All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
October 19, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at me.
Look at me.
There is no more compromising with Democrats and you can compromise with the Taliban.
Who in the hell thinks that this can be done?
Mr. Issa, what are you thinking?
Who are you talking to?
What voters want us to compromise with the Democrats or with Obama?
You don't compromise with the Taliban.
You don't compromise with Castro.
You don't compromise with Lenin.
You don't compromise with Stalin unless you want to starve to death.
The lesson of 1994 is not the government shutdown.
For crying out loud, these analogies amuse me.
Here's the lesson of 1994, and I'll tell you exactly what it was, and I've said this over and over again.
The biggest mistake that was made after 1994 was that Newt and the boys believed that the country had gone conservative, and they stopped teaching.
They removed all ideology from what they did when it came time to balance the budget or implement any new legislation.
They didn't say.
And this is because of X, Y, and Z. Conservatism, what we believe.
They just did it, assuming that people knew.
That assumption should never be made.
The reasons for doing things must always be explained.
It's in the Constitution.
It's in the best interest of the people.
We care about people.
We care about the country.
We need to fix what's wrong.
That's the biggest lesson of 1994.
We quit.
We quit educating.
And we quit fighting, essentially.
And there was something else that happened in 1994, and this is key too.
I remember I was made an honorary member of the freshman class in 1994, and I went to their, what do you call it, freshman orientation at Camden Yards.
I went there because they asked me to stand up there and speak to them.
And I said, do not think the media is happy you're here.
Do not expect Cokie Roberts to come bat her big eyebrows at you and say, let's go to lunch.
Cokie Roberts and the rest of the media would be agitated that you are here.
They're not going to treat you like the ruling class Democrats.
They're going to treat you as though you're not the majority.
You're interlopers.
They have no interest in dealing with you in the matter of a form of respect.
I remember making that statement plain as day, and I warned them that the idea that they were going to be the majority and have automatic respect as a result of that, not going to happen.
There's a third lesson.
For 40 years, Republicans have been losers.
For 40 years, Republicans had been in the minority.
And then one day, they weren't.
And there was nobody on the Republican side who knew what it was like to be in the majority.
I've drawn the analogy.
Those of you who have had weight problems over the course of your life, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
You lose a lot of weight, but you still stop at every mirror to make sure it's still gone.
Every storefront, every piece of glass, you still look, you turn sideways.
Am I gaining it back?
You still are thinking fat.
You still think you've got to turn a different way to get through a turnstile when you don't anymore.
You become accustomed to being what you are.
And all of a sudden, when you're now the majority and leading and you have no experience at it, what do you do?
Well, that's not going to happen this time because the same people, some of the same people who were there in 1994 had no clue what to do, were in leadership roles.
Some people who were not in the leadership roles witnessed what happened back then and don't want to repeat it.
So the 1994 analogy here to 2010 is baseless in any number of ways.
And ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly what the media always does before an election if they think it's going to go bad for the Democrats.
The headline story in the New York Times before the state primary there last month was, New York voters are more hopeless than angry.
The upshot of that story was that it was a waste of time to vote since all the candidates were exactly the same.
Mind you, this is the primary that gave us Carl Palladino, who's not like anybody else.
Now, we have soundbites of that debate last night.
This could have been, this race could have been something.
This race could have, you know, there was a story I had yesterday in the stack.
I'd have to find it over there.
New York voters fed up with Albany.
New York voters fed up with the way things are going.
And yet, Andrew Cuomo is in the lead.
He is Albany.
Andrew Cuomo personifies what's wrong.
It could have been different.
If Palladino hadn't gotten sidetracked on whether Cuomo had an affair or not, hadn't launched into attack on Fred Dicker, just stuck to the issues of how screwed up the state is and they need to be fixed.
It could have been.
Hell, I don't know, might still could be.
But the media always does this.
Try to tell you it's pointless, it's hopeless.
The things that you expect to happen after you win, they're not going to happen because, you know, the leaders of your party know you're a bunch of doofuses.
One of the lessons of 1994, too, the GOP wins when they nationalize congressional elections.
That was revolutionary for 1994.
Nationalize the elections.
You know, house races, up to that point, traditionally have been run on the local matters.
How much pork had been brought home?
Who built the old folks' home?
Who got the new wing on the old folks' home?
