All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
October 5, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So you see, this Sharon Angle has moved ahead of Dingy Harry by three points, 49 to 46.
This is the latest Fox News poll, the margin of error.
And there's a fraud in this race.
This guy that's got 1% of the vote, supposedly a Tea Party candidate, is a dingy Harry plant.
And now the drive-bys are going absolutely berserk over a tape recording he made of a conversation that Sharon Angle had with him.
And I think, if anything, these tapes prove, ladies and gentlemen, Sharon Angle is a true believer.
She's saying on this tape everything she says on the campaign trail.
She's consistent as she can be.
Unlike Obama, she's a true believer.
Whatever she says behind closed doors in the tape, same thing she's saying on the campaign trail, and she's right.
Republican establishment does not want her to win.
Not excited about her candidacy.
I mean, I think she ought to make a campaign ad out of the tapes.
Meanwhile, everybody's going berserk over.
She said, what the secret tape?
Big deal.
The stars are starting to line in the correct way here, folks.
Greetings and great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh.
Excellence in broadcasting.
Three straight hours of broadcast excellence.
All yours.
And we'll get to your phone calls in due course.
The Las Vegas Review Journal has endorsed Sharon Angle for the United States Senate.
The editorial begins.
Harry Reid wears the scars of previous close encounters.
The 27-year Washington veteran lost his first U.S. Senate race in 74 by a mere 600 votes.
In 98, he survived a challenge from Johnny Ensign, prevailing by 428 votes.
So here he is again, locked in a tight battle, this time against Sharon Angle, a bit player on the Nevada political scene until she pulled off a surprise in June's Republican primary.
Anyway, they go on to endorse her.
The Las Vegas Review Journal, whether it's shoving the unpopular and hugely expensive Obamacare down the throats of the American people, or rewarding failing companies with taxpayer bailouts, or ginning up expensive and feudal stimulus packages larded with pork that push the nation closer and closer to fiscal chaos, Senator Reed has cheered them all.
They really dump on Dingy Harry here in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
By the way, Fox News has this story, and it's a centerpiece of President Obama's health care remake, a lifeline available right now to vulnerable people whose medical problems have made them uninsurable.
But the pre-existing condition insurance plan started this summer is not living up to expectations.
Now, we told you about this late last week and yesterday.
Enrollment lags in many parts of the country.
People who could benefit may not be able to afford the premiums.
And they thought the premiums are going to be free.
Some state officials who run their own high-risk pools have pointed out potential problems.
Now, here's the potential problem.
Nothing is living up to expectations.
Because they were not expectations, they were lies.
There is no way the health care plan can live up to expectations because there weren't any.
The whole health care plan is lies.
Every fundamental aspect of it is a lie.
Same thing with practically every Obama policy that's come down the pike.
So when you talk about not living up to expectations, I'm sure in some people's minds, it isn't living up to expectations.
They thought it was going to be free.
What it means is it was all lies.
You can't have legitimate expectations to live up to if all you have are out-and-out lies, which is the case.
In West Virginia, a seat the Democrats just knew that would be theirs.
The Robert Byrd KKK seat.
Well, don't forget it was Bill Clinton who went out there at his funeral, Robert Byrd's funeral, and said, yeah, that boy came from the hills and the hollers of West Virginia.
And, you know, the people back in those days, I mean, he made some mistakes.
I mean, he spent the rest of his life.
He spent the rest of his life atoning for those mistakes.
I apologize.
But he did it for you.
He had to get elected.
He had to join a Klan.
He had to become a Khlegal.
He had to do that for you.
He had to do that to get elected.
That's essentially what Clinton said.
So the Democrats thought they owned this seat, but the Republican John Race is ahead 48 to 43, continues to lead in this race.
That's above the margin of error.
There are all kinds of stories.
I love these stories.
All kinds of the ABC News Washington Post poll is out.
And it's all about how it's looking better for the Democrats all the time out there.
You're really looking better.
Our poll shows that it's not going to be the shellacking that everybody thought that it was going to be.
And then if you look at the sample, if you look at the sample, you find out that it's lies.
Try a sample of 35% Democrat, 25% Republican, and 39% Independent.
