All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
December 10, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying, because the views expressed by the host of this program rooted in a daily, relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Great to have you here.
Another full week of busy broadcast excellence as opposed to lazy broadcast excellence.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
And the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Do you see where John Boehner and Obama met at the White House, face to face for the first time in 23 days?
I wonder if Boehner had to wear one of those cheesy name tags.
Hi, I'm John Boehner, Speaker of the House.
Been so long since he's been there.
No word on whether Boehner took a white flag with him or not.
Well, what can you say here, folks?
Fiscal Cliff negotiations proving once again that Obama is never worried about trying to fix the problem.
All he's trying to do is fix the blame.
Now, there was a guy on CNBC.
The name Peter Schiff ring a bell, it does to me.
I've seen this name over and over.
He is the CEO of something called Euro-Pacific Capital.
He was on CNBC recently.
And he said, first of all, I'm in the top 2%.
Right now, I'm paying 45%.
He lives in Connecticut.
I'm paying 45% of my total income in income taxes, both to the state of Connecticut and to the federal government.
If you take the 3% Medicare tax, and then after the tax increase is going to affect next month, more than half of my total income is going to the government.
Now, you tell me what's fair about that.
When the medieval serfs pay 25% and I'm paying half, he's introducing a new fairness argument here.
What the hell is fair about the top 2% already paying close to half the income tax burden and then having their income taxes go up?
And he then said, I don't care what the majority voted to do.
They don't have a right to steal my money just because they voted to do it.
Oh, yes, they do.
That's where we are.
They do have a right to your money, Mr. Schiff.
That's what the election of Obama meant.
That's why people voted for Obama.
I am more and more convinced that the Obama voters knew what they were doing, just as the voters in California, Proposition 30, knew what they were doing.
Look, as long as the gravy train keeps rolling, and we've talked about this, I don't know how many times, the unemployed have their unemployment extension.
And by the way, that's been proposed, a new extension for unemployment, because you know what's hurting unemployment extension?
The falling unemployment rate.
As the unemployment rate goes down because of the formula, unemployment extensions expire.
And so the regime has to do something about that.
So now part of the fiscal cliff deal, there's a new wrinkle that's been added to the fiscal cliff deal, and that's extending unemployment benefits.
I kid you not.
And it's going to happen.
Now, as long as the gravy train keeps rolling and they've got their unemployment, got the plasmas, cell phones, debit cards for food stamps and so forth.
Obama's base is going to believe everything's hunky-dory.
As long as there aren't any cuts to the programs that provide for them, they're going to think everything's fine.
And there aren't going to be any cuts to entitlements.
There just aren't going to be.
A, the Republicans don't have the leverage.
B, I don't think the Republicans have the real desire to do that.
I mean, en masse, I don't think there are enough votes for that to happen.
Let me put it that way.
But as Britt Humes today said on Fox News, there's a certain reality here.
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, take your pick.
All these entitlements, I mean, those are to the Democrat Party the crown jewels of their existence.
They're not going to, and I mentioned this last week when I talked about the fact that there is no middle ground.
There is no common ground here for a negotiation.
Because what the Republicans want, what the Democrats want are two totally different things.
The Republicans want spending pretty much cut.
They want taxes held pretty much the same, although they're now willing to increase revenue.
That's going to happen too.
Boehner's already offered $800 billion.
But you know what?
The New York Times has a story out.
The timing is just wonderful.
Guess what, folks?
Guess what?
The New York Times has just learned that the revenue raised by eliminating loopholes and deductions, you know, darn it, it just isn't going to be enough.
We're going to have to raise the rates too.
Shazam just figured it out over the weekend in a late dispatch to help Obama.
It can't do this with just closing the loopholes.
Not possible.
Going to have to raise the rates too.
Jackie Kalmas, New York Times.
That's it.
Well, I'm sorry, folks, there's no common ground because the Republicans do not want to raise taxes.
They want to cut spending.
Democrats don't want to cut spending.
The Democrats don't want any changes in it.
The Democrats want more spending to sustain the entitlements because that enables the gravy train to keep rolling.
And as long as the programs that provide for Obama's low-information, high-benefits voters, as long as those things continue to provide their benefits, what do they care about the deficit?
