All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
June 16, 2011, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Sad to see it, folks.
Terribly sad to see it.
Anthony Weiner, we're not going to have him to kick around anymore.
They licked him, folks.
He's quitting.
Two o'clock this afternoon.
Weiner's saying, no, mas, no mas.
Big New York Times story here.
And you have to read down halfway through this to find out why he really resigned.
Mr. Weiner, Democrat, came to the conclusion that he could no longer serve after having long discussions with his wife, Huma Weiner, when she returned home on Tuesday after traveling abroad with her boss, Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There you have it, my friends.
It's really too bad we wanted Weiner to hang in there.
At least I did.
I was hoping that he would not resign.
How are you, folks?
Great to have you.
It's Rush Limbaugh and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882 if you want to be on today.
And the email address, we check it too, as you well know, 800-282-2882.
Now, this New York Times story, headlined, Weiner tells friends he will step down.
The New York Times story suggests that Weiner made up his mind to quit after long discussions with his wife, Huma Weiner.
Now, Huma Weiner was, she was gone for a long time.
She was over in the Middle East with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And apparently what happened was that Huma Weiner got back to us and said, look at your humiliating us, bud.
You got to step down.
And the only way to stop the media is to step down.
No other way around.
I thought Weiner had already left for rehab.
I don't want to make a big deal about this.
Apparently, he left for rehab, but they're letting him out of rehab to resign this afternoon.
But actually, the romantic in me, folks, you know, I'm an incurable romantic.
And the romantic in me makes me want to think that it was the porn star's call for his resignation that made all the difference.
She asked him to pull out when the porn star went and got what is, what did this porn star babe need a lawyer for?
She went and got Gloria Allred.
And by the way, if you're looking, if you don't know which one is the porn star and which one's Gloria Allred, Gloria Allred's the one with the darker hair.
If you see a joint photo of the two of them.
But I don't know.
I guess in the final analysis, it is encouraging to see that even the porn industry has higher standards than the Democrat Party.
When the porn babe went out there, I mean, that's what I think was the final straw, the last draw.
No, I guess it was Huma Wiener.
In the final analysis, it had to be Huma Weiner.
They say the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.
Or in Huma's case, the hand that cradles the rock in this case.
But you have to ask yourself, where did Weiner go wrong?
Do you think he got up today cursing the fact he was born heterosexual?
You don't think so?
Well, where did he go wrong, folks?
Was it the sending out of photos of his crotch on the internet?
Was it having correspondence with an underage girl?
Was it dressing up in women's lingerie?
Nope, none of that.
No, no, no.
You didn't know about that?
Oh, yeah, long ago.
These are old pictures.
He dressed up in women's lingerie out there and was those pictures have surfaced.
I don't think it was any of that, folks.
I don't think it was any of that.
I think what finally brought Wiener down was that he told the truth.
Now, that's what's uncommon for the Democrats.
He has sent a chill up and down the spine of every Democrat.
He has told them the big lesson is: do not tell the truth.
Do not cop to it.
Do not bite on the truth.
Whatever you do, he only now, I know he only told the truth after getting caught red-handed, but still, in the eyes of any Democrat politician, Weiner made the unpardonable sin of coming clean, which any true Democrat would never do.
And Weiner is now going to pay the price for it.
Look at it.
Think of it this way: Weiner is a textbook example of why so many Democrats would do anything, would rather do anything, say anything than tell the truth.
For whatever reason, Wiener was finally compelled to tell the truth and to own up to his actions.
He came clean, and look what's happened to him.
Now, you can be sure, folks, that the rest of the members of the Democrat Party are going to learn from this experience.
Never, ever tell the truth, especially if you get caught.
Just ask Charlie Wrangell.
And Charlie Wrangell, to this moment, is out there saying, I don't understand.
What is the big deal?
There weren't any little boys involved here.
It wasn't dealing anything out there on the range.
I don't see the problem.
So Wrangell knows that it's telling the truth that led her into big problems.
Of course, I, El Rushbo, pretty much predicted this Monday on this program.
I said this about Weiner and whether he would resign from Congress.
Apparently, what's happening out there, Wiener is waiting to hear from Huma, his wife, who's being advised by Hillary on whether he, Weiner, ought to resign.
