All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:59
April 12, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, so the big budget deal, 38.5 billion bucks.
38.5 billion dollars.
In and of itself.
Big whoop.
Still real cuts.
Gotta give it that.
$38.5 billion.
Real cut.
Uh but we got there.
By the way, hi.
I'm Rush Limboy.
You know that, and you'll love that.
Some of you hate it, but you're still here.
The EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone numbers $800, 282-2882, and the email address, Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
So at $38.5 billion in cuts.
There's a big story at the Hill today, and I'm going to synthesize it here.
I said it to Snerdley.
Snurdley was aghast.
And you will be too.
There were of the $38.5 billion in cuts, $12 billion in cuts from three previous stop gap continuing resolutions.
In other words, old money.
$12 billion of the $38.5 came from old CRs, three stop gaps.
$10 billion came from the previous continuing resolution.
Now we talked about this yesterday.
It had been said that $10 billion of it was from a previous CR.
We couldn't find any documentation we did overnight.
And the number of real cuts in this continuing resolution that was agreed to on Friday night was $2 billion.
House and Senate appropriators revealed details of the 2011 spending cut deal early this morning, missing a self-imposed midnight deadline.
They were supposed to tell us in midnight last night, but they didn't.
They got it done early this morning.
In dueling press releases, House Republicans emphasized the magnitude of cuts they won in the six-month spending bill after marathon negotiations, while the Senate Democrats emphasized cuts that they were able to avoid or diminish.
Hal Rogers, uh appropriations committee chairman, Republican Kentucky said in a statement, never before has any Congress made dramatic cuts such as those that are in this final legislation, the near 40 billion dollar reduction in non-defense spending, nearly five times larger than any other cut in history.
It's the result of this new Republican majority's commitment to bring about real change in the way Washington spends the people's money.
Senator Daniel in no way, a Democrat from Hawaii, Senate Appropriations Committee said in his release, some of the cuts would be especially painful.
This is a crock.
Nobody's gonna miss this.
But it said the bill preserves critical programs targeted by the original House passed spending bill, including Head Start, Pell Grants, Scientific and Medical Research Programs.
Those were all maintained.
So hold a vote on HR 1473 on Wednesday as planned.
The House will have to waive a rule that a bill be on view for three calendar days or find a technical way around it.
In total, the bill sets final 2011 spending levels at $1.049 trillion.
That's uh $78.5 billion decrease from Obama's 2011 budget request, $39.9 billion decrease from the 2010 spending bills.
Republicans had sought $61 billion cut in spending, but negotiations scaled those demands back.
The total cuts, and here's how it's reported word for word in the story.
The total cuts which span nearly the entire federal government.
Oh wow.
That's sweeping sounding, isn't it?
$12 billion in cuts through three stopgap continuing resolutions.
And $28 billion in new cuts.
Compared to 2010 levels, there are big cuts to cherish Democrat back programs.
The women, infants, and children nutrition program has cut $504 million.
Foreign food assistance by $194 million.
these are characterized as sweeping major, my gosh, never ever before seen cut.
These are accounting error type things.
These are the kind of things the green eyeshade guys miss after a long day in the office.
The EPA is cut by 1.6 billion, a 16% reduction.
The bottom line is that $2 billion in cuts in this final continuing resolution.
Uh is how we got to the uh 38.
Some say it's actually only uh only 28.
Now we move on to AP and uh also political.
Notice the tide now turning uh political the story.
Obama gets more budget deal credit.
Um here another AP story.
This is uh different reporter.
Budget tricks helped Obama save programs from cuts.
Uh details of last week's hard-won agreement to avoid a government shutdown and cut federal spending by 38 billion dollars were released this morning.
They reveal that the budget cuts were significantly eased by pruning money left over from previous years.
That's the put this behind me, let me grab it back out, and that's the 12 billion dollars.
Uh using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs Obama had targeted anyway.
So a lot of what was agreed to was what Obama had previously said he didn't care anything about.
Such moves permitted Obama to save Pell Grants, uh race to the top aid for public screwels, among others from Republican knives.
Big holes in foreign aid and the EPA were patched in large part.
Republicans gave up politically treacherous cuts to the agriculture department's food inspection program.
