All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
November 8, 2010, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the New York Times doesn't think Pelosi's got what it takes to stay a speaker or as leader of the Democrats.
Pelosi said she's gonna run for leader.
The New York Times says she doesn't, she's not a good enough liar.
Uh to hang in there at well, she says, they say what they need is what Miss Pelosi has been able to unable to provide.
A clear and convincing voice.
How could she do that?
She can only do that if she can lie.
A clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democrat policies are not bankrupting the country.
That's why they need a liar.
This is unbelievable.
Greetings and welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institutes for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Listen to this.
New York Times, is she really the best the Democrats have come up with as their leader as they slip into the minority?
Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House Minority Leader.
That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House.
What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide.
A clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democrat policies are not bankrupting the country.
There is no such voice.
That's what Obama was for, and he's bombed out.
This is unbelievable.
I'm going to finish the whole sentence here without breaking up.
What they need is what Ms. Pelosi's been unable to provide, a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democrat policies are not bankrupting the country, not advancing socialism or not destroying freedom.
They need a good liar.
They have a she's not a good enough liar.
That's what the New York Times is saying.
If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have battled away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-headed commissar jamming her diktats down the public's throat.
That is exactly what has happened here, and that is exactly why the Democrats are his chois.
With President Obama proving to be a surprisingly diffident salesman of his own work, here's the Times jumping in.
That's as this with Obama proving to be a surprisingly incompetent salesman.
With Obama proving to be surprisingly incompetent.
Congressional Democrats need a new champion to stand against a tightly disciplined Republican insurgency.
It's all over the place.
All right, folks, no matter where you go.
Now, despite this, all the Democrats are circling the wagons around Pelosi.
And in the Senate, they're gonna circle the wagons around Dingy Harry.
Now why?
Folks, I'm telling you here something's going on.
Something, something's going on.
My guess is that.
My guess is that as far as the Democrat Party rank and file Pelosi and read equal stability.
Now why would they want to project an image of stability?
Because maybe some upheaval is coming.
My mind is wandering in these directions.
I'm reading the stitches on the fastball.
I'm reading between the lines of the curveball.
Because hey, New York Times, you know, this this is this is just hilarious.
You didn't question Pelosi's leadership one time.
There wasn't one editorial critical of or questioning Pelosi's ability.
when she was speaker.
The other partisan political operatives in the media never questioned her.
She told a lie, she tells lies, she sticks to them, she moves on.
But now she doesn't lie good enough.
The New York Times has just admitted what the Democrat Party needs, again, is better messaging.
And the message has to be a better liar.
The New York Times is admitting that the policies of Obama are destroying the country, are heading us towards socialism and destroying freedom.
And we need somebody who can convince people that that's not what we're doing.
And like they say in the White House, if Obama can't be great, nobody can.
They're saying it.
That was also in the New York Times.
Jennifer Rubin at Commentary.
It's a blog.
Democrats have discovered Obama's out of touch.
In his own assessments of what went wrong, the president has lamented his inability to persuade voters on the merits of what he's done and blame the failure on his preoccupation with a full plate of crises.
But a broad sample of Democrat officeholders and strategists said in interviews the disconnect goes far deeper than that.
And now the Clinton nostalgia, which periodically is wafted through the Republican ranks, is gripping forlorn Democrats.
Obama is not Bill Clinton in the sense that he's not an extrovert.
He doesn't gain energy by connecting with people, said a Democrat strategist who worked with Clinton, asked not to be named, while offering a candid criticism.
He needs to be forced to do it, either by self-discipline or others.
There's no one around him who'll do that.
They accommodate him, and that's a bad thing.
Okay, they just keep piling on here.
You've got somebody out of touch, and somebody's accommodating him.
Nobody's got the guts to go say, hey, pal, you are destroying things here.
And probably because they'd have to go to Michelle to get that done.
And nobody's gonna go to the wife.
Are we agreed on that?
Are we?
Not one of these people's gonna go to the res and say Michelle.
Because she may be the enabler.
Not one of them is gonna go to the residence and say Michelle, and not one of them's go to Valer Valerie Jarrett.
Because if you go to Valerie Jarrett, you make Michelle mad.
Meanwhile, there's there's Obama, he's in India.
He's dancing.
He's doing the Mumbai jive.