Who built the new water treatment center?
That kind of stuff.
But in 1994, they nationalized the election.
And they asked, how will your guy do in defeating the Soviets?
How will your guy do protecting the country?
How will your guy do on the borders?
Essentially, when you nationalize the election, you ask people to think about the good of the nation instead of whether Congressman Bloghorn brought home some bacon.
Now, one mistake the elites in both parties are going to make is that all they have to do from now on is get enough earmarks for their district or state.
I think they can still be bought off with earmarks.
The people are realizing more and more that all that really is coming out of their pockets.
It's just being redistributed, being taken from them in the first place before it is being given back to them.
There's a story in the Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper today.
Republicans wrestle with how they would govern in the majority.
Republicans are beginning to publicly wrestle with how they would govern if they captured control of Congress two weeks from now in the midterm elections.
Really?
I'm intrigued.
You want to read on as polls show the GOP within striking distance of winning back the House and the Senate, Republican lawmakers are facing competing pressures to either work constructively to help govern or to live up to their electoral promises.
As though you can't do both.
Let me tell you what the fork in the road is, America or Obama.
We can't have both.
That's the fork in the road.
In fact, that's the next cover of the Limball Letter.
Those of you who are fortunate enough to subscribe, wait till you see the cover of the next Limball letter.
It's a fork in the road.
I'm driving America on the left, Obama on the left, America on the right.
It can't go both ways.
You can't have both at the same time.
So, Republican lawmakers are facing competing pressures to either work constructively to help govern, i.e., compromise, or to live up to their electoral promises, because you can't do both, they say, at the Hill.
You can't live up to your electoral promises and govern constructively.
One senior Republican, Senator Judd Gregg, Republican New Hampshire, on Tuesday questioned whether the party's approach to one of the biggest issues in the election, new health care reform law, is a good one.
Judd Gregg on Fox Business Network said, I don't think starving or repealing the health care law is probably the best approach here.
You basically go in and you restructure it.
A comment from the retiring Republican senator reflects not only a shift in his own thinking, but also reflects the tensions facing his party as it prepares to possibly retake the reins.
Here's the media coming right in here and telling the Republicans, you can't fulfill the obligations of those wacko voters that are going to elect you and govern constructively.
You can't do this.
Meanwhile, CBS News is reporting the national debt is up $3 trillion on Obama's watch.
And we got a story about how a retiring Republican senator says, we can't roll that bill, not the way to go.
We need to restructure.
Republicans say their recalcitrance on fiscal issues led to their defeats in 2006 and 2008.
No, they're recalcitrant on.
What led to their defeat in 2006 and 2000?
Well, 2006 is named Foley.
In 2008, it is that they began to act like the elites inside the beltway.
What is this?
Recalcitrance on fiscal issues.
They often mention they were fired by voters those years and have promised to adhere to conservative principles should they regain control of either chamber.
Many of the established Republicans are facing their last shot with the party's voters.
Former Governor Alaska, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said Monday, Palin, who led an insurgency earlier this year with Tea Party groups, said, if Republicans don't follow through on their promises, voters might start asking why not a third party.
Well, this is a recipe for it, except what's going to happen is the Republican Party will be the third party.
Now, how do you compromise with a $3 trillion increase in a national debt?
$1.5 trillion?
Where do you compromise?
Where is constructive governance on the national debt going up $3 trillion?
Redstate.com has more on the Judd Gregg situation.
Senator Judd Gregg, New Hampshire, top Republican Senate Budget Committee, said that repealing the new health care reform law or looking to defund it were not good options.
And they have the quote here that he uttered on the Fox Business Network.
I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach.
You basically go in there and restructure it.
Now, what do you think is driving this?
Do you think that what's driving Senator Gregg is the issue?
Or is it maybe something?
What else drives politics, Mr. Znerdling?
Money.
As Red State points out, the Senate leadership staff will say that this is just Judd Gregg, who is retiring and not reflective of the Senate GOP leadership.
But there is a problem the past several weeks.
There have been several closed-door, off-the-record meetings of high-dollar donors getting briefings from various elected officials.
One of them was down here last week.
I did not go to it.
I was invited to a private introduction to it after it was over.
Well, I didn't do because I knew what was going to happen.
But one of these closed-door, off-the-record meetings of high-dollar donors getting briefings from various elected officials, including several senators.
