All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:55
January 30, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks, and welcome.
It's great to have you back.
Hope you had an okay weekend without any real football taking place.
We're cool.
We're sitting pretty here behind the Golden EIB microphone, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am your host, El Rushball, America's real anchorman.
And unlike Tom Brokaw, I don't care if a campaign wants to use any of me in their spots.
You heard about this with Brokaw?
You haven't heard about it.
Oh, here's the phone number, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
On Saturday, the Romney campaign released a new ad featuring a clip from 1997, Tom Brokaw, on the MBC White Way Wooz, which opened with Brokaw crowing that Newt Gingrich's congressional peers had found him guilty of ethics violations.
Okay, you saw the commercial.
Okay, so you do know what I'm talking about.
The NBC and Brokaw are now demanding that Romney take the ad down because Brokaw doesn't want to have his objectivity as a journalist tarnished.
So I guess what Brokaw say, look, I'll destroy Gingrich on my own, Mitt.
Don't use me.
You're compromising my journalistic integrity by putting me in your campaign.
I can take care of Gingrich myself, and I did back in 1997.
I don't need you doing it.
The really funny thing is that NBC and Brokaw don't seem to mind that in the clip, he was wrong.
He was factually wrong about Gingrich.
Gingrich is only found guilty of one ethics violation out of 84 that the Democrats brought.
It was a technicality, if there ever was a technicality.
But apparently Brokaw and NBC aren't embarrassed that their reporting was misleading.
They're just upset that Romney's using it.
Maybe Brokaw wants a stipend.
Who knows?
Anyway, according to reports this morning, the Romney camp's going to meet with NBC people sometime today to discuss the Brokaw footage.
All right, here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program.
We will get to your phone calls today, 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I'm going to speak just for me.
I am getting tired of the whining about negative campaigning.
I'm getting tired of the whining from everybody about not just the canon.
I'm getting tired hearing about it.
What in the world is politics?
What is it if not this?
And say something to the Gingrich people here.
Newt Newt is really caught up in this notion that Romney's saying things about him that aren't true.
I'm telling you, I'm having a tough time relating to being upset about that as someone who is routinely lied about every day and has been for 25 years.
It comes with the territory.
Now, I know that one of the problems that Newt has is he doesn't think he can combat it.
Romney is outspending Gingrich in Florida, $15 million to $3 million.
Gingrich has been outspent by $12 million in Florida alone.
So I'm sure Newt feels that he's unable to combat it and repel it.
Unlike me, he doesn't have a microphone every day, and I do.
But I don't use it to deal with the critics.
I ignore them.
I've often, you know, Newt, and that one Williams episode, what was it about that that had people standing up and cheering?
It was conservatism.
I've long maintained that whoever can articulate conservatism the most consistently, the most confidently, and the happiest is going to win this thing.
And that pretty much could overcome any of the negatives.
But my advice is not listened to, and I don't expect it to be.
I'm not in that business.
And Newt said that he was off his game in the last debate last Thursday because Romney was telling such outrageous lies about him that he was shell-shocked.
Now, I don't know if that is a ploy for sympathy or what, but what in the world do either of these two guys think is going to happen when either one of them ends up facing Obama?
I don't care who's telling lies in the Republican campaign.
They are pikers compared to what's going to happen when the Democrat campaign begins.
And something else that I'm pretty confident in saying, as hard-hitting and go for the throat and take no prisoners as Romney's going after Newt, he will not do this going after Obama.
A lot of people out there praising Romney.
Hey, this is politics.
Hey, frankly, it's what a campaign's supposed to do.
A campaign's supposed to be able to mount a full-fledged assault.
Romney, a lot of people giving him credit for that document dumped last Wednesday and Thursday all over the media that took Gingrich out.
That's what campaigns are supposed to do.
Yeah, it's the way it's played, but I'm going to tell you, it ain't going to be played that way against Obama.
If you are deciding that you like Romney's toughness, the way he's taken out Newt, I got a thing for you.
He isn't going to do that against Obama.
Do you think the Republican Party's got the guts to do that against Obama?
You think so.
You think so.
It's interesting.
