All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
January 14, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's great to have you back.
Great to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh on the EIB Network here at 800-282-2882 and the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
You know, there's one other thing here.
It just hit me about, pardon me, forgive me.
I'm going to go back to Nikki Haley for just a second and her criticism of all the angry loud voices.
When you get right down to it, we haven't really seen Donald Trump angry.
Now, he said in his rally last night that he's happily angry, that she's right, and that we ought to be angry, echoing what I have said.
But last night was the first time I've actually seen Trump mad.
Last night was the first time I have actually seen Trump get angry and what have you.
I mean, he was fit to be tied last night.
I'm looking for the soundbite.
I know we've got it here.
Bear with me, folks, as I go page by page.
Grab number 12 at Trump's rally last night.
Oh, and I have another brilliant idea for the debate tonight, folks.
I don't know why the Republicans haven't thought of this, but maybe, maybe, since if I give them the idea here in a second, maybe they might do it.
The microphone on Trump's podium last night was defective.
Now, I just thought that watching it on YouTube, streaming it, that there were bandwidth problems.
But then Trump lost it about the microphone and how bad it was.
And it was.
It was popping peas all over the place and dying for split seconds here and there.
Trump sounded like a staccato now and then.
And finally, he lost it and started complaining about the guy who put the microphone in.
Now, this, if you want to hear Trump mad, this is it.
I don't like this mic.
Whoever the hell brought this mic system broke the son of a to put it in.
I'll tell you.
So this mic is terrible.
Stupid mic keeps popping.
Do you hear that, George?
Don't pay him.
Don't pay him.
You know, I believe in paying.
But when somebody does a bad job like this stupid mic, you shouldn't pay the best, sir.
Terrible.
Terrible.
It's true.
And you got to be tough with your people because they'll pay.
They don't care.
They'll pay.
So we're not going to pay.
I guarantee I'm not paying for this mic.
Now, by the way, another illustration, when you hear him say, terrible, terrible, it's true.
You got to be talking to you.
He's thinking about what's coming next.
That's when he's thinking about what he wants to say next when he repeats himself.
But that's Trump mad.
And even that's funny.
You should have heard the way he ended this thing.
And by the way, for those of you who have not yet figured Trump out and don't understand it, in each of these rallies he does, there are four or five times.
Some of them only last 10 seconds.
Some of them go 20 at the outside 30.
But there are always four times minimum where the audience knows that he's being entirely 100% sincere in his appreciation and love for the fact that they are there and supporting him.
And he signals it.
And they're unpredictable.
They happen at random.
I'm sure they're not practiced.
It's just who he is.
Some of them only go 10 seconds.
Sometimes he ends an appearance with a sincere thanks and what an honor it is that they're supporting him.
But the point is that his supporters know he's a real guy and has a real appreciation for him.
And they know how to spot it.
It's something that only a person on stage who knows they have a bond, a connection with the audience.
You can only do what he does if you know you have that.
And the confidence in doing it, you know your audience is going to get it when you do it.
And sometimes I say they go by in 10 seconds.
And if you don't know to watch for it, it may not even register that it's happening.
Myself being a highly trained performer in this area and field, I spot it instantly.
Exactly.
I know exactly what's going on.
I know why the audience is mesmerized and why they have deep appreciation because Trump signals three, four times.
In fact, that whole rally, there's not one moment he's talking down to anybody.
Everybody is just like him in that rally.
Everybody understands what he's saying.
He doesn't think he's got to stop and repeat something for people that might not understand it.
Treats him with respect.
And that is manners.
That's not something some coach teaches you.
That's either you know how to be nice to people and you know how to recognize people who are supporting you.
You know how to treat them.
You know how to appreciate.
You don't take it for granted.
That's just manners.
Some people have it and some people don't.
Same people egomaniacal and think support like that is all because they're a star.
Trump does not think that.
He thinks got to earn it each and every day.
Guaranteed.
But here's my idea for the debate tonight.
Because the Republicans are on a roll with this.
Why not do a Republican response to the Republican debate and have somebody from the establishment go out there?
And you know the networks will televise it.
You offer it to CNN because it's in the Fox business network.
So if you go to CNN and say, we want to do the Republican response to our own debate tonight, you know, CNN will lap it up.
