All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
January 27, 2012, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Now, we sold it out in 10 minutes.
No, Jungle Gyms, we sold it out into the T.
It was sold out in 10 minutes.
Why are you asking me this now for crying out loud?
I still haven't read stuff that I got to read for the program.
I don't know where the next store is going to be.
It's going to be somewhere.
Started Jungle Gyms and it's Friday.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Open Line Friday, Rush Lindball, wrapping up another busy broadcast week as your real American anchor man, Doctor of Democracy, and Truth Detector, all combined into one harmless, lovable fuzzball.
Great to have you here.
The difference on Friday between Monday and Thursday.
When we go to the phones, you can pretty much talk about whatever you want to talk about.
That's not the case Monday through Thursday.
Who is that?
Who in the world is that?
There's some woman on Fox.
Look like female Michael Jackson at 300 pounds.
Look like George Clinton's mother.
That's a great way.
Yeah, the funk master or whatever.
Anyway, the distractions continue.
Ladies and gentlemen, I, El Rushbo, edit out all of the pap and we stay focused.
And I'm going to tell you something.
There's one thing I'm going to start here focusing on.
Mitt Romney in the debate last night said, all of this talk about health care is not worth getting angry about.
And yes, ladies and gentlemen, it is.
It is worth getting angry about.
It is worth being angry about.
And it's worth staying angry about.
There was a great exchange between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney on this.
And Romney got a little flustered because Santorum had his best night.
They're out there saying Santorum won the debate.
Does that mean he's the nominee?
Well, that's how we've been deciding it.
Debate winners seem to be the frontrunners.
And Santorum clearly took no prisoners last night.
And this back and forth that he had with Romney on the healthcare worker, I got five soundbites.
I'm going to go through this because this is fascinating stuff.
And it is crucially important.
And I think Santorum, for me anyway, had the line of the night in reacting to this.
It was with Romney saying it's not worth getting angry about.
Santorum said, we can't afford to give away this issue.
We can't afford for the issue of Obamacare to be subordinated to anything else that's being discussed up there.
And I know the media wants to do it, but all this talk back and forth, Newt and Mitt, over who did what at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who had investments where and what, none of that matters.
And it's really starting to turn people off to both of them.
And Santorum was sitting up there last night, and as I said yesterday, he's the only guy that had been bloodied because nobody's going after him yet.
Although, although there is a story in the Washington Examiner today, guess what?
Somebody thinks they found that Santorum has an investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I think that's what it's something like that.
Oh, and speaking of saying something bad about Reagan, Jeffrey Lord, and I mentioned his name yesterday.
Jeffrey Lord was in the political office of the White House during the first term of Reagan, maybe both terms.
Jeffrey Lord now writes, The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord, like me, didn't understand all this stuff at Newt yesterday.
You know, AP has a story referring to me now as conservative radio titan.
And they describe me as trying to defend Newt on this yesterday and in the process, nevertheless recounting all of the things that Newt had said.
I wasn't trying to defend Newt as AP's.
All I was saying was, I pay close attention to this stuff.
Even when I wasn't doing a talk show, this stuff was my life.
The last two to three years I was working with the Kansas City Royals, that would have been 81, 82, 83.
And I got back into radio in 1984.
I was immersed in this stuff.
And Newt, the only thing I knew about him was that he was the premier.
There were a lot of people trying, but he was the premier Reagan defender in those special orders.
And I just had never heard any of this stuff.
And Jeffrey Lord, who worked in the White House at the time, had not heard any of this stuff.
So he did some research and has written a piece that is now in the American Spectator, the Spectacle blog.
I just got it.
It prints out six pages, and I have not had a chance to read the whole thing.
But it seems like Elliott Abrams has been had.
It seems like Elliott Abrams had a piece at National Review really ripping it a new, was spoon-fed some out-of-context stuff.
It's been documented to be, for example, the quote where, let me grab it here rather than try to paraphrase it.
Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan's policies toward the Soviets are inadequate and will ultimately fail.
He quotes Newt as saying that.
