All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:43
January 22, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
My gosh, folks, there's nothing sacred.
Is nothing sacred?
It's now been confirmed that Beyoncé lip-synced the national anthem at the immaculation ceremony.
I mean, the next thing we're going to hear is that Obama read his speech off a teleprompter, crying out loud, nothing is sacred.
She lip-synced the national anthem.
CNN has confirmed it.
It was also reported in Politico, the Times of London reported that Beyonce lip-synced the national anthem.
Can I be honest?
What's the big deal about that?
This is what intrigues me.
Everything happening, and we're stopping the presses to report that Beyonce lip-synced the anthem.
Big whoop.
What with everything going on?
What with the contents of Obama's actual immaculation address?
With what the media is admitting to do now, what they think their role is.
And we have it now officially.
And I'm going to stick with this because I really, as I said at the first of the program, the top of the hour, the last hour, I have been issuing predictions or warnings is what they've really been for the last two, three weeks intensely and the last three months of last year about what's happening, what's headed, where we're headed, what's coming our way, and it's all happening.
And I don't mean this in some sort of, hey, look at me, I'm writer, and people are stealing what I'm saying.
It's not that.
It's that, you know, I'm looking always to expand our audience here.
I want people that listen to this program to understand that they can trust what's said here.
And this whole notion now the media has joined in with we got to wipe out the Republicans.
We have to eliminate the point of that is not what happens to the Republicans.
And the point of that is not what the Republicans have or haven't been doing, are lying or not being honest or what.
That's not the point of this.
The point is that at least in my lifetime, this has never happened.
I have never, ever seen an open, so wide open, admitted to association between a political party and a so-called news media that exists for one reason, and that is to eliminate, to wipe out, to pulverize everything I believe in.
That's never happened.
That, to me, is the point.
Not whether the Republicans have any guts.
Of course they don't.
People have been calling here for 25 years.
Why don't the Republicans do this or say that?
The Republicans are as afraid as anybody.
The Republicans are scared to death, folks.
Everybody's afraid that Obama is going to come for them one way or the other.
Everybody's afraid.
That's why the Republicans are doing what they're doing.
That's why certain conservative media is saying what they're saying.
Everybody's scared to death of Obama.
I've never had this happen in my lifetime.
I've never been alive where there is a genuine visceral fear of action by government against individuals.
We know that various presidents have targeted ideas, big oil, big pharmaceutical, that kind of stuff.
And that was bad enough.
The demonization of capitalism.
So you have individuals who are scared to death that this guy's going to come after them in the United States of America.
And everybody's at Twitter today because Beyonce lip-synced the national anthem.
CNN reporter.
By the way, that John Dickerson, the CBS political reporter, his story didn't appear at CBS.
It appeared in slate.com.
And you know what?
I'd almost say, based on Dickerson's piece, and I quoted from it, I gave you excerpts last hour, I wouldn't be surprised if he had seen Obama's inaugural address in advance before he wrote that piece.
I mean, that piece was a companion piece to Obama's inaugural address, and it was a blueprint for what Obama wants to happen.
And we're witnessing it.
Now, a Daily Caller has the story about Tom Foreman.
Now, many people never heard of Tom Foreman.
He's a reporter at CNN, and that's why a lot of people have not heard of him.
He wrote this, Inauguration Day will signal the culmination of an effort I launched on January 20th, 2009, to write a letter to the White House every single day of Obama's first term.
And I do mean every day, weekends, holidays, when he was on vacation, when I was on vacation, I wrote in my office, I wrote at home, in moving airplanes, in cars, trains, even while running through the woods.
I wrote early in the morning, in the middle of the day, and late at night.
I wrote 1,460 letters, well over a half million words, enough to fill about seven novels.
This guy's admitting it drew, he wrote letters, and he never got a reply.
CNN reporter in quotes writes his Santa Claus letters, and these are letters of they're groupy type letters.
Here's F. Chuck Todd.
This was yesterday afternoon, NBC's coverage of Obama's second inauguration.
One of the things that candidate Obama said he wanted to model himself after five years ago is when he said he was hoping to model himself more after a Reagan than a Clinton.
And at the time, he was still running against another Clinton.
And the point he was making was this.
He thought Reagan, in a way, made conservatism mainstream.
