All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:50
October 12, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Make no mistake about it, folks.
Make none.
The White House is sniffing something happening in Delaware.
There is a late surge of support for Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
Audio soundbate number 22 want to play this ad for you again.
You don't send the president in there.
You don't send the president of the United States into Delaware.
For the express, but I'm surprised the people of the Washington Post bought well, no, I'm not.
I was gonna say I'm surprised they bought it.
Obama's going in there because it's a great opportunity to make Republicans look like weirdos.
Oh.
I mean, it's just it's like it is, it's like it's like Obama, okay.
Look, Delaware is the armpit of the country, and we're gonna go prove it is we're gonna send a the president in there to show the whole country what a what an armpit is.
They're sniffing, speaking of armpit, they are sniffing a late surge.
And that the website CoonsThe Taxman.com, this ad is running.
It's a web ad, but of course now we have taken it viral.
In America, where jobs are being lost and wages cut in Delaware, where the economy is suffering, and families are losing their homes.
There is one man who stood against the tide and raised taxes.
One man who thought that a 911 call should be taxed.
One man who thought property taxes should be hyped almost 50%.
One man who was county executive drove New Castle County on the brink of bankruptcy.
Hide your will.
Oh.
Hide you might've everything out here.
Chris Coons is the tax man.
Hide your lights.
Hide everything.
Chris Coons is the tax man.
And there's a graphic at the end of the ad paid for by friends of Christine O'Donnell.
And you'll notice the word witch is not in there one time.
So this is uh this is good.
It's a great, great, great ad, and we've got it posted.
We got a link to it posted on our Facebook page as well as at Rushlimbaugh.com.
Speaking of fundraising, here's a story from the uh Washington Post.
Sharon Angle raised 14 million dollars the third quarter.
Former Nevada State Assemblywoman Sharon Angle raised an I popping 14 million dollars in July 1st and September 30th for her challenge at Dingy Harry.
The Washington Post says here's a stunning number.
That far eclipses the cash collection totals of other prominent candidates seeking Senate seats next month.
I mean $14 million.
Marco Rubio raised five million in Florida.
Dino Rossi raised four million in Washington state.
Scott Brown raised 14.2 million in January, just to give you something to compare Sharon Angle's 14 million to.
Now here's the thing.
We are in a whole new ball game.
Candidates do not have to rely on the promises of the GOP.
The uh Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, the Senate Republican campaign, the RNC, or any of the other inside the beltway groups for money anymore.
This is national fundraising.
Christine O'Donnell, look what happened to her.
She had a web bomb, what it called two million dollars and well, one million dollars in one day.
When I, El Rushville, said, wouldn't it be funny if everybody in this audience did send her a buck?
Sharon Engel went out there and said, Well, you admittion on Rush Limbaugh, this is what happens.
So you want to see who's gonna win, follow the money.
Meanwhile, the establishment Republicans are sitting around Admitting that their victory is going to be based solely on a repudiation of Democrats.
They will admit this to you if you speak to the right ranking Republicans.
They'll tell you this.
And they will then tell you that we uh you're not gonna have all that much power here.
We're not going to control a government because we're not gonna be able to override vetoes.
There's some of them in Washington still not ready to do the heavy lifting.
Still not ready.
Still not inspired.
To some of them in Washington, this is just standard operating procedure, standard power sharing that goes back and forth from Republicans to Democrats.
Oh, you know, Obama and Obama ism is not a crisis.
To them, it's just the latest Democrat to win.
And of course, their job is to make sure he doesn't get re-elected.
It uh it doesn't go much beyond that.
If you talk to the right ones, they will uh they'll admit that to you.
Go to the audio sound bites again.
This this is an illustration and telling you how the state controlled media really doesn't like Axelrod and Obama accusing the Chamber of Commerce of being foreign agents.
They really are uncomfortable trying to get them to stop this.
So this morning on MSNBC's leaning forward, it won't hurt a bit, morning Joe show.
They had Mark Halpern on there from Time Magazine.
And Scarborough said, Mark Halpern, this is their strategy now.
They've adopted this strategy, attacking a Chamber of Commerce and talking about foreign sources.
I'm not sure how they think this appeals to voters.
To call out the Chamber of Commerce for allegedly using foreign money.