For the record, the last notable advice Mrs. Clinton dispensed was to tell Mr. Obama to go to war in Libya, which seems to be on a par with her advice in general.
So we'll see what Weiner does based on what Hillary tells Huma, who will then tell Weiner, which is what Weiner will then do.
Case closed.
Did I not call it?
You didn't need to wait for the New York Times.
All you had to do was be listening to me on Monday, and I foretold what was going to happen in this sordid tale, this sad saga.
This might well be the first virtual sex sex scandal that got a Democrat to resign.
Normally, they can get involved in real sex scandals and survive them.
But here, Weiner gets caught up in a virtual sex scandal, tells the truth about it after a while.
He lied at first, but compelled to tell the truth at the end.
And now he's wah.
What?
Can I imagine what?
Well, that is, you know, this was my point earlier in the week, Mr. Snerdley.
I don't understand this.
I mean, sexting, what is that?
I mean, at least if you're going to do this new phone sex with a live voice on the other end of the line, you know, Hugh Hefner, I keep pointing.
Hugh Hefner would ever send you a picture.
I think he'd have you over to Mansion and show you the real deal.
Now, there's an interesting piece.
It is.
It's a tragedy.
virtual sex scandal forces Weiner to hit the trail.
Now, there's a piece at the Huffing and Puffington Post today.
Wiener was too attractive, apparently.
Why women shouldn't pick attractive husbands?
This is a reverse, you know, the old song out there, if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, make an ugly woman your wife.
You've heard that song, Rachel, right?
It goes way back to the, I think, early 60s or late 50s.
This is by Vicki Larson, the Huffing and Puffington Post, watching the Anthony Wiener scandal unfold.
It was hard not to wonder how a smart, accomplished, beautiful woman like Huma Wiener got herself involved with a guy like Wiener in the first place.
After all, the New York congressman was dishonest to Weiner, a longtime aide to Hillary in a messy public way, confessing to sexting and sending lewd photos to a young co-ed after lying about it for 10 days, after less than a year of marriage.
Probably not what a newlywed would expect, especially one who's pregnant with their first child.
But sexting sexcapades aside, the 46-year-old Wiener, whether you find him handsome or not, is a fit, intelligent, passionate, promising politician with a six-figure income who had a reputation of a ladiesman, was even named a Cosmo-eligible bachelor.
See, this is the problem.
Cosmo equals militant feminism.
Their definition of a real guy.
Their definition of real men.
Wiener was too attractive.
Come on, folks.
He looks like an old shoe with a pickle in it.
What are they asking us to believe here?
Promising politician, six-figure income, reputation of a ladies' man, was even named a Cosmo-eligible bachelor, the kind of man that many, many women are drawn to.
And that's where Abedine and other smart, beautiful, accomplished women often make their mistake.
The more financially independent women become, the more they prefer good-looking men.
But they don't just want their partners to be hotties.
They want them to be masculine, physically fit, loving, educated, a few years older, and making the big bucks.
Oh, and they also have to really want to be a hubby and a daddy.
And that is a tall order.
Evidently, it's working against us, she writes here.
Attractive men don't make the best husbands, according to researchers.
Guys who are rated as the most masculine tend to have more testosterone, and men with higher testosterone levels are 43% more likely to get divorced than men with normal levels.
They're 31% more likely to split because of marital problems, and 38% more likely to cheat.
In other words, they may be better CAD than dads.
Again, this is Vicki Larson, the Huffington Puffington Post, with a warning to women, don't find the most masculine guy.
You're just going to get disappointed.
You're going to get thrown overboard.
Too much testosterone.
Do you see what the feminists are doing here?
Too much masculinity.
It's also harder to dominate those guys, I would think.
Wouldn't you agree with that, Snerdley?
Yeah, I knew you would.
I knew you'd be front and center agreement on that.
We'd be smarter, she writes, if we sought out guys who are uglier than we are, because researchers have found that couples in which the woman is hotter than the guy are happier than if the situation is reversed.
And since quite a few women have been telling Wiener how hot he is, it's clear that neither Abedeen nor Wiener got the memo.
Of course, leave it up to people to determine all this on the surface characteristics of people.