And so that's what you heard in his speech today.
This was an attempt to make progressive liberalism and move it into the mainstream.
Exactly.
This is precisely, again, you who listened to this program knew weeks ago, or at least you heard a warning, my opinion weeks ago, that this is what Obama's objective is, to be transformational.
He admired Reagan, not for what he did, but how he did it.
Changed the trajectory of the country.
But Obama didn't like Reagan.
The trajectory is changing.
Now, the reason this is important, folks, to me is if I can see it, I don't know why the entire conservative establishment in Washington can't see it and why there isn't any opposition to it.
But there isn't.
All there is is admiration.
All there is is daily report, but nobody's doing anything to try to stop this, is the point.
It's stunning.
The Republican Party and whatever conservative wing it has is sitting by and just in a passive way, they are watching themselves and what they believe in be targeted for elimination, and they're not doing anything about it.
Why does it why is it that you have to hear somebody on the radio warn you about what's happening in a political sense to your country?
Where is the opposition to this?
Not only is there not any opposition, there appears to be some real genuine fear of speaking out against any of this.
It's, to me, fascinating to watch.
Here's Jonathan Carl, our old buddy at ABC, in his coverage yesterday.
I felt during much of that speech like I was listening to a Democratic Ronald Reagan where Reagan was unapologetically conservative.
This was unapologetically progressive, saying we must act collectively.
And this was also boundless optimism.
I mean, saying America's possibilities are limitless.
This was an effort, I believe, at that kind of optimistic progressivism, whereas Reagan was your optimistic conservatism.
Well, there is no optimistic progressive.
Progressivism is not based in optimism.
Liberalism, progressivism is based in pessimism.
It's based in anger.
It's based in rage.
It's based in the belief that nothing's just, that nothing's fair, that nothing's moral, that nothing's equal, and nothing ever has been.
Progressivism is rooted in the fact that everything in the world is wrong and has to be fixed.
And the only people who can fix it are people sitting at the top of the power pyramid in Washington.
They're going to have all the power and they're going to issue edicts and commands and orders and everybody else is going to fall in line.
And that's how we're going to fix it.
There's no optimism there.
It's based in pure pessimism.
And so we have the media acknowledging that the Democrat president, a truly liberal progressive president, is co-opting Reagan.
We have, in other words, the American left fully aware of how dangerous they came to being eliminated as a viable opposition because of Reagan.
And they saw it and said, not only is that never happening again, we're going to take out domestic opposition.
And the Republicans are just sitting around, the conservatives letting it happen, chronicling it, reporting it as it goes by, marveling at it, or if not marveling at it, they're simply staring at it with mouths wide open, going, golly, you look at what he's doing.
In the meantime, the Republicans sometimes act embarrassed of Reagan, here if Reagan's over.
We sit here and watch Obama, of all people, attempt to emulate Reagan, not in policy, but in achievement.
Transit, it's a stunning, stunning Charles Kraunhammer yesterday, Fox News special coverage, Obama's immaculation.
There's not a line here that will ever be repeated, but I think very important historically, because this was really Obama unbound.
And I think what's most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism in this speech.
Remember, he once said that Ronald Reagan was historically consequential in a way that Bill Clinton was not.
And what Obama meant is that Obama had changed the ideological course of the country.
No, what Obama was that Reagan had changed the ideological course, and Reagan did it.
And Obama didn't like that direction.
So Obama wanted to come along and be transformational like Reagan.
He's in the process of doing it.
And nobody is trying to stop it.
So, again, I say just for the purposes that you can trust what you hear here.
I issued this prediction/slash warning weeks ago that that's what was on tap here.
And now everybody in the drive-bys is sitting around chronicling it, making mention, oh, look at what look at what Obama Trying to do a Reagan, do this or that.
Here is Obama back in 2008 talking about Reagan.
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.
He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.
Right.
He didn't like it.
He wasn't at all supportive of it.
He hated what Reagan stood for, but he marveled at his ability to do it.
And that's who he's been emulating.
Nobody on our side seems to care to emulate Reagan.
If you bring up Reagan, people on our side kind of smirk at you, oh, yeah, well, you can't relive the past rush.
You know, you've got to move forward.
It's a new era now.
