All Episodes
Previous Next
March 7, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:40
March 7, 2011, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and a brand new week of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Looking forward to talking to you.
Telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushball at eibnet.com.
Let me take care of some house cleaning here before we, some inside baseball stuff.
There was this story that's now attaching itself in depth to the blogosphere that Premier Radio Networks hires actors to call radio talk shows, essentially defrauding you, the unsuspecting duped audience.
So I read this over the weekend.
I said, what the heck is this now?
We don't have actors on this program.
We don't take enough calls on this program.
We're certainly not going to pay anybody to call this program.
I mean, you talk about economics.
We're certainly not going to do that.
So what is this?
So I sent Snerdley an email.
I said, Snerdley, are you doing this?
Is something going on behind my back?
Are we, some of these nuts that you find, are they actually actors?
And I said, I'm not going to send it because I know that's not happening.
So I wanted to dig deep here.
You know, Premier Radio Networks is the syndication arm of the broadcast partner.
They're part of Clear Channel.
You know what this is?
This actually exists because of people like me.
Back in the old days, when you could do funny phone pranks, you could call out.
You could be doing your radio show, morning radio shows when this happened.
And you could call out and you could put somebody on the air or tape recorder without their permission.
I bought, you know, I tried to buy a left-handed baseball back this way.
I faked having a picture phone to get traffic reports from the tunnels in Pittsburgh.
I mean, it was an art form.
There was a guy in Detroit who made this an art form.
His name was Dick Purton.
But there were a number of other morning DJs that made a career out of these funny put-on telephone calls, except they were real.
Well, then all of a sudden, one day, the FCC came along and said, you cannot do this.
You can't call out, nor can you record somebody without their permission.
I mean, one of the most fun things I ever did was to pretend I had a picture phone in Pittsburgh.
They were testing the picture phone, they were going to in Pittsburgh.
This is 70s.
And there was a gimbals department store right across the street from the radio station, KQV.
So I went over there, went to the lingerie department, and I sculpted it all out.
And I got the girl working there, the woman working at what she was wearing, where the cash register was, where all the stuff in the lingerie department was.
Made notes, and I went back and I went to the production room of the radio station.
I turned on the tape recorder and I called over there.
How about gimbals?
Can we help you?
Yes, guys, I like the lingerie department.
Thank you.
Hold on just a second.
She picks up the hi, this Miss Elfrink, was her name.
I said, hi, I'm such and such from KQV.
I'm helping the phone company test market a new picture phone.
I want to test it here.
And I've actually got a need as well.
What's that, sir?
Well, birthday, girlfriend's birthday coming up in a couple days, and I want to buy her a couple slips.
And I have a new picture phone here.
I don't have time to come over there.
But if you just hold the slips up to the phone, I'll be able to see if that's what I want.
And I'll pack them up and send somebody over to people.
Sir, there's no such thing as a picture phone.
I anticipated this.
Yes, you probably haven't heard about it.
The phone company is very forward-thinking.
Carbon granules in the microphone of your phone, your handheld set there, are a low-resolution black and white camera.
Like, I can see you right now.
You're just, you're very blurry.
I mean, if you hold that phone away from you, I'll be able to tell you what you look like and what you're wearing.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
Just hold the phone away from you, move it up and down, scan up and down, and I'll be able to.
You can't, ma'am.
If you just do it, I really don't have time here to waste.
This is, you know, I'm on the air and I got to get this done.
You're on the air?
Yes, ma'am, I am.
Well, I'm going to feel dumb doing this in front of, well, just duck down behind the cash register there until you're left.
So she ducks down.
She scan.
We have somebody over there watching this.
She scans herself with the phone.
I told her what she was where she freaks.
She literally can't believe it.
So I said, I want a couple 34 C's.
She went and got the slips.
She scanned the slips.
She packed them up.
Somebody, well, after a while, you couldn't do that.
The FCC, somebody said, you've got to let those people know that you're going to be doing it.
You can't record them.
You can't put them on the air unless they know it's well.
With rank amateurs, you're blowing it.
A rank amateur, you will not be able to pull.
I couldn't go over there and say, Ms. Elfrank, I'm going to call you in a couple minutes.
And I need you to act shocked.
I need you to play along.
And here's what I want you to do.
She's not a highly trained professional.
It wouldn't work.
It only works if they genuinely don't know what's going on and you fool them.
So what Premier had done here, they went out and hired actors for morning shows to be able to pull off bits like this.