Still Obama and his Democrat allies accepted $600 million in cuts to a community health center program, $414 million in cuts to uh uh grants for state and local police departments, all these things he had agreed to previously.
There was a lot of things, nothing he had to be convinced of to uh to cut uh along the lines of this talk, and then there is this Andrew Taylor from the Associated Press.
A close look at the now that remember now uh this is supposed to be a news story.
A close look at the government shutdown dodging agreement to cut federal spending by 38 billion dollars reveals that lawmakers significantly eased the fiscal pain by pruning money left over from previous years using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs Obama had targeted anyway.
And I still love it here.
$38 billion, the $519 billion, uh $1.6 billion, is they're they're all categorized as unbelievably huge numbers and cuts.
My God, it's a it's a miracle the nation will survive.
That's how these cuts are folks.
I'm telling you, we're being scammed here like you can't believe it.
The thing is, we know it.
None of us are surprised.
I mean, these these cuts don't even amount to a nick while shaving.
If you want to get right down to it.
Now, the political claims that for the last two years, all of Obama's cuts are actually programs that Bush had also tried to cut.
So I'm not sure who's coming out the loser here.
It says here that such moves permitted Obama to save favorite programs from Republican knives.
So now, now the tide is turning, Obama the great savior.
Not Obama got rolled, but Obama's the great savior.
Obama gets more budget deal credit.
Nearly six in ten Americans say they backed the budget deal reached by the White House and Congressional Republicans late last week, and are giving a bit more credit to Obama than they are to members of Congress from either party.
The CNN poll.
58% of those surveyed over the weekend said that they approve of the deal that includes 38.5 million dollars in spending cuts through the rest of fiscal 2011.
Support for the deal stronger among Democrats.
56% of independents said they are in favor of the deal.
Overall, Americans give Obama and Congressional Democrats more credit for making the deal happen.
Well, with 48% of those surveyed crediting them for the deal.
House Speaker John Boehner, who many are identifying as the big winner in the negotiations, doesn't get such positive marks in the CNN poll.
Forty-one percent approve of the job he's doing, 44% disapprove.
56% of independents support the deal.
Obama, the Democrats, are getting the credit, and yet Boehner was the big winner all through the weekend.
And I wonder if I wonder if our inside the beltway intelligentsia guys who went for this spin over the weekend that Baylor's the big winner.
I wonder if they have figured out what they were victimized.
I wonder if they figure out how they were used.
But here's a here's a uh little observation, uh, ladies and gentlemen, by the way, this poll is of 800 adults, not likely voters, not registered voters, not I mean, it it could be adults from another planet.
I mean, it's it's a it's a pretty wide suave here of uh of supposed humanity.
But the the real the real question I have here is uh one of the reasons for doing this was to win the PR battle.
One of the reasons for doing that was for avoiding the government shutdown, one of the reasons for not really pushing back and going hard was so that we didn't end up being categorized and portrayed as the newt gang was in 1994.
Now look what's happening.
We're still being portrayed now as losers.
After three days being winners now as losers, and Obama saved the nation.
Obama saved the country from these sharp Republican knives.
And the American people understand it agree, and by 56%, the independents understand it and agree.
And the whole reason that we did this was to avoid after-the-fact coverage like this.
As long as that is going to remain the motivation, the reason, the inspiration for our political actions, we're always going to end up on the short end of the stick because we're never going to win a PR press battle.
I hope some of some of the uh uh intelligentsia who helped start this notion that Boehner and the Republicans were the big winners over the weekend.
I I I hope, I hope you understand how you were used to set up today the media coverage of last night and today.
Uh to those of us outside the beltway who have a, I think a far greater perspective on how things happen there, what's going on there.
All this is totally predictable, totally understandable, and we know full well.
I mean, I can even give you examples if I wanted to make a fool of myself in my early years of my career.
I could give you examples of how I used to do, not many, but before I learned the lay of the land, I did things to try to get positive press coverage.
I did things that to try to engender the kind of uh coverage that I saw everybody else getting.
It never worked, and it was never going to work, and there's nothing I could have done to make it work in a lasting way because I'm a conservative.
At the end of the day, I'm always going to be an enemy.
I'm always going to have to be trounced.
And this uh this uh I'll just tell you, and HR now, you're gonna get a phone call on this, and you gotta tell the guy who calls you that you know him, you gotta tell him this is not about him.