CNN will do a countdown clock to that.
CNN will give the Republican Party an hour to respond to their own debate.
So you can have anybody, Republican Party, you could put anybody from the establishment to go on maybe the Fox News Network instead of Fox Business, or maybe it's, but you got to do it on a different network.
Maybe you can do the same network.
I don't know.
Offer it to MSNB.
See, offer to NBC.
But you're going to send somebody from the RNC or an elected Republican to go respond to the debate and tell the American people what the Republicans did in the debate that the party wants to disavow.
It's brilliant.
Republican response to the Republican debate.
You send somebody out there to assure the American people that what they just saw does not represent the Republican Party.
And when so-and-so said this, and you go get Frank Lunch with his focus groups out there, and you can have the focus group focus grouping, reacting to Republicans.
And whenever somebody says something, have lunch report the reaction to it and say, see, this is not who we Republicans are.
I mean, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant idea.
Thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if they do it at some point.
Don't you like it, idea?
Doesn't it make perfect sense given the way we've been responding to, say, Obama's States of the Union and other things?
I mean, clearly the Republican Party is embarrassed of some of its candidates.
The Republican Party is worried sick that the media and the independents are going to get the wrong idea about the party.
This is a way to make sure that doesn't happen.
You cleaned, I guarantee you, there'd be as big an audience for the response as there would be for the debate.
Guaranteed.
I mentioned, ladies and gentlemen, that CBS dragged Bob Schieffer out of retirement to talk about me, and I guess it's either me and whatever else I'm saying, along with Charlie Rose.
And we set it up with this.
CBS this morning, this is not Bob Schieffer.
He's still on his way.
This is Gail King, the BFF of the Oprah.
And she is talking with Nora O'Donnell about the Nikki Haley response to the State of the Union, a reaction to that.
Here's the exchange that they had.
This, again, is Gail King and Nora O'Donnell.
Conservative critics also bashed Haley's message.
Rush Limbaugh called her part of the Republican establishment that is trying to stop Donald Trump.
How do you explain how Donald Trump has dominated the conversation?
I started out saying, well, he's a reality TV star.
I've changed my definition.
He is a master showman who has this impeccable timing and this ability to sort of control the conversation.
I misspoke.
Bob did get there in time to appear on this.
And then it was after Bob showed up and then they asked him, they started asking questions about me.
And Charlie Rose is part of the whole deal.
So you have here, you have Gail King, you have Bob Schieffer and Charlie Rose all weighing in on all of this.
Even Rush Limbaugh said, it's starting to dawn on the elites, he says, that Donald Trump could win the presidency.
He is way ahead in most of the primary states.
I have said from the very beginning that I took Donald Trump seriously, and I took him seriously because I know how angry people are.
People are frustrated.
I mean, the government does nothing.
You know, Ronald Reagan called this the shining city on the hill has become the town where nothing works.
And people are fed up with it.
And along comes Donald Trump, who says the things that a lot of people wish they had the nerve to say to their boss.
Whoa, do you understand?
Bob Schieffer knows how angry it is out there, and the Republican establishment doesn't.
Do you know?
That is astounding that a retired member of the drive-by media understands it.
Isn't it interesting?
Does that sound like the Bob Schieffer that you've known?
It does not.
It's a Bob Schieffer justifying everything Trump's doing, justifying the anger, justifying all this, and saying he knew it from the get-go.
That he knew Trump was serious from the get-go.
And Bob continued.
Charlie Rose said, now, Donald Trump is one big surprise, but how about Bernie Sanders?
And how about the Democrat race and the challenge that he's mounted to Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire, Bob?
What about all that?
This is unbelievable, really, when you come right down to it.
Here you have the Democratic Party, the oldest party.
It's been around for a long, long time.
And yet it has managed to come up with one legitimate candidate, Hillary Clinton.
I mean, where are these candidates now?
And so along comes a guy who is a confessed socialist, says he's a socialist, says he is not a capitalist in a country built on free enterprise, and he's giving her this.
That just shows you that this frustration people are feeling is being felt on the left as far as the right.
Right.
So Bob essentially agreeing here that Democrats have become a Jurassic Party.
They can't find anybody but Bernie Sanders, a committed socialist to oppose Hillary.
