All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:47
January 9, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What did I tell you we were up to?
Sound by 33.
Yeah, because we just did number seven.
That's right.
Okay, it says MA33.
And also have numbers numbers eight and nine standing by eight, nine and ten.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limboy.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Serving humanity simply by being here and executing a signed host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
I just got a note from Newt Gingrich that said Todd Palin had called him and was going to endorse him as a populist reformer.
I said, okay, well, cool.
Shortly after that, I went to the Drudge Report, and there it is.
It's an ABC story.
Todd Palin endorses Newt.
Sarah Palin's husband is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.
Todd Palin told ABC News today.
But Sarah Palin has yet to decide.
According to Todd, Todd says, I don't know what Sarah's doing.
She has yet to decide who's best able to go up against Barack Obama.
Todd Palin said that he believes being in the political trenches and experiencing the highs and the lows help prepare a candidate for the future and the job of president.
Now Newt's note to me said that Todd Palin told him he was going to endorse him because as a populist reformer.
Okay, so that's out there.
I don't know what, if any weight uh that that is going to carry.
But it is out there.
I also mentioned at the on the first hour of the program, we have this uh story that uh Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney says he'll be able to work with the Democrats as presidents.
Here we go again, here we go.
Here we go.
Where does this come from?
I said this.
I came from the debate on Sunday with a Democrat party hack David Gregory disguised as an NBC moderator.
And so I've got the soundbite uh here on this.
It's uh David Gregory said, anybody, oh, but set this up.
What had happened was this this makes this even better.
Dingy Harry.
You know, I'm folks, I I know I I talk until I'm blue in the face, and you're probably sick and tired of hearing it.
Well, I'm sorry, I I can't let it go.
I can't say it enough.
We've got this Gallup poll out today that 40% record-high 40% of Americans say that they were independents in 2011.
Now you know, as well as I know that the Republicans fall for this stupid notion that any criticism of Obama will not be tolerated by the independents.
Any criticism of Obama, any bickering at all, any partisanship at all, these independents are gonna say the hell with you, and they're gonna make tracks back to the Democrat Party.
And so the Republicans put out warnings to their candidates.
Do not attack Obama, only attack Obama's policies.
Do not be critical of Obama.
He is personally loved and popular and so forth and so on.
Okay, so what we have.
The end of all this, we put ourselves in a straitjacket.
The media, the Democrats tell us, tell our Republican elites, you criticize Obama.
If you get personal, if you start getting partisan, these independents, they don't want to, they want us to get along.
They want us to work together.
And if you make it sound like you only want to do is beat Obama, then you've had the independence going to be running right back to him.
Never mind what the independents did in 2013 midterms, and never mind this.
That the prelude to Gregory's question was a quote from Dingy Harry saying, whoever the Republicans nominate, if he happens to win, he's gonna be a one-termer.
There's no way I'm working with him.
Harry Reid said, not only am I not going to work with a Republican president, I'm gonna be working against him.
Okay.
That's the premise in the question that the Democrat Party hacked David Gregory asked Romney and all the other Republicans at the debate on Sunday morning and meet the depressed.
So here you have, I can't contrast this enough, the Democrat majority leader in the Senate, apparently not worried that the independents will go running back to the Republicans when he says he doesn't want to work together.
Dingy Harry, not only does he not say that he wants to work together, he says, I'm going to work against the Republican president if there is one.
And the independents apparently applaud that.
But when our candidate makes sounds like, no, I don't want to work together with these guys, the independents run to the Democrats.
So, where are we?
David Gregory says to the panel at the debate yesterday morning, anybody have a point of view here about how you actually work with the other side when the other side is committed to working against you.
So Gregory is telling all of our Republican nominees, look, Harry Reed says he's going to work against you, has no desire to work with you.
So how are you actually going to work with the other side when they have no interest in working with you?
Governor, he asked of Romney, and here's Romney's answer.
My legislature was 85% Democrat.
And I went around at the very beginning of having been elected and met with the Speaker of the House and the Senate president.
We got to know each other personally.
We developed a relationship of respect and rapport, even though we disagreed on a lot of issues.
We can work together, Republicans and Democrats are able to go across the aisle because we really do have areas of common interest.
I have proven in a state that is very Democratic, that I'm able to work with people, 19 tax cuts, uh, protected charter schools, drove our schools to be number one in the nation, kept them there, rather.
