All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
September 18, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limboy and this, the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Happy to have you here.
Our phone number, if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the latest Gallup numbers are in.
Obama is down.
This is the election poll.
Gallup, it's Obama 47, Romney 46.
It was 48-45.
It was three.
Now it is two.
And 47%.
Romney said 47% have, whatever he said, he said about 47%.
So does Gallup.
Gallup says Romney's got 40%.
So Obama's got 47%.
It's exactly what Romney said.
But in the middle of all of this, which is supposed to have been, I don't care where you look in the media, this last seven days was supposed to finish Romney off, wasn't it?
And yet, Romney's up a point.
Obama's down a point.
The real world is that this past week has been an utter disaster for Barack Obama.
And so is this election going to be.
Hi, folks.
Great to have you.
Here's telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address, LRushpo at EIBnet.com.
I went back in the past.
I think this Romney statement really is like saying the sky's blue.
It's nothing really shocks anybody.
It's just that what it represents is an opportunity to the media, and what it represents is an opportunity for the Obama campaign.
But it's really no great.
We've said it.
A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing.
It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country.
Have we lost the country?
That's what this is all about.
So I went back.
I went back to the news archives.
And look what I have here.
My formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
This is USA Today, April 26, 2011.
Headline, Americans depend more on federal aid than ever.
Not Romney saying it.
It's USA Today.
Shuzaim.
It's the drive-by media saying it.
Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation.
It's exactly right.
And it's why Obama has to be stopped.
It's not what this country is, as Obama said as convinced, not who we are.
This is not who we are.
47% of this country's population helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party year after year after year.
Why are they dependent?
Nobody's saying that all 47% of them are slackers.
Nobody's saying at all 47% of them are losers.
A lot of them are victims of Obamaism of the Democrat Party.
They're victims of liberalism.
They're victims of an economy that does not grow.
They're victims of an economy that shrinks.
They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned.
They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy.
CNNMoney.com.
February 7, 2012.
Government assistance expands.
More than one in three Americans lived in households that receive Medicaid, food stamps, or other means-based government.
By the speaking of food stamps, who the hell's out there singing their praises?
Who the hell is out there advertising for them?
Who the hell is encouraging more people to get on them?
I ask you the question.
I'll answer it.
Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party.
You know it, and I know it.
You've seen the ads, billboards, magazine ads, not newspaper, because there aren't any of those anymore.
Newspaper ads.
I got stories.
It's devastating.
You won't believe what's happened in the newspaper advertising business.
It's folks, it's a wonder there's a newspaper being printed today.
I kid you not.
What's happened in a newspaper advertising business?
Who's out there advocating more food stamps?
Who is it that's advocating that you go out and find your benefits?
That's Barack Hussein Obama.
Is anybody out there advocating that you go make something of yourself?
Is anybody advocating that you take control of your life, pursue excellence, follow your dreams, be ambitious, be the best you can be?
If there is a candidate in this race that thinks that, believes that, and put it into play, it's Mitt Romney.
It is not Barack Obama.
The 47% that we're talking about that Gallup now confirms that are there in large part because of Democrat Party policies, because of the Barack Obama presidency.
And there's no skirting it.
There's no getting around it.
It's not because of George W. Bush.
It's not because of George H.W. Bush.
It's not because of Ronald Reagan.
It's not because of the way we've always been doing it.
We finally have to change it.
It's because of the way we're doing it now.
It's because of the policies of a Democrat Party as constituted today, led by Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.
That's why the number of people dependent on government is growing because they want that.
They want more dependence.
They want more need of government.
They want more people thinking that government is where they get the fair shake.
They want more people believing government is how they eat, that government is how they get a car, that government is whatever they have, cell phone, self-service, flat-screen TV.
They want people thinking it's government and personally Barack Obama who makes it possible.
And we know from Barack Obama town hall meetings in Tampa, shortly after he was imaculated, people showed up and did indeed ask for a new kitchen from Barack Obama.
Some asked for a new car, some asked for an entire house.
Some thought today we're on the inside and that's what it means.
That's what we get.
Who is it that just gutted the work requirements of welfare reform?
Was it Mitt Romney?