Of course, hotty women could also optimize their looks to find other partners if she's unhappy, said Rob Burris, a professor at England's University of Chester.
Abedeen, 35, one of Time magazine's 40 under 40 young stars of politics, was considered a catch when Wiener started pursuing her a few years ago.
But who can blame her?
She, like so many women and men, pick a mate based on pretty predictable factors dating back to caveman days when all we were trying to do was survive and keep our species going according to physical evidence.
I mean, this is now the theater of the absurd has settled in here.
Too much testosterone causes divorce.
Let's put that to the test.
I don't know if she might be saying that Huma is less attractive than Wiener, that Wiener's the better looking.
Hell, I don't know.
But I would look at the testosterone, too much testosterone causes divorce.
How is it then that Hillary Clinton is still married?
All right, I'm told that Cosmo is not militant feminist.
Okay, so what?
They're still after defining what is the ideal guy.
And they're still leftists.
And the definition of the ideal guy is what's giving us the chickification of our culture.
Anyway, greetings, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
It's Thursday already, the fastest three hours in media.
Mitt Romney yesterday got a big thumbs up for his stance on global warming from a source that likely will not help him in the GOP primary.
Al Gore, the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner, praised Romney for not heeding right-wing calls to reject the science behind climate change.
Al Gore wrote on his blog, good for Mitt Romney, though we've long passed the point where weak lip service is enough on the climate crisis while other Republicans are running from the truth.
Mitt Romney sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.
There you go.
So Romney endorsed by Al Gore on his stance on global warming, which is a hoax.
There is no settled science as I get blue in the face repeating this over and over again.
No settled science whatsoever proving man-made global warming is taking place.
From the Politico, Mitt Romney puts some distance between himself and the rest of the GOP field, claiming nearly a third of the primary vote in the latest NBC Wall Street Journal poll.
When tested against a group of nine other candidates, Romney takes 30% of Republican registered primary voters, closest competitor Sarah Palin at 14%, Herman Kane at 12.
Rick Perry not in the race yet at 8%.
Neither is Palin for that matter.
Ron Paul at 7.
Newt Gingrich at 6.
The four other candidates, Palenti Santorum, Michelle Bachman, and John Huntsman are below 5%.
Although the media on Michelle Bachman is just over the top.
USA Today yesterday just singing her praises like you can't believe a lot of places that drive by media are just fawning all over Michelle Bachman.
It's amazing to see now in a smaller field of six candidates, Romney, Ron Paul, Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich, and Polenti, Romney's lead grows even more formidable to 43%.
So Romney's lead is growing according to these polls.
This is after the most recent debate performance.
And undoubtedly, it's the endorsement from Al Gore praising Romney for his guts in sticking to it on his global warming stance.
Back to the Wiener fiasco this morning on CNN's newsroom.
The anchor Kira Phillips spoke with the anchor of the situation room, Wolf Blitzer, about reports that Wiener will resign about an hour and a half from now.
And Kira Phillips says, how does this change the dynamic if indeed he does resign today?
He knew he was lying.
He knew there had been no hackers.
He knew he personally had sent out those lewd photographs.
He knew he was doing those direct messages.
The only thing he said that was honest in that interview is when I asked him, who are you trying to protect right now?
And I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but he hesitated.
He got emotional.
And he said, I'm trying to protect my wife, Huma.
I think it's probably true.
I think he was lying, repeatedly lying, blatantly lying about all of that stuff because he was trying to protect his wife, his marriage.
But that was probably the only honest thing he said during the course of those 20 minutes or so.
Okay, so he lied to protect his wife, and Wolf Blitzer understands that.
Wolf's cool with it.
Then question was Suzanne Malvo.
So, well, Wolf, how does he earn the trust again of people if he wants to be in any kind of position of authority?
I guess he figures he owes it to his constituents.
They elected him.
He's now made that decision to step down, end his two-year term early, and maybe he has that responsibility to sort of man up and go before the cameras.
You know, one thing constantly amazes me about all this.
You have a situation like this, and the attention that it's getting now is, oh, Wiener's finished.
Career is over.
That's it.
It's not the case at all for crying out loud.
You know, Bill Clinton survived big time and did far worse than this.
And in our crazed pop culture, Wiener is going to go to rehab, wherever that is.
