All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
November 15, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
And finish with that one.
It's Rushlin Baugh, a man, a legend, a way of life.
Great to have you here.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address.
lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Unless you have been sleeping in a cave out there, you probably have heard by now that Herman Kane paused for up to 11 seconds in responding to a question put to him by the editors of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
It was a question about Libya.
And because of this 11-second pause, Herman Kane is not fit to be president.
Because you see, you only get 10 seconds on a quiz show.
And Herman Kane took 11 seconds out there.
So he's definitely finished.
But it's funny now.
Seems like our watchdog news media doing their level best to prove that Mr. Kane not only not clean sexual harassment charges, but now that he's not articulate.
Mary had Joe Bitemee out there saying about Obama.
Finally, we got a clean, articulate black guy on our side.
Now they're trying to show that Herman Kane's neither clean nor articulate.
Our media brothers are attempting this.
And by the way, predictably, the long knives are coming out for Newt Gingrich now.
Here's a story.
This is Jonathan Martin Politico.
As Newt Gingrich surges rivals raise questions about his temperament.
Oh yeah, and in it in a Washington Examiner, which is, well, it's ostensibly a conservative publication.
The Washington Examiner, there's a columnist.
I don't have it in front of me, so I don't know him the name of the guy, the writer.
But Newt's no conservative.
You conservatives better wake up.
This guy at the Washington Examiner, Newt's no conservative.
Newt is an inside Washington guy who will side with big government interests every chance he gets.
Look at all the so-called Newt gaffes, this guy points out, like the Pelosi and the carbon credits and so forth.
His instinct is to go with the big government option every time until he gets slapped down by conservatives.
So whenever anybody in the Republican field jettisons to the top, here come the hit pieces.
The temperament thing is never going to stop.
The temperament thing.
Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, well, they never got on Reagan about his temperament.
Well, yeah, that's not temperament, though.
That's just when they say he's nuts and might push the button.
That's just, he's a wacko.
McCain's temperament was he had a temper, and he does.
Dole temperament was, I don't know what Dole's temperament problem was, but Dan Rather yesterday was on MSNBC.
Remember, I was shocked to see Dan Rather alive?
And he was on MSNBC, and he said, Newt, when you start talking politics, Newt is like a wounded wolverine.
You got to be prepared out there.
So what they said, they can't say, like they're trying to say about Herman Kane, that Newt is stupid.
They're trying to say that about Herman Kane.
Herman Kane's an idiot.
That's what this latest stuff is about.
They can't say that about Newt, obviously.
What they're trying to say is that he's nasty.
He's unstable.
He's unpredictable.
Here, just a taste of it.
With Newt Gingrich emerging as a serious contender, some Republicans are questioning his fitness for a general election campaign by seizing on comments the former speaker made in 2007 about Hispanics.
Making the case against bilingual education at a National Federation of Republican women event, Gingrich said that children should be taught, quote, the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto, unquote.
In the wake of his comments, Gingrich recorded a video in rudimentary Spanish saying, the words I chose to express myself are not the best.
An advisor to one of the former speaker's presidential rivals said, this is indicative of Newt's propensity to say crazy things off the cuff.
He hasn't had the spotlight on him up until recently, and I think it's only a matter of time before he says something that's inexcusable, nutty, or insulting.
The advisor who shared this video with Politico also noted with some awe that the former speaker himself had last month blamed Republican incompetence for losing Latino votes.
The anonymous advisor and source for the Politico said this video of Newt could be devastating to Republican efforts to court Hispanics if he is the nominee.
Asked what Gingrich's ghetto comments say about his discipline, a Gingrich spokesman suggested that the candidate's performance so far in his campaign answer the question.
The final merits of whether a candidate is capable of leading the country to be decided beginning in Iowa and going through Tampa, said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond.
Based on what we've seen on the campaign trail so far in debates, other forums, there's no question Newt Gingrich is capable of being commander-in-chief.
So let's go back to the quote here.
And by the way, this is not a new video.
This video got plenty of attention at the time.
You may not remember it, but it got its share of attention in the drive-by media.
But Newt said, it was at a National Federation of Republican Women event, he said, children should be taught the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.