No, it was Barack Hussein Obama who just gutted the work requirements of welfare reform, which means what?
Which means it used to be that in order to qualify for welfare, you had to show that you were trying to find a job no longer.
That was considered to be unfair and punitive by Barack Obama.
So welfare, by the way, the welfare roles were reduced and falling up until the Obama economy because of welfare reform.
Why would you strip the work requirements out of welfare?
Why would you do that?
What's wrong with work?
Work is a good thing.
Work is where people take their self-worth.
Work is where people evaluate themselves, identify themselves, take their identity.
Why?
Why would you want to talk down about work?
Why would you dissuade people from the idea that work is good?
Why would you want to tell people it's not possible?
The Bush people jobs aren't there.
This is a new norm.
Why?
Who in the world wants to run a country where the new norm is one where there are no jobs?
Who said unemployment creates jobs?
Who said every dollar of unemployment adds $1.73 economic growth?
Who said that?
It was Nancy Pelosi.
Who is she?
Democrat Party.
Used to be Speaker of the House, now the leader of the Democrats in the House.
Who said food stamps create jobs?
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Party, Harry Reid.
Really?
Welfare creates jobs.
See, we, meaning conservatives, we want better than this for everybody.
We want for everybody the opportunity to be the best they can be or the best they want to be.
You talk about real love and compassion.
That's us.
We're the ones that just don't accept this version of humanity that people are incompetent, that they're inept, that they're not capable.
That's the liberal view of people.
You can't do it on your own.
You need Pelosi or Reed or Blabbermouth Schultz or Obama.
You need those people helping you.
You need them looking out for you.
You need them giving you your health care because you're too dumb, stupid, incompetent, incapable to do it on your own.
Mitt Romney doesn't think any of that.
Paul Ryan doesn't think any of that.
We have faith in people, believe in people, love people, want the best for everybody.
I'm telling you, the golden opportunity has been handed here because what Romney said to these donors has been made public.
Work is how you become independent.
This is what the Republican Party wants.
That's what the Democrat Party fears.
We want you independent of government.
We don't want people depending on government.
That's never going to get anybody anything.
That's not prosperity.
That's existence.
At best, subsistence, the norm.
Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire.
How did she become a millionaire aside from marrying it?
Do you think she did it on food stamps?
John Kerry's a millionaire.
How did he do it?
He married it.
You think John Kerry's a millionaire because of food stamps or welfare or any of the other programs they want you to be on?
Who really has the best intentions for the poor?
I would submit to you, it's Mitt Romney.
Any Republican, any conservative looks at people in poverty and says, not necessary, not in this country.
There are ways out of it, not ways of sustaining it and calling that compassion.
We don't define compassion by adding up the number of people who get food stamps.
We define compassion by how many people no longer need any of that stuff.
Not Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, and not the media.
The more dependent you are, the more ignorant you must be, and that's how they want you.
Okay, that's it for this Sterling broadcast segment, but there's more ahead.
Got to take a brief obscene profit timeout.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rushland Ball, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I want to, we went back to the archives moments ago for news USA Today.
Americans depend more on federal aid than ever.
That was April 26, 2011.
Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history.
Why is this?
I'm not going to repeat the opening monologue, but these stories have been out in the New York Times, AP, the increasing amount of dependence in this country.
Nothing new out there.
Since we're going back to the groove yard of forgotten favorites, I have a quote from you from Senator McCain.
On October the 10th of 2008, it's Puke City.
Are you ready?
He's talking about Barack Hussein Obama.
And Senator McCain, then presidential candidate McCain, said, da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da-da-da, he's a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared about as president of the United States.
If I didn't think I'd be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running.
How'd that work out for McCain?
How did it work out to talk about what a nice guy Obama is?
How did it work out to the decent person he is?
Well, let's go back and let's tell that to the 300 people who are dead because of Fast and Furious.
Tell that.
He's a decent person.
You don't have to be scared of.
Tell that to a nobody filmmaker who was taken from his home in the middle of the night as part of an elaborate scheme and distraction for making a video that nobody saw that this man repeatedly wants to tell us is the reason Muslims are having an uprising on 9-11.
The filmmaker.