So Jeffrey Lord went to the special order, Newt's speech in the floor of the House when the House had shut down business for the day, and listened to the whole thing.
It was an hour.
And Jeffrey Lord writes, Abrams quoting Newt, saying in this speech that Reagan's policies toward the Soviets are inadequate, ultimately fail, is shameful.
Shameful what Elliot Abrams did.
And here's why.
Here's what Newt said in full and in context.
Quote, the fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Irving Kristol and Gene Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.
In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Gene Kirkpatrick, who was Reagan's UN ambassador.
And it was a concern that had also been voiced by Reagan supporters, George Will and Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's dad, and the late Mondale aide, turned to conservative, as Mr. Lord writes here, Charles Krauthammer.
Reagan's anti-communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona.
Newt was picking up on a concern that these members of the Reagan support team and administration had said.
He's quoted as saying it.
He didn't say it.
It's a classic take a paragraph or a sentence in quotes and take some of it out of it.
Take some of the words out of it, but leave the quote marks and make it look like the speaker, in this case Newt, was saying these things when he was picking up on a concern.
ABC News, his little juicy tidbit.
What's been the big news with Newt's campaign the last week?
That's right.
The ABC News investigative piece by Brian Ross in the form of an interview with Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne aired two days before the South Carolina primary.
The incident famously backfired as Gingrich launched an attack on ABC during the now famous CNN debate hosted by John King.
All new, right?
Wrong.
Five days previous to Gingrich's speech, President Reagan had addressed the nation of what he called the mounting danger in Central America.
Wait a second.
No, that's right.
Five days previous to Gingrich's.
Wait a second.
Let me just complete this.
I said I'm reading this live.
I have not had this.
I don't know what.
Five days previous to Gingrich's speech.
President Reagan had addressed the nation of what he called the mounting danger in Central America from Nicaragua, Nicaragua, which Reagan described as a Soviet ally on the American mainland only two hours flying time from our own borders.
With over a billion dollars in the Soviet blockade, the communist government of Nicaragua has launched a campaign to subvert and topple its Democrat neighbors.
Typically, the liberal media of the day zapped Reagan.
Sure enough, buried in the March 21st, 1986 Gingrich speech on the House floor, Gingrich was tough on the media's handling of Reagan's speech.
And who did he single out for criticism?
ABC News.
Says Newt, all too often the news media itself is grotesquely uncritical and grotesquely willing to use Soviet language to explain Soviet behavior.
Possibly it reached its epitome when ABC News put on a paid Soviet propagandist following the president of the United States.
In other words, 26 years ago, Newt Gingrich was busy incurring the institutional wrath, not just the mainstream media in general, but ABC News specifically, over the issue of their grotesquely uncritical treatment of the Soviet dictatorship.
Now, what America is seeing in real time today in the 2012 presidential campaign in terms of Newt taking on both the media in general and ABC News in particular is decidedly not new.
There's a history here, a long one, of Gingrich calling out ABC.
And as seen in the now infamous ex-wife interview, ABC pulls no punches when dealing with Newt Gingrich.
Anyway, this is a, it's a, as I say, prints out to five pages.
The first half of this piece is the most meaningful.
It's all good, but it illustrates here, the headline of the story is Elliot Abrams caught misleading on Newt.
And Elliot Abrams, you have to understand Elliot Abrams' reputation beyond repute.
He's gold.
He's the coin of the realm.
And that's what made people curious.
So Jeffrey Lord got together with some stuff for the people and found out that it appears that Mr. Abrams has been spoon-fed some stuff that he didn't question because there is an institutional dislike for Newt amongst the conservative establishment and so on and so forth.
In fact, here's Mr. Lord writes about it.
A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines, which it did, by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework.
Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.
Not so fast.
Due to the diligence of one Chris Sheeve of a group called Aquatera Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.
Mr. Sheeve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker.
While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Sheeve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.
Uh-oh, that's right.
Mr. Sheeve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich's long-ago 1986 special order speech in the Florida House, and aware, quote, that most of his Abrams comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order, unquote, Sheeve started digging.