That's what they do.
The actors are for FM long-haired maggot-infested morning shows with whatever music format playing stunts like this, trying to make it sound like people are really being duped, but you can't do it anymore.
One of the great comedic arts of radio, and this is 20 years ago now, was dealt a fatal blow when the FCC said you can't put people on the air without their permission.
You can't tape record them without their permission.
So people still wanted to do the bits.
That led to hiring actors to portray the dupes, the objects of the bit.
And so I don't know why.
This story came out in February.
Columbia Journal Review, Journalism Review, wrote about this in February, and the story died.
It came alive again, the blogs over the weekend with the implication that this program is hiring actors to portray callers.
And I have no idea this was even going.
I didn't know.
I, for the life of me, I don't know.
Certainly, I didn't suspect you.
I suspected somebody.
I wanted to find out if you were in on some program I didn't know about because no, I look at it.
If somebody had told me we're going to do this, I would have put the kibosh on this.
There is no way we're going to pay people to pretend to be callers here.
There's no, nothing on this program is scripted.
So I, you know, who knows, Snerdley?
I mean, I don't challenge your loyalties.
I don't question your loyalties, but that's why I didn't send the email in the end.
Well, I did think about it.
Well, I had to.
Because why didn't these people at Premiere deny it?
Why didn't they specify that this is for these prank phone calls in their morning shows or whenever it happens during the day?
But it is not for talk radio.
I have never heard of this.
There has not, in fact, one of the cardinal rules here ever, I have all from the get-go, nothing is staged on this program ever.
If some people have presented, you know, have come to me over the years with ideas.
Everybody wants to get in the act, and I have routinely shot it down.
Just doesn't happen, no way.
Plus pay for it, pay for a bunch.
We've got the best universe of potential callers in the in the country here, the largest audience ever.
I mean to pay for this and, by the way, I don't care, you know.
So some, some of the, some of the best calls we ever have, these wacko, I mean looped out liberals.
I don't care how good an actor, I don't think we could duplicate this if we script it.
Some of this stuff is beyond being scripted.
But I still can't figure out why Premier did not specify what they let it stand out there that this is all happening as part of their talk radio division, which it's not.
At least not here.
And I can't believe that it's happening anywhere else.
So you may not have seen this yet.
This story originally appeared in something called the Tablet Magazine, which calls itself a new read on Jewish life.
And Tablet Magazine is a radical left-wing operation.
And from Tablet Magazine, here's one of the excerpts.
Michael Harrison, the editor of Talkers Magazine, Talk Radio World's leading trade publication, said he knew nothing of this particular service, but was not altogether surprised to hear it was in place.
There was, he said, a tradition of creating fake phone calls for the sake of entertainment on some of the funny shows, Shock Jock shows, kind of shows you here.
It's exactly right, but not here.
People doing pranks.
I would consider it an insult.
If somebody came to me and said, hey, we got a couple actors there.
We got a couple of things that we want you to do here with people, actors pretending to be callers.
I mean, that door would get slammed on somebody's nose and toes as fast as I've ever slammed a door.
Yeah, I mean, well, yeah, for those of you who remember Rita X, why would we pay for that?
And I suggest to you that there's not an actor in the world who could pull that off.
So this whole thing was originally published on the 11th of February.
And I debated whether or not to even mention this today.
You know, whether to even bring it up.
Because, I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on out there, folks.
Like, for example, as a reminder, tomorrow is Mardi Gras.
Do you know that?
Tomorrow is Mardi Gras, also known as Fat Tuesday.
Unless Michelle My Bell has outlawed it.
Here's another thing about this, folks.
You know, actors are uniformly leftists.
We all know this, if they want to work.
Now, imagine if there actually was a leftist anchor out there, or an actor that we had hired.
This guy would have already come forward with details, tapes, examples, proof that he had been hired.
Here's my pay stub.
Here's what they withheld.
Here's what I said.
This was the bit.
Limbaugh was in on it.
Any actor who could prove that he had called into this show for payment could rat me out, never have to worry ever again about working for the rest of his life.
In fact, they might even create a special Academy Award for his courage.
But such actor does not exist.
Not for this program.
Now, from the original article called Radio Days, all the actors I questioned reported receiving scripts calling into real shows, pretending to be real people.
Frequently, one actor said the calls were live, sometimes recorded in advance, but never presented on air as anything but real.