You think so.
Have you seen any evidence?
No, you haven't.
Have you seen any evidence of any Republican going after Obama the way the Republicans are going after each other?
You haven't.
In fact, when Romney's have the chance, oh, gosh, you know, I just think he's in over his head.
Has he said something as innocuous about that as that about Newt?
Now this mandate business.
This has gotten out of hand too, because it's out there now that Newt supported the individual mandate as recently as 2009.
It's been reported that Newt reported or supported Obamacare, the individual mandate in Obamacare in 2009.
Some people are saying, well, they couldn't have done that because Obamacare didn't exist in 2009.
It hadn't been written yet.
That's a bit of a stretch.
The fact of the matter is that the Heritage Foundation at first and Newt and Romney are all on record at some point in their careers as supporting the individual mandate, which is what the lawsuit against Obamacares about.
But of the three, only Romney has actually enacted it into law, supported it to the point that he's put it into law.
Now, I know why.
I know exactly, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why one of these guys hasn't tried this as an explanation.
I know exactly why Heritage, I'm guessing, but I know.
Don't doubt me.
I know why Heritage.
I know why Newt and any other Washington, D.C. IT saw that individual mandate and glommed onto it.
You want to know why?
Very simple.
They are conservatives.
And the first thing they saw in an individual mandate, people get their own insurance, is individual responsibility.
And what do we as conservatives believe?
We believe in individual responsibility.
We believe in self-reliance.
So somebody proposes, hey, you know what?
We got too many free riders.
Everybody ought to have their own health insurance.
So conceptually, it sounded good.
It sounded conservative.
So you can say, I support that because that makes me conservative.
It's only later when it's too late that you figure out it's nothing about individual responsibility.
It's a violation of the Constitution because the thing comes about by virtue of the government demanding that you buy it or you go to jail or pay a fine.
Now, why somebody hasn't said, you know what?
I goofed up.
Well, the Heritage Foundation has.
They have distanced themselves from their original support of the healthcare mandate a long time ago.
Well, I don't know why one of these guys hasn't said, you know what, well, Santorum never did support it unless that 1994 story that came out last week happens to be true, but that's another thing.
Would have been so simple to say, you know what?
I got caught up.
Who doesn't believe in paying your own way?
We, as conservatives, believe in paying our own way.
We believe that everybody should shoulder their own responsibilities.
But I made a mistake.
I was wrong.
And then get rid of it.
It's gone.
And then every time, well, you supported the mandate, but then the story comes out, you support it as recently as 2009.
It's a little too late to do that, but maybe not.
But I'm relatively sure that's what sucked all these people in at first, all these conservatives.
I'm sure what suckered them about this was the conservative sounding appeal of it.
Only later, when people see the rest of Obamacare and then find out what the mandate is truly a mandate, then, and remember, a lot of inside the Beltway conservatives are people that believe in government involvement and stuff, whether to break it or fix it.
They just do.
A lot of inside, a lot of Washington career conservatives think government is prime agent, if you will.
You and I, of course, who don't dwell there, who rarely visit there, don't look at Washington as anything other than an obstacle and the problem.
Now, it isn't unconstitutional if the state does it.
So Romney could say, well, there's nothing unconstitutional about my suggesting a mandate.
The problem Romney's got on Obamacare and Romney Care is that they're identical and it's going to come out.
And if nobody else brings it out, Obama's going to bring it out.
They're identical.
Right down to the architects, to the authors of the two.
They're identical.
So people, well, Roosh, what do you want?
I want the campaign to go on.
I want this thing to go on and on and on and on.
I hope it goes on to June.
Well, Newt's promising stay in the convention.
If Romney wins in Florida tomorrow, it's the, you know, what's the word I'm seeing on TV?
The I can't remember.
They're assuming it's over.
The Romney, as in nominee, the Romani, if he wins.
Well, that's the word that is going around out there.
Now, on this dirty campaigning stuff, negative campaigning.
Do you know who in American history, you know who the architects of negative campaigning are?
Thomas Jefferson and who?
John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
These guys from the days of the founding were best buds.
They were very close buds back in 1776.
