All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:54
October 12, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump, move on.
If congressional endorsements meant anything, Jeb Bush should be the nominee.
Move on.
It doesn't matter.
The people that are running away from you are the people that want to sign up for amnesty and join the Democrats anyway.
Move on.
These people couldn't get the people they wanted the nomination.
Just swat them away, Mr. Trump.
Greetings.
Welcome, my friends.
Great to have you rush limball behind the golden EIB microphone.
It's getting insane out there now.
It's getting it's getting so insane that I'm questioning my own sanity now and then.
I don't worry about it.
I get it in check.
But to keep up with this stuff, you have to descend to depths that you don't do.
You don't go there on purpose.
You have to be sucked into it.
You have to be sucked down into it.
And it's where the drive-bys are taking us.
They want to say that it's Trump taking us down to the depths below the gutter, but I'm telling you, they're the ones doing it, folks.
And they are doing it with happiness, and they are doing it with pride, and they are being joined by several Republicans in the process.
I have to tell you something.
I I want to repeat this question to all of you Republicans.
I know I just told Trump to forget them, but I need to repeat a question modify it a little bit.
We have a number of congressional Republicans and Senate Republicans, well, hell, Republicans of every stripe, elected, non-elected, who are publicly and happily, apparently, distancing themselves from Trump and saying Trump is simply unacceptable.
By virtue of this, they are guaranteeing Hillary Clinton gets elected.
Well, they're not guaranteeing that, but they are certainly telegraphing that they're perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton being elected.
They're perfectly fine with it.
They are doing everything but joining the Democrat Party.
So my question is this, and at the same time, they're telling us to vote for them to stop Hillary Clinton.
They're saying we cannot lose our House majority, and we cannot lose our Senate majority while they abandon their nominee.
While they abandon Trump.
So they abandoned Trump for some semblance of virtue, they want us to believe.
And then, as they campaign for re-election and as their PR people consultants campaign for them, they tell us that we must vote for them after they abandon the nominee.
We must vote for them to stop Hillary.
Why is it important?
It must not be important to stop Hillary.
You're doing the very thing that's practically guaranteeing her winning.
Why is it important to elect you to stop Hillary if it's not important to you to stop Hillary from even getting there?
We don't want to stop Hillary in the White House.
We would like to prevent her from getting there.
I don't understand you Republicans who seem perfectly content with her to get there, and then you come to us and tell us that you must get our support so that you can stop Hillary.
Yet you don't appear to have any desire to keep her out of the White House.
So how in the world can it be important to elect you?
To me, it's a serious question.
The WikiLeaks dump continues.
It is phenomenal.
It's a bunch of BS being spread out there.
Folks, you've got to be very, very careful.
This always happens.
A bunch of so-called conservative websites that I don't believe are conservative.
I think they're run by a bunch of pajama clad liberals in their basements, purporting to be conservatives, are manufacturing completely erroneous and distorted examples.
They say they have found from the WikiLeaks dump, and they're absolutely wrong.
I'm not even going to waste time pointing them.
Just be very, very suspicious.
If you don't recognize a website, if you don't think you've ever heard of it before, ignore it.
It's a better bet to ignore it than to believe it and then be guilty of perpetuating BS that you then retweet forward as an email or whatever.
Uh that you do.
Grab a soundbite real quick.
This is number 27, Sergei Lavrov.
You know where Sergey Lavrov is?
The Russians are getting ticked out there, by the way.
You know, while these campaigns are going, can I share with you a story from the UK Daily Mail?
Let me give you the headline.
Russia orders all officials to fly home, any relatives living abroad, as tensions mount over the prospect of a global war.
Now, this is what eight years of a feckless and incompetent foreign policy and weak diplomacy gets us.
So-called reset with the Russians.
It never happened.
And the problem is everybody's attention is focused on our election and campaign, understandably so.
But the UK Daily Mail has this story that Russia has ordered all officials to have any of their relatives living abroad get them home because tensions are mounting over the prospect of a global war.
Russian officials have been told to bring relatives home to the motherland.
Failure to act will put promotion chances at risk, according to local reports in the KGB.
And all of this comes amid rapidly deteriorating relations between Russia and the West, which means us.
Putin has canceled a planned visit to France amid a furious row over Moscow's role in the Syrian conflict.