You mean to tell me that right now there are 35% of this country admits to being Democrat.
Only 25% admit to being Republican?
I mean, it's garbage in, garbage out.
Gallup, their survey, they've switched now because we're within a month of the election.
They've switched from registered voters to likely voters and it's back to, I mean, it's a debacle.
It's 50 double, well, it's 13 points.
In the generic, it's 5340 Republican over Democrat in likely voters.
So they're playing games with these polls.
Gallup had to get straight with theirs because at the end of the day, they have their credibility to worry about.
But I mean, these people of the Washington Post and the New York Times who live for the very day they can be led by a dictator are just holding on.
They're trying to influence with these polls public opinion.
These polls are not to reflect public opinion.
They are trying to shape it.
What they're trying to do with these polls is gin up some support, some energy on the Democrat base because there isn't any out there.
Zip Zero Nada.
And they're talking all over the place.
I'm sure if you've had the television on, you've heard various anchorettes and infobabes talking about how it's not going to be as bad for the Democrats as it's being predicted.
And the line from the experts, well, aside from history, this won't be so bad.
Now, historically, and this is the template.
Historically, the president's party always loses seats in the midterm election.
And so all this election is, is what always happens.
It's not a repudiation of Obama.
It's not a repudiation of Obama's agenda.
It's not a repudiation of the regime's policies.
I mean, this is standard operating procedure.
The president's party always loses seats in the midterm elections.
Well, let's turn back the code.
You can look at 1994.
They're also doing, they're comparing this year to 1994, and they're saying, in 94, we didn't really know what was coming.
But now, in 2010, this is Democrats, we know what's coming, and we're ready for it.
And it's not going to be nearly as bad because we know what's coming.
Let's look at this theory that the president's party always loses seats in a midterm election.
Let's go back to 2002.
I will never forget 2002.
2002, we had not yet gone to Iraq.
We had not yet begun the invasion.
The president was trying to gin up support for it.
He was making the case for almost on a daily basis.
The polling data at the time was strongly in favor of the president.
We were very, very close.
Not a lot of time had passed since 9-11.
And the Democrats were demanding another vote because they were on the wrong side of history.
They were on the wrong side.
They had first come out after 9-11, we got to go kick, butt.
We got to do whatever we want to do.
And then they started, as they always do, breaking away from the president, breaking away from the country to try to forge their own political identity.
And they demanded another vote on a resolution, use of force resolution, so they could get on record as supporting action in Iraq.
And the president said, you go right ahead.
You go right.
We'll gladly give you another vote on this.
So Bush, people have forgotten this, but Bush was very content.
He dared the Democrats to make the election about him.
He campaigned hard for Republicans out there.
And in 2002, Republicans gained seats.
What?
I don't care was an aberration.
It still happened.
They gained seats in 2002.
Now, I did election night analysis, and I'll get to that in just a second.
But also, what happened in 2002 was the Wellstone Memorial.
And this was all part of the Democrats demanding another vote in the House on a use of force resolution so they could position themselves as for it because that's where they saw the country.
Then Paul Wellstone died in that plane crash and they had the Wellstone Memorial.
It was supposed to be a funeral.
Republican senators, colleagues of Wellstone, showed up and were booed, were flipped off.
And under threat of violence, Trent Lawton and the gang had to leave.
And then Tom Harkin took over and this Wellstone Memorial became an anti-American rally that the Democrats put on full-fledged and that was that and that use of force resolution, the revote, sealed their fate.
They lost the 2002 midterms.
I did election analysis on election night that night with Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert on NBC.
It was the last time I have been invited.
It was Russert that secured my invitation there.
I'll tell you, when Russert passed away, that was the end of NBC as a credible news organization.
I mean, they just, Russert kept those people centered as best he could.
Republicans gained two seats in the Senate, eight seats in the House, all because the Democrats threw away the camouflage and the mask and acted and behaved as they are.
And they're doing the same thing now from the White House on down.
Now it's not just the Wellstone Memorial where they're doing this.
They're doing it from the White House on down.
They are making it clear who they are.
And they are proud of what's happening.
And we're talking about lame duck sessions.
We're going to come back and they're going to ram 15 to 18 more bills down our throats that we don't want.