There's a famous magazine that did a profile of me early on.
And I love the report, and I still do.
And this guy kept telling me, you know, once this is out, you're gonna be on the Hamptons invitation list.
You're gonna be, you're gonna, you're gonna cross the new boundary.
You're gonna step over that line.
You're gonna get you're gonna, you're gonna have a whole new kind of world open.
After ABC does that profile of you, 2020, did that the same thing.
And it never did.
Then it's not the reason I did it, but this was one of the lures, one of the uh things was held out.
So I've been there, done that.
I've had this dangle, this carrot dangled in front of me.
And it wasn't that I wanted it, I was just, you know, early years trying to figure all this out.
There was nobody.
Gosh, I wish there'd somebody to advise me.
I wish there had been somebody to tell me what I know now.
There were people that knew it.
They just didn't tell me or didn't want to tell me or didn't think it was important or what have you.
So I learned it by doing.
And that's why I have a full-fledged understanding of the left and the media and knowing full why, for example, to put it in in in in different terms, if you're gonna have a debate, if you're gonna have a negotiation on the budget, and if your objective is, and when it's all over to have the press say great things about you, you're gonna get skunked because you're you're gonna do something not aimed at the at the real objective, which is cutting spending, which is reducing the deficit, which is tackling this out of control direction the government's going.
If you're aiming for positive press coverage, or if you're aiming for coverage, it's not gonna be excoriating.
You're gonna you're you're you're gonna lose every which way from Sunday.
You're gonna lose at the negotiations, and you're gonna lose in the press coverage ultimately.
And you're gonna lose your base at the same time.
You're gonna lose your people.
You're gonna lose in my case, I would have lost my audience in the uh uh elected uh arena, you lose your voters.
So it's frustrating to sit here and watch, you know, try to share the benefit of uh your experience, the benefit of your wisdom.
Uh and all of this is just it's uh so you know, way sadly predictable.
So now the stories are out, not just the political, no, it's the people.
56% of independence, man.
Obama saved the government.
Now, what was the alternative?
The alternative was well, what was the big fear?
Oh, we're gonna shut down the government, they're gonna rush if we shut down the government, they're gonna hate us.
I mean, you remember 1995?
We can't shut down the government.
My God, we got creamed.
No, you didn't.
You picked up two seats in the Senate, 96 elections.
You did not lose the House, and yeah, Clinton was re-elected, but you didn't lose you lost the PR battle.
But you didn't lose anything substantively.
Oh, can't shut down the government.
I'm gonna shut it down.
So many Republicans I'm not gonna relive 1995.
Well, we're we're practically reliving 1995 in the in the sense of the post-event press coverage now, plus the uh relative minuscule amount of dollars that have been cut.
Anyway, let me let me take a break here.
Otherwise, the broadcast engineer is gonna panic and shut me up himself.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, the seemingly inexplicable, and even the good times, Rush Limbaugh making the complex understandable.
Now, folks, it's it's it's not all sweetness and light and roses out there on the left.
For example, this AP story.
I mean, if I read the whole thing, and I've I've read portions of it to you, I'm not gonna read the whole thing because it's kind of disjointed.
I I'm having trouble figuring out what their motive is.
There's always a motive to stay controlled media.
And I'm as good as anybody at reading the stitches on a fastball.
But I don't know if the primary purpose of their piece here is to reassure Obama's base that Boehner did not win after all.
I mean, the headline, Obama prevents budget cuts to favorite programs.
Or if they're trying to turn the Tea Party against Boehner.
What are you saying in there?
What are you shouting?
You're already the T I think the Tea Party's already kind of lined up against leadership right now.
I don't think AP is needed for that job.
Uh but nevertheless, some liberals are not happy over this historic budget deal.
And even more of them are unhappy over the performance of the great pharaoh.
Abu Barack Obama, whatever uh Gaddafi pronounces his name, the politico is reporting that among Democrats there's real unhappiness that Obama has done not done more to address the consequences of what Democrats fear is going to become a steady erosion in funds for government programs.
The Democrats make this first step, there's more to come.
And they are paranoid.
There's also another story, the press is ecstatic by the way, Obama is ready to renege on his four-month-old pledge to leave the Bush tax cuts alone.
