All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:53
July 21, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
All right, we are jam-packed here today, folks, so you're gonna have to listen fast, because we got a lot to do, and this is the last day I'm gonna be here until uh the first of August.
I am taking a vacation next week.
I I got something special to tell you about that that's really cool, but we'll get to that in uh in due course.
Greetings, welcome.
It is the award-winning thrill packed ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network of the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Uh we're gonna make a couple of adjustments in our normal programming schedule today, folks.
Uh Bernard Goldberg will be here at one o'clock to discuss his book, 100 people who are screwing up America.
Uh Mr. Goldberg is Mr. Goldberg is being uh mistreated on some of these Nambi pamby irrelevant little cable shows.
And uh this offends me and bothers me.
And uh so we're gonna have Mr. Goldberg on and uh give his book a fair treatment today.
Same thing's happening to Rick Santorum.
Everybody's ganging up on Rick Santorum, Senator from Pennsylvania, over some comments that he has made about uh the Catholic church abuse scandal being centered in Boston, and uh they're all over him today and and have been for a while.
I want to have him on at 2 o'clock uh to uh for a while just to talk a little bit about that.
So before we get into all of that and uh whatever else happens on the program today, we've got another terrorist scare in London.
Four detonators went off, the bombs didn't go off.
Um nearby residents being evacuated from one of the uh underground stations.
Uh Tony Blair today uh had a joint joint joint press conference with the Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
John Howard, by the way, and we have this uh audio coming up.
Great, great, great comments he made to these the the absolute nerds in the media.
I mean, you've got a reporter asking Blair, are you responsible for terrorism?
And if I were Blair, I would have said no, are you?
The way you're blaming all the wrong people for what's going on.
Anyway, here is uh portion of Blair's remarks to get us started.
What these people are trying to do, I mean, whoever is responsible for this latest incident, and that is to intimidate people and to scare them, to frighten them, to stop them going about their normal business.
Now, obviously people will be concerned and anxious, of course they will, and that's why it's important we give as much information as we can.
But on the other hand, it's important also that we respond by by keeping to our normal lives and and doing what we want to do, because to do otherwise is uh is in a sense to to give them the very thing they're looking for.
Yeah, and here's this question uh from an unidentified female infobabe reporter at.
Do you feel that in a sense your policies may have put people in this position?
Well, I think I've said to you before that I feel that people who um are responsible for doing these things are the people who do them.
Yeah, I mean that makes total sense to me, but it probably doesn't make sense to a bunch of people in the media.
This this just amazes me.
You know, I when I saw this today, I started fantasizing.
I would love to be the president of the United States for just one press conference.
I I would love to be Tony Blair for just one press conference.
And I would I would love to answer these questions the way I would love to see them answered, just one time.
I know these guys can't answer them these these questions this way because the press is supposed to be inquisitive, press is supposed to be this and that and the other thing.
You basically get a question, uh, are your Paulus responsible for this?
Uh uh, Mr. Blair.
No.
I'm not responsible.
How about you?
Are you responsible for this?
How about you and your colleagues in the media, the way you're treating all this and this?
Are you responsible for well?
I am the one asking the question, yeah.
Well, you better start answering some too, and you better be thinking about the way you're doing your job, because the people doing this are the people doing this, and you might be encouraging these people with the way you're covering the story, madam reporter et infobe.
You know, it just stays just like back during the uh during the 80s.
Remember when Reagan was being blamed for the spread of AIDS.
Reagan was being blamed for the spread of AIDS.
You may not remember this, Dawn, you were pretty young.
And I kept saying to myself, how can this be?
Do they have pictures of Reagan over in Lafayette Park with a bunch of men after dark?
Is Reagan out there having unprotected gay sex?
How can this possibly be?
Uh, but you just can't, you know, you can't.
That's why I would never I would never succeed in politics.
Listen to this, though.
This John Howard.
He is the um Australian uh prime minister.
And this is this is just fabulous.
This is gonna make you shout from the rooftops.
On the issue of uh uh the policies of my government, uh and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq.
That the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, uh it's given the game away to use the vernacular.
