All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 30, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
October 30, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Nope, nope, I take that back.
Instead of number eight, make it 24, 25, and 26.
Right, and then we'll get to number uh number eight.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Doing what I was born to do.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have in meeting.
And surpassing all audience expectations every day.
It's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Right on right on.
Open line Friday, greatest career risk.
Taken by major American media.
Well, maybe not as great as the risk CNBC took.
Trying what they tried the other night.
800 282882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Mr. Snerdley, the uh official program observer.
Is asking me if I if I still think that they're not embarrassed by it.
I actually don't.
I I now I have to tell you that I'm basing that solely on my knowledge of who they are, not anything that's happened since.
I don't know.
I've not I've not tuned in CNBC since this happened.
I've not heard Harwood or Becky Quick or any of the other Carl Quinton, I've not heard them say a word since the debate.
I haven't sought him out.
I haven't I I haven't read uh anything that would lead me to indicate, but I I'm just I know them.
Harwood, especially.
You you cannot have the kind of arrogance these people have, and at the same time feel regret.
The two don't go together.
Arrogance and sorrow, arrogance and remorse cancel each other out.
You can't be both.
And these people are the epitome of arrogance combined with with condescension.
I mean, they they think, they thought everybody in that stage was beneath them.
Everybody in that stage was a pretender.
Everybody in that stage is a doofus, everybody in that stage is unqualified, everybody on that stage is a joke, you name it, in one way or another.
And they treated them that way.
And knowing I've learned a lot of things here in the years I posted this program, I'm telling you that the thing they're probably marveling at is everybody talking about them.
All the attention they're getting, that's the name of the game for everybody in the media.
Contrary to what they tell you, everybody in the media wants to get talked about, wants to get noticed, and you know the old saw, as long as they spell the name right, it doesn't matter what they say.
Well, I guarantee you.
In fact, I would bet what's going on is that behind the scenes in the hallways at CNBC, they're probably being applauded by coworkers.
Well, I know, but they're they're being made fun of uh in in places.
Late night comedians are telling jokes about them, but hell, that's a badge honor, too.
Get mentioned on a late-night show.
I'm just telling you, the the characteristics of arrogance and conceit.
It's it's hard for regret to permeate that or embarrassment.
You really would.
If you're one of them, you're telling me that if you are a full-fledged liberal democrat that has an open animosity for these people.
And in your mind, you expose them for what they are.
Remember, the question was the bullet.
The answer didn't matter.
The question was the bullet.
They got the questions asked.
They were able to shape opinion by virtue of the question.
What they tell themselves is.
These people look defensive and answering.
They look guilty.
We didn't beat us.
They didn't beat us.
We're the moderators.
We have the newscast the next day to tell people what really happened.
That's the way they look at it.
I don't think that they have.
What did you ask me?
Embarrassed?
*sigh*
Rules are different for them.
Snerdley said, no, their professionalism's under assault.
No, it's not.
Their professionalism is assumed.
They are card carrying accredited members of the Democrat Party.
Their assignments are in the media, and they're doing their jobs.
They're mischaracterizing, they're impugning, they're attacking Democrat Republican opponents.
Mission accomplished.
Now that's not to say that there might be people, you know what, we can do this better than the way these clowns did it.
These clowns went overboard.
They drew too much attention to what we really are.
There might be some of that going on in the hallways of leadership.
But these people, nah.
They showed up the next day and then they're smiling and going about their business.
I guarantee you that they're the last thing they are is embarrassed.
Can you name for me the last drive-by media person you can remember being embarrassed about anything?
Then rather embarrassed over forged documents caught red-handed.
Nope.
They don't think that way.
They do not, that's not how they get through the day.
I mean, they're they're introspective like a lot of people are, but their introspections rooted in telling them how great they are.
But it's also rooted in their belief that the people in that stage are second class rubes.
They're jokes.
I mean, they're Republicans for crying out loud.
Nobody takes them seriously.
They're a bunch of racists and sexists and bigots, and they hate this and they hate that.
And as far as these people in that stage last night are concerned, or two nights ago, I'm pretty sure they're convinced they exposed a lot of that.
So mission accomplished.
I mean the closest I can remember.
The only, in answering my own question, would be Brian Williams.