Since the congressional record for 86 was difficult to obtain electronically, Sheeve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21st, 1986 edition of the congressional record.
Locating it, copying it, and scanning, he was kind enough to send it to me, writes Jeffrey Lord.
So now I've read the Gingrich speech that's the source of all the hoopla, all seven fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.
I can only say that what Elliot Abrams wrote in NRO, National Review, about Newt Gingrich based on this long-ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.
Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt was spewing mindless victory all about Reagan on the House floor.
Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary, which I'm telling you, these special orders is where everybody first heard about Newt.
And he was the premier defender of Reagan.
That's why all this stuff yesterday had me scratching my head.
Here's a quote from Newt in this special order.
Let me be clear.
I have the greatest respect for President Reagan.
I think he personally understands the threat of communism.
And he goes on at Newtonian length, praising Reagan for Reagan's understanding of Lenin, Reagan's understanding of the real purposes of a Soviet dictatorship, and much more.
He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the president's appreciation of the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire and the threats posed by communist Cuba and Nicaragua.
He ranks Reagan with the great Cold War presidents in protecting freedom.
In short, time after time, Newt Gingrich, true to form, is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Reagan.
Is it any wonder that years later, Nancy Reagan would speak publicly and warmly about Ronnie passing the conservative torch to Newt.
Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?
Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan's policies toward the Soviets are inadequate and will ultimately fail.
And this is the paragraph I read to you at first that references Gene Kirkpatrick, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer that Newt references, but not his words.
In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern prominent in the day, voiced by no less than Reagan's then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Krauthammer, that Reagan's anti-communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized.
The entire speech, the entire Newt speech, focused on suggestions of how to do that to effectively institutionalize Reagan's conservative beliefs in the government.
Is Abrams seriously accusing Gene Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan, of spewing insulting rhetoric at a president everybody in Washington knew they staunchly supported, really?
Well, of course not.
But Gingrich appears to be doing just that.
Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Crystal.
Now, I've got the whole Jeffrey sent me the whole text of the special order.
It is tough slogging, but it confirms my memory.
I just, all I can tell you yesterday was I did not remember any of this Newt bashing of Reagan stuff.
But there were the videos of some examples, selectively, you know, things left out and the starting point of the edited version, not really the starting point.
So there you have it.
But however, folks, I'm just going to have to assume here that Elliot Abrams was spoon-fed this stuff by the Romney people.
This is a stunning piece.
This is an absolutely stunning piece by Jeffrey Lord, the American spectator.
But the genie's out of the bottle.
You can't put all this back in the bottle now.
And the debate last night, that wasn't Newt's Santorum, big winner to me.
Romney did better in a couple of areas.
So that's that.
I got to take a break.
This Santorum back and forth with Romney on healthcare is crucial, folks.
Welcome back.
It's Open Line Friday.
We'll start with the Santorum Romney healthcare stuff in the next segment, right after the bottom of the break that's coming up.
A lot of people have been ripping on Matt Drudge, too, and a lot of other people for what appeared to be a coordinated assault on Newt yesterday.
Everybody's saying conspiracy.
I don't think the people we're talking about have the ability to organize and pull off a conspiracy, even though what it looks like.
But in terms of all this stuff, it's odd to me to hear people complain that Drudge selects his stories and distorts his headlines to forward an agenda.
And it's especially ironic to hear people in the news media complain, to hear people in news media complain about what Drudge does on his site.
Matt Drudge's website is what every news organization's website ought to look like or be like or structured.
But anyway, it's getting pretty hard to report factually about any politician nowadays that looking like you're trying to smear them.
If you tell the truth about any of these guys, it can look like a smear simply because of what's true about them.
They've all got flaws.
Everybody knows this.
Some of their flaws are much larger than some of the others that other candidates have.
But a factual recitation of some of these people, I'm trying to be funny here, but it's almost impossible to avoid looking like you're smearing them.
You just have to ignore them to avoid that charge.
Okay, now sit tight because we got more coming up when we get back right after this.
Welcome back.
Great to have you here.
It's Open Line Friday.