That record can work with Republicans and Democrats who are willing to work together.
Little dead air there, never hurt anybody.
Do you see why?
I was gonna say, do you see why this just irritates me to know when?
Of course you do.
It irritates you too.
Where?
That what where does that answer come from?
Where does where has it been win this campaign?
Where has it been written that the American people, the voters, Republican voters?
This is a primary folks.
Where has it been established that Republican voters seek a nominee who can work with the other side?
This is what leads the Republican Party to continue to nominate people that lose.
This is not what the people of this country want.
The people of this country and a majority of them look at the Democrats, i.e., those on the other side as people who have destroyed this economy.
I this is the most profound such statement so far in this campaign.
This was a 35-second answer on how I worked with the other side in Massachusetts and how we can get along and how we should get along and how I'm the guy to do it.
And don't forget the premise of the question is so how are you gonna work with the other side when they have committed to working against you?
Now, another question is when Harry Reid says, I don't want to work with these guys, the Republicans, I'm gonna be working against them.
How come nobody jumps in his chili?
How come nobody gets on his case for not being cooperative, for not being bipartisan?
Why isn't he criticized?
I I cannot believe how predictably and easily Republicans fall for this.
And I know why it's they are obsessed with the media, folks.
Republican elite establishment, whatever you want to call them, obsessed with favorable coverage from the media.
They are obsessed with at the end of this debate having the media praise them.
Yeah.
Harry Reid sounded like he's hellbent on making sure Republican nominee failed.
How about that?
Here's Dan Radder.
This is this is um he was, where was his uh CNN's newsroom last night.
Dan Redder about a week, you know, works at HDNet as a show called Dan Rather Reports.
And he he runs around and he does stories on how wood shavings imperil union workers at um timber factories and Oshkosh, such stuff, and asked him about the presidential race, and along the lines with, you know, Donna Brazil said that uh, oh, we want grab that again, grab number seven again.
If you're just joining us, you've got to hear this is Saturday night after the ABC debate.
Democrat strategist Donna Brazil is on with Stephanopoulos and their senior political correspondent John Carla have this exchange about who won the Republican debate and why.
Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him.
And for Democrats, you know what?
It was good news for us.
Why is that?
Because we believe that the weakest candidate is a candidate that the Republicans are not attacking, and that's Mitt Romney.
Oh, come on.
No, you don't believe that, Doc.
No, you don't believe that.
That's Stephan Opposite.
Donald, shut up.
You don't believe that, Donnie.
You don't, Donald, you don't let the cat out of the bag like that.
I'll tell you something else.
Bain Capitol is going to become the new Halliburton.
If Romney gets the nomination.
Newt's already trying to turn it into that.
Newt's already that's which I think is a mistake, but that's for another time.
Bain Capitol will become the new Halliburton.
That's it's so predictable.
This is all in the cards.
So here's Rather.
And this is another, it makes news when Rather says it, of course.
I have been saying it for a year.
I think he's the underdog, uh, not the underdog by much.
If the election were held today, uh, depending on who the Republicans dominate, of course, uh, I think he might very well lose in a close election.
His chances have been buoyed just in the last few days.
The unemployment figures are still terrible, but at least they are now headed down.
And Dan Blather saying that Obama would lose if the election were today.
And as you people well know, I have been saying this for a year.
And uh Gallup has information about Obama's standing in addition to this poll that 40% of the American voters are now independents.
Obama approval disapproval.
Gallup, 42% approve, 49 disapprove.
Among white people, Obama is down to 35% approval.
In 2008, he had 43% of the white vote.
Among Hispanic people, Obama's at 46%, down from 67%.
By age group, Obama is at 47% approval among voters under 30.
In 2008, he got 66% of their vote, but now he's at 47.
I mean, he's plummeting, folks.
He has been in a downward spiral for two years.
And it continues.
And he would lose not in a close election, but in a land slide if the election were today.
Make no mistake about it.
Of this, I am as confident as anything.
I know it's not reflected anywhere else in the media, and it's not reflected too many other places in conservative media.
But I'm telling you, he's toast.
Just as Jimmy Carter was toast.
And nobody knew it until election night.
Among voters 65 and older, Obama at 41%.
He was at 47%, got 47% of their vote in 2008.
In the East, Obama's approval at 52%.
But in the South, the West, and the Midwest, he's at 40%.