Tell him that Obama's a decent guy.
The country's credit rating has been downgraded a second time.
Nothing to be scared about, Senator McCain.
We're $16 trillion in debt.
No budgets for the past several years.
Nothing to be scared of, Senator McCain.
The worst recovery since the Great Depression, if you can call it a recovery.
A second depression is in the cards of the guys elected.
He's a decent person.
You don't have to be as scared of him as president.
Really?
The military's being gutted.
Sequestration cuts has alarmed even Obama's Secretary of Defense.
He's announced timetables where we're going to pull out.
He's announced defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nothing to be worried about here, right, Senator McCain.
48 million Americans on food stamps, up 15 million since Obama was immulated.
He's a decent guy.
Nothing to be scared about here.
He'll be a wonderful president.
Obama says he wants to do to every American industry what he did to GM.
Oh, that's comforting.
Medicare, Medicaid, private health care, soon to be non-existent.
He's a decent guy, Limbo.
She's a decent guy.
And he's not scared.
He's scared he can't.
You don't have to be scared.
Right?
There's more.
I'm too scared to continue.
I'm too frightened to list more, but you get the drift.
Tim in Salem, Oregon, as we go back to the phones.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Dittos, Rush.
Thank you.
Rush, I would like to know or have a better understanding of the Associated Press.
I would like to know who controls the Associated Press, and do they have a bias?
Excuse me.
The Associated Press, I think the president of the Associated Press, a woman right now.
I don't know her name, but she runs it.
It really, they're graduates from some of the most renowned journalism schools in the country.
If you want to know who controls American journalism, I'd have to say Columbia University School of Journalism.
I'm being dead serious.
That's who controls it.
The Ivy League journalism schools, maybe the University of Missouri J School, throw them in there too.
But that's where these farm is.
That's where these little liberal reporters are produced.
Now, bias, you know, it's an interesting question.
Are they, I don't know that it's, yeah, clearly they are, but it's more than that.
Tim, they all think alike.
They all think alike because they've all been trained the same way.
They don't look for the news.
They look for the narrative to construct that will advance their agenda, which is that of the Democrat Party.
They're not, Tim, if I were you, I wouldn't look at them as media anymore.
They are Democrats with bylines.
They are not journalists.
They're not reporters.
Their job is no longer to go out and find out what happened and tell everybody about it.
That basically is what journalism is.
What happened that people didn't see, and you tell them about it.
That's not what's going on here.
Oh, it's not a woman anymore.
April 2012, Gary Pruitt.
Gary Pruitt took over as the CEO of the Associated Press.
It's a collective, Tim.
Think of it as a commune.
Think of it as the kids of the 60s have grown up and they live and work in the same place.
Look, a collective, a cooperative, any number.
Gary Pruitt also heads McClatchy News.
Did you know that?
Yeah, Gary Pruitt heads McClatchy News.
I used to work for McClatchy.
Yeah, essentially they are.
They're about the same guy.
But I think, I think, like when I grew up, there was a newspaper, St. Louis Globe Democrat.
It was actually going to say it was Globe Republican because it was the conservative.
It needs to be the New York Times Democrat, the Boston Globe Democrat, the Washington Post Democrat, the L.A. Times Democrat, USA Today Democrat.
They all need to add Democrat to their name.
Commune, collective, cookie cutters produced by J schools, Columbia University J School, that's the biggie.
And then you've got, you wouldn't believe.
This guy that wrote the great, great book on me, Zev Shafetz, who wrote the book on me, he went, is this in the book?
I can't remember if this is in the book.
He went to either the dean or some high-ranking prof at the Columbia University J School.
And this journalism professor, now this guy is launching on me to Zev.
And ultimately admits, he's never even listened to me.
He's a journalist.
He's teaching journalism.
And his criticisms of me are every cliche that every other liberal has.
Racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, mean-spirited, extreme, whatever the list is.
And he just ran right through them.
And Zev, eventually, have you ever listened again?
No, I don't have to.
I know what Limbaugh is all about.
All I have to do is read Media Matters.
Media Matters will tell me everything I need to know about Limbaugh.
By the way, Media Matters, Fox News reporting, I don't know who uncovered this.
