All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
December 6, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's like clockwork.
It's becoming predictable.
I don't care who it is.
A Republican presidential candidate breaks out of the pack, gets close to Romney, or even surpasses Romney in polling data, certain states, and the Republican establishment goes after him.
Today, there is a coordinate.
Well, I don't know that it's coordinated, but it sure appears to be.
Regardless, no matter where you look in the Republican establishment media today, there is a looks to be a coordinated attack on Mr. Newt.
I'm not going to mention any names because, you know, when I do that, all I do is elevate these people.
The names don't matter here.
It's, you know, I've never shared this.
One of the, you know, being number one, I mean, there's nothing like it and I wouldn't trade it, but it carries limitations.
It brings limitations with it.
By definition, anybody I talk about smaller than I am.
So when I talk about them, I elevate them and call attention to what really is not noticed by a whole lot of people.
So there's a lot of stuff I can't, either by virtue of my professional policy and by virtue of common sense.
There's a lot of stuff that I don't talk about because it doesn't deserve to be any widely, more widely spread than it already is on its own.
Do you understand what I'm saying, Snerdley?
I mean, it really, this is a, it's a very limiting thing.
And it's amazing how this has changed over the course.
I remember with the first five years of this program, I don't care what it was.
Unless, you know, some little newspaper in Oshkosh ripped me.
I mean, I wouldn't talk about that.
But I mean, for the most part, I could talk about pretty much anything and not worry about giving it a wider berth than it already had.
But now, pretty much everything I talk about is going to get a wider berth than it already has, which is one of the reasons why I have this ban on MSNBC.
Why should I give them a bigger audience than they can attract on their own, for example?
You see what I'm talking about here.
What were we going to say?
Well, I know.
Exactly right.
There are people who try to trick me into talking about them, hoping I'll talk about them to put them on the map.
Exactly right, Snerdley.
Very perceptive on your part.
So I'm just going to tell you, there are, let's say, kind of one, two, three, four, there are five.
Not counting whatever's happened on television.
There are five hit pieces on Newt Gingrich today that come from Republican establishment of conservative media.
It's amazing.
And I want to call these people and say, let me ask you a question.
When this is all over, who would you rather have?
And by the way, none of this is to defend Newt.
I don't want to be misunderstood on this, folks.
None of this is to defend him.
And this is pure 100% commentary right now.
But I feel like calling some of these people, which of course I would never do.
I don't call anybody because I actually don't like talking to people.
I would say, do you really, at the end of the day, prefer Obama to Newt?
Because that's what you're going to bring off here if you keep this up.
You really prefer.
Because what's happening?
Anybody that gets close to Romney, we talked about this yesterday.
We talked about this back in November.
The Republican establishment is now, I'm convinced they're fully invested in Romney, which is fine.
I'm not endorsing anybody, but the reason is the House and Senate, not the White House.
I am convinced the more I read and the more I read between the lines, these people I'm talking about don't seem all that confident Obama can be beat, but they do think that Romney can help the Republicans pick up Senate seats and hold the House.
I didn't think holding the House was in question here, but some of these people think that it is.
Now, of course, your goal and my goal is much different than this.
We want the White House.
We want to dispatch Obama.
We look at this list of Republican nominees and we take any of them over Obama.
So while you and I may have problems with each candidate, some of them more so than others, but we'd still take every one of them.
Whoever wins this, we're going to support them.
Now, actually, that's not true.
There's some rock-ribbed conservatives who may, if the wrong candidates nominated here, sit out.
But you are different than the people I'm talking about.
These people, we're not even talking about ideology with these conservative versus liberal or Republican versus Democrat.
This is strictly inside the beltway political machinations that are going on here that are the determining factor.
So it's just interesting to categorize this.
I said yesterday that I was talking to a friend of mine who sent me a note, and he was all bent out of shape about this.
Friend of mine tunes in or reads a lot of conservative blogs and websites.
He's pulling his hair.
I said, I thought these people were conservative.
I said, you are misunderstanding something.
There is not a conservative movement in the media.
And there really isn't.
The conservative movement, and I mean this from out of my large beating heart, conservative movement is made up of me, talk radio, and the Tea Party, and the American people, who are conservative.
But a conservative movement made up of movement media people.
It hasn't been that since Mr. Buckley passed away.
I really don't believe so.
