Rush Limbaugh Program - October 17, 2005, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 17, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:36

October 17, 2005, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	America's Truth Detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, America's Anchorman, America's Play-by-Playman of the News, America's Commentator, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution, serving humanity here on the EIB network.
	Great to have you along, folks.
	Telephone number if you want to be on the program today.
	800-282-2882.
	And if you'd rather go the email route, you can do that.
	Rush at EIBnet.com is the address.
	All right.
	From last Friday, Travis County prosecutors, this is Ronnie Earle, admitted that they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money laundering indictments against Tom DeLay and two of his associates.
	The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that illegally, or legally, I should say, could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.
	Indictments against delay, Jim Ellis and John Caliandro state that Ellis gave a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.
	But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a similar list, and then not the one allegedly received by then RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson.
	Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.
	A lawyer for Ellis said that prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictment is on par with the tactics used by McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 50s.
	I'll tell you what I think of that list.
	In the 50s, a man named McCarthy claimed to have a list of 200 communists in the State Department, and he didn't.
	They don't know what list they're talking about, even though they specify it in their indictment.
	Now, without the exact list, the prosecutor's case against delay, Ellis and Caliandro, likely turns on the testimony of a man named Terry Nelson, the RNC deputy director.
	Nelson testified at least twice to grand juries hearing the case.
	Well, that would be something Mr. Nelson could testify to, and the jury could weigh the testimony, decide whether to accept it or whether he's confused about what list he saw three or four years ago in the midst of a heated election cycle, said one of the lawyers, the lawyer for Ellis, a man named Powerstein.
	Now, folks, let me give you a quick crash course here in the law.
	Without that, go ask, if you know any, go ask a defense lawyer.
	If a prosecutor gets a grand jury to indict in a case like this and there's no list of these candidates, then there is no basis for the indictment.
	You're going to have people scratching their heads saying, well, wait a minute, how do you get an indictment here?
	How do you even get an indictment when there's no list?
	The list is the evidence.
	And there's no evidence to support the indictment.
	And what you'll be told is that this is unfathomable.
	What happens is, is that the grand jury is given all the evidence and they're told this adds up to this.
	And the prosecutors, we want you to indict.
	How many grand juries refused to indict?
	Was it one or two before they got the first one to indict on the conspiracy charge?
	It was two grand juries that refused to indict.
	Now we know why.
	Then they got the third grand jury that with that foreman who went on KLBJ in Austin and admitted that the evidence in the grand jury room meant nothing to him, that he had already formed his basis of Delay's guilt on television commercials that he didn't like.
	And then we found a connection that that foreman has to a defeated sheriff's office candidate who blamed his defeat on Delay.
	Then that indictment turned out to be flawed because it didn't even specify a crime within the correct date range, the time that the crime was alleged to have occurred.
	It wasn't a crime.
	So he had to tear that one up and go to a different grand jury, come back with its money laundering indictment, but there's no list.
	Now, every time, from now on, and I think you should take this and learn from it and apply from this story what's going on in this whole Valerie Plame special prosecution investigation with that grand jury.
	Here are the similarities.
	In both cases, well, actually, that's not a similarity.
	Let's describe the first one.
	In the Delay case, there has not been any suspicion of the prosecutor at all on the part of the mainstream press.
	Ronnie Earle, in fact, there have been profiles how he's not political.
	Oh, no, no, no, he doesn't have political enemies.
	Why indict Democrats?
	Intact him.
	12 out of 15 political people he's indicted have been Democrats, conservative Democrats in his way.
	But we don't get that little added nugget thrown in.
	And throughout this story, we have sources close to the investigation say.
	And somehow sources close to the investigation are never wrong.
	Sources close to the investigation can be cited as lock, stock, and barrel accurate.
	They're never named.
	Apparently, my first theory on this was true.
	What they really want is simply the destruction of Delay's character and to get him out of the legal ability to be the leader in the House.