Now, what that should tell him is about the Democrat Party, not the country.
The fact that the only serious opposition that party can mount is an anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise, anti-free markets, pro-government, socialist.
And by the way, this is getting serious.
I mean, it's been serious for a while.
It's getting seriouser.
Hillary's now attacking the source of money for Bernie Sanders.
Washington Post, Clinton attacks, produced windfall.
Oh, I'm sorry, she's attacking Bernie Sanders, but that's creating boo fundraising dollars for him.
It's like Obama.
He goes out there and promises to take executive action on guns and causes gun sales to go through the roof.
Well, so Hillary's going out there and hitting Bernie Sanders, and his fundraising is going through the roof.
He's raising even more money.
He's lapping her when it comes to fundraising.
Everything Hillary is doing when it comes to Bernie Sanders is backfiring.
And that, I'm here to tell you, is not within the realm of Clinton experiences.
The Clinton experience in their world is when they set out to criticize and rip somebody, they're finished.
That's it.
When the Clintons hit you, the media join with them and take you out.
What's happening now is Hillary hits Bernie, his fundraising goes sky high, his support ranch up, and it's backfiring on her.
And now, as almost a Hail Mary, they've sent Chelsea out there.
Chelsea Clinton, who has been shielded and protected and told hands off her whole life to the media.
You don't talk to her.
You don't say anything about her.
You don't publish her picture.
You don't take any video.
You don't do a diddly squat.
Now, the Clintons have thrown Chelsea out there.
She's on the attack against Bernie Sanders.
And the Democrats, almost en masse, are saying, what in the heck is this about?
Why is Hillary doing this?
They think it's ineffective.
They think, furthermore, this is a bit of a stretch, but they think it's a misuse of Chelsea's talents.
You got me.
I don't know what are Chelsea's talents doing reports on CBS.
No, NBC.
What are her talents?
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying she doesn't have any.
I don't know what they are.
But some people think she's got some of their being misused.
They note that Chelsea Clinton has mostly been used to go out there and say great things about her mother.
She goes out there and talks about her mother's softer side and how her mother likes to play Pinochle and Hillary likes umbrella drinks.
And she's just the funniest person.
I've had this happen to me, by the way.
I've had it happen to me.
People, if you misunderstand, Hillary's the most fun person in the world to be around.
She laughs at everything.
She's one of the funniest people you've ever met.
She loves umbrella drinks.
You ought to see some of the jokes she does with the umbrellas when they bring out a pina colada.
I've actually heard all this.
And my reaction, well, where is it?
And why are you having to tell me?
Why is it not self-evident?
Why can't she get past the nurse ratchet persona?
And that's what they use Chelsea for.
Chelsea out there tells everybody how nice her mother is and how sweet and what a great mother she is, what a great grandmother she is.
And now they're sending out their out there as a tack dog on an old Bernie.
And it's not flying with a whole lot of Democrats out there.
You may have forgotten this.
Remember, MSNBC had a guy on there by the name of David Schuster.
Remember him?
And he's not there anymore.
He got sent off to current TV, which is Al Gore's network, which is then bought by Al Jazeera, which has just announced their closing shop.
Did you hear about that?
And Hillary sits her favorite network, by the way.
She did.
Their closing shop, the Peyton Manning hit piece, obviously didn't work.
Anyway, David Schuster was fired from MSNBC because he accused the Clintons of pimping out Chelsea.
Remember?
They were making Chelsea do something, fundraising for the foundation or some such thing.
And he referred to it as the Clintons pimping out Chelsea.
MSNBC suspended it for two weeks.
Not long after that, they found some other excuse to suspend him forever, and he moved over to Gore's current TV.
And he ended up staying on there to work for Al Jazeera, which is now.
And back to the phones, Mike, upstate New York.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Is anybody there?
Hello.
Yeah, hi.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
Hi.
Yeah, hi.
I just want to say, I think you did a Gallup poll on the Democrats who are going to switch over to Trump.
It was that 20% of Democrats are saying that they will defect Trump.
Well, I'm defecting anyway because of the whole, I was a staunch Democrat until the whole gun control movement.
It just drives me crazy, attacking our liberties, our Second Amendment, our right to bear arms.
And we're so strict here in New York as it is.
