All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 1, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
December 1, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24 7 Podcast.
You know, folks, I'm uh I'm reading all this stuff, getting ready for the big show today, listen to Alan Simpson babe and all these people talking about the uh tax cut negotiations and a deficit uh commission and so forth.
And I got to thinking if the government were a person, we would consider it a bum.
A failure, a troll living underneath the bridge.
Somebody that can't get a job, can't hold a job, can't live within its means, all it can do is ask for another handout.
The government's a bum.
And the and the supposed smartest guy in the room's never in the room.
It's Obama.
He's always telling the adults to go solve the problem while he heads out to shoot some more hoops.
And he uh he appoints guys like Geitner to negotiate with Republicans on the uh on the Bush tax rate deal.
Anyway, great to have you here, folks.
Rush Limbo already Wednesday.
Can't believe that.
Fastest week in media, our telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, email address L Rushboard EIB net.com.
The deficit problem is uh is amazingly clear, straightforward.
Federal government spends too much money, pure and simple.
If we increase taxes, they're just gonna spend that.
The history of the world is you give government more money, they spend it.
There's no lockbox on anything.
There's no paying down any debt.
It uh it never happens.
There shouldn't be any discussion of raising taxes.
None.
Zip zero, not a particularly after this election.
There ought to be no discussion whatsoever of raising taxes.
If there's anything that last month's election told us, and every poll has been saying for years, it's read our lips, no new taxes.
And there are the Democrats at practically every turn trying to raise taxes on everybody, on anybody.
They are tax addicts.
And they want to do all this under the uh under the supposed uh uh uh rubric of bipartisanship and common ground and and uh compromise and all this.
I mean, it's enough to tick you off.
It's enough to put you in a bad mood.
I've been fighting being in a bad mood all day.
I really have.
I got a story here.
Uh it is from Fox News, but it's actually a version of a uh of a story in USA Today, I believe.
Let's see if it uh no, I guess it is I thought I saw another version of it someplace, and I probably did.
But anyway, here's here's the here's the story.
Senate Republicans vow to block Democrat legislation until tax cuts and the budget pass.
Now, on the on the face of it, this is excellent.
This is pretty bold.
Every Senate Republican has signed on to a letter vowing to block all Democrat back legislation until the Senate extends the Bush tax cuts for everybody and approves a spending bill to keep the government running.
Throwing down the gauntlet, all 42 members of the Republican Senate caucus are sending the letter to Dingy Harry warning him that they're gonna bring matters to a standstill in the Senate unless he swiftly brings these tax and spending issues to the floor.
That means putting on the back burner a push to repeal uh don't ask, don't tell, a bill giving illegal immigrant students and military members a pathway to legal status, that's the DREAM Act, and an extension of long-term unemployment benefits.
Well, speaking of that, you know, yesterday we had this disturbing story about Eric Cantor.
That was from the Hill.com.
Unbeknownst to me prior to the program ending at 157 yesterday afternoon, the Hill ran a quasi correction story on this.
But the correction doesn't really say anything much different than what the original story did.
It's a semantic change about what Cantor said and what he wants.
In other words, they said that that the first story said Cantor is uh they're not into a total overhaul, because there are a couple provisions they like.
The correction said that Cantor's, oh yeah, we are we we do want a total overhaul, but in our replacement version, they're gonna be these same two things that we like, and that is the uh uh pre existing condition requirement uh and keeping your kids on your health insurance policy to alert 26 years.
So regardless, whether whether Cantor said he doesn't want, he wants an overhaul or uh or a repeal or doesn't want to repeal, uh those two provisions still will be in any Republican idea.
So it was a semantical shift.
More on this when I actually uh actually get to it.
But uh back to this this Fox News story.
While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, this is the letter that the Republicans sent to Dunji Harry, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government because there's not a budget, folks.
We don't have a budget and it's required by October 1st, and there isn't one.
We're just using a series of patches to keep things running.
Uh, and a preventing a job killing tax hike until those two issues are dealt with, nothing else on your agenda uh is gonna happen here in the Senate.
That's what the Republicans are saying.
Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase, and providing economic certainty should be our top priority.
Then you read to the very end of this story, and I I had a couple people send me this today.
Rush, this is great.
I can't believe Republicans are really great.
They're acting this is superb.
And I read then this and this this next paragraph was the reason.