	They want him to have, because the House rules are if you're indicted, you have to give up your leadership positions, and Delay did.
	And this is all about stopping the Republican agenda in the House of Representatives.
	There's no evidence to support the indictment.
	It's purely political, it appears.
	And yet, I can't find much news on this.
	This story hit Friday.
	I didn't see a whole lot of this news in the mainstream press.
	Did you?
	This, folks, in any other circumstance, I guarantee you, if Ken Starr had ever indicted, gotten his grand jury to indict, say, Bill Clinton or high-ups in that administration, and it was learned that there was no evidence to support the indictment, that's all you would have heard about for three weeks.
	Starr would have been run out of town on a train, Amtrak, or whatever.
	But here we have scant notice of this.
	Now we move over to the Valerie Plame business.
	The media, which has Karl Rove indicted, convicted, resigned, which has Scooter Libby indicted, convicted, and resigned, and they're hoping the same with Vice President Cheney and maybe President Bush, know nothing.
	There hasn't been one indication from a source close to the investigation of where this prosecution is headed.
	They don't know.
	They are inferring everything from what witnesses who come out of the grand jury, those who do talk about their appearance, are saying.
	Now, if you take a look, if you take a look at Judy Miller in this big brouhaha in the New York Times, What you have to conclude, it's very simple.
	It isn't complicated at all.
	She doesn't remember who told her Valerie Flame's identity.
	That's how she referred to her in her notes, Valerie Flame.
	She doesn't, well, I thought before she went and testified with Scooter Libby.
	Scooter Libby gave her the waiver a year ago and reaffirmed it as a personal waiver just weeks ago, and that got her out of jail.
	And she's, I don't remember.
	That's right out of the Hillary Clinton how to testify before a grand jury handbook.
	I can't recall.
	I don't remember.
	She doesn't know who told her the identity of Valerie Plame.
	Well, if she's going to say that, how can you conclude it was Scooter Libby?
	Only if you want to.
	There's so much about this story that has been misreported because there are hopeful assumptions being made.
	Remember, the left looks at this administration in its entirety as Watergate.
	And so this, this whole story is just, it's the next one after the National Guard and after Richard Clark's book and after all these things, everybody's talking, oh, the Bush administration has a tough week this week.
	Next couple weeks, the indictment should be coming down.
	Rove may have to quit.
	They don't know diddly squat.
	And the last time I looked, the Bush administration has gone through a lot of hard weeks.
	They went through a bunch of hard weeks of the 9-11 investigation.
	They went through a lot of hard weeks, the 60 Minutes putting Bill Clinton and Richard Clark face first for two or three segments on 60 Minutes talking about their books about what a rotten guy Bush was, what a liar he is.
	We've had Cindy Sheehan up there.
	We've had all of these things that the left has dragged forth to try to destroy Bush since basically since he was inaugurated, but the real intense effort was after 9-11.
	And yet the administration has withstood it all.
	They might say, well, we're getting to him.
	Poll numbers are way down.
	He is weak.
	Yeah, the Democrats still forget that.
	Have you seen the polls on congressional Democrat approval in the Congress?
	Lower than Bush's.
	Bush's numbers at 42%.
	Democrats in Congress are in a mid-30s.
	Well, they ignored that.
	Oh, we got Bush right where we want to have.
	Bush is gone.
	Bush has had it.
	We're going to win back in 06.
	We're going to take it back in 08 up.
	With what?
	Nobody still knows what your plan for anything is because you don't have the guts to be honest to tell us.
	So here you have two legal cases, one in which the prosecutor gets an indictment with no evidence whatsoever other than the testimony of a guy who's got to have to remember things three or four years ago, which is not enough to get an indictment in most people's books.
	And now you've got this Valerie Plame case where it is assumed that the White House is guilty all the way to the top.
	Yet nobody has given anybody any indication because the special prosecutor is not talking.
	There are no sources close to the investigation in this one because they're not leaking.
	They're not talking.
	When you strip it away, the people reporting this story don't know anything.
	Just as they accept the word from every prosecutor, whatever sources close to the investigation say, it is accepted as gospel and truth.
	And yet now we're learning that the Ronnie Earl sources close to the investigation can't be trusted.
	They don't have any evidence.
	It's just, it's an amazing thing to watch.
	And how does this happen?
	It happens because there is a desire on the part of people who report this for the worst to be true, particularly when it involves Republicans.
	So the Plain case, it has to be about Rove.
	I don't know where this is going.
	I haven't the slightest idea where it's going, folks.
	I can't tell you.
	I can tell you what I'm hoping.
	I hope this prosecutor has this case thrown out on him down in Texas, Ronnie Earle, on the basis this indictment is worthless.
	I hope that when this independent counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, does whatever he does, that it is a total shock and a surprise to the people who have Rove convicted, who have Scooter Libby convicted.
	My hope and dream is that the person passing around her identity was a member of the media.
	But I don't know what's going to happen.
	But yet, even now, you find people on television and in the newspapers.
	Tell these are these are these are gruesome days.
	These are very, very, very, very pressing and troubling days for the Bush administration.
	They are convinced that they know where this is going.
	They've got themselves convinced now, hey, you know, this is not even about the original crime because there wasn't a crime there.
	Her identity, she wasn't covert, so there's no crime there.
	It's not about this is about perjury.
	This is about obstruction of justice.
	Those terms are right out of Watergate, are they not?
	Conspiracy to obstruct justice.
	Oh, God, it sounds so bad.
	And now we've got stories.
	Yes, Rove will resign.
	Rove will resign if he's in.
	Well, of course he will.
	It isn't news, but it's all presented as it's just a fate accompli, folks.
	We know it's going to happen.
	And I don't have the slightest idea, but I will tell you that I hope something as big as a shocking surprise as anybody could conceive is the, I guess, the biggest thing could happen is for Fitzgerald to come out and say, got nothing.
	Thanks for your time.
	We looked everywhere, but we got nothing.
	He'd be vilified.
	Well, maybe not.
	He's been respected.
	No, I mean, this guy's the greatest prosecutor.
	Ken Starr was not.
	Ken Starr.
	No, no, don't.
	They've said some great things about Fitzgerald.
	He's doing great work out there.
	This guy's a no-nonsense prosecutor.
	He's taking on the Chicago City mob, and he's doing all these great blah, blah, blah.
	Again, bottom line is nobody knows, folks.
	And so whatever you're reading from anybody who claims to know where this is headed, forget it because you don't know.
	We don't know.
	They don't know.
	And it won't.
	By the way, you know, October 28th, he could impanel a new grand jury for 18 more months.
	This may not be over as soon as they think.
	We don't know.
	We just don't know.
	Back in a minute.
	All right, to the phones, we go to Traverse City, Michigan.
	Hello, and you are up next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Hi.
	Hello, Rush, and multiple dittos.
	And I want you to know you make more sense than anybody on the planet.
	So I wanted to tell you that.
	I appreciate that.
	I agree, and thank you very much.
	You're welcome.
	But I have a question, and I hope you can answer it.
	If Judith Miller, back to her, if Judith Miller does not remember who told her about Valerie Plain, and if she doesn't know, why did she spend all those months in jail?
	Well, there are only theories on that.
	The two big theories are that she feels, how shall I say, she feels distant from her liberal media colleagues.
	See, what is not well known is that, and especially if you go to these left-wing websites that are the Democrat-based, they hate this woman because she was the one person of the New York Times pushing the fact that there were weapons of mass destruction.
	And they think Bush lied.
	They think Bush made it all up.
	They don't think there was any intelligence from other intelligence agencies from other nations around the world.
	The whole thing about weapons of mass destruction was made up, and she helped.
	She, in effect, was using the pages of the New York Times to advance the Bush agenda.
	And she is estranged from her colleagues in the mainstream press.
	So one theory holds that she went to jail to do some hard time so that she could get back in their good graces to show what a committed principled journalist she was.
	The second theory is that she did this to get a big book deal.
	And did she get one?
	Well, they're saying she's got one, but she said in the New York Times over the weekend that she doesn't have one, I think, in this interview.
	But those are just some of the theories.
	I'll tell you something else.
	You talk about, I mentioned the crackup.
	The crackup on the left is even deeper because I was reading the left has a website, very left-wing website called Editor and Publisher.
	And it's a bunch of people who claim to be representatives of the mainstream press, morals, ethics, objectives.
	They're just a bunch of left-wing hacks.
	And they've got some story from some ex-CBS journalist who was in the foreign correspondent area.
	And he says, it's even worse than we knew because Judy Miller got a security clearance from the Department of Defense when she was embedded with one of these teams looking for weapons of mass destruction.
	And what they say that means is that Judy could not report anything she saw that was of a secure nature.
	So that means to them that she agreed to keep the administration secrets if there were any.
	And they're really mad at her.
	So now the left-wing blogs and the kooks out there have had it with the New York Times.
	They've had it with Little Pinch.
	They've had it with Thomas Friedman.
	They've had it, because he's defending Miller.
	They've had it with the whole New York Times.
	The New York Times is in the tank for Bush because of Judy Miller and because they're supporting Judy Miller.
	They want Judy Miller hung up probably next to Bush when both of them go down.
	So, I mean, the crackup on the left that is happening unreported and unseen unless you go out and look for it and find it yourself is hilarious.
	And her purported reason for going to prison is false.
	She didn't really go to prison to protect a source.
	Is that correct?
	Well, no, no, no, no.
	I said these are theories.
	I don't know why she went to jail.
	I don't know the woman.
	Maybe she didn't want to go on that Mediterranean cruise with her husband.
	Well, okay.
	It's all a mystery.
	I hope it gets solved pretty soon because I'm really curious.
	What is there to solve?
	She says she doesn't know who gave her the name.
	I know, but, you know, but it's being made a very big thing.
	And it's much ado about nothing, I think.
	It is much ado about nothing.
	In fact, this Wilson guy, actually, my hope and dream is that this guy's going to get nailed by the special prosecutor.
	This guy came back, told an absolute bunch of lies in a New York Times op-ed.
	He never filed a written report when he got back from Niger when he was supposedly sent over there by Cheney to check on the Iraqis trying to buy yellow cake, uranium.
	He never filed a written report, yet he's out there saying that Cheney read the report and said, we've got to get even with this guy because he's selling us out.
	In fact, he came back, gave an oral report that pretty much confirmed what everybody thought about the Iraqis trying to get yellow cake.
	This is such a convoluted thing, it defies explanation.
	You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
	Okay, welcome back, folks.
	Nice to have you with us here, the cutting edge of societal evolution, El Rushbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Let's see, people have been waiting a long, let me grab some phone calls here.
	I've got some audio soundbites I want to get into.
	Sandy, Hartville, Ohio, welcome to the EIB Network.
	Great to have you with us.
	Hell, Rush.
	Thank you.
	It's an honor to talk to you.
	Wondered if you could explain to me why a Karl Rove or a Scooter Libby would even talk to the New York Times or the Washington Post when they know they're going to be undermined.
	Well, I'll be glad to tell you that.
	I'd be glad to tell you that.
	Answer is not going to please you.
	But when you live and work in Washington, the people you think you have to improve, impress, keep on your side, keep in a loop are the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC.
	You talk to them, but you're always trying to work them to shape their stories in your favor and behalf.
	It's that culture.
	I mean, they are the newspapers of that town.
	They are the newspapers.
	They're the newspapers that everybody in that town reads, from all the ambassadors, all of the embassy types to the media types.