The era of Reagan is over.
You can't keep.
How many times have we heard that over the course of the media?
Meanwhile, we sit around and watch the opposition use the techniques, tactics, what have you, of Ronald Reagan to basically eliminate everything Reagan stood for.
Got to take a quick time out.
We'll go back to the phones when we get back.
Sit tight.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the phones in just a second.
I want one more soundbite for you.
This is Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington.
And this is yesterday on the Today Show.
They're on there with Matt Wauer.
And they are celebrating.
They're celebrating because they think the Republicans have given up.
And they're right.
Everybody's giving up.
My impression is that everybody has just, they're giving up and waiting for events that nobody can predict to maybe change the direction that we're headed.
Events that nobody can predict that will stop Obama in his tracks.
Events that will happen that will wake people up.
The sense I get is that there's no point in opposing because we're only going to be hated.
There's no point in pointing out where Obama's making a mistake, where transforming the country in a bad way, because it's only going to make us hated and disliked.
People aren't going to like it.
We don't want to be hated and disliked.
So we'll just, you know, we'll recognize we lost.
That's what happens when you lose.
The winners get to do whatever they want.
And we'll just wait for some unknown series of events and we'll pray that something karma-related come along and save us, bail us out.
That's what I sense is where much of what you would think would be opposition to this in Washington is.
Here's two of them.
First off, Andrea Mitchell.
It's been so toxic that I think the president is betting that the American people, it's clear in our polls, the people are really fed up with this and that it will be in the Republican Party's advantage to play somewhat toward getting something done.
You saw that in Williamsburg, Virginia, with the House caucus last week when Paul Ryan steered the party and the more radical elements of the Tea Party, which supported him, towards some sort of compromise short term, at least on the debt ceiling.
Yeah, just that's that's not oppose anything.
Oh my God, let's just let Obama have what he wants.
You know, people are fed up with us.
I mean, the Republicans are running around.
I think they actually think everybody hates them.
And voters, not just Republican supporters, donors voted, but every just and so president's betting the American people are fed up with the Republicans, hate the Republicans.
The best thing the Republicans can do, just be invisible.
And just let Obama have his way.
And of course, why wouldn't the media do this?
Media has succeeded in making the Republicans think that criticizing Obama is going to irritate independents while Romney was winning independence in double digits in five of the eight battleground states.
The reason the Republicans lost the election is because they didn't turn out their base.
Let's grab Ivan, Virginia Beach.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush, for having me on.
You bet.
I just wanted to point out one line that really stuck out to me in this whole speech.
And I'm paraphrasing, but basically, Obama said, now's not the time to solve the question, the centuries-old question of the role of government, but to solve our current problems now.
And to me, it's a great sleight of hand because he's kind of pushing the conservatives off to the side while at the same time ignoring the fact that the role of the government is actually the central issue.
Whether you're talking about the debt, gun control, gay marriage, whatever, it's the role of the central or of the federal government that's the reality.
The centuries-old problem over the role of government is exactly the problem.
It makes total sense that Obama would want to shove it aside.
Look, let's shelve the debate on whether government should be big or not so that I can go ahead and transform this country while nobody's paying attention.
And let's go ahead and argue about solving the problems the way I want to solve them because everybody's agreed not to oppose me.
So let's just get rid of the negatives that attach to me.
And the Republicans are saying, okay, well, if you don't want to talk about the negatives that attach to you, we won't.
So he's basically asking for a clear road, and he's being given one.
Exactly.
I think, actually, that Obama believes that the role of government's already been solved.
We've got Obamacare.
We have the Julia commercial.
The idea, I think he believes that he's now convinced a majority of Americans that the government should be the central focus of everybody's life in terms of their needs and their wants and their safety and security.
He go to government for it.
I think he's already succeeded at that.
The role of government has been debated, voted on, and solved, and he won.
And so what Obama is now basically in his speech yesterday was calling for us to become a country of the government, by the government, and for the government, with him and his buddies in charge of it.
Thanks, Ivan.
Mark in Chicago.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
And fascinating subject today.
I love it.
But Rush, real quick.
I mean, if we were in charge and being a conservative, I mean, my heart's desire, I think all our heart's desire, is to take out the Democrats.
And I think we would do it a little differently.
