All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:52
December 5, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, they released a 9-11 call, a tape of the 9-11 call, folks, of the Belcher case.
Call was made by his mother.
I was always confused whose mother it was that was there.
It was his mother who was there.
Tape was just released about an hour and a half ago.
NBC has not had a chance to doctor it yet from everything I understand.
But the day is young.
Great to have you.
Happy to have you along.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You know, amount that, I've been reading a lot of sports websites and blogs where there are comments featured to the commentary offered by various people that work at these, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Fox Sports, you name it.
And without exception, every one of these sports journalists has hijacked this episode and used it, as they do with every episode.
They politicize every tragedy in this country to advance their failed ideas.
In this case, gun control.
But what I've noticed is, and it's heartwarming in a way, all of the comp, I mean, almost all of them, all the people that read these websites commenting on all these posts are saying, would you give it a break?
I'm sick and tired of you guys holding this Javon Belcher guy up as some sort of poor victim.
Do you realize he killed his girlfriend?
He murdered the woman he didn't marry.
Do you guys realize you're talking about a murderer?
You are defending and lifting up him.
And all these guys are reacting.
Oh, my God.
I didn't know.
It wasn't my intention.
I'm just a reporter.
I'm just trying to cover the football link.
It is actually interesting to see because this is what happens.
I don't care what the incident, like this subway incident in New York.
You know what?
We got a New York Times story after fatal subway shove asking, were there no heroes?
And Matt Wauer on the Today Show today, very distressed that not one decent, good New York liberal would make a move to try to save this guy from being shoved in front of the train.
Where were the heroes?
And so now the photographer is the bad guy here.
The pictures published in the New York Post brought wide criticism.
But see, what happened in this case is, and as the Times writes about it, the question of the day in New York City yesterday, what would you do?
Rode on a wave of outrage over a harrowing act the day before.
Clearly agitated guy pushed a 58-year-old stranger onto the track of an oncoming subway train in Midtown Manhattan.
The man, Keysuck Han of Queens, was struck and killed.
As happens once every few years, riders collectively look down at the tracks to face a fear peculiar to the subway system.
What would you do if you were pushed on the tracks?
But somebody took a picture of this.
Freelance photographer waiting for the train took a picture seconds before the victim was struck.
The pictures were published in the Post, and they brought wide criticism.
They were derided as ghoulish and insensitive.
But the picture's mere existence started another conversation across the city on Tuesday, summarized by Al Joker on the Today Show says, somebody's taking that picture.
Why aren't they helping this guy up?
He fell in there in the train.
Where were the heroes?
There's New York good liberals.
Why didn't somebody help him out?
How could you just stand there and take a picture?
Ask yourselves.
You're the journalists.
You're the guys who claim you can't get in the way of the news taking place.
You're the guys that let all this kind of stuff happen and try to hijack it and turn it into a political cause for whatever you, except what's the political cause?
Nobody wants to ban subway trains because they're deadly yet.
So what's the cause to hijack here?
Well, the cost of hijack here is how people don't care.
Well, I'm sorry, a lot of these people are still waiting for their Santa Claus gift from Suricane Handy.
Sorry, Hurricane Sandy.
Trying to speak faster than the brain will keep up, or vice versa.
But seriously, it is, this Javon Belcher case is a great illustration.
I just want to tell you, it's an uplifting thing to see all of these readers raking these journalists over the coals for holding this guy up as some sort of sorrowful victim, some poor guy, and praising him for having the presence of mind to go to the stadium and thank the people who gave him his shot instead of characterizing him for what he was.
More on that as the program unfolds.
Ladies and gentlemen, this morning there was a joint press conference that featured the so-called Republican leadership of John Boehner and Eric Canter and about 15 other people that were standing there, and I don't know why, but they were smiling.
Now, what we got today was a seminar on how to surrender.
It was weak.
The Republicans have conceded the language.
They have conceded the silly notion of baseline budgeting.
I think it's time for reteaching of what baseline budgeting is.
Because until that's addressed, all of this is smoke and mirrors.
All of this fiscal cliff stuff, deficit reduction, talk, there isn't any.
There aren't any spending cuts, even if they claim there are, because of the current services baseline.
All there will ever be until that's fixed is cuts in the rate of growth of spending.
