Confirmed, Megan Kelly leaving Fox News for NBC News.
What do you think about that?
I can tell you, Megan was the first prime time host to actually have me on as a guest at Fox.
She's moving over to NBC now.
Also, I'm going to need someone to explain to me how this can be.
Now, we're sort of returning to a story from the last hour for a second.
Then I'm going to move on to Trump saving some jobs.
Or at least that's what we're being told today.
Tomorrow it'll be he's destroying America by saving jobs.
I don't know.
There'll be some other way they report this.
But first, let's start for a second with the New York Times, the number one news story on New YorkTimes.com right now, biggest story, main story on the site.
House Republicans back down on bid to gut ethics office.
You're seeing that word a lot.
Isn't the CNN write-up of this?
To gut the ethics office.
Very, very visceral, very intense phraseology that they deploy here.
This is some serious stuff.
To gut the ethics office.
And then they say in the first line of this piece, House Republicans, this is a quote here.
House Republicans facing a storm of bipartisan criticism, including from President-elect Donald J. Trump, moved early Tuesday afternoon to reverse their plan to kill the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Okay.
End quote.
That's what they say.
The kill is to get rid of, eliminate, ban, gone.
But then I go down to the New York Times piece and it says that the comments, because Trump said that there should be other priorities, but it's a break with rank and file Republicans who overrode, this is again back a quote from the same New York Times piece, who overrode their top leaders on Monday in a vote to significantly curtail the power of the ethics office.
Okay, well, is it to kill the office or curtail the powers of the office?
Those are not the same things.
This is essential.
And this is the New York Times reporting on this.
You're either saying this is gone, which is a discussion we could have, whether that matters or not.
But if they're just changing some of the rules of how this thing operates and you're going to call it gutting, why not tell us what they were really planning on?
But you see, again, this is a case where the narrative is all that matters.
The administration, here are the Trump tweets that are out there just now.
Trump tweets are sort of replacing the, going to replace the Roosevelt fireside chat or whatever.
I mean, this is going to be the way that it is now.
I think we're all going to be told what the president's thinking via tweet.
But he tweeted out that with all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the independent ethics watchdog as unfair as it is?
So even he thinks he's saying he thinks it's bad.
Focus on tax reform, healthcare, and so many other things of far greater importance.
And we will do that too, by the way.
I don't want to be at a dead horse here, but I just want to point out, New York Times reporting, they're saying that, well, Republicans have backed down because they're claiming this as one of the victories.
They want there to be more of this, right?
They want to intimidate Republicans into, with public pressure via the media and Democrats and selective leaks and whatever they got to do.
They want to intimidate Republicans from backing off on their agenda from day one.
And that is where we are.
Here is day one.
And they're saying, see, it's day one.
We've already got a victory.
They're going to see if they can use the Trump scare to their advantage.
And the Trump administration decides to back off on this.
It's sort of like discussing with the team here before.
Anytime you try to make the case about minimum wage, you're going to lose.
Meaning that raising minimum wage doesn't actually have the effect that the proponents of it say that it will have, that overwhelmingly raises the minimum wage have been shown to not benefit those who are at the bottom of the income spectrum.
And a lot of people who earn minimum wage are in two-income households.
It's just, it's much more.
And of course, then there's a cost to businesses.
But already, I can tell some of you are probably like, all right, minimum wage.
And it's, well, do you want workers to have more money or not?
Buck, kind of a jerk are you?
Okay, yeah, of course.
I would think that hardworking people should make more money.
Well, then you should be for the minimum wage.
The reality doesn't matter.
And the reality of this congressional ethics, whatever, you know, that keep getting the two of them.
There's the Office of Congressional Ethics and there's a House Ethics Committee, okay?
The OCE, whether it was going to be actually gutted or just tweaked a little bit, a little bit of spice here and there, change things around, or it was going to be eliminated wholesale.
That's not going to matter either because the headline is all people are going to pay attention to and care about.