He's out there praising Mahatma Gandhi.
He's talking about how much Gandhi meant to him when he's only mentioned him twice in both of his books.
I'm telling you, folks, this is a shellacking and a drubbing.
It extended all the way down a dog catcher.
They had no idea it was going to be like this.
PJ O'Rourke.
PJ O'Rourke last week said this is not an election.
This is a restraining order.
I think his own party.
PJ was talking about the electorate.
I think his own party, his own White House staff seem to want a restraining order on Obama.
That's what I'm picking up here.
This is like.
This is like Howard Baker and the boys deciding when to go to the White House to tell Nixon it's over.
I'm I'm serious, folks.
That's all I'm gonna say about it.
That's it.
That's it.
We'll move on to other things here.
That's it.
That's enough.
I've made the case.
The public doesn't care.
What do you mean the public doesn't?
Well, I know Obama won't care what they think.
That's what's got him bugged.
That's why they're calling him aloof.
That's why they're calling him detached.
That's why they're calling him what?
Uh uh unable to do the job or what not self-aware.
He's a movement leader.
He's not a politician.
He's still, you know, narcissism, hubris, those are those are killer characteristics.
He's still the Messiah in his mind.
Of course he doesn't care.
He is succeeding.
As far as he's concerned.
That's all the more reason why.
All of this.
Okay, when we come back, we'll switch gears, folks, and tell you how you can eat twinkies and lose weight.
Don't go, don't go.
All right, now I want to wrap this up here in one more thing, and then we will move on.
I'm gonna grab some of your phone calls on this.
Jennifer Rubin at commentary.
None of this was hidden from view before the election.
But Democrat officials and operatives were understandably reluctant to come forward.
Now, with the election returns in hand, they are pointing the finger at the White House.
But let's be fair, she writes.
Let's be fair.
Much of the credit goes to Pelosi, who wants to continue her reign over what and this is key, by the way.
Now, everybody's in the New York Times with people, how you close it.
Even these Democrats don't understand.
Obama can't move to the center.
The House Democrats can't move to the center.
There isn't any center.
In the Democrat Party.
It doesn't exist, my good friends.
The Democrats in Congress are more left wing than ever.
There is no moving to the center.
They don't have one.
Anything else is an illusion.
The White House, and this is the key, and this is one of the keys of the political story today, one of the things they're trying to convey.
The White House seems unconvinced that the problem is the agenda, not just a remote and increasingly unlikable president.
The White House isn't, they don't believe the problem's the agenda.
It is the agenda.
Don't doubt for a second.
This drubbing, this shellacking, this wipeout, is more connected to an agenda than practically any election in our nation's history.
Not including all of them, but but it's right there in a top five.
Just as 1980s was.
The 1980 election getting rid of Carter and ushering in Reagan, same thing.
Pure issue.
The American people don't want to sit and be led by somebody who thinks their country ought to be in decline and wants to take it in that direction.
The American people do not want to sit by and be told that their best days are behind them.
Especially by somebody happy when he's telling them that.
So they voted.
The White House is trying to convince itself.
It's not the agenda.
And not just a remote and increasingly unlikable president.
They are coming to grips with the fact that this guy is not likable.
You talk about a fall from grace.
From Grant Park on election night 2008 to today.
There hasn't been a rebuke of a president like this.
My gosh, folks.
And I don't know how long in this nation's history.
Now here's Jennifer Rubin with some of her own musings.
In all of this, one wonders what the left-leaning intelligentsia has learned.
A Harvard Law Review editor, a law professor, a garden variety leftist, a talker, not a doer, and a proponent of American unexceptionalism is a bust as president.
Do they?
Does the American intelligentsia, leftist intelligentsia, see that?
Do they?
Well, when you've got people talking about he's a movement guy, not a politician, folks, in some people's worlds, that is a huge insult.
To call somebody a movement guy rather than a movement guy.
Movement people don't get anything done.
They just sit there and jabber away.
Agitate people, but they don't get anything done.
So to call Obama a movement guy, not pretty.
So Jennifer Rubin wonders if the left-leaning intelligentsia has figured out that people like them are utterly incapable of leading the country.
Well, I Jennifer, you know, it'd be nice, but their arrogance and conceit will not permit them to admit such a thing.