And no Australian government that I lead will ever have uh policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that um uh the uh murder of eighty-eight Australians in Bali took place before uh the uh operation in Iraq?
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Yes.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that Bin Laden specifically referred uh to Australia was uh in the context uh of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor?
Uh is are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?
Uh when uh a group claimed responsibility on the website for uh the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan.
The people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan.
When Sergei de Milo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person um immensely respected for his work in the United Nations.
And when Al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that DeMaleo had De Mello had carried out in East Timor, because he was the uh United Nations administrator in East Timor.
Now, I don't know the mind of the terrorist.
By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber.
I can only look at objective facts.
And the objective facts are as I've cited, the objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target uh long before the operation in Iraq.
Yes.
And uh indeed all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggest to me uh that this is about hatred of a way of life.
This is about the perverted use of the principles of the great world religion that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than uh the abuse uh uh through a perverted ideology uh uh
of people and their murder.
That's Australian Prime Minister John Howard saying it as it is, telling it like it is.
We were attacked long before Iraq and Afghanistan, you're saying we shouldn't be there.
Of course, the press probably nodding their head, yeah, we don't think we should be there.
We're scared here.
We think they're attacking because we've gone all over the world and attacked them.
Uh so you g you just you know, these these are these these kind of guys are few and far between, folks.
They are rare.
And it's uh it's worth noting uh John Howard, one of our strongest and staunchest allies in the uh in the war on terror, along with Tony Blair and the United Kingdom.
Uh, we'll wrap up this segment here with uh CNN correspondent Christiana Montpore.
This is some of her commentary today uh from London.
Listen to this.
This is almost identical to what happened two weeks ago, and yet nowhere near as serious.
And and the police are saying now, Ian Blair, that this was uh obviously an attempt at simultaneous explosions, they went off pretty much simultaneously, but some of the devices didn't work properly.
How is it possible?
I mean, is it do you think um is it the same kind of people or or what kind of people would would not be able to get four devices to explode?
She's talking to another reporter there.
This is the The essence of CNN coverage.
One reporter talking to another reporter saying, huh?
Who are these idiots?
How come they couldn't get these bombs to go off?
Yet it was the similar.
I mean, it was what does she say was uh uh almost identical to what happened, except nowhere near as serious.
It's like saying almost exactly the way it happened last week, only different.
What what what kind of people uh or what kind of people would not be able to get four devices to explode?
So where's the hell's our story?
We want those bombs to go off.
We're sitting out here doing nothing talking to each other.
All we got to do is a bunch of fizzling detonators out there.
Okay, folks.
Why didn't the bombs go off?
Who are these people?
I guess Christian, you've just learned out that the terrorists are fallible.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
America's anchor man, America's truth detector, Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone.
We are ditto-camming the program today, all of it.rushlimbaugh.com, terror investigators hunting the London bombing mastermind are to question a suspected Al-Qaeda planner held in Pakistan.
British-born Haroun Rashid Aswad was seized at a religious school with a suicide bomb belt, uh, explosives and uh GPP, grit British pounds, $13,000 in cash.
Security sources in the Pakistani capital, uh Islamabad claim that he had up to 20 telephone conversations with the London bombers, Mohammed Sadiq Khan, and Shazad Tanweir.
One of these believed to have been just hours before the blast.
Anyway, this guy had had a meeting with bin Laden.
Everybody's talking about how these uh things are because we're in a rock.
Uh has nothing to do with the rock.
Uh Australian Prime Minister John Howard write out of money.
I found a quote.
A friend of mine sent me a quote today uh from Robert E. Lee.
And I want any of you who are in the mainstream media to listen to this, because this just shows you the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This is Robert E. Lee talking to a friend, admitting that the South had made a huge mistake from the beginning.
Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies, and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers.
I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all the defects plainly from the start, but they didn't tell me until it was too late.
I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals, and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper.
Basically, what he's saying is is that, you know, it's amazing.
All these generals that write for the newspapers have no clue what they're doing.
They're always telling me what I'm doing wrong after the fact.
Why don't they tell me what I'm doing wrong before I get started?
In fact, let's trade places.
You know, you you people in the media think you know what's best and how to run all you go ahead and do it, and we'll take your jobs.
That's Robert E. Lee.
I have a piece I want to uh share with you here, uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, from the uh Canada Free Press.
The uh Canada Free Press, this is going to take us back to last week.
Uh in somewhat of a simmering uh I don't know if it's a controversy or not, but it certainly is a uh uh lot of people with a lot of question marks out there.
The uh the writer here is uh Klaus Rooritch.
If you've ever doubted that the Democrats' luminaries are either a loopy and or B convinced that their constituents are total morons, then listening to George Soros' commercial dealing with the evils of Carl Rove will forever erase any doubts.
I first heard this commercial last week while driving through New York and listening to talk radio.
My first impression was that it was a clever and very funny spoof on the Democrats' feelings about a rove.
A very lugubrious voice starts by telling the audience that Carl Rove, like George Bush, is from Texas, and therefore, like Bush, he's a liar.
In the background, a whispering second voice echoes what the first voice is saying.
He lies.
Then the voice goes on to say that Rolfe leaked the name of a secret CIA agent to the press, all the while accompanied by the whispering voice echoing CIA agent to the press.
Finally, the voice says that Carl Rove's name starts with a letter K, just like the Klan.
And then to make sure that no one would think this was a clever spoof, a tag at the end of the commercial informs the listener that the infomercial was paid for by George Soros.
I still had difficulty believing the commercial wasn't a spoof.
As a man is supposedly astute as Soros would appear to be more nuanced and sophisticated, lest of course he thought his audience was comprised of slavering idiots.
As a spoof, the piece was brilliant.
As a serious political commercial, it was probably the most lowbrow effort I've ever heard.
If Carl Rove were to reciprocate with his own commercial, it might go something like this.
George Soros is Hungarian just like Yanos Kadar, and therefore like KDR Soros is a communist, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Admittedly, my spoof of Soros commercial about Rove is every bit as tasteless, yet it contains about the same amount of truth.
Interesting thing is, if someone in the Republican Party ran my commercial on American radio, the outcry emanating from the so-called mainstream media would be deafening.
Yet so long as the character being assassinated is that of a Republican and one in the Bush camp.
At that, the media will continue napping.
What the Democrats and their media lapdogs haven't glommed on to as yet is that the Australian public isn't nearly as stupid as they think, and they're no longer buying it.
That's one of the reasons why Americans have been deserting a Democratic Party in droves, leaving only the left-wing nutters to run the show.
The piece, uh the piece goes on.
Uh, and the closing paragraph is it's a comforting feeling knowing that there are people like George Soros who are spending their own money in an effort to vilify the Republicans.
Their negativity has a much more positive effect on Republicans than anything the GOP could do on its own.
As evidence of this PR disaster begins to mount, Soros and the Democrats will probably claim that the devious Carl Rove cleverly and nefariously maneuvered the hapless Soros into paying for his commercial.
All right, now I have to ask a question.
I asked Mr. Sturley, Mr. Sturdley read this.
Is it your impression that this man thinks the thing is real or is a spoof?
He thinks it's real.
You you think he thinks this is he knows it's real.
As a spoof, the piece was brilliant.
As a serious political commercial, probably the most lowbrow effort I've ever heard.
Uh last week, I I I have felt terrible about this ever since it happened.
Last week, a woman called, claiming she had heard this on our affiliate in Oklahoma City, KTOK.
She was in Norman, Oklahoma.
And she was she was outraged by it.
Uh and uh she also told me that uh she'd had some pain in her family recent death in her family.
And I I folk, I just didn't have the the uh I just judged at that point.
Wasn't time to tell her that that uh it was it was this spoof and that it was ours.
And then uh I continually am amazed.
I I think these spoofs are so obviously spoofs uh that you'll all understand it, but you should have seen the email last week after that call.
I thought it was a spoof too, Rush, but no, I guess it's real.
And then I had people from every state in this country reporting what stations were airing this in my show so that I would know.
And it just led me back to what something I learned long ago and and have failed to uh in this case, uh, cement.
And that is that good parody, good satire, good comedy has to have an element of truth in it, or it's not good.
If it doesn't have an element of truth and believability, then it's not gonna, it's not gonna be brought off.
Well, apparently this Rove spot of ours, this George Soros rove spot, uh, is one of the best because there are people who think it's real.
And they think it's real because it's totally believable.
And the fact that people think it's real, I think is a fabulous sign.
It's a fabulous sign that they are aware of the kind of garbage being run by Soros and moveon.org and Americans coming together.
Here is the spot, and let me now admit for the first time in broadcast history that this spoof is ours.
We created this spoof.
We wrote it, we produced it.
If you hear it running on your affiliate station, it's because we are running it.
We have the only golden master copy.
Anybody else has one has a dub.
My friends, as you listen to this program, never forget.
One of the things that we are most known for here is illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
Irreverent humor combined with serious discussion of the issue is credibility on both sides.
In fact, uh, we we have a new little tune we want to play for you uh about John Roberts and the Senate Democrats' upcoming hearing, Supreme Court and all that right after this break.
Sit tight, we'll be back right after this.
And we are here.
The excellence at Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you with us.
The telephone number if you'd like to join us today is uh 800-282-2882.
Email address rush at EIB net.com.
All right, uh John Roberts, Judge Roberts.
I want to tell you there there are two things uh at work here.
Uh one of them, uh both of them actually I mentioned yesterday, the uh Democrats are having a tough time, and they're gonna have an impossible time to oppose the man on anything to do with any kind of substance.
So I want to make a prediction.
Well, in fact, I uh I made the prediction to people uh last night, and it's already come true, so you may have heard about it before I made the prediction.
But I think what they're gonna do, said last night, what they're gonna do is try to derail the guy at the hearings on the basis of he won't answer our questions.
And they're gonna ask for documents when he was at the Solicitor General's office, and they're gonna ask for documents that they're not entitled to have on the basis of separation of powers, and the SG's office is not going to turn them over, and we're gonna be stuck right where we were with Miguel Estrada and John Bolton.
And the Democrats will say, Well, we can't go forward with this.
Why they haven't turned over all the documents?
What are they hiding?
All we want to do is see what he thought during these pieces.
We don't have much of a record on Judge Roberts.
This will give us an idea of his thinking.
And uh the White House is refusing to turn this over.
Why?
What are they trying to hide?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That's uh you keep a sharp eye out for that.
There's another thing.
Uh Linda Greenhouse, I told you yesterday, she's the uh the Supreme Court Supreme Writer at the uh at the Pinch Times, the uh the New York Times, and lo and behold, I told you yesterday, I told you yesterday, that one of the problems the Libs are gonna have with this guy is that he's big in the DC social circuit.
He's given his cell phone number to journalists, they can reach him.
He doesn't hide, you know, he doesn't he he doesn't hibernate, he he runs around, he uh not a social butterfly, don't misunderstand, but you know, he's not a hermit, and he doesn't avoid these people like Clarence Thomas uh or or or Nino, as he's now popularly called by his friends, Scalia.
Uh and lo and behold, here comes Linda Greenhouse uh with a piece of the New York Times, uh talking about how, well, this Roberts guy gets out, and there's going to be a chance to influence him and have him grow.
This she doesn't say it this way.
You gotta know New York Times code to uh translate this from her story.
But uh there are many people think that's what happened to Anthony Kennedy.
Uh that uh he grew, that he became friends with the DC culture, became concerned about what they write about him, and says his conservative view is somewhat uh moderated as his liberal views grew.
And the uh New York Times is uh throwing the first little uh temptation, if you will, uh to uh to Judge Roberts with the Linda Greenhouse piece.
In the meantime, less than 15 hours after President Bush announced that John Roberts would be his nominee.
Leading Democrats stood before a bank of TV cameras and criticized the president.
Their ire had nothing to do with Roberts.
Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Jane Harmon assailed Bush for failing to punish Carl Rove for his alleged involvement in disclosing the name of a CIA operative.
Roll call says in a in a set of talking points issued Wednesday morning.
The Senate Democratic leadership urged rank and file senators to continue spotlighting Rove's involvement in the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Playham's identity.
Supreme Court nominee will not distract the country from the growing credibility problems of the White House Democrats were told to say.
And echo, and you've heard the talking points, they're all out there saying that.
Dingy Harry, Dingy Harry yesterday complaining about the fact that uh and he was wagging his finger at reporters, said you're gonna put Rove back on the front page.
This is no but you can't just let Rove off this easy.
Blah, blah, blah.
This is so pathetic.
They're just so I just saw something uh uh uh where is it?
Where is it?
Uh I'll have to find it.
Battered left syndrome.
Somebody has sent me a note.
There's a new syndrome up there, battered left syndrome.
Um it's sort of like battered wife syndrome.
They keep getting beat up and they still hang around the people that beat them Up uh and nobody can figure out why they don't just leave, you know, and change.
And they've got battered left syndrome out there, and I folks, I think I'm one of the batterers.
And that's why I feel honored to have this new syndrome named out there.
I'll have to get the name of the guy who did it, battered left syndrome.
They just keep punishing themselves, and they come back and they encourage more punishment or incur more punishment, and they keep doing it in the same way.
They're not surprising anybody anymore.
If you want to give them a football team analogy, and by the way, speaking of football, I'm gonna miss Teddy Bruski not playing this year.
Teddy Bruski of New England Patriots had a mild stroke in January, not long after the Pro Bowl, and uh all the news accounts call Teddy Brusky the heart and soul of Patriots defense, and he's that, but he's more uh as as well, is uh if you can be more than the heart and soul, he is.
Is a great player.
Uh it doesn't just provide inspiration, he's a great player, makes great plays in big games.
And they're gonna miss Teddy Brewski if you can understand it.
Uh mild stroke sitting out a year, he's still going to be with the team and offering, you know, encouragement and practice and acting as a coach uh primarily, but it's it's uh it's too bad scary.
These are people in the prime of physical condition in their 30s, and uh have uh have a mild stroke uh like that.
But the football analogy would be these guys do not have the forward pass.
All they've got is the off-tackle play, and they run it every play.
Everybody knows what's coming.
They know where to stack the hole, you know, push them back, push them back far back.
I mean they're about ready to be pushed back into their fourth or fifth safety here.
They just keep coming at us the same way and they're getting beat up, and it's battered left syndrome.
Let me give you examples.
Let's go to the audio tape.
Last night, PMS NBC hardball uh David Gregory, really in a foul humor lately because Bush is out foxing him and everybody else in the media, talking to um uh Katrina Vandenhoov, uh Katrina Vanden Hoovel, the editor of the left-wing underground rag called the nation, and also Terry Jeffrey of Human Events is on there.
And David Gregory says to Katrina Vandenhoovel, where is Roberts vulnerable to the opposition?
I want to take it outside of the left-right context for a moment, if I might, because I think what's going to happen with the court is not so much moving right.
I think it's moving backwards.
I think that is the frame so many Americans may not articulate but feel because the civilizing decisions of the last 70 years, whether in equal rights, in environmental rights, reproductive rights, workers' rights may well be rolled back.
And I think certainly on Roe v.
Wade, he's going to be questioned in very tough ways.
And in the excessive deference to executive power, at a time when I believe many Americans are worried about checks and balances and overweening power in an extraordinarily dominating GOP party.
Could there could there be a more out-of-touch person that they could go get to have on TV to represent the left?
See, I've I've never heard somebody so out of touch with reality.
Court moving backwards, court moving backwards, I guess it depends on your perspective, but what in the world does a liberal have to complain about with the Supreme Court?
Katrina, if it weren't for the court, you wouldn't have half the things you think are important in this country.
People wouldn't vote for them if they had a chance.
The court's the only way you've gotten half of the stuff that's perverted this society.
To sit there and think the frame that so many Americans may articulate, the court's moving backwards, the American people, as expressed in polls, are worried about the judicial branches overreaching power.
There is no separation of power between the executive branch and the judicial and congressional.
It's all assumed uh legislative, it's all assumed by you and the left that the Supreme Court is the is the final authority anywhere.
And you guys are gonna make up your minds about judicial review.
You either like it or you don't.
Here once again, she's worried about uh whether or not the uh the the new court with this new horrible man, Judge Roberts, probably personally selected by Carl Rove, you're going to roll back environmental rights, equal rights, reproductive rights, workers' rights, every right, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, rights, all this sort of stuff.