In each case, the donors have been reassured by the senators present that they have no intention of repealing Obamacare, just restructuring it.
This is what big donors are being told by Senate leaders.
Don't worry, don't worry, don't worry.
We're not going to restrict it.
We're just going to restructure it.
The senators seem to think that the high-dollar donors were not kooks like the Tea Party activists.
The senators seem to think that the high-dollar donors would understand the practical need to just restructure instead of repeal.
Unfortunately, senators have badly misread the donors.
As Red State writes, in any event, you can be sure that Judd Gregg is not speaking out of turn and is not a lone wolf on this issue.
His view reflects that of the Senate Republican leadership, despite their protestations to the contrary.
It's worth noting here, neither Mitch McConnell or Lamar Alexander has signed on as co-sponsors to Jim DeMint's legislation that would repeal Obamacare.
They haven't signed it.
They're going after DeMint in their own way.
Now, Judd Gregg's a little bit of an Obama.
He was Obama's pick-to-be healthcare czar.
He turned it down, remember.
But Northeastern, so-called Republican.
No, no.
Now, these Senate leaders and senators believe that their donors are not Tea Party people.
And that their donors think that Tea Party people are kooks.
So they're having these closed-door meetings.
They're like, don't worry, don't worry.
We know what we're doing here.
We'll restructure.
We're not going to repeal it.
And they guess they're finding out this is not what the donors have in mind.
I know they were given an earful down here.
And that's that.
We come back.
We'll get to your phone calls, and I'm prepared.
Just don't ask me, why are the Republicans doing X?
Because I'm not one of them.
Back after this.
All right, as promised, let's go to the phones.
We're going to start Fort Wayne, Indiana.
This is Bruce.
Thank you, sir, and welcome.
Thank you, sir.
It's a privilege.
The election, with what we're facing, the elites, I don't think 70 seats are going to be enough.
I don't think 100 seats are going to be enough.
I really don't.
For what?
To do what?
In the House of Representatives, November 2nd.
I don't think winning 100 seats is going to affect what we're facing with the Republican establishment.
I just really don't.
We're going to have to.
I just, I don't think they're going to get the message.
I think they've got the message now, but they've got the message.
They just don't want to act on it.
But is 100 going to do it?
I mean, is that wave of 100 seats really going to do it?
Let me tell you something.
Wait a second now.
Wait a second.
Now, stop and think of what you're saying here.
If Wednesday morning we wake up and the Republicans have won 100 seats has never happened before in the history of the country.
You don't think that that's going to be enough?
It's going to be enough to stop Obama, and that's the first thing that has to happen.
It's going to be enough to stop Obama.
It's going to be enough to stop this notion of compromise.
The Senate's going to be the problem with compromise.
I don't know about John Boehner.
I really, at times, Boehner sounds great, other times not.
Boehner's going to be in the leadership position.
And like you said, the Senate with the Makowski types, I just, I mean, Mikowski was in Mitch McConnell's kitchen cabinet meeting.
But now, wait a second.
Where is it written that Boehner's going to win the election to be Speaker?
Well, I hope it's Mike Tense, but we'll have to wait and see on that.
Well, we don't know who is even going to run.
Now, wait a second here.
This is very tough.
You can't, you can't throw cold water on 100 seats.
You can't do that.
If we win 100 seats, you can't sit out there and say, there's not enough.
This is the first of many here.
We've got to start someplace.
I agree, but you yourself have said the reason you don't go to Washington very often is because there's a disease there, and you go there and you get out as quickly as possible.
That mindset, I mean, you are an honorary member of the class of 94.
You were brought in there, and ultimately, at the end of the day, your advice didn't really mean a hill of beans being in there long enough that that 94 victory became business as usual, followed by Barack Obama.
I'll tell you, there's part and parcel of that.
My advice was heated by the freshmen almost universally.
Four time.
Well, there were 56 of them, and they pretty much all heeded my advice.
One of the problems, 1994, one of the problems that exists today in the conservative movement is the ego.
Everybody wants to be the leader.
Everybody wants to be considered the smartest guy in the room.
And if somebody is aced out of it, then they turn liberal and left and run against and start writing against conservatism because they've got their noses out of joint.
Like Trent Lott.
