All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 24, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:12
August 24, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's anchorman is away and this is your EIB anchor baby Mark Stein.
Honoured to be with you.
Rush has taken a couple of days of well-deserved time off.
He will return Wednesday through the week with full strength, authentically all-American excellence in broadcasting.
But in the meantime, it's yours truly keeping an eye on a fast-moving chain of events in another week in the turbulent pre-presidential campaign in both parties.
Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats look like they found their dream ticket.
They met on Saturday and apparently the likelihood is greater than ever that Joe Biden is going to throw his hair in the ring to join Donald Trump's there in the ring.
I still am getting all this stuff about how I'm backing Trump.
I'm not backing Trump.
I'm not backing Trump.
There's 17 candidates and I haven't made up my mind.
I just said I'm sick of looking at stupid, soft focus, sentimentalized pap about being the son of a mailman.
I'm just fed up with low energy candidates who want to let their consultants define the terms in which the debate is framed in order not to offend four soccer moms in a critical swing county in Ohio.
Where's that got the Republican Party?
The Republican Party at the national level can claim to be the most ineffective party in the Western world.
Even when it's in office, you don't notice it.
Even when it wins, you don't notice it.
And at a certain point, people get sick of it.
So if it takes some blowhard reality show guy to come along and kick sand in the Republican establishment's face, somebody has to do it.
This litmus test, he's not a conservative.
There are only two parties.
So if you're 51, if you happen to wake up on a Tuesday, there's only two parties.
You know, as I pointed out, in the current Canadian election, there's five.
America has had an institutionally frozen political system since the Civil War, because it's actually impossible to start a political party here now.
Before the Civil War, it was.
That's why at one point you had the Whigs and they're gone.
Now you've got the Republicans.
That can't happen, which is why it's been frozen for 150 years.
1868, every single, in the UK election 1868, every single constituency in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales was held by either a Conservative or a Liberal.
Two-party system, same as the United States.
They had an election a couple of months ago.
I think there's 11 parties in the House of Commons now.
11 different parties.
There's all kinds of, not just the wacky Irish, Scottish, Welsh ones that come and the shifting permutations of which, but even the big national parties, there's different forces, different choices.
Here there's only two.
So if you're 51%, if you're feeling 51% Republican, 49% Democrat, what are you going to do?
You're going to run in the Republican primary?
Where does it get you?
The litmus test.
I'm talking now about what politicians do.
Anyone can stand on stage and strike an attitude.
But what is the one thing?
Look at it this way.
What is the one thing on which Republicans and Republican primary voters demand a litmus test on?
Abortion.
You can't get elected if you're not pro-life in the fullest sense.
That's why George Pataki is down in the basement.
He's running as a supposed pro-choice Republican.
So every viable Republican candidate to demonstrate their conservative bona fides has to be pro-life.
What is the end result of all this pro-life attitude striking from useless Republican candidates?
America has the most depraved abortion regime on the planet.
They are, there's a story, the latest of these Planned Parenthood videos, they're shipping heads.
This country has an organization that ships heads, baby heads, to customers, the Calvarium, as they do it, from this Center for Medical Progress.
Oh, we get requests for neural, she says.
It's the hardest thing in the world to ship.
Yeah, says the other guy, you've got to do it as the whole Calvarium.
Yes, says this lady, that's the easiest way.
And we've actually had good success with that.
And the buyer says, yeah, but you've got to make sure the eyes are closed.
And the woman goes, yeah, tell the lab it's coming.
They'll open the box and go, oh my God, there's a babyhead in here with the eyes.
That's like it's comedy to them.
In this country, they're shipping babyheads.
Planned Parenthood does the abortion and ships babyheads around the country to customers.
And they do it with half a billion dollars of your money.
So you're paying for the baby head to be sliced off and FedExed to the guy who wants to buy it, the babyhead.
Now, they don't have the litmus test.
You know, you're not a conservative unless you're pro-life, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They don't have the litmus test in Sweden, but they only have abortion in Scandinavia, France, Germany, Italy, these other places, is basically first trimester abortion.
In like Norway, you can have it up to 18 weeks, but you've got to have a, you've got to get the approval of a government commission to get that at 18 weeks.
Otherwise, essentially they have first trimester thing.
Here, we've had 40 years of Republicans insisting that you've got to have a pro-life litmus test to be a viable, electable conservative.