It also seems a little strange to be demonizing the foreign.
No one's advocating law breaking, but this boogie word that they're using a foreign, as if somehow anything that's foreign is bad.
It's just not relevant to voters.
And for the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States to keep up a line with no basis where they say, well, the chamber has to prove they're not using foreign money.
It's just really mystifying.
Really?
Okay, don't like it.
They're mystified.
The Chamber has to prove they're not using foreign money.
It's mystifying.
Why?
Mark, they're Democrats.
This is common.
It's SOP.
It's standard operating procedure.
What is what is it's mystifying?
They have to prove it.
Axelrod was Schiffer.
Now, Schiefer said, Is this the best you can do?
And Axelrod says, Well, Bob, you have any evidence.
You have any evidence that they're not taking foreign money?
Sheeffers, do you have any evidence that they are?
And you have any evidence that they're not, Bob.
Yesterday afternoon on CNBC's power launcher in a power grid segment, the co-host Tyler Matheson spoke with uh Eamon Jabers, the Washington correspondent about foreign donations to political parties in the 2010 midterms.
Question uh foreign companies, U.S. subsidies having their own PACs.
Um, who of these PACs supported generally?
President Obama might want to look up the statistic because they're favoring Democrats.
More than six million dollars has gone to Democrats, and more than five million dollars has gone to Republicans from those subsidiaries, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies.
So clearly that group favoring the Democrats by a pretty healthy margin.
Right, and this is one of the reasons why the media is, well, you guys kind of back off of this.
I mean, we all know where the foreign money's going.
We remember John Huang.
We remember Charlie Tree.
The Chinese restaurateur from Little Rock, delivering thousands and thousands of dollars in money orders.
We remember Al Gore and the no-controlling legal authority with the Buddhist nuns contributing to Clinton campaign out in California, Los Angeles.
Here's Jake Tapper last night, ABC is world news tonight.
This is a uh report on foreign donations in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Is there any proof that foreign money is funding political ads or activities?
No.
The chamber says that no foreign money is used to fund our political activities.
But you're asking the chamber to prove a negative.
Prove that you're not doing such and such accusation.
It's not proving a negative, Jake, because all you have to do to clear up the questions is reveal who your donors are from.
There aren't any questions.
There weren't any questions until you raised them.
So the whole point is moot until the White House is where's his money coming from?
All of a sudden, because you ask the question, they have to respond, they have to uh they have to reveal where the money is coming from.
They don't have to reveal this.
Well, no, it's not proving a negative Jake.
All you have to do is clear up the question and reveal your don't is this is seriousness of the charge versus nature of the evidence.
Let's go back on Sunday.
Here's the mantra for the rest of the campaign from the drive-by media.
Do you I guess I would put it this way?
If the only charge uh three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that there's somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign.
Is that the best you can do?
I still love this.
I still love this.
Bob Schiefer got Axelrod on Sunday.
He's thinking he's gonna hit a home run.
He's gonna show up, he's gonna deliver a knockout punch.
It's gonna make it's gonna make it a sure shot that the Democrats hold the house and hold us in a day.
White house, this is Obama campaign.
They got something.
And I got them on my show, and they're gonna come here and they're gonna announce the blockbuster.
And they leak out this business of foreign money, Chamber of Commerce, a corrupt representative of foreign interests.
And Schiefers, I mean, just as let down as anybody can.
This is like, you know, wanting a train set on Christmas Day and your parents give you a fish or a rubber band to go out and kill mosquitoes with.
He says, Is this it?
You fire up Peggy Lee.
Is that all there is?
Now, Chris Matthews didn't like what Schaefer did, but for a different reason.
Here's what he had to say about foreign donations to the Chamber of Commerce in the 2010 midterm elections.
If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce raises millions and millions of dollars from its corporate sources, including overseas sources, and funnels that money right into these Republican campaigns.
What was illegitimate about what Axarod and the President are saying?
I don't understand Schaefer's question.
What's wrong with the basic charts?
So this is there's a little internecine battle going on here.
Uh clearly Matthews doesn't like the way Schiefer went out.
What's wrong with it?
What's wrong with it?
So we got it.
There's a circular firing squad uh going on.
I I like how much foreign money pours into General Electric, which owns NBC, which owns CNBC.