But in 1800, party politics entered their lives and they drifted so far apart, they hated each other.
Oh, God, they accused each other of treason.
Well, you hear what was said about what these guys were saying about each other back in 1800s, only on their deathbeds, when they both died within seconds of each other, according to legend.
Only on their deathbeds did they put it all back together.
Well, prior to Adams had sent Jefferson a letter.
Jefferson's camp accused President John Adams of having a hideous hermaphroditical character, accusing him of being a hermaphrodite, which, of course, means that you have neither the aspects of a man or a woman.
You're just like a moderate.
You hermaphrodite.
It's like calling somebody a moderate with no sex organs to boot.
You know, no nothing.
Now, in firing back, John Adams campaign called Vice President Thomas Jefferson a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw sired by a Virginia mulatto father.
That's right.
Jefferson accused Adams of being racially impure in 1800.
In response to that, I mean, Adams called Jefferson that.
And then as the spurs, the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, a tyrant.
Jefferson was called a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.
Even Martha Washington got into it all, telling a clergyman that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most detestable of mankind.
They all got involved in it.
Now, back then, around 1800, the candidates did not actively campaign.
Adams and Jefferson spent most of the election at their homes.
It was their campaigns that did all this.
The candidates had this silly notion that they were above it.
Jefferson called Adams a wimp, essentially.
Now, the key difference between the two politicians, Thomas Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callender to do his smearing for him.
Now, James Callender was written in a semi-fictious, fictitious way in a great novel, and I forget the title of it now, by William Sapphire.
And this novel by William Sapphire has, and it, as I say, it was, some of the story was fictitious, but it was a fact-based, fictitious outcome.
I mean, Callender is in the book is rumored to have had an affair with somebody and never did that.
He was an ugly, stinky, sweaty guy in reality.
The book portrayed him as a modern, well, he was still stinky and sweaty, but he was a ladiesman.
Sapphire just put that in there to juice up the story of James Bond kind of way.
But this calendar was a pamphleteer.
He smeared, he lied, he wrote, published some of the most despicable stuff out there against candidates.
And he did it for Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson hired this lowlife.
Adams considered himself above such stuff.
To Jefferson's credit, Calendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France, although the claim was completely untrue.
Voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.
Now, Thomas Jefferson has this image of above repute, greatest reputation.
This is politics.
It is what happens.
People lie about you.
It's called the First Amendment.
Whoever raises the most money has an advantage.
It's called politics.
Whoever can organize this stuff the better is called politics.
And whining about it ain't politics.
It's an honorable American treaty.
Scandalmonger was the name of, I would, you know what, folks?
I would, if you're interested in this, go somewhere, Amazon, wherever.
See if you can get the e-book version of it if you use iPad or Kindle or whatever.
Get Scandalmonger by William Sapphire.
It's nearly a page turner.
I got to take a break here.
We'll do that.
We'll be back here in just a second and continue with all the rest of today's program.
Don't go away.
You know, one of the reasons, one of the reasons that the Democrats and the regime are so hell-bent to do away with Citizens United, that Supreme Court case, is that they don't like super PACs.
It was that Supreme Court decision, the Citizens United case, that permits these super PACs that you may not have heard of before this campaign.
Super PACs will allow the GOP nominee, whoever he is, to attack Obama directly while they stay above the fray.
It'll be a return to the way it was with Jefferson and Adams.
They didn't actively campaign.
That won't be a direct return, but their surrogates did.
The super PAC is a surrogate.
It allows the candidates, I can't control what they're doing.
So the Super PAC can go out there and run all kinds of crap, all kinds of negative stuff against anybody, including Obama, if they want to.
And it will allow the nominee, the candidate, to say, legally, I can't control what they do.
There's like a, for lack of a better explanation, separation of powers involved here.
Super PACs are on their own.
I can't coordinate with them.
So it'll depend on whoever our nominee's super PAC is and what they do.
But I can tell you that Romney's not going to go after him.
I know that.
Now, back to this early days of America campaigning.
How many of you know the story of Thomas Jefferson having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings?
Right?
You probably think Jesse Jackson discovered that and told everybody about it, and that's how we know, right?
