All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:27
May 19, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Always a thrill and a delight to have you with us.
Broadcast excellence executed flawlessly by me, the doctor of democracy.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, all-everything.
Maha Rushi.
Firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone to the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
And we welcome back to the EIB network Newt Gingrich, who joins us on the phone from Iowa.
Hello, Newt.
How are you today?
I'm doing great.
We've had two great events in Waterloo and in Marshalltown.
In both places, we had to actually move the venue because so many people were coming out to the meetings.
And we were talking about the Pelosi Obamacare waivers, and it's getting a very powerful reaction.
Did you, before we get to that, did you have a chance to hear any of the president's speech this afternoon from the State Department on the Middle East?
No, I have not.
I'll have something to say about it once we've analyzed it, but I honestly just have not looked at it yet.
Okay, well, I won't ask anything about that.
It wouldn't be fair, but I'm sure you'll have some comments on it.
Let's try to cut to the chase here.
There seems to be some confusion over your position or people's understanding of your position on the individual mandate.
And it goes back to Meet the Press on Sunday, where you seemed to say that you were for a mandate, and then later said you weren't.
And it sounded to some people like you were being critical of Paul Ryan when you used the term social engineering to describe parts of his Medicare solution in his budget.
What is social engineering?
What does that mean to you?
I'm not sure I understand.
Can I just take the two one step at a time?
Yeah.
David Gregory brought up an 18-year-old interview in 1993 on Hillary care, which we were in the process of defeating.
And in 1993, the conservative alternative to government-run health care was you buying your own insurance.
Now, I still have not seen the total interview.
What I should have said to him is, gee, why don't you play the rest of the interview?
Let's see the context of that conversation.
But that was an 18-year-old tape about a totally different fight where we were trying to stop Hillary care from overhealth care.
I've got some quotes from you in 2004 and 2006, I think, basically advocating the same principle that it's not fair that somebody should be treated if they don't have Hillary.
I'm going to make a speech in New Hampshire next week outlining how we can apply the 10th Amendment to solving health problems and how we can use patient power and do it with zero mandates, no federal mandate, no state mandate.
This is a topic Goodman and I have worked on now for a decade.
He's probably the leader, as you know John well.
He's probably the leader of this kind of solution.
I'm opposed to any federal mandate.
I do not believe any state should adopt a mandate.
I think there are ways to solve the problem without a mandate.
But we're trying to solve three things.
Preserve American freedom, ensure that people can have health care, and have some sense of responsibility that if you do get health care, you ought to pay for it, which is the opposite of the liberal position that you ought to have free health care and somebody else ought to take care of you.
So I think that position is very clear.
What was the point?
What was the point of the Republican man?
And look forward very much to continuing to work with him.
And as you know, I endorsed his budget.
I wrote a newsletter endorsing his budget.
I think it's a very courageous step in the right direction.
He concedes that the Medicare part of it is the beginning of a conversation.
It's not a final document.
Not the last bill, and I want us to have a approach which allows everyone in the country to be engaged, to understand that that it is a better Medicare system that is fiscally going to survive and that, if designed right, will lead to more innovation, more choices and better outcomes.
So I think he and I are pretty much on track what I was trying to say today and I was answering a very specific question by David Gregory which, by the way, had nothing to do with the budget vote.
I would have voted yes on the Ryan budget.
It had to do with this question and I'd be curious rush to hear your answer.
If there was a major change that affected the lives of American not necessarily Any and not necessarily Medicare a major change that affected the lives of all Americans and the party in power had failed to convince the American people that it was the right thing to do, should that party impose that change against the will of the American people?
No, but you've just described the entire Obama administration agenda right, and what all I was trying to say that day was, it's fundamentally wrong for Obama to try to impose a left-wing America against the will of the American people.
I believe the center-right majority.
We are the will of the American people.
I believe we can get a majority for what we want.
But that's not what David Gregory asked me.
He said, would it be okay for for us to impose against the will?
That's a very specific question.
He asked Newt, this is very difficult.
You're on a cell phone and because you can't hear questions, I'm trying to ask you.
So this, this is it's a bit frustrating for me because I want to go back to three or four answers ago.
You, you yourself, said that it was the conservative position in 93 to support a mandate.