And they are fully aware that they're going to do this and they're aware what people's reaction to it is.
So you can talk about the fact that there is a tradition that the president always loses seats in midterm elections, but it doesn't have to be the case, as 2002 proved.
So I think, you know, Dick Morris is hanging in there.
He believes it's going to be 100 seats in the House.
70, 80, 91.
I mean, Dick Morris thinks, I read a column of his, Dick Morris thinks that the problem is underconfidence, not overconfidence.
He got a column out there about that.
He said there are a lot of seats that nobody's talking about where the Democrats are up four or five points.
He says Stenny Hoyer is vulnerable.
He said Stenny Hoyer is vulnerable in Maryland.
It's what he says.
And there are a lot of races where the Democrats adjust them, where they normally win by double digits.
They're only up three or four points, just barely out of the margin of error.
And if the Republicans went in there and actually ran full-fledged campaigns, that they could win huge and a big and shock everybody, no matter the fact that Democrats know that it's coming.
So the drive-bys are sitting around out there and they fall into these templates and they got their phony polls that they then believe.
And we have now the whole notion that the Democrats are coming back.
Yes, the Democrats are coming back.
It's getting exciting out there.
New energy, new enthusiasm.
We can see it.
It shows up in our rigged polls, rigged by virtue of the sample.
Now, Gallup puts the lie to the claim that this is just the usual pattern.
Here from Gallup, these two numbers, if translated into popular votes in the 435 congressional districts, suggest huge gains for Republicans and a Republican House majority, the likes of which we have not seen since the election cycles of 1946 or even 1928.
This is not Dick Morris.
This is Gallup.
The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894 when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350.
That's how large it was in 1894.
It's, folks, it's a tsunami.
And, you know, privately, they know it.
They're just, this is all public posturing, designed to try to forestall it, head it off, limit its scope.
From the New York region section of the New York Times, buried, in other words, stories buried by David Chen.
One New York Democrat proclaims he proudly opposed Obama's health care overhaul plan.
Oh, he calls it the federal government's health care overhaul plan.
One New York Democrat proudly proclaims he opposed the federal government's health care overhaul plan.
Another one pledges to oppose any future financial bailouts.
Still another Democrat has rolled out three Republicans in three separate commercials, all vouching for his credentials.
But there's one word you will not hear mentioned in any of these campaign ads, and that is Democrat.
The Democrats are playing down their own party and their own ads.
The Democrats don't want people to think of them as Democrat in New York.
In New York, with the Democrat Party bracing for a dismal showing, many candidates are doing everything possible to convince voters that they are not tied at the hip to Obama or Pelosi.
We'll be back.
I want to go back to 2002 again.
It's a seminal year.
It was a great, great, great year.
And I never forget the conventional wisdom after 2002.
There's a lot of things that were said after 2002 midterms.
One of the things in the conventional wisdom was that Democrats did not get their message out.
And I remember, I think it was election night coverage on NBC where that was stated.
And I said, oh, no, they did get their message out.
They've been getting their message out plenty.
And I think I remember saying this to Broca, and he didn't look happy.
Wasn't happy out there.
That's also where I, you know, they asked me, what do you think Republicans are going to do?
I said, don't quote.
Just act like this is normal.
You know, act like, you know, this, like Chuck Knoll said, well, you score a touchdown.
Don't act like it's any big deal.
We do it all the time as the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Winning elections, Republicans, no reason to go out high-five at everybody.
Today, the message the Democrats are trying to get out today is that they're not Democrats.
They won't idea themselves as Democrats in ads.
They won't stand near Obama.
That's not the message voters are getting.
And the polls reflect that.
They've had two years of message from Obama and the disastrous policies that go along with it.
And Democrats are trying to hide who they are, trying to hide from Obama, but it's not working.
Everybody's associating Democrats with Obama.
Everybody's associating Democrats with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi.
But, I mean, when they say they didn't get their message out in 2002, opposition to Bush on the war, tax cuts out of the Clinton recession, Wellstone Memorial, I mean, they were getting their message out.
I mean, tax increases.
They were getting their message out left and right.
And that's why they lost.