So you look at today in these pieces and they run the gamut.
One piece talks about all of Newt's baggage that you have forgotten or that you don't any longer care about, but that these professional media people, it's their business, they haven't forgotten and they have to remember it.
And it'll be a disaster if he wins.
And it'll be a disaster if he wins the White House.
It'll be a disaster for everybody.
And I'm thinking, versus Obama, which is really what it cuts down to.
I'd rather have Newt in there than Obama.
I'd rather have Romney in there than Obama.
I would rather have Ron Paul in there than Obama.
I would rather have any of these people in there than Obama.
What are we talking about?
Do we want to become Europe?
You know, the only reason Europe's being propped up, folks, and that is an entirely interesting story in and of itself, what's happening in Europe, Europe is right before our very eyes, socialism failing on a grand scale yet again.
Everything Paul Krugman and Thomas Lupe Friedman, New York Times, everything they hold dear is failing right before their very eyes in our very eyes.
But they can't allow that because that's Obama.
So Europe has to be propped up by the IMF.
Europe has to be propped up by Germany.
Europe has to be propped up by us somehow.
Europe has to be propped up by Obama at least through the next election.
Everything has to be propped up artificially, anything in order to protect Obama's reelection bid, pure and simple.
George Will, I mentioned this, George Will has called Newt a Marxist.
Fine, he can do what he wants, but I don't recall him ever calling Obama a Marxist.
So there's a huge effort out there today, and it's not just today.
Of course, it's been building.
It was Herman Kaine before Newt.
It was Rick Perry when he came out strong.
This effort's been directed at Michelle Bachman, and it is essentially an attack on conservatives.
It is conservatives that nobody in the establishment inside the beltway appears to want.
Republicans and Democrats alike really apparently do not want genuine conservatives winning elections at the upper levels of the Republican Party.
Now, an interesting adjunct to this, if you'll recall, I, and I alone, I believe, El Rushbo, long ago predicted to you or opined that the Occupy Wall Street movement was a creation of the regimes because Romney is perceived as Wall Street.
Occupy Wall Street, and they want Romney, and they assume they're going to be running against Romney.
And who could blame them?
I mean, if you're the Obama regime and you take a look at conservative media today, you would have to assume that the Republican Party also wants Romney.
Okay, so it's inevitable.
So you gear up for Romney.
And if you, and Obama's out in Ossawatomi, Kansas today, trying to redo Teddy Roosevelt in 2010, trying to expand on this whole class warfare business, if you're going to run against the 1% and the 1% equals Wall Street, you need a candidate that you can tie to Wall Street, i.e. Romney.
Romney's out there talking about, I've been assessing the private sector.
I know these things.
I've built and run businesses.
I saved the Olympics.
I did all of these things.
Bain Capital.
So they got their Wall Street guy.
Made the order.
Then all of a sudden, look what's happening.
Here comes Newt.
Or before him, here came Herman.
Prior to him, here came Perry, whoever it was.
But none of these guys, Michelle Bachman included, can be as tied to Wall Street as can Mitt Romney.
So I have here, I'm over my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, a story from the Washington Post today.
It is by Peter Walson and Ann E. Kornbloot.
It's actually published on December 4th.
Newt Gingrich, let me give the headline.
Some Democrat strategerists worry about Gingrich's potential appeal.
Some Democrat strategerists, okay, now stick with me on this.
Newt Gingrich would be such a weak challenger to President Obama, according to Barney Frank, that his nomination would be the best thing that happened to Democrats since Barry Goldwater.
Democrat strategerist Jim Jordan says that he and others in the party passionately want to face Gingrich.
And from the right, conservative pundit Ann Coulter is warning fellow Republicans, the former House Speaker's past extramarital affairs and other baggage make him a far less formidable nominee than Romney.
But, but, paragraph three here.
Even as Gingrich's sudden rise has filled many Obama supporters with cheer and some Republicans with dread, some Democrat strategerists worry that the combative Gingrich presents some challenges for the Obama regime that would not exist if Romney were the candidate.
Where Romney, the former business executive and Massachusetts governor, poses a threat in his ability to win independence and conservative Democrats attracted to his wait a minute, Obama's given up on the conservative Democrats.
Conservative Democrats are the white working-class families that Obama has abandoned.
So we're going to pick those people up no matter who the nominee is.
That was eight days ago in the New York Times.