Media Matters has been working with the Department of Justice.
Now, they're a non-profit, tax-free.
They're working with the Department of Justice to spin news coming out of DOJ.
Going back to the news archives, Grooveyard Forgotten Favorites.
This is, oh, by the way, it's the Daily Caller that uncovered the link between Media Matters for America and the Department of Justice.
Daily Caller uncovered the Media Matters DOJ connection.
A daily caller has been on Media Matters case for some time.
Now, Media Matters is George Soros funding.
And they're just that is where, by the way, hey, you know what?
That is where members of the media find out what happened on shows like mine.
They don't listen to this show.
Now, they might turn on the first 10 minutes on a day like this.
But routine during the day, nope, they wait for Media Matters or other liberal media watchdogs to shape, misquote, and take out of context things were said here, and then report that.
What the Daily Caller has found, internal Justice Department emails that show DOJ staffers helping Media Matters target news outlets that were reporting on DOJ scandals like Fast and Furious.
So DOJ was going to Media Matters for help on getting news out about that and how to slant it and other things.
DOJ, Eric Holder, Department of Justice, was basically trying to suppress news outlets.
And of course, there's no outrage over that because they're all in it together.
The truth is, DOJ doesn't have to call Media Matters.
They could call Bob Schieffer.
They could call Brian Williams.
They could call Scott Pelley.
Say, how do we play this?
Well, look, the New York Times op-ed babe, the former budget guy for Obama, Peter Orsag, he's now occasionally a columnist for the New York Times.
He wrote a piece and submitted it, and the op-ed babe sent it up to the White House for approval and correction before they printed it.
So I don't know why they need to use Media Matters.
They've got direct pipelines to all these news cabals.
Yeah, just call the editor of the Washington Post.
Look, we're DOJ.
We've got a primary kooks out there trying to make something out of Fast and Furious, and we want to steer this different direction.
How would we do it?
How should we publish it in a way that you would print what we say in favorable light?
And I'm sure the Washington Post would tell them.
For Crying in the Wild, folks, we've got Jan Crawford and some guy from NPR trying to create a narrative last week on how to make Romney look bad on his statement following the uprisings in the Middle East.
You remember Nina Burley?
Does that name ring a bell?
Come on, snerd.
I can't believe that you have forgotten.
Of all journalists, I can't believe you would have forgotten Nina Burley.
Nina Burley at Time magazine once publicly wrote that she would give Clinton a Lewinsky simply thanking him for keeping abortion legal.
Anywhere, anytime, she would give Clinton a Lewinsky.
She's now a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism.
What did we see the other day?
Just yesterday, the day before, there is a, I think here in Florida, a high school math teacher gave students a pledge form.
They had to promise.
Maybe it was a junior college or whatever.
They had to promise to vote for Obama.
A math teacher somewhere here in Florida gave students, and it was tied to getting a grade or whatever.
And they found her and she's in trouble, ostensibly.
But this, in a journalism education, it's all the Democrat Party.
They really aren't professions anymore.
The school teachers in Chicago, when you have, honestly now, folks, what is the number?
80% do not have eighth-grade reading proficiency in the Chicago public schools.
And the teachers want a 16% raise or more and they're on strike.
Whatever's happening there, it isn't teaching.
Whatever is going on in the schools, it isn't learning.
It's not the expansion of the mind.
It's obviously propagandizing going on, whatever.
How can that be?
What is the 50% of the graduates in Chicago don't read?
The dropout rate in the New York public school system is 50%.
These aren't teachers in these areas.
This is not an indictment of all.
I was telling you, teaching, journalism, pop culture, the professions are, what's the word I'm looking for?
The word I'm thinking of is shield, and it's not what I mean.
They're a distraction.
They're just Democrats.
They're party activists that hold these jobs.
And they are disguised as these teachers.
They're disguised as journalists.
They're disguised as entertainment reporters.
They're just Democrats or liberals, one and the same.
Here it is.
Professor Sharon Sweet at Brevard Community College allegedly told students to sign a pledge that reads, I pledge to vote for President Barack Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.
Sharon Sweet, Brevard Community College.