But I totally, I'm totally voting red, straight red.
Hopefully New York goes straight red.
Of course, the Iran-Iran deal, it pissed off a lot of Jews in this state.
And we're hoping that they vote Republican this time and we could see New York go red for presidency.
So, okay, so you're voting all red.
Give me a name.
I mean, who do you mean now?
Well, no, I personally like, well, I like Trump because he's not a part of the establishment, like you always say.
But you see, you're a Democrat.
The gun control movement drove you away.
I mean, the Democrats have been trying to take guns away for 50 years or longer since the Second Amendment was written.
Talent on loan from God.
And I am Rush Limbaugh, a man, a legend, a way of life.
And back to the phones.
Doug in Oceana, Wisconsin.
It's great to have you, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
And hello.
Rush, had these ruling class people in the establishment spent some time with you back in 2010 going through Professor Coteville's America's Ruling Class paper, they would have seen where this anger or frustration was long, long ago.
They wouldn't have needed it then.
It did a lot for me to for me to see where my frustration was.
In fact, I used that paper.
I teach adjunct in a critical thinking course.
I've used it a lot.
It is such a great paper.
And I think it talks to them toe-to-toe, eye-to-eye level, and it would get to them.
Are you a professor?
Adjunct.
You adjunct, okay.
Well, that was a it was a piece that originally ran in the American Spectator, Angelo Codeville.
He himself is a professor, great intellect.
And they made a little short book out of it.
I remember highlighting that piece, going through it.
It's one of the longest pieces I've ever read word for word on this program.
All of it was a gold mine.
And it did, like what you're saying, you were angry, you were ticked off, you're frustrated.
You read Codeville's piece, and he explained to you why you were.
Made perfect sense.
Well, no, you read it to me, Rush, and I thank you for it.
I think it made a difference in the 2010 election, but these only people, common ordinary people with real blood in their veins were reading it.
These establishment people thought themselves too high and mighty to do it.
They ought to go back and revisit it.
We probably wouldn't have had John Boehner.
We probably would have had a different 2012 presidential candidate and so forth and so forth.
I don't know.
You raise a really interesting point here, Doug.
And it's a I'll tell you, I'll give you an example.
Back in 1980, sometime, well, it's the mid-80s.
I think at the time I was, I was obviously in Sacramento, so to be between 1985, 1987, I think, I'm pretty sure.
If it wasn't then, it was the late 80s, early 90s, but I'm pretty sure it was the mid-80s.
National Review had a piece, and I think who wrote, who was it?
Joe Sobrin, I think, wrote it.
It was called Congress's Red Army.
And what it was, was a brilliant piece explaining the literal, legitimate communist ties of several Democrats in the House of Representatives.
One of them at the time was Ronald Dellums, who was a member of Congress from Oakland, went on to become mayor there.
His nickname was Red because he was buddy buddies with all these communist and socialist dictators.
Anyway, the piece was brilliant and it had evidence.
It wasn't an opinion piece.
It was a factual piece, an informative piece.
Congress's Red Army was the actual title of the piece.
I actually have a PDF file of the actual magazine piece as it appeared.
Mr. Buckley, after I had met him and told him about it, he got me a number of those pieces from the magazine that I liked.
And I remember reading it.
I remember thinking, man, this is going to blow Congress up sky high.
This is going to expose people.
This is going to cause fallout.
And there wasn't a word said about it by anybody anywhere.
The Republicans in Congress didn't reference it.
The media, of course, didn't pick it up.
I thought it was such bombshell.
I mean, here it was.
People speculating.
You've got to remember back during the 80s, this was Reagan, Boland Amendment.
We had the thing going on with the Contras in Nicaragua.
And the Democrats were siding with the Soviet Union back then.
Every chance they got over Nicaragua and any number of things.
They were siding with the Soviet Union over their own country.
In some ways, that's not new, the way Obama's sideling up with people that have a problem with this country.
But I thought that it was so well done that it was just going to blow it sky high, and it never caused a ripple.
The Democrats that were written about in the piece, they never reacted to it, understandably, but nobody else did either.
So it just, it was a piece that the readers of National Review saw.
There was no internet back then, remember now.
We're talking, well, there was an internet, but there was, I mean, it was compu serve emails.