Harvard Law Review editor, this is Obama, Harvard Law Review editor, a law professor, a garden variety leftist, a talker, not a doer, and a proponent of American unexceptionalism is a bust as president.
In short, someone like them, left-leaning intelligentsia, is incapable of leading the country.
And to rescue himself, he'll have to shed the very qualities and beliefs that they hold dear.
You can understand why they prefer to label the rest of the country crazy.
This is the dilemma they face.
They know.
They know that people like them can't run the country.
They know it, but they won't admit it.
Stubborn as hell.
They're doing they're just the opposite.
They're gonna force this crap on us until it finishes the country.
They're gonna force this on us as long as we oppose it.
Precisely because we oppose it, precisely because we are rejecting them and one of them.
These people don't get rejected.
And these people do not think of themselves as incompetent.
It's the other way around.
All of us are the ones that are nutcases.
All of us are the rubes, not them.
But yet one of them is just blamely, clearly, explosively incompetent and destructive, and it's for their for everybody to see, which is only going to steal their resolve even more.
But the people on the Democrat Party side of things who got to get elected, they're not down for all of this.
They're not down for extinction.
They're down for socialism, they're down for national health care, they're down for all that, but they're not down for extension.
That's why the New York Times saying we need a better liar.
We need somebody who can get this stuff done while convincing people that's not what we're doing.
And Pelosi's failed.
That's where they are.
They need, and we you know this.
They don't dare tell you the truth about anything they intend to do.
Now Obama's put them in a position where it's plain as day what they do.
Plain as day what they believe.
Plain as day what'll happen when they get power.
Okay, to the phones.
We're gonna start in uh in Chicago.
Mike, I am glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIV network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Megadiddle's rush from a fellow data bazourian.
Thank you.
Now transplanted to the blue state of Illinois, where our new newly elected Governor Quinn has promised to follow through on his campaign, promise to raise our taxes by one third, and he's going to give it to the teachers union.
This is the example of the Democrats who do not get it.
Yeah, it's absolutely true.
You give them way too much credit to think that they're strategizing.
These people demonstrated a year ago they had no idea that there was an uprising in America, and America's changed.
They're living in the 20th century.
No, no, no, no, no.
They understand there's an uprising.
They're just going to put it down.
It's not going to happen.
The internet has given the power to the people.
We no longer have to listen to their filters.
Well, no, no, no, I'm not saying they're going to succeed.
I'm saying their attitude is they're going to put it down.
I'm not I I'm not giving them any credit for brains here.
They're obstinate and stubborn.
But at the same time, they do have a self-preservation uh streak.
And what they know is is that Obama has made it clear he'll throw them overboard.
Any of them to get what he wants.
So you're your mayor, your governor was talking about raising taxes, giving the teacher.
Fine.
Fine.
They want to be idiotic and stupid.
They want to be obstinate and stubborn.
You let them.
Look at California.
There's a great piece in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend.
California's nothing more than Lindsay Lohan.
In and out of rehab, nothing ever takes.
Everybody else having a supporter.
It's a wonderfully funny piece.
I'll try to get it here out of my stack.
Janet in Shiloh, Illinois.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
I think last night crowd did those rush.
Thank you.
I'd like to focus on the word that the New York Times used with in regards to Obama and salesmen to make my point.
Yes.
Um, it really should be spokesman.
That would have been better.
And what was going on here was that we had a big campaign that got Obama into the White House.
And it was a campaign based on Keynesian ideas.
John Kenneth Galbraith's book, 1960, 69, the industrial state that argued the corporations are only going to get bigger.
And so it need more advertising to sell anything to the people.
That's what we saw on display.
that campaign that got obama into the white house in two thousand nine june specifically one that top prizes at con because it was so breakthrough the whole international ad community said this was sheer brilliant Now we're being told that the most brilliant people in the world, ad-wise, didn't get their message through.
Yeah, well that's BS, of course, that's your point.
That's exactly.
And what the whole thing with Walter Ruther and John Kenneth Gaulbreath goes right on down to John Dingle and health care and Bart Stu Pack caving, because Bart Stupack owed Dingle.
We didn't we are not a social, we're not socialists.
We're not.
You can't sell socialism to the American people.
You're not going to find a liar.
That's exactly what that is that is why Obama.
That's why the New York Times is saying today that they they need a better liar in the House of Representatives.