The filibuster threat, which is what I guess this letter is.
The filibuster threat increases pressure on the White House to offer a more realistic agenda for the remaining weeks of the year.
For example, if Congress does not act on the tax cuss, it means Republicans will be in a position to enact their own tax plan retroactive starting January 1st without having to make any concessions to Democrat demands for upper income earners.
Now I had to read that paragraph backwards, forward, sideways, over and over again to try to see what was the good news in it.
Let me read it to you again.
Because it was it was cited to me as excellent news by uh actually three or four people sent this to me today and say, hey, yeah, this is really this is really great.
They're they're they're not backing off because I guess it's such contrast uh to uh you know the original reporting we got yesterday about the House Republicans coming out of their meeting with Obama.
Yeah, he liked us.
Oh, he was a nice guy, was very civil, yeah.
He liked us.
He gave us cookie, yeah, he liked us.
We were all what was that matter?
So this paragraph stands in stark contrast, and I understand why people are so excited about it, but here it is again the filibuster threat.
Again, that's the Republican letter that all 42 are gonna sign on to, increases pressure on the White House to offer a more realistic agenda for the remaining weeks of the year, i.e.
the lame duck.
For example, if Congress doesn't act on the tax cuts, it means Republicans will be in position to enact their own retroactive plan starting January 1st.
Well, my my problem is the Republicans can't enact anything.
Well, I know that, yeah, they did sign it, and they've already said it to Dinji Harry, he reacted to it.
Of course, we know what his reaction would be.
Oh, this is predictable.
I mean the great thing is that they are holding firm.
I got all 42 to sign this.
Now, then that is bold, and that's the good thing.
This this appears to be part of a strategy.
That's what's good about this.
They're implementing a strategy.
Now they got to do this every day.
They've got to make the case day in and day out.
This is part of, and I hope it continues.
I mean, this is actually an upper.
This is laying the foundation to take over the Senate and the presidency and persuade skeptics to our principle.
It's a long process, uh, and it requires boldness each and every day.
So here's one day, and this is this is good.
And this is all about the next election, 2012, taking over the Senate.
Okay, here's where we are.
Here's who we are.
This is what we heard in the election results.
We know what the American people want, and we are here to stand up for it.
So in that sense, uh this is good, but we can't enact anything on our own.
So if any of the rest of you have seen this story, if you've heard it on Fox News, I just I just wanted to not throw cold water on it, but but this finite little element here of enacting their own tax plan if this one fails, they can't enact anything.
They have to pass legislation, and they're the minority in the Senate.
And then Obama would have to sign it.
He's not gonna sign it.
We don't have the votes to override a veto here.
So they're gonna have to they can't they can't rely on waiting till January to enact their own or propose their own.
Now they will no doubt do that as a means of setting down a marker, as a means of saying here's who we are, as a means of saying to voters, we heard you.
This is what we stand for.
You can count on us the next two years to fight for this.
It's like the um it's like the health care overhaul.
We kind of got off track here.
Well, not we, but I mean, it it'd be it very easy for the Republicans to get off track unless they remember one thing.
If our strategy is to repeal it, and apparently that has not changed despite the confusing reporting yesterday in the Hill, then we have to send a bill up to him as often as possible to make him veto it.
The whole point is here, make them stand for this.
Make them daily, weekly, whatever, how's as often as possible.
Make the Democrats defend what they want.
Make them defend these tax increases.
Make them defend it.
It's not what the American people want.
It's not what the American people voted for.
You may they're on the wrong side of everything.
You make them stand up for the wrong side of everything.
You make them defend it.
And that's that's the value of sending a repeal bill up.
It doesn't do us any good to say, well, we don't really want to repeal it.
There are a couple of things in there we like.
So Cantor's mid-course correction here is, you know, it's okay.
If it's okay, we do want to repeal this.
And then as another side matter, there are a couple things here that we do think are good that we want to preserve.
I.e.
uh insurance for preexisting conditions and keeping the crumb crunches on the parents' policy up to age twenty-six.
I think both those are bogus, but that's a that's another matter for a different portion of the of the program.
So we have to iron this this all out in terms of the canter story and the hill deck.
I want to get that done and taken care of as quickly as we can, and you judge for yourself how much of a of a change that there really is involved here.
But there's also something else going on.