We would do it through policy.
And, you know, Rush, I'm 54, and in my lifetime, I don't think I've ever seen, correct me if I'm wrong, a Republican president that has had the control Obama has had from 08 to 10.
And, you know, I think at the end, the people are going to decide which party is going to be.
Well, some might say that George W. Bush had it for a while, but of course he has a different temperament.
But you know your point.
Your first point is really important.
It's really valid.
If we were, if situation were reversed, the way we would be attempting to eliminate opposition is in the arena of ideas.
We would not be smearing these people.
We wouldn't be running campaign ads telling lies about people accusing them of murder and all these other things.
That's not how we would be doing it.
But Obama is doing it, and he's winning doing that.
He is winning telling lies about his opposition.
He's triumphing big time doing so.
It's an important point.
I'm glad you made it, and we will be right back.
Something fascinating happened after the Patriots-Ravens game on Sunday.
The wife, did you hear about this?
The wife of Wes Welker, number 83, the wide receiver slot receiver for the Patriots, who is playing this year under the franchise tag.
Wes Welker wanted a long-term deal.
The Patriots said no, so he played a one-year franchise tag deal at a little over $9 million.
He would love a long-term deal, but may get tagged again one year.
The probably going rate next year for slot receivers will be $11 million a year.
Anyway, he's married to a former Hooters babe, and she went to Facebook and ripped into Ray Lewis, the linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.
And she ripped into everybody idolizing Lewis and praising Ray Lewis and talked about the incident that happened in Atlanta at a long-ago Super Bowl in which a couple people died at a place Lewis was.
He was originally charged and then was allowed to make a plea deal and obstruction of justice to some community service.
Now Ray Lewis has found God's become a model citizen.
And she mentioned, she talks about all this with a little venom and then happens to mention that everybody's lionizing a guy who's had six kids with four women.
And, well, now I found it fascinating because here's her husband who is a model citizen, who hasn't given anybody any trouble whatsoever.
He's not gotten involved.
He doesn't have multiple kids with multiple, none of this.
And yet he can't get multiple deal.
He can't get lionized praise.
You've got a loyal wife here.
Anyway, after she posted that, it wasn't long that she posted an apology.
I am deeply sorry for my recent post on Facebook.
I let the competitiveness of the game and the comments people were making about a team I dearly love get the best of me.
My actions were emotional and irrational.
And I sincerely apologize to Ray Lewis and anyone affected by my comment after yesterday's game.
It's such an accomplishment for any team to make it to the NFL playoffs.
And the momentary frustration that I felt should not overshadow the accomplishments of both these amazing teams.
Well, that's the question.
Who got to her?
Now, last year, after the Super Bowl, if you recall, it was Giselle Brady who dumped on Welker for not catching a last-minute pass thrown by her husband, Tom Brady.
I don't know that Giselle ever apologized.
Brady, of course, covered the bridge with Welker.
But somebody got to her, and got to her pretty fast.
I just, it's, you know, well, I don't, look, I don't want to, since I don't know anybody involved here, I don't want to.
I don't want to attach too much to this.
But you know how in the heat of emotion, what you really think tends to come out.
And then after you've thought about it and reflected on it, or after you've been hammered by either the boss or a distant boss, such as the league officer, then you say, terribly sorry.
I didn't mean any of that.
I was just caught up in the emotion of it all.
She didn't play.
Her husband played, but she didn't play, so forth.
So, no, you know what?
It probably would be, in this case, extremely wise of me not to tell you what I think went on here because it doesn't mean anything anyway.
It's not important at the end of the day.
And because I'm right, it'll only get me in trouble.
And I'm trying to maintain my lower profile.
I'm trying to go, you know, not be noticed, stay out of stuff like this.
I'm happy enough to chronicle it.
I think there's a perfectly logical explanation for this and why this happened.
But I can only get in trouble by being right and telling you about it.
So it's enough just to say that she issued the apology and she didn't mean it.
They're just caught up in the emotion.
And six kids with four wives, hey, at least we're not talking about Shawty Lowe here with 11 kids and 10 wives.
Now, there's a difference.
Here's Tom Brokoff.
The sound bite here is a companion with, no, you're not going to goad me into it.
And I'm not the only one that figured him.