Like Trent Lott and the Strom Thurman thing.
After that, Lott became rather unreliable and turned coat in many ways.
Well, yeah, you can mention individual examples of it to illustrate the point.
No question about it.
But the freshmen, the freshmen in 1994, they're the guys, they're the people that held together to stop Hillary care.
It does matter.
Now, that was 56 seats.
It was not a 56-seat majority.
They won 56 seats.
If we win 100, nobody's expecting that, by the way.
You can't look at this as not enough.
Really, it would be huge.
And as I said, you have to start someplace.
But conservatism, it's not a monolithic movement.
There's all kinds of competing ideas in it.
There are all kinds of different egos.
We're not monolithic.
This is one of the problems that happens.
In that West Virginia Senate race, John Racy and Joe Manchin.
I told you last week a poll came out that had Manchin up five points.
This is BS.
This isn't true.
And now, Fox, they're going to pull out and report a couple of polls.
John Racy is up three to five points over Manchin in West Virginia.
Gallup, unemployment as measured by Gallup, without seasonal adjustment, is at 10% in mid-October, essentially the same as it was at the end of September, but up sharply from 9.4% in mid-September and 9.3% at the end of August.
Now, one of the interesting things, if you read deep in the Gallup story, Gallup is expecting one of the worst unemployment claims Statistics, stories, whatever, to be released on November 5th.
The election is November the 2nd.
November 5th would be the end of the week.
Gallup says that the unemployment news that week, the first time claims for unemployment is going to be off the charts.
In other words, all the really bad news is being tamped down prior to the election, and after that, the truth will start to emerge.
And just how bad it really is will be reflected in the November the 5th numbers.
As well as that, the Gallup breakdown of 14.2% of Americans between 18 and 29 are unemployed, and 13.8% of those with no college education were unemployed mid-October.
And there are fewer working part-time looking for full-time employment.
So there's no recovery taking place whatsoever, and it's obviously probably still worsening.
And the truth of that is being tamped down and suppressed during this electoral cycle.
Cheryl, Scandia, Michigan, you're next on the phones on the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Thank you.
Great to be here.
Great to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
If Obama has to face major losses in the House and major losses in the Senate, we better batten down the hatches.
This man is going to lash out at the American people like we have never seen.
It's going to be one very angry man.
Yeah, he already is.
You're exactly right.
He's already starting to do that.
The American people are already stupid.
We don't deal with things well when we're upset and angry.
It will never be his.
That's what that New York Times story was all about.
That 12-pager.
If Obama can't do it, nobody can.
If Obama can't achieve greatness in wars, nobody can.
If Obama can't get his face on Mount Rushmore, nobody can.
They've already started that.
You're very shrewd to perceive that.
Well, it's just his personality.
It's just the way he is.
I think he's going to lose it.
At some point, he's going to self-destruct.
He's going to be angry at the Democrats for not showing up to vote, and he's going to be angry at the Republicans and the Independents because they did.
So he's got no place to go.
He's just going to be angry at everybody.
And I think we're going to be the ones that are going to suffer for it.
I see executive orders coming down the chute.
I see him bypassing Congress as much as he can.
Yeah, exactly right.
And that scares me.
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute now.
The conventional wisdom on the Republican side is that Obama's going to have to compromise with us.
There's no compromise.
You are 100% right with that.
I know.
It's his way or the highway.
It always has been.
It always has been.
There's never a compromise with that.
He doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Well, you're right.
It's not just that, though.
It's he's serious about his chip-on-the-shoulder agenda about this country.
He's serious.
This country needs to be cut down to size.
He is serious.
This country has to pay a price for its imperialism.
Look, folks, when I was talking to Dinesh D'Souza, the interview for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter, Dinesh D'Souza's theory is that Obama's father was the primary influence on Obama.
And Obama's father hated colonialists, anti-colonialists, hated the British.
So I asked Dinesh, what's the difference in colonial and imperialistic?
He said, well, basically the same thing.
So, the root word of imperialistic is empire.
And what did Obama say?
The empire striking back, meaning us, his opposition is the empire.
I don't think it's accidental.
He looks at this country as colonialist or as imperialistic.
Forcing our ways on people, plundering their natural resources, plundering the third party or the third world's poor people, all for our own selfishness, and it's time we pay a price.