In his speech tomorrow night, Obama's going to talk about raising taxes, so the press is happy about that.
Now the liberals over at Salon.com are vociferous.
Andrew Leonard says he finds it sickening to hear Obama and Harry Reed declare the budget deal as historic because they're looking at it as a gamble with an unknown outcome.
I feel like I'm from Mars.
I really feel like I'm surrounded by aliens on a different planet I never been to before.
Now there is a lot of panic on the left, as I was saying.
I'm gonna I'm gonna give you an example here from Salon.com, but you'll find similar stuff uh in today's Washington Post.
Andrew Leonard, Salon.com says he finds it sickening to hear uh uh Obama and Dingy Harry declare the budget deal as historic because it's a gamble with an unknown outcome.
But he says the truly baffling part of Obama's presidency is that we don't hear him making the big picture case to the American public often enough.
He said the Republican agenda is clear.
Roll back the Great Society in the New Deal, keep taxes low, assert that we can't afford to take care of our poor, our sick, and our elderly.
The Democrat agenda should be just the opposite, so let's hear it.
Okay, so that's what this guy at Salon thinks our agenda is.
Cut taxes for the rich and throw the poor, the sick and the elderly under the bus, overboard or wherever, just get rid of them.
That's what he thinks we want to do.
He thinks Obama ought to stand for the for the opposite.
Now, for the record, Republicans do not claim we can't afford to take care of the poor, sick, and elderly.
What the Republicans are saying is we can't afford to spend ourselves into bankruptcy.
What the Republicans are saying is if you can take care of yourself, it's about time you start.
There's nothing more complicated than that.
If you can take care of yourself, it's your responsibility.
There is a moral component to the Paul Ryan budget.
And the moral component is self-reliance.
Where did all this talk about sacrifice go?
You know, during the Iraq War, the Democrats said, where is the sacrifice?
Meaning where the tax increases.
Well, the uh the the top one percent already pay 40% of the tax burden, and not a whole lot more you can do to them.
And we've gotten ourselves to this convoluted position now where government spending is considered to be the best economic stimulus there is.
Somehow, there is more reverence on the left for transfer payments to people who do not work as a boon to the economy than there is assisting people with regulatory changes, tax changes, who are working.
Somehow it's the people who are working who are the enemy.
Somehow, on the Democrat side of the aisle, people who are working are the targets.
It is on their backs we have to balance everything.
It's on their backs we've got to somehow come to grips with where we are.
And at the same time, the key to our economic economic recovery lies in people who aren't working, continuing to receive transfer payments.
That's where they are.
You could get by with an IQ of a pencil eraser and understand which side is wrong in this side, in this argument.
We just can't we can't afford to keep spending the way we're spending.
We cannot continue to support a union money laundering operation that does nothing but reelect Democrat after Democrat after Democrat.
We cannot pay anymore for every socialist utopian dream of an ever expanding government.
And we certainly Cannot have a vibrant growing country leading the world where the majority of people don't work, receive some sort of transfer payment, and are said to be the backbone of the country.
Which is where the Democrats are now.
Now, conventional wisdom says that if both sides, and in at the end of a deal, any deal, if both sides are unhappy, that's a good compromise.
But you know me, and conventional wisdom.
I think it's often wrong.
And in this case, if so many on both sides are unhappy, could the simple reason be that it's not really a good deal?
It remains a distinct possibility.
Now, as you all know, I admire National Review, National Review magazine was crucial in my development.
One of the greatest things ever happened to me was becoming friends with its founder, William F. Buckley Jr.
I have uh I've supported National Review and their website operation for a long time.
They've got a I mean it, given what we know today, what's in the news today, uh uh, I don't know, sort of uh alternative universe uh editorial from their editors.
And here's how it begins.
John Boehner and Congressional Republicans are to be congratulated for their performance in the recent budget negotiations, both for the modest victory they achieved and the potential defeat they escaped, in wringing another $38 billion in spending cuts, it's actually two billion now.
There's 12 billion that was already cut in previously previous CRs that were counting another 10 billion from a previous CR.
Um really, according to the Hill.com, it's you know two to five billion dollars in real cuts.
They have made another Boehner and the Republicans made another marginal gain in the struggle for the long-term solvency of the American government in their willingness to take half a loaf.