Putin is furious over what's being said about him by the Democrats.
Democrats are blaming him for hacking.
I watched Mary Ann Watzerface, the gal that lives in Boston, a Democrat strategist consultant that's always on Fox.
Marianne Moore, and to defend the stuff that WikiLeaks has found and published.
They're not denying any of it.
Podesta and these people are not denying any of it.
The standard line from the Democrats is this is illegal.
This is a breach of faith.
This is against the law.
This is the result of a Russian hack.
The Russians are attempting to insert themselves into the outcome of a presidential election.
It's horrible.
Not denying the truth of it, but dumping it all on the Russians.
And the Russians are claiming they didn't have anything to do with this.
So Putin is getting ticked off about it.
And even the beloved Mikhail Gorbachev has warned that the world is at a dangerous point due to rising tensions between Russia and the U.S. It is percolating out there.
People are not noticing paying attention because their attention is diverted.
Anyway, Sergei Lavrov, he's been on TV explaining the Russian reaction to some of these charges.
And on one point, since it's flattering to get this kind of attention, but but we're not doing any of this.
We're not hacking the Democrat servers.
You know, and for her to blame the Russians.
I mean, you the the WikiLeaks dump, the degree to which the Democrat Party to Clinton campaign is coordinating with the Department of Justice, the FBI, the White House, in running Hillary's campaign and protecting her from every investigation which has been looking into her.
You want to talk corruption?
We haven't even seen this guy.
Richard Nick, this is romper room compared to what they were accusing Nixon of.
And we have it all documented.
Now we're going to try to make hay of it during the program today, but Sergei Lavrov was on CNN today, and Christiana Manpore was interviewing him.
And she said, uh, can I just try one last question?
It's a bit cheeky, but I'm going to ask you.
Russia had its own pussy riot moment.
Pussy Riot, by the way, is a Russian feminist punk rock protest group.
They're based in Moscow.
Just so you understand what what what Christiana Montpore is asking about here.
I mean, it's a it's just CNN's way of getting the word on the air, is what it is.
That's all they want to do is get the word pussy on the air.
So they're using pussy riot in a question to Sergei Lavrov.
So she says, can I just try one last question?
It's a bit cheeky, but I'm going to ask you.
Russia has had its own pussy riot moment.
What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment?
Well, um, I don't know whether this would I English is not my mother tongue.
I don't know whether they would I would sound uh I mean decent.
There's so many puses around your presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment about this.
And out of the mouth of somebody who claims not to speak English well comes gems of truth.
Were you able to understand through the thick accent?
Oh, you weren't.
I I need to play it again, folks.
So people here claim they had trouble understanding the very thick uh uh Russian accent of Sergei Lavrov.
So here again, Christian Aminpoor, just desirous of getting the word pussy on the air at CNN, has to ask this guy about something that's totally unrelated, the name of a punk rock protest group named Pussy Riot.
So she does that, and she says to this guy, well, you you you in Russia had your own uh pussy riot moment.
What do you think of Donald Trump's pussy riot moment?
Well, um, I don't know whether this would I English is not my mother tongue.
I don't know whether I would I would sound uh I mean decent.
There's so many puses around your presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment about this.
And in not commenting on it, he just did.
There are so many pussies that are presidents who can't be in both sides, they're like commenting.
So there you have it, folks.
So that's what they're sucking us in.
They're sucking us in, and they're taking us down the whirlwind, and we try to get off, we try to mainstate maintain here a level of propriety and decency in the drive-by's and the left and their guests on their shows just suck us in to this filth and take us right down wherever they're headed with them.
Now, I mentioned yesterday on this program.
I need to get this out of the way so we can move on to the crux of things today.
I mentioned yesterday that if Hillary and the Democrats win the election, it's just the beginning.
They are gonna go after everybody who opposes them.
The objective is going to be the elimination of opposition, not a level playing field, not a circumstance where free and open debate takes place, but the elimination of opposition.
And I can demonstrate it.
Demonstrate that I'm right by virtue of C-SPAN's Washington Journal today, the host Pedro Eschevaria, speaking with politico contributor.
Some of you might think it's Echeveria, pronounce it both ways, but it's actually Echevaria.
