All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
October 19, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Brian, how long is it going to take you to put that video card in and get this new monitor up and running?
Good.
I'm staying here to watch it.
One of the reasons it hasn't worked up till now is because I haven't been here.
Snurdley, you can go.
I'm going to stay here and watch it.
Hey, welcome back.
Great to have you here.
Rushland Boss serving humanity simply by showing up.
It's getting bad in Delaware.
Michelle Mawkin has the story.
And as I say, I read something that I just knew could not be true.
I just knew it couldn't be true.
ISIS people are calling.
I know I interviewed him for the newsletter.
That's why this quote seems so strange in this Wall Street Journal piece.
ISIS, I guess he's getting calls from you people.
The Wall Street Journal quotes him as saying that voters want Republicans to compromise with the Democrats.
And I interviewed him.
Yeah, well, I interviewed him for the newsletter.
He didn't say anything like this.
Does he want to get on the air?
Well, schedule it.
Schedule it.
Schedule it for the second half of this hour.
Well, the second segment of this hour, if you can, find out when he can do it.
We'll bend and change.
It's popping.
Anyway, back to Delaware here.
I'm reading this story today, and it makes it out like Christine O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion by government.
I said, my first reaction when I read it was to Colson.
I said, what the hell is this?
And I said, this can't be.
I'm not going to call anybody.
This has to be an out-not lie.
Here's a partial sound bite from a debate this morning in Wilmington at Widener Law School during the debate.
It's a discussion of evolution and creationism.
After Koons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism, but that religious doctrine doesn't belong in public schools.
Christine O'Donnell and Koons, they had this exchange about the separation of church and state.
in the constitution is separation of church and state it's an excellent point Hold on.
The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion.
Could you replay the bite?
I need to hear the whole bite.
Somebody interrupted me during the replay the bite.
Here's what Christine O'Donnell said.
Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?
It's in.
The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion.
And she said, you telling me that's in the First Amendment.
What she meant was, are you telling me separation of church and states in the First Amendment?
It's not.
Christine O'Donnell was absolutely correct.
The First Amendment says nothing about the separation of church and state.
This is a modern and incorrect description of the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion, pure and simple.
And the left has taken this to say that religious people cannot be in government.
And that you can't teach something like creation in the schools while you can teach evolution.
Because evolution isn't religion, but creationism is.
Intelligent design can't be taught because that's a religion evolution isn't.
Yet both require faith because neither can be proved as an explanation of where all this came from.
Nobody can prove where this came from.
You can't say that we evolve from nothing.
And the anti-creationists don't want to believe that there's a God with intelligent, efficient design, all that.
She was not saying she didn't know that government shall not establish a religion.
So that's the bite.
You heard the laughter.
Now, Michelle Morkin has a different take.
Chris Koons cannot name the five freedoms in the First Amendment.
This is what's not being reported.
Delaware Democrat Senate candidate Chris Koons cannot name the five freedoms in the First Amendment.
All you will hear from the state-controlled media today is that Christine O'Donnell correctly questioned Kuhn's claim that the phrase the separation of church and state appears in the First Amendment.
Kuhn's ignorance doesn't fit the O'Donnell Bashir's narrative, so they'll pretend that this didn't happen.
And here's the story.
Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.
The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democrat opponent Chris Koons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion.
At which point O'Donnell jumped in, where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?
The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback with shouts of whoa and laughter coming from the crowd.
Koons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
O'Donnell says, you're telling me the First Amendment does.
Following the next question, Koons revisited the remark, thinking he had caught O'Donnell in a flub, saying, I think you've just heard from my opponent in her asking, where is the separation of church and state, show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.
O'Donnell again said, that's in the First Amendment.
Koons said yes.
O'Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Koons if he could identify the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Koons named separation of church and state, but could not identify the others.
Freedom of speech, press, to assemble and petition.
And then asked O'Donnell, allow the moderators to ask the questions.
I guess he can't, O'Donnell said.
So when he got caught with his own intellectual pants down, he ran to the moderator for cover.
All she was saying was, the Constitution doesn't say anything about separation of church.