Now the Republican elite happens to be in the East, so they see the 52%.
They live among the 52%.
The Republican elite live among people who love Obama.
Media and Democrats.
They have an entirely distorted view Of life outside the Eastern Seaboard.
They do.
It's no it's it's no more complicated than that in terms of explaining this.
And not only do they have a distorted view of life outside Eastern Seaboard, they also have, like a lot of Democrat elites, some resentment for people who live outside the Eastern Seaboard.
They're not as cultured.
There are still, for example, Republican women who will not marry men west of the Hudson River.
Don't doubt me.
I am.
I'm a voice in the wilderness here on this whole Obama is land slidable business.
I was a voice in the wilderness among Steelers fans on Sunday versus the Tebow's.
I was right about that.
And if the election were today, it would be a landslide loss.
Well, let me define landslides.
Five or five or seven points.
It'd be big.
It would be huge.
These people that are doing the polling have no idea of the voter enthusiasm of the anti-Obama ranks out there.
No idea whatsoever.
They think that you are getting dispirited.
They think that the Republican primary fight is boring you and depressing you, and they think a lot of you can be uh inspired to sit home and not vote because you don't have a prayer.
You don't think they they they think they think they can create that mindset in you.
That's what they're banking on.
I happen to know that that isn't gonna work.
Uh way too many people who love this country way too much.
That isn't going to happen.
Now let's go to the phones.
People is always patiently waiting, starting in Portland, Oregon.
It says, Sarah, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Sarah, hello, testing one two three, are you there?
Hello?
This is not Sarah.
Let's move on to somebody else.
Yes, I'm here.
Oh, you are Sarah?
Yes.
What were you doing?
I'm sorry, I was on the phone on my cell phone with my son, but okay, I'm off the phone with him, and um I'm with you.
Well, how did you know I was uh trying to get to you if you're on the phone with your son?
Well, because I had the other phone up to my ear, too, but it was a little bit further away from my air.
Oh, so using two phones at the same time.
Well Yeah, pretty nifty.
That's how important your son is to you.
Okay, I appreciate that.
Yeah, he is.
And he's a rush baby.
I totally understand that too.
But um I gotta tell you, we did we disagree with you on a few things.
You and your son?
Pardon me.
You and your son disagree with me?
Yes.
Okay.
And you know, Rush, I want to bring this to your attention right off the bat.
Okay.
Um, you know, he was with some friends uh this weekend watching uh a game, and um they one of the guys asked him about started to ask him about um what he thought of Ron Paul.
Yeah.
And my son goes, oh no, not this again.
And then what it turned out was all of them are supporting him.
Some have left the Democrat Party, and um they're in the Republican Party now.
And I'm just I'm bringing this to the attention of you and whoever else wants to pay attention to it because this is serious.
You know, I we believe and seriously believe that he is the only one who's proposing real cuts.
And uh not wanting to start another war does not make him an isolationist.
He's the one who who believes in free trade.
And, you know, all the other candidates, I'm sorry to say, um, whether it's Newt or Met, and I know you're right about Mitt, they want him to go up against Obama because they know he won't win.
But neither will any of those other guys.
If one of them does Ron Paul, uh uh.
I mean, of all the people on our side who have the least chance.
Well, that's where you're wrong.
There are Democrats who like him, there's um there is independents who like him, and there's Republicans.
You can't say that about any other candidate.
Uh he doesn't have enough Republicans to secure because people like you victory saying ridiculous things about him that aren't true.
Like Oh, like calling him an isolationist.
I don't think I ever have called him an isolation.
I think you're reading from a script.
I've never called him an isolation.
Let me ask you a question.
No, I haven't.
I don't the word's not at the forefront of my lexicon.
I don't I don't use it because it's it doesn't say enough to.
Like what?
Do you think 9-11 was America's fault?
Ron Paul does.
No, he's not saying that.
You know what?
I understand what he's talking about.
When I first heard that, I I felt the same way you did.
I got that knee-jerk reaction.
It's not knee-jerk.
We are so mixed up with the Middle East everywhere over there.
Right.
And that is what he's talking about.
People how is that?
You think the Iranians should get a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against us?
Why?
How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?
Uh well, it's you know we wouldn't like it.
We would not like it.
Well, a country isn't, but an idea is, and Ron Paul doesn't think it's a problem.