Well, you probably, it was this guy, Callender, James Callender, who dug that up about Jefferson to put it out.
James, he turned on Jefferson.
I mean, this was dirty stuff.
There were smears of galore.
Jefferson turned on George Washington.
George Washington said, Thomas Jefferson is like my son.
When it came to campaign against Washington, Jefferson said, I don't care about that.
You're a dirty old man.
You're worn out.
It's time for you to split and leave this country to the young people.
It was vicious stuff.
It always has been.
Now, these super PACs, ladies and gentlemen, Democrats hate them.
They despise them.
And there are two reasons why.
The Democrats have already, they've got their own super PACs.
One of their super PACs is the union movement.
The Democrats have long had agents provocateur outside the political realm able to act independently or in concert.
It didn't matter.
But the mother of all super PACs on the Democrat side is the news media.
So the Citizens United case, in one way of looking at it, is balance.
It's fairness.
Republicans don't have the union.
You might say, well, they've got the Family Values Coalition people and they've got some of their special interest groups, but those groups are not as combative as the labor union movements are.
Same that we don't have, didn't have until recently, an alternative media.
So there's no, the super PAC stuff, the Citizens United worries the Democrats because, as I pointed out, whoever the nominee is, if he chooses to, can lay off Obama, which will happen, by the way.
Particularly Romney, I don't think there is any way.
Romney's already said he's this thing over his head.
Well, you know, he's a nice guy, misguided.
The Republican consultants that are in play here are not going to permit their candidate to go after Obama.
They think they're going to be losing independence.
And if I didn't know better, I would say that the consultants will also try to rein in the super PACs, too.
They'll be scared to death.
I tell you something else.
The bottom line, and I've got audio soundbites here that'll back me up on this, is I've said this from the get-go.
Way too much of the Republican establishment doesn't think Obama can lose anyway.
They don't think Obama can be beat.
Their Romney choice is all oriented toward holding the House and winning the Senate, putting themselves in charge of the money and the regulations, and then stopping Obama that way.
Now, you and I both all think Obama can be beat.
But the vast majority of the people who serve as consultants and advise candidates will do their best to make sure that whatever the victory all you're seeing here in this primary will not happen in the general.
And as a historical note, the stuff between John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, that was a general election.
That was not a primary.
That, I just, I'll be stunned.
I hope I'm wrong.
I want to be wrong.
I'll be stunned, though, if we see from Romney, if he's the nominee this kind of stuff against Obama, that from him that we're seeing against Newt.
If we'd had a super PAC in 2008 vetting Obama, that was running television ads on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and all of these things.
Where are Obama's friends?
Who are his girlfriends?
Where are the students of his that were inspired?
All of that was in television ads and media ads, which who knows what 2008 would have been.
Well, that didn't exist.
It does now.
Consultants also don't want to burn any bridges, not with anybody, not even with members of the other party.
It's all tight-knit inside the beltway.
They're all at the end of the election.
They're all buddy-buddy.
They all pal around and hang around.
It's a far different game with a far different objective inside the beltway in the professional political class than it is for us.
Did you see McCain McCain?
Where was this?
Well, I don't know where he was.
It's a real clear politics video.
And McCain is calling for an end to the debates.
That's right.
We got to stop.
We have to stop Duke Beach.
McCain said, I think any of our candidates can beat Obama, but you just showed the number up there.
We've got to stop the debates.
Enough with the debates because they're driving up our candidates, all of them unfavorabilities.
We've had enough of that.
They've turned into mud wrestling instead of exposition of the candidates' views and the issues.
We've had enough of that.
It's time to recognize who the real adversary is, and that's not each other.
We got to stop the debates.
Grab a quick phone call here on topic.
Dale, Ventura, California.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're up first.
And hello.
Rush, thanks for taking my call.
I'm a little sick about the tactic being employed by Nick Romney.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is through and through a liberal to the core, whether he's got an R at the end of his name or not.
Everything about him delays the R at the end of his name.
From Romney care to his stance on abortion to the tactics he used of attacking the Republican candidates by using kid gloves with the Democrats.