There was no way to post anything and get it wide distribution.
National Review did not have a website, for example.
So it just languished there within the universe of their readership, and that was it.
And it always amazed me that things like this, which I thought were bombshell, didn't cause a ripple.
It takes me to Codeville's piece.
Now, here's Angelo Codeville, who writes this piece in the American Spectator.
And it's Coco, why don't you go grab that link and put it on the homepage right now as soon as you can get it up so people can remember this.
I'm sure if you were listening back then, you'd remember it, but it'd be good to give you an immediate link to it because it's brilliant.
It perfectly explains ruling class, i.e., establishment versus the rest of the country, who they are, how they operate, why they operate, how they insulate themselves.
It's just brilliant.
And a lot of it is brilliant in the sense that you know it, you suspect it, but it's written so well that, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what I think.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what I know.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I've been worried about.
Yeah, it just makes an instant connection.
Well, my thought was the establishment, there have to be some members that see this.
There has to be some elected Republicans and Democrats who are going to see this, and it's going to make some kind of impression.
But as far as we know, the piece appeared in a vacuum.
Which, you know, here's Doug's point, the adjunct professor of critical thinking.
I didn't know we had that anymore as a course.
I thought we had like gay studies, transgender studies, fortune cookie studies, all these other kinds of studies.
I don't know we had critical thinking being taught anymore.
It's good.
But the point is, here's a piece that is right spot on the money.
And if you are in the ruling class and happen to read the piece, there's no way you could dispute it.
You would have to realize that somebody has just figured you out.
Somebody has just written about you in a way that's not refutable.
No reaction to it whatsoever, which makes sense from them.
I mean, they're not going to act like stuck pigs over it.
But his point, Doug's point is there was no learning from it.
The ruling class, as written about by Codeville, you have to know that elected Republicans and Democrats who are in the ruling class and donors and people who are in CDNC, lobbyists, I'm sure they read it.
Some of them did.
Didn't matter.
They didn't use it as an educational thing.
They didn't use it.
And by the way, don't misunderstand.
I'm not suggesting here that there is a way something like that is going to make the ruling class change and realize that they have been found out so that the game is over.
None of that.
That's not what I'm talking about.
But you would, it just, it's another part of the equation.
When somebody comes along in the Republican Party, says, my God, we didn't realize how angry people were.
How can you not?
The Codeville piece is just one, albeit exceptional, piece explaining why and justifiably why.
And it was a new twist.
It wasn't written from the standpoint of conservative versus liberal.
That was its point.
The point of Codeville's piece was it goes beyond that.
The ruling class is made up of people from all parties and from all ideologies and it's their own club and you don't get in that club just because you want to be and you cannot achieve your way in.
You cannot, it's not a meritocracy.
You don't perform, become the best at what you do and get in.
It's lineage, it's where you went to school, who your daddy was, any number of things, very exclusive.
And that club has as its purpose, most clubs, to preserve its own existence and to make sure that it's not infiltrated and watered down.
And it was just a new way of explaining the divide between the governed and the elected.
So we'll put it up there.
But it is a good point.
How does the ruling class, people in it, read that and not be affected by it one way or the other?
And maybe they were, we just don't know.
But it still gets down to these protestations of ignorance.
Man, we didn't realize the intensity of the anger out there.
It really, you know what, I'm going to become a more bigger conservative now, some of them are saying.
We didn't realize it was that bad out there, which is unbelievable.
It's not, doesn't make any sense.
Because all this time they have been poo-pooing the anger and they've been ridiculing it and impugning it, saying it's unjustified and it's representative of ill-mannered behavior or what have you.
Anyway, Doug, thanks much for the call.
We will be right back.
I just sent the PDF copy of Congress's Red Army.
It's from 1987, the summer 1987 National Review.
I just sent it up to Coco.
So Coco's going to put the link to Angelo Codeville's piece on the ruling class.
And I'm sure National Review will grant permission to post the PDF of this piece of 1987.
It's by Joseph Sobrin, and he had a co-writer.
You'll find it fascinating.
I will tell you this.
I read it originally in 1987.
This is blockbuster.
It's like it's incredible.
This has got to cause all kinds of fireworks.
When I got it later, like four or five years ago, read it again, it didn't have the same impact as when I first read it.