Listen to the bite again, because the scary thing here is that the audience laughed.
That's the scary thing.
The scary thing at a law school, the scary thing is that a bunch of idiots laughed at the notion that the Constitution doesn't say separation of church and state.
Here's the bite again.
It's number 31.
Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?
It's in, you know, an excellent point.
Hold on.
The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish any religion.
That's not in the Constitution.
Separation, church, and state is not in the Constitution.
And the fact that people laughed about this is what's really scary.
Most of the framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays.
And in fact, the House is opened every day with a prayer.
Apparently back in the day, the founders didn't know that there was separation of church and state.
All the founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion.
It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion.
The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House.
The House has a chaplain for crying out loud.
So this story, purposely written to make it look like Christine O'Donnell does not know what's in the First Amendment when she was right.
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word separation of church and state, and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government.
All it says is that the government shall not establish one.
The United States government cannot proclaim this is a Christian nation, cannot proclaim this is a Jewish state, cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam.
They cannot do it.
But we can have Islamists in government.
We can have Christians in government.
We can have Jews in government and they can pray while serving.
This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I've been alive to get God out of our culture, to get God out of the schools, to get God out of everyday life.
So try to say that the Constitution prohibits God.
That's what they want the interpretation of First Amendment to be.
The Constitution does not prohibit God.
I mean, for crying out loud, look at the Declaration, acknowledged as one of our founding documents.
We are all created or endowed by our Creator.
The reason for this phrase in the First Amendment was, where were these people fleeing?
England.
The Church of England.
Henry VIII established a religion so he could get divorced.
Pure and simple.
He wanted to get a divorce.
Religion said, no, okay, I'm going to make my own religion.
Screw you.
And I'm going to behead somebody.
Screw you.
They were fleeing religious persecution.
The scary thing is that a bunch of dumb cough Dingleberry law students, an audience at a law school, laughed at the correct portrayal of what's in the Constitution.
Christine O'Donnell may be as stupid as Justice Scalia.
We don't want what he said about it.
Justice Scalia, in holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the court with narrow mention that it is doing so lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of non-sectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally.
As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the court invents a boundless and boundlessly manipulable test of psychological coercion.
That is Justice Scalia writing about people amplifying the Establishment Clause to suggest that God can't be mentioned, that prayers cannot happen at public graduations.
That was Justice Scalia writing about those on the Supreme Court who would rule that God could not be part of anything to do with government or anything public.
The Constitution doesn't say it.
Christine O'Donnell was right.
Chris Coons couldn't name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment.
Christine O'Donnell is, well, does she?
Snurdly says that Christine O'Donnell's not slick.
She doesn't know how to say it to get past these connivers and SOBs in the media.
I guess not if you want to look at it.
She simply, a guy says, well, the First Amendment says establishment, church and state.
You telling me that's in the first amendment.
She knows full well it's not.
She's not, it's not that she's not slick enough.
She's assuming that everybody's as smart as she is.
She's assuming that everybody's as informed as she is.
That's the mistake many of us conservatives make.
We assume everybody knows what we know.
We assume everybody is as informed as we are.
That's why I say it was really scary that these lame brains at that law school laughed at the absolute correct assertion that she made.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting-edge societal evolution.
Our telephone number 800-282-2882 will get back to your phone calls in a moment.
First up, Congressman Darrell Issa from California.
Congressman, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Well, Rush, thanks for the opportunity to clarify what a half hour of an interview turns into and it turns into one bullet line by an author.
Well, let me tell you what it says.
The whole story is about you guys wanting to shut down government and how that won't work.
It's all about how Republicans really in private realize they're going to have to compromise with Obama and you get quoted.
It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise to advance their agenda that way.
They want us to come together with the administration after we agree to disagree.
That's what they quote you as saying.
Well, certainly to me, we're going to have to fund our military.
We're going to have to make sure that we have an active role in overseeing this president in so many ways that he has, up until now, just ignored.
He's told his own party, don't look, and he's told my party that we have no right to see.
So it's going to be acrimonious, there's no question.