Look, it's not hard to accept, well, it may be hard to accept it.
It's not hard to figure it out.
Reverend Wright, look at all of his mentors, black liberation theology.
Reverend Wright is one of his mentors.
Look at all the people that bent and shaped Obama and formed him as he's growing up.
They all have a grudge against this country.
They've all got some animus toward this guy.
He's not going to compromise.
That's what's so silly about the Republicans now thinking that we got a compromise.
The American people want us to compromise with him.
The American people don't want to see this guy re-elected.
The American people don't want any more of his agenda.
I'm talking about a majority.
Now, I got an email.
Rush, you didn't tell the audience what the reaction was from the senators and they had closed-door meeting that you said took place down in Florida last week.
When the senators came down here and said, look, we're not the Tea Party.
We know you're not the Tea Party.
We're not going to repeal health care.
We can't really do any of that.
We're not going to have that kind of power.
We're not going to be able to run things.
You better realize.
People want to know what was the reaction.
Well, I don't know what the reaction.
Everybody in the room was.
I talked to a couple people that were there, and they told me that they went up to the senators and said, well, if this is your attitude, you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
If this is the way you're looking at it, you can kiss any money from us and you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
So that's what they were told by quote-unquote big donors and quasi-important people.
That's just two of them that I know who were there.
And one email said, why weren't you there?
I don't do the group stuff.
I was asked to meet with them afterwards, which I couldn't do because we had a bunch of people over.
It was a Monday night.
It was a week ago yesterday.
We had a bunch of people over at a Monday night football party, and I couldn't make it.
But I did talk to a couple of people who went, and they told me full force that they said after the message, if this is what you're thinking that you can't repeal and that you don't have that much power and you're not going to really be able to affect change, and you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
Obama, the Democrats are going to be back in power, if that's the way you're going to approach this.
I think to the extent that that happened here, and I read Red State, apparently it's happening in a lot of places around the country, I think, I said, well, what was the reaction?
What did their faces look like when you told them?
They said it were blank stares.
When you said to them, well, if that's the way you're going to look at this, you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
They just had blank stares on their faces.
They said, yep.
Just had blank stares.
Like they were broadsided with shock.
So apparently, when they're meeting with high-roller donors, the presumption is the high-roller donors are not you, not us.
They're not Tea Party.
They're not kooks.
That they are more like the elites, a little bit more reasonable.
And I guess they're finding out that that's not the case.
So apparently what the message that's going around here, and the political piece today, the Wall Street Journal piece, and to the extent that it's true at all of these private donor meetings around the country, sounds like the message is, yes, we can't.
Doesn't it?
I mean, if you're told, look, got to keep things in perspective.
We're not going to control a government.
We're not going to have that much power.
We're not going to be able to repeal anything.
And certainly, Obama's going to have to come our way.
We're going to have to, because he's going to want to get re-elected.
Sounds like, yes, we can't.
Now, well, the moderate women republic, Lisa Murkowski said, you hear what Lisa Murkowski's doing?
A bunch of federal project people, people totally funded by federal projects, are funding her rewrite or write-in campaign in Alaska.
Yeah.
A bunch of union types who exist on federal grants are paying for Murkowski's write-in campaign in Alaska.
But when you say the women Republican are not saying, you mean the Palins and the Michelle Bachmans and Sharon Angle?
Yeah, you're right.
Christine O'Donnell.
No, they're not of that mindset.
We're talking about elected.
We're talking about incumbents.
But look.
Oh, yeah.
I've been optimistic from the get-go, but I've also tempered it with reality.
This is the first step of many.
When have you known elites to give up power and control?
They're just not going to say, look, they didn't like it when Reagan won.
I'm gotten blue in the face explaining this to people.
They even bided their time when Reagan won.
And even at that, they worked on Nancy to get their guys in there as chiefs of staff or advisors.
You know, the elite blue-blood types.
And I don't have to mention the names.
Well, I did not mention.
Who do you think I mentioned?
I said, I didn't mention.
No, not Deaver.
Not Dem, but later on.
I didn't say, no, no, Deaver was part.
No, Deaver and Baker were part of the original.
No, no, no.
Well, which Baker?
No, no, no.
I'm thinking of Duberstein, Howard Baker, these guys.
They came in late in the second term.
