All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 3, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
November 3, 2011, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's another, it's another Barack Obama success story, according to the latest census report.
Almost 20% of men between the ages of 25 and 34 are living with mommy and daddy.
Twenty percent.
Congratulations, President Obama.
More success for you.
That comes from the politico, by the way, which took a break from a term in Cain obsession long enough to report the good news.
The uh good news is almost one in five men between the ages 25 and 34 are living with their parents.
About 14% of men who lived with their parents in 2005.
A figure that's crept up to 19% in six years.
Way to be, President Obama, way to be.
I I can't tell I got the number of uh a number of emails during the break for you.
I heard your answer to that guy to call about persuading people.
You really expect us to believe it.
You're not trying to persuade people.
Let me see if I can explain this.
Um I wouldn't be honest if I told you I wasn't interested in that, but it's not the objective here.
Andy, it never has been.
I remember when this program started and didn't take long for the left and the media to start publishing false stories of how it happened.
The biggest false story was that Roger Ailes and agents of the Republican Party scoured the landscape of the media, and they discovered that there was a huge niche in conservative programming.
And so they found me minding my own business in Sacramento and brought me national for the express purpose of filling that niche.
I never met Ailes with this program.
I didn't know Ailes until 1992, 1991, somewhere in there.
Never once when this program was in the planning stages, was it about politics?
Or was it filling a niche or any of that?
It was about business things, attracting an audience and charging confiscatory advertising rates.
And it really hasn't changed.
So I don't prepare the program and I don't perform or execute the program with the objective being or my success defined by how many minds did I change.
A, I'll never know.
B, that's not living my own life.
If if I'm that making myself a prisoner to other people and what they think, and there's no way I'm going to do that.
I used to do that in my life way back when I was a kid, as we all did in high school, but no more.
I I've I'm not I'm not gonna try to live somebody else's life or to get the approval of other people.
You know, Steve Jobs, I watched last night PBS had a um one last thing, a one-hour special on jobs.
They had an interview that apparently had never been broadcast with jobs in 1995.
He said something that fascinated me.
He said, once you figure out, as you look around you and you see life, you see buildings and roads and bridges, and you see people and you see cars, everything everything around you that comprises life was built by people no smarter than you are.
Once you figure that out, you are home free.
What he meant by that is it is if you go through life assuming that everybody is smarter than you or more connected than you are, or if you subordinate yourself simply because of societal pressures or whatever, you're forever going to be seeking the approval of those that you're elevating above you.
I thought it was pretty uh pretty intriguing.
For my part, yeah, I uh I had this guy on the phone the other day.
Yeah, I was trying to persuade him.
He asked questions.
I was trying to convince him he was wrong, but when I failed, it wasn't the end of the day, and I certainly didn't define how I felt about myself or the quality of my own ability by whether or not I succeeded at brain dead loco weed, that he was wrong about things is not my problem.
He wants To go through life being wrong, it's his prerogative.
He can suffer the consequences.
I'm not I'm not interested in in pure persuasion.
Because I'd be depressed every day if that were the objective.
That's a very fine line.
Of course I'm passionate about what I believe, and I want everybody to believe it, because I think it's the best way to live and the best thing to be and best thing for the country.
But that's not why I'm here.
I've explained this on previous occasions.
That's a real fine line attitudinally.
But you have to understand if you're in a business, what the requirements of that business are for success.
And what is the persuasion business?
What is the business you get into if your objective is to persuade people?
What is it?
Hmm?
News?
Did you say news?
Sales.
Sales.
Okay, I'll take that.
And of course, there are nobody better at sales than I am.
And in that regard, persuasion is fundamental to success.
But in this case, talking about the content portion of the program, it's a very fine line as to what the purpose here is.
Well, I've always been very open and honest about it to create largest audience possible, to hold the audience for as long as I can, so as to charge confiscatory advertising rates.
The only reason I could get away with charging confiscatory advertising rates is if the people paying them think it's worth it.
And frankly, they don't care about anything but does their product move.
Pure and simple.
That's a focus for me.
I've written two books.
Let me maybe I can explain it this way.
This might be a better way to explain this.
I've written two books.
If I had expected the nation to change, if I had expected, because of those two books, for liberalism to forever lose, for the media to be relegated to insignificance.
You realize how disappointed, sad, angry I would have been since those two books?