And I, El Rushbow, promise you that we will get to your phone calls.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Now, let's move to the debate last night.
Obviously, Newt did not have the kind of night that he needed to stem the tide.
Genie's out of the bottle and all this other stuff.
And there were a lot, you know, Elliot Abrams is one thing, but there are a lot of other people that wrote things yesterday about Newt.
Bob Tyrrell.
Jeffrey Lord's piece that I just mentioned deals with Abrams, not the conspiracy and not all the other people doing this, because Abrams was in the administration.
He was there, as was Lord.
That's why Mr. Lord was curious.
But there was something, I think, tremendously, extraordinarily important in this debate last night as it got focused on healthcare.
And Romney, Santorum, I think, did the best job of hitting Romney on Romney care that has been done.
It stood out primarily because Newt and Romney were all caught up in the back and forth of who made money where and invested money where and consulted where and stuff that frankly, at this stage, nobody cares about.
And frankly, at this stage, this back and forth personal attack criticism is not working.
It's not what anybody on our side is interested in.
It's not influential.
It's not going to change anybody's minds about anything because it's irrelevant to what the people of this country are concerned about.
The people of this country right now are willing to overlook a lot of personal flaws in anybody they think can stop the destruction and the transformation of this country.
That's way up there on the ladder.
Way up there on the priority list.
And who made what from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who invested their blind trust or not is not anywhere near the top on the priority list.
And Romney said something.
Santorum was scoring so well in the debate last night.
Romney said, hey, hey, it's not worth getting angry about.
And it is.
It's worth being angry about.
It's worth getting angry about.
It's worth staying angry about.
Because Obamacare is ballgame in terms of regulations, in terms of government being in your home, government having control over every decision you make once the precepts of Obamacare are fully implemented.
And if they're established as constitutional, then the Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore.
And neither does our freedom or liberty.
It's that crucial.
Santorum, of all the people at that stage, is the only guy who is credible and convincing when he says, when he first describes it and when he then says what he wants to do with it.
Get rid of it.
Everybody else does what conservatives and Republicans do frequently.
Take a premise advanced by the left, say, we can do it better.
For example, our side in the talk about repealing Obamacare, someone, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You know, some stuff in there, we got to be very careful about that bit about keeping your kids on the policy layer 26.
People like that, Rush.
You can't just, in this pre-existing condition stuff, Rush, we can't throw all of this out.
We've got to be very, very careful, Rush.
That's what I mean.
Some of it, powers that be on our side don't want to get rid of.
It's the kind of stuff they think they can get votes supporting government involvement.
I think it was Newt, but I'm not sure.
Whoever said the fastest way to get kids off of your parents' policy is to get them a job since most everybody's health care comes from work.
Why do we want to say that it's an advancement of our culture and society to say that children up to age 26, that right there offends me.
Children up to age 26 can stay on mom and dad's health insurance policy.
And that somehow represents an American triumph.
That is absurd.
And to accept that premise is not good, not healthy.
And the way around it is get people a job so that not only are they not on their parents' health insurance, they're not living in their parents' home.
Revive the economy so that people can take care of themselves and their own families.
I know, probably some of you in this audience.
Oh, no, Rush, Roy, very important.
You're on the wrong side.
No, I'm not.
No, I'm talking about the health of the country.
Now, I'm talking about how great this country has been in the past.
We look at the slow unraveling of the intricate web of greatness.
Creating excuses for what all that not long ago wouldn't have been tolerable, would not have been acceptable.
Now we want to make excuses for it.
So everybody up there, except Santorum last night, seemed to be oriented in the same place I am on this.
Ron Paul was just, he put on his comedian hat last night, and that was the role he was playing because he's doesn't have a prayer in Florida and knows it.
So he's got an entirely different strategy up there.
He's not trying to win it, but he's just trying to stay in the game.
By the way, there's a on Ron Paul, you know, the newsletter issue with Ron Paul and all the racist elements of his newsletter some years ago.
And he said, no, no, no, I never saw him.
Other people did that.
He did see him.
It's the latest story.
He did say he personally approved all the stuff that was in him.
