All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 13, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
January 13, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From High Atop.
No, we're not high atop anything here.
Well, we're close to high up top.
From the EIB Southern Command.
Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Telephone numbers 1-800-282-2882.
I'm going to get to your calls quickly.
I meant to in the last hour.
And then I got diarrhea of the mouth.
But I promise we'll get to your calls in this.
I really do.
I try to get more calls done on Friday.
There's just so much going on here.
800-282-2882.
Again, if you want to be on the program, and Open Line Friday is your chance to talk about things that Monday through Thursday you wouldn't stand a prayer of being able to talk about.
So the Gallup poll is out, the two different Gallup polls.
According to Gallup, for more than three years now, 40% of Americans describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, 21% as liberal.
So as I so poignantly, saliently inquired previous hour, why is it that all of the polling organizations like Gallup continue to oversample Democrats and independents?
40% can, and we know they're not Democrats.
What percentage do you think might be Democrats?
There might be some in there.
The old Reagan Democrats, so forth.
But given our culture and given the way the media presents life in this planet, in this country, this is a stunning poll rift.
40% of people identify themselves as being conservative.
That's a little short of amazing.
Just imagine how conservative this country would be if we had a level playing field.
Imagine how conservative this country would be if conservatism was not maligned, impugned, and laughed at, made fun of all of that.
Imagine if the entire establishment, the news media, the entertainment industry, educational system, publishing, imagine if they were all not lockstep liberals.
Imagine what this country would be.
In other words, imagine if more people were allowed to hear more of the truth.
This is why, folks, for me, it's all ideological.
Ideas are ideological.
It's not party versus party.
It's liberal versus everybody else.
And that's why I've always believed that the more we spend time telling people about liberalism and liberals, the much greater advance we would make.
The second Gallup poll is this one.
Americans name jobs, the national debt, and continuing economic decline, outsourcing, and politicians bickering when asked to say what worries them most about the national economy at this time.
The first three on the list, the national debt, jobs, and continuing economic decline make up 51%.
Those three.
The other stuff is small potatoes.
You have to go down to the bottom of the list to find out how many people say that the divide between rich and poor is one of their primary concerns.
In fact, the number is 2%.
2%.
It's up there with campaign finance reform.
Only 2% consider the divide between rich and poor.
The Habs and have the whole argument for class envy, the whole argument for redistribution.
Only 2% of the people of this country identify it as something that's a major concern to them.
You got that?
That means Occupy Wall Street is a creation of the regime.
Occupy Wall Street didn't gin up on its own.
There's no such thing as a 2% movement that ends up being covered as Occupy Wall Street was.
Americans are worried about jobs, the deficit, the economy, not the divide between rich and poor.
Now, in polling data, this is interesting too, if I can remember this.
I don't have it right in front of me.
In polling data that I've seen of people who are concerned about the divide between the rich and the poor, people are less concerned about what they have than they are more concerned about what somebody else has.
See if I can find a better way.
In the rich versus poor, the us versus them, the gap between wealth and poverty, whatever, the people on the low end are not upset about what they don't have.
They're upset what the others do have.
That is envy.
That is what Obama is playing off of.
They're not unhappy with what they have.
They're ticked off at what others have.
Now, you might, what's the difference?
It's a huge difference.
If the majority of them were unhappy with what they had, that would mean they didn't care what anybody else has.
When they're more concerned about what others have than what they don't have, they themselves don't have.
That's just pure envy, resentment, what have you.
And that represents an opportunity for the class envy warriors to go out and exploit them.
Oh, you got to, oh, yeah, I'll take it away from them.
I'll take it away from them.
That's how you get them.
You don't have to tell them, I'll give you more.
You don't have to say, I'll make sure you end up, you have to say, I'm just going to go out and socket to them.
Two fascinating polls here.
Both of those are from Gallup.
Audio soundbite time.
This is, and I delayed this.
I could have done this the first hour.
We have soundbites about me.
So let's get started.
Last night on the NBC nightly news, this is a portion of a report by the correspondent Ron Mott about the South Carolina Republican primary.
As the race moved to South Carolina this week, whispers about Romney's business pass became full-blown attacks.
Newt and Perry blew it the last two days.
Prompting prominent conservative voices from Rush Limbaugh to several wealthy Republican donors to push back hard.