I'm going to tell you, if any of these actors had talked to me and they would have gotten the specifics, this writer would have the scoop of the century.
He would have the proof, and he would have already come forward.
He would have surfaced.
And he would have said, here's the evidence.
And that would have been part of the story.
But that person doesn't.
In fact, if anybody is out there trying to stage telephone calls to radio talk shows, it's the left.
You know what I'm talking about.
The now famous seminar callers.
They are so obvious that even you in the audience can spot them a mile away.
You know how they are.
Mr. Limbaugh, I've been listening to you for 20 years.
You're my favorite guy.
I love you.
I've learned so much from you.
But or some other typical.
We have uncovered seminar caller seminars.
They have been trained how to call, how to get through the call screeners.
We have even parodied this.
It has become so common and frequent.
Seminar callers.
So the fakes, the phonies, the plastic banana good time rock and roll callers on this program are the leftists.
And they are trained and they are guided by leftist blogs and so forth.
Just saying, folks, that if these paid actors were there, they'd have the evidence.
They'd come forward and they would be celebrated.
As I say, they probably get a special Academy Award for their courage in exposing this great injustice.
Speaking of tomorrow being Mardi Gras Fat Tuesday, if Michelle Obama hasn't outlawed it, yesterday on TV1's Washington Watch with our old buddy Roland Martin during a panel discussion, Roland Martin had this exchange with a comedian, J. Anthony Brown, about me and my criticism of the First Lady, Much Hel Obama.
Rush Limbaugh has been highly critical of First Lady Michelle Obama for eating ribs.
Is Rush Kim really the best person?
What did he say?
What was it he had?
What did he actually say?
He said that she's telling us to eat tofu and all this food with no taste, but at some event she was eating ribs and it was $1,500.
No disrespect, but he's kind of partially right about that.
Now, you can't have us eating tofu and then you had a rib shack.
It just don't sound right.
He's kind of partially right about that.
You can't have us eating tofu and you eat it a rib shack.
It just don't sound right.
So even the brothers kind of throwing a curve there to our old buddy Roland Martin.
But then it continued.
Roland see that.
Well, other guests on this show were Kim Wheatley, a comedian, and Buddy Lewis.
And they all then got in on it.
I think, no, but I think she said in moderation.
She never said change.
I saw her play and it didn't look really moderate.
It was liberal.
I'd be mad at the first man for that real period.
He cannot talk.
See, that's the thing about it.
People always tell fat people that they can't do fat jokes.
Who better to do a fat joke than a fat person?
So the waves, the repercussions here from my pointing out the hypocrisy and the irony of Michelle Obama chowing down on the big time, what was it?
What kind of ribs were they?
Not baby back, I think.
Short ribs.
At any rate, still reverberating out there, ladies and gentlemen.
And support for your host surfacing in some unsuspected quarters.
Now, this next, this is just kind of interesting.
This goes to show you the sensitivity of people.
You remember last week, maybe it's Friday on this program, we played some sound bites of Sam Zell, who'd appeared on CNBC talking about the economy and so forth.
And we just talked about Sam Zell.
Well, that was it.
The hosts of the show are Joe Kiernan and Carl Quintanilla.
Well, they were talking about that today on their show, squawk bucks.
But you heard DeRush Limbaugh talking about our Zell.
Yeah.
Limbaugh seems to think that we were trying to challenge Zell.
I don't think he has any idea.
Maybe, at least about me, when I'm talking to Sam Zell.
I don't think these guys listened to the show.
I don't remember criticizing these guys.
I was just, all we did was play the Zell bites and comment on Zell and what Zell had to say.
And Thomas L. Friedman, gasoline, four bucks a gallon.
We need to talk about this, folks, because it's inching up there.
You seen any news about it?
Well, two little stories.
He says, Thomas L. Friedman slayed the nation yesterday.
Bob Schieffer talking about the White House chief of staff, Bill Daly.
What are the options now?
Consider using oil from the Strategic Reserve in order to bring down the price of gasoline.
Does that make sense to you, Mr. Friedman?
That would rank in my top five worst ideas of 2011 so far.
I think that there's one thing we should finally be doing is using this opportunity to have a credible energy policy that begins to reduce our addiction to oil.
Gasoline is almost $4 a gallon.
We know that's a red line or people really start to change their behavior.
At a minimum, I'd be talking about a tax that basically says we're going to keep it at $4 a gallon.
He wants it higher.
He wants it $4 to $5 a gallon.