But there won't be any real spending cuts.
And the Republicans showed today that they're not even interested in it.
And now they go ahead and they're seeding the language.
So now deductions are loopholes.
You know what that sets up?
That sets up the premise that 100% of income is subject to taxation and that everything that we might deduct from our overall gross earnings is a loophole, not a deduction, not a legitimate deduction.
They just gave that away by conceding on the language here.
A loophole is not a deduction, but it has become one.
I mean, stop it there.
When you think of a loophole in the tax law, what do you think of?
You think of an unintended error that allows people to get away without paying their taxes.
That's what you think a loophole is.
Well, sorry, now a standard legal itemized deduction and every one of them have become loopholes.
And as such, they are subject to elimination.
So now the premise of 100% taxation, the premise, is now on the table.
And all that means is that all money is Washington's.
And what we end up with is totally up to their discretion and their big-heartedness or mean-heartedness.
What have you.
And so this seminar in Surrender Today also, we've got the sound bites coming up, you'll hear it, validated the false premise that confiscating additional private property will result in greater tax revenue going forward.
The Republicans have just given in.
They have compromised what have you on the premise that raising taxes on the rich will fix the problem.
They have conceded that the problem exists in part because the rich aren't paying their fair share.
They must feel so squished, so defeated, so universally disliked.
And I think we all had a sense of this the recent days after the election, first few days, you started listening to Republicans from the consultant class to the elected class all talk about what they had to do to start winning elections.
And it basically was, well, we have to adopt the liberal premise on things without actually saying so.
We've got to be open under amnesty, relax our views on abortion.
We got to concede that many of the Tea Party's a bunch of kooks.
You can't nominate them.
All that.
Well, it turns out that that apparently is exactly what they think they've got to do.
Because once you concede the premise that taking private property from people is justified and will actually reduce deficits, because it won't.
It can't.
The only thing can reduce deficits is two things, economic growth and spending cuts.
And nobody has anything on the table that's going to promote economic growth.
And of course, nobody has anything on the table that's going to result in any literally genuinely reduced spending.
So I think, you know, if it weren't for the fact that my expectations going into this were so low to begin with, I'd be really mad.
But my expectations on this have been fulfilled.
My expectations here thus have made it possible that I'm not blowing a gasket here.
But if I had, and I'm sure some of you, contrary to me, probably had high expectations.
You probably, well, we elected the Republicans.
They know that they're the last wall of defense.
They're the firewall.
Now, some of you, I'm sure, are livid and outraged.
And believe me, intellectually, I'm with you.
Emotionally, my expectations on this were so low that I'm not.
In fact, they've been met.
Well, it's close to it.
It's close to it.
Obama's going to end up getting what he wants.
We're using his language.
We're now calling new taxes revenues.
We have accepted the premise that new revenues will result in greater tax receipts going forward.
Yeah, let's listen.
Maybe I'm no, I was going to say maybe I'm wrong.
Let's here's Boehner on Capitol Hill press briefing on the fiscal cliff.
If the president doesn't agree with our proposal and our outline, I think he's got an obligation to send one to the Congress and a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress.
If you look at the plans that the White House has talked about thus far, they couldn't pass either house of the Congress.
We're ready and eager to talk to the President and to work with him to make sure that the American people aren't disadvantaged by what's happening here in Washington.
Well, the problem is, Mr. Speaker, that Obama doesn't want to deal with you.
He wants to go over the cliff.
He doesn't want to deal with you, except to the extent he can get you to concede to him.
Has no desire to deal with.
Here's Eric Cantor.
We want to sit down with the president.
We want to talk specifics.
We put an offer on the table now.
He is out of hand rejected that.
Where are the specifics?
Where are the discussions?
Nothing is going on.
Meanwhile, the people of this country are the ones that suffer.
So we ask the president, sit down with us, be serious about the specifics of spending so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem.
Well, it's the same old lingo, and those two bites do not feature the seeding of the language that I heard, i.e., deductions being loopholes.
But again, in that sense, it's not just these guys.
I mean, the Republican Party made that part of their presidential campaign.
You know, Romney was suggesting that we could reduce, we could, $1.2 trillion we could raise or something by eliminating deductions and so forth.
By the way, I have it here somewhere.
Obama back in 2011 said no way.