And Brevard, that's, what is that?
Titus Villainson.
Is that Space Coast?
What?
Still didn't hear you.
Melbourne.
Okay.
I thought we were saying Melbourne.
Melbourne, Florida.
So the Melbourne area.
Melbourne, Fort Pierce.
Okay.
Well, it's close enough to the Space Coast.
Don't go getting that way.
It's still in Florida.
What the hell does it matter?
You know, I wish you people would hold Obama to the same standards of accuracy that you hold me.
And that wasn't even a mistake.
Just, I wasn't quite sure.
I don't know the counties.
I know Palm Beach, and that's it.
Well, I know, I know Miami-Dade and Broward.
Yeah, I couldn't think of it there for a minute.
I'm so seldom there.
Port St. Lucie, of course I do.
Absolutely.
Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, and Martin County.
Well, yeah, because there are golf courses in those counties that I play.
Now, here's these are, think of them as patronage jobs, the teacher job patronage jobs, journalism job patronage jobs.
And by the way, all of these people, not the teachers, but the journalists, they all come from the Ivy League, and they're all farmed by the Ivy League.
There's a network.
They all exist there.
They go to school.
This is how they get to know each other.
They network.
They come out.
They all go to government and either go to government, they go to journalism, they go think tank, but they all are liberals, just in different locales.
Some of them are career bureaucrats.
Some of them are appointed judges.
I mean, they're infested out there.
We are in infestation.
Based on the allegations, associate professor Sharon Sweet has requested and has been granted a leave of absence without pay, effective immediately, reads a statement put out by John Glish, the Associate Vice President for Communications at Brevard Community College.
That's the teacher that it's a math class.
I think she's a math teacher.
She said, I pledge to vote for Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.
So Ivy League equals networking.
That's all it is.
And if you're not part of that, you are a nerd, a weirdo, an outcast.
You're not in a big click.
That's why they hated Palin.
She's crashing the party.
It's not supposed to happen.
You're not supposed to get anywhere near the levers of power she got from some stupid college in Iowa.
That's just not supposed to happen.
And so they had a destroyer.
It really is no more complicated than that.
Brief, brief timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
Broadcast excellence undeterred.
Continues on in a moment.
Okay, so I know.
Check the email.
Oh, wait a minute, Rush.
Now, Bush, Yale BS, Harvard NBA, how come those people hated him?
He ran against him.
He had the audacity to run against him as a Republican.
What about Romney Rush?
Romney's, what is it, Harvard BS, JD, and NBA?
He's Harvard.
Yeah, running a place of Mormon.
Uncool.
Plus, these guys, they have conservative moral, pro, pro-life nuts.
That's a deal killer.
That's a deal killer in a gang of 500.
That ain't going to happen.
That's what the Harvard, the Ivy League trail from school to government is called the Gang of 500.
It includes media.
And you're not in a gang of 500.
They make the town go.
Turn.
So I got a story here.
I've had it for five days here.
Commentary is Unraveling America.
Charles Murray's latest book suggests the elite colleges are tearing apart the nation's social fabric.
I'll share the details with you in the next hour.
Right now, it's soundbite time.
Here, Jay Carney.
Such BS.
This is this morning, White House press briefing.
And let's just get started.
This is, yep, responding to the Romney video.
When he made the decision against the advice of many to take action to save the auto industry, the president did not ask whether the 1.1 million Americans whose jobs would be saved had voted for him or against him.
When he pressed for 18 small business tax cuts, he stepped on board on board or fall asleep.
Can't afford it.
Let's move on summit 28.
This is the media now asking Carney about Obama's bitter clingers comment.
No.
I've already addressed it.
I've addressed it every day since Obama was elected.
Everybody listening here knows that that's flat-out bull crap.
And it bored me.
Little kid just ranting and raving.
He didn't have any energy in what he's saying.
I can't afford people getting bored here.
So now unidentified reporters as to Carney.
President's also had his fair share of this stuff.
You know, the bitter clinger comment and so forth.
How's Romney's comment any different from what the president said?
I think that happened four years ago and was discussed in abundance at the time.
What the president said four years ago, what he said eight years ago, what he says today, and what he's said ever since he took office here is that he's fighting for every American.