Doesn't think what's the problem?
The idea that is trying to wipe us out.
That's not true at all.
Militant Islam.
He's content for them to get nuclear weapons.
No, no, see, there you go.
You're saying things that are.
I'm just telling you what he says.
I'm just telling you what he says.
Do you know what my friend from Cuba says?
That when that Patriot Act um was passed.
All right.
I I was for that.
And he said no.
That is not good.
And he's a good idea.
Now you're gonna quote a stands what's going on here.
We're losing our civil liberties.
And nobody seems to understand that.
Come on.
You're not your son's not a rush baby.
You're a liberal Democrat.
You want Paul getting you're trying to sabotage us.
By the way, who um who is attacking Iran anyway?
Uh caller said, hey, you know, if you were Iran and you were being attacked, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon?
In fact, Ron Paul has said, if I was a quote, Ron Paul has said, if I were an Iranian, I'd like to have a nuclear weapon, too.
Because you gain respect from them.
Well, I don't know who's attacking Iran.
But I do know that Ron Paul has suggested that uh we deserve it.
The nine eleven.
We brought it on ourselves.
By supporting Israel and meddling in those people's lives over there, we brought it all.
We gotta understand it.
We're responsible for this stuff.
Anyway, how are you doing, folks?
Uh great to have you here.
As we kick off brand new week of broadcast excellence, Snurdly apologizing uh for that call.
It's a ten dollar fine, but I'm gonna start instituting financial fines on you.
Uh you've been doing this twenty-three plus you ought to be able to spot these people from from from from um uh larger, longer distance now, farther distant.
What did she say?
She's okay.
Okay.
Yeah, what Snerdley says, the way he got snookered here was that she said to him that she wanted to ask me who I thought the best candidate to beat Obama was.
And uh Snerdley, of course, is oriented toward all callers, making the host look good.
So he using that rubric, well, it's uh you know, Rush might rand slam with this.
Okay, hang on, and puts her on hold.
And uh then she immediately gets on the phone with her supposed rush baby son, and okay, I'm in, I'm in, I'm in.
Now what am I doing?
That's what was going on out there.
While uh while she was on hold.
But anyway, I th I think Ron Paul ought to run for president of Iran.
I I think he ought to uh just enter the fray over there, make his case to the mullahs, and say, look, I can do better job than Ahmadini Zad's doing for you.
Uh Rich in White Plains, New York.
Welcome to EIB.
How are you, sir?
Good rush.
Um yeah, that woman was giving me a headache too, uh or starting to anyway.
Right.
Um let me get let me get through the requisite.
You're the best, Rush, because that's what I had to do.
No, that's not true.
Um Rush, I watched every single debate so far, every minute of every debate.
you're better than I am.
Uh, can we safely say that when at these debates the biggest applause comes when the candidates are sticking it to the moderators that it is an indictment on how terrible the drive-by lame stream media really is.
I mean, I don't think I've witnessed more consistency than I have with that fact I just stated.
And I was watching Fox and Friends this morning, and they showed that the uh dust up between Romney and Stephanopoulis that led to Stephanopoulos almost getting booed right out of the auditory.
Was this over the contraception business?
Yeah, it was the contraception business.
Yeah, let me f we've got that.
Let me let me find it here, because since you brought it up, it's I've got it here in the soundbite roster, but now I've got to find it.
They wouldn't show it.
They didn't show the part where the audience rebelled.
Yeah.
I I I didn't see debate.
I read about it.
And my my first reaction when I read this was what the hell?
You know, this is a this is what they tried to sink Robert Bork with at his confirmation hearings, the Griswold case in Connecticut about contrast.
What the hell kind of question is this?
Where did this come from?
And of course, I know the answer to it is that what Stephanopoulos was doing was simply trying to interject social issues in this to take up the heat away from Obama.
He doesn't want the candidates talking about the economy and how Obama's destroyed it and how he's incompetent, uh, his policies are horrible and rotten and dooming the country to a poor economic performance for as long as Obama.
So let's go to the social issues.
And let's go out, let's portray these people as a bunch of Nazis.
And this and this time Rush, it wasn't Newt who had to go after.
Now there's dissension uh uh with the uh drive-by media with other candidates.
Well, there ought to be.
I I I've but I I know what's happening with the media.
Uh and I I've told you once, folks, I am largely responsible for this.