Because that didn't happen.
And I think it can screw up your psychology if that is an objective.
Yes, it did.
Yeah.
But Snerdley is shouting at me.
But the country did change, and the media did lose its monopoly and blah, blah, blah.
All of that's true.
All that's true, but Barack Obama still got elected.
Bill Clinton still got elected during all of that.
I'm talking about expectations here.
It's it's uh don't make this any harder than it is.
I'm just I'm just trying to be uh honest with people as I can on on this because I think it's it's a recipe for psychological disaster to think that single-handedly anybody is is going to, no matter how much exposure they have to people, is going to is is going to forever dramatically uh change people's minds or what have you.
That presumes that everybody has no mind of their own, and that's certainly not the case.
So anyway, I just wanted to try to answer because I was in there.
I got I got a lot of questions.
I don't believe you.
I know you said to that guy, but I don't believe you're not doing this with changed minds.
I it's not the reason, it's not the primary reason I show up.
If it happens, icing on the cake, and I'm very happy when it happens.
And yeah, I am trying to be uh confident and all that, but at the end of it all, it's up to whoever's listening, change their mind or not.
I am not going to pronounce myself a success or failure based on whether they do or not.
That's all it is.
I'm gonna take a quick timeout here.
We'll be back and we'll continue.
I got these two stories, one at the Hill.com, the other in the New York Times about how bleak it is for Obama out there.
Back to the phones to go to Sykesville, Maryland, and George.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Nice to have you on the program here.
Thanks, Rush.
Uh Just a quick question here.
Um I think what you're uh uh with uh Herman Cain, I think uh if the media uh wins, or if Herman Cain is not the nominee, then the the media will effectively pick our candidate for us.
Is that uh sound about right?
No.
I don't think that's true.
Why, you're assuming that if if Kane bombs out here it's going to be Romney?
Uh pretty much.
Well I I I have not concluded that yet.
We haven't even had the primaries yet.
Could well end up that way, but I haven't I haven't concluded that.
Well that's conventional wisdom again, and you know I've I'm I I uh systematically reject conventional wisdom.
You're right, media's trying to pick our candidate, no question about it.
Well, if it's if it's uh if it's not Kane and it's not Bachman, not uh Perry.
Um who's to say that it who's to say it won't be.
Well, I guess my point is that everyone who is bubbled up has been knocked down by the media, and that uh Kane is just the late latest to have been knocked down.
Right.
And they're waiting to knock Romney down for the general.
Well, I think they're that's what uh the uh occupy Wall Street stuff is about.
Well no, that that just lately.
That's just lately.
This week did Occupy Wall Street start carrying signs around, equating Romney with Wall Street.
Uh I I just all I'm saying to you is that I I I don't accept conventional wisdom.
I don't think this is over.
I don't think that nobody else in this has uh has been rendered uh uh irrelevant and don't have a chance.
Sure, they're long shots, uh but anything can still happen in this.
And I'm gonna keep myself wide open for those possibilities.
Conventional wisdom and I don't get along.
I I don't that that means I don't have to think anymore.
It means I'm just gonna let somebody else tell me what the reality on the ground is, and I'm gonna accept it, and I'm gonna parrot it, and if I don't believe it, why should I accept it?
I just don't yet.
I appreciate the call.
Sadie in Portland, Oregon, you are next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
You know, I'm just getting so tired of hearing you talk about it.
Nobody gets tired of hearing me talk.
I have been turning it off because I'm getting so annoyed with you.
Oh, no, no, no, Sadie, nobody gets tired.
Here we go, the cell phone thing.
Anyway, nobody gets tired of hearing me talk.
Well.
Yeah, I've been listening to you for years, and um how long?
How many?
I have a rush baby who's twenty-five, and he started listening to you when he was five years old.
Is he still?
Yes, but he's getting annoyed with you too.
Over what?
Well, for one thing, you aren't really talking about serious matters.
Oh.
And well, am I not?
Like he's the best thing that ever came around.
No, I'm not.
Yeah, that's the impression you're getting people.
No, it's not.
I haven't you're defending him in this um all of this bimbo eruption stuff, as you put it.
Well, when Clinton had all that bimbo eruption, you you believed all those women.
But now you're defending Cain.
No.
And you know, who knows if you're not gonna be able to do that.
Probably is true, at least with one person.