A piece by Thomas B. Edsall that the regime is just, they're abandoning the votes of white working class families.
That would be these white conservative Democrats.
They say here that Gingrich could pursue a strategy that combines energizing the conservative base and chipping away Democrat support among Hispanics.
Some Democrats believe that Gingrich, a hero of the conservative movement, comma, would excite the party base far more than a former liberal state governor with a history of centrist views.
That'd be Romney.
And voters yearning for authenticity may be more open to the voluble and rumpled former House Speaker who frequently discusses his past mistakes and his recent conversion to Catholicism.
But here is the money paragraph.
One Democrat strategerist working in the Obama re-election effort, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said, Newt does not carry Wall Street baggage.
He's really smart.
He's definitely authentic.
And there you have the fear.
Occupy Wall Street.
By the way, Dana Milbank in the Washington Post today officially calls Occupy Wall Street a failure as a movement.
Newt does not carry Wall Street baggage.
He's really smart.
He's definitely, well, it is an amazing phrase, but it is indicative of where the Obama campaign is headed.
He does not carry Wall Street baggage.
Well, who does?
In their mind, Romney.
Obama's out in Osawatomi, Kansas today, when he starts talking about everybody paying their fair share and all that.
That's aimed at Wall Street people.
That's aimed at the 1%, this mythical, magical group of hated Americans that we've got to screw to get even with.
Here's what I said.
Let's go back to October 6th on this show.
This is what I said about Occupy Wall Street and the presidential race.
I think, folks, the regime wants to run against Mitt Romney.
That's what I think.
Here's what I'm thinking.
When do you think these astroturf protests were first talked about?
This Occupy Wall Street thing.
How long have they been in the works, do you think?
I have been asking myself this, because this is not spontaneous eruption here.
This is a well-thought-out plan.
Right.
And it was aimed at Romney.
Romney equals Wall Street.
Occupy Wall Street is damned.
And now in this Washington Post story, Newt doesn't carry Wall Street baggage.
And this guy's speaking on the condition of anonymity.
He doesn't want anybody to know who he is because he's given up the ghost here.
And he doesn't want it coming back to him.
Newt's really smart, definitely authentic.
He doesn't carry Wall Street baggage.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
So while the main thrust of the story is that Democrat strategists are ecstatic, can't wait to run against Newt because he's such a goofball.
He's had so many affairs.
He's so uncontrollable.
Sold Bill Clinton.
I mean, let's be honest here, folks.
If we're going to categorize Gingrich this way, can we categorize Bill Clinton as undisciplined?
That wasn't a problem for anybody.
Anyway, doesn't carry Wall Street baggage.
There you have it.
And you couple this with all of the attacks on Newt from the Republican side today.
And to me, it's perfectly clear what's happening here.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
And the fastest weekend meeting here is already Tuesday.
Well, it ought to be Tuesday.
When it's Tuesday, it doesn't really seem like things are going that fast.
So never mind.
How about this?
Even as John Corzine's MF Global was collapsing, a firm that includes former President Clinton in a senior post was raking in huge fees for public relations and financial advice.
Clinton was part of a company called Teneo Holdings or Teneo, T-E-N-E-O.
He was the CEO, the chief executive, something or other.
And this outfit that Clinton was the head of was getting $50,000 a month on a retainer from Corzine.
Because Corzine said he wanted access to Clinton's political family.
Sort of like saying you want to be in with the Gambino bunch or the Lucchese mob.
He wants to be a made guy.
Corzine wants to be let in, wants to do the whole blood transfer thing.
So 50 grand to Clinton's group for PR.
How did that work out for him?
Financial advice.
How did that work out for him?
Doesn't Bill Clinton have a can I turn this line?
You liberals like this a lot.
Doesn't Bill Clinton have enough money?
He's always bragging about how much money he makes and how much taxes he pays and how he's eager and willing to pay even more taxes.
And Hillary Clinton does the same thing.
Doesn't Bill Clinton have enough money?
What in the world is he doing?
Taking $50,000 from John Corzine's company, a company which, by the way, filed for bankruptcy, went belly up and co-mingled client money with company money trying to cover losses.
And now all of that money that belonged to individuals is gone.
And yet Bill Clinton got 50 grand a month out of this operation.
Now, where is anybody upset about the appearance of impropriety here?