But I don't even think Brian Williams was embarrassed.
I think I think Brian Williams was conciliatory.
But he never thought he did anything wrong.
None of that was none of the lies he told or the things that were on the air.
So I I what why do you want them to be embarrassed anyway?
What do you think is is gained by?
Well, okay, let me just let me put it to you this way that if you think it's an object lesson.
If they were really embarrassed, and if they really had regrets, they won't ever do it again.
And do you think that's going to happen?
Do you think there's going to be a change in the way the media treats Republicans because of what happened in that debate?
I mean a long-lasting substantive change.
Do you think there's going to be newfound respect?
Do you think there's going to be Senator Cruz, we'd like to apologize for what happened to you at the hands of our colleagues in the previous debate.
We want to assure you that this won't.
You think that's going to happen?
Do you think anything that those three knuckleheads did is going to change in one iota of a way, the way the left-wing media interacts and deals with or treats, characterizes Republicans.
The answer is no.
So even if they are embarrassed, I guarantee you it didn't even last overnight.
tonight.
That's it's just not in the makeup.
Now I want to get I want to get to this Bush campaign thing.
Wait.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Um Grab soundbites eight and nine.
This would be a good time to do this.
Last night on the Fox Business Network, after the bell, the host of that program's David Asman.
And he spoke with Howard Kurtz, the Fox News Channel's media buzz, media critic.
That'd be Howie Kurtz.
Used to be the Washington Post.
Howard Kurtz's job is to go on Fox and tell the viewers what the media is doing good and what the media did bad.
He is the media critic.
And so he's on there last night on the Fox Business Network.
And uh this first bit's 30 seconds, it's Asman talking about something I said on the program here yesterday.
Rush Limbaugh said the following, and I just want to get your reaction.
Let's play the tape.
That show was designed to kill every one of those candidates.
That debate last night was designed to take them all out.
That debate last night was to grease the skids for Hillary Clinton.
That was the sole purpose of that debate last night.
So Asmond says, so Howie, what's your response?
Limbaugh said the whole purpose of that debate was to take out those Republican candidates.
Well, that goes too far for me.
I'm not going to say that the people at CNBC were deliberately trying to knock out all ten Republican presidential candidates, but the thing is.
Stop the tape.
These debates are How many were they trying to take out then?
It wasn't all ten.
How many were they trying to take out?
You heard what he said.
That goes too far for me.
I'm not going to say that the people at CNBC were deliberately trying to you think they're embarrassed.
Not even somebody in the competing network will properly characterize what they did, Mr. Sturkley.
He said, Well, that goes too far for me.
I'm not going to say that people at CNBC were deliberately trying to knock out all ten Republican candidates.
Okay, cue that back to the top, and I'll let the whole answer go by and and not stop it or interrupt it this time.
Far from me, I'm not going to say that the people at CNBC were deliberately trying to knock out all ten Republican presidential candidates.
But the thing is, and look, these debates are hard to moderate.
Fox got some criticism for aggressive questioning of the Cleveland debate, but i it's very important to at least come across as uh giving the candidates a chance to respond, not constantly interrupting them, not being snarky, and a lot of people, you know, on Twitter and elsewhere, and lots of other media critics, I'm not the only one out here, thought it was just a train wreck for CNBC.
It was a trade wreck.
A lot of people, and I'm not the only one.
Twitter, oh yes.
The sewer, that is Twitter, thinks that it was a train wreck for CNBC.
But you gotta give the candidates a chance to respond.
You can't just be snarky and stuff like that.
So there's a little bit of circling the wagons there.
I mean, media people are media, they hang in.
Don't blame Kurtz for that.
If he throws them overboard, he's throwing a lot of people to do what they do overboard, and they're not gonna do that.
I'll tell you the news media, you talk about unity and solidarity.
These people are like a union.
They hang tough, they hang together no matter what.
I mean, because they will not allow, for example, a Dan Rather and whatever he does to destroy their reputation too.
That's why they gave him an award after that whole Bill Burkett thing.
So somebody needs to ask Howie.
Well, if if they weren't trying to take out all ten, because that goes too far, how many were they trying to take out?
We'd be back after me.
Well, a little bit of a uh breaking news flash here.