Oh, he's not pro-life.
Oh, he's making an exception for rape and incest and all the rest of it.
And the net result is we live in a depraved and evil society in which baby heads are chopped off and shipped around the country.
Well, what is the functional practical difference that the Republican Party makes?
Where is it?
It's the most evil abortion regime in the country, in the world.
Most evil abortion rate.
It's the abortion.
It's basically the abortion machine of the planet.
And we give them federal dollars to chop off the baby head and put it in a box.
So I'm sorry.
You know, it would be fine.
It would be fine to have all these, you know, oh, he's not.
I'm more conservative than you.
No, you're more connected.
You're not as conservative as I am.
I'm super conservative.
It's fine to strike an attitude, but in the end, it's got to make a difference.
You've got to have something to show for it.
And as I said in the first hour, Democrats have a hell of a lot to show for these two Obama terms.
They've got gay marriage.
They've got, you know, the Obamacare.
They basically destroyed private health care in this country.
It's not whatever it is.
I don't know what you call it now, but it certainly isn't a private market.
They've destroyed private health care completely in this country.
They've got Obamacare.
They've got an amnesty for DREAMers, for people who, which is their first step in the end.
They've got most other immigration laws go totally unenforced.
The Democrats have a hell of, they've got 50 million people on food stamps.
They've massively expanded social security disability.
Obama and the Democrats have delivered the world that their voters want to live in.
And Republican Party voters don't feel that they get the same shakes.
It doesn't matter, you know, and there's always a reason.
Oh, we've got the House, but we don't have the Senate.
Oh, we've got the House and the Senate, but we don't have the Presidency.
Oh, we've got the Presidency, but now we've lost the Senate.
We've got the presidency in the House, so if we take back the Senate, then you'll get what they want.
Oh, wait a minute, we won the Senate back again, but this time we've lost the...
There's always a reason.
And with Democrats, there's never a reason.
They just keep moving, moving, moving, moving the ball further and further down the field until Republicans are left playing on the last bit of pathetic, shriveled turf they haven't already surrendered.
I doubt you can, I can't think of a more ineffective political party, major political party, governing political party anywhere in the Western world.
And when you have a two-term Republican presidency and you try to look back, what happens?
He gets some tax cuts, conditional tax cuts that expire 10 years later.
And that's what you've got to show for it for all the effort, for all the effort.
In the end, in the end, what matters is not whether you can insist on litmus tests as to who's the most conservative.
You've got to do something about it.
Because it doesn't matter if you're if you're insisting everybody's got to be super pro-life on abortion when you're shipping baby heads.
There's only one.
Basically, Planned Parenthood aborts more babies than Canada, Germany and France combined.
They're the abortion mill of the planet, and they do it with your dollars.
And occasionally you'll get someone who'll stop it at state funding at the state level.
And occasionally you'll get someone who will talk about doing it at the federal level.
But in the end, even stopping federal dollars from going to an organization that chops off baby heads and mails them around the country, even that is not possible for the Republican Party.
And the Republican Party, it's not about who's more conservative, who's less conservative.
It's about what do you have to show for your term of office when you exit the stage.
And for 20 years, 25 years, basically since Reagan left office, Republican voters don't feel they've got a lot to show for it.
They don't feel they've got a lot to show for it.
And that's part of what's going on in this working out in this primary season.
And if it helps move the ball, that the ball that the left have kicked down, got it down further and further and further down the Republican end of the field until we've just got that little last bit of grass.
They've got everything, and it's just this little shriveled patch of grass that the election is still being fought on.
Then somebody has to come down, get that ball down the other end of the field, and make them play defense, make them play defense.
Because if it's a choice between going off the cliff at full throttle or going off the cliff in third gear, that's not enough of a choice at election time.
Mark signing for Rush.
We'll take your calls straight ahead.
Let us go to William in Douglasville, Georgia.
William, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you.
Yeah, Mark, thank you.
Hey, Clinton's email server.
I'm a retired Air Force communications specialist, 30 years.
If these emails, and there's all kinds of terms being floated around, if these are emails that she generated based on information from inside of her head, there's going to be no classification.
It's going to be the same thing as her discussing things in public.
If there is classified information on her computer, that's an entirely different thing.
Here's why.
Flash drives on any kind of government computer.
You stick it in there, it locks the computer, and people are alerted.