All we're hearing about today is what a rotten SOB Newt Gingrich is.
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
Well, you can talk about Clinton all you want, but if we all know Gingrich was involved with Fannie May or Freddie Mackerel 102 and took millions of dollars for historian lobbying purposes.
Okay, fine.
Then we can ask another salient question.
What is it with politicians who want to constantly put their hand in the public cookie jar and pull out more for themselves?
Why not when you can get away with it?
But this is precisely what happens when people have power for too long.
They get financially incestuous.
They pass money around for fake services.
There's no way Bill Clinton's firm was doing PR for Corzine.
If they were, they need to be sued.
There's no way Clinton's firm was offering financial advice.
If they were, they really need to be sued because look what happened to Corzine's company.
Some of the worst PR, some of the worst financial maneuvers in the history of financial maneuvers.
And now we get news that Clinton was being paid $50,000 a month for giving good advice.
The relationship was controversial with an MF Global even before the company's financial problems hit the news as executives questioned why an outside firm, Clinton's, was needed for work that had long been done in-house.
No, no, no.
I'm not through with this Clinton-Corzine business.
If John Corzine were a Republican, what do you think would be happening to him about right now?
If John Corzine were a Republican, what would the relevance of this story be in the drive-by media?
You've got a miniature version of Bernie Madoff here.
In addition to that, the New York Post in their story on this does say that Clinton's outfit that was on the $50,000 return.
By the way, Clinton's outfit at first demanded $200,000 a month.
But Corzine put his foot down, said, nope, I'm only going to pay you $50,000 for your expertise.
New York Post says that Clinton's outfit actually did give Corzine advice on European financial investments.
What did MF, whatever it is, MF Global.
I get so distracted by the MF, I got to be real careful.
MF Global, the reason they went belly up is that Corzine invested, he shorted, no, he went long, I think, on European bonds.
Yeah, with investors' money and no collateral to back it up.
And the New York Post says that Corzine did get this kind of advice on European financial investments from Clinton's group.
So Corzine, in addition to commingling clients' money, out of that client money, gave Clinton 50 grand a month.
And Clinton's firm is advising him to do exactly what he did, which led to the bankruptcy.
And now everybody on Clinton's side wrote, hey, you know what, me.
I mean, John would just, he just looked for some help out there.
We're doing whatever we can.
It's incestuous.
These people pass other people's money around for fake services, PR, financial advice, whatever, from their stashes gotten through taxes or fake financial companies.
Another MF employee told the New York Post that the outfit, Clinton's bunch originally wanted $200,000 a month for its work, but that was too steep a price for MF decision makers.
So Clinton's outfit served as a personal PR firm and political consultant for then MF Global CEO Corzine, the former governor and senator from New Jersey, also offered advice, as I just recently mentioned, on European financial investments, like the ones that ultimately led to their collapse in October.
You know, this would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that here again, a number of totally innocent investors lost everything.
Once again, at the hands of a bunch of Democrats.
MF is now bankrupt.
It's the subject of investigations by federal prosecutors and regulators, and it isn't going to go anywhere because federal prosecutors and investigators work for the regime.
It's like saying Fidel Castro is going to investigate his brother and put him in jail.
It isn't going to happen.
Corzine himself has been subpoenaed to testify this week before the House Agriculture Committee, one of several congressional committees examining the company's failure, the biggest bankruptcy since the Lehman Brothers crash.
Corazine and MF Global declined comment about the Clinton deal, as did execs with the Clinton firm.
Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna said President Clinton does not advise clients on the firm's behalf.
Clinton does make money from the firm, but he has declined to disclose the sum.
Okay, so they're admitting that some of the 50 grand ends up in Clinton's bank, but doesn't Bill Clinton have enough money, Democrats?
Doesn't Bill Clinton have enough money, my good friends on the left?
Why does he have to keep sticking his beak in every Democrat operation?
What's he running, a protection racket?
I mean, Corzine said he wanted an inn with the Clinton political family.
What are we talking about here?
I'm sure Bob Torricelli would love to have an inn with the Clinton political family, but it didn't work.
And I'm sure at one time, Andrew Kumo would love to have had an inn with the Clinton family.
Corzine's ties to Clinton's firm are not so much the result of his relationship with Clinton as one of the firm's top executives, Tom Shea, according to sources.
So that's that.