He's going to come out of rehab, whenever that is.
And he's going to be a figure of tremendous curiosity.
The media is going, he's going to have a rebirth.
Our pop culture is such that he's going to be the focus of a lot of attention.
And I guarantee you that the media is going to be totally invested on entirely, thoroughly rehabbing his career.
He's too good to liberal.
It's the guy that wrote Obamacare.
He wrote the lion's share of the bill, the legislation.
This guy is still a rising star.
One of the reasons they wanted to get rid of him now is so that they could save him for later on.
The longer he hung in there, so to speak, the tougher it was going to be to recover from all this.
So take the medicine, quit, go to rehab, come back, get fixed, and get all that adulation as a new hero.
So he's overcome great obstacles.
You can write the script now.
Look at that little graphic at Fox.
Warning signs, U.S. economy may be heading for another recession.
We have not come out of our first recession.
We're still in the midst of it.
And, you know, there's a long article at salon.com.
Look at Salon.com.
Yep.
Long article, salon.com.
The, what is it, seven or so ways.
Wait a minute now.
Let's see.
It's in Gentleman's Quarterly, GQ.
A number of ways.
You already know this because I, El Rochebo, have been telling you how beatable Obama is.
Leftist media is now starting to get a little antsy about it.
And this story, GQ, went out and talked to Mark Penn.
Mark Penn ran Hillary's presidential campaign.
We know how that turned out.
Mark Penn worked for Bill Clinton.
So he knows all the players, including Obama.
And there's seven or eight things in this story about, you know, what could go wrong.
What could go wrong and cause Obama to get beat?
What could happen that might make Obama beatable?
Such as he takes another big risk and flops.
He thumps his chest too much about bin Laden.
He makes a Bush 41 blunder on the economy.
Nowhere in this list of items is what he's already done, at least after a cursory reading.
I just had a brief moment to scan this during our obscene profit time out here at the bottom of the hour.
But the point is, more and more leftist media publications and outlets started to ponder and consider this notion that Obama could be beatable.
Obama's as beatable as Weiner, so to speak.
These people are not unbeatable.
They like Hillary.
They put their pants on one leg at a time.
There's nothing special or godlike about these people.
But what happened to the old conventional wisdom?
The old conventional wisdom, it's the economy stupid, back pocket issues, people sitting around the kitchen table, all of that.
There's nothing going on in the economy right now to recommend four more years of any of the architects of the current policies.
And you know darn well, just as I do, that if this were a Republican president, he'd already be defeated.
It had his poll numbers in the 20s with an economy like this.
They'd be trying to drive the guy out of office along with Weiner.
I don't know.
Now they're doing everything they can to prop up, but they have to face reality now, and then they have to at least acknowledge that there may be problems.
Now, some of these stories are just advice stories, as this one is in GQ, sending out some advice to the White House.
Hey, you know, we're on your side.
It's hitting bad out there.
You people may not realize what kind of trouble you're in.
Here's how you could blow it.
But they leave out any reference to what's happening now.
It's what might happen in the future.
That could cause Obama some problems.
I'll print it out.
I'll get into more detail here in just a second.
AP has a story out of Madison, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin state.
This is, again, classic.
The way this is written and the mindset behind this.
Wisconsin state workers to begin paying more for their own benefits in August.
So a new lawsuit has been filed over the union law.
Wisconsin state employees will start paying more for their health care and pension benefits in late August, state officials said yesterday, as a coalition of unions filed a new lawsuit against the Republican plan that strips away collective bargaining rights from most public workers.
The law also requires that workers pay 12% of their health insurance costs and 5.8% of their pension costs, which amounts to an 8% pay cut on average.
So paying for your own health care, paying 12 cents of every healthcare dollar, which is a steal of a deal.
So being forced to pay 12 cents of every dollar for your health coverage and 5.8% of your pension cost is now a pay cut.
Oh, not a dry eye, folks.
Not a dry eye here at the EIB Network Studios.
Why, we can't believe how tough it's going to be for these Wisconsin state workers.
Can you imagine the indignity of being told that they're going to have to pay 12 cents of every dollar they spend on health care and 5.8 cents of every dollar on their pension plan?
And then to be told that it's a pay cut.