Seriously, the low-information voter, the Obama voter, what do they care about?
Unfunded liabilities.
They don't even know what that is.
What do they care about?
Credit ratings.
You know, you run up to a typical Obama voter.
Hey, you know what?
We're going to lose our AAA credit.
What?
What's credit?
Well, the country has a credit rating.
I don't understand.
Explain it to me.
And then you start explaining and you lose them because they don't care.
What do they care about inflation?
What's any of that to them?
It's just gibberish.
And our great piece over the week, actually, a couple of great pieces on many of the problems conservatives have.
Democrats sell benefits.
We sell features.
Democrats sell.
Stop and think about this.
And I'll give you some examples as the program unfolds.
Democrats sell benefits.
What does this mean to you?
We talk about features.
We talk about how low taxes are going to spur economic growth and create upward mobility, but there's no direct benefit to it.
It's a theory that is true, but there's no immediate payoff to it.
There's no immediate benefit.
We've got all the great features, but they offer all the benefits.
I saw another analogy that what the Republicans are in the process of doing is making the mistake that Coca-Cola made.
Back in 1985, Roberto Goizueta, who was the CEO of Coke, said, you know what, we've had this same formula for all these years.
We need to modernize.
So they came out with new Coke.
And an uproar took place.
And within, what was it, three weeks?
They had to reintroduce the old Coke as Coke Classic, and the new Coke was gone.
Well, the theory that I read, it was, I think at Red State, actually, it might have been, I think it was Red State.
Theory is the Republican Party has been doing new Coke, but gradually we have been caving on the things that identify it.
We've been giving away our recipe.
We changed our recipe on our own.
And the latest example of changing the recipe is, you know what?
We're all for amnesty now.
We've got to go demographics.
We've got to open the borders and we've got to get those votes.
Yeah, we're being rejected because of our policy on immigration and Hispanics.
And so the Republican Party, nobody knows what it is anymore.
Whatever it used to be, it's changing the formula.
Whereas Coke did it overnight.
This is just a theory.
And it's interesting.
In addition, oh, talk about a snake bit party.
No sooner does Obama win the election, no sooner, predictably, do all the wizards of smart in the Republican Party, from the Weekly Standard to Wall Street Journal or wherever say, we got to modernize on immigration.
We are going to have to just, we can't stalk, we can't talk about self-deportation.
We can't talk.
We're going to have to acknowledge that we're going to have to grant amnesty.
We're going to have to really modernize our immigration.
We're going to have to get up to speed on this.
No sooner do the wizards of smart decide to do that than guess what?
Michael Baron has a piece, The End of the Wave.
Is mass immigration from Mexico to the United States a thing of the past?
And he chronicles something we reported to you months ago.
The net has changed.
There are more Mexicans leaving America to return home than there are Mexicans coming to the United States.
There are many reasons for it, but primarily economic.
The Mexican economy is growing sufficiently so that the Mexican middle class looks a little better to people who live in Mexico.
There's no reason to flee it or not as big a reason.
The second reason is, interesting stat from Baron's piece: 25% of home foreclosures in this country have been experienced by Hispanics.
People who moved here, wanting the American dream, they live in the southwest in the dust states, as it's referred to by Baron.
And they got here and they bought into the dream and they bought a house and then the market went south, it tanked and their house is underwater.
So what the hell?
And they're leaving.
So no sooner do the Republicans say, you know what, immigration is our answer.
People are leaving.
And not coming in in net increased numbers.
It's becoming comical.
The whole thing is just becoming...
Yeah, the Koch analogy was Patrick Millsaps at Red State.
Mexico GDP is over 3.5%.
The Mexican economy is growing at 3.5%.
Ours is not even half that.
So Damaicans, they have their choice.
They're more than welcome here, as we know, but they're choosing to stay in Mexico.
And some here are choosing to return to Mexico.
Now, there is a factor here that some of Obama's voters are leaving, but they'll be brought back in time next election.
That won't be a problem.
By the time the next election, you'll be able to vote in Mexico City or Guadalajara or wherever they live.
Obama will see to it.
But anyway, folks, we just have any number of crazy things that are happening out there.
And in addition, get this.
There's an audio soundbite.
Start here at the top.
Last night, I'm sorry, last Friday on the Ellen DeGeneres show, she interviewed the singer Christina Aguilera.
And they were having a discussion about her October meeting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
And this is Ellen DeGeneres and Christina Aguilera discussing it.
Let's talk about this next picture of Hillary checking you out.
It kind of looks photoshopped or something.
It does.
It's not.
It was a reality.
Could you feel her gazing down on your breastesses?
She's such like a voice in a room.
She's just got that, you know, star charisma and everything about her.
I just, I couldn't take my eyes off her either.
So as usual.
Wow.
Is that bad?
I don't know.
I knew I shouldn't.
No, it's not bad.
All right.
So what are we to ascertain here?
What happened was that Christina Aguilera found herself the same room with Hillary.
Hillary came in and couldn't take her eyes off Christina Aguilera's boobs.
Christina Aguilera was proud.
Christina Aguilera was excited.
Hillary has the kind of charisma.
She walks in her room and she's just a force in her, that star charisma, everything about her.
I just couldn't take my eyes off her either.
So I was looking at Hillary.
She was looking at my breasts and it was a mutual thing.
I'm telling you, folks, I'm telling you.
We were just talking about how women check each other out, Snerdly, while all the men in the room are doing their own ogling unknown to the men.
So Hillary is checking out Christina Aguilera's breastesses, as Ellen DeGeneres says.
And what do you think she thought?
Now, have you heard what Newt is saying about Hillary?
That if she's a nominee in 2016, it's already over.
The Republicans cannot beat her.
It's over.
Do you know that?
Newt said it.
Let's set it up.
Sunday morning, ABC's this week, the roundtable, Stephanopoulos talking to Carville about Hillary Clinton maybe running in 2016.
He says, look, every decision she makes now, she has to look at it to the prism of that bigger decision, right, Jimbo?
Every Democrat I know says, God, I hope she runs.
We don't need a primary.
Let's just go to post with this thing.
We don't want to fight with anybody over anything.
We've got a pretty good demographic deck.
We kind of get, we like winning presidential elections.
She's popular.
Let's just go with it.
Democrats wanted to run.
And I don't just mean a lot of Democrats.
I mean a whole lot of Democrats, like 90% across the country.
We just don't, we just want to win.
I mean, Obama not even been immaculated, and they're already having orgasms over Hillary in 2016.
God, I hope she will.
We don't even need a prime.
We'll just go to post with this thing.
We'll just make it.
We'll just make it a vision.
She's a nominee, and let's just go ahead and say at 2016, she's president.
It's over.
Jodi Cantor, CBS News this morning, this morning, Charlie Rose talking about Hillary.
He says, nobody knows, but at a time like this when a woman has had such a rich and varied life in so many important positions, when history comes calling, you can't say no, can you, Jodi?
So when everybody you meet abroad at home every day tells you that you are truly the best person to be the next president of the United States, which is what a lot of people are telling her, that is hard to resist.
Here's one fun tea leaf to read, which is that I do hear that President Bill Clinton is very eager for her to run.
But he sits there on his plane and he games out the scenario for what a run may look like.
So if everybody, including your husband, is telling you to do it, that's hard to resist.
Out of nowhere, out of nowhere this weekend, they have created a narrative out of nowhere.
I didn't know everybody around the world was telling her she had to run.
I didn't know 90% of Democrats said it's Hillary in 2016.
I didn't know they wanted to dispense with the primary and just confirm her.
I didn't know any of this.
But over the week, every world leader wants her to run.
Bill wants it to run.
He's mapping to run out on the airplane.
Carville wants her to run.
And so they asked Newt about it on Meet the Press, and he said this.
If their competitor in 2016 is going to be Hillary Clinton, supported by Bill Clinton and presumably a still relatively popular president Barack Obama, trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl.
And the Republican Party today is incapable of competing at that level.
So I left here on Friday.
I didn't know any of this.
I didn't watch the Sunday shows.
I got the Soundbite roster 30 minutes ago, and I learned for the first time it's a fait accompli.
Now, I know she's already been ticketed, talked about.
I have to take a break here, folks.
Sit tight.
Be back in just a second.
Don't go.
Do you remember the battery maker, the electric car battery maker A123 systems?
You might remember they were recipients of stimulus cash, green energy stimulus cash from Obama, like the solar industry and all the other green energy, the wind gang and so forth.
Well, the A123 systems battery outfit took all that money and went bankrupt.
And now they're being bought at ChiComs.
The ChiComs.
What a way.
The ChiComs own a lot of our debt anyway.
So what a brilliant way to funnel money to the ChiComs and an American company to boot that is in an industry targeted by Obama as the wave of the future.
So now the ChiComs own a battery company in America that has gone bankrupt.
ChiComs will build it back up.
And the ChiComs will now make batteries for the forthcoming electric cars that Obama thinks we all ought to be driving.
I didn't know, I really did not know over the weekend that the Democrats had anointed Hillary Clinton as their nominee.
But the New York Times has an article kicking off Hillary's campaign today.
Jody Cantor, they've got that article.
And you just heard Carville and everybody on board.
It's a fait accompli.
Let's just take this thing to post now.
It's already done.
90% of Democrats, 90% of world leaders.
Everybody wants Hillary.
Bill wants Hillary.
Everybody wants Hillary.
Just make her president.
Go ahead and say, January 2017, she moves in the Oval Office.
It's done.
It's over with.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
I literally, I had no idea.
I mean, I knew that Hillary was a likely Democrat candidate in 2016.
I had no idea that the Democrats and the media had already anointed her.
I had no idea that every world leader that she's ever met wants her to be president.
I had no idea that 90% of the Democrats had already decided.
I had no idea that this is already done.
I left here Friday not knowing any of this.
I woke up today not knowing any of it.
I didn't know any of this until I looked at the Soundbite roster and found that New York Times piece by Jody Cantor, which kicks off the Hillary.
It's not even a campaign.
That's the whole point.
I mean, she will campaign, but she's not going to have to.
She's already the nominee and thus already the president, because remember what Newt said on Meet the Press yesterday morning talking about the Hillary anointment.
If their competitor in 16 is going to be Hillary Clinton, supported by Bill Clinton and presumably a still relatively popular president Barack Obama, trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl.
And the Republican Party today is incapable of competing at that level.
We can't beat her.
Here we are on December 10, 2012, and we can't beat Hillary in a presidential campaign 2016.
I didn't know any of this.
In fact, I don't even think this is a campaign now.
It's a coronation.
Mind-boggling.
Literally mind-boggling.
Have you seen the front page of the Drudge Report today?
The top headline is a picture of Jamie Fox, well-known African-American actor, decked out as a cowboy.
And apparently, in his movie, his upcoming movie, against a Quentin Tarantino movie, Jamie Foxx jokes about killing all the white people in a new movie.
And Snerdley says, so, so, what's wrong with that?
What's the problem with that?
You got a problem with that?
It's just a movie.
Don't sweat it, Limbaugh.
I mean, it's just a joke about killing all the white people.
Yeah, well, you I know it's Jamie Fox.
What else are you going to say?
Played Ray Charles, it means he is Ray Charles.
If he played Ray Charles, he raychars.
And you don't rip Ray Charles.
Flip Wilson taught me that.
You do not criticize Ray Charles.
Not that I ever intended to, anyway.
I went to the church of what's happening now.
I understand.
Then the next headline got a picture of Obama and Eric Schmidt of Google.
Did you know that Google is sheltering $10 billion untaxed revenue in the Bahamas via Ireland?
Google paid about $1.5 billion in taxes worldwide last year.
It has been calculated that Google owes about $10 billion.
They have sheltered.
No, no, it's in the Bahamas, in Ireland to the Bahamas at a shell company in the Bahamas.
If it was the Caymans, we'd be all over them because that's where Romney put his money.
That's where Romney went to bury the dogs that he killed and shelter his money.
So the Caymans can't do it.
But the Bahamas, hey, that's cool.
Everybody goes to the Bahamas.
Seriously now.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Immelt, the NBC CEO, is out there saying, we need new revenue.
We can't, on the fiscal cliff, we can't fix anything here with simple spending cuts.
That isn't going to cut it.
We need new revenue.
The CEO of General Electric, Google, $10 billion.
Now, you would think in this class envy era where Obama has ginned up all of this anger and hatred for the achievers, you would think, yeah, GE hasn't paid any taxes.
Legally, they haven't paid.