A perfect example is going after Newt Ginrich on the $300,000 that he collected as a consultant at $25,000 a month, which is the exact same amount that Michelle Obama collected having a title at a hospital.
To now he has gone to the extent of in two states, he spent over $30 million trying to buy a nomination.
Every tactic he is using just screams that he's a liberal through and through.
How do you explain with all this the apparent according to the polls Romney gaining ground in Florida?
I don't trust the polls.
I wait to see the results.
The polls, as you know, are normally skewed.
They're not balanced.
They're normally taken by liberals with a skewing towards the liberal bent on the answers.
And myself, I don't even bother answering polls.
That's why I think you're going to get the people that want to try and sway opinion answering polls, and they're not truthful.
All right.
Well, look, Dale, I appreciate it.
I just want you to know, I've got emails galore for people who agree with you.
I don't recall, I was trying to think back over the course of my 25 years doing this program.
I could be wrong.
I may have to search my memory even deeper.
I don't recall a primary campaign where every candidate had such a high degree of literal hate from voters.
The people that oppose Romney hate the guy, and it's a significant number.
And there are a lot of people that hate Newt.
Same way.
The only guy that nobody hates is Santorum.
Nobody hates Santorum.
Now, there's a, how about this guy, his daughter?
She got out of the hospital.
She had she, she, what?
Well, she's doing better.
I thought she, well, she is doing better.
It's something that's a significant turnaround in her, in her condition.
Santorum's the only guy that I don't hear email from from people passionately opposing.
But Romney and Newt, it's there on both sides.
And all I have to do is say something on this program.
It indicates I support either one of them.
It is an avalanche.
My email server gets overloaded.
Either way.
And I got people out there thinking I've endorsed Romney and others thinking I've endorsed Newt.
And when they think either one happens, it is a So it's a fascinating thing to look at and out.
The Republican Lincoln Day dinner was in West Palm Beach, the Florida Lincoln Day dinner, or the Palm Beach County Lincoln Day dinner.
It was in West Palm Beach on Saturday, and then Newt was here for that.
And so was Allen West.
Do you know what the if this doesn't change, do you know what the Florida legislature is doing?
They are writing Allen West's district out of existence.
The Florida legislature, when that happens, I get emails from people.
Look at what Romney's doing.
I got emails over the weekend from people.
Look at Romney.
I must have had 15 emails like, Romney, look what if Romney's behind this, and he may well be, but the Republican establishment could well be.
He's a tea partier, and we got to Washington, and he didn't toe the line, and he didn't shut up, and he didn't go to the end of the line, and he didn't do what he was ordered to do.
He continued to speak out, said the same things that got him elected.
He's a great guy, military veteran, Allen West, and they're trying to write his district out of existence.
The Florida Republicans, Florida Republicans are trying to write in redistricting so that Allen West has no and the Republican establishment, whether it includes Romney or not, is behind it.
Well, that's it's just it's amazing.
This is the all-out assault on conservatives in the Republican Party is what is the story of this primary campaign.
I want you to listen to a little of what Allen West said in his remarks at the Lincoln Day dinner, Palm Beach County Lincoln Day dinner, Saturday night here.
The history of the Democrat Party is all about slavery, secession, segregation, and today it's about socialism.
We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and my dear friend, the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain't on the table.
Take your message of equality of achievement.
Take your message of economic dependency.
Take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else.
You can take it to Europe.
You can take it to the bottom of the sea.
You can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.
Righto, right.
And the thunderous applause went on and on and on.
It's Alan West who, again, Republicans in the state of Florida are trying to eliminate his district.
Got to take a brief time out.
Be right back, folks.
Don't go away.
After, what was it, last Thursday's Republican debate in the spin room?
One of Romney's guys was Florida Representative Will Weatherford.
Florida Representative Will Weatherford.
And during the course of his remarks, he's trying to spin for Romney after the debate.
It's reported that he shed a very dim light on the ongoing redistricting process in the Florida legislature.
West's congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat congressmen.
A few weeks back, we quoted an unnamed legislator saying Allen West was screwed, a statement which was originally made about five months before the proposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe the fix was in against Allen West.