So Wisconsin state workers are experiencing what the taxpayers who pay them are going through.
At least those taxpayers who still have a job.
The Supreme Court's ruling was a major victory for the Republican Governor Scott Walker, who said the law was needed to help address the state's $3.6 billion budget shortfall.
The legal battle, however, was not over.
A coalition of unions filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday, arguing the law violated the U.S. Constitution.
A lawsuit seeks to block portions of the law, taking away collective bargaining rights, but allows the higher pension and healthcare contributions that unions agreed to take to move forward.
So they agree that, but poor people are not being portrayed.
It's a sad thing.
What a pay cut.
An 8% pay cut.
Their pay has not been cut.
They are being paid exactly what they're being paid.
It's just that they now are going to have to assume a tiny responsibility for their own benefits.
Just a little.
12 cents of every health care dollar.
5 cents of every pension dollar, 5.8 cents.
But it's a pay cut.
By the way, President Obama will be briefed by his economic team in the Oval Office.
This was yesterday for the first time in more than a month.
Economic briefing is back.
Obama's schedule, there were no economic meetings.
His economic experts never gathered together.
They never briefed him.
You know, the foreign policy people and the intel people meet him every morning and tell him, okay, here are the threats around the world.
This is what's going on.
Here's the latest intel.
That hasn't been happening on the economy.
You believe that?
Now, it may be good because nobody up there knows what they're doing in the first place.
So the less they talk about it, maybe the better it is.
But a review of the president's daily schedule finds the last formal economic briefing scheduled for April 26th.
And even that briefing came after a hiatus following back-to-back briefings on March 8th and 9th.
The scheduled economic briefings appeared to become less frequent after January.
In total, the BAMSTRE has had 15 economic briefings since last November.
Again, this tells me that there's nothing to brief him on.
He knows what's going on.
It's everything happening according to plan.
What's the point of wasting time in a meeting?
In other words, Obama, why do I need you to come in the White House?
Tell me what I already know.
The private sector being successfully destroyed here, I don't need you to tell me.
I can see it.
Mission accomplished.
Grab a phone call quickly.
This is Denise in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Well, thank you, Rush.
You're welcome.
I wanted to comment on a Wiener situation.
Yes.
Women and Children Hit Hardest.
By Wiener.
By Weiner.
And there's two different ideas on that, in my opinion.
His wife and unborn child and also sexting to an underage child and young women.
Do we know that he was sexting somebody underage?
Has that been confirmed?
I think early on there was something about a 17-year-old, but that might not have been confirmed.
No, no.
Frankly, I haven't been able to keep up with all of it.
So you think Wiener is women and kids hardest hit because of what Wiener's doing.
Well, it follows.
Yes, I think so.
All right.
Well, Denise, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Brief time.
You bet.
Brief time out.
be back after this.
The big voice on the right, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
Happy to have you with us, my good friends.
I had this soundbite in the roster yesterday, and I did have a chance to get to it, and I have since heard everybody making a lot of hay out of it.
Now, I had it.
I looked at it.
I said, eh, no big deal, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz.
But I've watched everybody on there.
This is an example here.
My instinct said, okay, interesting, but certainly not a priority.
I didn't put it at the top of things.
And as such, by the time the program ended yesterday, I'd not gotten to it.
Here's the bite.
It happened yesterday in Washington at the Politico Playbook breakfast.
The new chairbabe of a Democrat National Committee, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, spoke.
And during the Q ⁇ A, CNN senior White House correspondent Ed Henry and Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz had this exchange about the economy.
My question is, at what point does your party own the economy?
Is it three years after the president took office, four years, five to ten years, 10 to 15 years?
At what point do you take ownership?
Oh, I mean, I think we clearly are responsible for the I'm going to take ownership right now.
Okay.
Now, it is one of two things is clear.
Either Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is clueless and didn't understand what was behind the question, didn't understand the nature of the question, or else the whole thing is set up and the Democrats think the economy is on the verge of doing something that can be called a turnaround that they want to be able to own, that they want to say, yeah, it's ours.
Now, Ed Henry, not one of us folks, you know, Ed Henry, CNN, state-controlled media stenographer, he asks this question, at what point does your party own the economy?