But it's also going to be an opportunity to get this country in the right direction again.
You know, when we ran the table, having the House, the Senate, and the White House, we still didn't achieve our Republican principles to a level that I'm satisfied with.
And I don't expect this president to be a born-again Republican, but I certainly would like him to recognize that he's been running us into ruin.
Well, do you expect him to do that?
Do you expect the president to come to you and say, okay, you know, you guys won and I lost, and I guess the American people are rejecting me.
I guess I'm going to have to work with you.
Do you expect him to do that?
No, I expect him to take a little while to figure out that the Presidential Records Act means they can no longer use Google to do politicking inside the White House in violation of the law.
They can no longer ignore the Hatch Act violations they've been doing.
They can no longer do SESTAC Romanov-type deals with federal taxpayers' dollars.
I expect those changes to happen.
And, you know, there'll be a certain degree of gridlock as the president adjusts to the fact that he has been one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.
He has ignored the very laws that he said were so vital when he was a senator.
And, you know, he's going to have to come back a direction.
Now, at the end of the day, John Boehner is going to have to figure out how we have a budget and appropriations.
In my case, I head the committee that's all about making sure that the administration obeys the law, that waste, fraud, and abuse not be tolerated, which obviously is not the case now.
But that's the change that's going to happen for my community.
I'm looking forward to it.
Let me explain to you why people were calling your office all upset.
The people that are going to secure the Republican victory look at Barack Obama as somebody who's destroying their country.
Not somebody to be compromised with, somebody who needs to be stopped.
They know that you're not going to have the ability to get him to agree with your legislation.
He can override any of your vetoes.
You're not going to be able to override his vetoes.
But the idea that you're going to end up working with him is anathema.
People want this man stopped.
That's why this profound turnout is going to happen.
The idea that work with him on a budget, we want him defeated.
And nobody expects him to move in your direction.
We expect him to try to get around you with executive orders, to try to ignore you, to further his agenda, whatever, however he has to, to continue doing what he's doing to the country.
And that's basically restructuring it and destroying the private sector, destroying the job-creating sector.
And people are going to elect you in droves and record numbers to stop that.
And we're going to stop it.
First, we stop Nancy Pelosi from being Speaker, which allows us to say nothing shall come to the House floor unless, in fact, it has Republican principles behind it.
But even more so, you hit the nail on the head.
This president's going to try to use executive orders.
He's going to extend past it.
My committee's number one responsibility is to make sure that the administration obeys its laws.
Government oversight is going to be vigorous.
I'm going to increase the number of committees and subcommittees, and we're going to make sure that this administration starts playing by the rules.
We're also going to take on some of the things that have probably legitimately been dragging on since the last administration.
You know, when we went after SESTAC, we had people from the Bush administration tell us, well, that's always happened.
Well, it's not going to happen on my watch.
When we get the majority, it's got to stop.
American taxpayer dollars.
And I realize there's non-discretionary problems, but the discretionary dollars are being used to corrupt America's basic direction and value.
So that is what we're going to do.
There's going to be no compromise on moving to Republican principles.
There's certainly going to be no compromise on how the House is run.
We've had four years of Nancy Pelosi having only closed rules and no debate.
And John Boehner has promised open debate.
But I'll tell you, it's not.
Congressman, the people don't care about how the House runs.
They don't care about open debate.
They care about stopping Obama and the Democrats.
They care about saving the country.
They don't care if Obama goes to jail.
They don't care if Axelron goes to jail.
They want them stopped.
They want them to have no power.
They're not saying let's talk about how to do it in a way where we both get what we want.
They want Obama stopped.
They want to save their country.
They don't care what Boehner is going to do with the rules of the House.
They don't care how they're going to get even with Pelosi.
They don't care that Pelosi is going to be there.
It's Obama and the Democrats in total stopped.
It's not more complicated than that.
And Rush, we will stop them.
We haven't had the power to stop them, but we will stop them.
And the fact is, we've got to be different than we were the last time.
When I led the charge against TARP, I was threatened six ways from Sunday because it was the Bush administration that wanted that large amount of walking around money based on things they said they were going to do, they didn't do.