The Republican National Committee has officially pulled out of its February 26th debate with NBC News after widespread criticism from both the party and the campaigns over the CNBC debate.
Rights Priebus in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack said that uh CNBC Network, one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith.
Briebus wrote, I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment, freedom of the press.
However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans, CNBC did not.
Soonard NBC.
There was a debate scheduled there on February 26th, and it's now Fini.
Well, not Stene, because it never happened, but it's gone.
And back to the phones, open line Friday.
This is Bill in uh Warner Robbins, Georgia.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Rush.
Quantitative easing or the threat of stopping it or tapering off, I think is the reason why the Republicans are afraid to have a government shut down.
I think either explicitly or tacitly, the Republicans have been told that the Fed will stop quantitative easing, because it's the quickest and most direct way to go ahead and illustrate uh the impact of the gov of the federal government on a citizenry if you have a if the stock market takes a major hit.
That's the only reason why I can think of this.
Okay, let's start at the beginning.
Because you did a good job.
I mean, you just you you got right in there, and I didn't have a chance to check in detail the uh subject line here.
So you you think if the Fed were to stop quantitative easing, uh that that would lead or or if there's a government shutdown that the Fed would then stop their quantitative easing, and what would happen?
Yes, I think you would take a the stock market would take a hit.
Two years ago, uh uh two years ago, Ben Bernanke went ahead and used the term tapering and the stock market immediately took like a five percent hit.
And I think to go ahead and if you unless you're watching CNN or watching the news, most people don't know there's a government shutdown.
But if the Fed stops quantitative easing or even tapers it off, it's gonna have an immediate impact on the stock market, which impacts a lot of other stuff, interest rates and other things, and I think that that either threat or it has been implied that that'll that that'll happen.
Well, if you're gonna shut down if you're right about that, then there's never going to be an end to the government printing money because it's all quantitative easing is.
If you're if you're right, if the threat of quantitative easing being terminated, if there's a government shutdown, and that that's why the Republicans don't do it, because the effect on the market stock market, the resulting perception of difficulty in the economy at large.
I mean, that's one giant blackmail.
I I think you may have a point, but I don't think you even need to get that far down the road in explaining why the Republicans are afraid of a government shutdown.
I mean, you may be right, but they're afraid of it long before you get there.
They're afraid of a government shutdown because they're afraid they're gonna get blamed for it.
And they think if they get blamed for it, nobody's gonna ever elect them president, and they're never gonna keep their Senate chairman.
It's it's it's so silly.
The whole rather than educate people, I I look, I'm tired of talking.
I'm I'm tired of of of analyzing why the Republicans do what they do.
We already know why they do what they do.
They're just afraid.
And for whatever reasons, they're afraid of Obama's race, they're afraid of uh the media, they're they're just they're or else they're not Republicans anymore.
You know, they're sympathies actually do lie more on the left than they do on the right.
I don't know.
But there's no rational way to explain Republican acquiescence with the policies of the opposing party.
There's no rational way.
Well, unless you want to say that they're all of the same club and they've all got the same donors, and the donors are demanding the results, and it doesn't matter both parties had better produce, or none of them are gonna get the money or what have you.
There's rational ways, but what I mean is within the context of two-party system, one party and opposes the other, and vice versa.
That's what's missing here.
And the irrationality of the fear of opposing Democrats is what I'm talking about.
Uh it's irrational, this this fear of being an opposition party.
Ben Bernanke, by the way, and I should have printed this out.
Not a big deal, because that's why I didn't print it.
But Ben Bernanke is quoted as saying, and I don't know if it's recent or within two or three years or what have you, but Bernamke is quoted as saying the Republican Party's just gotten too wacko for him.
He's leaving it.
I never knew he was.
Well, he's the former chairman of the Fed.
I never knew he was a Republican.
But he's out there saying that he he can't in good conscience be a Republican now because Republicans today are too screwball, which is a constant refrain you get from people uh inside the inside the beltway.
But I mean back back to your example.
That's the Federal Reserve blackmailing the U.S. Congress.
Yeah, you guys shut down the government, we're gonna stop quantitative.
They don't even have to stop it, as the caller pointed out.
All the Fed chairman has to do is allude to the fact that they're thinking of stopping it and the stock market will panic.