Where did it?
I thought I had it right here at the top.
I'm sorry, I don't.
Obama is contradicting himself.
Whatever he's saying today, he said just the exact opposite in 2011 about deductions and so forth, which is instructive and informative only in the sense that whatever he's saying now doesn't matter and can't be trusted.
He's saying, well, the economy's poised to take off.
Sorry, the map doesn't work out.
It just doesn't, just isn't there.
Let me take a break here.
I've got to anyway.
I want to find this point of contradiction with Obama.
There's a lot of other interesting stuff I heard.
Folks, I've said this stuff, frankly, don't want to disappoint you, but as I said, my expectations going into it were not very high anyway, so I'm not all that surprised at the way this is shaping up and the way it's going to end up going down.
I'll be shocked, pleasantly so, to be wrong, if indeed I am.
In the meantime, sit tight, much more straight ahead when we get back.
So don't go away.
Okay, I found it.
You know where I put it?
I put it under, I've got three pages here on Ryan and Rubio and the speeches they made at the Jack Kemp Foundation.
The Kemp Foundation has an annual dinner to celebrate Kemp.
And they met at the Mayflower Hotel last night.
And it was obvious, both Rubio and Paul Ryan, in their speeches, did everything they could to distance themselves from the 47% comment that Romney made.
That really has got the Republican Party shaken up.
I mean, everybody in it is just, I mean, Bobby Jindal, Rubio, now Paul Ryan, they all are just flabbergasted over that, and they think it's one of the reasons Romney lost.
And so they're all making tracks to distance themselves from that whole 47% comment that Romney made and the premise that is behind it.
Both their speeches, which they were to attempt to get out from under the legacy and make sure that they of that comment and make sure they have no contact with it.
They have no relationship with it whatsoever.
Don't agree with it.
They don't want any part of it.
And both of them, we've got sound bites of both their speeches coming up as well as the program on polls.
Anyway, I had put this story about Obama underneath that.
And here it is, basically, in negotiations on the looming fiscal cliff.
Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising tax rates on the top 2%.
It was the top 1%, by the way.
Now it's a top 2%.
Remember, he started out wanting $800 billion after he won the election, started flexing his muscles and jacked that up to $1.6 trillion.
And Boehner has come along and offered $800 billion with a premise of eliminating loopholes.
I can't tell you how the seeding of the, you know, the language matters.
Words mean things.
And to let the left once have another word and totally cop co-opt it and destroy its real meaning.
We've just allowed it to happen here.
So now every legitimate deduction, be it the from now on going forward, the mortgage interest deduction is a loophole.
The charitable deduction is a loophole.
The earned income tax credit's a loophole now.
Well, you know what low information voters think a loophole is.
You know what people who file a one-page tax form think a loophole is.
And the vast majority of Americans file one page, the 1040 EZ form.
How much did you make?
How much will you give us?
Here's what we're taking.
Send it in.
And they're done with it.
They don't know itemized deductions from the earned income tax credit.
All they know is what they make and what they pay, which in many cases income tax-wise isn't much.
But they hear the word loophole and they think tax cheat.
And so now every legitimate, by law, itemized deduction is considered a loophole for the express purpose of eliminating them.
Well, this is our private property we're talking about.
Our money is as much our private property as anything else that we have earned and that we own.
And Boehner has said, all right, I'll give you $800 billion, new revenue.
They live in this world.
They think because of the election that the American people want new taxes and want new revenue.
Here, this is what boils it down to the essence.
It's clear that they have no interest in teaching conservatism.
It's clear they have no interest in defending it or standing up for it or explaining it even.
And I think one of the reasons is that many of them really aren't conservatives.
It used to be that Republican Party and Conservative meant the same thing.
I don't think they do anymore.
It's been that way for a while.
But they don't explain it.
They don't take the opportunity to contrast it because they don't know it.
It's like they or some consultants convince them that all they got to do to win these precious independents or win the votes of people who are voting against them is go ahead and give them what they want, which is taxes on the rich.
And the rich now defines $200,000 a year.
Anyway, in negotiations on this looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising taxes top 2%.
Bloomberg interview yesterday said, just a matter of math.
There's been a lot of talk that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion worth of revenue by closing loopholes and deductions.
It's not a realistic option.