And he then saw fit to apologize.
Now, to me, this is absurd.
It's trivial.
I don't see what the big deal is.
It's what I was talking about yesterday, though, folks.
And I have not done a good job of explaining what I mean here.
Well, I don't know if he should have used barrio instead of ghetto or not.
In my mind, there's nothing wrong with it.
I don't instinctively know what's wrong with it.
There is a language of the ghetto.
There is a language of the barrio, and it's not good.
There is an attitude.
There's a behavior.
There's a mindset.
And we wouldn't want anybody to be stuck in it.
But our culture is at a place now we can't properly, we can't identify what everybody sees and knows is a problem because it's either going to show our insensitivity or it's going to offend somebody.
I wish I could do a better job explaining this.
Let's take the comment here.
The language.
Gingrich said kids should be taught the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.
Now, there are apparently lots of people who are righteously offended at that.
profoundly, instinctively offended.
And they think that this is unacceptable.
It's insulting.
It is as bad as anything anybody could say, period.
How has this happened?
It's what was the example that happened late last week that I was trying to analogize all of this to.
Somebody made a perfectly innocent statement that just oh, it says sexual harassment stuff.
The woman said in the original report on Herman Cain that there was nothing overtly sexual about the gesture, and yet all the guys on the left thought that this was no doubt slam dunk sexual harassment.
There's a narrative that has swept across our culture, swept across the country that exists in the liberal mindset.
I'm at a loss here.
Well, no, it doesn't make any sense, but that's not what I'm trying to get.
I'm asking myself, when did this settle in?
The idea that plain spokenness, truthful observations are now crimes.
It's not just that they are considered to be faux pas or ill-timed statement.
They're now, they're practically crimes.
Well, but near criminal, I mean, the reaction to left is the same reaction as you would have if a crime had been committed, simply virtue of what, or by virtue of somewhat said.
This is a good example of it.
Kids should be taught the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.
Remember after Hurricane Katrina, the Ninth Ward devastated, and there were liberals who wanted to rebuild it as it was.
I was stunned.
And they wanted to rebuild it as it was because it had all this cultural tradition and history.
It was a ghetto.
It was a poor neighborhood.
I mean, to put it, but some reason it had some cultural attachment to the left.
A lot of great art came out of there in their minds, and a lot of great music came out of there.
But I just, I'm sorry, I'm not quite conveying.
I need to think of that one thing that I can analogize that I'm having trouble remembering from last week where, you know, Jonathan Martin was just outraged over something.
And I just, for the life of me, I couldn't understand what in the world there was to be outraged over.
And normally these things that everybody gets so exercised over are just straight up and down, right down the middle, conservative thought.
Nothing extreme, nothing odd about it all.
This is, well, that's, that's, again, the question.
Why is it what Newt is saying here is that he wants kids to be taught things that will help them become the best they can be?
The language of prosperity.
What is wrong about that?
And what is it that makes that exclusively conservative?
Why is that not universal?
Why is that something that the left doesn't want?
Why is this so outrageous?
Why is the idea of prosperity for everybody, including Hispanic kids?
Why is that so outrageous?
Why does that require an apology?
What is it that Newt Gingrich said that has everybody scuttling around here?
Oh, no, well, that's just going to ruin his presidential chances.
See, that there shows right there.
This guy doesn't have the proper temperament.
What?
Mr. Limbaugh, it's not that he said the language of prosperity, it's that he followed up by saying the language of living in a gutto.
Well, that makes total sense to us.
I know what he means by that.
And it's not the language of prosperity.
We don't think that in America people should be shut off from the American dream.
We don't think people ought to be shut off from the opportunity of prosperity.
And we think that there are some obstacles that have been put in the way of prosperity and people achieving it.
Newt's simply saying, get those out of the way.
And for this, he's got to apologize.
So some major breach of comportment, deportment, civility, what have you has taken place here.
And all of this is the ultimate impact of this is to shut everybody up.
Everybody afraid to say what's obvious.
Everybody afraid to express a point of view for fear that somebody's going to launch at them, make them apologize, humiliate them, or what have you.
And that bothers me greatly about this.
I take a break here.
We'll do that.