Look, folks, if you live on, I'm just going to make a wild number.
If you live on $10 million a year and all of it is given to you, and the person who gives it to you threatens to end it, unless, what are you going to do?
You're going to do whatever you have to do.
If that's the only way you get your money, that somebody's giving it to you.
You're going to keep doing what it takes.
And that's where the stock market is.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, happy to have you here on Open Line Friday.
So Mr. Schnurgley has been peppering me with questions.
Actually, the past two days.
You don't think they're embarrassed?
I say, no, I don't.
But looky here.
From CNN's Money.com website.
Shell-shocked CNBC staffers had long flight home.
For the CNBC employees who boarded a charter plane right after Wednesday's bruising Republican debate, the red-eye flight was physically smooth but emotionally turbulent.
People were exhausted, but also rattled and worried.
We were shell-shocked, one source said.
The poor reviewers were piling up, declaring CNBC the biggest loser of the night.
And the moderators, Carl Quentinilla, Becky Quick, knew more would be published by the by the time the flight landed in New York.
So for some flyers, it was a sleepless night.
But there was some laughter and some liquor to lighten the mood and some speculation about how high the ratings would be.
At 1230 p.m.
Thursday, they found out 14 million people watched, easily making the much derided debate, the most watched program in CNBC's 30-year history.
And because advertisers paid $250,000 apiece, it was also the most profitable night in the network's history.
And NBC Universal Executive Crowed.
Now, if I were an honest person at CNB, and I'm an honest person, if I was CNBC, and the biggest ratings I've ever got is a business channel was a debate of Republican candidates.
I would seriously question what I'm doing the other 364 days of the year.
I really would.
But here you are, you're a business channel.
And what you know what CNBC really is is the crony corporate channel.
I mean, that's really what it is.
And its numbers have been, it used to dominate.
The numbers were never really huge because it's this it's a really localized market, but they used to dominate the genre, and they don't.
I mean, they're you could put the audience in thimble.
And yet here comes this debate.
And they got tune in like they've never had before.
They had tune in, and it wasn't because of them.
It wasn't because of what they do.
It was just the only place you could go to watch what was on.
People wanted to see the Republican debate, and they went to the trouble to find out.
I can't I had to tell ten people Wednesday where to find CNBC on DirecTV.
They didn't know where it was.
And since they knew I knew, they didn't want to go to the trouble of finding it themselves.
And then people said, I don't know where it is.
I have Xfinity.
I don't have Direct TV.
I saw I'm sorry I can't help you.
I don't know what it is on cable channels from market to market.
You're on your own.
Google Xfinity, have your location services turned on, and you might find the channel.
Nobody knew where it was.
When I told them it's channel 355 On direct TV.
You mean it's only five away from Fox News?
Yeah, it's that close to Fox News.
And I've never seen it.
Guess not.
So here you are, you do crony business news, and that's what they do.
They chronicle the workings of government and business together.
And they do it from a pure left wing standpoint.
And here they they run a debate that people never watch that network tune in to.
I would, if I worked there, I'd say, you know what, it's possible to draw 14 million people to this channel.
It's possible to do it.
But it ain't happening with what we do normally here, so what do we have to change?
But that's not how the media works today.
They blame the audience for being too stupid to watch the brilliance that they broadcast.
Anyway, back to this story.
There was simultaneous crowing and cringing on Thursday after the charter flight landed back in wherever New York, New Jersey.
I guess they moved over to New Jersey now or to New York right now.
Employees who spoke on condition of anonymity for this story wished for a do over and pointed fingers of blame for the chaotic production.
Some pointed all the way up to CNBC President Mark Hoffman, who was also aboard the charter flight home.
Now there are even calls for changes to future primary debates and predictions that CNBC won't be in the running.
Well, we know that now.
None of NBC is in the running.
And they don't care, folks.
Well, now that may I take that back.
The F. Chuck Todds of the world would love to have their shot at these guys.
I'm sure that I'm sure that the F chucks and the and the ranking talent at NBC is upset by this.
Because now they don't get their shot.
They don't get direct access to take these Republicans out.
That would disappoint them.
But right here it isn't he says everyone feels pretty embarrassed.