Somebody that can convince people the Democrats are not about socialism, that they're not about wrecking the economy and all that.
They know full well.
Another part of the strategy here is trying to convince people, yeah, we just goofed up on our messaging.
Here they want all these ads.
She's right, all these wonderful awards for the great greatest ad campaign ever.
And now they claim we lost because of you know poor messaging.
They lost on agenda, and everybody knows they lost on agenda, but they're trying to cover that up.
But it ain't gonna work anymore.
All right, we're up to some by 21, as I told you prior to the broadcasts beginning.
And welcome back, uh, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, there's also Democrat Party's a mess.
Now, in addition to everything else that I have postulated today, you must also realize this, and don't doubt me on this.
There are many Democrats who think they lost because they weren't left wing enough.
There are many Democrats who think they lost because Obama failed to get the public option.
Now they're crazy.
They are silly and stupid, but that is what they b they think that the independents get this now.
The people who believe that Obama didn't the Democrats botched it because Obama didn't get the public option, didn't get single payer health care.
They believe that independence abandoned Obama and went and supported Republicans because the Democrats didn't get the public option.
Now that is as illogical as anything I have ever heard.
Here you have a bunch of hard leftists who want the public option, independent hard leftists who want single payer.
But Obama didn't come through, and so in a snit they vote for Tea Party people.
Right.
Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way.
Just as I've always told you, you know this notion the Democrats have always told Republicans, don't be critical, don't raise your voice, you're just gonna send the moderates running to the Democrats.
Well, what sense does that make?
The Democrats are the most vicious, the angriest over the top deranged people in the world to claim that being critical is going to send independents who don't who want harmony and peace to a bunch of lunatics lunatic itself.
But there are Democrats who believe the independence abandoned Obama because he didn't get the public option.
And they're out there.
And they really believe, I don't know how many of them there are, but a lot of them are elected in Congress.
Safe seats, safe districts.
There are a lot of them who believe the reason this happened is because they weren't left-wing enough.
So the Democrats are going to be pulled in a whole bunch of a lot of different directions.
The bottom line is that Obama can't move to the center.
There is no center among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
There might be a few who add up to nothing.
The rest were just defeated.
The so-called centrist of blue dogs, bye-bye.
Nice knowing you.
Obama's election in 2008 occurred because the Republicans nominated a weak candidate.
The same people who claim that Christine O'Donnell was so terrible, backed John McCain.
Also, Obama benefited from the economy tanking last September and in the last October.
Millions of Obama voters voted for that reason.
Not because they rejected their own country the way Obama has most of his life.
And the first chance the people had to correct the course they did and big because they didn't vote against their country.
They did not think they were voting to send the nation into decline in 2008.
They thought they were being magnanimous, first black president and racism.
They thought they were doing a wonderful, God-given thing, and now they realize the mistake.
The lesson for the Democrats is if you allow the radical left to run your party, you will not have a party.
And this is what the adults in that party, if there are any left, and some of them, whoever they are, leaking to the Politico, know this.
The lesson to the Democrats is if you allow the radical left to run your party, you don't have a party.
The lesson to the GOP, if you hand your party to mavericks and moderates and all the rest, you're going to lose too.
The election was between the radical left, that's Obama, and the mushy center, which was McCain, and the result was a disaster.
Radicals, mushy Republicans were elected last week.
That's what this all means.
The lesson for the Republicans is...
Thank you.
Tea Party.
The lesson for the Republicans is unabashed conservative constitutional values.
That's what won.
Radicals and mushy Republicans were tossed away last week.
Radical leftists.
And that's the left.
If anybody wants to take the lesson, that's it.
Now let's move on to something.
This is, I think, interesting.
I want to go to Jim DeMint and eventually Mitch McConnell here on Earmarks.
This is Sunday on Meet the Depressed.
David Gregory talking to DeMint.
He said, Do you think the Tea Party actually cost the Republican Party control to the Senate?
That is a very silly thing to say, David.
The Tea Party are responsible for just about every Republican who was elected around the country.
This time last year, if people will think about it, we were concerned about holding our own.
Many thought Republicans would fall below 38 in the Senate.
So I supported all the Republican candidates, including Christine O'Donnell.
Unfortunately, she was so maligned by Republicans, I don't think she ever had a chance.