At least for a while, they got stimulus money.
It's a story in a stack here.
They got GE got 24, 25 million dollars in stimulus money, and they still laid off workers.
Yeah, I've got it here.
I've I'm sure I put this at the top of the stack.
It's in here someplace.
But it's yeah, find it.
He did.
GE got stimulus money and still fired a bunch of people.
Foreign how much foreign money goes to the paycheck of Chris Matthews.
How much foreign money actually ends up in the budgets to run?
Leaning forward, it won't hurt that much MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC.
And Matthews doesn't even get the basic facts right, which is not a surprise.
The Chamber of Commerce has not raised millions and millions of dollars.
They raised 100,000.
100,000.
GE laid off all those workers making incandescent light bulbs.
That's who lost their jobs because of Obama policy.
And they got a grant to go after whatever the green energy stuff.
So it was a double whammy.
Speaking of which.
Brief time out back right after this.
Okay, we're gonna start on the phones now, folks.
Even though, I mean, I could go another three hours here.
I got that much in the stack without taking a call, but I invite people to call.
I've been holding here for an hour and a half.
I am duty bound.
It's a it's a it's a matter of honor.
Uh well, I'm inviting people to call.
I should talk to them.
So let's go to St. Louis.
This is Brad, and thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rosh.
And Missouri Ditto's to you.
Appreciate it.
Um I have to slightly disagree, though, with your analysis regarding Obama's trip to Delaware, and here's why.
To me, this just seems like the next page from the same old Axelrod Obama playbook.
For example, a year ago, Obama goes out making speeches and trying to disparage the Republicans by casting your face as the face for the Republican Party.
And that failed.
Next, six months ago, he makes the same speeches trying to cast John Boehner's face as the face Republican Party to disparage Republicans.
And that failed miserably.
To me, this just seems like the next logical extension, because now they think because of this stuff that's come out about O'Donnell, now we've got our face for the Republican Party.
But this is going to fail, just like the prior two attempts did.
Well, but uh while all that may be true, and I have a brilliant response to it, ready to go here.
Even if all that's true, you still have to go there.
I mean, Obama did not come to the EIB network to use me.
He did it from the Oval Office.
He'd not go to Boehner's office at a Capitol Hill to try to demonize Boehner.
He did it from the Oval Orifice, and he had his minions do it.
To go in there.
And they're sending a lot of people from New Hampshire and others in to help shore up Coons the tax man.
But let me tell you something.
The big problem the Democrats are having, you're right.
They have to find an enemy.
That's right out of Olinsky's rules for Radicals 101.
Pick the enemy, identify it, freeze it.
All that stuff.
That's their usual strategy.
They had me.
They demonized me, as you say, and then Boehner.
They've had a lot of people.
The trouble is they've met the enemy, and it is us.
It's not one person.
It's all of us.
This is the shocking thing that Axelrod and the boys haven't yet figured out.
The enemy in political terms is us.
The enemy is over half of the country.
So if you want to try to find somebody that represents half the country to demonize, that's going to be a defeating policy.
You're going to have to find somebody who represents the thinking of 30, 40% of the country, which means Obama.
Obama's the guy that ought to be demonized.
Or Axelrod or anybody on the Democrat side, Barney Frank, Harry Reed, but they've met the enemy, and it is us.
The difficulty that they're having is trying to convince us, the enemy, to vote against ourselves.
Now they may be looking at it as uh convincing us to vote for them again.
But the truth is, they're trying to convince us, the enemy, to vote against ourselves.
Because you see, Christine O'Donnell is us.
Just like she said in her ad.
Sharon Angle is us.
Marco Rubio is us.
So the more they demonize us, the more damage they are inflicting on themselves.
But you still don't have to go into Delaware to demonize O'Donnell.
Besides, she's the most demonized person.
I guess what you know what Obama's really saying by doing this.
Bill Maher, we love you.
You're not cutting it.
Saturday Night Live, we love you, but you're not cutting it.
John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, we love you, but you're not cutting it.
We need to send a big guy in to get the truth out about Christine O'Donnell.
And we got to send him in to her backyard.
Because for all the efforts of Bill Maher and Saturday Night Live and Stewart and Colbert, she's still gaming on our guy.