I heard this uh last night, I heard it this morning, and I've run it by a couple people, and I'm told that it's B.S. and it better be BS.
What I heard last night was that in these meetings that happened between the Republican leadership, the Democrat leadership, and Obama on the on the Bush tax rates.
The deal is this.
Remember, this is what I've been told now is B.S. The deal is that we would give Obama his unemployment extension, and we would give Obama whatever he wants on the start treaty in exchange for a two to three year temporary extension of the current tax rates for everybody.
The so-called Bush tax cuts.
Now, I don't know what your reaction to that is when you first hear it, if this is the first time you're hearing it.
Uh I kind of went both ways on it.
Well, why are we giving anything away?
We won.
Well, we and then, okay.
Were we gonna cave on unemployment extension anyway?
What do you think?
Do you think the Republicans at the end of the day would would cave on that?
Or would they plant the flag and say, nope, no more, no more unemployment extension benefits?
We're not gonna do it anymore, we've done it enough.
Will they risk being being uh said to be cold hearted and and mean spirited and anti-poor and all this?
Or would they cave on that anyway?
On the start treaty, uh they're gonna cave on that at the end of the day because they don't want to be accused of uh being pro-nuclear weapon or whatever the Democrats and the uh in the media would say.
So is that a bad deal or is it not?
what is the objective here?
To get the current tax rates extended temporarily, permanently, what have you?
Uh the GOP doesn't care about start.
I don't know anybody cares about START except Putin and and and and Obama.
It's a bad thing, it's not a bad deal right now.
Nobody um nobody cares about it.
Uh but this deal, and I've been told, Rush, you better be very careful on this because uh I'm people that I've talked to said this is BS, it's not the deal.
I don't uh let's just put it this way, I won't be surprised if at the end of the day that is the deal.
Giveaway start, they don't care about it.
Unemployment benefits extensions, well, look at we know these guys.
And at this stage of the game, I don't think they at Christmas time want to be accused of uh desiring people to be out of work and poor with no money.
So we'll see.
Anyway, as you can tell here, folks, uh much on the table today as there always seems to be, and we'll get back to all of it right after this.
Glad you're here today, great to have you with us, and don't go away.
On this uh unemployment compensation benefits extension, let's be let's be clear about this, and let's remember the Republican opposition to this has not been on the substance of it.
The Republican opposition has been unpaying for it.
You know, Bunning and these guys say, look, if you want to extend unemployment compensation benefits, pay for it.
Don't raise the deficit.
Use some unspent TARP money for it.
Use some unspent stimulus money.
Democrats don't want to go for any of that.
They want brand new debt to pay for this.
They don't want to use existing allocated funds, already appropriated funds that have yet to be spent on anything.
Republicans are not saying we hate the unemployed, we want them to suffer.
We don't want them to have any more.
They've not said that.
Now that's that's been how it's been characterized and positioned.
For now, I, as I said yesterday, I don't need to get votes.
I think it's about time somebody again stood up for the whole notion that at some point there better be a cutoff.
Because we're already getting interviews with people.
See it's much easier to take the 325 bucks a week unemployment rather than look for a job.
We're already getting to that point.
Look, folks, human nature is what it is.
If somebody's gonna give you 325 bucks to not do anything, let's face it.
Out of a country with 300 million people, you're gonna have a significant number of them who'll take the deal.
And this is just another illustration of my complaint about, well, one of my several complaints about liberalism, it destroys people.
It dehumanized, takes their it it takes their dignity away, it takes their humanity away.
At some point, the notion of giving somebody in a tough economy 325 bucks a week to not do anything is compassionate.
It's really, yes, Rush, that's uh really we're good people for doing it at some point, though.
You are destroying these people.
You are relegating them to a lifetime of 300 bucks a week unless they choose to do something.
Don't give me this what headline Limbaugh urges Christmas cutoff for the unemployed, no toys for the kids, talk host says.
Let them try that.
Nobody can get that from what I just said here.
Well, they okay, I don't care.
Let them let them try.
My only point is, as I've said over and over again, liberalism hurts people.
It destroys their lives and it destroys them.
It takes away their dignity and it takes away their humanity.
And I'm telling you, that at some point somebody's gonna have to stand up and say that repeatedly giving somebody 325 bucks a week to not do anything is gonna help is gonna end up being detrimental.