They avoided a shutdown and the risk they would be blamed for it, a high wire act for very low stakes.
So the guys at National Review, the editors there are praising the Republican leadership for avoiding a shutdown.
Now, why of what what's why avoid a shutdown?
What was paramount?
Let's review.
What was the dire consequence if there was a government shutdown?
Well, the fear apparently was that if a government shuts down, we get blamed again.
The Republicans get blamed, we don't care about people, and that we're cold-hearted and mean-spirited, and we only care about ourselves and the rich, and blah, blah, blah, blah.
We don't, and we're anti-government, and and and we just don't want to have that stuff said about anymore.
We stopped writing this.
So we can't have a government shutdown.
Okay, so we avoided a government shutdown, and look at the news today.
Right out of the right on schedule, CNN poll, independence, a ban Republic uh uh abandoned Republicans, flocked back to Obama.
People all over the country in a CNN poll vastly support Obama the Democrats in the budget deal.
Republicans are portrayed as they are always going to be portrayed.
So we got the same treatment essentially, whether we shut down the government or not, and this is what we all know is going to happen.
I don't know, folks.
I I um maybe maybe things I find easy, and I used to not, but maybe things I find easy are just too difficult for a lot of people.
For example, I unlike everybody else, I used to be practiced.
I I was in a prison of my own making, because I was solely concerned of what people thought.
My actions, the things I would say in public, not at work so much, but you know, just out at dinner or the things I would measure everything I said on the basis of what I thought people would think of it.
And you know, when you do that, the one thing that is inescapable that you're doing is you are subordinating yourself to everybody else.
You are by by definition Telling yourself that you are less consequential, less important, that you matter less than those other people, some of whom you'll never even meet or know.
If you are going to be more concerned about what somebody thinks of you or what they're going to think of, what you do, you are saying you don't think much of yourself.
And that is a prison.
And all it does is deny whoever is in that behavior mode from being who they really are.
The minute you start trying to figure out what everybody else wants you to be, and then try to be it, you are finished.
And you are living a life defined by fear.
And fear kills.
Now, I happen to know that it's very rare.
And you can tell it's very rare by looking at the number of people about whom it is said.
You know, it really didn't care what people think.
It's not very many people that that is said about, because it is pretty rare for somebody not really to care what somebody else thinks about them.
Now, it'd be reasonable.
Certain circumstances, certain situations, we all have to take into account the reactions of others, family and so forth, business circumstances.
But in a fight like this, where the stakes we claim are saving the country.
That that we're not talking about maintaining a family relationship here or um seeing total we don't offend a business client.
We're we're these are these are once-in-a-lifetime stakes, as far as we're concerned, saving the country.
So if you go into this with, oh gosh, we can't shut down the government, oh my gosh, what are they going to say about us if we shut down the government?
Well, the answer is they're going to say about us the same thing as if we don't shut down the government.
They're still going to say whatever they say about us because we are conservatives.
And if you don't like that, become a liberal.
If you don't like what liberals say about you, the only cure is to join them.
Because it's never going to change.
And there's not one action you can take that will make liberals say nice things about you.
And the more you try to manage what they think and say about you, the more they own you.
Now, when you start talking about elite cliques and groups of people, guess what dominates?
Group think, not individualism.
And when you're talking about groupthink, you're talking about people who subordinate their own individuality for the sake of being accepted by the group.
And then you do whatever you think the group will tolerate.
But the real killer in this, the real killer is that in order to do this, you have to tell yourself you are less important, less consequential than the people you're trying to impress, or the people you're trying not to offend, or what have you.
Because you're essentially saying that what they think is more important to what you think.
If you're worried about what they think, and who the hell are they?
I mean, in any not necessarily a political agreement, just you know, your bowling league or whatever.
What do you care what the people of lane five think?
Whether you know them or not.
But why are you going to grant them superiority or superiority status over you?
But I know this is the way of the world.
The vast majority of people live their lives this way.
Practically every A-list celebrity does.
Practically every A-list celebrity is paranoid of what's said about them in those tabloid newspapers, magazines, and so forth.
They try to massage it and manage it.
And when you live by that kind of stuff, you die by it.
When you live by press coverage, you're going to get killed by it because it can't maintain itself, whatever, especially if you engineer some phony kind of press coverage.
Well, look, politics is just showbiz for the ugly.