So again, folks, I that's only 2% hate the 1%.
Well, no, only 2% no.
Only 2% hate the 1%.
Yeah, that's right.
Only 2% hate the 1%.
That's a great way of illustrating.
Only 2% hate the 1%.
The 99% do not hate the 1%.
So now I am a prominent conservative.
This varies from week to week, depending on what I'm saying.
One week I'm irrelevant and just an entertainer.
Another week I could just be making it all up and a liar.
This week, I'm a prominent, powerful, influential conservative.
Last night on Fox, that show they have at five o'clock called the Five.
You know why they call it the Five?
It's no, it's not five women, unless you count Beckle.
No, no, it's not, it's five people at five o'clock.
And they couldn't name it after anybody because that person would have to get more money than the other four.
And then they have ego problems.
You don't even really know who the host of the show is.
They rotate.
They do a pretty good job of this.
The five at five.
And they can put anybody in there.
They do have a regular rotation.
And the rotation yesterday was Eric Bowling is a good guy from the Fox Business Network.
And Beckle was in there.
And I think Kimberly Guilfoyle is part of this group.
Dana Perino is part of the group.
And Angela Tarantula is part of the group.
Republican consultant, Angela Tarantula.
And they were talking here about, well, Eric Bowling says, Obama lost 1.7.
What?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Bowling said Obama lost 1.7 million jobs on his watch.
Social engineering of the American economy doesn't seem to be working.
That prompted Beckle.
Since his stimulus package was put into effect, he's actually gained 1.4 million jobs.
Let's talk about what Rush said.
To say that the President of the United States is a sworn enemy of capitalism is a pretty outrageous statement.
No, it's accurate.
This bowling thing is accurate.
But Beckle's thing is pretty outrageous.
No, it's true.
Maybe not sworn.
I don't think I've said Obama's a sworn enemy.
I think Obama stood up and said.
Well, now, wait a minute.
When he went to Ossawatomi, Kansas, he did say America's never worked.
It has in describing capitalism, not by name, but he's never.
In fact, he has mentioned capitalism as not working, as being unfair and so forth.
Regardless, he is an enemy of it.
There's no doubt about it.
Most Democrats are.
I don't know why Beckle's so nervous about this.
Most Democrats are enemies of capitalism.
They don't like it.
Last night on MSNBC, the last word, the host Lawrence O'Donnell spoke with MSNBC's Chris Hayes.
Chris Hayes about attacks on former Governor Romney during the Republican primary.
And O'Donnell said, Sarah Palin's over here, Rush Limbaugh's over here, sharp disagreements.
This is even more, it seems to me, than the Obama campaign could have hoped for.
They may have hoped for a longer contest for the nomination, but they couldn't have hoped for a better fight.
Well, they're talking here about Newt and Perry going after Romney this way.
They go, oh, Obama loves this.
It's fabulous.
There is a way in which it's feasible to conceive of this as inoculating in some ways.
There is an argument I think you can make that it makes the story when these attacks come directly from the president or allied super PACs in the fall have less of a bite because people kind of know the story and they've made up their mind on it.
The analogy here is if the Jeremiah Wright tape had surfaced in October as opposed to April, that would have been much harder for the president.
That may end up benefiting the campaign in the long run.
So this guy is saying, no, no, Mr. Nonald, you might not be right about this.
It could well be that this coming out now gets it out of the way, no matter that Obama will bring it up again.
This gets it out of the way.
Romney has a chance to deal with it, defend it, see how he does it.
So they're a little worried.
Bottom line is they are a little worried on the Obama side this stuff has coming out.
But notice that they equivocate, or not, not equivocate.
They draw an analogy to the Jeremiah Wright tapes.
They're calling this the equivalent of the Jeremiah.
No, Romney working with Bain is the same as the Jeremiah Wright tapes, and that's not true.
That is insane.
What's Jeremiah Wright tapes anyway?
I mean, I know what he's talking about.
There aren't any Jeremiah Wright tapes other than the DVDs that he sells.
His church sells them.
There are any missing tapes out there, secret tapes that people took.
What's Jeremiah Wright tapes?
The sermons.
All right, we're going to the phones now.
Open line Friday, and we're starting in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
Peter, you're up first.
It's great to have you here.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
Very well.