Because that's all they're gonna end up being worth.
They're not gonna be able to go out and make any more of themselves than that because they're not going to have to.
It's the old argument uh that to continued unemployment benefits increases unemployment.
I mean, there's no doubt about it.
Logic is logic.
It uh it can't be refuted.
Not to mention that the employer's unemployment tax is gonna go through the roof during all of this to pay back these uh oh, what is it, the 300 billion dollars a year that this is costing?
So Why why would an employer hire anybody when they're gonna have to pay twice as much unemployment insurance for them?
It's like water, people tend to find their own comfort level.
I remember Merrill Lynch, back in the late 80s, early 90s.
Job interview.
They'd ask you, how much money do you want to make?
And if you gave them a figure, you were disqualified.
Now you didn't know that.
But if you gave them a figure, that was the end, even if it was a high figure.
And the reason was that they figured, okay, that's the person's comfort level, and once they get there, they're gonna stop working.
So they didn't, they don't want to hear.
They want to hear as much as I can, was the proper answer.
You give them a number, and you didn't know it, but that's the last interview you got.
Manheim Steamroller is back because it's Christmas time.
It's December the first.
Here and everywhere on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and I, of course, your host, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned, all everything.
Maha Rushi.
The House of Representatives yesterday passed landmark legislation to pay for some 4.6 billion dollars in settlements with American Indians and black farmers who say they face discrimination and mistreatment from the government.
What's new?
Lawmakers voted 256 to 152 to send the measure to President Obama, whose regime brokered the settlements over the past year.
The package would reward some $3.4 billion to American Indians over claims they were cheated out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department for resources like oil, gas, and timber.
Another 1.2 billion with a B. None of this money we have, by the way, would go to American, African Americans who claim they were unfairly denied loans and other assistance from the agriculture department.
These settlements have broad bipartisan support, but had stalled on Capitol Hill over costs until the Senate broke a stalemate earlier this month.
You know, speaking of bipartisan, I mean, and just to illustrate the phoniness of Obama on this.
If Obama really wants to be bipartisan, then why not press for some of the things for which there's actual bipartisan support, like extending the Bush tax cuts for everybody?
I'm sorry, tax rates for everybody.
I mean, that's got Republican and Democrat support.
Why not find a way to fund the extension of unemployment benefits in accordance with paygo, which Republicans and even some Democrats want, i.e., pay for it.
Cut something else in the budget, or take the money from unspent tarp or porculus funds.
I mean, there's plenty of opportunities here for real bipartisanship.
That's not what he's interested in at all.
And this just makes the point.
But now back to this business of the House, passing landmark legislation to pay for some $4.6 billion in settlements with American Indians and black farmers who say they face discrimination.
Here are some interesting numbers.
There are 18,000 black farmers alive in America.
Yet 84,000 African Americans applied for money.
This is the Pigford uh settlement, is what this is called.
18,000 black farmers, but 84,000 African Americans applied for free money.
Obama money under this bill.
Now, something doesn't add up.
All 84,000 got the money.
But there are only 18,000 farmers.
This was a settlement for discrimination against black farmers.
They had 84,000 African Americans got some money.
And the something not right here Leads all the way to the Obama oval orifice.
If this did not involve African Americans, this could become the number one political story of next year.
Because this is corruption right out in front of everybody's eyes.
The left is celebrating today the fact that it found a creative way to pass reparations.
I mean that's what this is.
Steve King, Republican from Iowa, said so.
And the left is just beside themselves over this.
Here's what he said yesterday afternoon on the House floor.
I'm one of the people that's actually read the consent decree from Pigford 1.
It starts out with these words 40 acres and a mule.
In truth, we have here the modern day version of reparations that are going on.
Well, that just doesn't sit well with the Democrats in the media.
Reparations.
You know, I have used the term reparations uh previously to describe other Democrat legislation, and the left just goes bonkers over it.
They can't deal with it.
And the reason is for some reason it hits too close to home.
Well, what else would you call this?
18,000 black farmers alive, 84,000 black people getting free money from the Obama stash under this settlement under Pigford.
It just it just doesn't add up.
By the way, the Smithsonian institution has uh decided to remove that video of ants crawling over Jesus.
Did you hear about that, Dawn?
At the Smithsonian, which is a museum.