Gregory says, well, uh he's not with you.
He's he's suggesting that it's more a question of discretion that the leader of the Republicans, are you prepared to go toe-to-toe with this is McConnell, he's talking about.
Uh, and this is gonna be the big showdown with your Republican leadership on the earmarks.
Mitch McConnell has voted twice for an earmark ban that uh I've proposed in the Senate.
Just about every Republican who is running for the Senate this time ran on a no-earmark pledge, and we've had a vote where over half of our conference has voted for the ban before.
Tom Coburn and I are leading the effort for this earmark ban, and and we know John Boehner has committed to it in the House.
We're not gonna have earmarks, so it's it's really um silly for some senior Republicans in the Senate to try to block it.
Now, there are some there are some Republicans, House and Senate who don't want to get rid of earmarks.
I'll tell you why in just a second.
More Dement, Gregory says on health care.
How do you go about dismantling that?
You have to stop the funding of Obamacare and uh over the next two years show the American people what the real options are to improve the system we have now.
The first step is obviously to defund it, and I think we can do that with Republicans controlling.
But do you think repeal is realistic?
Yes, I do.
I think uh the next uh Republican running for president needs to run on complete repeal of Obamacare, because we really can't tweak it, David.
It's built on a platform of government control, and that doesn't really work in America.
Right.
You just send a repeal bill up to Obama every week.
Just send it up there.
You debate it in the House every day.
You make the Democrats defend it.
Obamacare was on the ballot.
Radical left wing ism.
Obamacare was on the ballot, and it was substantively rejected.
Make them defend it.
Send that repeal bill up there every month, however often you can.
Debate it on the floor of the House every day.
Now we move on to uh slay the nation with Bob Schaefer.
He's talking to Mitch McConnell.
He said, House Republicans want to ban earmarks.
And this morning on TV on NBC, Jim Dement, champion of the Tea Party said he wants to put a ban on earmarks.
House Republicans want to do that, but you said in the past you don't think that's a good idea.
President, of course, endorsed the Demet proposal in his press conference the other day as well.
Which is not surprising because every president would like for us to appropriate all the money and send it to them and let them spend it any way they want to.
The earmark issue is about discretion, about an argument between the executive branch and the legislative branch over how funds should be spent.
The stimulus bill that passed last year, the almost a trillion dollar stimulus bill was riddled with executive branch earmarks.
As you can see, it's a lot more uh complicated than it appears.
Now, there's an the argument against uh well the the people who are little squishy on getting rid of earmarks say, look, it doesn't amount to anything.
I mean, it's one less than one-tenth of one percent of the budget.
That is it's silly to plant the flag on earmarks.
Yeah, I agree if the objection to earmarks is simply to save money, but that's not the real problem with earmarks.
The problem with earmarks is that they are used as bribes to thwart the will of the people.
If there were no earmarks, you wouldn't have had the corn husk or whatever it was, and you wouldn't have had that Ben Nelson being bought off for his health care vote, and all of it would have been academic.
The problem with earmarks is that they are used, and and and members of the Senate and House love this.
They're used as bribes.
Okay, Ben, you don't like health care?
Well, how about if we how about if we send a little earmark to Nebraska, we're going to exempt you from it for ten years?
Oh, good Lord, I love that.
I get re-elected.
I'll be glad the corn husker kickback.
I mean, that's a classic illustration of what's wrong with uh with earmarks.
And this is why Senators want the Louisiana purchase.
Do you realize without earmarks, they'd have gotten nowhere on health care because they're just bribes.
So earmarks are undemocratic.
Earmarks thwart are used to thwart the will of the people.
Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Arkansas.
They are used to buy votes.
They are used to change the votes of elected f uh uh officials who are prepared to vote the right way to represent their constituents.
Here comes the earmark.
And they think that they can persuade their constituents, hey, look what I brought home for you here.
Uh what was that, Mr. Snerdley?
We have to Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
The Republicans like some of the Republicans like earmarks to do the bribing.
Yeah.
Does anybody doubt that's what they're for?
Look at in the terms of saving dollars, it's it it is.
It's it's like spitting in the ocean.
If you eliminated all earmarks, the effect on the budget, you couldn't even see it.
But the purpose of earmarks is uh bribery.
And of course, then you how would Congress survive without bribes?
Kickbacks.