I'm not doing that at all.
You are not listening with a discerned ear.
Yes, I am.
No, you're not.
I'm listening.
I haven't said I don't know whether Kane did it or not.
Exactly.
That hasn't been my point is because you know that's right wing.
Now you're making me not believe what you're saying about being a lifelong conservative with a rush baby kid.
Yes.
And and all that.
Uh you're making it very tough for me to believe you here.
You're filibustering out there trying to pretend to be on a cell phone because you know full well that I can't hear people in the stuff.
Look at all I have pointed out here is that when a Democrat comes along with documented cases of sexual harassment, the media promotes them and goes after the women and Tries to destroy them.
When the same charges are leveled against Herman Cain, it's different story.
They go out and try to destroy Herman Cain.
What I'm trying to point out is the discrepancy and disparity in the way the stories are covered and promoted by the media.
Pure and simple.
I don't know whether Cain did it or not.
I started the program today by saying I don't care who leaked it.
It only matters to me if he did it or didn't.
If somebody's lying about what he did, then it matters.
If somebody's leaking the truth, then it doesn't matter who's leaking it, he's got a problem.
And speaking of lying, he he tries to act like he knows so much about Federal Reserve.
He said it it could audit itself.
It was audited this year by the government account accountability office.
You know that between Do you have a talk show in Iowa?
They have they have um sixteen trillion dollars in the banks, corporations, and four of them.
Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize.
I I really I we I can't I cannot have a conversation with people on a cell phone because we've got piece of garbage phone system here.
And there's nothing apparently that can be done about it.
So it's it's as it's frustrating as I can as I can explain to you uh to try to deal with this.
But it Sadie, uh the only way I can react to you here is to uh take you off the air.
I'm sorry I have to do that.
Uh but it is obvious that the real reason you're calling is that you don't like Herman Cain.
And anybody who's gonna start promoting in your mind Herman Cain is what's gonna get your dander up.
So and you're fine.
You feel free to oppose Herman Cain.
All you want.
Who's next?
Cindy, Austin, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, hi, Rush.
Hi, how are you doing?
I'm fine.
I think you're wonderful, and I like M Culture too.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Hey, I was just wanting to comment on what you said before the break.
You were talking about how the liberal liberals think you're out there trying to change minds.
I don't think you're trying to change minds.
I think you were just in the right place at the right time.
You knew that there were a lot of conservatives out there who wanted a voice.
Yeah.
In fact, that's really what happened.
Everybody's uh the the had their opinions validated.
There wasn't a national conservative voice.
Mine comes along, and oh, well, I agree with that is what happened.
Uh but the i everybody, the critics are trying to say that you and others were just a bunch of mind under robots.
I was a Pied Piper and you couldn't think for yourselves, and I was telling you what to think and what to do, and that was a way of discrediting both you and me.
Right, right.
And you just capitalized on it.
I think that's great.
You took capitalism and you made money on the whole system, and you found a niche, and I think it's wonderful.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that.
You're very perceptive, and I gotta give you credit.
Uh Columbus, Ohio is next.
Tom, welcome to the program.
Great to have you here.
Hey, Rush, it's first time calling.
Excited to talk to you.
I got a quick question for you that I need you to enlighten me on.
I'll try.
The um protesters are all protesting these rich millionaires who uh work on Wall Street.
I assume, or we can assume that all these Wall Street executives and people are college degrees work their way through school, work their way up to a company, and are being rewarded for their years and years of effort.
And I'm curious as to like a LeBron James who signs a hundred million dollar contract out of high school that never did a thing, never did anything, other than use his talents to encourage people to pay him money to do things, look for their company, look for their business, whatever.
No, but who makes hundreds of millions and you know, billion dollars from Leon DiCaprio or whoever, why are they not angry with them?
Why are they not angry with like the Olsen twins who find a purse and sell it for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that's not obscene.
But Wall Street executives are obscene for having a contract or what they can bring to a company after working their way up through.
So I'm just if you could enlighten me on that, why they're not upset, who they with these people they idolize these movie stars and baseball players with their contracts and sorry if I can't answer him while he's talking, so uh the yeah uh the reason is that there hasn't been a single professor or teacher tell these kids how rotten LeBron James is.
No teacher has ever told them that they don't have what they want because LeBron James has it.