Also after 2002, Tom Daschell, the pupster, was the Senate majority leader, or in that case, minority leader.
And he came out after the election and said that they had done some polling, some internal polling on me.
Your host, your guiding light, El Rushbo.
And Tom Daschell came out and said, their experts had told the Democrats I was not just preaching to the choir, that a lot of Democrats were listening to this show, and I was changing their mind.
And Dashel admitted they were surprised when their quote-unquote experts told him that, because Democrats believe that the only people listening to me were people who were already conservative and Republican.
He had called him El Diablo.
We started doing, yeah, he didn't like that either.
We called him El Diablo in a couple of parodies, and he mentioned that.
Look, 2002, a big time year, so it puts the light on all this conventional wisdom.
And the only thing important about that is a conventional wisdom is stock standard reporting, and it isn't always correct.
And we're back at Trush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Now, this New York Times story in the New York region, where they buried this story in ads, Democrat candidates played down the party.
Went back and found a story.
And I remember this, this October 20th in 2009, Kinston, North Carolina.
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly.
You're going to remember this when I tell you this.
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections.
But the Obama administration recently ruled, actually overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democrat Party being an option on a ballot.
So Kinston, North Carolina wants to get rid of party ID, local elections.
The Obama Justice Department overrules this local community.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for city council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their candidates of choice identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats.
So in this instance, the reason I point this out is because the Democrats today are trying to wash away any ID that they are Democrats.
They're trying to wash it away.
And the point is that just a year ago, just a year ago, they were demanding in Kinston, North Carolina that Democrats and Republicans be identified on local ballots because essentially, this is Obama's Justice Department.
Black voters need to see Democrat on the ballot before they'll know who to vote for.
Black voters are only given a fair shot at voting the right way if it says Democrat on the ballot.
Look how much that in itself is outrageous.
But look how far we've come in just a year.
Now the Democrats don't want Democrat anywhere near what they're doing on their ballots or what have you.
In Alaska, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's campaign is warning Alaska broadcasters not to air ads by a national Tea Party group that the campaign says are littered with lies and intentional mischaracterizations about her and her write-in campaign.
Attorney Timothy McKeever, in a letter to broadcasters yesterday, said that they are under a legal and moral obligation not to air the new ads from Tea Party Express, which is supporting Joe Miller, the political upstart who defeated Murkowski in the August primary.
This sounds like Democrats usually, Democrat tactics that they usually resort to.
A Tea Party Express spokesman said his initial reaction is the group stands behind the ads.
An issue is an ad the group unveiled Monday entitled Arrogant Lisa Murkowski.
You lost.
It seeks to paint Murkowski as more interested in political self-preservation than in serving the interests of Alaskans.
And she's denying it.
This is unbelievable.
I looked at the ad.
I got the transcript of the ad, and it's perfectly fine.
But now here is Lisa Murkowski demanding that broadcasters in Alaska not run an ad because it's not truthful.
So when Sharon Angle says what she says about the Republican establishment on that secret tape, she's dead on right.
That's why she ought to make campaign ads out of that out of that tape.
Christine O'Donnell's got a new ad.
Let me see, audio sound bites.
I don't know if I've got the O'Donnell ad.
I think I saw it on the roster.
I don't know.
Let me find number 20.
Yeah, here it is, number 20.
This is the audio, Christine O'Donnell's ad that's running in Delaware.
I'm not a witch.
I'm nothing you've heard.
I'm you.
None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us.
Politicians who think spending, trading favors, and backroom deals are the ways to stay in office.
I'll go to Washington and do what you do.
I'm Christine O'Donnell, and I approve this message.
I'm you.
All right, so that's Christine O'Donnell's effort to count it.
You like it.
I'm looking on the other side of the glass.
Snurdley likes it.
Dawn, you like it.
Brian, you like it?
You actually listen to it, Brian?
Actually, I was going to say, Brian's busy engineering in there.
He didn't hear it.
He's just lying to me, telling me he likes it.
All right, but you like the business she starts out.
I'm not a witch.
You lie because she confronts it dead on.
You think it's wise to confront this is genuine?
Hi, I'm not a witch.
I'm nothing you've heard.
I'm you.
None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy.
All right.
All right.