The CD DVD function on government classified computers, at least with the DOD, is removed, the hardware is removed, and the software is disabled.
Classified emails.
You cannot forward classified emails to an unclassified system.
So if there's any information of a classified nature, like I'm talking briefings, memos, letters, then it was illegally and deliberately, and people had to go way around security procedures to do it, which also brings up one other thing.
She's issued classified personal devices.
I know she is.
She's got communications devices installed in her house by the State Department for her to do her business.
And whenever she flies, she flies on an Air Force aircraft with a comm team with a robust comm suite.
So why would she have any classified information if she does on a personal server?
You really have to go around security procedures in order to get classified information on an unclassified computer.
And I can tell you this, if it was anybody from the DOD, everything in their house would have been confiscated and they probably would have been held in confinement while this investigation was going on.
That's my take.
Yeah, absolutely.
Now, just to clarify one point you said that, if you've got an email that is marked as classified and you attempt to forward it to someone who is not meant to receive that, if you're on a government computer, it won't actually send that thing.
That's classified computers and it's unclassified.
And some people have both.
But if you have a classified email and you're trying to forward it to either .org.com or an unclassified .mil, the system won't allow it.
You can't do that.
Right, right.
So if she's got classified information, then either hard copies were made, they were scanned and then uploaded.
I mean, I'm sure there are ways around it, but because of all the problems we had with the little problems of flash drives a couple years ago or thumb drives, and that kid who was making copies, he was an intelligence specialist.
He made like, I don't know how many DVDs or CDs with all this class information.
That's why all these new security procedures are in place.
Even if there's any classified, again, if there's emails that she sat down and just started generating, there's going to be no classification on it's the same thing as her getting on a telephone or talking in public and divulging class information.
That's just stupidity and no-no.
But if there is hard classified information on there that was generated by either some kind of government source, then she didn't do it by herself.
She had help and it was deliberate.
You cannot accidentally have it on there.
And I'd be very curious to see whether it's something that was hard copied, scanned, and then loaded up, or if it was electronically put on there.
Whoa, and then we've got bigger problems.
No, no, I understand that.
Her thing now is that she's talking about things that are that she's talking about things that are classified before she sees them, which it seems to me is slightly a dishonest way of looking at it.
If you're in charge.
If you and I sat down for a briefing, and they're going to say this briefing is classified, secret, confidential, whatever.
You don't just kind of, oh, what's classified now?
They would ask.
You don't after classify things.
You redact stuff, but you don't say, oh, yeah, that information we gave you a couple months ago that's unclassified.
It's classified now.
Well, then that negates the whole point.
Yeah, no, no.
And presumably, if you're the chief foreign affairs official of the United States, you know, as you're generating it, you have a broad sense as to the level of classification of what it is you're talking about when you're emailing Huma Abidin back and forth.
Don't you?
Yes, now a lot of people in high places, they don't worry about the weeds.
They have staff people to help them out.
They essentially give them, here's what you really need.
They take care of all the classification stuff.
They just say, sir, ma'am, would you read this, sign it?
Yes, no.
And they give them the highlights and they give them just the high points of it.
But coming up through, or as long as she's been in government, as many briefings she's been, she's got to know the difference between confidential secret, top secret, what's for official use only, what's to be released.
She's coming out of this like she's some kind of ignorant babe of the woods.
And that's why I'm sitting here and a lot of people that I know are all military ex-military sitting there going, are you kidding me?
We got young people who they inadvertently do something wrong and they've gotten more punishment than other people.
And that's what frosts me about this.
But she's counting on a lot of people not knowing how things work.
And the media, you can tell they're Googling this stuff before they go onto the news.
They don't know the difference between a lot of this.
And that's why I keep hearing, my question is, are we talking emails that she generated?
Or are we talking information on her server?
Because there's a huge difference between the two.
And I think a lot of people reporting this really don't know exactly what they're reporting.
Well, let's just explore that a minute, William, because look, she's getting stuff on her.
For a start, the 30,000, the 55,000 pages she turned over simply aren't enough for a four-year term as Secretary of State.
She said she basically deleted half that were about yoga and bridesmaids for Chelsea's wedding.
So we're asked to believe that there's equivalent numbers of emails for yoga and Chelsea's wedding as there were for all the business as Secretary of State.
Now, you know as well as I do that in this, people will be emailing to her briefing papers.