We'll continue.
We got much more straight ahead here on the EIB network right after this.
And we're back.
I had the wrong button.
I was listening to the wrong audio in here, ladies and gentlemen.
Not music.
I had the wrong audio channel up.
Anyway, greetings and welcome back.
You know what it really boils down to is that the left wants the poor to remain poor.
They want the language of the ghetto to remain the prominent language of people who live there.
They want the underclass to remain the underclass.
They not only want it, they need the underclass to stay the underclass.
And anybody who comes along with any attempt to inspire or motivate people to escape those circumstances is going to is going to be forced to apologize for making some outrageously offensive statement.
Okay, to the audio soundbites.
If I can find the soundbite roster, it's here someplace.
I've just buried it.
Here we go.
I'm looking.
There we go.
Yep, number three.
Herman Kane.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
This is all over their website.
This video has gone viral, and it's an editorial board meeting where they're interviewing Kane about things.
And one of the members of the editorial board says, so you agree with President Obama on the Libya or not?
Okay, Libya, President Obama supported the uprising.
Correct.
President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi.
Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say, yes, I agreed.
No, I didn't agree.
I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason.
No, that's a different line.
I got to go back and see.
Got all this stuff twirling around in my head.
Okay, now there were three pauses in there.
We edited them all out.
I made sure the first pause you heard is why we stopped for 11 seconds.
There was an 11-second pause.
The pauses in his answer are the story.
The pauses indicate he doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's having to fake it.
He's having to try to think on the flight because he doesn't really know what it's foreign policy.
The narrative is he's an idiot.
He doesn't know a thing about foreign policy and doesn't care about it.
And so they thought they had him nailed with this.
And then they asked him later on about collective bargaining.
Would you favor collective bargaining for federal employees?
They already have it, don't they?
Yeah, they already have collective bargaining.
No, they don't.
They have unions.
Okay.
But they don't have the same bargaining.
They don't have the same bargaining powers.
Here again, collective bargaining I support as long as it doesn't create an undue burden on the state, the government, the taxpayer, and this sort of thing.
That's the issue.
Now, that he said that twice.
He said, well, I'm for collective bargaining as long as it's not collective hijacking.
And as long as it doesn't create an undue burden on the state.
Again, the attempt here is to make it sound as though he doesn't know what he's talking about.
But on Libya, he ended up, when you listen to the whole interview, the whole question and answer, he ended up getting Libya right.
His biggest mistake was admitting he was having a hard time focusing.
He shouldn't have said that in front of the enemy, the enemy being the editorial board.
But he said, well, I'm having a hard time focusing here.
Federal workers do have collective bargaining.
Some of them do.
Some federal workers do have collective bargaining.
It's not the same as in some of the states.
For example, the air traffic controllers do have collective bargaining over their wages, and some federal workers only have collective bargaining rights over work conditions.
Some of them have collective bargaining rights over other aspects, but not wages.
It's all over the ballpark.
It is a mistake to say that federal workers, as the editorial board member here said, don't have collective bargaining rights.
Some of them do.
In any event, substantively, Kane was right.
Substantively, Kane got it right on collective bargaining for federal unionized workers, and the editors got it wrong.
And even the journal Sentinel article that accompanies the video eventually admitted that Kane got it right in his answer, and their editors had it wrong.
But no matter, they are attempting to portray via the idiot, the video here, an slow, ignorant, uninformed, unsure-of-imself candidate who really is just outclassed and is just totally out of his league.
And the video under that impression, under those auspices, has gone viral.
And that's the thought accompanying it with everybody who sends it out.
Andrea Mitchell breathlessly, mere moments ago, was promoing an upcoming report on her show about Democrats' efforts to recall the Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.
And she said, will they succeed?
They are sure going to try.
As though she's right in there with them.
Blessed we had any doubt about it.
All right, two more sound bites on this.
By the way Herman Kane's laughing all this off.
They ran into him, some media camera crew this morning.
Mr. Kane, Mr. Kane, what about the fact that you looked like such an idiot answering your question on Libya?
He looked into the camera.
He smiled real big, and he said, 999 and continued to sip his coffee in his cowboy hat and walked off.