So now it's time for the big guy.
Time for the big gun.
Imam Obama.
Bye.
Well, Going into her backyard because it's such an opportunity to portray us as cooks.
Richmond, Virginia.
Alan, welcome to the program, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush, Megaditos.
Uh, quick point.
Um I it reminds me of a commercial that's on TV now.
It's some insurance company that's probably soon to be on by the government, where the rattlesnake is sitting there and it's got a and the rabbit's scared, and then all of a sudden it's got a fake rattle tied to its tail.
That's what Obama and Axel Rod are looking like, and that's why Bob Schiefer's sitting there going, Y'all are turning into snakes with rattles on your tails, and it's hilarious to watch.
I hope they keep doing it.
Well, is that the traveler's insurance ad you're talking about?
Yeah, that's it.
And and so we're we're all out there, the conservatives, the Tea Party guys are the Jackrabbits running up in the field to look at uh Imam Obama with a rattle on his tail.
Excellent point, sir.
Our audience is observant.
And who says our audience is not steeped in the popular culture.
Have you seen that Traveler's ad, Snerdly?
Have you seen it?
It is hysterical.
It's it's hysterical.
And I think it they have Axel Rodden Obama, Bob Schiefer, compared to his playing roles in that ad is terrific.
All right.
I have to take a brief time out.
It's a sad note, but it's only three minutes or even less.
It won't feel like it's that long anyway.
Back before you know it.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh mind over chatter.
As we start a million conversations.
You see the lead story on the Drudge Report last night, and uh still up there today.
George Soros.
I can't stop.
A Republican avalanche.
This is the danger of putting all your eggs in one rich guy's basket.
George Soros, billionaire financier, who was an energetic Democrat donor in the last several election cycles, but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democrat prospects.
You're on your own, Barry.
You know what's kind of funny is that Soros is sending this out, and this bogus charge against the Chamber of Commerce came from a Soros front group.
Uh the what is it?
Uh the uh think progress.
And that the Jordan Soros pays for that uh that bunch.
All right, back to the phones.
Tracy in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
Great to have you on the uh EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
I love the subject.
This is so disgusting.
It's it's with regard to the hypocrisy and outrage by the president, the Democrats of the foreign money influencing and stealing our democracy.
However, Rush, they don't seem to have issue with, nor is any media outlet reporting on the fact that many foreign countries, including Mexico, are participating in our own gov with our government in a lawsuit against Arizona claiming human rights violations.
Um they have those amicus breeze.
They're participating with the city.
Of course.
I mean, the hypocrisy is wrecked.
I mean, it's all over the place out there.
We're going to screw Arizona, but not the Democrats, I guess.
I have a I have a speaking of all this immigration.
I have a story here, and I I might have just thrown it away.
It's interesting.
I go through the stack now and then, and I find things that I thought I might use before the show started show gets underway.
I said, No, I need to shrink the stack, throw that away.
And now she calls.
And I can't find it.
I don't know what I did with it, but I'll paraphrase it.
It's a story about how the Mexican people are all fed up that Guatemala will not stop their people from immigrating to Mexico.
Guatemalans are going to Mexico and stopping.
They're not continuing on to the United States.
So all the Mexican government's mad at us for trying to stop the illegals from uh crossing our border.
Uh and they want to sue Arizona and so forth.
They're upset that the Guatemalans are coming into their country and won't and won't keep going to the United States.
That's uh I don't know.
I just I find this kind of uh irony uh hilarious.
There's news of women out there today.
There are two stories, political stories, uh from the politico.
Let me get the dates of these stories, and I'll get them in sequential order.
Here we go.
October 11th, which would have been uh yesterday.
This is by Carrie Boodoff Brown.
And the headline poll, women see Obama failure.
The White House may view the last eighteen months as historic, racking up a legislative scorecard that includes the porculus bill and an overhaul of a health care system.
A majority of women, however, see it as a failure.
According to a new poll conducted by Kellyanne Conway for the Kitchen Cabinet, a conservative women's group.
The findings point to the divide this year between Washington and the electorate, which has yet to give Obama much credit for his string of legislative victories.
You know, that sentence is really enlightening.
That sentence really tells us a lot.
This is politico, so this is this is traditional state control media, partisan political operatives.