And uh Pedro spoke with political contributor and author Nicole Hemmer about her new book, Messengers of the Right, Conservative Media, and the transformation of American politics.
And Etchevaria says, when did we see the growth of conservative media?
The late 1950s and 1960s, but it's always in this period pretty small.
So they disappear historically.
The real shift comes not with the first generation that I write about, but the second generation.
So when Rush Limbaugh, his program goes national in 1988, you have a conservative media that is visible nationally and that is part of a national conversation.
It raises this awareness of conservative media, but it also creates a false memory, I think, for Americans who look back and they say, Oh, well, conservative media started in 1988.
We need to understand that conservatives had been had been doing this for a long time.
Oh, and that makes it even more important to stamp them out.
We have to understand conservatives have been around a lot longer than 1988, like a disease.
Conservatives and conservatives, yeah, yeah, don't think that just because the the giant plague hit in 1988 that the disease wasn't around before that because it was.
You just didn't see it, you didn't notice it, but it was there.
Conservatism, the plague, has always been there.
So after that settled In Echevaria didn't have much to say coming back, but he did have a question.
You said Rush Limbaugh is he the standard bearer there as far as radio is concerned?
He is, absolutely.
I mean, he's the one who pioneers this new interactive talk radio format that becomes nationally popular in the early 1990s.
And it's really not until a decade later, until 2000, 2001, 2002, that you get his cohort, Sean Hannity, Glint back, all of these folks who are modeled after him and create the broad conservative radio universe we have today.
Well, the plague existed, the plague of conservatives.
You know, you can trace conservatism back to the founding.
If you want to know where conservatism began in America, try convention hall, Philadelphia.
In the mid-1700.
That's the origin of conservatism in America.
The founding was especially conservative.
But she doesn't know that.
She hasn't been taught that she hasn't the slightest idea.
To her, conservatism is a plague, it's a disease.
It was festering out there.
The CDC didn't need to do anything about it.
It didn't get big until 1988.
And then it became almost an incurable disease that we have to do something about.
She's now chronicling how it spread.
And I owned it from 88 until 2000.
She's leaving Fox News out of this.
Then she got the cohort of other radio talk show hosts.
The uh it it mutated, uh, if you will.
This plague of conservatives mutated out there, and all these sub-diseases began to spread.
They were modeled after the number one form of the virus, would be me.
So then they go to the phones and they get a call from uh woman named Martha in Texas.
She says, I want to ask you, uh, 1986, FCC removed uh truth in reporting law.
That was the year Rush Limbaugh started up.
Did that make a difference in right wing, and they want us to believe that everything is unscripted in these places.
They just happen to get a call from somebody who wants to talk about the FCC removing a truth in reporting law.
She's talking about the fairness doctrine, and there's nothing about truth and reporting and the fairness of the people.
Fairness doctrine's not equal.
Time doctrine, it's nothing of the sort.
Doesn't matter.
You don't need to know the truth.
You need to know an obscured version of the truth.
So that caller asked the question: did the removal, don't you know, the removal of truth in reporting laws, did that lead to limbaugh?
The regulation that you're talking about was removed in 1987.
It's called the Fairness Doctrine.
When the Fairness Doctrine gets repealed during the Reagan administration, does it open the door?
I think it opens the door for station owners to feel comfortable picking up the Rush Limbaugh program, knowing that they're not going to get rapped by the government for being unbalanced.
So you see how conservatism is being prepared here portrayed in this book by a political infobabe, a political reporter in it's a disease.
It's a plague.
And the CDC, in this case the FCC, made an error in treating it.
They allowed the virus to grow by not enforcing truth in reporting laws, which enabled our EIB affiliates to skirt the edges of the law by picking up this bro.
All of this means they're going to take care of this.
It's going to be pretty soon on their agenda.
Because this is right here, the location of the primary opposition to the left in the Democrat Party, and they are not going to tolerate any opposition.
As usual, folks, it's going to take all three hours to get through everything today, so just sit back and relax and hang with us.
USA Today has an interesting um story today.
Survey reveals what Americans fear most.
And you're not going to believe what USA Today says is at the top of this list.
There are three, four, five, six, and ten things on this list, and you're not going to believe what's number one.
Corruption.
Corrupt government officials are the greatest fear.
Say 60% of Americans.
And yet, that corruption is what's leading in every presidential poll.