And it's not that they start changing their behavior, Mr. Friedman.
It's that they start voting out incumbents.
You had better keep that in mind, too, as your non-three of Obama continues.
Be back, Michelle Obama or Michelle Bachman rather coming up.
Michelle Bachman was on Meet the Press yesterday, and it was interesting.
She decided she had some things to say regardless of what the questions were.
And it was, in fact, it was a lesson in how Republicans ought to behave on these programs.
Rather than accept the premise, and in this case, the host David Gregory puts forward, you go on the show, you have something to say, say it, regardless of what the questions are.
In this case, she was trying to sound a warning.
This is the second time, and she's the second member of Congress to do this.
About two to three weeks ago, Steve King from Iowa pointed out that hidden in Obamacare, Pelosi and Reid had snuck in a provision that spends $105 billion every year implementing the bill.
It's just, if that sounds true, what do you mean $105 billion to implement the bill?
Exactly.
It's just $105 billion of slush fund spending.
And it was one of those things nobody knew was in the bill.
It's 2,200 pages.
One of the things that nobody knew was in it until it was passed.
Like Pelosi said, we've got to pass this thing to find out what's in it.
So you recall when Steve King first brought this up and it was part of the original effort to repeal the bill.
He ran into some obstacles at the Republican leadership not wanting to deal with this and target this provision.
I forget what the rules, remember the argument here was, is the House leadership going to go after the meat here?
Are they going to be true to the rules of the House that they had set up?
Remember, the leadership of the House thinks that you, the voters, want them to abide by the rules because you, the voters, are very much aware how the Democrats did not abide by the rules that they themselves wrote when they ran the House from 2006 to the present until last November.
And so the House leadership said, we got our rules.
We're going to obey the rules.
And what King wants to do to take that $105 billion a week's not part of the rules.
We can't do it.
So they shot him down.
And Michelle Bachman's trying to bring it back up, trying to alert everybody that it exists to, you know, she's she's this.
And by the way, it all revolves around a potential government shutdown and the this this advanced appropriation of one hundred and five billion dollars in the health care bill.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
This is an example.
Gregory is grilling her, but she's not backing down about Obama.
He says, you referred to the Obama administration as a gangster government.
You've said that this president has anti-American views.
Do you believe that still?
I believe that the actions of this government have been emblematic of ones that have not been based on true American values.
Just consider Obamacare.
Over 900 waivers have been given out to unions and protected special interests.
Is it appropriate to refer to the government as a gangster government and to question whether this president loves America?
Well, I said I do believe that actions that have been taken by this White House, I don't take back my statement on gangster government.
I think that there have been actions that have been taken by this government that I think are corrupt.
And you think you think the president has anti-American views?
I said I had very serious concerns about the president's views, and I think the president's actions in the last two years speak for themselves.
Now, folks, this sets up something that to me is very interesting.
Something I would like, frankly, to hear your thoughts on.
Because I guarantee you that this split here, here's Gregory, and he represents the media, and he represents the Democrats, and he represents a lot of Republicans.
Saying, whatever you think, don't run around and say he's anti-American.
Whatever you say, don't run around and say he's a gangster government.
American people, you don't want to say that.
She's not backing down.
I think he is.
I don't back off from my gangster government statement, and I don't think that this guy's got traditional American values and views in his agenda.
Okay, so let's take this and move forward a little bit into the presidential election year.
And let's just, for the sake of our hypothetical, let's say we've got a nominee.
I don't care who it is, right?
It doesn't matter.
We've got a Republican nominee.
We've got $4 a gallon gasoline, $4.50.
We've got unemployment.
Let's say they've been able to bring it down to 8.5%.
That's their number.
We've got a supposed economic recovery taking place, but it's not something everybody senses.
It's something we're told is taking place, but it's not something everybody is going to get their arms around.
So we have basically economic circumstances not much different than now.
We have gasoline prices up.
We've got Middle East in turmoil.
We've got a situation in Afghanistan where nobody now knows what's going on.
In fact, Gates is now saying we're going to be there a lot longer than 2004 or 2012.
And where am I getting this for?
Maybe it's four years.
It would be longer than what Obama said the original drawdown.
Gates never going to be there longer than Obama said.
All right, whatever the years are.
So, presidential campaign.
Here's the question.
You got an incumbent, Barack Hussein Obama.
Does the Republican nominee focus on what we all believe to be true?
The guy's got a different view of the American tradition than all the rest of us.