The Heritage Foundation even had a paper back then supporting a mandate in opposition to Hillary Care, as you said, because they were trying to eventually get the single payer Heritage.
Later said, you know, it's not workable, it's not constitutional, it doesn't work out.
I know that's what Gregory was was was asking you about, but it it's still.
The people can produce quotes from more recently than 1993 of you advocating posting a bond or having a mandate that people buy insurance under the context that or premise that it's not fair that somebody not buying insurance should be able to waltz into an emergency room and get treated.
So the question is why back in 1993 was it the conservative position to support a mandate in opposition to Hillary Care?
I think we went through a long evolution and and I've been part of that, I mean I'll be clear, you know, I think I've reached conclusions different over an 18 year period than I would have had in 1993 and in 93.
We were narrowly focused on trying to beat Hillary, the Hillary Care project.
We weren't thinking fundamentally about resetting the country, and I give Heritage a great deal of credit and I give John Goodman at the National Center FOR Policy Analysis a great deal of credit.
They, more than anybody else, began the process of thinking through, if you didn't have, if you were not going to have a mandate because it's wrong at either the federal state level to impose that on people how could you design a system That encourage people to be fiscally responsible, to pay for the things they got, and at the same time, enable them to buy health insurance if they wanted to.
And I've consistently said all along, you could never impose a universal mandate.
You'd have to have alternatives that allowed people to find ways to not be forced into buying insurance.
Because I'm very aware of the fact that there are a substantial number of people.
I have a good friend who's a Christian scientist, and she said to me, you know, it would violate my religious freedom for you to impose in me health insurance since I don't believe in using it.
That, frankly, I thought was a very compelling argument.
That was part of the evolution as we thought this through.
In the speech I'll give next week in New Hampshire, I'm going to outline the patient power model that John Goodman has been building, and I'm going to suggest that we want to apply the 10th Amendment to return most of these decisions back to the states and to recognize that Washington has been a grand failure at trying to solve health care in a centralized way.
Now, look, this is really uncomfortable for me because you know that we've known each other a long time and I've had such, and still do, such profound respect, admiration, and even envy for your intellect at times.
But there's some things that are confusing me.
There's a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, and you wrote, personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance.
Citizens shouldn't be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying it, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.
An individual mandate, he added, should be applied when the larger health care system has been fundamentally changed.
The reason why all of this matters now is that 26 states are suing the Obama administration or the Commerce Clause violation of an individual mandate.
And yet it appears that there are some on our side who have also supported this.
And your appearance on Sunday with Gregory, I know he was going back to 1993, but when you answered it also with the social engineering side of it, you don't think it's good left or right.
That's why people thought that it was a slam at Paul Ryan.
And so that's why this stuff is there and is not going away because it seems that they can go back into archives and find where you have continually supported it even since 1993.
And in the current context of us opposing all of Obamacare, because we think the fastest way to beat it is to knock down the unconstitutionality of a mandate.
It just offers confusion here.
And that's why people are constantly asking you about this, seeking what they want is a satisfying, reassuring answer.
They just don't want to think you're not conservative anymore, Newt.
Well, look, let me say a couple of things that you can verify.
When Bill McCollum was attorney general, took the lead in the 26 state suit, I actively, personally supported him.
I encouraged him.
I spoke out in his favor.
I helped him get coverage.
When Cuccinella took the lead and was the first person to file a lawsuit, I actively encouraged him and supported him.
At the Center for Health Transformation, we have been wrestling for nine years with the question: how do you have an affordable health system when you realize if you talk to hospital administrators, people have been taught over the last half century that health is their right and they don't have to pay for it.
So you have people who earn $75,000 or $100,000 a year who won't pay their hospital bills.
They just say, I'm not doing it.
And we were wrestling with what's the technique?
How do you try to find personal responsibility without infringing on people's liberty?
And as I said, my conclusion ultimately was that these various efforts weren't going to work.
And I have opposed the Obamacare proposal largely from the Center for Health Transformation for two and a half years.
The three best charts destroying Obamacare's credibility all exist at healthtransformation.net.
And they combined have 115 square feet that you can put up on a wall.
They're amazing.
We did all that work.
And we actively, aggressively have opposed Obamacare at every stage.
All right.