So it's not just stopping Obama, which is critical.
It's stopping a Washington that, in some cases, was wrong-minded before Obama got there.
Exactly right.
You can phrase it in a bunch of different ways.
But it's very fundamental and simple.
What the American people see the Democrats doing, and in fact, all of the ruling class of Washington doing, is taking away their opportunity for fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, and turning that over to the government.
They want that stopped, and that's what they think electing Republicans will accomplish.
I'm glad you called.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this.
Sadly, out of time.
Congressman Darrell Issa, California.
We'll be back.
Thanks again to Congressman Issa for calling to explain or clarify this point about compromise.
Let me try to explain this a different way.
Because I thought it was very telling when Congressman Issa said, no, no, we're going to change the way things are.
Boehner is going to open up the hell.
We're going to have the right rules in the House, whereas Pelosi hasn't allowed debate to shut us out.
We're going to allow, we don't want debate.
We wouldn't mind if we shut the Democrats out like they've shut us out.
We're going to have to stop them.
This is serious.
And we're talking about the United States of America, not Washington, the political process and how things happen there.
We're talking about the country.
We'd be fine if there wasn't any debate.
We win, you lose.
We're changing things.
That's the debate.
It's over with.
We got none to debate you with.
You're wrong.
Pure and simple.
I don't want to hear how you only want to destroy the country in 10 years instead of 25.
I want to hear this.
We will have one.
The Tea Party sees that the government is metastasizing.
They see that it's going to kill the country.
They want it stopped.
This is stopped and then reversed.
They don't want to hear about ways to slow down and rules changes and all this kind of stuff.
It's really, it's not all that complicated.
Just stop them.
I know a lot of people, we can't stop them, Rush.
Elected Republicans will say.
We're not going to have the power because Obama will be able to override our veto.
We all understand that.
But you have to start trying.
You have to.
This is about 2012 and beyond.
This is about validating why you were elected in the first place.
The effort has got to be made to stop this.
We are not and don't want to become a socialist country.
Keep educating.
Keep explaining why you won.
Let us know you know why you won and how you're going to keep doing things to secure victory in 2012 and 2014, 2016 and beyond.
Because that's what it's going to take.
We've heard from Congressman McConnell's office.
I don't know where people get these ideas.
This is a note, but we have not had any secret meetings with donors to tell them we are not for the repeal of Obamacare.
Senator McConnell has voted for repeal and will vote again that way.
His position on the issue is simply not in dispute.
So we don't know where people are getting these ideas of secret meetings with donors to tell them we're not for repeal.
It's not happening.
So that's from McConnell's office.
I just want to get all this stuff out.
If they want to respond or react to what's said or happens on the program, fine.
But I really talked to enough of them.
It's a question mark in my mind as to whether they fully really understand what this election is about, what the uprising is about, what the whole force of the Tea Party is.
Anyway, back to the phones.
You people have been extremely patient while all this has been going on.
We'll go to Tampa.
This is Charles.
I've been on hold for quite a while.
I appreciate it.
Thank you much for waiting.
Hi, Rush.
God bless you and your staff, sir.
Thank you, sir.
I think we have no Compromise whatsoever.
Send Democrats to the pits of hell as far as I'm concerned.
How do you do that?
Well, you shred the health care facsimile of the health care bill in a shredder on national TV.
You make the Bush tax cuts permanent, ease small business taxes, secure our border with troops and law enforcement, and make the Democrats a small blip in the annals of history.
All right, cool.
Fine and ending.
I just wanted you to specify the issues because when you say you want to consign some people to hell, people might get the wrong idea about that.
So thank you for spelling it out.
He's right on the bunny when it comes to the issue.
Here's the bottom line for you, Republicans.
If you control the House, there shouldn't be any legislation Obama wants.
None!
Zero!
Zip!
Zero!
Nada!
If you control the House, and if you're the opposition, there's not one thing that he should agree with that you propose.
And if there is, it's a problem.
Okay, Rush, well, what happens if they propose a Social Security fix that doesn't require tax increases?