Have you seen the ad?
Let me ask you.
All right.
Okay, if you've seen the ad, you know that there is a dark background.
It's either Navy, Royal Blue, very dark, or black background.
I'm not a witch.
If you're going to do a black background, it'd be great to have Pelosi on a broomstick flying around.
Or Harry Reid is one of the monkeys in The Wizard of Oz.
If you're going to do that.
But I mean, a dark background saying, I'm not a witch, make it white.
Make it a lighter, Morning in America kind of background.
I don't know.
I wasn't.
You want to know what I think about it?
Everybody knows she's not a witch.
I mean, to come out and say that I'm not a witch.
I mean, how many voters are there in Delaware?
70,000, 150,000.
It's a small state.
And this is reacting to an HBO television show and a clip dabble in witchcraft.
I don't know.
It's a little bit defensive for me.
But, you know, my instincts for the first time could be wrong.
And everybody on the other side of the glass, I don't think it's a mistake.
It's fatal.
I just wouldn't have done it.
I wouldn't even, I wouldn't have tackled it.
I wouldn't have let anybody know that that bothers me.
It's so stupid.
It's so ridiculous that anybody would believe she's a witch for crying out loud when we have one running the house already.
These are the people that voted for Joe Biden time and time.
What does that have to do with it?
So they voted for Joe Biden time and they voted for Mike Castle time and time again.
You telling me that voters of Delaware are that stupid, they might actually believe she's a witch?
Maybe I just have too much faith in people.
Maybe, you know, now, her opponent, Chris Coons, is bringing in Al Franken, a genuine parasite.
You know, Al Franken would be nobody if he couldn't live off other people's work and use other people's names in his work.
This guy is a rolling embarrassment in the United States Senate.
And Chris Coons, the bearded Marxist, bringing Al Franken to campaign for him.
Maybe Franken can convince voters in Delaware that Christine O'Donnell isn't a serious enough candidate to be elected because he is.
Of all the people, of all the people to bring in to campaign before you bring in Franken.
Okay, so if I'm Christine O'Donnell and I do the ad and I say I'm not a witch, at the end of the ad, I twitch my nose and I disappear.
I have some fun with this.
Back after this.
Hey, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
I've been checking my email.
Apparently, this is just a, you know, this is anecdotal and it's cursory.
But I'm in the minority here and thinking I found one person who thinks the ad was Christine O'Donnell ad was a little bit of a mistake, kind of like Nixon saying, I'm not a crook.
And I just look at my whole problem with this, I hate accepting the premise of the other side and then having to defend it.
You know what?
It's absurd.
But that's just me.
That's just a style that I have developed over my years behind the microphone.
I don't accept their premise and argue on their turf because it puts you on defense.
I understand the rest of it.
She's trying to say I'm like you, which it's good.
It's what we've been saying that she is.
Here's Joan in New York City.
You're first on the phones today on the Rush Limbaugh program, huh?
Hi, Rush.
Listen, Rush, we can't say anything negative.
I'm sorry about Christine O'Donnell.
Less than 30 days out, they're going to play you for tonight and all these days that Rush Limbaugh thinks Christine O'Donnell is stupid.
And this is, we've got to stick together.
Why do we always attack each other?
I did not say she was stupid.
I'm sorry?
I didn't say she was stupid.
It was a bad ad.
You can't say anything negative, Rush.
We've got to win, all of us.
And what about, I want your comments on Elliot Spitzer, client number nine, last night, where they trashed Sarah Palin.
But nevertheless, why aren't we going Rush after the opponents?
See, you know, here you know.
Wait a second.
You just calling all Barbara Box is stupid.
Give them back what they do to our candidates.
Call them stupid and idiots every day.
I did not call her stupid.
You're talking about stupid.
You're the one person that watched client number nine.
You want me to sit here?
You want me to devote time to what happened on that show?
I had to.
I go back and forth.
Meanwhile, on Fox, they were showing Kirsten Davis' madam and Roger Stone.
I had to go back.
I go back and forth.
Well.
But anyway.
Let me tell you something.
I read a couple reviews of client number nine's show.