Here's Herman Kane.
This is last night in Green Bay, Lambeau Field, Republican presidential candidate Herman Kane speaking to reporters about this pause that he took during a question in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board.
I mean, they asked me a question about Libya, and I paused so I could gather my thoughts.
You know, it's really complimentary when people start documenting my pauses.
You know, it's one thing to document every word.
It was a pause.
That's all it was.
Good green.
Yeah, and you have to see it.
There's a bottle of water there.
They ask him a question, and he pushes the bottle of water away, shifts in his chair for a while.
And they're saying that, see, he looks uncomfortable, totally out of his league.
And look, folks, this video is being sent around even by conservative websites.
It's okay, that's it.
All right, we've had it.
Kane's finished.
It's over with.
And this has nothing to do with sexual harassment.
This is just, let's just finally admit it.
He has not a slightest clue what he's saying or what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy.
Could we please move on?
And everybody that's sending this video out, be they left or right, is prefacing it with that same message.
Hey, wait till you see this idiot.
So that's gone viral in the context of Herman Kane's a fool.
He's an absolute idiot.
That's how this video is going to.
So it's just the latest hit piece started by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editors that has, I guess they'd have chalk it up as a success because that's the context under which it has gone out.
We'll get to your phone calls here in just a second.
Two more or one more audio soundbite.
I just want to go back.
June 5th, 2008, Bristol, Virginia campaign event.
Senator Barack Obama talking about Iraq.
What they'll say is, well, it costs too much money, but you know what?
It would cost about the same as what we would spend over the course of 10 years.
It would cost what it would cost us.
All right.
Okay.
We're going to.
It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about, hold on one second.
I can't hear myself.
But I'm glad you're fired up, though.
I'm glad.
38 seconds.
38 seconds of sheer total idiocy, confusion, ignorance, whatever you want to say.
38 seconds of it.
I'll stack that up against anything Rick Perry stumbled on or Herman Kane.
And it's June 5th in 2008.
And that's right, by the way, right in the midst of Operation Chaos.
Democrat nomination process, primary process is not yet concluded at that point.
They're asking about Iraq.
He has the slightest idea.
He hasn't a clue.
Okay, to the phones we go.
To Lance and Gulf Breezes, Florida.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
I'm glad you waited.
I really am.
Hello.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
How are you doing?
Excellent, sir.
Thanks.
Good.
You know, I agree with you about Kane and all that.
But let me tell you why I called.
I want to take you back to the Penn State issue, sexual predator issue, Sandusky.
And just so you know where I'm coming from on this, in my opinion, sexual predators of children are like the ultimate scumbags.
They're the worst.
But Sandusky's interview with Costas, where he talked about, you know, I was in the shower with someone.
We horsed around a little bit.
It was no big deal.
And Costas didn't call him on it, but he acted like this stuff was totally normal.
Totally normal.
Listen, I played sports from when I was a little kid all the way up through my first year of college.
Never one time, not one single time, did a coach get naked with us in the shower.
Not once did he come in and try to horse around in the shower ever.
And if one had, I think my teammates and I, we would have all thought, wow, this is really weird.
This is embarrassing.
I know we would have because when you're that age, when you're a teenager, you're a young kid, you're going through various stages of development.
You're hoping a cheerleader walks in, not the coach.
Well, yeah, that's true.
When you're that age, your testosterone is going nuts, your hormones, but that's true.
But, you know, to have a coach walk in, even to look in the door as you're taking it.
It was bad enough taking a shower with my teammates because everybody is self-conscious.
You've got some guys who have developed and look like, as 15, look like they're 35, and some of them look like they're 10.
So you've got all these levels of development, and it's weird being in there in the first place to have a coach walk in and start pulling around and horsing around and whatever the hell he did.
That's just crazy.
It's bizarre.
It's outrageous.
And for him to act like that's just normal, it's just, I can't believe it.
Well, he did say that if he had it to do over again, he wouldn't have done that.
He wouldn't have, he wouldn't have done the showers.
Because he's gotten caught.
That's why he says that.
I mean, that's the way people are.
Oh, yeah, I would never have done it.
I wouldn't do it again if I had a choice.