Do we say, does our nominee, does our campaign focus on portraying Obama as anti-traditional American values?
Do we say this guy is a socialist?
This guy's models consist of Marx and Alinsky.
Do we go that way?
Do we point out or do we say to ourselves, you know what?
Most people don't want to think that about their president.
There's such reverence for the office.
If people don't want to think that even if they admit that they've made a mistake in voting for the guy, they don't want to think that they've elected somebody who is essentially an enemy of traditional American founding values.
So the alternative is, rather than point all that stuff out, we just focus on policy.
We say things like the president's economic policy is such that it's led to $4.50 a gallon gasoline.
The president's policies, which show no signs of changing, he seems wet.
These policies have led us to an endless unemployment rate of between 8 and 10 percent.
In other words, do we depersonalize this and strictly focus the reelection campaign in the opposition to Obama on policy?
Or do we go full bore and warn the American people why his policies are what they are?
Well, I mentioned this because I dare say that if you are from the camp, what are you laughing at in there?
What in the world have I said yet that's so funny?
So I dare say, let me finish.
I dare say that if you are of the camp that wants to hear the Republican presidential nominee talk about the guy's a socialist, the guy doesn't believe in traditional American founding values, that you're going to be sadly disappointed.
You're not going to have a candidate say that.
The candidate is going to stay, is going to accept that Obama's a legitimate American politician, a legitimate president, legitimate, just got totally cockeyed policies.
Now, they're going to hear policy this, policy that, policy, that's why we're in a dumper.
Now, all the while, the dirty little secret is, is that every Republican nominee is running for one of two reasons.
E, or A, they've just got the traditional campaign ego country, get along with it.
Or B, four more years of the guy and this country's changed forever.
Four more years of this guy, and we're looking at generations to get our country back.
Now, they're all going to think that.
They're all going to think, everybody knows this a bad guy in terms of America's traditions, values, and so on.
Everybody knows this guy's got some chip on his shoulder.
Everybody, every one of our candidates knows this.
I would venture to say, folks, that Zilt Zero Nada are going to say it.
That they're all going to focus on policy, for lack of a better word.
I mean, they're going to focus on his policies and like this and policies like that.
But they're not going to get into his intentions.
They're not going to get into his motivations.
And they are therefore going to leave.
Well, it's nervous to losing a recipe.
That's what I'm asking you all.
Do you want, Do you, do you, if, if you hear the Republican nominee, whoever it is, I don't care who it is, for the purpose of this discussion, if you hear whoever the nominee is say the president's policy is going to lead us to blah, blah, blah.
Are you going to ask, well, why do you think that beyond policy?
Are you going to know, are you going to be interested in our nominee's opinion of Obama's motivation?
For example, nobody, and I'm comfortable saying this myself, I'm not running for orifice.
Nobody in their right mind who's trying to revive a private sector economy, create jobs, would do anything Obama's doing.
And if they were seriously well-intentioned but mistaken, they'd drop this and go for something else.
He's not dropping.
He's doubling down on all this.
He's doubling down on the unions.
He's doubling down on crimping the private sector, doubling down on growing government, doubling down on deficits, doubling down on spending.
At some point, do you have to say why?
Does that become part of the campaign question?
Why is he doing this?
Well, he must just be naive.
He must be well-intentioned, but just, you know, incompetent.
Or no, he's got a design on this country, really, we don't have.
I mention this because Bachman is out there not holding back Michelle Bach gangster government, anti-American values.
She's saying, how do you, does it make you uncomfortable?
Are you going, you go, girl?
And do you want your presidential nominee to be taking the same tack?
Or do you think it's a loser?
Because I'll guarantee you this.
There isn't a whole lot that's changed despite a lot of things that have changed.
And I can pretty much guarantee you that our nominee is going to be scared to death of losing independence.
And our nominee, whoever the hell he or she is, is going to think that the best way to lose the independence is to go after Obama personally.
I guarantee it.
Whether it's true or not, that's what they're going to be afraid of doing.
Losing the independent.
They're going to be want to hold on the independence.
They're going independents and going after Obama personally as Bachman does here is going to just cause the independents to flee the scene, fly to coop.
Now, would you tell me, Snurdly, what are you laughing about?
Has Premier Radio hired you to be an actor and started laughing at me during my...
See, Snurdly thinks I have an ulterior motive to what I'm doing here.
And I don't.
I'm not, he thinks I'm flushing people out.
I'm not flushing anybody out.