One veteran staffer said, Everyone feels pretty staffer.
You don't, you're not talking about the staff, are you?
You want to know if Quintania, Becky Quick, and Harwood are embarrassed, right?
Well, there's nothing in here about them.
This is a story about shell-shocked staffers.
After the debate, staffers wondered aloud.
Will people remember the gripes about Quintanilla, Quick and Harwood?
Will they remember the audience booze and the analyst comments that CNBC lost control of the debate?
They second guessed the opening question of the debate where Quintanilla asked each color or candidate, what is your biggest weakness?
And what are you doing to address it?
Did it start the debate off in the wrong?
What do you think, Staffers?
Can I translate the question for you?
What is the primary reason that you are an What is the primary reason you're an SOB?
What's the worst personality characteristic about you that you will admit to and just be done with it?
That's what what is your glaring weakness?
What it really means is what the hell is really wrong with you?
What about you do you dislike the most in your self-loathing day, you Republicans?
What is it about yourself that you really hate?
That's what the question meant.
Of course it was downhill after that.
First note I made, I was wrong.
And I couldn't believe that some of them actually answered it.
But there was that built-in Republican effort to be humble and cooperative and what have you.
Jay in Columbia, South Carolina, Open Line Friday, back to the phones.
Great to have you here.
Appreciate your patience and all that.
Hello, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
Um, we need a new strategy to defeat the mainstream media and the left.
And I I have one in two parts.
So just bear with me.
Give me 15 seconds uh to lay it out and get then give me your feedback.
Um the mainstream media does not they do not get their credibility by interviewing Democrats.
They are Democrats disguised as journalists.
We have to recognize that when Republicans and conservative pundits Grant them interviews, go on their Sunday shows, or allow them to host our debates.
We are the ones giving them their credibility.
They don't care what we're saying or what point we're trying to make.
What's important to them is the fact that we're sitting there talking to them, giving them their credibility, and we can't even see it.
So, as the mainstream media have proven themselves to be nothing more than left-wing political hacks for the Democratic Party, we are immediately putting them on notice, and of this moment forward, we will no longer be granting them any interviews to the mainstream media, including the print media, nor will we be subject subjecting our candidates to debate in any of their future forums.
I have I have long articulated something very close and very similar to that, with the same reasoning.
In fact, just yesterday on who they are and they're not our friends.
It's it by the way, it's more than just they want us to give them credibility by showing up on their shows.
They want access to us so they can shoot at us in person.
I'm talking about politically.
And if you doubt that, can I give you some names?
Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell.
Pick, take your pick.
Their objective, Ted Cruz.
Modern era, long ago, mid-long ago.
What do they try to do?
Mitt Romney.
My name is Harry Reen, and I know that Mitt Romney hasn't paid his taxes in ten years.
A friend to mine told me.
Really?
Who's your friend?
That's not the point.
You go ask Romney why he hasn't paid his taxes in ten years.
Okay, and they go do.
Their objective is to take out Republican candidates, particularly presidential candidates.
So I have long said, why help them?
I know the answer to the question.
I know why we'd do it.
We can't be seen to be cowardly.
We can't be seen not cooperating.
We can't be seen trying to achieve major things without the media.
It can't be done, so forth.
So on.
But it but it uh on another level, a certain point.
Something like C NBC happens, and now Rince Prebus is told NBC we're out of there.
We're not doing another debate with you.
We're not going to give you another shot at us like that.
But NBC will fix that when our guys go on and meet the press.
Or what have you.
Anyway, uh Jay, you're you're you're singing my song on a on a you know in a big way.
I don't think we can totally avoid them, but the way we do it now, we grant them their superiority.
We grant them the assumption that they have the power to determine how we are presented and perceived.
And then we go on these networks and on these shows in an effort to prove them wrong.
I mean, the whole premise with which we appear on these networks, in my opinion, is flawed and dangerous.
Let me make the point in a different way.
Somebody tell me, I guess I just thought I'd have a chance to Google this during the break.
When were the Olympics in Atlanta?
Was that 86 or 96?
It's not really that important.
It's just a point of curiosity for me.
Whenever it was, do you remember the name Rich 96?
Remember the name Richard Jewel.
Right.