Newt Gingrich is with us.
Brief timeout.
We'll come back and continue right after this, my friends.
Sit tight and don't go away.
And we're back with Newt Gingrich here on the EIB network.
Okay, we want everybody to be responsible for their health care, but you now oppose mandates.
So how do we solve that?
Well, John Goodman has developed an entire approach in which he would give everyone the same tax break if they wanted to buy insurance.
And the people who didn't want to buy insurance and wouldn't be compelled to, their share of the tax break would go into a high-risk pool.
And if something did happen to them, they would then be eligible for the high-risk pool, but they would also be limited to the high-risk pool.
And so you wouldn't have an automatic assumption that you would be able to go be taken care of except through the high-risk pool because you'd made the voluntary decision you wanted to live at risk.
And we wrote a book several years ago called Patient Power, and we began meeting at the American Enterprise Institute on these ideas about 2001.
And he's really, I think, probably the leading student of developing a personal freedom approach to how you solve the health problem.
The health problem, in a lot of people's minds, exists precisely because of government.
And therefore, to a lot of people, and I'll throw myself in with him, the government's a last place the solution to this problem should be.
The government messed it up.
The government continues to mess it up.
There's no evidence or proof that people in government are any smarter than people in the healthcare business to fix what's wrong.
Why do we continue to accept the premise?
I mean, you're a little bit of a trouble here simply because everybody's accepting the premise put forth by the liberals that government must fix, must police, must control health care because only they can do it fairly.
We've gotten ourselves to a circumstance.
I saw a statistic the other day that explains why we're in this mess.
Every dollar spent on health care, only 12 cents is paid for by the patient.
Imagine, Newt, if you only had to pay 12% of every meal you ate, you wouldn't care what it costs.
And that's where we are now.
And government has created that circumstance.
Getting government out of this is the solution to it.
Right.
And that's why my program will be among the most bold in American history at saying, not just on this topic, but on many other topics, we have to have a fundamental break with the last 80 years going back to 1932.
We've had a steady migration towards Washington and a steady migration towards bureaucracy and a steady migration towards redistribution.
And if we're serious about stopping it, this will be the most decisive break since 1932.
I wrote a book in 2002 called Saving Lives and Saving Money, which made exactly your argument.
It said, no third-party payment model ever works because you'd never have the buyer-seller relationship.
And you only get satisfaction when the person getting this good or service is paying something, and the person who's providing the good or service is getting something, and they're looking each other in the eye, and the system works.
Now, how you migrate back to that is very complicated, and you have to do it in a way that the country understands it and will accept it.
So in Medicaid, I will be proposing that we implement the 10th Amendment by block granting all Medicaid back to the states, letting the states figure out what to do with it, and recognizing that Washington has failed.
We need the experiments of the governors and the state legislatures trying to solve health for the government.
Okay, so that's about the focus.
So you're signing on with the Ryan plan, essentially.
And that's all, yeah.
I signed on for that part of the Ryan plan from day one, and have advocated it consistently from day one.
What did you call to apologize to him for?
I've talked to him for years.
And my wife, Callista, has known him since he was an intern.
And we're big fans of Paul Ryan.
The second thing I would do, though, is and this is part of what probably got me in trouble.
So let me be very open about it.
I believe we are better off as conservatives who believe in markets to design choices for people so people can make the decision that this is better for them.
And when I was chairing the Medicare Task Force in 96, we initially designed Medicare Advantage to be attractive to people so they would voluntarily go to it.
Well, 25% of all seniors have found Medicare Advantage something they like.
We began building in health savings accounts because we want people to decide they like controlling their own money.
I would like to see Congressman Tom Price's bill, which allows private contracting and allows those on a voluntary basis.
I mean, one of the things we learned in 1996 with extensive focus groups, senior citizens love to be allowed to choose.
They hate to be forced to choose.
And so you want to say to them, if you would like to have private contracting, if you would like to be allowed to spend your own money, if you're in a position where you'd like to do things your own way, why wouldn't we give you that freedom?
We don't have the government require you to buy a government house after 65 or go on a government vacation or pick up a government car.
So why not liberate Medicare to the point where seniors can choose?
And then the marketplace, doctors, hospitals, other pharmacies, they've got to organize competitively, so it's a more desirable future to accept the conservative personal choice option over the government bureaucratic control option.