I'm telling you what I know is going to happen.
I'm telling you I know what's coming down the pike.
And I got Bachman in.
I don't know if she's, well, she has thrown her hat in the presidential ring, but it's not what I'm bringing this up.
I'm just, you're voters.
You're the base.
I guarantee you, the nominee, whoever he or she is, is going to think there's nowhere else you can go but him or her.
So they may not think they have to service you in a campaign.
They may not, they think I don't have to offer the red meat of this guy's socialist, Marxist, who's going to swallow Linsky because they're afraid doing that might lose precious independence and so forth and so on.
So they just focus on policy.
So just so I'm just asking a question here.
What do you what do you expect?
What do you want?
What would your reaction be?
Take a break here.
I'll play a little bit more of Bachman to illustrate what I'm talking about here.
And I'm not, snerdly, there's no grand design here, and I'm not making the case for Michelle Bachman.
You know darn well I'm not going to pick a candidate right now.
That's not at all what I'm doing.
The way she's handling Gregory here simply turned on a couple light bulbs here that have been dimmed in my fertile cranial cavity here to ask a question about how's this campaign going to shit?
Because I'm telling you, look at it.
Gas prices are five bucks, and you're still not going to get the same kind of media coverage of it that we got when it was inching up to four bucks when Bush was president.
You are not going to get the sob stories of people walking to work with holes in their shoes.
You're not going to get that.
You're not going to get the personification or the portrayal of the country as in any kind of economic quagmire here.
You're not going to get that kind of assistance.
Like they gave Bush, like they gave the Democrats going after Bush when gasoline was going up to four bucks.
Now, here's a guy that's responsible for the price going.
Middle East, this, Middle East, that.
We're not drilling for oil.
We've cut back our own domestic drilling.
Guy that doesn't want oil.
He doesn't want coal.
He's a guy that's going after this stupid shining green city on the hill.
It doesn't exist.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, folks.
I'm going to be in trouble if I don't.
Okay, now back to more Michelle Bachman on Meet the Depressed yesterday.
She's one of the few Republicans who remembers what the last election was actually about.
And it wasn't that long ago.
It was about the fraud that is Obamacare and the spending and the indebtedness.
So the host David Gregory, who is just so disturbed that someone might say Obama is gangster government.
Mr. Gregory, so disturbed, someone might question whether Obama's views are traditionally American founding type views.
Says to Michelle Bachman, you heard the president this week offer an accommodation to the states to opt out of the individual mandate where necessary to tailor to their own states.
Why isn't that the sort of give the Republicans wanted?
David, that's not a give at all.
And in fact, all that is is a pretext for implementing a single-payer plan.
If you recall the president's entire statement, he said the states can opt out as long as they stay within the requirements of all of Obamacare, unless they want to go with a single-payer plan.
Obamacare is a crime against democracy.
It has been a deception from the beginning.
Remember, the president told us it was a mandate, not a tax.
Now in the federal court, he's arguing it's a tax, not a mandate.
Let me add something to this, and it's something that I have stated on previous broadcast occasions.
They want this to fail.
They want all of this to fail.
That's why all these waivers, I mean, that's to get everybody on board before the election.
But they want all this to fail.
She's exactly right here.
This is a pretext for implementing a single-payer plan.
All of the states and their plans and the local and the private sector health care companies, it's all about them failing.
It's all about this not working.
So then the last resort's what?
Obama.
Federal government.
So there you have.
Here's Michelle O'Bachman.
Michelle Bachman says, Obamacare is a crime against democracy.
It's a fraud.
It is a pretext to implementing a single-payer plan.
Mr. Gregory, this is not an opt-out.
This is not any give on the part of the regime.
This is simply acknowledging he's got a legal problem right now and he wants to skate around it for a while.
So it takes us back to my hypothetical setup because the presidential campaign is going to begin in earnest.
In fact, you've got, what, five or six Republicans in Iowa today or this week.
So it's now starting to intensify.
At some point, we're going to get the polling data of frontrunners and all this sort of stuff.
And it's going to matter to you, you know, what kind of campaign you want.
Remember, it was McCain that ran around and said Obama's a fine American, a fine man, and I don't want to hear the other way.
She got it?
You boy, you sharp, nothing.
I don't hear you, nothing other than yet.
You mentioned these names you've seen.
You say that one of my rallies, and you're toast, pal, you're fired.
Obamacare waivers are now over 1,000, by the way.
▲
Export Selection