Thank you.
I'm honored to be your first caller today.
That's a big responsibility.
It sets the tone.
Yeah, I know, I know, I know.
Listen, I have to put you on the spot.
You keep saying on practically a daily basis that if the election were held today, Obama loses in a landslide.
Well, to whom?
Whoever runs.
Oh, yeah?
Ron Paul beats Obama in a landslide.
Well, Huntsman beats Obama in a landslide today.
Huntsman might.
But these guys, you want to stick to the list of potential nominees?
We know that Huntsman's not going to be the nominee and Ron Paul's not going to be the nominee.
You know, I'm using a rhetorical device.
I am trying to illustrate that this is not a lock.
I know that there are people out there thinking this guy can't be beat.
And there are people on our side who are thinking this guy, it's not going to be easy, Russia, overstating it here.
I mean, he's got a billion dollars.
He's got this.
My point in saying this is that the people of this country want a change badly.
They are not happy with this.
There is nowhere near a majority of people who want any more of this, but it's never reported.
It's not this.
I really believe that the majority of people in this country, if they had a chance to get rid of this administration, would do it, is my point.
But they wouldn't do it just with anyone.
I mean, if somehow Ron Paul, you know, was the nominee, I mean, he is way, way down there compared to Obama, you know, and according to every major poll matchup, Obama would win in a landslide.
Yeah.
But Ron Paul's not going to be the nominee.
So you're just saying of the most likely nominee like Romney or Newt or whatever?
Yeah.
Sarah Perry, you take it.
Romney, Newt, Santorum, Bachman would have, I think.
Okay, so you're saying Romney, Newt, Santorum would all beat Obama in a landslide today.
Yeah, I think the real meaning here is that Obama can be beat.
Obama can be defeated.
He's not invincible, and it's not automatic.
He's going to be reelected.
And the point is that the vast majority of people in this country don't want four more years of this.
Right, but they have to think what's the alternative.
The 2010 elections show us the alternative.
The alternative is the Republican Party.
The people that abandoned the Democrats in 2010 weren't voting for a guy.
They were voting against a guy.
They were voting against a party.
That 2010 election, that was a massive landslide victory.
All the way down to dog catcher on the ballot.
That was big.
Well, it's a shame that people, you know, have to vote against one party and not for, you know, a candidate or for a party.
They can't be.
Well, naturally, I would prefer that there be a for vote because that's how you get a mandate.
Of course, I would prefer.
And that will be the case by the time we get there.
By the time there is a nominee and the circumstances exist and the contrasts are drawn, there will be that.
Well, hopefully.
And I think people instinctively understand it already.
They know that they don't want this.
They now know what liberalism is.
They know what Marxism is.
They don't want it.
They don't want the health care bill.
65%, 58%.
Take your poll.
Don't want the health care bill.
Now, you disagree with me, obviously.
I've seen polls.
I look at all the major polls out there, Rasmussen.
I track the daily polls, particularly Rasmussen almost every day.
And actually, in the latest poll, for whatever it might mean to you, Romney trails Obama by about three points.
I didn't see that poll.
I saw a poll that says Romney beats him by three points on Fox this morning.
That was, I think, about, yeah, I think I saw that.
That was Fox.
Rasmussen that I know only polls, likely voters.
Well, you should know.
If you're a regular listener, you should know.
I couldn't care less what a presidential poll today says.
Victory, it's a tie at best.
Victory is a tie at best.
In the poll, as I'm saying, I don't care about a poll of an event in November today.
I don't care about it.
I'm using my instincts here.
I'm not arguing with polls.
I'm not telling you I disagree with the polls.
I'm saying I don't pay any attention to them.
That's not how I have empathy.
I have a gut instinct about things.
Polling data for me is that it's sort of like what the investing is hope.
Investing in hope is the recipe for not doing anything.
Relying on polls means you don't have to think.
It means you don't have to take a risk.
The polls say this.
The polls say that.
So that dictates everything else you do.
Sorry, not me.
Do you mean if there is a poll out there right now, and you've told me there is, that says Romney loses to Obama?
Well, then let's quit.
Let's pack it in.
Poll says.
I don't.
This is why I'm not in politics, I guess.
But it's not.
I don't use polls.
In fact, I think polls are used to make news.