The political corruption that is occurring today is occurring in what we call the Washington establishment.
It is run by the Democrat Party.
It has several Republicans that are eager members.
That's in the corruption is the Obama presidency, the Clinton presidency, the Clinton campaign.
There isn't corruption in the Trump campaign.
He's not even in politics.
Trump hasn't had his fingerprints aren't on any single thing happening in our government today vis-a-vis policy.
Trump is a total outsider.
It is not possible for any government corruption to be traced to Trump.
And yet the number one thing most Americans fear they are going to elect.
I heard the media talking about the media.
You know, one of the WikiLeaks leaks is that the Boston Globe editorial department worked with Hillary Clinton during a trip to New England to help her maximize her presence during a campaign trip.
And they're not denying it.
In fact, they're saying, well, yeah, we we've long editorialized in favor of Hillary.
We're a separate division from the rest of the paper.
We proudly helped Hillary.
We proudly worked with her to uh whatever they say.
They're not denying it.
The Boston Globe coordinated with Hillary Clinton to maximize her presence.
That could mean her presence, stage presence, visibility, coordinating best places to go.
They are New Englanders, they know where to go to make the most impact.
They were helping her, not denying it.
In fact, they're saying it's totally valid.
It's a totally valid thing for the editorial department of a newspaper to do.
Particularly a newspaper that's endorsed Democrats since uh before Moses.
Lindana Brazil's out there, uh, saying that she got hold of some questions and tipped Hillary off to what they were before a debate or town hall with Crazy Bernie.
She's denying that it happened, and even if she had received the question, she wouldn't have passed them on.
And then they're dealing with John Harwood, uh, who is sharing with people his excitement in affecting the outcome of a Republican debate by virtue of his treatment of Trump.
So it's the the media is not even, folks, they're not even bothered this stuff has been discovered.
They don't they don't think it's any big deal.
They don't think you're gonna care.
And further, they don't think you're gonna know because they're not talking about it.
The drive-by media is studiously purposely ignoring everything to do with WikiLeaks.
So if you're one of these people, why don't people care?
I can't believe this is incredible.
You talk about corruption weather, they don't know, folks.
These specifically the low information crowd, they don't know because ABC CBS NBC, New York Times, LA Times, uh, USA Today.
They're not talking about it.
New York Times, Washington Post, not talking about it.
The drive-by media, mainstream media, not even talking about the whole WikiLeaks story.
So they don't know.
Now back to this USA.
Oh, no, no.
One other thing.
I want to go back to Soundbite number three.
This uh, this this contributor from uh Politico, this author Nicole Hammer, with her book Conservative Messengers of the Right, Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.
I want to play this last sound bite again.
Because remember, her whole premise is that conservatism is a disease, and it was percolating out there prior to 1988.
It was there, but nobody saw it.
It wasn't killing too many people, so there wasn't a lot of concern.
But in 1988, it became a plague when this program started.
And in this soundbite, she is answering a question from a caller about truth in reporting laws and whether or not that served my purposes in starting my program.
The regulation that you're talking about was removed in 1987.
It's called the Fairness Doctrine.
When the Fairness Doctrine gets repealed during the Reagan administration, does it open the door?
I think it opens the door for station owners to feel comfortable picking up the Rosh Limbaugh program, knowing that they're not going to get rapped by the government for being unbalanced.
Now stop and think of this.
I want you to think of this in the mindset here.
Station owners comfortable picking up the limbaugh program, knowing they aren't going to get rapped by the government.
Now, it's not discussed much, but radio and television, terrestrial radio and TV are governed by the government.
They're policed, regulated, the FCC.
And they have operating licenses that have to be renewed every so often, three years, five years.
And to get them renewed, you have to have done enough things the FCC says that local ownership should do to warrant license being reissued.
So that's always been part of the deal.
But her attitude here is Yeah, station owners became comfortable picking up the limbaugh show, knowing the government wasn't going to do anything to them.
So the point is it's perfectly valid in this woman's mind for the government to have all of this power to determine what you get to hear and don't get to hear.
It's perfectly valid for the government to sit there and determine who gets to say what and who doesn't.
And her point really is that when Hillary wins the election, this is going to come back on the front burner, and government is going to put the fear of God in these nations.
Government is going to get or start rapping stations, if you will.
