunter College when it was an all-girls school, I'm wondering why is it that Obama and the administration are not colorfully showing Kagan's background and her family and her siblings like they did with Sotomayor.
So to me, if she's supposed to reflect what America is all about, the average person, which is what they tried to do with Sotomayor, why are they closing all the doors?
Knowing where she grew up in New York, knowing what Hunter College was an awful long time ago, because I'm in my 70s, I suspect you will find some really radical radicalism, not just a little.
There's no question about it.
In her college thesis, Elena Kagan singled out her brother Irving for special thanks because his radicalism helped her to form her own political ideas and views.
Now, they were prepared.
The New York Times and others are going to go in there to his class, and they were going to videotape it and report on the things he teaches in there.
It's an American history or political science class.
And the White House forbade them from doing it.
White House said, you can't go in there.
We're not going to let you go in.
And then everybody, why not?
I mean, you paraded Sotomayor's family all over the place.
What's wrong with us going in and watching her brother teach his class?
So, well, the regime theoretically can do it if they issue a command that no, you can't go in there.
And if they tell the school, you keep them out.
And if the school abides by the regime's wishes, then, yeah, the regime can do it.
Now, legally, can the regime tell the press where it can't go?
No.
But this press, yeah.
I mean, but she is right.
Amy here from Naples is right.
They don't want anything known about this brother of hers, Irving Kagan, because apparently it would doom her.
And it is very rare for a Supreme Court nominee to have his or her family sequestered and unavailable and not part of the story, the rich American story of the nominee.
Remember, Sotomayor's family was all over the place.
And her mother, what a great role model her mother was for Sonia Sotomayor.
But Irving Kagan, uh-uh, uh-uh-uh.
Parents, uh-uh, uh-uh-uh, not going there.
We don't know why, but we can assume and be pretty accurate in the process.
I guess you'd have no sympathy, folks, if I told you these commercial breaks are too short.
I can't get done in these breaks.
What I need to get done.
Here's JD in Salt Lake City.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Megha Dittos from Young Conservative here in Salt Lake City.
My comments are about Ted Turner's comments, Ted Turner of CNN.
For your listeners that may not have heard, Ted Turner said that the Gulf oil, the oil leak and the explosion is proof that God wants us to change course on oil.
And just using Ted Turner's logic, God must also hate Haiti.
He must hate Chile.
We've had quakes there.
He clearly must hate black people because of Katrina.
And, I mean, of course, he also must hate black people.
Well, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
No.
If God's responsible for Katrina, it's because Republicans don't care about black people.
And it's to highlight that.
Haiti, if God is responsible for Haiti, it is to give Obama an opportunity to show how he's not George Bush in fixing a disaster.
Ted Turner is the second high-ranking leftist radical to suggest that God may be a Democrat here by doing a good thing with the oil explosion on the rig.
We have Ted Turner saying this.
He said this yesterday morning on CNN's newsroom.
The correspondent was Poppy Harlow.
Question, talking about the ongoing oil spill.
How does it make this debate even more immediate?
I mean, they can't plug the hole.
It's been over 20 days.
We're trying to send people to Mars, and we can't plug the hole.
I'm just wondering if God's telling us he doesn't want us to drill offshore because it sure is setting back offshore drilling.
And right before that, we had that coal mine disaster in West Virginia where we lost 29 miners.
And last week or two days ago, the Chinese lost 29 miners too in another mine disaster over in China.
Maybe, you know, the Lord's tired of having the mountains of West Virginia the tops knocked off of them so they can get more coal.
I think maybe we ought to just leave the coal in the ground and go with solar and wind power and geothermal where it's applicable.
So possibly God's work in a way.
Well, it could be.
He's sending us a message.
Yeah.
John Denver saying, take me home country roads, right?
West Virginia.
So this is Stephanie Miller, talk radio fame, the first liberal radical to suggest God was a Democrat.
Now, Ted Turner, now, there's no dramatic media reaction to this, but imagine if Pat Robertson, remember Pat Robertson said, you know what, Twin Towers, God's sending us a message.
We have lost our moral footing.
You remember the outrage?
Whenever Falwell or Robertson said anything, and now here is Ted Turner going further than Falwell or Pat Robertson ever did.
I want to take you back to a phone call on this program last Friday, Ron in Mayline, Alabama.
He lost a nephew on the oil rig, and he was just livid over the fact that anybody on the Democrat side would suggest that God did this.
God is a Democrat.
What I'm calling about today is my nephew was on that rig that blew up.
Oh, wow.
He was on the last hour and 15 to 20 minutes that he would have had left, and he was going home, but he didn't make it.
But what upsets me is that when I hear someone say God is a Democrat and is happy because this rig blew up can further their political agenda, that just drives me and the family up the wall.
This young man was 27 years old.
He served in the Air Force, came back home, married his sweetheart.
Her name was Courtney.
And they have a three-year-old daughter and a three-month-old daughter.
And this guy was an honest, hardworking, dedicated person.
He did everything he could for his family.
And he is one of those little people that the Democrats always talk about.
They want to help.
Well, they're trying to shut down the jobs that he did.
He didn't have anything but a high school education, but he found a job he could do to provide for his family.
And he and these other guys that died in these coal mines and in this oil explosion are the little guys the Democrats are always talking about.
They want to help.
Well, they're trying to shut down their jobs as quick as they can shut them down and use them as a political tool to get their agenda passed, which is get cap and trade passed and get their jobs turned down.
Now, is that what they're supposed to be?
That's what they're supposed to be doing?
Helping out, killing jobs for, quote, the little guys that they want to help?
I hate this.
This just drives us crazy.
His wife, Courtney, and his mother, Peggy, are just devastated by this.
And they want to use it for political advantage.
I just, that's beyond the pale.
That's Ron in Mayline, Alabama, last Friday reacting to Stephanie Miller suggesting that God's, gleefully, God is a Democrat.
Well, I wonder what God is telling us that Newsweek is for sale.
Wonder what God is telling us that the New York Times is losing money.
I wonder what God is telling us that Ted Turner's co-founder of CNN says that CNN is a joke.
Wonder what God's telling us with the utter fall and embarrassing circumstances of the mainstream media.
I just heard Carl Cameron on Fox say that with this Blumenthal scandal, Attorney General served in Vietnam when he didn't, it's going to make it really, really tough for the Democrats to hold this seat.
And I'm thinking, how is it tough?
Anybody but a Republican in Connecticut for crying out loud and they sweep Blumenthal out of there.
They'll get some other Democrat in there.
More than likely.
▲
Export Selection