We get no revenues from GE.
No revenues.
GE hasn't paid on income of multiple billions.
They haven't paid any income tax because their income is international.
Income, most of it's international, not domestic.
That's what I say.
Mr. Imel, if you want more revenue, how about writing a check?
Why doesn't GE write a check?
But here's Google, $10 billion that is subject taxation that isn't.
It's legal, don't misunderstand, but they're sheltering it.
Now, I would think with all of the class envy, hatred, and anger that Obama has ratcheted up, that if people found out about this, they'd be mad.
I'm talking about the low-information voters.
They would be mad.
But no, they won't be mad because Google is cool.
Google Maps, Google search, Google's cool.
Sergey Britain, no, they do understand tech shelter when it's Denver, when it's Google.
That's cool.
Google needs money because Google provides stuff for people like search and cool apps and any number of things.
No, I'm just chronicling this because of, of course, the wanton unfairness and the inequity of it all.
And I'm just throwing it out just for consumption.
Federal judge in North Carolina says Chew's life license plates are unconstitutional.
Remember, folks, this war that we are in is not just political, it's cultural.
And it's a point that I've been making for many, many, many, many moons.
And then there's this.
And the news, the hits just keep on coming.
It's from Politico.
A new report by the intelligence community projects that the United States will no longer be the world's only superpower by 2030.
In terms of the indices of overall power, GDP, population size, military spending, technological investment, Asia will surpass North America and Europe combined, says this report by the intelligence community.
The report is called Global Trends 2030, Alternative Worlds.
Prepared by the Office of the National Intelligence Council of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence projects that the unipolar world that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union will not continue.
With the rapid rise of other countries, the unipolar moment is over, and no country, whether the U.S. or the CHICOMs or any other country, will end up being hegemonic.
Is it going to take that long for us to lose our superpower status?
I thought we were on track for much sooner than that.
The Obama plan to knock down America, obviously, I'm surprised it's going to take that long.
2030 is another 18 years, 17 years.
And we're on a path to lose our superpower status long before that.
You know, in some ways, a superpower, in order to have that title, you have to be willing to project your power.
You have to be willing to use it.
I don't think we do.
I'm not sure the United States is a superpower even now.
Definitionally, yes.
But we're not led by somebody who believes in the concept anyway.
We're not, our president does not believe in the whole notion that having America be a superpower is unfair.
That's not right.
It's not equitable.
And we only became a superpower, of course, because we stole resources and other things from other countries.
We never have really earned.
We've not been a genuine superpower in Obama's worldview.
And don't doubt me on that.
Michael Barone's story on immigration, the end of the wave.
Is mass migration from Mexico to the United States a thing of the past?
Probably so, since the Republican Party is preparing now to totally alter its identity, is preparing now to open its own borders and go ahead and stand for amnesty or some sort of relaxation of immigration policy.
It would be fitting, wouldn't it, that the Republican Party do this when it no longer matters.
After they've already been beaten by it, they arrive a day late and a dollar short.
At least for the moment, Barone says that the wave is over.
Last May, the Pew Hispanic Center, in a study based on U.S. and Mexican statistics, reported that net migration from Mexico to this country had fallen to zero from 2005 to 2010.
The Pew Center said that 20,000 more people moved to Mexico from the United States than from there to here in those years.
Now, that is a huge contrast with the years 1995 to 2000, when the net inflow from Mexico was 2.2 million people.
In other words, we have a net loss of Mexicans.
Mexicans are leaving the United States in greater numbers than they are coming here.
Now, according to Barone, because there was net Mexican immigration until 2007, when the housing market collapsed and the Great Recession began, it seems clear that there was net out-migration from 2007 to 2010, meaning that once our economy began to fail or plunge and the housing market crashed,
that's when the outgration or the leaving the country began.
And Barone has calculated that that out-migration has continued into 2011 and 2012.
There's a widespread assumption that Mexican migration will resume when the U.S. economy starts growing robustly again.
But Barone says that there's reason to doubt that that'll be the case.
He'd been working on a book over the past few years scheduled to be published next fall on American migrations, internal and immigrant.
And what he's found is that over the years, America has been peopled in large part by surges of migration that have typically lasted just a generation or two.