No, you don't.
You don't need to know the reason.
Trust me.
It's not, well, it's the silent evolution.
But no, there's a very deeply personal reason why Welker's wife did this.
Deeply personal reason.
And it really, it's not so much about Ray Lewis that just provided her the, it's a window into the thinking of a lot of people.
That's all I'm going to tell you.
But beyond that, it won't serve me any purpose being right.
I have learned, folks, being right is what gets me into trouble.
It is.
People don't want to hear it if it's right and if it violates some sort of political correctness.
Anyway, just played Andrea Mitchell in which she expressed satisfaction that the Republicans are scared they've given up exactly as they should.
Here's Brokaw weighing in on that idea.
I think it's an indication.
I think it's a telltale sign about where the Republicans are.
Four years ago, when the president was making that speech, Republicans were meeting at night trying to decide how they were going to defeat him when he runs for reelection.
They lost that big time.
He had a very robust electoral victory and a significant popular vote victory.
Now the Republicans are in disarray trying to organize their party so they have a future.
They're not even thinking about that yet.
The Republican Party is trying to stay out of Obama's crosshairs right now.
People who donated to the Republican Party are trying to stay out of Obama's crosshairs right now.
There are all kinds of people who think of themselves in the opposition who are trying not to be noticed by Obama right now.
There is a profound amount of fear for Obama and what his government could do and might be inclined to do to people and teach them a lesson.
So it's low-profile city all the way.
And let's just sit back.
We can't stop it anyway.
So let's just, let's hope something comes along outside of everybody's control, some event or series of events that wakes people up and writes the ship.
I think that's where people are right now.
Not everybody, but a vast majority.
Now, one other thing here about this business of Reagan and transformational and Obama.
There's a big distinction here that needs to be made.
You have all of these media types marveling here at Obama.
I was warning everybody, but they're all sitting there marveling how Obama's replicating and emulating Reagan, changing the trajectory of the country, transforming America.
That's not what Reagan did.
Reagan might have changed the trajectory in the sense that he reoriented people's lives to themselves and away from government.
Reagan celebrated the Constitution, the founding, the uniqueness of this country.
Reagan respected our democratic system.
By transformational applied to Reagan, it means that Reagan was trying to rebuild the country.
Reagan was trying to save it.
Reagan was attempting to reorient the country toward its founding.
That's not what Obama's doing.
And yet by giving Obama the imprimatur of Reagan, it's a really dangerous thing to do because here we have the Republican Party, well, certain commentators basically awarding Obama with Reaganistic or Reaganism and Reagan-type characteristics.
And there isn't anything similar.
Reagan did not govern in defiance of the Constitution.
Reagan did not govern in defiance of the founding.
Reagan was not angry and fed up.
Reagan was not about grievance politics.
Reagan didn't think that a bunch of people had gotten away with murder in the past and they needed to be gotten even with now.
Reagan wasn't about targeting the enemy other than the Soviet Union and other communists.
He wasn't about targeting the enemy and wiping them out.
You will not find in eight years of Reagan anything like what you're reading today about eliminating the Democrats, pulverizing the Democrats, going for the throat, wiping them out.
That's not what Reagan was.
That's not what Reagan did.
Reagan won in the arena of ideas.
Reagan won people's hearts and minds.
Obama's not doing that.
Obama's not winning with his ideas.
Obama's not garnering support for his ideas.
So what frustrates me, Obama is winning purely and simply by lying and demonizing his opposition.
Obama, you know, Brokaw couldn't be further from the truth here in explaining Obama's victory.
Oh, yeah, popular election.
He won it big time.
Very robust electoral victory, significant popular vote victory, three-point victory.
But the Republican base stayed home because they were angry at the Republican Party and at Romney.
But people voted against Romney.
They were not voting for Obama.
This is what everybody misses.
Obama had demonized Romney for a full year, and people believed it.
They believe that Romney didn't care when a guy's wife.
There has never been a candidate for the White House more charitable, more giving, more decent.
Forget political ideas and concepts.
Just in terms of humanity, there's never been a better person to run for the office than Romney.
Maybe it's some people close.
And to have the American people end up believing that this guy hated dogs, quickly allowed people's wives to die without caring about it, and had secret money stashes all over the world, not paying his taxes and so forth.