Nobody has ever told them that LeBron James has the power to hire them or fire them or take what they've got.
They have been told, however, they have been taught, they've been indoctrinated, they've been propagandized with the idea that Republican rich people who have the uh uh added resume of working at Wall Street are actual thieves who have taken money away from poor people and the homeless and from them to enrich themselves.
This is exactly.
That makes sense to me.
I understand that that they're considering them thieves with LeBron James is not a political person, he's not a political enemy.
LeBron James, they don't even know what his politics are.
They couldn't, they couldn't care less.
Who are the bad guys in television shows?
Who are the bad guys in movies?
It's always CEOs, uh, professional business people.
They're always corporations are always ripping people off, stealing, killing their customers.
Uh Ted Turner had a Saturday morning cartoon show called Captain Planet, and it was all about the hero running around saving the world from corporations.
And of course, there was never any bigger industrialist than Ted Turner.
But it's it's not just LeBron James, it's any athlete, it's any entertainer, it is any movies.
And the movie stars get a total pass because they have the right political persuasion.
And they make these, they make protesters think they go off to Haiti and you know, hang around and get a little muddy and uh convince people that they're actually trying to give their money away to the poor and all this.
It's all a giant scam.
Pure and simple.
And we will be back.
Don't go away.
Let's talk about Obama.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of talking about what the media is saying about our side.
I want to talk about Obama, and I've got two stories here that are not encouraging for Obama and or his campaign.
The first is by Dr. David Hill.
It's in the Hill.com.
He's a pollster and has worked for Republican candidates and causes since 1984.
And despite that, the Hill.com published his piece.
The headline is Obama fails, all viability tests.
And here's a pull quote from the story.
The numbers say that voters don't think he deserves re-election.
The numbers say, this is polling numbers, that he has no meaningful accomplishments.
The numbers say that the nation's headed in the wrong direction under his watch.
And in fact, that's a pathetic note, it's 16%.
Only 16% of the American public think the country's headed in the right direction.
He is simply not viable by any measure.
That is an empirically informed, hard-nosed judgment.
This isn't a movie or a fantasy tale where a miracle occurs at the last moment to save the day.
If Democrat campaign professionals don't start acknowledging how dire and bleak the circumstances are, and if they don't intervene, they risk Obama bringing down their entire ticket.
That's a pull quote from the piece.
Obama fails all viability tests.
Last week's column, Mr. Hill begins asserting that the president is unelectable has triggered strong responses.
Democrats in particular seem to think my judgment is premature.
It strikes them as ridiculous that anybody could make such a bold prediction so far in advance of the election in 2012.
But that's what we do as seasoned political professionals as polsters.
But I must stress, I am not so much making a personal prediction as drawing an informed conclusion based on all the numbers available.
I do this in each election cycle for other candidates.
It's time to make the call on President Obama.
Whenever I have an incumbent client running for reelection, I insist on a viability study about a year out from the election.
So in the case of the presidential race, right about now, anything I do for my own, I should do for the opposition.
So here goes.
First I look at the polling results from traditional deserves re-election questions, the gold standard of viability testing.
The most recent nationwide public poll I could find was one conducted by Quinnipiac University early last month, and it showed 42% saying the president deserves re-election, while 54% say he does not.
While this re-elect number by itself is not necessarily a doomsday figure, it's the 54% on the con side, the against side that's a killer.
Most often there is a large undecided percentage.
But here, the undecided are only four points.
Voters have already closed their minds.
And the book on Obama, it ensures that when Obama faces a Republican nominee, the undecided voters in early polling will eventually vote against an undeserved re-election.
And the second numbers that Mr. Hill peruses are perceptions of accomplishments.
Eventually, Republicans will ask voters, what has Obama really accomplished?
And he's going to have to answer.
A Washington Post ABC News poll conducted in his first year found that only 14% of all voters thought he had accomplished a great deal during his first nine months.
Salad days.
I can't find evidence that the same question has even been asked lately.
But is there any chance the result would be much different?
What has he accomplished?
In its moving America Forward manifesto, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee says that Obama has five accomplishments, created private sector jobs, reduced debt, kept taxes low, passed a health care plan, and reformed Wall Street.
That's it.
That's their best list of accomplishments.
Do you think most Americans believe that Obama has accomplished those things?
Aside from passing a health care plan, he's done almost none of it.