It's the Ron Paul newsletter.
They want us to believe that there was a period of time only when the bad stuff was in it that he didn't care.
He didn't write about it.
He didn't know about it.
Stuff snuck by him.
It's not true.
And we got the GDP news today, and that's being misreported by the state-controlled media.
Hey, look at a fourth quarter, 2.8%.
Nope, nope, nope, folks.
The answer is the real gross domestic product, the real strength of this economy in 2011, it grew 1.7%.
From the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level, we grew at 1.7% compared to 3% GDP growth in 2010.
We almost cut our economic growth in half on the downside.
Don't believe this crock reporting that the fourth quarter will wait up there because it's going to be revised down, that 2.8 is not going to stand.
And to get that at 2.8%, they have to count inventories, not sales, inventory.
Now look what I've done here.
I intended to have three soundbites in by now, but in my setup, I went a little bit further than I intended to.
So let's take a brief time out and we'll come back and we're going to get to these soundbites illustrating what I'm talking about, Santorum and Romney, and healthcare and Romney care and all of that when we come back after this.
I'm here as waiting for our lightning fast printer to spit out three lines.
Great to have you back, folks.
El Rushbaugh, got a note here from a guy who used to run campaigns.
He used to be a campaign consultant.
Dear Rush, as a former operative, my take on Romney's remark, it's not worth getting angry about, is different than yours.
By the way, everybody's telling me what I don't know today.
Oh, never ended.
You would not.
Everybody telling me what I don't know.
Starting at about 11.30.
At any rate, my take on Governor Romney's remark is that if Senator Santorum's chief cosmetic challenge on TV debates is the expression on his face, he's generally dour, no matter what the topic, often bordering on appearing angry.
Now, this is a consultant's take.
This is interesting.
Consultants take.
Santorum always looks ticked off.
Looks angry about something.
And it's the consultant's take that Romney was just trying to take him out as an out-of-control or mean or what.
I don't think it's worth getting mad about.
Which could well be.
Well, I don't care what it was, frankly, it was an attempt by Romney to stanch the flow of blood from his nose because he was being bloodied on this.
He did something else.
He said, people keep causing me to distract myself here.
I should have been into the first sound bite by now.
And everybody, you're just stringing us along.
You're using a radio tick.
No, I'm not.
I don't use radio techniques.
I don't have to use tricks to keep you here.
During this back and forth, Newt Romney on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Santorum said, you know what?
Can we stipulate Newt's rich?
Romney's rich, made a lot of money.
I wish I had that much.
Newt worked at whatever he did, which is a great speaker of the House.
Can we stipulate this stuff and get back to the issues that matter here?
And the place erupted.
It was a great line, and Newt attempted.
Newt offered his hand, not figuratively.
Newt offered a truce, and Romney chewed it right off.
Just slapped it.
Romney can be a mean guy.
We're going to talk about who's mean and who looks mean, who sounds mean.
Romney can be just as snarky mean as any of these people.
So let's stipulate that.
As long as we're stipulating something, whatever Romney was doing, you don't have to get mad about it.
You do have to get mad about this.
This issue is going to require passion.
I'm talking about controlled anger.
I don't mean a loss of temper and that kind of thing.
But we can't talk about this healthcare business and repealing it as some abstract academic discussion point in a classroom.
This is real.
And the impact it's going to have on our lives is real.
There's nothing abstract about it or academic about it if it happens.
So let's go to the sound bites.
Santorum up first.
Governor Romney was the author of Romney Care, which is a top-down government-run healthcare system, which read an article today, has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare.
Everything from the increase in the Medicaid program, not just the government is going to mandate you buy something as a position of breathing, mandate that you buy an insurance policy, something that Governor Romney agreed to at the state level, something Congressman Gringridge for 20 years advocated, that the federal government can force each and every person to enter into a private contract, something that everyone now, at least up on this stage, says is radically unconstitutional.
Congressman Gimri supported for 20 years.
This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen say they're now against, but they've been for, and it does not provide the contrast we need with Barack Obama if we're going to take on that most important issue.