I am largely responsible for the fact that their monopoly no longer exists.
And since their monopoly no longer exists, their ability to have this pretense that their objective is long gone.
They can't make that pretense anymore.
There is no doubt now that there is no objectivity in the media.
There's no doubt that they are liberals, that they're Democrats, and that they are part of the Democrat Party.
There's no doubt now that their role is to further the Democrat Party agenda and to elect Democrat candidates, particularly nationally, and uh House and Senate race.
There's no question that that's their role.
Now, they were able to hide that and cover that when they had their monopoly.
But now there's all kinds of alternative media out there, and they have had to change their stripes and colors because it's more competitive now.
They face competition in terms of the agenda.
They it it's not competition for audience.
It's not competition for ratings, although there is that pressure.
The competition they sense is in the arena of ideas and which ideas are going to triumph.
And so as a result of the monopoly no longer existing, they have cast aside all the masks and all the camouflage.
And this is what leads people to ask why do our guys continue to go on debates hosted by these people?
Why?
There are plenty of other places that our guys could go to set up their own debates with their own moderators that would have as the primary purpose to elicit their ideas.
Not where they would be treated as suspects and be forced into areas of distraction.
Like this silly question and contraception.
There isn't a state that bans contraception.
It's a non-issue.
And it was asked by George Stephanopoulos, who's not a journalist.
He's a Bill Clinton political hack.
He was one half of the Clinton war room.
He's not a journalist.
There's not even a pretense of it anywhere.
He's a Democrat political hack.
And he gets away with being able to operate in the guise of being a journalist.
And of course, along with that comes the notion he's objective and fair and just interested in the truth or whatever ambiguous objective they claim to be interested in.
That's not at all what this is.
So this is why.
Many people, many of our voters say, why do you keep doing these CNN and ABC and MSNBC debates?
Of course, our people say, well, it's good that they do, because this is a good training ground.
It's a good proving ground, because this is what's going to be like once they're elected president.
Well, that may be true, but the idea is to get elected.
And there are better ways to get your ideas out.
There are better ways to make your case than to be in prison thinking that we still have to do it by way of the mainstream media.
But I'm telling you, we have way too many people on our side in the upper reaches of our ruling class of our elites who think that we're going to somehow have to make our case favorably in the mainstream media.
We're going to have to do it in such a way that they don't criticize us, otherwise we don't have a prayer.
And that's what's guiding this.
And so that's why we have a party that sucks up to these people.
Stupidly and ignorantly sucks up to the media.
That's why all this takes place.
Because there's this never-ending desire for approval from these people.
Well, just like Harry Reid said, What do you mean work with the Republican?
I'm my job here is to destroy him.
That's the media's the same thing.
What do you mean?
Be fair to you people.
My job is to see to it that you don't win the White House.
So why would we subject ourselves to people whose job it is to see to it we don't succeed?
Because it's good training, because it's good education, because it's good preparation.
This is circular firing squad kind of stuff.
Anyway, here's the bite that the caller was talking about.
This is the ABC debate on Saturday night.
Stephanopoulos said, Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception?
Or is that trumped by a constitutional rights privacy?
Folks, this is a question that they asked Robert Bork.
This is a Griswold versus Connecticut.
This is a question that they Senate Democrats tried to ensnare Borkin and trap Bork into uh into claiming that people didn't have privacy in their bedrooms.
That Bork represented a bunch of people that want to be spying on people in their bedrooms, making sure that they weren't fornicating, and if they did fornicate, they weren't having abortions.
It was it that's exactly why they did it.
And of course, as being early on in the in the whole the new phase of this, Bork didn't really realize what was going on and answered the question within the context of the intellectual way it was asked.
When all it was was a setup from the get-go.
And now out of the blue, can any of you tell me when the subject of contraception has come up in this campaign?
Santora might have talked about it one time, but it was it's not a campaign issue.
It has not been contraception itself hasn't been a political presidential campaign issue in I don't know how many cycles, if ever, other than within the context of abortion, obviously.
But this was nonsensical.
So anyway, here is the soundbite.
George, this is an unusual uh topic that you're raising.
States have a right to ban contraception.
I can't imagine a state banning contraception.
I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so.
And if I were uh a governor of a state or a legend, or a letter or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception.
So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so.
And I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so.
You're asking, could it constitutionally be done?
We can ask our constitutionalist here.