In the public's mind, according to the latest AP polling conducted in mid-October, the president's average approval rating across those five areas is 42% for crying out loud.
Obama brings no record of genuine accomplishment to his bid for re-election.
The third set of determinative data for an incumbent is perception of the direction of the nation or state.
Everybody knows that this is the biggest problem for Obama.
The latest CBS New York Times poll has the right direction at twenty-one percent.
I did see one at sixteen percent last week, maybe early this week.
It has not been above thirty percent since the early summer.
Incumbents simply do not get re-elected when seventy-five percent of the electorate sees things seriously off on the wrong track.
Even if Obama's approval ratings or likability were better, he couldn't overcome the negative sentiment that demands a change in direction.
Americans are going to demand and get change next November, whether he likes it or not.
So, using my criteria, criteria, Obama fails on all counts.
The numbers say that voters don't think he deserves re-election, that he has no meaningful accomplishments, the nation's headed off in the wrong direction under his watch.
He's simply not viable by any measure.
And that is an empirically informed hard-nosed judgment.
This is not a movie or a fantasy tale where a miracle occurs at the last moment to save the day.
If Democrat campaign professionals don't start acknowledging the same and intervening, they risk Obama bringing down their entire ticket.
David Hill, IDHill.com, polster that's worked for Republican candidates and causes since 1984.
Then a similar story in the New York Times is Obama Toast.
Handicapping the 2012 election.
Nate Silver used to be a blogger to Daily Cause, has a blog called 538 that the New York Times runs.
Americans are usually forgiving when they vote a guy into the White House and he wants a second term of the last eight elected presidents, all but two of them, George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, got their four more years.
Which is why the conventional wisdom long held that Obama would most likely weather his mispresidency, a mid-presidency swamp to win another term.
But then came the debt ceiling debates, July and August, which seemed to crystallize Obama's vulnerabilities in a way that even Democrats, midterm disaster 2010 did not.
Probably because he handled the situation so poorly, simultaneously managing to annoy his base, frustrate swing voters, concede a major policy victory to Republicans, and further imperil the economic recovery.
On August 12th, a week and a half after the debate ended in Congress, Obama's stock on in trade dipped below 50% for the first time.
And it's hovered just below the 50% threshold, usually at about 48% ever since.
Obama has gone from a modest favorite to win reelection to probably a slight underdog.
Now let's not oversell this.
A couple months of solid jobs reports of the selection of a poor Republican opponent would suffice to make him the favorite again.
Nevertheless, it's an unusual circumstance.
Roosevelt Eisenhower, Nixon Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes all looked like the favorite to win a year in advance.
Obama doesn't.
The fundamental flaw with much of what passes for political analysis is the tendency to think small.
Mr. Silver writes, I blame soccer moms for this.
Not the moms themselves.
Or they're more rough and tumble companions from four years later than NASCAR dads, but the narrow world view that these demographic labels represent.
The sophomore strategist thinks that he can slice the American electorate into a million little pieces and make it more than the sum of its parts.
He goes on to cite examples of this.
And he does basically what Mr. Hill did.
He goes through all the polling data and applies it to every Republican candidate.
And comes up with Obama's viability.
And it doesn't look good.
And this thing prints out to 14 pages, and I'm not going to bother you with any more of it.
But why do they think Obama lost the debt ceiling debate?
Um debt ceiling debate.
Why do they think Obama lost the debt ceiling debate?
I think it's because all that time went by and Boehner and the Republicans didn't cave.
The end result is not how these people judge things.
They judge things by how they appear every day in the media.
And since the Republicans didn't cave, and since Boehner was was publicly standing up and looking like he opposed Obama every day.
It looked like Boehner was running the show.
That's why they think that Obama lost the debt ceiling debate.
He didn't.
He got two more trillion dollars to spend.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Much more straight ahead, folks.
Don't go away.
Yes, I read all the way to the end of the Nate Silver piece, and I should add that as he goes through each of the Obama matchups.
You could interpret, and I wouldn't disagree with you if you wanted to.
You could interpret that he is trying to uh in a roundabout way give the Republicans confidence to pick nominee Romney, trying to convince them to pick Romney.
But the bottom line is I think everybody in the conventional wisdom arena thinks that the uh regime actually would like to run against Romney because of health care.
And look it, don't even try to tell me I'm wrong about that, as I know that I'm right about it.