On October 25th of 2011, MF Global reported a $191.6 million quarterly loss as a result of trading on European government bonds.
And that's what caused them to go chapter 11.
Now, there's a companion story here.
And it's the Chevrolet Vault.
And this is, again, you know, ladies and gentlemen, talking about this Volt business makes me very nervous because just as this phrase that was in the Washington Post story about Newt, he does not carry Wall Street baggage.
You know, that's you could substitute something and you could have that phrase read, he does not carry American baggage.
You know, Wall Street's America.
And so here you've got a Democrat strategist saying of Newt, yeah, he doesn't carry Wall Street baggage.
So Obama's making it clear running against America.
They're running against American traditions, institutions, trying to defile them as corrupt.
And Newt gives them a problem because they can't tie Newt to Wall Street.
Well, you know, the Chevy Volt has got all kinds of problems.
First, nobody wants to buy any.
The regime, the GM, owned by the regime, what'd they project?
10,000 sales, and they've sold about 1,100 of them, something like that.
I forgot the number.
And they're all bought with other people's money.
Every purchase is subsidized.
Now they've got battery problems.
The cars are supposedly catching fire because of the batteries.
GM has got it.
I am not comfortable reporting them.
I mean, this is, you know, you don't want to.
No, they're rethinking the buyback.
If you just stick with me on this, everything you think you know has changed about this.
Yes, yes, yes.
First, from what is this website called Autoguide.com.
Chevrolet Volt battery issues, growing.
Safety findings may have been suppressed.
Following on from the announcement that GM is looking at redesigning the Chevrolet Volts lithium-ion battery system in the wake of several highly publicized fires resulting from test crashes.
You know, NBC didn't even do the test crashes.
Normally, NBC does that for their documentary shows, but they didn't even do that.
The government did that.
Now comes further news that both General Motors and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration delayed disclosure of their original findings of the safety problems with the car by months.
Well, the regime runs General Motors and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
And this assertion is that General Motors and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suppressed findings about the dangers posed by the car for months.
Apparently, way back in June, now, my point here is, is that Corzine, this idiot, who in the world would invest long on European bonds in this, well, they had to think, they had to think the government was going to bail him out.
Nobody goes long on European bonds back in October, September for crying out loud.
The Italians can't pay their bonds.
They've come to maturity.
That's one of the problems here.
And furthermore, Corzine taking advice from Clinton's firm on doing just that.
So in going long on European bonds at MF Global is like the government investigating the vault.
They hide the results.
They hide the dangers from people.
You know, it's almost on a par with the government investing in this thing.
And again, they did, Deb's right.
They tried to bring Toyota to their knees over this kind of all these, remember all these phony baloney accelerator stick stories with these yokels getting in the Toyotas and driving into concrete abutments because the accelerator stuck?
Turns out that was all made up.
At any rate, way back in June, General Motors heard about a vault fire that happened three weeks after the vehicle was crash tested.
Yet it wasn't until November that the company nor the National Highway Bunch disclosed that there was a potential problem.
So they knew in June, they didn't tell anybody till November.
All that while they're selling the car, or trying to.
They were urging dealers and customers to drain the battery pack immediately following an accident.
So if you're into one of these things and you have an accident, the first thing, if you're conscious that you have to do is go drain the battery pack.
Or the first responders have to be trained to do this.
Now, why?
Would this, why not tell people of the dangers that you have discovered?
Because it would hurt the president's green energy push.
It was because they didn't want this kind of news coming out along with the Cylindra stuff and all the fraud going on in the solar energy business.
Would it hurt his re-election chances?
Why the cover-up?
People's lives were threatened here.
Oh, by the way, Newt Gingrich is scum.
That's in the Republican media day.
Meanwhile, all this is going on, and we're being told what a bunch of rot guts our candidates are.
All this stuff is happening.
Clinton advising Corzine, Corazine's firm going belly up, customers losing 80% of what they got, if not everything.
Clinton getting $50,000 a month as a retainer because Corzine wants an entree to Clinton's political family.
we find out that the regime, General Motors, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Outfit discovered there's a potential for fires from the battery in a vault back in June.
They don't tell anybody until November.
Meanwhile, what you and I are supposed to take away today is that Newt Gingrich is unfit for office.
See how this works.
As a result, the public relations nightmare surrounding Chevy's Halo vehicle appears to be deepening, though a good deal of blame in this case also rests with the National Highway Traffic Safety.