But, you know, what he's leaving out is, yeah, oh, yeah, I forgot.
I got caught.
It is, it's really curious that he would do the interview.
It's curious that his lawyer would let him do the interview.
Then after that decision's made and they're doing the interview, the way he answered these questions, it just makes it slimier.
There was nothing helpful here.
Well, yeah, I mean, he's been witnessed.
I mean, if he didn't, if nobody had come forward and there were no witnesses outside of the kids to this, like the other coach, the assistant coach, if there were no witnesses and none of the kids came forward, you'd have to be hard-pressed to prove any of this, of course.
But now that, but that's out there, and for him to go on and act like, oh, this is normal.
It's like, you know, the thing with, like you brought up before about Michael Jackson sleeping with kids.
I don't know.
Maybe they had their pajamas on.
Maybe that's what made that okay.
I don't know.
But these kids are in a shower and they're all naked and he's naked and it's just like.
Well, don't forget now.
Don't forget Michael Jackson was acquitted.
I know.
That's why I say maybe they had their pajamas on or something.
Not to minimize it.
No, that's not why Michael Jackson was acquitted.
Michael Jackson was acquitted because the jury prosecution went too far in what they were alleging.
And the jury said, We don't see any evidence of that.
The jury went right by the law.
A lot of times prosecutors overreach.
I'm not saying there's a connection here to this.
We don't know how this case is going to be prosecuted.
I'm just reminding you that Jackson was acquitted because I predicted he'd be acquitted because of the way the prosecutors were dealing.
Yeah, predicted he'd be acquitted because nothing to do with whether he did it with the kids or not, because of what the prosecutors were attempting to get a conviction on.
They hadn't laid the groundwork for that.
And so he's acquitted, and everybody was outraged over it because everybody knew he did it.
But the jury said, I'm sorry, that's not what they asked us to decide in the end.
And of course, the OJ jury just decided to do jury nullification.
So hell with it.
I don't care.
We're going to show you what it feels like to have somebody guilty walk out of it.
We're just going to show you.
We've been dying to show you for 200 years, so here you go.
So that was the OJ jury.
The Michael Jackson jury is all different.
This, I heard it said early today that maybe the Sandusky legal team is attempting here to their one shot at the jury pool.
Because after, if he doesn't do any interviews, what chance does he have of explaining his side to this to potential jurors other than before they get to court?
So I think they did Muffet, if that's the plan.
Very, very few defense lawyers let their clients talk.
One of the most famous defense clients that jabbered all over the place was Blago.
And look what that got him.
Vlogojevich couldn't be silenced no matter what his defense lawyers want.
Anyway, Lance, I appreciate the call.
He's exactly right, by the way.
I was in high school as the manager for the varsity basketball team.
And I played football for one year as a sophomore in high school.
He's exactly right.
The last place you ever saw any of the coaches was in the showers.
They never, and you never saw the coaches undressed.
Never.
It never, ever happened.
And had it happened, it would have been.
He's right.
Oh, Lance would have been the oddest, strangest, and somebody would have told their parents about it.
And that would have been the end of the coach.
Now, I'm talking 1967, obviously.
Not now.
We don't know what those kids said to anybody.
Their parents.
That's all to come out later.
Back after this.
Okay, Nancy in New Bern, North Carolina.
Fly over it every time on the way to New York or Washington.
It's right there on the air show, New Bern.
I've never landed there, but I fly over it every time.
I feel like I know the place.
Well, you need to take a pit stop.
I should.
I should.
Yeah, I was calling about earlier when you were talking about tomato sauce becomes a vegetable for the meals.
That's right.
Well, here, I just found out at a Marine Corps birthday celebration over the weekend.
We were just talking about everything.
And a friend of mine said that the kids, if they get a pizza and they're on that free meal program, they have to pay for the pizza.
But if they get a slice of pizza and corn, it becomes a free meal.
And ditto's, by the way.
Really becomes free if they add corn.
I guess it becomes a round meal, a well-rounded meal.
It's crazy, but I mean, they're finding where does now.
Now, wait a second.
Where does this happen?
At school?
Yes.
Well, this is a middle school teacher that was telling the story, and I just couldn't believe it.