Somebody submitted a video and they approved it and put it on display of ants crawling all over Jesus.
Now the video has been removed because of public pressure.
And somebody said, Well, the taxpayers are going to fund the Smithsonian, and the taxpayers have every right to expect that that's not the question.
Everybody goes, okay, we're giving a bit of applause, big attaboys removing it.
The question is, how did it get passed in the first place?
How did this end up being on display in the first place?
And by the way, that that number of 84,000 black people, it's still climbing.
The number of people that are going to collect on this Pigford stash.
And when that suit was originally brought, the suit claimed 2,000 black farmers were affected.
That number went from 2,000 to 85,000, and it's still climbing.
The video was on display, by the way, the ant video at the National Portrait Gallery.
Now, how does this happen in the first place?
How does it get posted in the first place for it have to be removed later on?
Well, we all know the answer.
A bunch of corrupt, sick perverted liberals run these institutions.
And the reason that video goes on display is so that they can ram it down the throat of the majority of people in this country.
And we hear about bipartisanship and how we're supposed to get along and find, somehow find common ground.
Where is the common ground here between religious people and a bunch of artists who film ants or video ants crawling all over Jesus and then people at Smithsonian who post it.
It's just there is no common ground there in a way, shape, manner, or form.
Time magazine, ladies and gentlemen, has found Julian Assange.
Nobody knows where he is.
But Time Magazine has found him.
Time magazine managing editor Richard Stengel interviewed Icky Leak's founder, the Escape.
And one of the things that Assange said is that he thinks that Secretary of State Clinton should step down.
If it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations.
This is the story in the WikiLeaks dump that Hillary ordered State Department people to spy and collect the goods on uh on other people at the United Nations.
So we have we've got uh we got audio.
Let me search the roster because we have audio of of uh Assange actually saying this stuff.
Let me go through the uh list here.
I think we do.
Is I uh It is.
It's it's it's number 17.
Audio soundbite 17.
This is uh Julian Assange via Skype, undisclosed location, Time Magazine knows where he is that we don't.
Richard Stingle interviewing Assange during a discussion of Hillary Clinton, he said this.
She should resign.
It can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in escalating United Nations in violation of international covenants.
We reached the U.S. designed off.
Yes, she should be violent.
You know, this guy had better hope that Hillary Clinton never becomes president because if she does, he's gonna spend the rest of his life sleeping with his eyes open.
You know, you just don't run around and say this kind of stuff about the Clintons, especially uh girly man like Julian Assange.
By the way, were you able to hear that?
The audio, you were able to make it.
I mean, I the guy's not only a uh a girly man, he doesn't even speak up.
Here it is again.
Audio soundbite number 17.
Uh he was responsible for ordering U.S. uh diplomatic figures to engage in escalating activities at the United Nations in violation of these national covenants to reach the U.S. designed off.
Yes, she should be violent.
You think it sounds like he's speaking in a bathroom?
Makes total sense to me that he would be speaking in a bathroom.
Julian Assange, responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures who engage in espionage activities.
I don't know.
I'm struggling, folks.
I'm struggling to ward off this bad mood that I'm in, and I'm losing it.
Every time I end up discussing this guy, looking at this guy, listening to this guy, and it's an active, active endeavor here to not descend here into a uh into a rotten mood.
I I would let let's you know what, let's go to call this guy the wiki waif.
And let's just let's just turn him and Hillary loose.
Who do you think would win?
I don't think there's any question about it.
Now, Dick Morris was on uh Fox and Friends this morning.
He said he had no doubt whatsoever that Hillary would have ordered such surveillance, spying activities on people at the United Nations.
That's what she did for Bill's bimbos.
She did the 900 FBI files.
It was Mrs. Clinton who was in charge of digging up the dirt on all the Bill's bimbos.
Morris is saying, what's so hard to figure out about this?
Yeah, she's ordered probably ordering.
The question is, what did she want to learn?
The question is why, as far as I'm concerned, uh normally when we hear of an American official ordering spying activities on others, you would think, okay, we're trying to protect ourselves against enemies.
But is that what Mrs. Clinton's doing?
What's she trying to learn here?
I mean, no, I'm I mean does Hillary Clinton strike you as a person who really cares that we protect ourselves against people that we might consider to be our foreign enemies.
She doesn't.
I'm sorry.