Well, now wait a minute.
You guys keep saying that you you you you want judicial review, you you want the you want the court to be able to determine what's constitutional and what isn't, except when you don't control it, you don't want that.
Like if you if you were consistent with this, if you're really worried about judicial review, then you got to go back and bring back Dred Scott to life.
If the court can't overturn itself, if the court can't say that something's unconstitutional or reverse the law of Congress, I guess it can it only can do those things when the left has a court in its control.
But this is folks, this is hieroglyphics.
This is verbal hieroglyphics trying to translate this.
This is the best I can do.
I mean, even if you look at the pre-vacancy polls before O'Connor retired, the vast majority of the American people want somebody like John Roberts on the court.
And Ms. Vanden Hoovel, as a typical liberal elitist, says the American people don't know what they want because they're too stupid to know what they want.
That's why we at the nation are trying to tell them every day.
But how many people subscribe and read that?
If it weren't for Yahoo putting it around in their RSS, 90% of the people who see the nation wouldn't see it, and I'm not sure how many people see it then.
Here's more kook stuff, by the way.
One more bite from uh Madame Vandenhoov.
Um the uh question here from David Gregory what this election tells us about George W. Bush.
The president, even the man.
Seems to me, Katrina, the president had this uh all set up in the very beginning, which is they sort of put out there that they want to uh they want to make this about qualifications, they're daring the other side to challenge an ideology using the Ginsburg model to say, look, she was a liberal, but she qualified, she sailed through the confirmation process.
Well, what are your thoughts on this?
My first thought would be what's the question, Gregory?
But Katrina doesn't care what the question is.
Here's her answer.
I see something different.
I see a man in Bush who uh is not he's a divider, but I also see someone who again wants to accrue as much power in the executive branch as he possibly can.
I refer back to this decision in the DC circuit court last week where Judge Roberts basically violating Sandra Day O'Connor's view that war is not a blank slave.
The tape.
I told you that's the next thing they're gonna go on.
I told you this yesterday.
They're gonna go after him on this decision that get that overruled a Clinton judge uh uh who had said that these military tribunals are unconstitutional, basically usurping the power of the Constitution granted to the commander-in-chief.
So they're gonna go after this guy for uh participating in that unanimous decision, by the way.
Here's the rest of the bite.
But I'm gonna answer Gregory's question here after Katrina muddles her way through the rest of her answer.
He wants someone who's gonna defer to him, just as he wants a media who will defer to him.
And I would not, I would ask people to remember that Judge Roberts privately advised Governor Jeb Bush in 2000 in the recount about ways to overturn uh the to overturn the courts, taking it to the Florida legislature.
The tape.
This is about to drive me nuts.
The courts in Florida were rewriting election law, Katrina, without the legislature having been involved.
If you look at the Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court, nor any other state Supreme Court determines the electors from a state.
The legislature, the state legislature does this.
If if uh Roberts was advising anybody here, Jeb Bush, it was how to get around a rogue, out of control Florida Supreme Court, which was rewriting what's a Chad, what's not a Chad, what's a hanging Chad, what's a leaning Chad?
Uh this is it's a it's amazement.
Here, the answer to the question is here's the question.
What this election, uh, this selection tells us about George W. Bush, the president, even the man.
Seems to me the president had this all set up at the very beginning, which is they sort of put out there that they want to make this about qualification.
Mr. Gregory, go check with your buddy Howard Feynman.
Howard Feynman swerves into the truth yet again in a piece at MSNBC today.
You know why Bush keeps confounding you, Mr. Gregory and all the rest of you in the media, because he's honest.
All he's doing is what he said he was gonna do.
You keep looking for deceit because that's who you're used to covering.
Politicians who deceive you.
And in some cases, you marvel at how able they are to do it, such as Bill Clinton.
You never thought Clinton was telling the truth when he said anything.
So consequently, you don't think any politician that's good tells the truth.
Well, Bush, I'm gonna pick this kind of person.
I'm gonna pick this kind of guy, gonna pick this kind of woman.
He did.
And they're wondering what the trick is.