And, you know, the Gawker guys, I mean, if you, the Gawker guys in New York, the Gawker website, if they don't like you and you're doing a New York show, you're finished.
And I like the Gawker guys.
Gawker guys, they kind of question my taste in decorating in my New York apartment, but they can't be right about everything.
But they didn't like this.
The Gawker guys did not like Client No. 9's show.
Yeah, right, right.
It was the liberal Kathleen Parker.
She's a real liberal.
Can't stand her.
But please, we've got to stick together with our, and we've got to start calling the opponents of our candidates stupid.
Barbara Box is stupid.
Use the same words they use on us.
You know, call it.
You're kind of making my point here.
Yeah, you are, I know.
Kind of making my point.
I mean, I, but I wasn't consulted.
You're right.
I wasn't consulted.
And apparently I'm in the minority.
A lot of people like the ad.
I don't dislike it, by the way.
I don't dislike it at all.
And of course, I don't dislike her.
Yeah, we love her here.
But like Carl Roe, they use it against us for days on end.
You see what I'm saying?
What Carl Roche started at a couple of weeks ago.
I remember all this.
Yes, that's true.
Yeah, yeah.
Just chill. Chill out.
Be cool.
Cool, miracles, magic, all kinds of wonderful things are going to happen in November.
I have no fear.
I have no doubts.
I'm not worried at all.
And if I were you, I would not waste time on anything on CNN.
I mean, for crying out loud.
You're watching client number nine host a television show where he says, what did I read?
What's his secret?
His secret, no, the client number nine's secret fetish or hidden desire is NASCAR.
Like, like, like, we're going to believe that.
Yeah, right.
I'll tell you, let me tell you something.
The Elliott Spitzer Show once again demonstrates what a fine line there is between prostitutes and prestitutes.
You can barely see that line, especially on that show.
Prostitutes versus prostitutes.
It's hard to know who is who on that show.
All right, Karen in Los Angeles.
You're next on the Russian Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, how are you?
Good, thank you.
Earlier in the show, you made a comment that there was a poll showing that many Democrats are starting to convert or switch over to the other side to the United States.
Primarily it's independent doing that, but there are some Democrats too.
Well, I felt compelled to bolster your point in that that, in fact, is true because I am one of those people.
I have, for most of my adult life, voted Democrat, and I just feel that the Democratic Party has reached a new level of insanity.
And I don't think that there's a single candidate in my state in the Democratic Party that will get my vote this year, and possibly not ever again if they don't change their ways.
What was it that finally pushed you over the edge here?
What was the proverbial straw that broke your camel's back?
I said, okay, I can't stay with these people anymore.
You know, I think that it is the re-emergence of Jerry Brown and his running for governor in California again.
The guy, he's just, he's nuts.
Yeah, moonwood.
The idea that the state would re-elect someone that is so far off base is just, I can't fathom it.
Well, it probably didn't help when you learned yesterday that California welfare recipients are cashing their checks on cruise ships in Miami and in ATM machines at Las Vegas casinos.
This is a true story.
California welfare.
I saw this and it made me sometimes have to slap myself to get myself back to reality.
And the idea that even in this recession, that we are a country, soup line America, it isn't, you know, welfare in this country, poverty in this country is good living compared to poverty elsewhere in the world.
I mean, if our welfare recipients are going to, if California's welfare recipients are going to Vegas to cash their checks or their cards, redeem their cards or cruise ships in Miami, how bad can it really be out there?
I just, did I hear the Democrats whining and moaning about how horrible life is?
No, I did not say poverty is good.
You think the drive-bys are going to, they're quote-unquote me say poverty is good.
No, no, no.
Of course, they did do this once back in the 90s.
I'll recap that if you want to.
But I saw a statistic doing a show prep today that more people in the country right now are getting food stamps than are getting paychecks.
More people are getting food stamps than are getting paychecks.
Yeah, yeah.
And we'll be back as we head on down the road here on the EIB network.
Snirdly, I got to get a lot of people agreeing with you.
I got a lot of people, my subscriber email line saying I may now finally be losing touch if I don't realize just how stupid Democrat voters are everywhere, including Delaware.
Then I may have to change and reorient my thinking on this.
At any rate, I love it.
I love it.
▲
Export Selection