I mean, even at that point, the ruling class Republicans still, rather than realize what they had in Reagan, still try to get in there and massage it in their own image in their own way, taking advantage of Iran-Contra to do so.
Well, yeah, I warned you about this.
I'm optimistic because I've never seen a groundswell like this, not in my lifetime.
Now, I'm sure it's happened in the country, Civil War, and the original revolution.
But this needs to be understood.
This is just the first of many battles in the war here.
I remember when I was a neophyte back when Democrats lost elections, I said, okay, that'll teach them.
No, it steals their resolve to be even worse.
It's like the lady just said, Obama's going to get shellacked here.
You're not going to teach him anything.
You are going to become more stupid than ever, and you're going to have to be punished for doing what you did.
So, hello, VAT tax.
Hello, other tax increase.
Oh, folks, they don't learn their lessons.
You're supposed to learn yours when you don't vote right.
I got to take a break.
We'll come back.
Don't go away.
And let me tell you something else here.
Ladies and gentlemen, once the population, once the people who make this country, what is the biggest lament of people in the country, particularly those who don't vote?
And my vote doesn't count.
Well, what I do doesn't matter.
That's why I don't vote.
System's rigged.
Lobbyists, big money people, they run the show.
That's why I don't vote.
Well, once the populace, once the people who make this country work, the moms and pops, once they get the crazy idea that they do have control over elections,
that their vote does matter, when they get that crazy idea, even the legislation that comes out of Washington, you're going to see a hell of a lot more citizen activism.
Once the people who make this country work lose their cynicism, and this could be an election that causes that to happen.
You talk about 60, 70, let's even dream here, 100 seats.
You think it's not enough?
You think the message won't be received with 100?
Here's the big thing.
This is what the elites know.
Once the people out there in the hinterlands, once they in flyover country, once they figure out they can affect the outcome of legislation, and they got a taste of it with immigration, they stopped it.
And they would have stopped health care were it not for a bunch of extra constitutional crap, were it not for a bunch of illegal crap.
They had stopped health care.
The American people were dead set opposed to it.
Once they figure out that their involvement does make a difference, you're going to see a hell of a lot more of their involvement.
And then you're going to see a hell of a lot more politicians listening to them.
Because one thing is not going to change.
And that is the first objective of any politician is to get reelected.
So this election could have a major, or could be the beginning of a major shift in the people who make this country work actually seeing that their vote makes a difference.
Once they start thinking that, you're going to have more turnout.
Once they realize that it does matter how they vote, that it does matter that they get involved at the grassroots level.
Once they figure that out, get out of their way.
Katie bar the door, get out of their way.
And that's one of the potential things here that's just lurking as a possibility with this election.
Now, a change of pace here for just a minute.
I'm not going to have time to get into it right now.
We'll do it in the next hour.
There was a debate today between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Koons.
And the way the media, I read this this morning and I knew, I just knew, and I didn't have time to get into the details at the time, but I knew with what I had read that it could not be this way.
There was a story that was written in such a way to make the reader believe that Christine O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment prohibited the government from establishing a religion.
The story was written in such a way they had Christine O'Donnell saying, you telling me that's in the First Amendment?
What she was talking about was this idiot Koons talking about the separation of church and state.
She was saying, are you telling me separation of church and states in the Constitution?
Because it isn't.
There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state.
It is Koons who couldn't figure out what's in the Constitution.
It's Koons who didn't know what he was talking about.
And so the panic in the state-controlled media, they write a story making it look like O'Donnell doesn't know what she's talking about.
They have to misquote her and take her out of context in order to make this point.
Are you telling me that that's in the First Amendment?
Meaning the government cannot officially sponsor a religion.
That's not what she was expressing incredulity over.
She was incredulous that somebody was saying that the Constitution said there must be separation between church and state.
Those words are not in the Constitution.
So I'll play you audio soundbite of this.
And of course, we have other soundbites.
We haven't even gotten to those yet.
We'll do that in the next hour when we get back.
Plus, infiltrate more of your phone calls into the mix.
It is the fastest three hours in media, as evidenced by the fact two hours have already gone by.
And if I hadn't told you that, you wouldn't know that two hours had gone by.
Only one precious, busy broadcast hour remains today.
We'll come back and get started with it.
We're going to talk fast, get a lot of stuff in.
▲
Export Selection