Station owners are going to grow uncomfortable.
And this woman, this this First Amendment reporter, she's all for it.
You know, I I did an interview yesterday for the upcoming issue of the Limbaugh Letter with Kimberly Strassel, who is a member of the editorial board, the Wall Street Journal and the Columnist, and her book is all about vanishing free speech and the left's war that they are conducting against free speech.
Let me find the exact title of this book.
It's worth, you know, and the previous guy that I interviewed for the Limbaugh Letter, Benjamin Watson, tight end in the National Football League.
He's played for a lot of teams and a lot of coaches.
Boy, that was a great interview, too, and he's got a great book out about race relations in America.
Strassel's title, The Intimidation Game, How the Left is Silencing Free Speech.
Now she saw she cites a whole lot of specific instances and provides details and illustration.
And one of those is Citizens United.
You might you might have heard that Hillary Clinton promising in the debate the other night to do something to reverse Citizens United.
In talking to Kimberly Strassel yesterday, I heard the best illustration or explanation of how money is speech that anybody's ever made.
The left does not consider money speech.
don't want money to be speech.
And many people, even in the right, mock it because money equals the rich.
And the rich already have enough advantages over everybody else.
And the fact that they get to spend their money, money that you don't have, saying things that you can't say, it's not fair.
Hillary wants to wipe it out.
Now, Strassel makes the point that the first amendment in the Constitution is free speech.
Because the founders of this country knew it was the only, well, not the only, but it was a primary necessary ingredient to avoiding tyranny.
People People had to be able to say what they wanted to say.
And no government was going to be able to stop them.
And that's the friend of the freedom of religion, the freedom to assemble.
But free speech is among the first things.
And the left, this is this folks, this is not arguable now.
The left is constantly assaulting free speech.
They are they want to limit what people can say Because they do want a degree of tyranny.
They want a degree of power over other people.
Well, they can't just go out and pass laws saying that you can't say whatever they don't want you to say.
So they come up with a proxy for speech, and they go after that.
And that is money.
There is no question that in the case of campaign ads, political action committees, you name it, political campaigns and organizations find ways to communicate their ideas with voters for the obvious reasons, and it costs money.
And the availability of money and the legality of spending the money on campaign ads is nothing more than expression of speech.
The left has been at war with the whole idea that money equals speech, and they do it by going after the rich and corporations that are inherently unfair, inherently bad, inherently mean corporations are at the top of the Democrat Party to left enemies list.
And so while they can't openly attack what you say, and they can't openly pass laws denying you, they use proxies to go after speech, and money is their number one proxy by preventing people from spending money on politics under the guise that it's unfair because not everybody has money, not everybody can spend it, therefore it isn't free, it isn't free speech, it isn't fair.
They're trying to stamp it out.
And in the process, they are without question assaulting the whole concept of free speech, which is what leftists must do.
They can't survive.
They are a statist slash tyrannically oriented ideology, and they can't survive amidst opposition.
They're not interested in winning debates, exchanges of ideas.
They are interested in eliminating all opposition.
Citizens United specifically is Hillary Clinton trying to clamp down on people who made a movie about her.
She didn't like what the movie said.
So she that the word citizens united has become a buzzword, a knee-jerk word for the left that to them equals excess illegality, must be stamped out.
It's unfair.
And there are a number of other proxies for free speech that the government, that the left is going after.
And it's it's chilling.
It is genuinely chilling what they are trying to do.
And coming after this program and coming after conservatism under the guise that it's a disease, and it was out there, but it wasn't very noticeable to the 50s and 60s, but man, then it metastasized in 1988, and it's something we've got to get rid of.
It poses a threat.
How in the world does it pose a threat?
These are just words.
Whatever you think of Trump, it's just words.
And they want to stamp it all out.
They want to tamp it all down.
And it takes me back to the USA story.
Survey reveals what Americans fear most.
Ten items, number one on the list, 60% of the American people claim corruption to government officials is their top fear.
How does this make any sense?
They are going to vote for the single greatest corrupt candidate that we have perhaps nominated to be president in this country, Hillary Clinton.
The corruption that has gone on in her campaign with the FBI, with the Department of Justice, the corruption that has taken place in the whole Obama administration, the erasure of various laws and regulations vis-a-vis the Constitution, the corruption is unmistakable, and yet people say they fear it the most.
It can't be Trump.
I want to emphasize again, corruption and Trump, not here.
Donald Trump's fingerprints are not on one thing in the government.
He's not been in government.
He hasn't had any government power.
He hasn't had any government access to speak of other than as a donor, no more than anybody else, no less.
So voters talking about government corruption, they might foolishly believe that Trump represents that because of what they've been told about him in the media, but the corruption lies exclusively on the Democrat side of the aisle.
In order, the other things the American people said that they are most afraid of terror attacks, number two at 41%, not having enough money is three at 40%.
Being a victim of terror is number four at 38.5%.
Government restrictions on guns and ammo, 38.5%.
That's number five.
Number six, they're afraid of people they love dying.
38%.
Number seven, economic or financial collabs.
Number eight, identity theft.
Hello, life lock.
So that amazing.
In the top ten, number eight identity theft is one of the greatest things people fear.
Corruption being number one.
Number nine, people you love getting seriously sick is the ninth thing they fear most.
And are you ready for number 10?
The tenth thing.
Number one is corruption.
Number 10, Obamacare.
35.5% of the American people claim Obamacare is their greatest fear.
They're going to re-elect it.
Or better state, they're going to elect the people who they're going to vote for the people that brought it.
They're going to vote for the people who are corrupt.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me do pretzel twists that I can't get out.
I just don't understand it.
This is incredible.
It's incredible.
The American people fear the government led by Barack Obama more than anything else and don't know it.
They claim that the government corruption is their number one fear.
That's the Obama administrator today.
I mean, you're talking about government corruption.
Who's been running the government, folks?
Where is it?
You've got the FBI and the investigation of Hillary that didn't happen.
You've got Benghazi.
You've got all the IRS, you got the government targeting conservative IRS groups.
I mean, people know, but they're not blaming Obama for it.
They don't blame the people responsible.
It's the limbaugh theorem.
Somehow the Democrats escape all accountability for what they do.
And it's because the media is the media.
The Democrats are running around talking about the need to fix all this as though some phantom group of people is doing it.
Nobody's happy.
Nobody thinks we're heading in the right direction.
Look at this.
U.S. job openings fall to lowest level in eight months.
Job openings.
I mean, that's where unemployment goes to get fixed.
And if there aren't job openings, then unemployment's going to remain unchanged or get worse.
Then some random headlines from Drudge.
Look at this.
Bill Clinton, Trump base standard rednecks.
And now the media's debating what rednecks mean so that Clinton doesn't get tarred and feather for use of the term.
If Mitt Romney had gone out call people rednecks, oh man, it'd be a fireable offense.
But Clinton calling them rednecks.
Yeah, hey, hey, yo, it's rednecks.
That's Trump's base.
You know, the uh the bitter clingers out there, people that got their guns and they're really like Obama said.
Bunch of rednecks.
And now the media is debating a definition of rednecks and it doesn't come back and bite Clinton.
And there are, there's a there's a story out there, Drudges linked to it.
Obama flaunts erection to female reporters.
It happened on his campaign plane.
You haven't heard about this.
Yeah, it was like 2008, I think, during the campaign, Obama stood up, a bunch of female reporters on his campaign plan with an erection.
They got all excited.
They all huddled around to see it.
I'm dead serious.
I've got the story.
Hell, who knows what's true anymore?
But I've got the story.
Nobody's out there denying it.
That yeah, Obama was uh giving the female reporters and the flight attendants a big thrill, and they weren't sheiking, shrieking in fear, and they weren't running away, and they wouldn't start crying, and they didn't act like, oh my god, Godzilla's aboard.
They all gathered around and wanted to see.
I'll find this.
I've got the story here.
I I wasn't gonna even get to it until I see it now linked on Drudge, and there's video of it.
California town, now less than 10% white.
Tim Thibaut saves man's life after putting hands on I mean.
There's no better time to be doing what I'm doing.
I don't misunderstand.
I'm not complaining.
It's just astounding.
CNN.
CNN recorded a video of Obama flaunting his erection on a campaign plane as a senator.
CNN sat on the video, so to speak.
But the reporters are not scared, they're not running for cover, they're not shocked, they're not offended, they're curious.
Folks.
Hang tough.
▲
Export Selection