Headline is Republicans, don't care about ethics, getting rid of ethics, got this incredibly ethically compromised because we tell you that every day, president-elect and Donald Trump, he's got connections all over the world, and he's in the pocket of the Russian oligarchs, and he wants to go play basketball with Kim Jong-un, and he's the worst, right?
He's like the worst guy ever.
They tell you that every day.
And so this is a fight the administration doesn't really want to have, and so they're backing off on this.
But I just want to point out that even in the Times right now, you go and read it, they go from kill the office to significantly curtailing the power of the office.
Those are not the same things.
So someone has to explain to me which one it really is.
And I just wanted to point that out.
We'll get into more of this coming up here.
But on to some happier stuff.
I want to talk about the ways that perhaps the attitudes and pronouncements of the administration to be, right?
Not yet.
We've got a couple of weeks here before this actually happens.
But it seems to be having some sort of an impact, and that's on job creation.
A lot was made of Trump and the carrier deal, and then, of course, it was dissected.
And people said, well, there were this many jobs were actually saved.
Other jobs were not saved.
But Trump is clearly trying to or making an effort to find some way to bring jobs, particularly manufacturing, higher-paying manufacturing jobs, to America.
This is a very complicated issue.
But the overarching signaling on this, right?
If we're going to talk about how headlines can dominate over the argument, a headline can beat anything else.
The nuance of who's right, who's wrong, what the nitty-gritty of the situation may be, a headline can overcome or can drown out all of that.
And in this case, maybe the headlines can have a positive effect.
Because let's not pretend.
Okay, here's the top line on this.
Ford to scrap, this is from Foxnews.com.
Ford to scrap Mexico plant, invest in Michigan.
The CEO cites Trump policies.
And this is Donald Trump before he's even actually become president.
You got Donald Trump being cited, I don't know how else to put it.
People pointing at Donald Trump and saying he's the reason for this.
And Ford Motor Company saying that a $1.6 billion plant that was going to be built in Mexico, instead, they're going to invest $700 million in a Michigan assembly plant.
And this is directly tied to the, quote, pro-growth policies championed by president-like Donald Trump.
Signaling, messaging, all that stuff really matters.
It matters to markets.
It matters to the economy, to employment.
We know this.
All you have to do is talk to anybody about how freaked out the financial sector gets and really the whole country if they're paying attention to it.
But the moment that, you know, is the Fed going to raise interest rates?
Are they moving in that direction to raise interest rates?
Are they signaling that they're going to signal something with the raise in rates?
These things can have a dramatic impact.
We were also told, of course, on election night when there was that very momentary drop in, I think it was 500 points or something like that, and what was it, Dow Futures, that this was evidence that Hillary Clinton was going to be business as usual, which is good for American business, and Donald Trump was going to be the sort of end of American capitalism, and it was going to be replaced with some sort of dystopian crony capitalist, quote, stand, to borrow from Paul Krugman there.
And yet we know that people, a lot of what economic activity is based on is confidence, right?
People look at consumer confidence, they actually try to measure that.
And those who know the market, and I'm not a stock market guy, I don't know much about the stock market, would never pretend to, but I know a lot of people who do, and they'll tell you that it's very, obviously a lot of stuff going on.
It's a very complicated system, a very complicated thing.
But you can boil it down to some simple truths.
And when people are fearful, they sell.
When people are optimistic, they buy.
And much of that is based upon a few, you know, it's based upon future expectations of what you think is going to happen.
So whether the jobs that are saved here, and I think it's in the hundreds so far.
Yeah.
Their decision reportedly saved about 700 jobs.
So Ford is going to save 700, keep 700 jobs in America.
A lot of people are going to point at that number and they're going to say, we're a country of 320 give or take million, and 700 jobs is a grain of sand on the beach.
I was just down in Palm Beach area, and it was quite lovely, by the way, I will say.
Florida, you've got some nice beaches.
High five.