Yet it was just over a year ago in the same negotiations with Republicans going on now on the debt reduction deal that never came to fruition.
The White House proposed doing just that.
$800 billion, raising revenue, closing loopholes and deductions.
Yesterday, Obama says, can't do it.
There's not that kind of money there.
A year ago, he was all for it.
Well, how do you negotiate with somebody like this?
You don't.
And then why do you beg somebody like this to come sit at the table with you and give you a proposal?
Take it to him.
All right, here is what Obama said in July of 2011.
And this was during another such negotiation as this.
And it wasn't a fiscal cliff negotiation, but it was a debt reduction deal, debt limit, all that.
And here's what Obama said in July of 2011.
What we said was: give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes, tax rates.
We could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.
He said that a year ago.
Now, he did not mean it.
He said it.
Remember, July 11, it's re-election time in their mind.
He didn't mean it.
He doesn't mean lower tax rates.
He would never do it, but he talked about it.
But the important thing is, the takeaway here is that in July of 2011, Barack Obama articulated the very deal Boehner has offered.
After winning reelection last month, Obama said to hell with that and jacked up his demand to $1.6 trillion.
And he wants the Clinton tax rates back, which is close to 40% on the upper earners.
Yesterday, Obama said it's just a matter of math.
There's been a lot of talk somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes, deductions.
That's not a realistic option.
Well, there was a lot of talk about how we could do that.
Obama in July of 2011.
I mean, read these quotes again back to back.
Obama, July 2011.
Give us $1.2 trillion in additional tax revenues.
We could accomplish that without raising tax rates.
We could accomplish it by eliminating loopholes, some deductions.
Lower some tax rates, in fact, and broaden the base.
That's July last year.
Yesterday, it's a matter of math.
There's a lot of talk about how we could raise $800 billion or a trillion worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions.
That's not a realistic option.
Okay, so if you're Boehner and Cantor and these guys, which Obama do you deal with here?
Well, my point is, you don't deal.
I mean, this is like trying to get out of quicksand.
Herd cats swim in jello.
Whatever analogy that you want.
Now, here's Boehner Grip with Soundbite 22.
This is, I think it's 28.
Soundbite 28.
This is also from the press conference this morning.
This week we made a good faith offer to avert the fiscal crisis.
And that offer included significant spending cuts and reforms, and it included additional revenue.
And frankly, it was the balanced approach that the president's been asking for.
Now we need a response from the White House.
He's accepted the premise.
This is my point.
Okay, spending cuts will never happen.
Additional revenue?
Why don't we just call it taxes?
We've agreed with the president to raise taxes $800 billion.
Why not just say that?
It's a new revenue garbage.
We've already lost the word investment.
Investment now means tax increase.
Investment means more private property of yours taken away.
If somebody could convince me that our budget problems are because we're undertaxed, then maybe I'd have a different view, but it's not.
We do not have a taxation problem.
We have got a wildly out-of-control spending problem.
But we've just accepted the premise or we've offered.
And by the way, the new revenue that Boehner offered was $800 billion.
And Boehner offered exactly what Obama asked for last July.
And Obama said, well, the math didn't work out on that.
I tell you, what reminds me of my first ever contract in this business was in 1986.
I started in this business in 1967.
So essentially 20 years before I had a contract.
It was a big deal to have a contract.
Not everybody did.
It was a sign that you had advanced climbing the ladder and all that.
I didn't have an agent.
I don't have an agent now.
Why give somebody 20%, 5%, whatever, and I can do it myself.
At any rate, I am, quote unquote, in negotiations with the general manager.
And we said a meeting.
We're in the middle of the talks, as it is said.
They have a meeting scheduled for 7.30 one morning.
My program starts at 9.
Show up at 7.30, general manager in his office on the phone, puts his call on the hole.
What are you doing here?
I'm here for our meeting.
We don't have a meeting.
Yeah, we have a contract.
No, there's no meeting.
What are you talking about?
And he started thumbing through his calendar.
I don't have anything on the calendar here.
I don't have time for you today.
Ran out.
I said, what the hell just happened?
I didn't know what.
It was typical ploy.
I didn't know what was going.
We all learn as you go through these things.
And it didn't take me long to learn what had happened.
But at the moment, I'm thinking, did I get something wrong?