Listen to sentence.
The findings point to the divide this year between Washington and the electorate, which has yet to give Obama much credit for his legislative victories.
Now these people inside the belt were supposed to what?
Be happy in awe?
Ecstatic?
What is it?
Obama has had some victories?
Why?
Because the victories have been over Republicans.
Does it not matter, Miss Budolph Brown, the substance here?
Do you not get the fact the American people did not want Obama to win?
That it doesn't always translate to wonderfulness when presidents win their legislative battles.
But to these people inside the beltway, I mean such a narrow worldview, such a closed-minded worldview, such a limited way of defining success and moving forward.
Okay, so what happens if Obama has a piece of legislation that raises the marginal tax rate to 95% on everybody, and 80% of the country disagrees with it when we give a story about they just don't appreciate how good the guy is in getting his legislation passed.
It's as though the substance of this stuff doesn't matter to these people.
It doesn't factor in.
So after writing this sentence, the findings point to the divide this year between Washington and the electorate, which has yet to give Obama much credit for his string of legislative.
You know, it's it's not even about that.
The electorate is ticked off.
Ms. Budolf Brown, the electorate, I mean, is ready for overthrow here.
That's what this election's all about.
They want repeal.
They're upset that this thing was victorious, that parts of this agenda were victorious.
So the divide between Washington and the electorate.
And it's always because the electorate's a bunch of idiots.
I don't realize what a string of accomplishments Imam Obama has put forth here.
And in the next sentence, 56% of women consider the health care reform law a failure.
While 29% view it as a success, the economic stimulus pack is viewed only slightly more favorably.
53% say it was a failure, 34% say it was a success.
This is a survey of women.
Among independent women, a group that Democrats and Republicans are battling over, a majority viewed the health care overhaul, a stimulus package, the auto industry bailout, a troubled asset relief program TARP as failures.
A negative take on what the White House views as signature achievements helps explain, writes Ms. Budolf Brown here, at least in part, why the president and congressional Democrats have seen their approval ratings plunge since early last year and are struggling to gain traction ahead.
I mean, this is this is absurd.
The negative take explains in part why the president and Democrats have seen their approval ratings take a plunge.
As though this is an anomaly?
Democrats'approval numbers are never to take a plunge.
That's reserved exclusively for Republicans.
But it's happening to Democrats.
There must be some reason for it.
Yeah, they just don't appreciate.
We just don't appreciate how good Obama is to have secured these victories.
Sonia Eddings Brown, Treasurer Creator Kitchen Cabinet, the group here, people who voted for Obama feel just as betrayed by the outcome as conservatives.
Everybody realizes we're burying our kids in debt, and even Democrats realize hope and change had a price tag they didn't expect.
In the survey, 41% of the women identified themselves as Democrats, 37% as Republicans, 15% as independents, and the remainder said I might change my mind, so don't ask me now.
Conway, a Republican, Kellyanne Conway, who specializes in polling women voters, said she expected to see more optimism about the four major legislative achievements.
Now remember, this is of women.
So even Kelly, who's a conservative woman, she's Republican, she was surprised.
She thought that women would be more inclined to say good, oh, at least he got it done.
At least he moved the ball forward.
But then she said women are looking at this election almost entirely through an economic lens.
They expect the president to be a mathematician, not a magician.
The policies they have seen in the last year literally don't add up with them.
But the Conway survey paints the picture of a more motivated electorate.
More than two-thirds of women who are registered to vote said they are 100% likely to vote.
That's not good news for Democrats.
They generally count on the women vote.
The second story from Politico is today by Maren Kogan.
Yeah.
Democrats fear wipeout for women.
While conservatives are already celebrating the year of the Republican woman, thanks to a record number of GOP female candidates for Congress.
Democrats fear the opposite trend.
The year of the liberal no, they don't say that.
The year of the women's wipeout.
I'm adding liberal into it.
The year of women's wipeout, three Democrat women first elected in 92, the original year of the woman are at risk.
Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once rising stars like Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado, and Mary Joe Kilroy of Ohio.
Even if female GOP hopefuls like Sharon Angle in Nevada, Carly Fiorina in California, and Kelly Ayatt in New Hampshire make it to the Senate, the elections will still quite likely bring a net loss of women in Congress.