There will be PDFs.
There will be word files.
There will be various other types of attachments that are going to be kept on that same server.
So the server surely does have, it's not just emails.
There's surely other material on that server.
If it is a server that she bought for personal use, she cannot put government stuff on.
It's a difference between her doing, say, a performance report.
Okay, you're doing an unclassified performance report and people work on you.
Okay, that's one thing.
You can do that.
But she's issued devices from the State Department for her to do official government classified work.
Now, if she's emailing someone on her Clinton server about a dinner or a banquet or something like that, or we're going to have some social function.
Okay, I can see that.
That's okay.
But any government work, again, she's got communications people installing and taking care of things for her in her house.
I'm just looking at what my favorite is.
Yeah, no, no, no.
That sounds good.
Thanks for actually thanks for clarifying that because that was one of the interesting points about it.
That's William in Douglasville, Georgia.
We've got to run.
We've got an EIB profit center coming up and then more of your calls straight ahead on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Mark Stein inforus.
Yes, America's Anchorman is off today and this is EIB's Anchor Baby.
Proud to be with you.
I'll be here tomorrow.
Rush returns Wednesday.
Don't miss it.
I was talking about half an hour ago about the Planned Parenthood shipping of baby heads around the country.
Whole baby heads.
And these people are laughing about it, how you've got to close the eyes, because it can be a bit of shock to the guy in the mailroom.
He opens up the baby, the box, and there's a baby's head in there with the eyes open.
Couldn't funny.
Bidet, a tweeter called Bidette, says, oh, this anti-planned poundhood campaign is based in false narrative.
Planned poundhood not selling baby parts.
Fetal tissue research and donations illegal.
This isn't fetal tissue.
This is a head.
This is a head.
And they're shipping.
And I don't care whether they're making a dime off it, really.
They're shipping the heads, baby heads around the country and joking about it.
You say, and this line is very revealing of Bidette, because this is why, as I said, the abortion regime in this country is uniquely evil.
It's the worst on the planet.
It's the worst on the planet.
Because there's no other equivalent of Planned Pound.
I said Planned Parenthood alone performs as many abortions as three other G7 nations, Canada, France, Germany.
And Bidet says fetal tissue research and donations are legal.
And she puts legal in capital letters as if it's meant to impress me.
Sorry, I pass.
What's legal and illegal is irrelevant because everything's illegal now in this country.
You're breaking some bureaucratic rule every minute of the day.
A thing isn't wrong because it's illegal.
It's illegal because it's wrong.
And a business model that requires you to mail baby heads around the country, fit, healthy, full-term babies, you know, viable babies in the third trimester.
You chop off the head and mail it to some guy who wants to perform research on it.
Just because it sounds slightly more scientific than the ISIS lads who like to chop off heads for fun.
No medical research there, but you know, plenty of heads.
The ISIS stock market was down today, and I thought it was something to do with Joe Biden's announcement.
But no, unlike Shanghai and London and Wall Street, that's just because they've got a glutter head.
So they've got a big head bubble in the ISIS stock exchange.
But if you're saying I shouldn't be upset about baby heads being mailed around because it's legal, everything is legal until it isn't.
A thing isn't wrong because it's illegal.
It's illegal because it's wrong.
And Bidet is looking at it the wrong way around.
Now, we've had bad news, a lot of bad things today.
And I want to talk about a good news story.
And Glenn Reynolds writes about this in USA Today.
And he says, his argument is that courage is courageous.
And it's about this French train.
This train, I think, was going from Paris to Amsterdam.
And they saw a guy, these three guys saw a fella board the train and he started shooting.
He was a Moroccan who'd visited Syria, the guy who started shooting.
And the fellas who took him down, it was initially reported that they were three U.S. Marines, because Europeans aren't up on which branch of the U.S. military people come from.
It was, in fact, two U.S. service members, one from the National Guard, one from the Air Force, and a civilian buddy from middle school.
These three young Americans, and they were unarmed, but they saw this guy.
He had a, I think he had a Kalashnikov.
Yeah, no, he had an AK.
And they saw him, and without being armed, they threw themselves at him, tackled him, got the guns away from him.
When they started to move, a British businessman joined in.
He was in his 60s, and he saw the guy had a full magazine, and he didn't know how many magazines he had, this guy.
But his thought, and this is again something, this is a nice thought for the day.
