All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
June 21, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I wish to announce the delayed start of the program today.
I just got another stack of show prep I have to go through, and until I go through this, I can't start the I'll tell you what, talk about doing it on the fly.
Greetings to you, thrill seekers, conversationalists, music lovers all across the bountiful fruited plan Rush Limbaugh here in the EIB network.
Raring and ready to go.
Three full hours of broadcast excellence today.
And looking forward to speaking to you, as always, the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I'm sensing some things going on out there today, folks, and it's nothing new.
By no means is it anything new?
I just want to call your attention to it.
The media, big media circling the wagons around Dick Durbin.
The big media circling the wagons around Hillary Clinton over this Klein book.
And I have some comments about this.
We also have updated information, soundbites regarding Saddam Hussein.
We are going to, I think it's up now.
If it's not, it soon will be.
We're going to post a picture.
If Saddam were moved to Club Gitmo from his prison in Iraq, wherever he is there, what would it be like for Saddam at Club Gitmo?
That picture, I think it's going to be up there pretty soon if it's not already at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Our podcasting continues today as well.
CNN, USA Today, Gallup poll, all hot to trot today, huge poll.
They just can't, they are breathless as they report this.
Nearly six in ten Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and a growing number of them are dissatisfied with the war on terrorism, according to the poll that actually was released yesterday.
Only 39% of those polls said they favored the war in Iraq, down from 47% in March.
59% were opposed.
And you read it and say, okay, fine, it's understandable.
But then you get down to the end of the story on CNN.com.
The poll showed that 52% of respondents approved of how the U.S. has treated prisoners at Gitmo, compared to 37% who disapproved.
Some critics have said the facility should be closed in the wake of allegations of mistreatment of detainees there, but poll respondents disagreed.
58% to 36% said don't close it.
58% say leave it open.
52% approve of how we're treating prisoners there.
And we will have more on Gitmo because we'll have more on Dick Durbin as the program unfolds today.
But I've got some lighthearted stuff that I want to share with you first here in our opening monologue.
We'll get to the more serious items beginning in our second segment today.
As you know, the tsunami area of Sri Lanka and Banda Aceh pretty much destroyed over there.
And there's a story here from the French news agency.
Timber is being cut down illegally to rebuild homes in the tsunami-devastated Aceh province, according to a conservation group warning the practice could create another disaster.
Unauthorized logging has increased dramatically since the December 26 tsunami disaster as demand for the wood to be used in reconstruction phase has soared.
To prevent a bigger disaster in Aceh, illegal logging must be stopped.
After the tsunami, illegal logging is rampant.
If this practice continues, there will be more problems.
Illegal logging can cause landslides and floods.
So here, these people have nothing.
Everything that they knew existed was destroyed.
So they're going out and rebuilding it.
We've got this massive worldwide effort, Bill Clinton and George Bush 41.
And we're sending billions of dollars over there.
And we're trying to do the best.
And we're rebuilding some of these homes.
And now here comes a bunch of soiled sport, little ignoramus environmentalist wackos complaining that we're using the wrong kind of wood, that we are illegally logging timber over there.
It's just it this continues to entertain me to watch these leftists as they run around and try to make the claim that they're mainstream and normal.
And how about this?
Paintings by a chimpanzee have outsold paintings by Andy Warhol and Renoir at a, or Renoir, at a London art auction.
The chimpanzee's name is Congo.
And paintings by Congo, the chimpanzee sold at auction in London for more than $25,000.
The three abstract Tempura paintings were auctioned in Bonhams, London alongside works by Impressionist master Renoir and pop art provocateur Andy Warhol.
Now, Warhol's and Renoir's work didn't sell at all, but bidders lavished attention on the paintings by the chimpanzee.
An American bidder named Howard Hong, who described himself as an enthusiast of modern and contemporary painting, purchased the lot of paintings for $26,352, including a buyer's premium.
The sale price surpassed predictions that priced Congo's paintings between $1,000 and $1,500.
Harold Rutkowski, director of modern and contemporary art at Bonhams, said, we had no idea what these things were worth.
We just put them in for our own amusement.
Congo, the artist, the chimpanzee, born in 1954, produced about 400 drawings and paintings between ages two and four.
He died in 1964 of tuberculosis.
So you can't get any more works of art from Congo because he's no longer with us.
His artwork, we're talking about a chimpanzee here.
We're talking about a monkey.
His artwork provoked reactions ranging from scorn to skepticism among critics of the time.
But Pablo Picasso is reported to have hung a Congo painting in his studio wall after receiving it as a gift.
There's no precedent for things like this having been sold before, said Rutkowski.
So the art world kind of takes it here outspending Warhol and Renoir for paintings by a chimpanzee.
I saw one of them, actually.
You know, I could do this.
You just grab some paint and throw it up there on the canvas.
I've always said, you know, people, Rush, what is art?
It's very easy.
If you can do it, it isn't art.
If I can do it, it's not art.
Now, Coco doesn't have time to paint.
Coco is a busy sign language and playing chess and a Coco the Gorilla.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, you just knew this was going to happen.
Two men accused of supporting terrorism by recruiting Muslim extremists are seeking dismissal of the charges, alleging that jailers mishandled the Quran and conducted inappropriate searches of their cells.
Attorneys for Aiden Amin Hassoun and Kifa Wa'el Jauzi said in court papers that jailers disrespectfully tossed Hassoon's Quran on his bunk and left 8,000 pages of trial papers in disarray.
The incidents occurred in May and June at a federal detention center in downtown Miami and amount to government misconduct and the unconstitutional intrusion on trial preparation, according to the motions filed on Friday.
The attorneys wrote, by depriving the defendants of the confidentiality of their own case-related notes, the government has destroyed any possible confidence that their case can be prepared with privacy.
So you toss a Koran on a bunk and you are accused of mishandling it.
You knew this is a charge that's going to be popping up all over the country now where terrorist suspects are in jail.
Yesterday, we had the story out of Columbus, Ohio, where the 11 and 12-year-old baseball team, the kids are too good and the rest of the league wants to kick them out because they're skunking everybody.
And everybody says, yeah, that's good.
We need to protect the feelings of the losers out there.
Along the same lines, but a totally unrelated subject, the clamps are coming down on released sex offenders like never before.
But some experts wonder if sex offenders are being pushed so far to the fringes that they could actually become more dangerous to society.
Laws restrict where they can live.
Websites list their names.
Satellites track their steps.
Neighbors and bosses force them from their homes and jobs.
The tightening of restrictions around the country comes after several recent slayings of children, allegedly by released sex offenders.
Crackdown is aimed at protecting kids.
But some researchers and treatment providers say that sex offenders are finding it harder to maintain homes and jobs and establish stable lives for themselves.
I would rather have someone who's committed a sex offense be going to work every day, come home tired, have a sense of well-being that comes from having a regular paycheck and a safe home, as opposed to having a sex offender who has a lot of free time on his hands than Richard Hamill, president of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers.
Sex?
What the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers?
You tell me, who's at a greater risk of reoffending?
In a study published this year, researchers surveyed 183 sex offenders in Florida, found 27% said they lost a job because a boss or core worker found out about their crime.
20% had to move from their home because a landlord found out.
15% had to leave their neighbors complained because their neighbors complained.
And 33% were threatened or harassed by neighbors.
One of the sex offenders said, I felt trapped living where I do.
Another one said, I welcome an early death.
Co-author Jill Levinson, a professor at Lynn University in Florida, said psychosocial stresses have been linked to repeat offenses among criminals.
Advocates fear the recent tightening of restrictions could add to their stress.
And so the bottom line here is that punishing sex offenders too much may increase the danger.
We may actually make them more prone to sexually offend if we punish them too hard.
So we got to back off.
We have to back off these sex offenders, folks, because it's just like Osama.
It's just like the left in this country.
We're to blame for what Al-Qaeda did to us on September 11th.
And the way this is going, kids are to blame for sex offenders, or society is, because we're pushing them too hard.
We're trying to catch them too much.
It's just, some days you read the news and you just see liberalism permeated throughout it.
And if it doesn't distress you, you just have to laugh.
Quick time out.
We'll be back with more after this.
All right, folks, I need to ask you a question.
You know, this Hillary Clinton book is out there.
I don't even know the title of this book.
What's the title of the book, Mr. Snurdle?
Do you know what the title is?
It's Ed Klein book.
I don't even know what the title is.
I've not read this book yet.
I've just seen some blurbs from it as we all have.
The New York Daily News today has a story entitled, Another Shot at Hill, Expert Sleazy Book Will Be Political Flop.
And I'll read you sections of the story, but I want to ask you all something.
Whenever any publication alleges something about anybody, do you ever recall the press coming to their defense?
Particularly a conservative.
I mean, it doesn't matter what the public has, whatever the publication is, if it alleges Tom DeLay, doesn't matter.
It's all assumed to be true.
And the press's operating philosophy is, these are serious charges.
We got to look into this.
Why, these allegations may add up to something.
We've got to find out what this is.
The public has a right to know.
We have a public responsibility.
We've got to delve into this.
See, see, people are looking at this, and if somebody's gone to the trouble of writing a book about it, why we better delve into it.
Never, ever do you see the press rally to the defense of anybody, except the Clintons.
Except the Clintons.
They always rally to the defense of the Clintons.
And the New York Daily News here has done.
And then they're just going to be the first.
The latest salvo against Senator Hillary Clinton is a hot-selling book that'll infuriate fans of the senator when it officially hits stores today, but experts predict it'll be a political dud.
Ed Klein.
Oh, here it is.
The truth about Hillary, loaded with lurid innuendo about Hillary and Bill Clinton's sex lives has been promoted heavily for weeks by right-leaning websites, whipping up a froth of interest.
The tome had already hit number 10 on the Amazon.com bestseller list last night, but observers said that it would do little more than enrich the author, and Clinton backers said that while they were braced for the book, there would be little fallout for the senator.
What backlash? Asked a former aide who still works closely with Clinton and her husband.
I can't imagine there's anything in these books that's worse than what people saw in the Star Report.
Another aide noted that a new round of charges against the ex-First Lady could actually help by sparking a fresh flood of donations to her Senate campaign, a brief echoed by pollsters.
New York voters are not going to jump ship because another Clinton book comes out, say Lee Mierengoff, the director of the Marist poll, he also noted that Clinton has been gaining ground with some former opponents lately.
It's a very different political figure than First Lady Clinton in the minds of a lot of folks.
You get the whole gist of this.
But it's rare that you see the media come to a politician's defense like this.
And then we go over to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, where the big media are beginning to circle the wagons for Dick Durbin because they share his views.
They share his contempt for George W. Bush.
They share his contempt for this war.
And the people at the Minneapolis Star Tribune share contempt for our armed forces.
It's the 60s and 70s all over again.
Their editorial can be summarized this way.
Durbin's message, U.S. must end prisoner abuse.
Senator Dick Durbin set off a firestorm last week when he compared U.S. treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to practices employed by Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot, and their ilk.
His remarks are condemned by the White House, the Pentagon, the Christian Coalition, the VFW, Newt Gingrich, and by the entire right side of the talk, radio, television, blog world.
The heat got so bad that late in the week, Durbin apologized if his remarks have been misunderstood.
They weren't, and Durbin should not have apologized.
Instead, writes the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the senator should have hit back hard, just as the Amnesty International did when its comparison of Gitmo to a Soviet gulag was attacked.
By caving in, Durbin did just what the orchestrated right-wing smear effort required to succeed.
It made him the story rather than focusing further attention on the outrageous violations of international law and blah, So here's what the mainstream press is saying.
We cannot talk about Hillary Clinton.
We cannot talk about her.
We cannot talk about Howard Dean.
And now we cannot talk about Dick Durbin.
I don't even care about this Hillary book, folks.
It doesn't matter a hill of beans to me.
But but and conservatives are saying very little about this book.
This book is written by a former New York Times bigwig.
This guy was the editor of the New York Times Sunday magazine, this Klein guy.
He is also a former reporter for Newsweek.
And yet the big media is circling the wagons, trying to blame conservatives for both her conduct and her book.
You know, you call attention to her conduct, you get blamed for doing it.
You mention the fact there's books out there.
You get blamed for causing the book to be written and for promoting the book.
You know, the press circling the wagons coming to her defense, normally the press believes whatever is written about people, and they run with it as the truth.
They don't question it.
They say, drink Tom DeLay.
Try anybody you want.
Whatever is written about a conservative or anybody other than the Clintons.
Man, oh man, their appetite gets wetted.
And boy, do they start digging in to find out a whole bunch of things, whether this stuff is true or not.
But with Mrs. Clinton and now Durbin, you can't even do that.
Now, Hillary wants to be president.
Suddenly, questioning her is out of bounds.
Looking into her background, as others have their own backgrounds checked out by opposition research, the New York Times, the AP, New York Daily News, they sprint to her defense.
They start attacking conservatives when one of their own wrote the book.
Klein from the New York Times and Newsweek is one of them.
Not one of us.
This guy's not a conservative.
He writes the book.
We get accused for making him write the book and even talking about it.
And the strategy here is very clear, folks.
They want to set an example by trashing Klein, the author of this book, and the book, which I've not read and I don't know Klein, but the whole purpose here is to intimidate others who might follow suit.
Did Kitty Kelly face such abuse from the big media before her book came out on Bush?
Did any of the media question any of this stuff about Bush and the National Guard and rally to his defense?
No.
How about all the other hate Bush books or the hate Bush documentaries or the hate Bush movies?
Did the press ever rally to his defense and say, this is out of bounds?
Look at who's pushing this, a bunch of left-wing kooks?
No, they never did.
The same media that looks for everything and anything in Tom DeLay's background and John Bolton's background has a completely different standard for Hillary Clinton.
They call this the Republican attack machine.
Seems to me this author was part of the liberal media elite.
He just made the mistake of writing about Hillary, and now they twist that into a Republican attack.
We'll take a break and be back after this.
Stay with us.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have L. Rushball.
The one and only EIB network, I'm America's anchorman, America's truth detector, and of course the doctor of democracy from the Hill newspaper today.
Here we go again.
A group of House Democrats will unveil a set of goals dubbed the Progressive Promise next week in an effort to put liberal priorities higher on the Democratic agenda and offer an alternative to conservatives' vision of an ownership society.
The announcement by the 57-member Congressional Progressive Caucus will join a cacophony of voices in the Democratic Party that have been pitching new ideas and approaches in the wake of losses at the polls in November.
It'll also direct attention to the liberal members of the House, some of whom have felt sidelined as more centrist Democrats have chosen to side with Republican leadership on several issues.
Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat California, said it's very important to recognize that we're part of the Democratic caucus, and we intend for our agenda to become more prominent overall in the Democrat caucus.
Lee also noted at the same time she felt House Democrats are more united than ever.
Now, here are some of the more active members of the progressive caucus.
They include Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, the country's only socialist in the House, Peter DeFazio, Maurice Hinchy, Maxine Waters, and Mike Capuano.
The new Democrat Coalition, which is a group of 42 centrists, has been constructing their own set of shared views to emphasize initiatives in economic growth, national security, and personal responsibility.
The group held a brainstorming session, and we told you about this two weeks ago, to begin formulating ideas for its agenda.
That process is expected to take three months.
So, once again, if somebody comes up to me and says, Russia, a conservative, what does that mean?
I can tell them in five minutes and be done with it.
And I don't have to have a meeting with anybody.
And I don't have to go have a caucus with anybody.
I don't have to go get other conservatives in the room.
Say, okay, gang, what do we believe that we can tell these people?
Now you've got a group of lib Democrats working on their agenda, and they may have something for us next week.
You got these 42 centrists.
They're working on what they believe.
They may have something for us in two to three months.
The centrists need three months.
And it's going to be more than that because the centrists can't decide what they believe until they hear from the liberals in the house.
The centrists, of course, the moderates, of course, will just take whatever they think the best of both sides are and go with that and claim ownership of it.
The only thing the centrists did say, and I want to remind you of this, predatory lending was one issue they say they've already, they came to agreement on predatory lending.
They, the centrist Democrats in the House, they understand predatory lending.
They stand for it, and that's something they really believe in.
These liberals and these moderate, the Democrats, forget liberal and centrist.
The Democrats don't have the guts to tell us what they really think.
So they have to go to these big meetings and hammer it out.
And what they're doing in these big meetings, I'll guarantee you is saying, will this fly?
Will that fly?
Will this fly?
If not, how can we make it fly?
How can we say what we really believe that nobody will understand it?
But yeah, they'll think we're coming out with a policy position.
They don't dare tell anybody what they really believe.
And for a liberal Democrat to start coming up with his own notion of the ownership society, the only people that should own anything in society as far as they're concerned is government.
So they've got to come up with a way to say, yeah, we too believe in the ownership society, but somehow not let it out that they believe government should be the sole owner in society.
Well, that's what socialists are.
And so they've got, I just think this is as funny as it can be.
So you've got all this with Durbin going.
You have a party spiraling down.
And the only thing that's keeping this party afloat is the Republican Party's inability to keep hammering them.
That's the only thing keeping them afloat.
Well, the media too.
The media is keeping them afloat.
But, you know, you'd get the impression here that these guys still are in the majority, depending on who you listen to and who you read.
One more little lighthearted story here, folks, from Wappinger's Falls in New York.
At the same time that many people pause for their morning coffee breaks, Van Wyck Jr. Haskruel students could soon be eating lunch.
In an effort to relieve overcrowding at the 1400 student school, a fifth lunch period may be added next year starting at 9.36 a.m.
That's one of the options officials are considering for Van Wick Jr. Haskruel in the Wappinger School District.
It's too crowded.
They need more space, said the principal Stephen Shukat of Cafeteria Conditions for Students.
About 325 students are crammed into the cafeteria during each of four lunch periods that extend from 10.19 to 111.
Van Wick parents received a letter about the change this month, and the subject was discussed at the school board meeting on Monday.
Though Shukat, or ShuChat, I don't know if he pronounces it, will be the one to make the decision.
If the change goes into effect, if the first lunch period's at 9.36, it would mean students would eat lunch just about an hour and a half after school begins, after they've had their school provided breakfast.
First period and morning announcements begin at 8 a.m., and then school lunch would be at 9.36.
And then, of course, the hypoglycemia would set in about 1.30 for these students, and they'd become out of control and start leaving class, raiding the vending machines that are wherever they are.
I mean, this is just talk about throwing off the circadian rhythms.
I mean, kids aren't even supposed to be up at 9.36.
I thought the latest change of thinking among the enlightened was that we start school too soon.
Starting school way too soon.
Kids are up late because of the circadian rhythms, folks.
They're up late and they just can't get up.
Now, not only are we going to force them to get up in Woppinger's Falls, we're going to force them to eat breakfast at 7.30, 7.45, the free school breakfast.
Then they go into first class and announcements, and at 9.36, bamboo, we shuffle them off to the cafeteria and they start eating lunch then.
And by all that we know, they shouldn't even be out of bed by that time.
Can you imagine what this is going to do?
Several students' weight problems.
Eating these many meals this close together and then starving?
When are they going to eat again?
When does school get out?
Probably 2.33 in the afternoon.
So we continue to receive conflicting information from the enlightened experts in education over the best way not only to educate our kids, but now to feed them.
That's right, Mr. Sterling.
Wappinger's Falls is the home of Tawana Brawley.
I knew I heard that name somewhere before.
Let me grab a phone call quickly.
George in Richmond, Virginia.
Hello, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Mega Dittos to you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Got a lot of fans down this part of the world.
Just wanted to touch, let you know.
Watching C-SPAN today and was disgusted.
I'm watching it right now.
I am disgusted to see Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Waxman straight face telling us how important it is and critical it is for the world to see us as fair and just by creating an independent inquiry into Guentanamo.
And I have to tell you, disgusting.
Doesn't that just infuriate you, George, when you hear that?
Disgust is, as witness to our dear friend, Mr. Durbin, they care more about what other people think and they care more about combats than they do the men and women of our military today.
Well, that's true.
I mean, there's no question they hold, they have contempt for the U.S. military.
And in general terms, they have contempt for George W. Bush in specific terms.
When you combine those two things, this is all about embarrassing Bush, defeating Republicans, and making sure we don't win this war.
There is actual effort to see to it.
We do not win this.
Ralph Peters in the New York Post had a great piece last week, and I shared it with you.
And he says, what's really going on here, this is his point of view, what's really going on, is that the American left and the worldwide left is still, still angry at the collapse of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, because what they really envisioned was a world governed by intellectual elites.
And the intellectual elites are the ones that took the big fall, and Reagan was not one of them, and that's why they hated him.
And Bush is not one of them, and that's why they hate him.
The intellectual elites think that you have no business deciding your own fate.
You're too stupid.
You can't figure it out.
They want to run your life, and they want to run your world.
And if the United States getting ever more powerful, the United States is made up of a democratic, it's made up as a democratic society.
The elites are not appointed to rule here.
The elites do not get to dictate everybody's lives here.
And the more the structures and influence of the U.S. spread around the world, the bigger hit intellectuals and the elite on the left, the bigger the hit they suffer.
And they don't like any of this.
They would love nothing better than to embarrass this country.
What is this call for international tribunal or whatever investigation into what's going on at Gitmo and so forth?
I'm telling you, folks, they don't understand.
They haven't the slightest idea how the American people see them.
I asked yesterday, where's the polling data on Howard Dean?
Where's the polling data on Dick Durbin?
Why don't you big media pollsters go out there and ask the American people what they think of Dean?
Let's get his approval ratings.
In fact, Fox and Rass must have done that.
And Dean's approval ratings are in the 30s.
Howard Dean's approval ratings are in the 30s, and he lost 10 points from last week to this week in the Fox poll, or maybe the week before last to last week, but it's recent.
I haven't seen a poll on Durbin, but can you imagine?
Let's go get a poll on Pelosi and Waxman.
Let's go get a poll.
And do you approve of the way the Democrats are handling what's going on in Guantanamo Bay?
Do you think we ought to have public hearings that end up embarrassing this country and the commander-in-chief in the middle of the war?
And let's ask the question the right way.
But until we do that, these Democrats are not going to have the slightest idea how they are perceived by the majority of Americans.
And that, of course, is to our benefit.
That's why we urge them to keep talking.
We urge Durbin to keep saying it.
We urge the Democrats to keep urging Durbin to keep saying it.
We urge the media to keep egging on Durbin and all these because the more they announce what they really think, the more people in this country will understand just who and what the Democratic Party today is.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Hi.
How are you?
It's El Rushbo, your host for life.
Firmly ensconced in a prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's gotten to the point now that we're even going to humanize Saddam Hussein.
GQ magazine is humanizing Saddam Hussein.
We have details of this coming up.
The two soldiers, two of the soldiers that were assigned to guard him were on, what was it?
No, they were in CNN today.
At least the soundbites I have were from CNN today and the CBS early show.
But we'll get to that in just a second.
I want to go to Marietta, Georgia.
John, welcome to the program, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
It's an honor and a privilege.
First time Col Rush, thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
I understand.
Well, I think this Hillary book is actually going to end up hurting us, hurting us conservatives.
There's going to be a backlash based on the fact that they're just going to say it's not creditable based on The anonymous sources, which, of course, they're famous for doing.
In this case, yes, anonymous sources can't be counted on.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Look, have I talked about this book?
How many people?
How many I have made one reference to it two weeks ago, and I had a negative reaction to the thing that I had heard about it.
And do you, I don't know anybody else on my side that's read this book or is talking about it.
And then there may be some conservatives pushing it somewhere.
I don't know who they are.
But I just got the book yesterday.
It just came in the mail yesterday, and I didn't even order the thing.
And I don't know where it came from.
I couldn't read the return address.
Came UPS to my home.
Yeah, and I don't even know.
I don't even know who sent it.
The point is, I haven't read the book.
You may be right, but I think this backlash is being created by the press.
Do you not find it curious that the press is not curious at all about the allegations?
After all, the writer of this book is a big lib, Ed Klein of the New York Times and Newsweek.
Definitely.
I definitely find it curious.
Even it's one of their own, and I just don't understand why they wouldn't kind of, you know, swing it towards the middle and just give them a pass for it.
Well, I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories about this, but it is so obvious that this book is out there at a time that's designed to allow people to say just what you said, that to create a backlash against it.
No, mine was not from Chappaqua, New York.
My copy did not come from Chappaqua, snaredly thinking that Bill sent it to me.
No, no, no.
Not the case.
It may cause a backlash, but if it does, I want you people to understand why.
If it causes a backlash, it's because of what the press is going to say about who's pushing this book.
Not because of anybody who's read the book and what they're saying about it.
I think this is a classic illustration of how the media is circling the wagons to protect Mrs. Clinton.
It may well be a, there may well cause a backlash.
I think the press is trying to create that very backlash before it even happens.
I think there's a mythical backlash going on now.
Once again, we haven't heard any outrage from the American people.
Of course, the book's not out yet.
Book's out today.
And this is the first, I think, the first day it goes on sale.
So whatever backlash is to come is one that's being set up by the press.
But regardless, John, there's nothing we can do about it, if that's the case.
I think 350,000 copies of the book have been ordered.
You know, I don't know how many people actually read the books they buy.
Somebody may read this.
And who knows what's in it until you do.
But given that this guy, Klein, is a liberal reporter and by the way, he's written other books about the Kennedys.
He's not been trashed before.
He's written other exposés, and he's not gotten the kind of treatment he's getting on this one.
So, I mean, it's very rare that you see the media circle the wagons to defend a politician.
You just don't see it, other than with the Clintons.
Whenever anybody is the subject of, say, a national inquirer story or some book, some newspaper profile somewhere, the press, oh, look at this.
We've got to dig deeper.
There's some serious charges here.
Well, we've got to look deep here.
We've got to figure out what's really going on.
And they all start the investigative process, and they all want to get their own version of it.
In this case, pressed isn't interested.
They're only interested in destroying the writer, destroying the book, and destroying the conservatives who are supposedly behind it when, in fact, it's a liberal publisher and a liberal writer who are putting it out in the public back after this.
Little David Boy bump here.
Let's dance.
Never forget when he came out with that tune, China Girl, and all those elitist rock fans got sick because he was going to commercial.
I kind of liked it because it was the first song where I can understand the words.
Accused Ku Klux Klansman Edgar Ray Killen, not known whether he knew Robert Byrd, was found guilty of manslaughter today, just now, in the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers, a case that outraged much of the country and energized the civil rights movement.
Killen is 80.
He had been portrayed by prosecutors as a Klan leader who recruited a mob to kill the three young men exactly 41 years ago on June 21st of 1964.
The killings were dramatized in the 1988 movie Mississippi Burning.
So he's guilty.
He's 80.
Another 80-year-old guy fried yesterday, John Regis of Adelphia, 15 years in prison for grand larceny or whatever the charge was.
That was Kozlowski.
▲
Export Selection