She doesn't strike me as somebody who's concerned about that.
Because Mrs. Clinton and Obama, they're they're part of the uh the group that thinks the United States is the problem in the world.
So what could she possibly want to learn about these diplomats and so forth at the uh United Nations?
You know what my guess is?
Fundraising.
I think she's looking for information to blackmail people on a fundraise for the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor.
There's no question that she's doing it for some reason other than the benefit of the country.
This is about benefiting her.
You know damn well I'm right about this.
She looking for dirt on these guys.
She can blackmail them and say, Look, there's a way you can keep this private and secret forever, and that is to donate some money to my husband's library and massage parlor.
On the cutting edge, L. Rushbow behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Distinguished and Prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here now is uh, ladies and gentlemen, Let's go back to the Eric Cantor story and the Hill.com.
Yesterday, the Hill ran a story saying that Eric Cantor did not want to repeal all of Obamacare.
There were two provisions in there that he and the Republicans liked.
And of course, I read the story to you on the air.
We had a discussion about it, and a lot of people prefit to be tied.
That was before two o'clock at 1.57 yesterday afternoon.
The Hill ran a correction.
Saying that Cantor did not say he wanted to repeal it.
He said they got their own plan, but there are two provisions that Obamacare to Republicans like.
The latest Hill version on this is from uh well, let's see.
Does this uh yeah.
Uh House Republicans are looking to repeal the health care reform law and replace it with one of their own early next year without interrupting two popular parts the administration's already begun to implement.
They include a mandate that bars discrimination of pre-existing conditions and a stipulation that allows young people to remain on their parents' insurance plans until age twenty-six.
Eric Cantor said Monday that they would do this by passing a GOP health care bill at the same time as repeal efforts are underway.
This is during a speech here to more than one hundred students at American University.
Cantor said, What you will see us do is push for repeal of the health care bill at the same time contemporaneously.
Submit our replacement bill that has in it the provisions barring discrimination due to pre-existing conditions and offering kids affordable care options.
Cantor stressed that while he supports full repeal of the current law, Republicans share some of the same goals as Democrats, although they propose different ways of achieving them.
That was that's the the the latest and the final version of the story, which is in contrast or conflict with the earlier version.
And the Hill has this little paragraph at the end of the story.
Cantor wants to keep certain or editors note, this article was changed at 157 p.m.
The Hill incorrectly reported the initial version that Cantor wants to keep certain provisions of the health care law intact.
Our article was revised to emphasize that Cantor and Republicans are pursuing a full repeal of the health care law.
We have two Cantor sound bites at American University.
Question from a student, Representative Cantor.
Will you try to preserve these two provisions as they stand or continue to push for a full repeal of the health care bill?
What I think you will see us do is to push for a repeal of the health care bill and at the same time contemporaneously submit our replacement bill that, as you correctly point out, has in it the provisions which you speak of.
We too don't want to accept any insurance companies' denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have a preexisting condition.
And likewise, we want to make sure that someone of your age has the ability to access affordable care, whether it's under your parents' plan or elsewhere.
And he went on to say this.
We and our formula have a way to produce those benefits without raising the costs for everyone.
And we have put in protection for those such as yourself with pre-existing condition that neither will you have to face exorbitant costs that in fact put you in the category of uninsured.
So we feel we've taken the positions that adequately address those problems, but done it in a way that we can preserve what's good about our system without bankrupting this country, which is exactly where the Obamacare bill will take us.
Okay, so here's the the first version of the story was no, we don't want to repeal it.
There are two things in it we like it.
The correction is, yeah, we do want to repeal it, but we're gonna put in these two provisions that we like in our own bill.
And we know why those two provisions are in there, because obviously they've done some polling and they found that the American people want to be able to buy fire insurance when their house is on fire, and that they want to be able to ensure their kids up to age twenty-six.
So, anyway, while we're gonna repeal it, we're gonna stick back in a couple of provisions from Obamacare that Republicans are intent on putting in because they think or say the American people want them.
All right, the first hour of broadcast excellence in the can, soon to be sealed and sent off to its secret hideaway place until it's ready for the limbaugh broadcast museum.
Two more exciting hours to go, and we'll get started with them when we get back.
You wait till you hear how the Washington Post art critic has described pulling the video of the ants crawling on Jesus.
▲
Export Selection