It's an inspiring thought for the day.
Okay, I'm probably going to die anyway, so let's go because I'd rather die active.
And what he means by that is if you're up against the odds like that, you don't just sit in your train seat because the guy's got the gun.
You join these young fellas.
This is a businessman, retired businessman or something in his 60s.
And he joined them and helped take down, helped take down this guy.
And Glenn Reynolds' message in his piece in USA Today is that courage is contagious.
That if you see that it takes one person to start something and two of his friends to join in, and then another guy to figure, what the hell, this guy's got an AK and he's going to kill us all, so what are we going to do?
Just lie here and take it, or are we at least going to die on our feet?
Schaub, the editor of Sharli Hebdo, a couple of years ago, before they were all gunned down at the beginning of the year in Paris, he had a great line.
He said, I would rather die standing than live on my knees.
And that's not usually the choice you get.
The choice you get when this crazy Islamic terrorist guy boarded this train was not between living on your knees or dying standing, but between taking a chance as a man standing up and taking action or dying on your knees, dying on your knees.
And it is interesting to me as the accounts of this French train story become more fleshed out that it was the three young Americans who decided to have a go at this guy.
And then this British guy who followed them and joined in.
And it is interesting to me.
I don't know what was going on in that train.
There were prominent people on that train.
There's a French actor who's quoted who describes what was going on.
And maybe more things will become clear.
But it is something to be proud of, that Americans, unlike many other people, still retain that survival instinct.
Still retain the instinct of Todd Beamer and Flight 93 and let's roll.
That you know, when something like this happens, you've got one shot.
You've got to take this thing down.
You've got to take this guy down.
Because once he starts opening fire, once he just decides to kill everyone, once there's fewer and fewer of you, it's hard to do anything.
You've got to act.
You've got to act immediately.
You've got to know what you're doing.
You've got to assume the risk.
And there are not enough stories like this.
And this one, this event on this, this Paris train is a microcosm of the state of the Western world.
This guy, this Moroccan who trained in Syria, he's known to the authorities in multiple countries.
They've all spent, in combination, hundreds of thousands of dollars tracking this guy, keeping an eye on this guy, monitoring this guy, following his emails, putting him in the database.
But in the end, he still gets on the train with his weapons and he's going to kill everybody.
And three unarmed Americans and an elderly British businessman took this guy out.
When all the big money-no-object bureaucracy that's monitoring him for months on end, who he's emailing, who he's in contact with, what category in the database, none of it matters.
He still got on the train.
And in the end, that big government bureaucracy wasn't there for you.
And in the end, the only thing that saved all those French and Dutch rail passengers from being gunned down were these four passengers, none of them armed, but with a survival instinct that, frankly, not enough people in the Western world still have.
And again, it gets to the question, what is going to be our approach to these things?
Because it costs, I think this was a German estimate, that to track every single jihadist suspect costs about $600,000.
I would imagine, if anything, it's even more expensive here.
So are we just going to bankrupt ourselves spending three-quarters of a million dollars tracking so-called suspects as they move around the country and they move around the world?
Or are we actually going to, in the way that it is now being talked about in the Republican debate, actually get serious about not letting and not admitting people like this into the country in the first place?
Because this is what it depends on.
Split-second hair trigger reaction.
Sometimes it's too late.
These three guys had all known each other from middle school and they all just looked at each other and they got to their feet and they acted and they went for the guy.
And he didn't expect that.
Because every other story just ends with the guy walking in, the crazy jihadist guy walking in and firing, firing, firing, and no one's standing against him.
These three guys is the best American news story of the day and the retired British guy who said he'd rather die active than just sitting in his seat waiting for the guy to put a bullet in him is the best feel-good story of the day in the United Kingdom too.
And my concern for the Western world is that there's not enough people who still have that hair trigger survival instinct because that hair trigger survival instinct all over the map now where all these things go on in Charleston, in Ottawa, in Paris, in Copenhagen.
I'm going to be in Copenhagen next month.
I'm speaking and we're going to have to have the event in the Danish Parliament because it's reckoned to be the only building in the city where the guy can't bust in and blow us all away.
I hope they're right about that.
I hope it's not like the Canadian Parliament, which turned out to be rather easy to get into.
But all over the map, that's the difference, whether you've got three guys like these three guys who just look at each other and know that this is a moment for action.