But in light of Weatherford's comment, it's increasingly clear it's a fait accompli.
It is going to happen.
Weatherford is a Romney guy, and this is why people think that Romney's behind this.
And many people do.
According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps won't change.
Those are the maps with West's district redrawn.
Weatherford said at the most any additional changes would be minimal.
Those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps, the ones that, again, write out Allen West.
In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Hadopoulos and Senator Don Goetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible.
And Weatherford, it is said here, tried to hide behind a need to comply with federal law.
But there could have been, look, Florida's getting two additional seats.
There's no reason to write anybody out.
Florida is getting two additional, because of the 2010 census, there's no reason to write West out.
So there's obviously a political component to this.
And again, the Romney conspiracy based on the fact that the guy in charge of redistricting is a former Romney supporter.
The Politico says Florida Speaker designate Will Weatherford has been a surrogate for Mitt Romney in the past.
Probably a current supporter as well.
So people hear about this.
Why does Nitt Romney care about congressional districts in Florida?
What it means is, maybe include Romney, I don't know, what it means is what many have been trying to warn you of for a long, long time, and that is that the establishment Republicans are trying to take the Tea Party out.
The establishment Republicans are trying to take the conservatives.
And this is another reason why in the Republican primary, there is such fevered opposition to Romney and to people who despise, like you just heard the previous caller, who despise the campaign that Romney's running.
Let's see.
Newt was on this week on Sunday, on yesterday.
He had a fill-in host, Jake Tapper.
Tapper said, as we pointed out last night, you held that rally.
This was at the Palm Beach, West Palm Beach County Lincoln Day dinner.
You got the endorsement of Herman Cain, but around the same time, a poll was coming out indicating that even though at one point in Florida you were neck and neck with Romney, he seems to have opened up his lead.
Why do you think your poll numbers in Florida have collapsed, Newt?
This is going to go on all the way to the convention.
I think clearly the conservatives and the grassroots are increasingly angry about the way in which the Washington establishment has rallied in many ways with complete dishonesty, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out the other day.
Some of the articles, some of the attacks on me have been breathtakingly dishonest.
And I think as that deepens, the conservatives are going to come together and decide they do not want a Massachusetts liberal to be the Republican nominee.
Saturday night, Fox News channel's Justice with Judge Janine as a Janine Pirro.
She interviewed Mike Huckabee, the host of Huckabee, which it figures that Mike Huckabee be the host of a show named Huckabee.
And he is.
And she said to him, now, we talked about those Mitt Romney attack ads in 2008.
Governor Rush Limboss talked about.
He said, Mitt Romney dumped those attack ads on you in 2008.
You hated him in 2008, and now you've endorsed him.
Of course I did.
You know, when you're the object of somebody's attack ads and they're distorting your record and making you appear to be something that you know you're not and your supporters know, it's not pleasant.
That was four years ago.
He was my opponent.
I'm not running against Mitt Romney right now.
He's not running against me.
It's hard to like somebody when you're running against them.
So, do you need me to close the loop for you on this?
You do?
Well, 2008, yeah, I hated Romney.
Yeah, he's lying about me.
But that was then.
This is now.
He's not running against me now.
He's not lying about me.
So I don't hate him now.
We don't carry grudges.
Mitt's the best guy.
I hate Newton.
Well, he didn't say he hates Newton.
I mean, I don't say that.
But that was then.
This is now.
And I've supported.
This is the Republican establishment hanging tight, holding together the elected office Republican establishment.
Now, Will Weatherford, the Romney guy, is saying he's got no choice, that because of the Voting Rights Act, you have to start the redistricting process with where black voters live and then do the districts that way.
It's federal law.
They can't draw them anymore with political considerations or desires, even if you are the governing or the majority party.
And he says it's these two new districts that are causing this.
They got to make room for them.
I've got an audio sound bite coming up.
I've just sent it up to Cookie where Weatherford explains this in part.
He says, hey, it's the Voting Rights Act and federal law.
I've got no choice.
Romney, I'm behind this.
He doesn't say that, but that's the clear implication.
We barely scratched the surface here, folks.
▲
Export Selection