But I was down around there, and oh, sorry, back to, I just drifted back to vacation for a second in my head.
But the messaging that this sends to the market and to other companies can't be ignored.
Now, I know some of my conservative brethren are going to say, well, what you've got here is a would-be chief executive of the United States government, or will be, I shouldn't say, would be, soon-to-be, President-elect Trump, who is picking winners and losers in the market.
Now, first of all, the left can't have any say on this stuff whatsoever because whether it's green jobs for some fun, just like a trip down memory lane, man, just Google Solyndra.
Just remember that hundreds of millions of dollars shoveled to a solar energy panel company that really did.
I mean, there's the old joke about how, you know, you're going to sell at a loss, but you'll make it up on volume.
That was their business plan.
I mean, for every unit sold, they were losing money.
But, you know, if you give hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer guarantees in case they lose everything, and of course they did, maybe things will get better.
And oh, there are some people that seem to have some interesting ties to the Obama administration that were very closely tied to Solyndra.
I mean, this is nothing new.
Now, this is not to excuse picking of winners and losers and inherently pretend that this is some kind of a good thing.
I understand why this troubles people.
But we first have to start from the realistic premise or the premise of reality that there's already all kinds of stuff going on that means that the market is not free and fair all the time.
And there needs to be a lot done both through regulation and repealing of regulation, in some cases, perhaps getting rid of whole regulatory departments.
I don't know.
It's all there's a discussion we should have to make the market more free and fair.
But in the meantime, I think it's unfair to ignore the aggregate benefits, particularly benefits for jobs in certain sectors of America that will come from a president who is just indicating that this is a priority and that his administration will do everything they can to improve this area for the American people.
That just that sentiment in and of itself will have an impact on how companies invest.
Are companies fearful or optimistic, just like people who are investing, just like people who are managing their 401ks?
Do they think that the future is going to bring them more prosperity?
Do they think that there's going to be some tax relief for corporations in the near future?
More investment, more hiring.
Is that the expectation?
A lot of this is done on expectations.
And a lot of the expectations, of course, have to be built upon what, in this case, the president-elect, soon to be president, is saying, what his temperament is on an issue.
And really, as has been pointed out now by many of the defenders of Obama's dismal record, whether on national security or here at home on the economic front, right?
Look at the labor participation rate, and that's a whole long discussion in and of itself.
The failures, the weakest recovery since the Great Depression.
I mean, the failures of the Obama economy, there are some pieces that you can find online that have been written.
One of the go-to excuses for the Obama administration has been: well, the role of the president, and then, of course, we had the pen and the phone and the executive orders, but the role of the president is largely to persuade.
So if that's true, and it was true until the executive order stuff really sort of took center stage and Obama was just deciding he was going to do it on his own and the Constitution be damned, separation of powers be damned.
Trump now signaling to the market and signaling to major corporations that he is going to be a friend to job growth and creation.
That's not just fluffy, happy talk in the air.
That can mean good things.
And that alone can have real consequences.
And we're seeing the start of that, perhaps, with full understanding of all the complexities.
And people are going to say that the president shouldn't be in the business of the American people in this way, picking winners and losers.
Well, he might be able to help some people with just showing that we want as many winners as we can get.
Companies, individuals, you name them.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
We'll be back in a few.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh today.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
800-282-2882.
Take some calls here, whatever you've got for me.
Richard in Los Angeles, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for taking my call, Mr. Sexton.
You can call me, Buck.
Thank you.
Well, okay.
I've enjoyed some 80 years on this planet, and I've always, as far as I can remember, I've always noted that the unions have been backing the Democrats forever.
With what's happening with Mr. Trump and what is happening with the Carrier and with the Ford, when are these guys going to come around and realize that the Trump people have their backs and they should support them?
Well, it's interesting.
The union, I did see a comment at the, let me see if I can find it for you here on the fly.
But there has been some.
Yeah, I'm thrilled that we have been able to secure additional UAW Ford jobs for American workers, according to UA Vice President Jimmy Settles.