I think polls are part and parcel of news-making quote-unquote process.
But I get your point.
I get your point.
You think I'm wrong.
You think that I'm not living in the world of reality.
You think I have moved out of literalville and into fantasy land.
And you think that I am existing entirely on hope and prayer, wing and a prayer or whatever.
And I am so devoid of reality.
And if I keep this up, people have false confidence and I'm going to be responsible for Obama winning.
You think I have totally moved out of Rielville.
And I'm telling you that I don't think the polls are reality.
Pure and simple.
Let's take a poll on who's going to win, Tebow or Brady tomorrow night.
And then when the poll's over, let's not play the game.
The poll said, and it's the fans, and the fans, they're sacrosanct, whatever they say, that's the way it's going to be, right?
Same thing in a poll.
Let's just forget it.
Not even play the game.
Back to the phones we go on Open Line Friday to the Bronx next.
This is Robert.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
First off, I love the 2F5T, by the way.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I just got a note from Catherine, who just tuned in via the Ditto Cam.
She said, it looks like a tea ghetto in here, as I have so many bottles around.
So I've shuffled some and moved some out of the way.
Have you tasted the latest flavors, the peach or the blueberry?
I have the blueberry.
Oh, I love it.
Oh, it's like drinking blueberry muffin batter.
Yep, and you were right.
You said when you open the cap, you can actually smell the blueberries, and it's very true.
Oh, it is just stunning.
I'm going to do it right now.
In fact, I got one.
That's one of these bottles I had to move.
Okay.
Oh, I tell you, that is just what an aroma.
I'm glad you mentioned that.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Good stuff.
Rush, I guess bottom line, I'm confused.
Well, confusion and fear, I guess.
I know that John McCain is a Republican moderate supporting Romney this time.
And Chris Christie is a conservative.
I know Romney has flip-flopped on issues and claims, underlining claims, to be a conservative.
So there's my confusion.
I fear once elected, if that is to happen, Romney will become John McCain, of course, you know, reaching across the aisle.
A lot of people, blah, blah, blah.
May I ask you, and I'm, look, not being provocative, really, there's no wrong answer here.
I would like to know why you think that.
And a lot of people tell me they're worried about Romney.
Hey, he's not conservative.
Rush is going to end up being just like McCain or Nixon.
Why do you think that?
What has he said or done?
Well, I guess, you know, I've heard a lot of the, you know, commercials against him, I guess, because I've always been a Newt supporter.
And, you know, it's documented.
I believe that, you know, he has changed his mind in, you know, many, many ways.
But you can't give me one.
I'm sorry, I'm not.
I know, it's tough.
I put you on the spot.
I don't mean to be doing that.
pleased.
I'm just, people tell me a lot.
They think Romney is a flip-flopper like John Kerry was.
He's going to be saying one thing here when he gets to the White House.
He's going to turn into a moderate and so forth.
And I can think of things like 2006 or 2007, Romney in Massachusetts.
I'm not a conservative Republican.
I'm a moderate.
Well, people hear that.
Okay, he's telling us the truth.
Romney says, now I'm in Massachusetts.
Yeah, I did say that, but I don't mean it anymore.
And so we're left with what?
Which Romney are we going to believe?
Therefore, that's why you say flip-flopper.
Yes.
Yes.
But Newt has changed.
You're a Newt guy.
Newt's been all over the board.
Newt believes in man-made global warming, but is trying to cover it up.
Yeah.
Newt sat down on the couch with Pelosi.
Right.
Christie, you think he's a big conservative because he's really, really tough on the unions, but is he really the full-fledged conservative that you think?
You basically want to know why are these guys on board with Romney?
Christie, you think he's a big conservative, and McCain, why are they on board with Romney?
Saying this proves that Romney is like a McCain, and therefore you're what's Christie doing?
The answer to your question is nothing to do with what you've asked me.
They're all Republicans.
They're all part of the Republican establishment, and the word's gone out from on high.
Our choice from the powers that be in the Republican Party is Romney.
And so if you're a governor, let's say you're Nikki Haley.
This stuff matters.
This is reality.
You're Nikki Haley.
You're a Tea Party governor.
The Tea Party gets you elected governor of South Carolina.
But you've got this onerous Obamacare bill staring you in the face.
And you know it's going to kill your state if you are forced to live under it.
So here's Romney saying the first thing he's going to do is repeal it.
If Nikki Haley decides I'm going to buck the party, I'm going to nominate somebody party doesn't want.
She has just ostracized herself from the party.
And there goes her chance to maybe get VEP.
There goes her chance to maybe get a cabinet post.
If she wants one, there goes her.
I'm not saying she does.
I'm just saying all businesses have a ladder of success in them.
And there are certain rungs that you have to climb to get to the top.
And when politics, once the party has chosen its candidate, if you are in the party and if you are a party person, you must support the nominee.
Why do you think after every bruising primary, for example, why in the world would Romney want to be seen with McCain after what McCain did to Romney in 2008?
Romney was taken out by Huckabee and by McCain in the real world.
He doesn't like them.
He doesn't know what he can do with them.
And he liked to screw them.
That's you and me in the real world.
But in politics, he's their best buddy.
He will take their support.
He'll go on stage with them.
That's party politics.
And you put all that stuff that happened in 2008, you throw it away, you put it aside, you forget it until you have an opportunity to get even somehow.
So it may take 10 or 15 years.
You don't do it publicly or what have you.
I'm sorry, but that's the explanation for it.
Don't you, in the real world, I mean, if I'm Mitt Romney and I'm making real tracks in 2008 and I'm getting close, and then all of a sudden McCain and Huckabee team up against me and they get the governor of Florida to team up against them or with them against me.
How do you four years later become best buds with people that destroyed your career four years ago or destroyed your chance then?
But it happens all the time in politics.
It happens.
If Chris Christie doesn't support Romney, then he's got one choice.
He better become so untouchably popular on his own that the party can't stop him like Reagan did.
Look at Reagan.
This is a great example.
George H.W. Bush, 76 and 80, literally tried to destroy Ronald Reagan's political career.
Voodoo economy.
Guess who ends up being on the vice presidential ticket?
George H.W. Bush.
That's right.
It's party politics Where ideology doesn't triumph.
Well, I know Romney, the old man, I don't know.
George Romney, I don't know if he ran against it.
I don't know if he ran against Reagan or not.
I don't know.
What's that got to do with anything?
You're just trying to show off your memory, but George Romney.
Nobody's talking about George Romney, Snerdley.
Nobody cares about George Romney.
In the middle here of explaining to a caller who had a terribly important question, you bring up George Romney to me.
This is why they don't have microphones, folks.
Anyway, does that help?
But very, very last question is about these debates.
How much importance to the American people do you put into these debates?
Because, you know, going back to Newt, I believe that he's a superb debater.
And again, against President Obama, I believe he would beat him up senseless.
Right.
A lot of people do.
A lot of people do.
Right.
I am of the screw of thought that presidential debates, barring some really huge gaffe, don't change that many votes, significantly change that many votes.
Really?
Yep.
And I see that you've hit on something else, too.
I know for a fact that a lot of Republicans are simply trying to find the person they think is the most articulate and well-spoken and smartest because they're sick and tired of having people with accents that can't put three syllables together as their nominee or as their candidate.
They're sick of it, and they're sick of the media laughing at their nominee or their candidates are being stupid.
They're tired of it.
They're tired of liberals laughing at them.
And especially when they have to sit there and listen to how smart Obama is, a guy destroying the country.
So a lot of people really would have their lives made if somebody would just destroy Obama in a debate to hell with the election.
If somebody just destroys Obama, I mean in a score.
Yeah, just make Obama look like an absolute blithering idiot.
That's all they'd be happy as they could be, wouldn't care who won the election.
And if I've described you, you know who you are.
A lot of people out there, look, and I know how this is.
I go to California, I run into all these arrogant liberals.
And back during the Bush years, all I heard was how stupid the guy was.
Just how stupid he was.
As though that's all that mattered to them.
They loved talking about and making fun of how stupid George W. Bush was.
Now, stupid when he talked.
And therefore, that disqualified what he was doing in the Iraq War, and that disqualified any policy.
Bush is stupid.
And our voters don't want a nominee about whom that can be said.
Pure and simple.
I understand all this.
That's why I am who I am.
Hey, Snerdley, George Romney did not run against Reagan.
I checked.
He was running against Nixon when his campaign began to collapse after he was, I was brainwashed in Vietnam statement.
Reagan came along later.
It was Nixon he was running against.
Now, I got an email during the breaks.
Why is this intelligence business?
Somebody's worried about the debates mattering so much.
Somebody was just terribly concerned.
And I appreciate this, by the way, this notion that we have to nominate somebody who can win a debate.
Don't think that's how this election is going to be won.
This is an election about ideas, not debate skills, but I know people disagree with me.
The reason people, conservatives, the reason people on our side care about this so much is very simple.
Conservatism is an idea with multiple subsets of ideas.
Conservatism requires basic speaking and communication skills to explain it and to contrast it with liberalism.
In addition to that, people have to be able to complete thoughts and get those ideas across.
When you are in the ideas business, you had better be able to communicate them.
What I would submit to most of you who think that recent Republican presidential nominees have been stupid or inarticulate is really not what they've been.
They haven't been full-fledged conservative.
They have, when it's in your heart, it pours out of you.
When it's not, and you're having to fake it, that's going to create pauses and insecurity, unsuredness, and so forth.
But if you I don't ever have a problem explaining conservatives, I don't care who I'm talking to, but I would probably be a little halting if I were trying to make somebody think I was a moderate.
I'd have to stop and think about it.
When you stop and think about it, you look stupid.
Unless you've mastered the facial expressions of looking thoughtful.
Well, that's...
Snurdly just said that's not fair for me to say this because I could make anything interesting.
No, I can only make the things I care about interesting.
You don't want to hear me talk about something I don't care about.
I will bore you to tears.
That's why I've always believed that passion is the giant magnet.
It is passion.
You talk about bowling, and if you do it passionately, you will attract people like a magnet to it.
They may be laughing themselves silly that you care so much about bowling or whatever it is, but you'll still have them.
You know, passion is the ingredient.
But my only point is: conservatism, we're party of ideas.
Got to be able to communicate them.
You have to feel them.
They have to be in your heart.
And when they're not, you have to stop and think about, okay, what should I say here?
I've got to make those conservatives really believe I'm a conservative.
And then you're going to make mistakes, and you're going to, and then the conservatives are going to say, see, he's not really conservative.
He's a modern is a flip-flopper.
And they'll be right.
Or when the person halts, pauses to think about what the next sentence ought to be, stupid, see, just can't even remember what he was saying.
Lost his place.
What an idiot.
The lack of commitment to it manifests itself as something other than what it really is.
In many cases, it's stupid.
Well, Open Line Friday could be an opportunity for you to listen to me talk about what I don't care about.
But so far, that hasn't happened today.
We haven't yet had a call about something I don't care about.
It happens.
It happens.
In fact, I should tell Snyder.
We should do an experiment here.
I'll show you what I'm talking about.
Well, folks, there are things you could bring up today that would tick me off so much that I can convince you I'm a mean guy by virtue of my reaction to it, just because I wouldn't want to say, I don't know what it is.
I'm just I have my pet peeves too.
I get frustrated at stuff.
I'm just saying here that sounding smart is something that can be accomplished with just passion and belief in ideas, particularly ours.
If you don't have that and you're trying to fake it, you're going to raise questions about your intelligence, your commitment, or what have you.
I think that's largely what's going on.
Do we have time here?
Do we do this?
Well, no.
This next call wants to talk about the Marines and the Euronation on the Taliban.
And there's not enough time.
Actually, not enough time to be fair or unfair to anybody.
I do want to make a quick point before we hit the break.
Obama had his big press conference, well, White House appearance yesterday on insourcing and jobs and so forth.
And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had a great rejoinder to it.
Hey, Mr. President, you missed the biggest insourcing opportunity that's come down your pike in three years, the Keystone Pipeline.
You want to insource jobs?
How about authorizing the Keystone Pipeline?
It's a great point.
And the reason it's a great point, because Obama is not about insourcing jobs.
Brief time out, folks.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence hosted by me, America's real anchorman, El Rushbo, now in the can and soon to be in preparation for posting at the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which is at rushlimbaugh.com.
It is a fabulous, a forerunner of what's going to exist someday, perhaps.
The virtual Limbaugh Broadcast Museum at rushlimbaugh.com.
If you haven't seen this, you should.
Whole website, in fact.
▲
Export Selection