That's the regime.
The regime is the Chevy Volt.
The regime is GM.
The regime is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
That would be Obama.
Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, believes part of the reason for the delay in telling people about the danger was the fragility of vault sales.
Exactly.
Now, if you have a company and you sell a product that causes fires, the regime will try to shut you down.
If the regime has a product that causes fires, they won't tell you so that you will continue to buy it.
That's what we come away with here.
And we have now a former administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Joan Claybrook, saying so.
Yet it says here that she also believes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could have put out a consumer alert not to tell the customers for six months.
Makes no sense to me, she said.
Note, she is a former administrator.
She's not there anymore.
So Obama's precious vault sales might be hurt if a safety issue is not suppressed.
What kind of a deal is that?
So these cars pose a potential safety risk, but we're not going to tell you that because it might hurt sales.
This would happen when the regime runs businesses.
What happened when government runs businesses?
Yeah, I got to take a break.
Be back after this, folks.
Sit tight.
You know, the left is constantly out there trying to convince people that every big industry and corporation in America is trying to kill its customers.
Big oil is trying to pollute the world and destroy it.
Every outfit out there is trying to pollute the water in the air, and the Republicans like dirty water and dirt air and so forth.
And now, isn't it ironic, we finally have a corporation that's trying to kill its customers?
There's no outrage about it.
Snerdley, did you think maybe when Clinton was asked to join MF Global, he thought it was BJ Global?
What could explain this?
Let me grab a phone call.
We'll go to Dumfries, Virginia.
This is Angela.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Rest 24-7 Dittos.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
Tell Mr. Snergly that he said he'd been to Dumfries, Virginia.
Well, I was at Hamburger Heaven last year with my family there in Palm Beach.
Really?
You went to Hamburger Heaven?
I did.
I enjoyed it.
My husband liked the sweet potato french fries.
Hamburger Heaven, for those of you who have never been here, is the one affordable restaurant in town.
I'm just kidding.
Town Council didn't want to actually grant it permission under the belief that Palm Beechers don't eat hamburgers.
Oh, well, no, this is very.
Just kidding about that, too.
I just love harassing the people in power.
Anyway, Angela, I'm sure you liked Hamburger Heaven.
It's a great place.
It really is.
Well, I just, I want to ask you, how is it that people that we trust all year long, all during the last election, people that we trust like Britt Hume, and you're telling us now that we're not supposed to trust them because they don't think that, well, Britt Hume said last night that he think that Newt Gingrich would blow it.
He's not disciplined.
Now, I'm glad.
See, I didn't mention any names here on purpose.
Okay, well, I'll just tell you that Britt Hume, Britt Hume was not on my radar when I made the comments.
However, I do have the soundbite here from Britt Hume that you're talking about.
Where Britt Hume pretty much says that he sticks with the establishment conventional wisdom that Newt can't win.
Well, also.
Now, I know, but wait, you've got a good question.
Because you watch Fox all year.
You've watched Fox since the inception, and you trust Britt Hume.
I do trust Britt Hume.
And Britt Hume told you last night that Newt can't win.
And now you turn this program on today, and you're hearing me saying something that's different, and you are understandably confused.
Well, I'm not saying that I'm confused.
I'm wondering if you're confused.
I have not heard Newt Gingrich say, I have not heard Newt Gingrich say that he would repeal Obamacare, and that's to me the only thing that I care about.
I love this.
Obama losing, and he repealed Obamacare.
And I haven't heard him say those two things.
And I want to win.
I don't want to lose.
What if everyone is right and you're wrong?
And I know you're right, 99.6% of the world.
Yeah, that's an important thing to remember.
I want to win.
I don't want to lose.
All right.
I tell you what, I got a time constraint problem here, Angela, and I'm going to let you go.
But I'm going to answer this the first thing in the first segment next hour.
I'm going to answer you as best I can.
And what if I'm wrong?
You have guts.
You have guts.
You're not confused.
You wonder if I am.
All right, now, Angela, I need to remind you here again, there's a setup for what's coming.
I've not endorsed Newt Gingrich.
I've not endorsed anybody.
But chastising our side for political intra-party cannibalism is not an endorsement.
So he wants to know, what if I'm wrong about what if Britt Hume and the establishment are right?
What if Newt can't win?
▲
Export Selection