All that kind of well, you know, it would be fun to see how Congress would survive without bribes.
But does anybody disagree with me that that's the real purpose of an earmark?
They're not budget busters.
They're not they're that's how you get a bridge of nowhere.
It's how the will of the people gets thwarted.
Without earmarks, you wouldn't have had enough votes for healthcare in the Senate.
I don't care what Pelosi did in the House.
Back after this.
Well, we don't want to leave the Washington Post out of the mix today.
More Democrats sniping at Obama.
Uh just the first page of this uh Karen Tummulty and Dan Ball's headline and mirror are assessing midterm losses.
Democrats ask whether Obama's White House fully grasped voters' fears.
Now about this, you know, I I would I'd say uh Miss Timulti and and Mr. Balls, did you grasp voters' fears?
Did any of you people in the media, you know, it's easy for you people to sit here and start sniping at Obama, but who the hell are his enablers?
You people in the media are as much to blame for this as anybody else.
You're the ones who didn't vet this guy.
You're the ones that didn't vet any of this, and now we get stories from you guys.
Democrats ask whether Obama's White House fully grasped voters' fears.
You guys, you you you people in the media, you condescend and you impugn general public each and every day.
We need stories in the Washington Post with headlines, did our reporters ask whether White House fully grasps voters' fears?
Did our reporters fully grasp voters' fears?
Did our reporters even talk to Americans?
The Washington Post needs to do an editorial.
Do we have any reporters who understand what the hell's going on in this country outside of Washington and the Democrat National Committee?
And just just last week, why the Tea Party was responsible for destroying the Republican Party, right?
The ones who win big then.
The reason they win big the Tea Party, such a shellacking, a wipeout, and now finally the dust is settled.
And the Democrats are the ones getting all introspective.
Jack in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Nice to have you on the Emission.
You know, in an important sense, I think Christine O'Donnell, in that respect, Sarah Palin won in Delhi, even with O'Donnell losing the Coons in the general election.
Because effectively, O'Donnell, by campaigning uh against tax increases and promoting free enterprise with reduced government regulation, et cetera, you know, as the main issues, you know, the Tea Party line with national attention drawn to Delaware.
She's really forced Kuhn to come out against tax increases and essentially embrace the Tea Party position.
So everyone's gonna be watching, and that's something Castle would never done never have done on his own.
So I guess what I'm saying is that in Delaware, O'Donnell and Palin win by losing.
And the same thing in West Virginia.
Manchin is out and now enforced to the Tea Party side.
Yeah.
So the bottom line is even the two or three center races where the Tea Party didn't win, uh, they really won just by the campaign, and a lot of credit goes to Palin.
Well, I can't say that you're wrong.
Uh, because you know, you you you and I are on the same page.
Uh remember it was last week when uh when Republicans were saying the lesson of uh Delaware is that you can't uh nominate uh candidates uh flaws.
No, the lesson is that we can move the Delaware electorate to the right.
The lesson is there is a conservative ascendancy on the lesson is what if the Republicans had gotten behind her.
They got the turnout.
They got out the turnout at an angle, uh uh uh Pelosi uh uh Palin O'Donnell.
So I agree with the guy, in a sense, win by losing.
I mean, rather rather win when you win rather than lose when you win, but I understand what he's saying.
Richard in Jacksonville, Florida, welcome to the program.
Hi, Rick.
Hi dido to you.
Thank you.
Hey, I just wanted to uh make a couple of points and really got one just while I was listening to you because I think that uh Obama has so many fires burning right now we're we're almost ready for a meltdown from it.
And I think that uh Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Obama are gonna be the sacrificial lambs for the Democratic Party.
They're gonna I think their uh their agenda is more important than those people that they have in office and there of health care, but Tom.
I tell you, I tell you what, I I uh I I have I have to applaud what you're saying there too, because I you know that they it it it there's a reason they want them in there.
There's a reason they're going to hold on to this leadership in in light of everything else that's happening out there, and when I figure that one out, and I think I know what it is, I think it's the illusion of stability.
But I'm just guessing.
We'll be back with more after this.
Fast as three hours in media, two of them are already done over with in the can't well, they're never oh, they they they survive forever.
In our transcripts on our website and in the ether for UFOs periodically listen to, transcribe and decode, which we know happens.
▲
Export Selection