But what had happened was I had been put totally on the defensive.
And what had really been conveyed was, I don't care about you.
You're not important.
Why do you think I got a meeting with you?
Who do you think you are?
That was the message.
Well, that's all that's happening here.
A year ago, Obama made the comment to Boehner a year ago: $800 billion.
We can raise that if we close loopholes.
So Boehner offers it this year.
What are you talking about?
The math doesn't work out.
I don't know what you're talking about.
To complete the analogy, if I were to act then, if I would have acted like the Republicans are acting today, I would have walked out of the general manager's office.
I would have gone on the radio, started crying about it.
I said, well, you meet with me.
Come on.
I mean, we're supposed to be when you meet with me.
They're saying, well, the president just responded.
We've submitted a proposal.
All we want is the president react to our proposal.
We've done what he wanted.
Could he just submit a response?
I don't know.
Maybe they don't know or maybe they don't understand that they don't agree that what the president is trying to do is render them irrelevant.
There's a lot of ego attached to positions of power in Washington.
And it may well be that if you're Speaker of the House, it's inconceivable somebody would want to render you irrelevant in your own mind.
Maybe, I don't know.
I've never been Speaker of the House.
But I know egos.
I've been surrounded by them all my life, and I have a healthy one myself that's in check, by the way.
Contrary to popular opinion.
But again, we've ceded a lingo.
We're now calling tax increases revenue.
We're agreeing to $800 billion of revenue.
We're accepting a premise that it's a tax problem.
And yeah, and that it's a balanced approach.
And we're doing this with a guy that we know has run up the national debt $6 trillion in four years.
This guy has added to the national debt more than all previous presidents combined.
Now, the Republicans also have a history and a behavioral pattern you can predict, and that is they believe Obama won the election.
That means he should get his judges and he should get his budget.
And that's what it means.
And by the same token, when we win elections, we should get, because it never works out that way.
You never hear the Democrats adopting our language.
You never hear the Democrats abandoning their core beliefs and what they believe.
In fact, you never even, when they lose, you'd be hard-pressed to know it by watching the media and listening to the Democrats each and every day after they lose an election.
And you notice that in July of 2011, Obama said that we could raise $1.2 trillion by eliminating loopholes.
That's 50% more than Boehner says they could raise, $800 billion.
Obama said you could get $1.2 trillion closing loopholes in July of 2011.
So Boehner says, okay, well, here's $800 billion.
Oh, math doesn't work out, Obama says, no, no, no, math doesn't work out.
We can't do that.
I mean, that would mean eliminating the charitable deduction.
Why we can't do it.
When in fact, that's what he wants to do.
You know, I guess my point, if we're going to let him have his way, do it.
Don't compromise yourself in the process.
And don't make it look like his way is also yours.
But look, that's just me, folks.
I'm just a guy on the radio here, and I've never done their job.
And it's easy to throw spitballs here from the peanut gallery.
But there is a pattern.
There is a pattern that's undeniable here in every debt deal that's negotiated, be it the debt limit, be it this fiscal cliff, be it the budget.
There's a pattern, and it always involves us relaxing what we believe.
And I think due to the premise that we think we're hated, and so we got to do stuff to make people like us.
I still think that's at the root of a lot of this, plus the fact that they don't know conservatism.
They really aren't conservatives, and thus taking the occasion, the opportunity to teach it, to be instructive is really not relevant either.
Let's take a brief time out.
We'll be back.
And there's other stuff happening out there.
We'll get to it when we get back.
And to prove my point, CNN, CNN is overjoyed.
Here is their headline for their report on the Boehner press conference.
You ready?
Quote, the rich will pay more in taxes, Boehner says.
There you have it.
And so you see, the Republicans have now agreed with the premise that the problem is that the rich aren't paying their fair share.
We have just agreed with Obama's campaign premise.
The rich aren't paying their fair share.
The Republicans have agreed.
They've recognized this.
And Boehner says those days are over.
The rich will pay more in taxes.
Now, some of you might be, but Rush, but Rush, you know the media would say that.
No, not in this case.
If Boehner and the Republicans had steadfastly opposed raising taxes on anyone.
But Rush, but Rush, they can't win that.
That's not the point.
The point's what you stand for.
When this is all said and done, you have to have something to fall back on and go back to in order to move forward.