Well, I got to see more than that before I can respond to something like that.
But I don't know.
There's enough going on here that leads me to believe that there is an effort not to understand what the Tea Party is about.
There's enough going on that leads me to believe that they don't really want to understand or deal with the issues that are going to result in Republican victory.
And I think a lot of it is going to be hard work.
I mean, you roll up your sleeves every day to roll this stuff back.
It is going to be hard work because these people aren't going to stop.
Obama's not going to stop.
Well, leaving the big tent.
Yeah, I guess, if you mean by big tent, the moderates and pro-choicers in there and all that.
But the problem with their big tent is they don't want the Tea Party in it.
The problem with the Republican Big Tent is they don't want the Tea Party in it because Tea Party's not sophisticated enough.
They haven't read the right books.
They haven't been to the right universities or what have you.
Diane in Sarasota, Florida, hi, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you very much, Rush.
What I'm calling about, my husband and I are beginning members of the Tea Party, and we certainly do not want compromise, and I don't want to hear reaching across the aisle anymore.
But I'm also suspicious of Politico.com and the political.
I just wonder if there's some plan possibly out of the White House or amongst the media to put some doubts in our minds that we're not going to have as much control, try to split the Republican Party.
Well, wait.
Try to make this a lot.
There's no question.
There is no question that two weeks before the election, the media does stories that are designed to deflate you and us and to try to tamp down our enthusiasm and so forth.
And there's no question that there's an element of that in this story.
However, I'm just going to tell you, I have talked to Republicans, Diane, who have said to me, we're not going to have control.
We're not going to have that much power.
I have talked to Republicans who have asked me to pass on to you that don't have all these high expectations.
I've talked to them.
So the politico is not entirely wrong.
I think that the timing of the story is exactly as you say.
It's designed to depress turnout.
It's going to do just the opposite.
It's going to ramp up turnout.
Oh, I hope so.
Oh, don't doubt it.
And also, we in the Tea Party, we don't stop in 2010.
That's just the beginning.
And we're going to hold all of those Republicans responsible to stop what has happened over the last two years and even what happened before that.
We're not going away.
It's not just Republicans.
It's whole Washington.
Yeah, absolutely.
And we want to reverse it.
It's been going on for a very long time, but it's much worse under Obama.
But again, I don't trust anything that comes out of Politico.com.
Mike Allen that started it, as you know, started from the Washington Post and Time magazine, and he's to the left of Lennon.
And I hear him on the radio, and he's still a big Obama supporter and a big Obama administration supporter.
So that's why I just wanted to say I don't believe his polls because I don't believe anything comes out of that publication.
All right, Diane, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
Look, I know that the Politico thinks they're throwing cold water.
That's what they're trying to accomplish.
Right?
They're trying to throw cold water.
The problem is that Americans are so boiling mad that there ain't enough cold water to throw on us.
They're not going to tamp down the election turnout, and they're not going to tamp down expectations.
It's just going to add to the volume.
All the cold water they throw is just going to add to the whole volume of water that's boiling, all the effervescence that's boiling out there.
Plain and simple.
My friends, a 44-year-old Oceanside man, already in jail on suspension of burglarizing his neighbor's home, is now suspected in more than 100 smash and grab business break-ins and 50 identity theft cases over the past six months.
Over the past six months, Oceanside Police said that somebody's been breaking windows or glass doors to get into businesses.
This is California, Oceanside Vista, Carlsbad, Escondido.
The burglar would quickly grab cash and credit card receipts and leave.
And then would start rebuilding people's identities in his name with their credit card information.
Identity theft.
Yet another in an endless string of stories detailing how it happens.
And one of these stories, one of these days, is going to include you unless you get Life Luck.
When it comes to protecting your identity, nobody else does the job Life Luck does.
There's nobody else to consider.
They protect your information and they won't sell it like some other companies do.
And they have, Lifelock does, the best identity alert system there is.
Costs hardly anything.
And you get it even cheaper with the mention of my name, 10% off.
LifeLock's number is 800-440-4833.
And if you mention offer code Rush, again, you save 10%.