And I hope you do read Glenn Reynolds' column because the takeaway from it, that courage is contagious, is absolutely what we read right now.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
We'll take your calls straight ahead.
Mark Stein for Rush.
Let's go to Jerry in Apocalyptica, Florida.
Let's go to... close enough.
Let's go to Jerry.
What's on your mind, Jerry?
It's a popka.
Oh, thank you.
It's an old Indian name.
Okay, that's great.
That's great.
On my mind is Mr. Trump.
And what worries me about Mr. Trump is that he's an awful lot like Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama drew big crowds and made big promises and all of this.
And then he had his pen and his phone and he went about and he did everything he could to keep from using the Congress.
And I'm afraid that Obama will do the same thing.
Two terms without using the Congress, you're going to disable the Constitution.
Yeah, because basically Obama wakes up like this is in one of the revolutionaries' complaints against George III was that he paid no attention to the laws they passed.
That's right.
And he wouldn't sign them and he wouldn't enforce them.
And that's what Obama does.
Right.
I think what we need to do is to get rid of the, we need to be thinking a whole lot more about the people we're putting in the Congress.
Yeah, but you, but you, but the thing is, Jerry, if you're like, say, a monarch in Canada or Australia or any monarchical system, and you say, I'm ignored.
It took me a long while, actually.
I got a law change in Canada, and it took a long while for it to get so-called royal assent when it's signed into law by the Queen's representative.
And it was a suspiciously long time.
And if it had gone on another six months, I'd have been on the phone to Buckingham Palace every day until it got signed.
But the point about that is that a parliament, those parliaments, if it wasn't, would feel like the American revolutionaries did and would object.
Congress refuses to use its powers against an overbearing president, whether that's Obama or whether it would be Donald Trump.
The fact is, Congress has engaged in a sort of slow self-castration in the modern era and refuses to use the powers it does have.
And every time it does threaten to use the powers, people think, oh, Ted Cruz, he's a crazy guy.
He's talking about shutting down the government.
Oh, the House is talking about using the power of the purse not to fund amnesty.
Oh, these crazy guys are out of control.
In the end, in the end, the president takes what he can get away with.
And it's for Congress to push back and take back.
And we need to make our major choices in the Congress and keep that from happening.
Okay, so would you like a change in the Speaker and the Senate majority leader?
We need better leaders, yes.
Yes, yes, you said that.
We need somebody.
Yeah, we need better leaders to get things through.
But you get to the point, Jerry, and you're absolutely right about this.
You know, the president decides of a morning what parts of the Obamacare bill apply or which he's going to temporarily suspend for a couple of years.
He decides which parts of immigration law are valid, depending on how he feels on a Tuesday morning.
So these bits aren't going to be enforced, but this little bit over here will still be enforced.
And you cannot have a situation where a president, you're then in a land without laws.
And Hillary is the next stage of that, because Hillary Clinton explicitly, explicitly believes that the laws are for you and not for her.
So that minor State Department functionaries like that ambassador, whoever it was, I think it was in Kenya or Uganda, somewhere in East Africa, who had his email, he had private government business and private emails.
His ambassadorial career came to an end.
Hillary fired him.
But she believes the laws she passes don't apply to her.
That's what the EPA says.
The EPA says if you drain a large rain puddle in your backyard, you've broken an EPA regulation.
But if we turn this river in Colorado yellow, those laws don't apply to us.
And you cannot have that.
And the only people who can push back against that are an assertive Congress instead of a eunuch Congress, which unfortunately is what we have at the moment.
Markstein for Rush, more to come.
Hey, that new climate book of mine, by the way, it's a disgrace to the profession.
That's the name of it.
It's a disgrace to the profession.
And you can get it now from Amazon and in all the usual e-book formats.
A disgrace to the profession.
I've had a great time.
Before I go, I do want to send best wishes to a guy who was my governor, John Sununu, Governor John Sununu, who had I think quadruple bypass surgery earlier today.
He was a great attack dog during the Romney campaign with many memorable TV appearances, and he hasn't endorsed anyone yet in this particular cycle.
I find it hard to imagine him doing the attack dog role for Donald Trump.
But I hope he's soon out of hospital and back on the news show, sticking it to useless CNN interviewers and all the other people that he did last time around.
John Sununu, quadruple bypass surgery, get back, get better soon.
And I will see you here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection