All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
July 19, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, part of the scuttlebutt's true.
The Supreme Court announcement will be made at 9 o'clock tonight, folks.
9 p.m. tonight.
Not 2.30 this afternoon.
Greetings.
Great to have you with us.
We're back.
Broadcast Excellence rolls on the award-winning Thrill Pact ever exciting, increasingly popular Rush Limbaugh program, the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
I want to stay focused for a moment here because the president commented again today about it on the press's attempt to move the goalpost in terms of under what circumstances he said he would fire Karl Rove.
Remember, now the premise here is that being a presidential political operative is a crime if that president's a Republican.
Conservatism is a crime.
Conservative policies are criminal.
And as such, the press is justified in forcing the president to get rid of Karl Rove because Rove's there by virtue of criminal activity, he got Bush elected or helped to do that.
And so the press is stuck on this notion that the president has changed the threshold.
They say that the first thing the president said was he would simply fire somebody if they leaked her name.
And I remember that the first caller we had on this, a friendly Lib, said he was talking about a June 10th presidential news conference.
So we went back and we found what was said on June 10th.
And this is really, really lame.
This is just, it is typical of what's happening.
The press is more concerned with their version of the story.
And even if they have to change the president's meaning, they will do it.
Because again, remember, their reputation is what's at stake.
Their reputation to make a news story in their own image.
Their reputation to have you only know the facts they want you to know.
Their reputation to be able to get rid of people whenever they want to get rid of them.
But think of how unhinged they've become.
They now say anybody in the White House, anybody who administration leaks, ought to be fired.
And yet who have they just made a hero out of but Deep Throat, Mark Felt?
They don't think anything should have happened to him.
They don't think he should have gotten any money from Woodward and Bernstein either.
But by the same token, where would they be without all these leakers?
If all these leakers were in jail, where would the press be?
So this totally unhinged and making absolutely no sense because they're poisoned with anger and they are poisoned with frustration over the fact that they are losing their ability to shape American opinion.
They're losing the ability to make people realize only the facts the mainstream press wants them to know.
All right.
So here's, I'm just going to read these in order.
Here is the president on September 30th, 2003.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
That's September 30th of 2003.
The June 10th, 2004 press conference.
And this is where the press is trying to play games.
They are claiming that President Bush changed his pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name, saying he's now added the qualifier if somebody committed a crime.
However, the AP cited a June 10th news conference of 2004, where according to the wire service, a reporter asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge.
The earlier pledge is what I just read to you, September 30th, 2003.
And again, if there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
If the person's violated the law, the person will be taken care of.
Reporter says, do you stand by your pledge to fire anybody found to have leaked her name?
Bush said yes.
And it's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts, meaning it's a criminal matter.
And so the press is saying, he said they'd fire, he said he'd fire anybody if they just leaked.
That's not, Bush has never said it.
It is totally twisting the words.
Then yesterday, Bush said, and if someone committed a crime, they'll no longer work in my administration.
He'd been utterly consistent.
He's always made this a matter of law.
He's always predicated it on being found by the judicial system to have been a criminal act.
The AP, Terrence Hunt, doing his ever-loving best to twist this in Isakoff fashion, in Dan Rather fashion.
You name it.
The guidelines, you know, the press said that they wanted to be judged by their work in Watergate.
Fine.
We'll gladly use that.
You will use people who break the law in order to get stories to force Republicans from office.
You want to be judged on the way you did your work in Watergate?
Fine.
That's exactly how we see you right now.
You're trying to replicate what you did in Watergate, even to the fact of going and making the president appear to have changed his meaning and lied about his previous statements when he has done no such thing.
Let's go to Cut 20.
Came up again this afternoon, this morning, actually.
Well, it was this afternoon, a press conference with the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard.
Unidentified reporter said, in light of the concerns that the CIA leak investigation is distracting you, has Mr. Rove or any of your aides offered their resignation of what sort of crime constitutes a firing offense?
I appreciate you bringing that up.
My answer really hadn't changed from 24 hours ago.
It's the same answer.
Now, I'd be glad to answer another question if you got one.
I mean, I'd be glad to repeat what I said yesterday, which is there's an ongoing investigation and people shouldn't jump to conclusions in the press until the investigation is over.
Once the investigation is over, I'll deal with it.
Have you got another question?
What do you think of Edith Clemant for the court?
Oh, well, I think it's important.
Let me refer you back to the first question.
These people are coming across as the journalism students that you would find on a high school newspaper.
You know, it's really, they're no better than that.
They have the same juvenile punk attitudes as a teenager would have.
They have the same level of professionalism.
It's just an embarrassment to watch these people.
It's a flat-out embarrassment to be treated to these people's work.
You know, there's very few of them that I feel comfortable in ever complimenting their work.
There are some, but this is just, this is outrageous what they are attempting to do.
Again, Mike grabbed cut two and cut one.
Here is what the president said on September 30th of 2003.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
All right.
So that sets the standard.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person's violated the law, the person will be taken care of.
June 10th, 2004, which is what the AP is now saying constitutes Bush moving the bar.
Question was, do you stand by your earlier pledge to fire anybody found to have leaked Claim's name?
Bush said yes.
Press says, see, he's changed the bar.
He said last year that all he had to do was leak.
No, you got to go back to September 30th.
Do you stand by?
Do you stand by your earlier pledge?
The earlier pledge was, if the person's violated the law, the person will be taken care of.
And then yesterday, the president said.
And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
So I'm just telling all of you out there who believe this manipulation is just what it is on the part of the press.
Then erase it from your memory.
This is nothing more than just that.
It's manipulation.
It's a bunch of people trying to protect their reputations.
It's trying to show to themselves, illustrate to themselves they can still be the lone arbiters of what people think is going on.
They are the sole providers of news, the sole providers of opinion.
They're the sole people able to shape public opinion in this country.
They're worried.
They no longer have that ability and they're right to be worried because they don't.
They're trying to reestablish it.
This is a test case.
And it's all based on the fact that Karl Rove's a criminal anyway because he's a conservative.
And Bush is a criminal because he's a Republic.
He's a criminal because of Florida 2000.
Conservatism is a crime.
That's the attempt here on the part of the American left to criminalize conservatism in the minds of the American people.
They're trying to do this to save and reestablish their own reputations, and they are failing miserable.
This is so childish.
This is so immature.
This is no different than Dan Rather running forged documents when you try to say the president said something he didn't say when we've got what he said on tape and when we can display it for anybody who wants to hear it.
And when you ask a question, do you stand by your earlier pledge?
And the answer is yes.
And then the earlier pledge question does not include the full content and context of the pledge.
Do you stand by your pledge earlier to fire anybody caught leaking her name?
Well, that in itself is said to be a crime.
Bush is understanding that as part of the equation.
Yeah, I haven't changed my mind at all on this.
But man, all the media thinks he has.
They're so excited.
And you noticed every day it's a new tack with Rove because every day that tack fails.
So as every tack fails, the next day they've got to come up with a new one.
We'll take a break and be back.
Don't go away, folks.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, press distortions, press juvenile behavior, media lying, as well as the good times, my friends.
And we're here at 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Arlene in Brattleboro, Utah.
Welcome to the program.
I'm David.
Hi.
Hi.
I think the people are missing something really important here.
I think the big picture isn't exactly what it looks like.
And here's what I think that it is.
We have from the onset of this nation set ourselves up as a beacon of moral authority.
We have always been almost the holier than thou's.
We are the ones that don't do those things that are morally wrong, rightly or wrongly.
And this administration has certainly perpetuated that with the verbal verbiage about Judeo-Christian ethics.
We do it the right way.
We do it the moral way.
And what's happened here is as things, as pragmatics have sunk into it, as I'm raised, it wasn't whether or not these people were insurgents, whether or not they were dangerous.
Our country doesn't do this.
And so what is pragmatically wrong?
I'm sorry.
Arlene, I'm sorry.
I have no idea what you're saying.
What I'm saying is...
What is...
Can you synthesize your point here for me?
Are you...
Let me...
Let me try my hand at analyzing what you're saying.
Are you saying, are you saying that the United States sets itself up as the beacon of all that's great, but that we're not acting that way when we have Karl Rove in office and we do what we do at Gitmo?
I'm saying that, absolutely.
I'm saying that it's not that we're not acting that way.
It's a public perception.
We have set too high of a standard.
We have set a standard that we can't meet in this world.
And in there lies the problem.
And people judge us.
And we judge ourselves by that.
Okay, I'm because I don't think that's true.
I think that's another fabrication of the left.
To be quite honest with you, you know, when you're in the midst of fighting a war, you first do what it takes to win, especially when it's a war that's this dangerous and is this threatening and has the possibility to totally disrupt the fabric of this country.
You know, if you go back to World War II, you will not find all these concerns that the left has amounted today or has raised about we're the beacon of this or the beacon of that.
And how do we expect the world to love us if we don't uphold our own standards?
Here's another thing about this.
Even if we had the highest moral standards in the world, and we do, and even if we had the greatest ethics in the world, which we do compared to other nations in the world.
What good has it done us with France and Germany?
What good has it done us with our supposed allies?
We can't rely on any way, no matter who and what we are.
In fact, France and Germany would just assume that we were not the beacon of morality, and that's what we'd have if John Kerry or Bill Clinton were still in the White House.
We were the beacon of nothing that was worth recommending when Clinton ran this country.
There was nothing about this country a lot of people were proud of when Bill Clinton was in there in the White House.
And to suggest that that didn't do us damage, you want to did us damage out there, Arlene?
Bill Clinton cutting and running out of Mogadishu, Bill Clinton having a four-day war against Iraq on a microphone, launching a couple of missiles on a Saturday night.
And after that, Saddam says, brothers of Arab, unite against the big evil.
You could say that Clinton's attacks on Saddam caused all this.
If you wanted to apply the same standard, you're applying to George W. Bush.
You are just looking for any reason you can to blame this country.
And Arlene, that is what we don't understand.
Throughout the world, comparatively, we are the good guys.
We do more for the other people on this planet combined than all the other nations of the world.
And we have, and that is our history.
And for people to continually look for little nicks and knacks where we're not perfect and then suggest because we're not perfect, it gives everybody else in the world the right to think we're horrible is something it doesn't compute.
And you're going to have to change your sense of proportion on this because you're so off base and so out of balance on it that it's frightening.
Who's next?
Who was I going to take before this call came up?
Where was I going to go?
Samantha in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you.
Hey, Rosh Mega Ditto.
How are you?
Fine.
Thank you.
Listen, I was listening to the Ted Kennedy cut from the first hour, and I just was sitting there listening, and I just found it really interesting that all of a sudden, he and the liberals are interested in results and not about intentions.
And it's like, if you look at the Karl Rove case, well, why aren't they paying attention to his intentions?
I mean, I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt her.
Well, while this is a good point, you are, and it's actually a very, very good point.
You are failing to recognize something that trumps even good intentions.
See, good intentions are only asked of failures.
You only ask about the intentions of people whose work bombed, which is the liberals.
You're not supposed to ask, what happened to the war on poverty?
What happened to the great society?
Well, our intentions were good.
Our hearts were the right place.
With Karl Rove, there's something that trumps even that, and that is he's a conservative.
Therefore, he's a criminal, or at least a suspect, simply because he's a conservative.
You've heard the press say it.
If you've been watching TV, the press saying, yeah, the Democrats are totally, totally justified in going after Rove.
After all, he beat them in all these elections.
Yeah, they're totally justified.
Really?
You're justified in trying to proclaim somebody a criminal because they beat you in elections?
Fine.
If that's what we have to know now about the left, we beat you in elections and we're criminal, glad to know it.
We'll be glad to look at it that way, even though you're cockeyed.
As to the perspective on this, I actually think the way to look at this is compare the two situations like Club Gitmo or Abu Ghraib and Joe Wilson, as I did in the last hour.
The media has absolutely no interest on Joe Wilson and what he did or Valerie Plain.
They're not concerned if they broke the law.
They're not concerned if they leaked themselves.
They're not concerned.
After all, Joe Wilson did leak, folks.
He leaked a false story to the Washington Post.
The Washington Post ran that false story.
It was about documents that Joe Wilson never saw.
Now, is the media saying that anybody who leaks from a White House and is caught should be fired?
Is that what they're really saying?
Because on TV, they're also saying that confidential sources are lifeblood.
And they want to make Mark Felt Deep Throat a hero.
They want to put Karl Rove in jail.
They are unhinged.
They are stupid.
And they are partisan.
They're not interested at all in what Wilson did.
They're not really interested even in a crime being committed here, if you want to know the truth.
They couldn't care less whether a crime has been committed.
They want you to think a crime has been committed because they think that's what will turn your public opinion on this.
They don't care.
They just want Rove out.
And then they want Bush out.
Then they want Cheney out.
Then they want Rice out.
Then they want Rumsfeld out.
They want anybody else they don't like out because they all stink.
As far as their, that's what the Democratic Party has been since Bush won the election.
Since Bush won the election in 2000, we have been treated to Rumsfeld has to go.
He's a jerk.
Rice has to go.
The only guy that the press has not made a move to get rid of is Colin Powell.
He left on his own.
So they're not interested in what Wilson did.
They're only interested in how the administration might have reacted to what Wilson did.
Wilson could have been a terrorist himself.
But since he's the media's terrorist, he's untouchable.
You can't criticize him.
You can't say a word about him.
All we're going to judge is the reaction to the administration to Joe Wilson.
By the same token, the media wants to ignore 9-11.
They don't want you to remember that 9-11 happened.
All they want you to remember is our reacting to what happened on 9-11.
And by that, I mean they only want you focused on Abu Ghrab, and they only want you focused on Club Gitmo.
They don't want you to think of what happened at 9-11.
They don't want you to think, and oh, they also want you to think about all the deaths that we are causing in Iraq, civilian deaths and all that.
They don't want you to have any recollection whatsoever of 9-11.
So we can't focus on what Wilson did.
We can't focus on what Valerie Plame did.
We're going to focus on what Rove reacted to it or Bush or anybody else how they reacted to it, but the same token.
We can't focus on 9-11.
It's too horrible.
It's too traumatic.
But we can focus on our reaction to it.
And that's how cockeyed this is.
And I give you my friends, the American left, and their willing accomplices, some of whom are in the media and some of whom are in the Democratic Party.
And there you have their worldview.
And then you have on top of that, the worldview is, as you just heard from our caller from Utah, well, who are we to be setting still?
We don't reach the top of the mountain when it comes to ethics and morality.
And we never have.
And so we're telling people they need to do this and do that and do that, but we don't do it ourselves.
And I don't know where this comes from.
I really don't know because we do not take over countries and occupy them and try to recreate them in our image.
We believe in freedom and we trust free people and get them out of bondage and tyranny and dictatorship and let them turn their own lives to themselves and their elected officials.
And we deal with that, whatever it ends up being.
We trust it.
They don't.
We'll be back after this.
Yes, the usual screams of joy, sometimes agony, depending on who hears it, the very mention of my name.
Firmly ensconced right behind this, the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It always makes Brian mad when I do that because it pegs the meter.
He's afraid the meter is going to break.
We can afford a new meter.
I'd be honored to break a new meter every day.
Just with my passion, Bill in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
Welcome, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Okay.
I can feel it.
The Bushes are doing it to us again.
I'm going to see a suit or two coming on.
And we're all going to be told that she's a conservative and we just don't.
Don't worry, guys.
She's going to be great.
She's a conservative.
You're going to love her.
And we're going to see another suitor.
Are you talking about Edith Clemong?
Exactly.
I mean, I just feel that Bush is not, again, he's doing it to us like his father did, where they just don't have anything.
Wait a minute.
Wait, hold it a sec.
One question.
It may well be the case, but how do you know it?
Why do you think you know it now?
You know why, Rush?
Because it'll last if you got elected a second term, and I'm a big conservative Republican here.
I could feel the weakness coming on.
I could feel the bushes collapsing because the media, they want love from the media.
It's amazing.
They want to be loved, Rush.
And it's getting me very nervous.
Bill, I have to, look, I totally understand that.
Let me first say, because I hear this, I can't tell you how often there is a palpable fear, because this is what the election was about, folks.
Make no mistake.
As far as the base of the Republican Party was concerned, this is what the election was about.
And there are a lot of people who are obsessed, a lot of people, I should say, who possess a pessimism on this that I have noticed.
And it is logically based.
I mean, I can't say that it isn't.
And the pessimism comes from wanting to get along with the Clintons now and wanting to let Ted Kennedy write the education bill.
And so understand that.
But at this point, I'm not going to join this chorus right now, if you will, because I simply don't know enough about this judge.
And here's what I've found out.
I'll just tell you what I found out.
And I've been working on this a lot in the morning here prior to the program starting.
And I've even gotten some emails today in reaction to some of the comments I made in the opening segment of this program about this.
And many conservatives are telling me that she's fine.
She's excellent.
People that know her and her family from Louisiana, she's excellent.
She's perfect.
She's what the doctor ordered.
Of course, you have to take that with some reservation because if they're friends, of course they're going to say this.
There are other people who are worried that there's no record, no sufficient record to track.
And I've had people say to me, Rush, now, wait a minute, we're not going to get another Anthony Kennedy.
I'm not going to put up another Anthony Kennedy, or as you say, suitor.
Kennedy, as you know, was the replacement for Bork.
And he came out of Sacramento, by the way.
And I knew of him while he was in California.
And he had a reputation as an originalist and as a conservative.
And we see what's happened.
Bill, let me go on an assumption here just to make a point.
I'm going to assume the woman's fine for the sake of this little example I want to give you.
I'm going to judge that this woman would be a great addition to the court.
Even at that, there's something that happens when all these people get there.
And that is they live and work in Washington, D.C., wherein there is a culture.
There is a culture that is dominated by the left.
The media culture, the social structure and culture is dominated by the left.
And all of these judges that end up on the Supreme Court, this is an understandable aspect of human nature, cannot help but think of themselves as having reached the pinnacle of their profession.
There's no higher court, no higher honor, no higher position one can attain in terms of stature.
You can certainly earn more money doing other things like suing the manufacturers of Viox or something, but you will not reach any higher stature than being on the Supreme Court.
When you get there, and we have seen this, you get there and you start writing your opinions.
And if the Washington Post and the New York Times don't like them, they come after you.
And they come after how you're destroying the history of the court.
And they come after you to talk about how you're destroying civil rights and you want to turn back the hands of the clock on freedom and civil rights and all these other garbage issues.
And that I have seen it work.
I have seen it affect them.
I think, just my personal opinion, I think that Justice Kennedy's big transformation was after Florida 2000, when the D.C. culture essentially wrote that the Supreme Court caved and violated the Constitution and selected a president.
And these guys have their legacy too.
These people on the Supreme Court, they worry about their legacies.
Everybody knows who Supreme Court justices are.
Their opinions live forever and they care about their own legacy and its immortality.
So I think there's a greater harm of getting just the right person and having that person buckle than there is of getting the wrong person, or at least an equal chance.
Now, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have remained rock solid.
I've talked to Justice Scalia on the phone twice.
Both times I've told him if I didn't have my own brain, I'd want his.
Justice Thomas is a personal friend of mine.
And I can say assuredly that Justice Thomas isn't going to buckle.
Not after what he was put through and not after who I know him as a man to be.
I know his core.
I know that he is an originalist.
I know that he is a man who is unaffected by what others think of him.
And that's what we need more of throughout society, in your neighborhood, in your office, at the Supreme Court, wherever.
We need as many people who couldn't care less what people think of them.
Because when you're governed by what people think of you, you're going to change who you are to please them.
And when the people judging you in Washington are the leaders of the liberal culture there, what do you have to do to please them?
And so Justice Kennedy, who was part of the majority in the Bush v. Gore, Florida 2000 case, came under some really big fire from the media and the culture in Washington.
And as such, he has, you know, if you look at his decisions and his opinions lately, they're being praised by that very culture.
And his role, whatever it was in Florida 2000, has been relegated now to not as prominent a status as it was.
Now, back to Edith Clement or Clinton.
I haven't heard her name pronounced.
Is it Clement?
It is Clinton.
They say, because I've heard it both ways now.
So I'm not sure.
So it is Clement.
All right.
You'll have to forgive me on that, folks.
I read closed captioning on the television rather than listening to it, even at home.
I love the quietness and the noise is just a racket to me, unless it's a perfectly made room with just the right kind of absorptive acoustics where there's not all this reverb and echo going around.
So forgive me if I mispronounce them names only because I haven't heard them.
But she, from what people who are on her side, letting me know, she's fine.
He's good.
But there's still these fears that Bush wants to avoid a fight.
Some people think Bush is going to pick somebody less than perfect just because of the Rove business.
And I frankly don't think that's the case because I think they know that they're going to go after Rove no matter what happens tonight with the Supreme Court announcement.
Rove is not going to be taken off the front pages very long.
They'll make room for Rove on the front page because their reputation is tied up in that story.
I make no mistake about it.
So Rove isn't going anywhere and they know this.
No, Rove, they may put him in the Sunday pull-out section, but he'll be there.
I mean, he may not, don't worry about that.
I don't think that's the case.
And I understand the pessimism.
I understand the fear that goes along with this, but the president has kept asserting through all this that he's not going to do anything other than what he said during the campaign.
And I think you should also note that Gonzalez is not part of the equation.
And remember, the left was all for Gonzalez, the current attorney general.
They hated him for attorney general.
He was writing torture memos.
But boy, he'd be perfect on the Supreme Court.
Another disconnect when it comes to principles and consistency with the left.
But nevertheless, conservatives said, no, no, Mr. President, not Mr. Gonzalez.
And Gonzalez isn't there.
Even though the president slapped conservatives down for saying it, he's not there.
So there are hopeful signs to look at in this case.
And look, it may not even be her.
This could be a big PR feint.
I don't know.
It likely is, but we will not know until 9 o'clock tonight.
I wouldn't go off the deep end assuming that whoever he appoints is going to fail.
That kind of pessimism is not going to do your health any good.
It's not going to do your attitude any good.
It's not going to do what needs to be done overall here any good to have that kind of pessimistic attitude going in.
Quick timeout.
Got to go.
Be back after this brief EIB profit center break and continue this great program.
Stay with us.
Hi.
How are you?
Welcome back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh back to the phones.
This is Ephraim.
Ephraim in New York.
Hi, Ephraim.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
Megadittos from the Mecca of Liberalism, the West Side of Manhattan.
Thank you.
Absolutely right.
You been to Zaybars lately?
I'm around there, yes, sir.
Good.
I'm 19 years old.
I've been listening to you since the age of two.
And my father first turned you on when Dave Dorson introduced you in New York at 10 o'clock.
Thank you, sir.
That just warms my heart.
You are the future of America because of this program.
That's fabulous.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we enjoy your analysis and your sense of humor.
You're just great.
Better than ever, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted to ask, I guess it's lucky for Tom DeLay now that they've got Carl Rove, the president of Democrats, finally got off of Tom DeLay.
I guess Tom got Carl Rove.
For now.
For now.
These people are never gotten rid of.
They just change their positions on the liberal chessboard.
The reason that they have abandoned Rove for now is because, look what they did.
They go after delay.
They've abandoned delay for now.
The reason it happened is they go after delay.
Delay did all this A, B, C, D, and E.
And what, lo and behold, did we learn?
We learn that more Democrats have done it than Delay did.
And so the Democrats have been rushing around filing late travel reports, late this, late that, saying, ooh, we didn't know we had to do this.
We find out that all kinds of lobbyists have been paying for all kinds of trips for all kinds of congressmen.
So now the delay thing has actually shifted to the lobbyist Abramoff.
Abramoff is who they're going after now because Abramoff may have corrupted some Democrats along the way too.
And he's going to get it for that.
Because Democrats don't corrupt themselves.
Democrats are only corrupted by voters and by Republicans.
Democrats are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
It's like McCain said, money corrupts members of Congress in the Senate, which is just crazy.
You know, that's why he said we had to get money out of politics with campaign finance reform and ergo, why there's more money than ever before in it.
So Rove replaces delay, but delay is still in reserve over there.
If they have to go back, but before delay, who was it?
It was Abu Ghrab.
Before that, what was it?
It was missing weapons in Iraq.
Before that, what was it?
It was the National Guard story.
Before that, what was it?
There's always something.
Rove has now been replaced or is replacing all those other things.
And last Friday, it appeared that Rove was going to have to be moved off the chessboard, but the media got to get us.
Nope, we got our reputation at stake on this.
We got four days of pronouncing this guy guilty.
We're not going to let one day in the news cycle get rid of this.
And so they gin back up with a bunch of absurd presentations on the Sunday shows.
And they followed what happened on the Sunday shows with a brand new news cycle on Monday that was totally based on fabrications and lies and misstatements.
They've tried to keep it alive today by misrepresenting what the president has said about who he would fire when.
It is pathetic.
It is transparent, but their reputation is at stake.
So yeah, you're correct in thinking that Delay is off the front page, but he's still in the paper.
And it can bring him back to the front page if this Rove thing bombs out, which of course it will.
We know it will because the media keeps changing the story, not Rove.
The president's not changing the story.
I'll tell you, the media is, you want to get caught on this?
Can I tell you exactly why they're going to end up eating themselves over this?
Look at who they've chosen sides with.
A reprobate like Joe Lewis, Joe, what's his face?
Wilson.
They have chosen sides with an absolute loser.
They've chosen sides with a liar.
They have chosen sides with a guy who is easily manipulated by the Democratic Party.
Remember, Joe Wilson said he was all upset because when Bush talked of those 16 words in the State of the Union address, Wilson said, well, I'm outraged.
That's not what my report said.
Do you know when he said this?
Some many months after the State of the Union address, after he started work with the Kerry campaign.
In fact, I've got an L.A. Times column that he wrote on February 8th of 2003, about a month after the State of the Union address, two or three weeks after, does even mention it.
Not even outraged by it.
I have it right here in a stack.
I'll share it with you in the next hour.
I mean, if you're watching a State of the Union address and a president says something, it's totally at odds with what you reported to him, your op-ed's out the next day.
But if your op-ed doesn't come out for two to three weeks, you're still angry.
Your reputation's at stake.
He doesn't even mention it.
And it was many more months after that before he started mentioning it, not till he joined the Kerry campaign.
Well, the press has chosen sides with somebody that's undependable.
The press has chosen sides with somebody that ultimately is going to end up embarrassing them.
He has lied to them already.
He leaked things to the Washington Post.
They chose to ignore that he's leaked to them and lied to them, and they still treat him as God when it comes to sources.
And folks, you know, you get in bed with a louse, you're going to get lice.
You get in bed with a bad actor, you're going to get what you deserve.
And that's who they're in bed with here.
They're not interested in anything he's done.
They're not interested in anything his wife's done.
And we know what he and his wife have done.
And I've got a story about what his wife did in terms of outing her own cover in registering to vote for Al Gore.
That also is a piece in the October 4th, 2003 Washington Post.
Leak of agent's name causes exposure of CIA front firm.
Where do you hear this story?
She did it.
So this is who they've chosen sides with.
This is who they're in bed with.
And as time goes on, the American people are going to learn about Joe Wilson, even more so than they have already, and Valerie Plame.
And once again, the press will go down in flames over this, just as Dan Rather believed Bill Burkett.
Dan Rather believed Mary Mapes.
Mary Mapes believed Rather.
Mary Mapes is trying to shovel Bill Burkett onto Joe Lockhart at the Kerry campaign.
No reason this incident should be any different.
That's what's amazing to watch.
They do not learn.
They keep making the same mistake, only bigger.
They keep making the same mistake, only with bigger spotlights shining on them.
I love it.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Here's a little tease on the Valerie Plame story from the Washington Post in October of 2003.
The leak of a CIA ops name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The company's identity, Brewster Jennings and Associates, became public because it appeared in federal election commission records on a form filled out in 99 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
So she, it wasn't to register to vote.
She actually gave the name of a CIA front company when she contributed a grand to Al Gore.
▲
Export Selection