That's crap.
But he firmly believes fighting against every American.
That's what unites us is far stronger and greater than what divides us.
This is such bad people in America.
Were you the United States of America?
Right.
Jay, you had a pap smear yet?
You need one.
Okay?
They wouldn't let the question die.
If the president can make a comment like he did in 2008, where he made a remark, direct relation, large portion of the electorate, bitter clingers, and Romney makes a similar remark, also offended.
Senator Obama never said that he did not worry about or would not worry about 47% of the population.
A lot of folks when we travel around the country ask why the president communities and counties that he hates the bitter clingers, Carney.
You know it and I know it.
He resents the bitter clingers.
He wants to punish because he's there to take it.
Isn't it more interesting to hear me tell you what Carney's saying than to listen to him say it himself?
Because he firmly believes that building this country up helps everybody.
That's the essence of his governing philosophy, and it's at the core of who he is.
Who's he lifted up outside of Jeffrey Amelt, the Cylindra guys?
Who's he lifted up?
Tell me, give me a name.
I want to meet the guy.
Who's Obama lifted up?
Outside the regime?
Give me the name.
Okay, let's see.
One, two.
That was one more of these.
Darn it, I was hoping that was it, but there's one more.
Another reporter having exchange here about Obama's bitter clinger.
I mean, the media's kind of ragging, Jay, about this.
Is now the time to bring up your April 14 column from 2008 when you said the president's words were poorly chosen on the guns and bitter?
I don't remember that column.
But the I honestly don't.
I can read the whole thing for you if you want.
I think the president, then candidate, addressed this at the time four years ago.
I'm stopping the broad.
I'm tired of propaganda.
Here's what the reporter's talking about.
April 15th, 2008.
PMS, NBC, race for the White House with David Gregory.
There's a discussion about Obama running against Hillary.
And at the time, Jay Carney was the Washington Bureau Chief of Time magazine.
And he's on this show.
And David Gregory says, let me go ahead and move on.
Finally, from Reverend Wright to what's called Bittergate.
These two damaging controversies have raised direct questions about Obama's electability in the fall.
The third question tonight, what will it take to convince superdelegates that Obama's problems are real?
Jay, this is going to come up in the debate tomorrow night.
The strategy now Hillary's pursuing.
What about this bitter clinger stuff, Jay?
Well, it is.
Look, he's got problems, and he's exposed a huge weakness in this past week with his comments about small-town Pennsylvanians because it reinforces a perception that he's urban and urbane, but not particularly well connected to small-town America, working-class Americans.
And you can, you know, this is not a deal killer.
And if Hillary Clinton does not win Pennsylvania going away, I think it's put to rest for a while.
But it will come back, and it will come back fiercely in the fall election.
So, back in 2008, when he was a Democrat with a byline instead of the press secretary, he said that Obama's bitter clinger comment was, you know, that's not good.
It's got a problem.
He's got a problem.
And a reporter asked him about it.
He said, Is it time to bring up your April 14th column from 2008 when you said Obama's words were poorly chosen?
And Carney said, I don't remember that column.
So, I mean, it's just a revolving door.
In 2008, he's the bureau chief for Time Magazine, supposedly a journalist to tell us what we don't know is going on.
He's just a Democrat with a byline in 2008.
And he got a promotion.
Once Obama won, he became Biden's press secretary.
And then they eventually figured out that two things happened.
Gibbs got fed up, Robert Gibbs, and wanted to move on to the private sector and make some money while he had time.
They needed a replacement for Gibbs.
They figured Carney had really paid his dues, having to work for Biden a couple of years, anybody.
So they promoted him to be the press secretary for Obama.
And when this is done, he's going to be back at Time Magazine or some so-called journalism outfit.
Now, essentially being an objective journalist or a bureau chief or whatever again.
And they'll do this with a straight face, thinking nobody notices that they're just clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, purely objective.
When it's all a game, folks, all a game.
No, I have not received my FedEx tracking number for the iPhone 5.
I don't get a FedEx tracking number for the iPhone 5.
I get the iPhone 5.
Not tracking numbers.
▲
Export Selection