We cannot give the issue of health care away in this election.
It is too foundational for us to win this election.
We cannot give away this issue in this election.
We cannot give the issue of health care away.
And he is so right.
Now, let me address something about Santorum and his dour countenance.
I too have picked on this now and then.
I wonder what I would be like.
You know, do you know people?
I'm not saying this is Santorum.
Do you know people who constantly think that they don't get the credit they think they should get, that other people are getting credit for the work they've done, or other people are getting credit for the stuff they first said or they first wrote, but nobody saw it, nobody commented on it, and then other people come along and scoop up.
You know, people get constantly ticked off by that.
I do.
It's poison.
It can ruin you.
But I know people constantly, everybody's stealing.
I said that first, or I did.
Santorum sometimes comes off like, you know what?
What is this?
These guys for 20 years have been building up Romney Care.
They've been supporting the basic tenet of Obamacare.
I have never supported it.
And how come nobody's noticing that?
I do get that take.
And I can understand the frustration in this instance if he feels that way.
Just wild gets here.
But he's up there.
He doesn't have any vices.
He doesn't have the baggage these two guys have.
And yet it's called a two-man race.
We're talking about healthcare, the fundamental defining issue of our future.
And the way Santorum looks at it, we got two guys up there who, until the debate started, had really no problem with the central tenet of it, the mandate.
Now all of a sudden, they're acting like, oh, no, no, I don't believe anything.
You can't do that.
Santorum says, I have never supported any aspect of this.
These guys are getting away with revising 20 years of their history.
And he did, sometimes he does sound a little frustrated at that.
I can understand it.
That's what my consultant buddy said.
The book on Santorum is that he looks dour at Romney.
He said, you don't have to get so mad about it.
But in this issue, I believe that Santorum has the guy out there doing retail politics.
He doesn't have any money.
He's doing door-to-door visits.
I know, I know.
That's the rub.
People have to like you.
They have to like.
I think Santorum's exhausted, too.
People have to like you.
There's no other way around that.
And that's nothing you can control.
You're either likable on TV or you're not.
Well, maybe if the first time you're on TV and you have something said about it, you can change it.
Not everybody's seen you for 15 years, but I guess you could.
I don't know.
Nixon was able to, with the help of Roger Ailes.
Nixon was able to.
Anyway, here's Romney's response to what you just heard Santorum say: Our system has a lot of flaws, a lot of things I do differently, has a lot of benefits.
The people of the state like it by about three to one.
We consider it very different than Obamacare.
If our president, day one, I will take action to repeal Obamacare.
It's bad medicine.
It's bad economy.
I'll repeal it.
What Governor Romney just said is that government-run top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts, and he supports it.
Now, think about what that means.
Going up against Barack Obama, who you're going to claim, well, top-down government-run medicine, the federal level doesn't work, and we should repeal it.
And he's going to say, wait a minute, Governor, you just said that top-down government-run medicine in Massachusetts works well.
Folks, we can't give this issue away in this election.
It is about fundamental freedom.
We can't give this issue away in the election.
It's about fundamental freedom.
What Santorum is saying here is very clear.
We're going to have a nominee whose advisors, and Newt's running ads to this effect, by the way.
We're going to have a nominee whose advisors helped Obama write his health care plan based on Romney's.
And we're going to have a nominee who basically can't draw a contrast between himself and Obama on the issue of healthcare.
So we got three more of these bites to go.
And we also have an obscene profit timeout that we must take.
But you sit tight.
We're already practically finished with the first hour.
Where'd it go?
Fastest three hours in media.
It's the Washington Examiner.
I was trying to think of this earlier.
And I've got the story somewhere in the stack.
Miraculously today, Washington Examiner has a story saying that Rick Santorum supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance back in 1995.
And this just comes out now.
Just comes out the day after last night's debate and the tit between Santorum and Romney on healthcare.
Look, we've got a lot of people, good calls lined up.
We've got a lot of great sound bites.
And if I could just get a hold of my diarrhea of the mouth, we'll get to all of that as the program unfolds.
So just don't go away.
▲
Export Selection