I mean, I can't give you the rules or whatever, but she said she watched the kid get a slice of pizza, get corn, ate the pizza through the corn away, and she asked him, and he told her that if he doesn't get the corn, he has to pay for just the slice of pizza.
But when they get the vegetable added to it, it becomes a free meal.
How cool.
How cool.
And then a kid typically throws the vegetable away, doesn't eat it.
Exactly.
Like a normal kid, you know?
Exactly.
Kids will be kids.
Yeah.
My memory, they tried to besmirch Reagan back in his day, accusing him of counting tomato paste as a vegetable.
And that, of course, that was erroneous.
We had a story from Watsonville, California.
I have a vague memory of this.
Kids in Watsonville, California were buying fast food for lunch.
Even when most of them were entitled to a free lunch, they were still going out and buying the fast food because they didn't want to eat what was offered for free.
They just didn't want to eat it.
And meanwhile, here you got Muchel.
Muchel Obama is out in Hawaii, and she is urging kids to eat steak and arugula.
If you eat the arugula, then it's okay to have the steak.
Kid you not!
Drudge even has it.
There's something about the Obamas and arugula.
You remember before the Iowa, the Hawkeye cauckey back in 2008, Obama was in there and he was giving an example of prices going up in the evil Bush regime.
And he said, have you been into the local whole foods here and seen the price of arugula?
Well, the problem was there wasn't any whole foods there and they didn't have arugula in the first place.
And somebody says, arugula, what the hell is arugula?
Oh, it's an elitist vegetable.
And only the ruling class eats arugula was the joke.
And now here comes Muchel talking about steak and arugula.
I'm not making it up.
This is, look, it all sounds funny.
The problem is that, well, here it is.
Mrs. Obama let them eat steak and arugula.
This is Terry Jeffery, Cybercast News Service, visiting an organic farm in Hawaii on Saturday.
First Lady Muchel Obama said that arugula and steak was her favorite meal and expressed her view that American children need to get their palates adjusted so that they will begin eating properly.
Why should we care what her favorite foods are?
Yet their palates need adjusting.
Exactly.
That's a quote.
Get their palates adjusted.
Now, why should we care?
See, this is a great example.
The first lady says we need to get their palates adjusted.
And every liberal in the media swoons.
Oh, yes.
Makes perfect sense.
What great compassion.
Oh, what a wonderful woman.
Why, how smart, smarter she is and all of us.
We say, what the hell business is it of hers?
Who is she?
Before she was first lady, all she had was animus for this country.
By her own admission, she was never proud of this country until her husband ran for president.
She's always had a chip on her shoulder about this.
Why should we care what she says?
If she says we need our palates adjusted, what business is it of hers?
To me, this is a normal, natural reaction, but the left, oh, they swoon when they hear something like that.
And when we have our reaction, they think that we're insolent lawbreakers, not respecting authority, stupid knuckleheads, what have you.
I don't care what her favorite foods are or her favorite colors, her favorite moves, shoes, books, clothes, television shows.
I don't care.
What kind of self-centered, arrogant, controlling character disorder are we dealing with?
Get their palates adjusted.
The first lady of the United States thinks that kids need to get their palates adjusted.
How about getting her grandiose dictatorial urges adjusted?
Mr. Limbaugh, she's only trying to do what's helpful for the children.
Everybody knows that children don't eat the proper food or what's good for them and they don't know what's going on.
And she's simply trying to take care of everyone's children.
It's not her business, Mr. New Castrati.
And what at what point did somebody annoy her as the Mother Teresa of food and palates?
Mrs. Obama also said that children in underserved communities become obese because they aren't growing up with vegetables because there are no grocery stores.
It is.
I want to see the study that backs up this assertion.
They make all these assertions, and we never see the study.
We never see the data that documents this.
And how many people are we talking about here?
tiny fictional little sample they come up with to justify advocating and moving their premise to the mass public is absurd.
Well, in Memphis, they have tripled down on me.
They are still mad and angrier.
We do.
We have a minute, 22-second soundbite to share with you from the Memphis media.
Did I play the what stuff?
No, I don't have that.
That was all.
▲
Export Selection