This was in a press release.
The men and women of Flat Rock Assembly have shown a great commitment to manufacturing, et cetera, et cetera.
So, yeah.
So the unions, or at least a union, I should say, there's a lot of different unions for a lot of different things.
Union boss, a vice president here of the UAW, saying that this is a good thing.
And we'll see.
We'll see how this actually shakes out.
But the problem, the thing with unions is, first of all, you've got to separate private and public sector unions because really where the Democrats get a lot of their support now is in the public sector unions.
And that's just because then government becomes the self-looking ice cream cone, right?
You've got public school teachers banding together.
The donations go to the Democrat candidate.
The Democrat candidate fattens up their pensions and does everything he can to make it as attractive as possible or give as many perks and benefits as possible to the teachers' unions and on and on it goes, right?
And this is true of all the different public sector unions that are out there.
And even at the dawn of unions, the very beginning, even people that were pro-union were like, well, we should never have this for government employees because that would be crazy because they're just going to end up fleecing the American public.
And that's what's happened.
But as for private sector unions, now you get into some issues of, well, are they relying on government interference and regulation to remain relevant and remain competitive?
So I mean, unions have done a lot of damage in a lot of places too, Richard, is what I'm saying.
So I'm not sure, some of them liking this Trump action is noteworthy, but I don't know if Trump is going to really deregulate a lot and do a lot of regulation cutting across the country and make things, make industries more competitive, lower corporate taxes and lower the regulations that prevent some upstarts and disruption in certain industries, then he's going to run afoul of the unions, right?
So it's a big area with a lot of different angles.
I think you'll see some support from the unions for Trump for sure.
Look, he won, one Michigan, one Wisconsin.
I mean, he won places where there's obviously a long-standing and very strong union traditions, including Michigan.
But I also think that if he does what he's promised, then people are going to get upset because especially with the public, I mean, public sector unions should just be gone.
And with some of these private sector unions, they are only able to sort of continue on because of the laws and regulations that pass on a lot of people.
You had mentioned earlier that they weren't real excited because there was only three or four or 500 jobs.
I think it was 700.
Yeah, obviously for those 700 families, it makes a big difference.
And I didn't mean to minimize that.
I'm just saying on a national level, 700 jobs is not going to necessarily get people too focused on the Trump policies here.
But I realize we've got to go into a hard break here.
So, Richard, thank you for calling in from Los Angeles.
Buck Sexton infor Rush.
We have so much more show.
Back in just a few minutes.
Buck, InforRush today.
More on me at theblaze.com slash Buck-Sexton, host of the Buck Sexton Show.
We've got a whole bunch of calls coming in.
It's lit up like a Christmas tree in here on the call and board.
We got Frank in St. Louis.
Frank, this is the Russia show you're speaking to Buck.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
I just want to mention that I think we're going through one of the greatest revolutions in the history of the world without a shot being fired.
That's quite a statement.
Countries like Spain, United States, England, France, Italy, and soon to be joined by Germany of countries throwing out their liberal politicians and replacing them with conservatives.
Hmm.
So you think, but is this the populism versus globalism fight playing out, or you view it as liberal versus conservative?
I think it's the liberal versus conservative.
Well, the people have realized that socialism doesn't really work.
Have they realized that, though?
You think they've realized that in Europe?
Where have they realized this?
You think they've realized it here?
We have to see.
I mean, I think that the Democrats are all just hoping that Trump has a couple of stumbles and then they can more or less neutralize his policy agenda from Go and he's going to be a one-term president.
And then they figure they've got the 3 million edge or close to 3 million, whatever, is in the popular vote.
And the next time around, I don't think that there's this.
I think there's been an awakening of sorts, Frank, but I don't think that the forces of socialism are by no means defeated, my friend.
I wouldn't give that much credit to people that have had some victories in recent years.
Now we have to see, okay, fine, if the entitlement state is unsustainable, whether we're talking about an America or Europe, although Trump's not really touching entitlement.
But if massive debt and massive government, not just spending, but also government enlargement is government constantly enlarging itself is unsustainable.
What's the alternative?
Now we have, I would agree that there are some places where we're seeing the people choosing the alternative, but now we have to see what that means and what the results are.
I mean, the Trump presidency is going to have to show results because it's already all laid out there that if they make some mistakes, this is going to be, he's going to be one term.
I mean, the media is going to make sure of it, although they're not as powerful, I guess, as they thought they were because they couldn't get Hillary elected.
But it's a revolution against the elites, they're saying, Frank, that's been the which is interesting, given that you have a guy who would, by most standards, you know, Ivy League educated billionaire tends to be considered elite.
But I think it's more elitist policy or elite policymaking as opposed to just somebody being themselves personally elite.
But we'll see.
Frank, thanks for calling from St. Louis.
Jim in Detroit, Michigan.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck, how are you?
I'm good, sir.
How are you?
I'm doing okay.
I just wanted to make an observation about President-elect Trump and some of the things that people are saying about picks and winners and losers.
It seems to me that Fort Motor Company and Carrier, General Motors, they're already winners.
And I think what he's trying to do by with the threat of, and not threat, but the idea of taxes for taking jobs to other countries is to get their attention to let them know that he's working on issues like that and to keep them or curtail them from taking the profits they're already making as winners and investing in them in another country instead of investing them here to the American people.
Yeah, look, there's some things that Trump has said he's going to do.
And I, at this point, to say you take him at his word may sound naive, but I can't see why he wouldn't push memory.
He has to push.
Congress has to act, but he can push for change in the corporate tax code.
He can push for repatriation of a vast amount of American capital that's currently parked overseas.
And these, I think, undoubtedly would have a really good really good effect on the economy.
I think that that should be a pretty bipartisan feeling, but of course it's not because anything that's Trump, remember, we're in the Trump scare.
Anything Trump must scare you, it is bad.
It is evil.
But I agree, man.
You know, sometimes with everybody, you've got to kind of push them into seeing the mission, you know?
Yeah, I think that, again, there's only so much real analysis of Trump economic policies or just Trump policies, period, that we can do at this point because he's not president yet, right?
So there is a sense of getting ahead of ourselves, I think, but the other side is already trying to sort of lay the groundwork for everything Trump does is bad and evil every day.
And you can either let that sit out there and seep into the minds of the American people unchallenged, or you can try and provide a counter narrative.
But keep in mind, we are debating really, with the exception of some of his tweets and things like he's done now with the GM deal and Carrier and such, but we are debating the future policies that may or may not be enacted or even attempted by the president and by the Republican Party.
So there is a lot of wait and see that we have to keep in mind here.
And I think that the indicators, though, especially on the economic front, are pretty positive.
And I think the people that he's choosing for key roles on the economic side of things actually understand what they're doing.
They're not lifelong bureaucrats who've never had to worry about getting fired, who have never run a payroll, who have never dealt with the private sector in any meaningful sense.
So there's some very good signs.
But Jim from Detroit, thank you very much for calling in.
Good to talk to you.
And we can get more here.
Ken in Arizona.
I'd like to bring up an underreported.
Hi, Buck, by the way.
Underreported story in Great Britain Sun about how WikiLeaks actually got their information.
They reported that an Ambassador Murray English went to D.C. Park, and it was handed to him by a disgruntled or disillusioned Hillary staffer.
And Fox is running an exclusive interview with Mr. Assange tonight.
And one thing about him, nobody has said he's ever a liar or he's put out false news stories.
So this was going to be real interesting.
Well, the information that Wikileaks has put out there has not been, at least nothing that I've seen has been discredited as being fake.
So start there.
I mean, Assange, Ken, Assange did request Russian protection while in the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom.
His ties to Russia are deep.
And you'll also notice that Wikileaks overwhelmingly seems to get information that is critical of the United States and its policies and its leadership out there.
And not there's a whole bunch of places where there's a lot of corruption going on, a lot of really ugly stuff that could use a bit of sunlight, can use a bit of that disinfectant, so to speak.
And they don't get it because WikiLeaks, okay, it's with ties to Russian intelligence.
I don't know what else to say.
So you look at what Assange is telling us all.
I think you should look at what Assange is telling us all with a degree of skepticism.
Not skepticism of the information.
No one has said that the Podesta emails or any stuff was fake, but when he's talking about the acquiring of it, he's essentially being asked, are you a Russian front?
There's no reason for him to fake the information because that then discredits the whole operation with the hacking of the emails.
But are you a front for Russia?
That does discredit them.
So, you know, they are going to have some, they're going to do a little bit of tap dancing there, I think.
I think Assange is going to obfuscate the truth.
And he keeps saying, by the way, received.
I mean, I look at the language he uses.
We didn't receive it from any state actor or something like that.
Okay, but did the people you receive it from, were they acting on the behest of a state actor?
I mean, there are ways that he could say what he said without necessarily lying, but it is a misdirection.
Look, I don't trust Assange.
That doesn't mean that he doesn't get his hands on leaked information.
That's interesting.
Let's also remember that this is the same guy that leaked a whole lot of diplomatic cables and U.S. military cables that were classified to what purpose other than to try to sort of embarrass the United States.
And, you know, the whole notion of Bradley Manning as a, or Chelsea Manning now, right, change his name as a whistleblower is blowing the whistle on what?
What was the whistle being blown on?
So I have a slightly or a somewhat, I should say, not slightly, different take on some of this stuff.
But Ken, thank you for calling in from Arizona.
This is Buck in for Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
We have much more coming, and I'll be back in just a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
Oh, my, this is going to make some people nervous.
Exclusive via Reuters.com.
Trump team seeks agency records on border barriers and surveillance.
Ooh, this is going to start quite a discussion, I think.
The president-elect's transition team is asking DHS, Department of Homeland Security, to assess all assets available for border wall and barrier construction.
Oh, we were told that people were saying they're never going to do it, never going to build this wall.
It's all a big ruse.
It's just meant to get those who are easily misled to vote for him.
Well, they're asking for the information.
They're also asking, according to Reuters, about the department's capacity for expanding immigrant detention and about an aerial surveillance program that was scaled back by the Obama administration.
So they want to know.
Now you're going to have a new team in charge across the board with a very different view of these things.
And they have the ability to go deep into the government records here.
And they have the ability to demand these records.
And they want to see.
I have a little prognostication for you, a little prediction.
They're going to find out that the Obama administration has been pulling the wool over the public's eyes when it comes to immigration for quite some time, actively.
For example, we already know that they changed their definition of what constitutes a deportation such that anybody turned back at the border is considered under the government's sort of published numbers to have been deported.
So it makes it seem like a lot of people are going through a deportation proceeding when, in fact, they're just being stopped from illegally crossing the border.
It's not the same thing.
The president at one point, the storyline, I should say, around him was that he was the deporter-in-chief, that Obama was too much of a hardliner for the left Democrat Party.
And then we found out that, oh, no, that was just to sort of create the fertile political ground for the gang of 8 Bill and 4 Amnesty to pass, because once that had happened, it would all be over.
Then there'd be no turning back.
It would be a fait accompli.
Now we're going to find out more, I think.
One of the most interesting things that the Trump administration, once it takes office, can do when it comes to immigration is to tell us really what have the enforcement priorities been?
What have the rules of engagement, so to speak, been for Border Patrol officers?
How much have we been putting towards the border's actual security versus these programs that, in many cases, just transition immigrants who either come through loopholes claiming asylum or any number of other means, then end up staying in the country, never showing up for their deportation proceeding, and they've really just been picked up by Border Patrol and dropped off in the U.S., and that's the end of it.
I think we're going to find out a lot more about this.
And we're going to find out, for example, what happened to Operation Phalanx, which was an aerial surveillance program that authorized 1,200 Army National Guard airmen to monitor the southern border for drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
Why wasn't that something that got more attention from the administration?
Oh, it was not just, didn't get much attention.
It was downsized by Barack Obama.
So there were clear efforts to lessen border security.
I think we're going to find out a lot more about that.
And you'll see that there's been so little reporting, too, on illegal crossings, and this has just sort of fallen by the wayside.
And it's sort of like it reminds me of the old trick the media would pull up every time a Republican came in office.
They'd start running stories on the crisis of homelessness across the country.
And then a Democrat would come into office and now there's no homelessness anymore.
There's old tricks the media will sort of pull.
They were telling us that Obama was too strong on the border and he was upsetting his own party with that.
And now they're telling us, well, they're not telling us very much at all.
Then they finally had to come clean or it came out that that was not true.
Obama wanted amnesty.
And we're seeing the Trump transition team coming in and they're saying they want the info.
They want to know the truth about what has been done in the border in recent years, where the resources have gone, where the priorities have been.
And I can just tell you this.
I mean, my prediction, and it's not one that I think puts me in a significant minority.
I'm sure a lot of you would agree with me on this.
My prediction is that we're going to find out there's been so much done by the administration to essentially leave the border more open in some places than it should be, to change enforcement priorities so that they're really priorities to allow backdoor immigration, turn illegal immigration into just another form of immigration, because once you get into the country, you can stay in the country.
But this is the part that's going to drive the left really mad.
The whole fence thing, the build the wall, you know, that was supposed to be for the NASCAR attending hillbillies who don't know any better, who don't read the Washington Post, who wear these Make America great again hats at these rallies.
And oh, they're all so foolish.
Trump's never going to build the wall.
Well, they're asking about how they could build the wall.
They're asking what resources are in place to do it, where they can do it, what it will cost.
That's kind of an interesting little change of pace, isn't it?
Buck Sexton in for Rush, back in a few.
Buck Sexton in for Rush here on the EIB today.
Let's take some calls before we go into hour three.
I have so much to talk about that I wish I had six hours with you all.
Mitch in California, you're speaking to Buck.
I'm in for Rush.
What is up, sir?
Yes, hi, Buck.
I wanted to talk about Megan Kelly.
You're asking about some thoughts on that.
Sure.
I don't know that industry, but I heard earlier in the year she's asking for like $20 million.
I don't know how long that contract lasts for, but it seems a little exorbitant possibly.
And particularly when I listen to her show, it seems like when you have a conservative versus liberal panel, it's going to get heated anyways, but it seems like she kind of stokes the fire a little bit to keep maybe the ratings up.
Well, I mean, I think you want to have a robust back and forth.
I mean, I can tell you there's some other cable news networks where the anchors are definitely stealth Democrats, and the producers and everyone will stack it so that the conservative is talked over.
They go to a break before the conservative can respond.
I mean, I've heard, let's say, I've heard stories of somebody in this industry.
I know some things about some stuff.
Yeah, so anyway.
I'm talking about not Fox, by the way.
Not Fox, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, but it seems like the Fox's position is that they try to maintain, you know, fair and balanced.
But it seems like, and then to me, when, particularly like on folks, look, I'll say this, Mitch.
I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to point that, because you said the fair and balanced thing, and a lot of people get very snide about that on the left.
I got a bunch of friends who are Democrats who go on Fox.
They love it.
They can't go on Fox enough.
I mean, they think that they're able to speak and they speak their mind and no one tells them not to.
And I have yet to hear from a Democrat who goes on Fox who says that they feel like it is unfairly stacked again.
They know they're going to be, right, they're going to go.
I mean, if you're going on a Riley show, obviously, you know what you're dealing with.
You're dealing with someone who's going to be taking you to task on stuff.