Almost no one predicted that those surges would occur, and no one predicted when they would end, he says, historically.
For example, when our immigration system was opened up in 1965, experts said then that we wouldn't get many immigrants from Latin America or Asia.
They assumed that immigrants would come mainly from Europe, like they had in the past.
And they could not, obviously, have been more wrong.
Experts have also tended to assume that immigrants are motivated primarily by economic factors.
And in the years starting in the 1980s, many people, Latin America and Asia, especially Mexico, saw opportunities to make a better living in this country.
But masses of people do not uproot themselves from familiar territory just to make marginal economic gains.
They migrate to pursue dreams or they migrate to escape nightmares.
Life in Mexico is not a nightmare for many these days.
It used to be, but it isn't anymore.
Beneath the headlines about the killings and the drug wars, Mexico has become a predominantly middle-class country.
And the dreams that many Mexican immigrants pursued have been shattered in this country.
So they're leaving.
Just at the time the Republican Party decides to open its own borders.
Don't you just love it?
Right here it is.
I mentioned at the top of the program, Democrats want extension of unemployment benefits for 2 million Americans as part of the fiscal cliff deal.
Jobless benefits for 2.1 million people who've been out of work for more than six months will stop four days after Christmas.
And we need to extend these unemployment benefits.
Yes, we do, because there isn't going to be any economic growth, and there aren't going to be any new real jobs.
And we've got to keep the gravy train four days after Christmas.
What kind of people are we to take away people's unemployment?
They've been on unemployment for six months and then we're going to take them off of it four days after Chris.
What kind of cold-hearted, mean-spirited people are we?
What kind of a country would do that?
So naturally, naturally, we are going to have to extend unemployment benefits here.
It's the compassionate thing to do.
We've got to keep the gravy train rolling.
This is why Obama was elected.
These are the people that voted for Barack Obama.
More on this as the program unfolds.
Let's go to the phones.
Rick and Malibu.
Hey, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks so much for taking my call.
You bet.
I want to talk to you for a minute about the so-called fiscal cliffs.
But first, I want to say I am a conservative, and I'm in the evil 1%.
And tax increases go against everything I believe in.
And I don't think it helps the economy.
I think it hurts the economy.
But having said that, we are getting killed in the media.
We're getting killed with the narrative.
And we're being painted as a party who only cares about rich people.
And nobody's talking about spending cuts.
We know the math doesn't work.
Barack Obama wants, you know, Bush tax cut eras $800 billion over 10 years.
He's got another $800 billion that he wants.
So a total of $1.6 trillion of tax increases over 10 years.
That's only $160 billion a year.
We have a $1.2 trillion deficit per year.
So if we Republicans gave him everything he wanted, he's still short a trillion dollars a year that we can't get anybody to talk about.
So why not just pass an act.
We'll call it the Distraction Is Over, Soak the Rich, Now What Act, and move on.
Well, I think you probably have pretty much nailed what's going to happen.
But with no spending cuts in it, nothing.
Just making it clear that.
There aren't going to be any spending.
There aren't going to be any spending cuts.
Not in this deal.
There aren't going to be.
Did you go into this thinking that there would be?
Well, no, seriously not.
Did you think that the Republicans would secure some entitlement reform out of this in exchange for Obama's new taxes?
Did you believe, and did you really believe, don't misunderstand my tone, I'm just genuinely curious.
Did you really believe that the rich would not see their taxes go up?
No, I always believed that the taxes would go up, but I thought we'd get something as at least something Simpson Bowles.
We'd at least get on both sides.
Why?
Where is the evidence in the previous four years that Obama is interested in holding the line on spending, much less cutting it?
I didn't have any confidence in Obama.
What I thought is perhaps John Boehner might have learned a thing or two from being taken advantage of in the last negotiation.
Well, I guess what I'm saying is I don't think there's a Republican alive who could stop what's going to happen.
We don't have the leverage.
The power isn't there.
Look, this is an unfortunate place to have to leave this conversation, but I have to because of time.
But we will resume, and I will explain what I mean when we get back.
Look, what I'm saying here is, folks, that the Republicans, Boehner, I don't care, you can throw Reagan at it.
We have not one thing in common, Philosophically, ideologically, or even economically, in terms of desire and what we want for the country,
▲
Export Selection