Well, in a real world, he'd be asking that because Obama continues to blame Bush and an enterprising journalist would say, wait a second, now you've been in office for two and a half years.
Your mark is on this economy.
You have spent over $2 trillion, or you borrowed whatever, $2 trillion under false premise, creating jobs and growing the economy.
It hasn't worked.
You keep blaming Bush.
You say that it's worse than you thought when you assumed office.
At what point is any of this yours?
Now, in the world of fair, honest, balanced journalism, a legitimate question.
But this is not the fair, honest, balanced world of journalism.
Certainly not a CNN.
And it isn't at PMSNBC.
So we just can't automatically conclude here that Ed Henry is asking a common sense question founded in genuine journalistic curiosity.
You could almost say that this question could have a bit of an accusation in terms of tone.
Okay, what point do you own it?
So, Debbie Washington should play the bite again.
It sounds here that Debbie Blabbermouth could be blindsided by the question, doesn't quite know what is really being asked of her.
And it could well be that Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz, with her own ego and belief that the Democrat Party is the end-all, end-all, is the only thing that exists and everybody loves.
Oh, yeah, sure, we own it.
We know that Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz had been out there talking about the economy being in great recovery, all these great signs.
So she either thinks it herself or she's had talking points fed to her.
So here's the bite again.
And listen, if you will, as we air at this time, to Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz appearing to be somewhat undecided or perhaps a little surprised by the question.
My question is, at what point does your party own the economy?
Is it three years after the president took office, four years, five to ten years, ten to fifteen years?
At what point do you take ownership?
Oh, I mean, I think we clearly are responsible for the I'm going to take ownership right now.
What was she going to say?
I think we're clearly responsible.
She believes there's a recovery going on.
She said it so many times, whether it's not true or not.
She believes it.
She probably thinks this economy is something worth touting.
The problem for her is, is that the official approach, the official stance taken by the campaign, the White House is, oh, no, no, no, no.
This is still a Bush economy.
So she is contradicting the White House and the reelect position on this, taking ownership of the economy.
So now, since she's done it, will this hold?
Will now the media proceed from that point forward?
It's the Democrats' economy.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, who runs the Democrat National Committee, said so.
Quick phone call.
Here's Harry, Palm Harbor, Florida.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
How you doing?
Hey, Russ, one of the mega diddles.
One of the things that concerns me right now is the very fact is that our first primaries are held in the most liberal states of the country that happened to choose our candidate last time.
And I think we, and they even make things even worse, they have open primaries where you can have liberal Democrats come in and vote for our candidate.
That has been a problem in the past, yes.
The Democrats have exploited that.
And yeah, so my thought is it is time that we start pushing to have a national primary.
No, it's too late.
That can't happen this time.
The rules are set.
There's no way that would never happen.
The rules, the primary rules, the order in which the primaries take place in the court, that's already set.
So you couldn't, even if you wanted to make changes, you couldn't for this cycle.
Well, I know you've been pushing for Florida, for instance, to be able to have an earlier vote.
Right now, we have a guy that right now wants to aid the Democrats by taking away perhaps one of the few states that would actually vote for a conservative.
Well, I don't think in the Republican primary, clearly now we're going to have some moderates in there and rhinos.
And depending on how they team up, as happened last time, you had Huckabee and McCain teaming up to wipe out Mitt.
That happened to West Virginia.
And that led to McCain getting the endorsement of Charlie Crist here in Florida.
I know you're worried about these kinds of things.
And I'm not trying to be polyamish in Civics 101 and all that.
But we're in the ascendancy here as conservatives.
The Tea Party is loud.
It's prosperous.
It's growing.
It's not going to be fooled by any of this.
I think everything's going to be fine where our primary is concerned.
That's, at this point, not a concern for me.
I got other concerns, as you know what they are, but that, the primary schedule and all that, not at the top of my list right now.
I got to take a break.
We'll be back.
We'll continue right after this.
Well, get this.
Just in from the Chicago Tribune, the American Medical Association is going to reconsider its support of health insurance requirement.
The mandate.
Now they decide this.
Now the AMA having questions about this.
It's right here in the Chicago Tribune.
Of course, I haven't the time to detail it for you now.
In mere moments, however, when we return, I'll give you all the gory details.
Sit tight, folks.
▲
Export Selection