It wasn't the blockbuster I remembered it being.
But that's a function of 20 years having gone by, maybe 30.
And back then, it's far worse.
There are worse connections.
Obama Democrats today than even were detailed in National Review 1987.
So I don't want to build it up to be some, holy smokes, folks, I can't believe this thing didn't cause it to ripple.
When I read it 20 years later, it didn't have the same impact.
So I'm not trying to destroy it with high expectations, is the point.
Here's Chris in Dallas.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Good afternoon.
I have a theory about Donald Trump and his rallies, and I wanted to run it by you and see what you think.
In 2010, I attended a couple of Tea Party rallies, and it just felt good to be among other Americans that felt the same way I did about the Constitution and preserving it.
And I think since the crackdown of the IRS on the Tea Party and some other issues, the Tea Party just has not met the way that we did, you know, back in the first couple of years that we got together.
And I think that we've kind of gone over to Donald Trump.
And, you know, Tea Party may not come out and say it because, you know, Donald's not the true conservative, I guess, that maybe Ted Cruz is.
But I think that there's strength in numbers, and we enjoy being in a room with people who think like us.
And I think that's why Donald Trump is getting the numbers at his rallies.
You could have a point.
I think his coalition is made up of people who are also not Tea Partiers.
But he even referenced the Tea Party in his rally last night, talking about how much he likes them, how much he respects a Tea Party.
But you raise another interesting point.
If you go back 2010 and for the next couple of years, there were Tea Party rallies and meetings all over the country.
We had Tea Party sponsors here on the EIB network.
And now not so much.
And a lot of people on the left say, Tea Party, yeah, it's gone away.
See, it was never legitimate.
It was just this one-time bunch of agitated, angry people.
And that's not at all true.
To say that is to admit or acknowledge that you don't know who the Tea Party was and is and what it was that distinguished it.
You know, Occupy Wall Street was a totally manufactured protest movement by the left.
Shortly after the Tea Party sprung to life, Democrats had to make it look like they had the same kind of people that would spontaneously organize, anti-Bush, anti-Republican.
The thing is that Occupy Wall Street was totally manufactured.
It was bought and paid for by big donors, and it was made up of paid participants.
And it did attract some genuine, insane, lunatic protesters.
But for the most part, it was a bought and paid for organization.
The Tea Party sprung out of the grassroots.
This is what so frightened the Democrats and the Republicans.
Don't forget, the Republicans never tried to latch on to the Tea Party, just like they never tried to make a connection to the majority of people opposing Obamacare.
This is one of the reasons that so many of us were pulling our hair out in frustration back in 2010, 2012.
We had built-in majority coalitions here.
All the Republicans had to do was connect with them on an issue they supposedly agreed, repealing Obamacare.
The Tea Party didn't have a leader.
It was not based around one person.
It wasn't a cult.
It wasn't anybody with a powerful personality.
It was based on genuine citizenship and ideas.
And largely the Tea Party was people who'd never done any organized politics before other than voting.
Maybe have attended a town hall here and there, but for the most part, not.
And the establishment was so scared of it, Obama sicked the IRS on it.
And any Tea Party organization had to go through hell to get a 501c3 rating to be able to fundraise.
And many were denied, accused of breaking the law.
So I think the Tea Party, the lack of an apparent organized Tea Party today is an illusion.
The Tea Party people are still there, and they still care about the same things.
But what so often happens, people who've never been involved in politics or anything else before, and they get all enthused, and they get involved, and they start going to these meetings and these rallies, and they're big, and they happen to take place all over the country.
Major rallies.
I mean, hundreds of thousands of people in Washington, out in Nevada, all over the place.
But then nothing happened.
Republican Party said, they showed up to vote, but nothing happened.
So I think a lot of Tea Party people say, what the hell?
What's the point here?
They're not listening to us.
They realize, I mean, they're not professionals at this.
They don't realize it's long game, long time.
No immediate results came in, so it's time to go and move something else.
But they still think what they think, and they still vote the way they think.
And there may be some of them with Trump.
Okay, Trump's appearance in Pensacola next.
Other things too.
And the San Francisco Foreigners announced a half hour ago they've hired Chip Kelly as their coach.
▲
Export Selection