Okay, now I need to ask you, because this was something you said on Sunday with Gregory, that you didn't believe in left-wing or right-wing social engineering.
What is that?
Define social engineering.
It's very straightforward.
It's when the government comes in and tells you how to live your life and what you're going to do, whether the values that lead it to do that are left-wing values or the values that lead it to do that are right-wing values.
I believe in personal freedom.
I believe in your right to lead your life.
I believe that we're endowed by the Declaration of Independence by our Creator with the right to pursue happiness.
And I want a government that is much more humble about its ability to tell you what to do, whether it's people on either side of the ideological spectrum.
And by the way, it was not a reference to Paul Ryan.
There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer.
Well, then what did you apologize to him about?
Because it was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble, which he doesn't need or deserve, and it was causing the House Republicans trouble.
One of my closest friends, somebody I truly deeply respect, emailed me and said, you know, your answer hits every Republican who voted for the budget.
Well, my answer wasn't about the budget.
And I promptly went back and said publicly and continue to say, you know, I would have voted for the Ryan budget.
I think it's a very important first step in the right direction.
And I have consistently said that from the time that Paul first briefed me on it, weeks before he introduced it.
And I've been talking with Paul Ryan about budget matters for the last four years.
Well, that's good because it's probably the single most unifying thing in the Republican Party today.
The Republican Party's got an internecine war going on, and Ryan's budget proposal seems to be the one thing that all these differing factions agree on.
So it's crucial.
Newt, I've got precious little time left here, and I just want to take the time to thank you for making yourself available today.
I appreciate your coming on and subjecting yourself to these withering questions.
Listen, anytime I'm honored, and I'm grateful to have the time to do it.
All right, Newt Gingrich on the campaign trail in Iowa.
And that brings to another screeching halt, an exciting half hour of broadcast excellence here on the EIB network.
We've got a break here coming up.
We've got more phone calls to get to.
And I'm going to do my best.
You're going to have to listen fast, folks, because I'm going to do a lot of cramming in this final half hour.
There's a lot of good stuff here that I don't really want to leave on the table, have it get sidetracked because it's lame Arab speech, Middle Eastern speech, Middle Eastern speech.
And we have some people calling with questions about that anyway.
So sit tight, hang in there and be tough.
And we'll be back.
800-282-2882 is the number if you want to take your shot at appearing on the EIB network.
All right, we're back on the cutting edge.
El Rushbo and the EIB network.
I got a note from a friend in San Francisco listening to that.
They made a good point here that if you legislate for universal health care, you have to have a mandate.
That is, that sounds like a simple throwaway, but I mean, it's actually simple brilliance.
And of course, Obama is legislating for universal health care.
That's what, what is everybody on the other side of the glass has got a very distracting, excrement-eating grin on their face.
You're happy.
All right.
I'm glad you're happy in there.
All right.
I'm fabulous.
You're happy.
You think it was a good interview?
You're happy with that.
Okay, cool.
Well, thank you.
What did you expect?
But the bottom line is, if you legislate for universal health care, you have to have a mandate.
That is, like I said, one sentence.
That explains what Obama's doing.
You have to have a mandate.
But at the same time, if you've come out for that yourself in the past and try to walk it back and push a different plan, then you're going to have trouble being critical of Paul Ryan, which, whether he was or not, the perception on the part of the American people was that he was critical of Paul Ryan.
So it's, I don't know, it's a tough situation.
It really is.
Just like I said to him, when you boil it all down, what people want to know, what people want to be reassured of, is that Newt's conservative.
They see him on the couch at Pelosi and at a joint press conference with Hillary and here are all some of these other things.
They just want to know that he's a conservative.
Pure and simple.
So who's next on the phone?
People have been waiting patiently.
This is Kevin St. Clairsville, Ohio.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush, longtime listener.
I've been a listener since 1988.
Thank you, sir.
So that's from the get-go.
Yes, sir.
And the reason I was telling this to weigh in on the president's speech today, my theory is that with him having asking the Israelis to pull back to the 67 borders, I think Israel is being set up in that, obviously, I don't believe that Israel is just going to roll over and plate it and do what President Obama wants them to do.
But the average person out there who isn't informed enough about what's going on in the Middle East, when Israel fails to do that, and then, you know, this is the beginning of making the Israelis look like the bad guys.
In other words, making them look like the population.
Oh, yeah.
Absolutely.
Austinians are really trying, but Israelis just won't do anything.
Oh, yeah.
There's no question that's the point.
As I was just reading, somebody had a point here, and I can't remember.
I am absorbing so much.
Israel is paying the price for Barack Obama's popularity in the Arab world.
That's, well, somebody here has just put it, and I wish I could remember who said it so I could credit them.
But you're exactly right.
Israel is paying the price for Obama's lack of popularity and his attempt to regain it in the Middle East.
Now, get this.
This is just in from the Jerusalem Post.
Now, you remember my media tweak on today's program was that you just know that in certain terrorist enclaves of the Middle East, they're saying, damn it, if only Sheikh bin Laden could have been alive to hear this speech, to hear the plan offered for the destruction of Israel.
If only Sheikh bin Laden could have heard it.
You know they're saying this.
And from the Jerusalem Post, right-wing members of the Knesset are calling Obama the new Arafat.
Barack Hussein Obama adopted the staged plan for Israel's destruction of Yasser Arafat, and he's trying to force it on our prime minister, said Likud member of the Knesset, Danny Dannon.
All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to 1967 borders without solving the crisis.
Netanyahu has only one option, to tell Obama to forget about it.
So caller says that Obama is playing the Arab street, and he is.
He's trying to define the Arab Spring here as an Arab uprising.
You know, going back to 67, the more I've looked into this, the more I have found that it's not that big a deal to Israelis.
That apparently it was going to be a bargaining ship that Netanyahu was prepared to use, but he can't now, since Obama has expropriated it or appropriated it for himself.
And tantamount here, though, is the right of return.
And without acknowledging that, there cannot be a two-state solution because the Israelis are not going to ever agree to a right of return.
If there was, there's no Israel left.
And the Palestinians are never going to formally agree to no right of return.
So there's never going to be an agreement here.
You know, I'm not a diplomat, and I didn't go to school to be a diplomat, and I'm therefore in these circles not qualified.
I'm just going to tell you, folks, from the streets of common sense, for as long as I've been alive, we've been going through this dog and pony show of negotiated peace settlements in the Middle East, and there's no such thing.
It is never going to happen, and it never does happen.
Peace results from one side emerging victorious in the conflict, the other side losing and surrendering.
Until that happens, all of this, it's amazing.
There are careers planned for, there are careers built on this never being solved.
I mean, the last thing diplomats at the State Department want is a solution to any of this.
There's no reason for them then.
It's like the Reverend Jackson really doesn't want to end a racial strife.
There's no reason for the monochrome coalition.
People feed off of this stuff.
Just using the simple common sense, how can you expect there to be a negotiated peace between two parties when one side has as its objective the extermination of the other side?
You can throw all the striped pants diplomat big wigs of the State Department at me all day long, and nobody's going to ever be able to persuade me that I'm full of it.
This is to me just simple, pure common sense.
And I don't know about you.
But as a citizen, it doesn't matter who the president is.
It doesn't matter who's what world leaders are.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Boy, what a purpose it serves.
It serves a purpose for presidents to be great like Clinton wanted to be great.
It offered a forum for Arafat to be whatever he wanted to be.
In fact, you know, proof of what I'm saying, there was a point in time when Clinton gave Arafat everything he was asking for.
And Arafat ran away from it and hid.
He was stunned and he was shocked.
This conflict is just too handy for too many people.
It offers too much opportunity for too many people.
A bunch of think tank people have an opportunity to make careers as great thinkers by being Middle East experts, all the guest opportunities on the cable network shows, all the writing opportunities, the publishing opportunities, sitting in this distinguished chair or that distinguished chair at this prestigious think tank or what have you.
Never solving anything.
Never ever getting anything done.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Here's Robert in Greenville, South Carolina.
Great to have you, Robert, the EIB Network.
Welcome, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
Hey, real quick before I get to my reason for calling, your conversation with Newt reminded me of a prediction I made yesterday about him.
And it kind of goes along with his track record.
That's why I think it's consistent with him.