We've just given away something that used to be part of our brand.
That's right, Rush, and your brand is what's killing us.
Republicans love the rich, and Boehner knows it.
And that could be at the root of this, too.
It could be.
That these guys believe, the re-elected Republicans believe that the average American thinks the only people the Republicans care about are the rich.
And so let's get rid of that.
Let's just raise taxes on them to hell with it.
I'm sick and tired of being called a friend of the rich.
When, in fact, it's Obama's got all the crony capitalist deals with all the rich guys.
It could be that.
Whatever, it's defensive.
And whatever, it's reactionary.
It certainly isn't proactive.
Would you agree with that, Snerdley?
From the article, taxes on the wealthy are going up.
House Speaker John Boehner conceded today in challenging Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal eclipse.
You see, in the drive-bys, now we got the framework for a deal.
We're going to blame the rich.
We should have been doing that all along, and now Boehner's finally agreed.
It's okay, now we can move forward.
We're blaming the rich.
The last group of people with any money in the private sector have now officially been targeted.
Vinny, the old reliable, Vinny's like, old faithful.
When things blow up, Vinny from Queens somehow gets through here, and we welcome him back.
Vinny, welcome back to EIB Network, sir.
How are you?
Hey, Rush.
It's great to talk to you again.
You sound thrilled, Vinny.
Well, you know, it's a little tough these days, and I've been listening to you because you're about the only anchor I have.
Let me see if I can properly characterize how you feel for you.
I'm going to take a wild guess and stab.
And if I'm wrong, feel free to say so.
The election happened.
You've invested all these years in caring about this.
You've invested, I don't know how many years listening to this program.
You've invested a lot of years watching Fox.
You've invested a lot in what you think the Republican Party stands for.
And we have the absolute most disastrous Democrat president come down the pike.
And such an opportunity to finally, for once and for all, roll back what's known as liberalism or socialism.
And it's blown.
And you've said, after all these years of investment, what's the point?
So you turn this show off, you turn Fox off for a while.
What's the point?
I'm going to find something else to occupy my time or to be passionate about.
And then a few days, maybe a week go by, and you're back here.
And now you want to talk about it.
Am I close?
Well, you're close.
I never turned you off, but I did check out on a few other things because it's been, I told Bo, it's surreal what happened, and it's really hard to understand exactly what happened.
And, you know, basically, though, when you went on a few days ago about California and how those folks out there willingly vote themselves into liberalism with each passing year, and I've seen this over the years as, you know, I've watched and listened to you.
You're absolutely right.
I mean, I applauded out loud when you said that those people knew exactly what they were voting for, and it's what they wanted.
Well, I submit to you that the people of this country knew exactly what they were voting for November 6th, and they got it.
And that's why when my friends say to me, you know, what do I think is going to happen, all I say is let me ask you a quick question because they got just a minute and a half here.
But you've seen the polls.
Did you hear yesterday all these polls out there, three of them?
Obama voters don't want taxes to go.
They don't like Obamacare.
Did you hear those polls?
Rush.
I'm asking that in the context, you know, we think the people voted for what they want, and I'm wondering, how many Obama people really did?
I agree with you, but California, but the California, I'm so glad you mentioned California because I have a fascinating, fascinating piece from one of my tech blogs about an entrepreneur in California who can't believe what happened because he doesn't understand that California is more than just the coastal cities.
Well, I'd like to add one more thing or ask you one thing to think about and maybe give me an answer for.
You always told me that you would let me know when it's time to panic.
Yeah.
Okay, well, panic is set in a bit.
That's number one.
Number two, there was an analogy, and I don't know who made it, but it was damn spot on.
You can go over the cliff doing 90, which is what Obama's doing, or you can go over to Cliff doing 50, which is what the Republicans are doing.
Okay, just like you said, I hope he fails, I hope we crash and burn in this country a bit because it needs to happen.
Because you know what?
I may not save myself, but maybe my kids will have people.
I understand the people of America.
I don't know.
I understand the thinking.
You've given me a lot to address, including this piece from this guy in California.
This is fascinating stuff, folks.
I can't wait to get to this.
All right, what I think is a fascinating opinion piece about the California Prop 30 election when we get back.
And teachers in California still not happy.
▲
Export Selection