The same principles apply.
Once you start trying to manage what your political enemies or opponents or the political press says about you, and if you're going to have your image dictated by what you can convince them to write about at some point, you're dead if it's not grounded in any truth or reality about you.
David Brinkley once said that a successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other people throw at him.
I like that quote.
Now let's face it.
We all do this.
We all do it.
I much less than I ever did before.
Practically, I don't care now.
I really don't.
And it can make enemies.
People expect you to be deferential to them.
People expect you to protect their feelings.
People expect you.
They play on it.
But this this the stakes here are too too important here to start getting caught up in all this high school clique stuff.
What are you going to think of me?
Why I can't.
Gee, man, we can't have them right that we shut down the government.
Why not?
Why why have to sit there and accept their primitive?
Why can't they say if there's a government shutdown, you guys it's going to be because of you?
I let me tell you this.
Before I have to go to a break, I once met a man became a pretty good friend of him for a while.
Howard Slusher, used to be a sports agent.
He was at Nike for a while, but he represented among other people Dan Fouts.
Let me take a break here because I've got to spend a little bit more time on this than I have before we go to the break.
Dan Fouts, a former great quarterback in the San Diego Chargers.
And Slusher held Fouts out one year in a contract dispute.
And I remember talking to him about it.
A very educational thing.
What Slusher said to me about that circumstance.
I'll be right back.
Don't go away.
So I was talking to Howard Slush, and I said, man, I you uh why why did you hold Dan Founts out?
He said, I didn't hold Dan Fouts out.
What do you mean you didn't?
You're his agent.
He said the owners held Dan Fouts out.
The owner of the Chargers.
They're the ones that wouldn't pay.
He was worth X. I'm not going to let him work for anything less than that.
The point here was, and the point here is that why do we always subordinate ourselves to their premise?
Okay, let's say that last week happens, but we don't come to an agreement and there's a government shutdown.
Why is it automatic?
It's our fault.
Why can't we go on offense and say they shut down the government?
They are the ones have created this train wreck.
The Democrat Party has put us on the tracks to utter disaster.
We are trying to derail this and get back on the tracks to prosperity.
Why not what is so hard about saying they shut it up?
Well, Rush, the media will never cover us the ro.
So you don't have just their media out there.
You are the media in some of these cases I'm talking about.
Some of these, you know, our conservative intelligence, you are the media.
So I I just think we start worried about what people think of us.
We're subordinating ourselves.
We're everybody else better than we are.
Well, the people who do it do that.
It's not hell.
When it's happening from leaders in politics, it's not a good thing, folks, and that's exactly where we are here, and it's how we got to where we're not going to shut the government down because of what happened in 1995.
and what they said about us.
It wasn't that bad anyway.
Anyway, let me help here.
The fights that are happening within the Democrat Party, this all has to be put in perspective, too.
uh And I'm the one to do it.
The way to look, and this is this is just a little prelude here to more details coming.
The way the way to look at the fights within the Democrat Party is the way that you look at fights within the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union.
They had their purists too.
The pure Marxists.
And then there's the Leninists.
Now the Leninists were more totalitarian.
This is not a perfect example, but it's a good parallel.
Now, on the left, they have these battles.
It does not mean that the Leninists are centrists or moderates.
They still believe what they believe.
They just believe there are different ways to achieve the same end.
Massive, centralized, big government.
So when they start fighting amongst themselves, don't confuse that with moderation or centrism when it applies to our system of government, our economic system.
because the end they pursue is the same end.
You know, Salon's unhappy with Obama, but not because they have different objectives.
Salon's unhappy about how Obama's getting there.
Nobody on the left is genuinely unhappy with the march to totalitarian totalitarianism in Obama is underway with.
They're just upset with the speed at which he's going, or the deference he might be showing Republicans here and there, or the methodology he's using to get there.
They're upset about the speed.
They're upset maybe he's not showing enough uh uh energy for it, but they all have the same goals.
Anyway, gotta take a break.
Your phone calls got a pretty good sound bite roster today, too.
A lot to squeeze in in our remaining two hours.
If anybody can do it, it is I. Well, another exciting hour of broadcast excellence is now in the can and ready to live in the archives forever.
For future generations to love and learn from, as they certainly will.
▲
Export Selection