I would not be surprised if when the primary gets upstate New York, he may convert to Judaism.
You know, he's been known to convert from his faith several times over the years, and so that might be a campaign tool he might use.
I get the point that you're trying to make there, but we'll see.
Okay, anyway, the reason I called, though, is I lean towards Herman Cain.
I like him a lot.
Until he does something really stupid, which I don't think he will, I'm really leaning toward him.
I'm a big fair tax supporter.
And I also like Michelle Bachman, and I think they're both long shots.
And I would love to see now that we're in a new century, things have changed considerably the way elections are done and campaigns.
Let me tell you something.
I don't think anybody is a long shot right now.
Folks, we're going to have to get our heads straight on something here.
Throw all this polling data out.
Throw all the fundraising out and stop.
And by the way, this is not as a suggestion.
I don't want to consider this an admonition.
We are 18 months away.
Look at what happened to this DSK guy in five minutes.
It's the end of his career.
Whether he's been set up or not, I don't care.
It's over for the next president of France is in jail with no bail.
That's how fast things can change.
It's so easy to get caught up in all this conventional wisdom.
The conventional wisdom is what?
Conventional wisdom is that Romney's the front run.
He's got all the money.
Now that who the hell out?
Huckabee pulled out and whoever the hell else did no who?
Yeah, Trump pulled.
Well, Trump was never in.
See, this is what I'm talking about.
Trump didn't pull out because he was never in.
Everybody's a long shit.
There's nothing says Herman Kaine can't win this thing.
There's nothing says that Rick Perry in Texas.
What if he gets in?
Bachman, she can do it.
What's Palin going to do?
She's still lurking out there.
Who knows?
Everybody's assuming she's not going to run.
Who knows?
How Garrett, if she gets in this thing, you can throw everything you've got out the window here in terms of what it means.
By the way, grab audio somebody number one.
I teased you with this, and I really didn't mean to.
I just got sidetracked with this Middle East speech.
Mitch Daniels in 2009.
Now, remember, what does it say that somebody that is this low-key is needed to add excitement to our campaign?
And that's what the Inside the Beltway Republicans are saying.
Here is Mitch Daniels, and I've got three or four of these, but I've got time to play one.
We'll do the rest tomorrow.
But Mitch Daniels, 2009, in Washington, making a speech at the Ripon Society.
The next Republican majority will have to emphasize those things that unite us, as opposed to those things about which we are in conflict or divided.
It seems to me that this is a message I've never heard Dick Loomer speak divisively.
That, you know, the whole concept of a wedge issue should be foreign to us if we really want to come back.
We've got a tall mountain to climb.
We not only are out of favor right now, but the demography of this country is not moving in a positive way.
You're standing on the political base that's left of us.
So we better be thinking about those things that unite us, and we better be extraordinarily understanding of those who disagree.
Bend over back.
I mean, we're all Americans.
Mitch Daniels, we better be extraordinarily understanding of those who disagree with us.
Must bend over backwards.
Listen to the next one.
Grab somebody too.
Gets better.
The next Republican majority or its representatives, not to be trivial about it, ours needs to be a friendly sort of politics.
People have to like you a little bit before they'll listen to you.
Or at least they can't actively dislike you.
Just have to persuade them.
And by the way, I think the door is open to us on this.
The meanest people I see in American politics right now are on the left.
That's not the caricature.
By the way, it comes naturally.
If you believe you are a superior person, intellectually or morally elite, and therefore well-suited to order the affairs of everybody else, then a power and access to it means everything to you.
And you'll do anything, just about anything to get there.
So what he said here is people have to like you a little bit before they'll listen to you.
At least they can't actively dislike you.
We're going to have to make them like us.
That was Miss Daniels.
That's at June 10th of 2009 in Washington at a dinner at the Ripon Society.
And there are a couple more of these that we found.
In fact, the whole sounds right roster from today.
We'll probably keep for tomorrow, plus whatever new happens.
Got to take a break here, but we'll be right back.
It turns out that this DSK was a client of the same brothel that was used by client number nine.
Elliot Spitzer had the same madam, Kristen Davis.
This is in the UK Telegraph.
And there are all kinds of liberal women coming out of the World Woodwork in France now talking about this guy and his techniques, so forth.
▲
Export Selection