LifeLock, 800-440-4833.
Yeah, I'm looking at the audio soundbite roster.
It's such a great soundbite roster today, but as is always the case, and I explained to people, I had some people in watching the show last week, and they, well, how do you prepare this?
I'm getting the prep schedule and so forth.
But I said, basically, this is improv.
There's no producer and there's no script and there's nothing I have to do at X because somebody's expecting it like it is on television.
And we don't do retakes.
And so it just flows.
And today is a great example.
We got a great audio soundbite roster, and I haven't gotten it, but two soundbites up, maybe even one, the Christine O'Donnell, and she wasn't even on the original one.
So, I don't know.
I'm going to keep today's Soundbite roster for tomorrow and incorporate it with whatever we have tomorrow that I don't know about yet.
Meanwhile, in Washington, there will be meetings conceived this afternoon and tonight about the limbaugh problem.
That we deal with the limbaugh problem.
So there's a lot happening here that we have to deal with on the fly as it happens.
From the political early vote, a bad omen for Reed in Nevada's prime swing county.
Republicans are significantly outpacing Democrats in early vote turnout.
This, according to official statistics, a potential sign of difficulty for Harry Reid as he attempts to rally his base for his tough contest with Republican Sharon Angle.
Now, we'll see.
I'm sure the fraud and cheating has also begun out there.
There's a story I also have in the stack that early voting all over the country, white males are showing up in droves, which you know how that's going to be portrayed.
And of course, isn't it profiling to notice this?
Columbia, South Carolina.
Hi, Jack.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, former Air Force dead Jeep owning special needs parent.
Thank you for agreeing with me, Ditto's Rush.
Well, thanks for the call, sir.
Bipartisanship is what got us into this mess, and partisanship is the only thing that's going to get us out.
When we started busting our morals and going against the Constitution, this country has taken a downward turn, and I'm ready for some partisanship.
I'm ready for some good knuckle banging in the Senate and the House and overturning all these social programs that are leading us straight to communism.
We need to go back to capitalism, and we need to go back to the Constitution.
Those guys were smarter than we are, and if it's not in there, why are we doing this?
Well, it's clear that there are a lot of things that need to be on the agenda.
You know, the House rules are not one of them.
Stopping the spending is.
We don't need debate.
That's a great way to put it.
Why do we need to debate these guys?
The debate is the election that's going to be solved.
Hell, these guys aren't even running on their agenda.
How in the world do you debate these clowns?
They aren't even running on their agenda.
The Democrats are not out there saying, re-elect us.
Look what we did for you.
They're running away from it.
How in the world do you debate these people?
These people are made to order right now to be defeated.
Like Obama says, we need to get ready for hand-to-hand combat.
That's what he said this was going to be.
He's not moving in our direction.
The debate is over.
The Democrats will not even show up.
The Democrats, they can't give them to me.
They're having to buy them off.
In Cincinnati, there's a story today that they're taking kids out of school on field trips, high school kids, and giving them cupcakes and cookies and teaching them how to vote Democrat.
Yeah, it's somewhere buried in the stack here.
I got a whole show we didn't get to today.
This show boomeranged off of essentially two stories today.
The political story about how the Republicans really not crazy about repealing stuff.
And the second story is how Republicans realize they're going to have to compromise.
So basically two stories.
The debate's over.
The Democrats will not show up.
Pure and simple.
I mean, look at the debates they're having.
They won't show.
They have to have seven or eight other people on the stage with them.
And they call it the debate.
As Obama said, this is what elections are for.
Elections solve the debate.
And that's what's going to happen two weeks from today.
Now, I obviously did not get to this today, but I am going to get to this tomorrow because this intrigues me.
And when it intrigues me, I talk about it.
Try this headline.
Jeff Fisher, he's a coach of the Tennessee Titans.
Jeff Fisher, ESPN, asked coaches to take timeouts late on Monday night.
Now, the game was a blowout.
ESPN asked the coaches to take timeouts late in the game.
There was a playoff game, the Yankees and the Texas Strangers at the same time.
Got to comment on this.
Got to comment.
We'll do it tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection