All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:53
January 19, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, folks, I just saw the I just saw the Mary Ann Gingrich video.
And I think, I've to be honest with you, I think the Democrats may have to give Newt a second look here.
Follow me on that.
Follow me on this.
Newt Gingrich, aside from the budget deal in 95 and being made to ride in the back Air Force One, Newt got along with Clinton pretty well, if you recall.
And Newt treated Hillary with respect, even sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.
Now, now there's an accusation out there that Newt wanted an open marriage, just like Bill and Hillary.
And in fact, Newt even had the politeness to ask permission for it.
You think Bill ever did that?
Now, we know if Newt can hold on to enough of the Republican base, he might take 20% of the Democrat vote with this.
You know how this stuff is a resume enhancement of the Democrat Party.
I wouldn't make too many snap judgments here.
I don't understand why the media is pretending to be so upset about these charges coming from Mary Ann.
I mean, it's all about sex.
And how many times are we told that somebody's sex life, even if you're president, doesn't matter?
It is nobody's business as long as it doesn't affect.
How about all the sex stories from Obama's former girlfriends?
That's right.
What story?
What former girlfriends?
What former boyfriend?
In fact, what do we, have we ever found out anything about any of his students when he supposedly taught law at the University of Chicago or buddies at law review at Harvard?
I mean, we still don't know.
We still don't know anything.
Mr. Limbaugh, this is very clever of you trying to describe the fact that Mr. Gingrich says, no, I'm just reacting here.
In fact, I got a great note.
I got a great note from a friend of mine.
So Newt wanted an open marriage.
BFD.
At least he asked his wife for permission instead of just cheating on her.
That's a mark of character in my book.
Newt's a victim.
We all are.
Ours is the horniest generation.
We were soldiers in the sex revolution.
We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato's retreat, deep throat to no fault divorce.
Many of us pay the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got.
Hell, for all I know, we should be getting disability from the government.
A good friend of mine, Newt's slogan ought to be, hell yes, I wanted it.
I'm just telling you, I'm sharing with you some people are reacting to this.
Now, of course, we are.
We're not going to get ABC News.
In a race, by the way, with NBC now.
ABC, how about this?
ABC, we were told ABC had been very concerned about the ethical implications of airing their hit piece on a Republican candidate right before an important primary election.
I almost wrenched my back laughing at that, that the ABC suits were in an ethical fight, in a conundrum.
I wonder, oh my God, what to do?
What's the ethical thing to do?
If there was any debate at ABC, it was over when would be the best time to do it so as to cause the most harm.
That was the only debate.
I'll tell you, the only debate, and I'm going to tell you what I think.
I think Drudge messed them up.
I think the plan, if you look at the news yesterday, the news yesterday was all Romney.
As Romney got money in the Caymans, Ronnie gave money to the Mormon Church.
Bain Capital, 15% tax rate.
All of that was ABC news.
And that Money in Caymans story, if you read all the way to the end of it, that story was irresponsible, journalism malpractice.
Because if you read the beginning of the story, the implication, they didn't allow you to draw an inference.
There was a direct implication that Newt or that Mitt was hiding money, sheltering money away from the taxman, saving it for himself, making sure he avoided U.S. tax cheating.
All right.
Then if you read all the way down to the end of the story, you get to the 12th and 13th paragraphs, you find out in the ABC story, it's all legal.
Yeah.
If you read all the way to the end of the ABC story, then you got the news that it was all legal and there was nothing unusual about it and that many Americans park money in the Caymans and pay taxes on it.
The people who park money in the Caymans and don't pay U.S. taxes are quote-unquote foreigners.
But investing in the Caymans is like investing in Montana.
It's like investing anywhere else.
It's after tax dollars that you put there and you invest and they grow and ABC points all this out.
So here's what I think.
Here's what I think was going on.
I think that ABC in a race with NBC to curry favor with Obama and to also hold on to the mantle of taking out Republicans.
Remember, it was ABC and Brian Ross, our old buddy ABC at Brian Ross, who took out Mark Foley over the page stuff in 2006.
And we haven't heard from much since.
Don't investigate Democrats.
And so now it's the Republican primary, and then we got this mess out of Iowa where it looks like Santorum won it.
There are eight, what is it, precincts, eight caucus areas where they just go, eh, to hell with it.
We don't know where the votes are.
We agreed here that before the end of this thing was over that Romney's going to be the winner.
They did a recount.
They got Santorum the winner by 34.
Now there's a massive call.
All right, Iowa, you've blown it.
Why should you go first when you can't even get it right?
So you got Santorum winning Iowa.
You've got Romney winning New Hampshire, but that was expected.
Now you've got Rasmussen with Newt polling ahead of Romney in South Carolina.
You got Rick Perry pulls out this morning, endorses Newt.
Perry was drawing 4% in the poll.
So you don't know.
Even if all 4% go to Newt, you know, what difference does that make?
So I think the objective of ABC was to take Mitt out this week or to just do damage.
And I think they were saving Mary Ann Gingrich for Monday after the vote, after Newt wins or theoretically wins South Carolina.
Then they run the Mary Ann interview and that takes Newt out.
And then who are we left with?
As far as they're concerned, Santorum and Ron Paul.
And they think, okay, that's it.
Obama's won now and there's nothing the Republicans can do.
Drudge, on the 14th anniversary of posting the Lewinsky story, runs his story last night that ABC's got this Marianne tape and they're in this big ethical debate over when to run it, which forced them to move it up.
In my opinion, I'm guessing, but from everything I've read, I think that they agreed or their decision was to wait till Monday on the Marianne thing after South Carolina, because the indications are that Newt was going to win there or get very, very close.
And if that happened, it would be because ABC thinks they took Romney out this week with all the stories that they've run on the Mormon church and the 15% tax rate and the Caymans and who knows what.
Do you know ABC has even signed?
I just saw this.
I've got so much floating in front of me.
I think it's ABC.
Somebody has assigned a reporter to check into the polygamy of Romney's grandfather.
Yes, yes, apparently Romney's grandfather had multiple wives.
So they got somebody looking at it.
Meanwhile, we don't even know if Obama has really lost his virginity yet.
It's a good guess, but we don't really know.
We know nothing.
We don't know anything.
We know about Obama.
We know Jeremiah Wright, which I swept under the rug.
Bill Ayers, which I slept under the rug.
We know about Tony Rezco, Rod Blagojevich, and that's about it.
We don't, well, we do know that Obama's, no, we don't know whether Obama's father had multiple wives at the same time.
We don't know.
Or the grant, no, we, we, well, we don't, the point is we don't know, and there's no curiosity.
There's no curiosity anywhere in the drive-by media to find out any of that stuff about Obama.
There hasn't been since he came.
In fact, I'll tell you what this is.
You remember when Obama ran for the Senate, Obama, to win elections, his opposition has to be neutralized or taken out.
He doesn't win straight up and up elections.
When he won the Senate race in Illinois, remember, they found somebody to release sealed court records on his candidate or his opponent's sex life.
And that guy had to pull out because it was so embarrassing.
And the Republicans sent in Alan Keyes.
Well, I mean, Obama's basically unopposed.
That's what's happening here.
Obama cannot run on his record.
And now this Keystone pipeline, even the Washington Post is scratching its head over a guy who says he cares and cares about jobs and then makes sure that there is not going to be any pipeline.
And Obama's problem with this is, in addition to everything else we've said, he's all in on green energy.
If he allows oil to be piped in here in record amounts, so forth, it just puts the kibosh on his whole green energy movement, which is oriented toward money for him, in addition to the transformation of the country.
I think Obama's father did have numerous wives.
There have been stories about that, but we're not sure because the media just ignored it.
But Obama only wins elections to the politics of personal destruction of what ABC News is doing.
They're clearing the field here.
That's what this week was about.
That's what the Mary Ann Gingrich.
Now, a lot of people say, well, how'd they get hold of Mary Ann Gingrich?
I mean, what was Rush?
How come they found her?
She basically gave an interview to Esquire Magazine in 2010 that had some of this stuff in it.
So she'd been out there with this.
But Esquire Magazine interview did not launch.
But I'm sure that AB.
How many ex-wives of Democrats has ABC sought out?
They just don't do it.
So they know what they're doing.
They know they've got a president who can't win on his record.
Now, that's another thing.
This always gets me.
Are journalists monogamous?
Are journalists faithful?
Are they clean and pure as the windrimbs?
This is what's always fascinated me.
These people, the sports writer guys, the news media guy, they all get to sit in judgment as though they live perfect lives.
And then when you try to turn the focus on them, oh, no, no, no, no, I'm just a reporter.
Well, it doesn't matter what it certainly does because you are not reporting your passing judgment.
But there's never been an investigation of, say, Ryan Ross.
Now, who he is.
How did he get his grades?
Where did he go to school?
How did he get out of this?
How did he get the job at ABC?
Who does he know?
Who does he?
Whatever.
We never get that about journalists.
And when you try, ooh, they have a conniption fit.
Now, I know what some of you leftists are saying, what is you're really going a long way here to avoid talking about Newt.
No, I don't want what needs to be said about Newt.
It's out there.
It's out there.
Will I don't, I don't know you.
50% of the country has been divorced.
I don't know.
You'd have to think with values voters, yeah.
Yeah, values voters.
I know it's, well, they did, they, they knew that Newt was divorced.
They knew the first divorce story, and they've been told how that was blown out of proportion and wasn't true in a lot of ways.
But yeah, they've known that Newt played around.
They know that Clinton played around.
Now, well, that's that's another, that's another thing.
I think the question I'm dealing with here is: do you think it'll hurt Newt?
At some point, and we've seen it before, at some point there's going to be a mainstream media backlash.
Now, I don't know whether this is enough to cause it, but at some point, if this keeps up, there will be a huge backlash against the media to not let them clear our field.
So, we'll see.
We'll see how it manifests itself.
I think of what we've seen so far from the Marianne Gingrich stuff.
The thing I didn't know, and certainly maybe you did.
You're much more focused on sex than I. You might have known that Newt had asked for an open marriage.
Okay, I didn't know that.
That I didn't know.
And most of the other stuff I did.
I also know that Mary, I know Mary Ann Gingrich.
I've been places shortly after Newt was made speaker with Marianne Social Week and so forth.
And she was never comfortable with the public eye.
And that bothered him.
He thought it limited his future.
She didn't like the media.
She didn't like the focus on her life, so she just wasn't comfortable with the public eye.
And I know that he said, well, you knew what you were marrying.
So there's two sides to all this, but yeah.
Well, that was Connie Chung and what happened to Newt's mother said some things about Hillary.
But the point is, yeah, all of this is out there.
There's really not a whole lot new here.
So we'll see.
And how it plays out is anybody's guess.
I've got to take a break.
Folks, hasn't that 21-hour break from yesterday?
This is a little too long.
Haven't you just been eagerly awaiting this?
And don't downplay this note I got from my buddy, who is in his 50s.
And I'll read it to you again here sometime during the program.
I have lots to do here.
Lots to do, lots of audio soundbites.
And I'm eager, I'm eager to hear you people on the phone today.
So just buckle up, and at the same time, relax and have fun.
We'll be back and keep rolling on right after this.
Washington Post, Washington Post says they've got their own Mary Ann Gingrich interview coming.
Washington Post, and it's a separate one, and don't know when it's coming, but they say that it is.
And here's a headline from the New York Times: former Gingrich wife says he asked for open marriage.
Now, folks, this is the same New York Times that never ran one article about John Edwards cheating on his cancer-stricken wife.
You remember, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, nowhere would get nowhere near the John Edwards story.
That was a national inquirer, exclusive, and the mainstream media was dragged kicking and screaming to it.
Hell, Newt was married to Mary Ann for 18 years.
Do you realize that's a lifelong commitment in Hollywood terms?
That's a lifetime marriage in Hollywood.
Okay, Wendy in Pittsburgh, you're up first.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, how are you doing, Rush?
Very good.
Thank you.
Listen, I'm a little disappointed in your reaction to all this.
You know, conservative voters are, they're different than Democrats because we care about character.
You're kind of sloughing this off with Gingrich.
I mean, I can tell you right now, based on everything we know about this and the Freddie Mac and all that stuff, if it's him and Obama, I'm going to write in Santorum.
That's what I'll do.
I'm going to vote for this.
Look, I don't mean to be sloughing it all.
And I knew that I was going to get this reaction.
I knew, well, the reason I wanted to take your call is because I knew that people are going to say, you know, you're papering us over.
You're giving me all the stuff that the media doesn't do, how the media is unfair and so forth.
And that's not the point, Rush.
What Newt did is the, but I understand that.
No, but let me tell you.
Your point is correct.
The media, Obama probably has worse stuff in his background, and we'll never find it out.
Or when it's too late, we find it out.
The problem is the conservative voter is different.
And so if we get Newt Gingrich, we'll write in Santorum.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
the conservative voter is different isn't Newt toast?
Doesn't this...
You're acting like he's not toast.
You're acting like this is nothing.
And you're giving the wrong impression.
Now, Wendy, wait, there's nothing really new here.
People that are voting for Newt Gingrich in the primary so far and people supporting him know 90% of this.
No, I think you're wrong.
Well, I'm not wrong.
How dare you say that?
I'm not wrong.
I am not wrong.
We'll see.
What about this did you not know?
Well, you know, there's a little bit, an open marriage?
I mean, that's something I didn't know.
So Callista's going to be the first lady?
Are you kidding me?
We've already had one.
Huh?
We've already had an open marriage in the White House.
We maybe with the Kennedys, how many open marriages are there?
Didn't want it?
Rosh, you're missing it.
No, I'm not missing it.
I know exactly what.
That's the point.
Okay, so, okay, let's cut to the chase.
Let's cut to the chase.
The country's at risk should Newt drop out right now.
We've got a good candidate.
We got Santorum.
We got Romney up there still.
Right.
Well, no, because they're going to take Romney out.
And Romney doesn't know how to defend himself.
Romney doesn't know how to defend himself.
Well, I'm not for Romney.
I'm for Santorum.
Okay, well.
Santorum.
He can win.
Okay.
All right.
Well, then that's why this matters.
You like Santorum, so Newt should quit.
Perry's quit.
It's it.
Cool.
You're going to get what you want, apparently.
Snerdley just made a prediction.
And I don't know if I should make this prediction before.
I'm going to save it.
I'm going to save your prediction and see at the end of the day if you were right.
Snerdley just told me what he thinks is going to happen on the phones today.
And we'll see.
I want to revisit for a second something I said yesterday.
And ladies and gentlemen, I hope you understand my purpose here.
I'm not sloughing anything off.
What do you expect me to do?
If you want me to start condemning Newt, since when am I on Newt's bandwagon?
I praise Newt.
I criticize Newt whenever it's called for.
I haven't chosen a candidate, and this is why I never endorse in primaries.
You never know when this kind of stuff is going to pop up.
You know, all of these people who think they've got the power to name a nominee have been endorsing people since this whole thing began.
And where are they now?
And how many people endorse Santorum?
It looks like at the end of January, it's very likely that the two Republicans standing will be Santorum and Romney.
Now, who would have predicted that?
And Newt may weather this because I don't know how much of it is really unknown to people.
And the divorce rate in the country is 50%.
And there are a lot of angry ex-spouse is not something that's unique in this culture.
Everybody has an angry ex-spouse or has had at one point if they've been divorced.
That's why I'm saying ex-spouse.
I didn't say ex-wife.
Dawn's screaming at me.
I know I'm not being sexist here.
So my only point is, I have no idea how this is going to play out.
I have no idea what the impact's going to be.
I don't know how many people are going to get mad at the media for this.
How many people are going to get mad at Mary Ann Gingrich?
I don't know how many people are going to let us slide.
I have no clue.
Really, no clue, but there's some things I do know.
The things that I do know are that this country is precariously balanced on an edge.
And if it goes the wrong way, the country is you and I know it is finished.
And what I know is, as I said yesterday, whatever Mitt Romney's tax rate is, he's not responsible for that.
Mitt Romney, nor Newt Gingrich, nor Rick Santorum, nor Rick Perry have anything to do with the economic misery in this country.
That is traceable to one man and one location: Barack Obama and the Oval Office.
Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Santorum have not played over 90 rounds of golf in three years while everybody is suffering.
Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, the Republican nominees have not flown all over the world on the federal government's dime.
They're not having lavish parties and concerts on the public's dime.
They're not living like kings on other people's money.
Obama sends his wife on government jets four hours ahead of him to the same destination, or she decides to take the jet herself.
The Republicans are not doing that.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich will all be taking a pay cut.
For Obama, winning the White House was a path to wealth.
For the Republican nominees, all except Santorum, now it will be a pay cut.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Santorum, none of the Republican nominees are responsible for the 16% real unemployment in this country.
They are not responsible for the increased fuel and food costs.
They are not responsible for any of this.
That would be Obama, who pretends to care about the middle class but lives like a king at the public trough.
Mitt Romney's not the problem.
Newt Gingrich is not the problem.
Rick Santorum is not the problem.
We find ourselves in the mess that we are in, precariously balanced on the edge because of Barack Obama.
Now, he has some people on our side who want to dramatically change course, who want a reverse course.
And all we get in the news media is what a bunch of reprobates they are.
All we get from the news media is an attempt to clear the field for Obama.
Make no mistake what ABC is doing this week.
With all the stories yesterday on Romney, take him out before the South Carolina primary, have Newt win or get close.
And in Mondays when they wanted to do the Marianne interview, but Drudge came along and leaked the fact that they had it.
That forced them to move it up.
This is not what they wanted to do, but they're trying to clear the deck because they know that nobody in a majority sense going to vote for re-election of Barack Obama because they know that everybody in this country knows that none of the Republicans are responsible for the problems this country is in.
They represent the solution.
Every one of them.
Whatever baggage they have, the Republicans represent the solution.
Every one of them is an average American in their own way.
Obama is not.
His wife is not.
They are people of privilege.
They are people of privileged status.
They are protected.
They have not had real jobs in the real world ever.
Don't know how many no-show jobs Michelle Obama's had.
What the no-the-job, Mr. Lama.
That's when you get paid 350 grand by a hospital just to say you work there to attract people.
And by the way, you turn the poor away who want abortions at a hospital.
But you never have to show up at the job.
You get the job because your husband just got elected to the Illinois Senate.
That's a no-show job.
Some union jobs are no-show jobs.
Now, if the left wants to discuss this kind of thing, and the media wants to talk about it, let's talk about it.
What financial sacrifices have the Obamas made?
What money of theirs do they have that is theirs, that they have earned?
How many no-show jobs have they had?
How many people get to spend other people's money like they do and then act like they're entitled to it in the midst of so much economic suffering?
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Santorum, they're not up there telling you not to go to Vegas.
They're not up there telling you not to go to resorts.
They're not up there telling you don't get on your jet and fly somewhere.
They are not offering to raise your taxes.
They are not offering to deny you cheap energy at affordable prices and in plentiful supply.
Gingrich, Romney, Santorum are not taking over automobile companies and making them buy pieces of crap that nobody wants.
That would be Barack Obama.
It's not Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum who claim to be focusing laser-like on jobs and then not doing it.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum have not grown the federal deficit, the national debt by $5 trillion.
Do you realize I made this point yesterday?
It's worth making again.
Barack Obama has already spent the federal budget of the two years of the next administration.
Who's ever in the White House?
The entire federal budget for the two years beginning in 2013 already spent.
And he's not finished.
It's not Romney or Gingrich or Santorum who have done that.
How much money has Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, thrown at failed, worthless, non-businesses like Cylindra and all the other jokes and frauds that the green energy industry is?
Zero is the answer.
My point is that whatever you think of these guys, they are not the problem.
Our country is at a Great country at risk in a dangerous world, and we, for the first time, are balanced precariously in such a way that if we tip the wrong way, the country, as you and I know it, the way we were raised, is not going to exist.
It's not Gingrich or Santorum or Romney who are trying to take your individual liberty and freedom away via your property rights, making him buy health insurance, forcing a socialized medicine program on you that's going to virtually redefine freedom and liberty.
It's not Santorum or Romney or Gingrich that are basically ignoring the Constitution and behaving in a constitutionally lawless fashion.
All of this is Obama.
The gasoline pump price has doubled since Obama was inaugurated.
Gingrich got nothing to do with that.
Romney's got nothing to do with that.
Nothing they've done has anything to do with that.
Romney, in fact, has done more to empower and enrich individuals at Maine Capital and other things he's done at the Olympics and Obama could ever hope to do.
Obama's done nothing but ruin lives.
Obama's done nothing but destroy assets.
The housing crisis, most people's number one asset, underwater, thanks to Barack Obama.
Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, nothing whatsoever to do with it.
And as I mentioned yesterday, everybody's up and on.
Look at Romney, $374,000 in speeches.
Yeah.
Bill Clinton, $82 million in speeches.
Average speech, $181,000.
So in all this economic downturn, what sacrifices have the Obamas made?
They haven't made any.
As I say, Gingrich, Romney, when the president's going to cost the money.
It's a pay cut.
For Obama, it was a pathway to wealth.
I'm not defending anything Romney's done or Gingrich or anything of the sort.
I'm not excusing it.
I'm not trying to say it doesn't matter.
Because clearly, it's going to matter to a whole lot of people.
And I'm not suggesting, with my comments here, that you should forget all these things that bother you and pretend they don't matter.
Just sharing with you the way I look at this.
And I don't really think that four more years of Obama is in anybody's best interest.
I also resent the fact that the media is trying to clear a path for him, clear out, clear out all the opposition.
But this is not a defense of Gingrich.
It is what it is.
It's up for voters to decide this stuff.
It oftentimes point out in life things larger than ourselves.
Things more important than our own single interest, special interest, or what have you.
But you know me, folks.
I never tell you what to do.
Well, very rarely.
Respect your intelligence too much.
I think it's quick timeout, brief break, and we'll come back.
And I'll just, I'll tell you what Snerdley's prediction was.
Snerdley's prediction was the vast majority of complaint phone calls today about Gingrich would come from women.
Well, that's not, I mean, it's a gutsy thing to say, but it isn't that tough to figure out.
Really, how many men are going to complain about this from the same way women would?
Anyway, quick timeout.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and continue after this.
You know, folks, I have a soundbite here, and I knew I was going to predict this, but I don't have to predict it now.
Just this afternoon on PMS, NBC, they got this show called Now with Alex Wagner with a bunch of has-bends.
And she had a guest on there named John Heilman.
He is the National Affairs Editor for New York Magazine.
And they're talking about the Republican primary and the news that Santorum won in Iowa and that Newt might win in South Carolina, notwithstanding this ABC, Marion Gingrich stuff, which, by the way, folks, I just want to throw out there, and I'm, you may think I'm sloughing this off and trying to stir things up, but does how do we know she's telling the truth?
Have you noticed she may very well be?
Do not miss it.
I'm just saying everybody's assuming without a single doubt.
I know.
You all believe it.
I'm not trying to talk you out of it.
I'm just saying, so they asked this guy, Heileman, does it undermine Romney's legitimacy that he didn't win in Iowa?
Now listen to this guy's answer.
If Gingrich comes back and wins here today, and especially if Gingrich can really battle Romney in Florida, there's going to be a hue and cry that's going to come up among the Republican establishment, which has always had a lot of doubts about Romney, for someone else to get in this race.
Because they're looking at him right now, and they see a very badly damaged candidate heading into the general election with Barack Obama.
If he loses here on Saturday, there's going to be a lot of talk.
I don't know about how realistic it is, but there's going to be a lot of talk among a lot of high-level Republicans about can we really go forward with either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney as our nominee.
You're going to start to hear that in a lot of chambers in Washington, D.C.
Yeah, is it this?
Because I happen to think he's dead on right.
I happen to think Heileman is dead on right.
And this is how wishy-washy the establishment is.
They have been trying to wrap this up for Romney since before Christmas, since before the Hawkeye cauckey in the New Hampshire primary, the Republican establishment, this is what they have wanted to avoid.
Now, what did they know?
Did they didn't get Mitch Daniels?
They really wanted Mitch Daniels.
Who else did they hope to run that didn't run?
Not Jeb Bush.
There was somebody else in there along with Mitch Daniels.
Mitch Daniels is a really first choice.
There's somebody else.
Then it was Romney.
And it's all the reason was that they thought Romney was the single least damaging.
That if a conservative got the nomination, not only would they lose the White House, they'd lose all the way down the ballot.
With Romney, they'd at least maybe lose the White House, but still have a chance to win the Senate.
They've known all along.
Oh, yeah, Palenti.
They were hoping for Palenti at some point.
Then they settled on Romney, and they did everything they could to see to it that Romney wrapped it up before the voting even began.
And I guarantee you, now they're the establishment, whoever they really are, I know that they're wringing their hands.
And now they're looking at brokerage.
Some of them might be calling Herman.
Kane say, Herman, with this stuff with Newt, you know, it's okay to get back in here and screw up things for us.
Hey, Herman, what are you doing?
We'll even pave the way for you.
Whatever you've been accused of is chump change to what Newt's dealing with.
Come on back, Herman.
There's no proof in what you were charged with.
Gloria Ulred took the women back to the sandbox, and it's over with.
So this is fluid.
I don't want to be an I Told You So, but back last summer and last fall, everybody's saying, You got to pick a choice.
I can't.
There's too much that can happen.
It's way too unpredictable.
But now I know the established because Romney, what they're looking at, Romney doesn't, for some reason, like Daniel Henninger today has a great piece in the Wall Street Journal about how Bain Capital might singularly be responsible for reviving the U.S. economy at the time it got going.
And they said, why can't Romney defend himself the way Henninger can?
And they're coming to understand that Romney has a tough time defending even what he claims to be his strengths.
There's a lot of nervousness out there, folks.
We must take a brief timeout here at the top of the hour, ladies and gentlemen, for your late local news and whatever else goes on at the top of the hour at your local affiliate.
You be patient.
It will be back because we're just getting warmed up here on the EIB network.
Right on.
▲
Export Selection