Oh, let's cry a tear.
Even if these Republican women win, it's a net loss.
The impact of more women in Congress is also trickled down to smaller cultural changes like installing breastfeeding rooms for new mothers on the Hill.
This should trouble anyone who believes that a Congress should be truly representatives of the people it serves.
Said Representative Judy Chu, Democrat California.
These libs don't represent most people.
This is the fun thing.
But the ousting of a wide swath of Democrat women November 2nd would chip away at a generation of female politicians inspired by the'92 election, which saw a surge of Democrat women perspired to break up the Boys Club of Congress after Anita Hill's testimony and then Judge Clarence Thomas'Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
So two stories in the politico.
Women angry in mass at Obama, and Democrat women prepared to take a shellacking and how this is bad for all women.
What did these women do?
What would Patty Murray do?
What did Barbara Box or what did they do but screw things up?
All these women that we're going to be so sorry to see go, what did they do?
And these other Republican women that were so frightened of, what did they do?
What did they do to anybody?
How have they negatively impacted politics?
What'd Sharon Engel do to anybody?
What'd Christine O'Donnell do to anybody?
What did Linda McMahon do to anybody?
What would I mean it's it's absurd here.
And what will a new flock of women from the Tea Party do to correct the mistakes of their sisters?
So I mean, from a cultural point of view.
Uh this is an amazing turn of events.
It is a total what's shaping up here.
A total repudiation of liberal women, not women, but liberal women.
It's a total repudiation of liberal women and the feminizes in the media and ags are not happy.
I mean, I mean, there is discord across the left of the political spectrum.
I'm gonna tackle this.
I'm not gonna spend much time on it, but people are demanding my take on the outcome of the football game last night.
The Minnesota Vikings and the New York Jets, and people want to know Rush, rush.
It was obviously Bret Farbrett Farbrett Favre was distracted by all a text message and sex, uh text messaging controversial.
No, no, no, no.
Whatever Favre did or didn't do with the sideline host had nothing to do with why the Vikings lost the game last night.
The Vikings lost the game for one reason.
Late in the fourth quarter, a New York Jets defensive back remembered that he saw the exact formation that the Vikings were lined up in.
On third, and whatever the yard of situation was, he remembered the film studied.
They always go to the tight end.
He had the tight end in coverage.
He jumped the route, 26 yard interceptions returned, Favre threw a pick six.
And I don't think he was thinking about a sideline, babe, when he threw the p through the pass.
Everybody says he's Fav distracted by the six No.
Just like last year in a championship game is Superdome threw a pick in overtime at the end of the game.
Uh the end of regulations threw a pick last night.
He happens to do this now and then in the games they lose late in the day.
Trisha, Trumbull, Connecticut.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, um, although I've never met you, you are my friend, and I believe a friend to everyone who desires that which is good and right.
Wow.
And success and happiness for all, and I I EIB is is wonderful, but I think it's a huge understatement to me.
You are brilliant in fearless broadcasting, and you deserve a promotion to something like Supreme Dean Dean of Truth Tellers.
Um but and the opposite of that is uh cacistocracy, which is government by the least qualified or most unprincipled, which uh I w was reminded of when you were talking last week, and many were about uh Blumenthal running uh for Senate against um Linda McMahon uh to replace Chris Dodd.
Yeah, what did you think of his attempt to explain how a job is created?
Yeah, I total fumbling, but that that represents him.
I mean, for a quarter century, he has worked in government for two decades as he's well earned the the Silver Kuehem all Blumenthal.
I mean, he sued thousands of companies and uh well deserves the title of uh nation's second worst attorney general this year, um, rate rated by the competitive enterprise institute.
Um and uh it includes things like uh selective application of the law, ethical breaches, fabricating law, usurping legislative power.
So anyway, he some think he would be even worse than Chris Dudd, which I'll tell you, anybody that doesn't eat, you can't trust him, and he looks like he doesn't eat.
And either way the guy speaks, I'm proud of my service.
I'm proud of my time served in Vietnam.
Give me a break.
What?
It seems that there is a uh woman in Congress, uh Virginia, Congressional District one by the name of Crystal Ball.
And she doesn't like being called a whore.
Uh Crystal Ball.
▲
Export Selection