It was, it was it's technically obvious what this is.
But Stephanopoulos wanted to continue and did continue down this ridiculous path.
He said, I'm asking you, Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception or not?
George, I I don't know whether the state has a right to ban Contraception.
No state wants to.
I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.
And yeah, no, that's what the callers told.
That's the largest applause is when these people are put in their place.
And now what is what should that tell you?
The largest applause, and the caller's right.
The largest applause in these debates is when the media is put in their place.
What should that tell you?
It should tell you this whole silly notion of wanting to work together and get along and compromise is a crock.
Because if it were something the voters cared about, Romney would be booed.
And Newt would be booed for being rude to the media.
If our voters wanted this mutual getting along business and compromise, then all of these assaults of the media would be booed.
Instead, they are cheered.
Now, Santorum, let's move on to Sunlight 17 here quickly.
After Santorum and Romney had to endure endless questioning on gay marriage, Newt finally turned the question around.
I just want to raise, since we spent this much time on these issues.
I just want to raise a point about the news media bias.
You don't hear the opposite question ask.
Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done.
Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry?
Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?
The bigotry question goes both ways, and there's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concern on the other side, and none of it gets covered by the nation.
And another round of huge applause when the media gets hit.
Our voters love it.
Which again dispels this whole notion that Republican voters and American voters and the great independents want us all to agree and get along and compromise and work together.
All a crock.
Don't go away.
Back in a moment.
Stephanopoulos got booed as he kept pursuing that line of question, uh questioning on uh on contraception.
Meanwhile, and again, this is Saturday night at the ABC debate.
Meanwhile, none of the moderators asked a single question about the national debt.
None of them asked a single question about the jobless rate.
None of them asked a single question about Obama's economic policies or the economic condition of the country.
Every question, or vast majority of them had to do with these innocuous social.
And I uh uh you know, here's what happens when that occurs.
You have your Northeastern Republicans watching the debate.
They see Stephanopoulos asking these questions about contraception.
And their reaction is, see, we've got to get rid of the pro-lifers.
We've got to get them out of the party.
We're not gonna get rid of these questions until we get rid of these people in the pro-life movement.
We gotta get rid of the Christians.
We're gonna have to get rid of these people that care about this stupid social stuff.
If we don't, we're gonna keep losing.
That's how the Northeastern Republicans see the debate.
They don't see that ABC and Stephanopoulos are doing purposeful damage.
They don't see that at all.
Those questions are legitimate.
See, until we get rid of these people, well, we can't have Centaurum in there.
Only cares about abortion, and Newton's going, we've got to get rid of it.
That's how they see it.
And that's one of the reasons why the questions are asked.
To foment discord amongst Republicans at the highest levels.
Here's Don, my hometown, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very well, sir.
Thank you very much.
Just calling to let you know that uh we have ordered your uh original tea uh uh quite a few times, and when you came out with the new peach, uh I ordered that, and uh, we just love it.
And uh we're hoping that you uh expand expand That to additional flavors because uh they've they've all been good that we've tried.
Well, I appreciate that.
Uh uh you're you're you're very nice to comment on that.
All the feedback we're getting on the new flavor.
The peach and the blueberry are the uh are the new flavors, and by popular demand, we're working on another one as we speak.
Not ready to announce it.
We're still in the tasting testing phase.
But the popular demand is is is uh uh practically beaten down our doors.
Uh so we are we are acquiescing, succumbing.
However, I I do want to tell you there's a uh and Don, I appreciate it.
There's a story I have it here in the stack.
There's a Chicom guy who has started a tea business called Panda Tea.
He he grows his tea in panda poop.
I it I I'm not most world's most expensive tea grown in Chinese Panda poop.
And uh uh I I I saw this story, it's a it's a it's a French news agency story, and I so I wanted to make sure that all of you know that we do not use panda poop uh in two of by tea, and we never will either.
Don't doubt me.
You know what I learned from the ABC news debate?
Tell what I learned.
I learned that the moderators favor gay marriage, contraceptions for all, and abortion on demand.
That's what I learned.
I learned nothing about the Republican UN.
I learned that the ABC news moderators don't care about the massive debt, yearly deficits, creating private sector jobs, or the depression in the housing market.
ABC doesn't care about that.
I say this because if I assume if they were priorities, they would have focused on them and asked questions about it.
▲
Export Selection