I mean, it was robust, to use Brokaw's language.
It was robust the way Romney was destroyed.
That's how Obama wins.
And that's what Obama is going to continue to do.
And that's what the media is urging him to do, is the point.
And they come along and say that, well, like Reagan, he's transforming America.
He's trying to fundamentally change the trajectory and so forth.
In his dreams, Obama will be as successful as Reagan.
But one thing Obama couldn't do, he couldn't get close to winning the way Reagan did.
He can't get close to emulating Reagan in terms of transforming the country because it's not what Reagan did.
Reagan didn't win by telling lies about his opposition.
Reagan didn't win by demonizing everybody.
Reagan didn't win by convincing people that the Democrats were big reprobates, you know, human debris and all that.
That's all Obama's got.
He can't win on the strength of his ideas, and he doesn't run on them.
And his inaugural address was a bunch of pap and emptiness.
And it was just more of the same in terms of his lofty plans for a government that was never intended to be by virtue of the founders of this country.
And to attach Reagan to that, the way some of these analysts are doing is quite offensive.
Yeah, well, he seeks fundamental change.
He does, but Reagan was a defender of the Constitution, not a destroyer of it.
There's a huge difference.
And it is kind of galling.
This is why I've been mentioning it, folks.
Maybe I've been communicating this well enough.
Gord knows that's possible.
But it's just been galling to me to watch the Democrat Party co-opt Ronald Reagan, use them to advance themselves while in the process totally misrepresenting who and what Reagan was and did.
And then to have analysts sit by and marvel at it has been a little bit much tough to take, but it is what's been happening and continues to.
I got to take another brief time out.
Time's flying.
Fast as three hours in media.
We will be back.
Don't go away.
Look at, folks, here's another thing.
Apparently, Brokaw and Reynolds, NBC News 1, and all the rest of these media people, they appreciate sleazy campaigns, which is what Obama's campaign was.
A campaign full of sleaze, and these guys are out there endorsing it and saying we need to up the sleaze.
Yes, we need not pulverize the Republicans.
We need to strangle the Republicans.
We need to take the Republicans out.
They're encouraging Obama to do more of this.
Reagan won two landslides.
Obama wins, what, 51 or 53, 50, or three points, whatever it was.
Reagan never had a media in his pocket doing his bidding.
Obama couldn't win without them running interference for him.
I'm just telling you that It galls me a little bit to see all these Reagan comparisons and not be properly analyzed.
In his dreams and only in his dreams is Obama Reagan is the point.
There aren't any similarities.
And yet you wouldn't know that if you pay attention to the drive-bys.
Anthony, Plainview, New Jersey, New York.
Sorry, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's a real honor to be speaking with you.
Thank you.
Before I get to my points, I just wanted to tell you that you helped me get through college.
I appreciate that, sir.
You really did because I was surrounded by liberals.
And, you know, when I first heard you on the radio back in the early 90s, I just couldn't believe there was someone out there that believed in what I believed.
Yeah, and there still is one person, meme.
Yeah, well, there still is, right?
Exactly.
You know, I work in advertising.
I have a firm.
And, you know, no one knows the dangers of Obama's economic policies probably more than I, because when the economy tanks, businesses cut back on advertising and marketing.
It ain't going to tank.
The economy isn't going to tank?
No, it's not going to tank.
What makes you think it's going to tank?
Well, it has tanked.
No, no, it hasn't.
This is just the way it's going to be.
It hasn't tanked.
There's not going to be a tank.
There isn't going to be any inflation, and there's not going to be any interest rates going on.
You've got nothing to worry about.
Yeah, well, right, right.
And we've eradicated Al-Qaeda while we're going to be able to.
Right, and there's no more unemployment.
Everything is normal.
Everything is cool.
You need to stop worrying.
Oh, yes.
Anthony, hang on.
I've got to take a break.
Do not hang up.
We'll be back after this.
Okay, folks, that's it for this exciting and busy broadcast hour.
Got to take a brief time out here at the top of the hour.
And we'll get back to Anthony in Plainview, New York, who's under the impression that it's bad for advertising out there because the economy's in bad shape.
And we'll set him straight.
Maybe the rest of you, too, when we get back.
▲
Export Selection