Sure, they'd love to run against K. Sure, they'd love, but but they're not, I'm just telling there's nobody they think they're afraid.
They're living in a dreamland in the Obama campaign, is the bottom line here.
Doesn't matter, you know, what they think.
They're trying to manipulate, pick our candidate no matter what.
I'm sure that's part of Silver's purpose here with his long piece in the in the New York Times.
Jason in Colorado Springs, it's great to have you.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi, sir.
Hi.
Very nice to talk to you, good American.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Um, I just had a couple quick uh comments about Steve Jobs.
Yeah.
Um, you know, everybody calls these people evil capitalists, but if you get rid of the evil capitalist, you get rid of the iPhone and everything else.
And he had two things going for him that made him really successful, and that's the fact that he gave you technology, but he didn't give it to you all at once.
He would give it to you an increment, and you could get new iPhones every six months or so.
Well, not that not that frequently, generally every year.
But what is your uh point about evil capitalists?
Well, the fact is that everybody calls them evil capitalists, but they're the ones that move our country forward.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Wait, who is calling everybody evil capitalists?
Well, the liberals, people that are at uh what does that have to do?
Are they calling Jobs an evil capitalist too?
Is that what you mean?
What's that?
I'm trying to figure out what jobs are they calling Jobs an evil capitalist too?
Well, no, I'm saying that Jobs is a capitalist.
I mean, that's that's what he did.
He he made money by giving people what they wanted.
He gave them a good product, and he made money off of it.
That's that's the definition of a capitalist.
Oh, okay.
Very, very true.
Um okay.
All right, I got it.
Jobs um.
So you're defining how evil capitalists do what they do.
You're explaining that.
Yeah, yeah, and I'm kind of wondering how they lump him in as evil when they give you something you want and you give them money for him.
Well, I think they're evil for getting rich off of it.
That's why I'm asking who the they is, because I think the they loved Steve Jobs.
Yeah.
I mean, I mean, every hero of the left loved Steve Jobs, from people in music to movies to entertainment to uh occupy Wall Street, they loved Steve Jobs.
And it's I contend it's only because they really had no idea who he was and what he did.
You know, one of the first things the new CEO of Apple has done.
Some of you, this may shock some of you.
When Jobs took over Apple again in 1997 or 98, whenever it was, he wiped out every philanthropic program they had.
He said, I don't believe in giving away money, especially when we're losing it.
So Apple engaged in no public philanthropy, charitable giving.
And that lasted throughout Jobs' tenure as CEO.
The new CEO, one of the first things he did was to institute a matching charitable program for every Apple employee.
Apple will now match every employee's donation to a nonprofit up to $10,000.
It's one of the first things the new CEO did.
Jobs was a pure unfettered, unfiltered capitalist.
He was totally consumed by profit.
From the days in the garage with Wozniak forward, a hundred percent profit focus.
Jobs got away with some amazing stuff.
The left loved this guy.
He had Bill Clinton calling him for advice on what to do with Monica Lewinsky.
He refused to take a call from Obama because Obama didn't place the call himself.
This, according to Walter Isaacson's book.
They weren't deferential enough.
He told Obama, and by the way, this kind of dovetails.
Jobs, in his mind, was a leftist.
But he told Obama, you're one term president.
If you don't straighten this stuff, you have no prayer.
You are one termer.
He told him this year ago.
It's It's uh fascinating to learn about this guy and and and uh so far.
He was he told um Rupert Murdoch at dinner at his house, Jobs' house.
Rupert, Fox News is destroying your legacy.
You don't want to be responsible for that.
The dynamic in America today is no longer liberal and conservative.
It's constructive versus destructive, and you, Rupert, with Fox News are being destructive.
Well, I think that's flat out BS.
I think it's as wrong as any could be.
But when it comes to business, uh tell you why Jobs, even among people who know that he was, and this I think this is the guy's point, full-fledged capitalists doesn't matter because he gave them what they want.
He gave them what they want, and not as often as they wanted it.
He kept holding it back.
Make them want it even more, combined with not releasing it until it was really ready to go, but that was two-pronged strategy.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
I don't know where the hours are going.
All I know is that two of them are done.
And we've only got one left.
We'll be back and ready to go.
We'll be back ready to go, revved up before you know it.
▲
Export Selection