What what was why do you remember the name Richard Jewel?
What happened to Richard Jewell?
There was a terrorist bomb that went off in a public area in Atlanta where a lot of uh visitors and fans of the Olympics in Atlanta were congregated.
There was a terrorist bomb.
NBC News ran a story identifying an employee of the Olympics, Richard Jewel, as the guilty bomber.
They said they had sources.
They had evidence and so forth.
Richard Jewell had nothing to do with.
Oh, you know what he was?
He was a wannabe cop.
Richard Jewel, he didn't quite, he wasn't going to be able to pass the physical requirements, but he loved law enforcement.
So he was a part-time, I think, security hire or guard.
Some way had something to do with secondary, tertiary law enforcement.
They literally destroyed this man's reputation.
NBC News.
They weren't embarrassed by it.
I mean, it was.
Now I know it was a matter of litigations and couldn't publicly apologize to it, but they weren't going to admit me guilty here because that would have meant even a bigger settlement or what have you.
It took years for Richard Jewell to exoner, because they say when you ask me if these people get embarrassed over what they do, no, they don't.
I'm t it's particularly.
That was not even an ideological thing.
Richard Jewell had been a Republican running for office in Atlanta.
It would have been an even worse.
But there's no these CNBC staffers.
I mean, yeah, I I big they may be, who knows.
Really embarrassed.
Behind the scenes people, the ones really bust their butts trying to get noticed and advanced, and and they do want their work to be considered straightforward.
Look at look at the uh Trayvon Martin, what the what were the white Hispanic, what was his name?
George Zimmerman.
Look at the 911 call.
Somebody at NBC Miami literally edited the 911 call to make it look like Zimmerman was a flat-out racist, and that's why he did what he did.
When it was exposed as a totally fraudulent, purposefully done edit to malign and impude.
Was there any apology?
Was there any expressed regret?
No.
The anger was they didn't get away with it.
The anger was they got caught.
They're agenda-driven, Mr. Snerdley, and they're never going to apologize for that, even when they make the mistake of exposing it.
They're just not.
They're not embarrassed of what they do.
Here's James in Des Moines.
James, great to have you.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Happy Friday, Russ.
Thank you, sir.
Happy Halloween to you too.
Absolutely.
I just want to let you know, first of all, um, I've been listening since 1988, and uh keep up the good work.
God bless you, appreciate it.
And secondly, uh a friend of mine and I, we've been talking about this for a while, probably since oh, the first book came out.
And with the Great Pumpkin that was on last night we were watching, and it just occurred to me, and I figured I'm gonna give it a shot to try to see if I can get a hold of you today.
Have you considered turning any of your uh your kids' books into animation for television at all yet?
Oh, yeah.
We have looked into it.
We talk about it all the time.
We do it, uh we've we examine every facet of this.
Animation, uh video via, you know, broadcast, try to sell a produce series for broadcast or DVD.
Uh we've looked at it any number of ways.
What we have found is that it is really expensive.
So we're trying to decide when we when we get serious, do we want to own the whole thing?
Do we want to partner with people that do that uh uh in their own business and and do some kind of percentage deal with it?
Yeah, because the demand for it is off the charts.
You wouldn't believe the number of readers are asking, man, Russ, these will be so great as an animated series.
This was just right after the first book came out.
So yeah, it's something we uh are always talking about and looking at.
Well, that's good to know.
We'll be looking forward to it when it when it finally comes to fruition.
Well, it would be great if it did.
Um but I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
I'm not committing to it right now.
I mean, even if I were, I could always pull it back next week and say I did.
But we're we're not committed to it.
Uh but it's something that we would really, really like to do.
It's um that would just open up uh all kinds of different distribution and present the the stories in an entirely uh different format, which would reach even more people, which is the objective.
So, yeah, we look at it all the time.
Okay, yet to come Ted Cruz.
Ripping everybody a new one on the Senate floor over the budget deal.
Rand Paul on the Senate floor, talking about the budget deal and yours truly.
And I'm gonna get back to I'm gonna get to it before this program ends.
I need to repeat, only to make the point again some things I said yesterday about the Jeb Bush campaign, based on this uh discovery by well, a leak to U.S. News, the 112 page internal campaign document.
▲
Export Selection