How did Bush sandbag them?
Tell you what, folks, it's a pretty sorry situation in the media when you can trick them by telling them the truth back after this.
I I I listened to Katrina Vandenhoval or any of the other liberals, and I I just have this question why why do they lie about about what they really believe?
Why do they pretend to care about individual rights, all this workers' rights, this rights, that's all they care about government?
They care about they they support government by judiciary, folks.
They're not worried about workers' rights, civil rights, this they're worried about abortion rights, but that's about it.
All this other stuff is just camouflage.
They believe in government by judiciary.
In essence, they support government by five or six unelected lawyers as long as they're activist liberals.
Now she won't say that, but that's what she supports, and that's what she's afraid of losing as Bush nominates Roberts and others to the court.
You know, and their new hero, by the way, Sandra Day O'Connor.
Sandra Day O'Connor agrees with Roberts on his decisions in many, many cases.
I mean, I I think these people are so inconsistent that they uh the well, it's like battered lib syndrome.
Battered left syndrome.
They they just, you know, it's like here, I've got this baseball bet.
Oh, good, I want you to hit me again.
Here I come.
Whack.
I know it sounds violent, folks, and I don't mean it in a literal sense, but they're being battered around here, and they uh they don't know it, and they keep coming back for more.
Andrew in Oklahoma City, I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, gig of military band pow dittos from Oklahoma.
Uh you know, when I heard that uh little spoof you did last week, I was driving to lunch on I-40 and Dan the Iran off the road.
That was just fantastic radio.
When you think about this, this it reminded me of Orson Wells and War of the Worlds.
You've got people emailing you, telling you that they heard it too.
I mean, you didn't have people shooting guns at water towers like they did in Maryland, but it was awesome.
And the other point I had was uh the media, if if I don't know this gentleman, but to me, for him to write an article and not really say that, hey, this was a spoof, and that it was he was just listening to talk radio makes me kind of wonder if he really knew.
And it was that's what makes this show so awesome in my literature.
Well, you can't it's great radio.
I I thank you, and I really appreciate that.
But I wouldn't be put off by the Canadian reporter talking about uh or saying he listens to talk radio, everybody knows that talk radio is me.
Uh the synonymous uh same thing.
Uh that stuff doesn't bother me.
I I still don't know.
I as I've read the piece, I think he thinks it's real.
Or I think he thought that it was a real piece.
I I think he did.
And that's that's uh the where we where we where we hit pay dirt because it's so close to what a sorrow says.
It's so believable.
Oh I I've listened to you for a long time, Rush, you know, when I'm home and everything, and uh I knew right away it was a spoof.
And I'm I'm pretty sure your normal listener would realize that.
So to me, when when I heard that, that that just put it over the top.
And and I just really appreciate everything that you've done for our military.
And Gitmo gear, and I just appreciate it.
And oh, speaking of gitmo gear, apparently we have got some fabulous new pictures in the Club Gitmo photo gallery.
Uh yeah, Coco sent me, you know, you gotta come uh we added some since last night, some great pictures in the Club Gitmo photo gallery at Rush Limbaugh.com, people wearing their club gitmo gear.
Um one correction, Andrew, and don't take this personally, there are no ordinary limbaugh listeners.
Limbaugh listeners are extraordinary.
Uh they're not ordinary.
The the thing that the I always count on that the people are gonna get it, it's a spoof is the uh voice we use of Johnny Donovan.
We've been using Johnny for 18, 17 years here.
Uh he is the lugubrious voice that apparently fooled our friend in uh Canada, who's a nice guy.
His piece was not, don't misunderstand it.
He just uh he's a Canadian, was driving around in New York for a while.
Bernard Goldberg will be up at the top of the hour a little bit after that to discuss uh his uh his new book, The Hundred People Ruining the Country or Whatever.
Back after this, stay with us.
The Club Gitmo pictures at the Club Gitmo photo gallery.
There's one of them, some guy in front of an Apple store, but there's a there's a great one.
Some guy shows up in an anti-war rally and stands in front of some loony-tune kook lib carrying some anti-war sign wearing a club gitmo t-shirt.
Bernard Goldberg is next.
▲
Export Selection