	So you have to talk to them.
	It's how you talk to them, what you say to them that I would do differently were I there, I think.
	Easy for me to say, having not been in the position of having to talk to the media as a member of the presidential staff or administration.
	But it's just the nature of the beast.
	And this is one of the reasons why the mainstream press still consider themselves so empowered.
	And all candor now, the New York Times, the Washington Post are not papers written for the American people.
	That was going to be my point.
	There's the whole rest of the country out here.
	Well, see, this program is done for the American people.
	Thank you.
	Well, no, but there's a reason.
	I mean, see, I don't have any influence over the administration, contrary to what people think.
	I don't have any influence over members of Congress.
	I can't sit here and tell them what they ought to do as though I'm an advisor or though I'm an editorial writer for one of these newspapers and scare them into doing things.
	So what I've, my objective has always been just to attract as many members of this audience among the American people as I can and create a mobilized base of informed voters because I think elections count because elections produce results.
	Elections produce mandates and this sort of thing.
	Now, when you win the elections and you go to Washington, you have a whole different media constituency there.
	And that's why I think some people there lose touch with the American people because their constituency groups become the media, become the Washington Post, the New York Times, and that's who they've got to spin, keep happy, or better yet, keep them not angry and biased against you if you're the Republican president in the White House.
	And this was what was so great about Ronald Reagan.
	Ronald Reagan continued to talk to the American people.
	He drew his strength from the American people.
	He didn't care about the Post and the New York Times.
	He didn't even read them.
	I don't think Bush does either.
	But his policymakers obviously do, and they're very much concerned with how they can influence them.
	But Reagan went right over the heads of all of those people, right straight to the hearts and minds of the American people.
	And I think that's one of the reasons he wins in two landslides.
	He is one of the reasons that he was so loved and so adored, as illustrated by the outpouring of affection at his funeral.
	Oh, I agree.
	So any number of ways to approach this, but my problem with being a Republican in Washington dealing with the New York Times, the Washington Post, is you're always going to be on defense.
	Oh, that's right.
	And you're swimming upstream all the time.
	Yep.
	And you count your victories by what you get in the New York Times or the Washington Post rather than counting them by how you're persuading the American people.
	And by the way, when it comes to advancing an agenda, how can you advance a conservative agenda with the New York Times or the Washington Post?
	You can't.
	They're not interested in that.
	So you don't spend your time trying to advance a movement or an agenda.
	You spend your time trying to spin a bunch of liberals in the media to not hate you as much as they otherwise would.
	You advance an agenda with the American people.
	You advance a movement with the voters, with the American people.
	And this, I think, is what explains the disconnect.
	So when Rove talks to these people, and they call him, he can't, they're calling him, by the way, in this case, this is another thing to keep in mind.
	It's the media.
	It's Matt Cooper and all the other.
	They're calling him.
	They're calling Scooter Libby and they're calling Rove.
	And they're calling under the auspices of wanting to know about Medicare entitlements or welfare reform or some such thing.
	And then this CIA thing comes up.
	And in Matt Cooper's case, he spelled out a scenario.
	And Rove said, wait a minute, you're heading down the wrong path with this and tried to save Cooper some embarrassment.
	And that's what's led to all this speculation that Rove gave up the identity of a covert CIA agent when she wasn't even covert.
	This thing has become so bastardized.
	And it's just a, it's a the worst thing that can happen to you also as a conservative Republican, and I've warned them about this, is to end up in that town and after a few short days, weeks, or months thinking that you've persuaded them that they're your friend now, because they'll never be the friend of a Republican or a conservative, never.
	They might act like it just to get more access or to get more free-flowing information, but there's a lot of traps in that town, which is why when I go there, it's get in, get it, and get out.
	I try to be on the ground less than four hours in that town every time I go there.
	If I'm on the ground more than four hours, it's a risky situation.
	Chuck in Fort Walton Beach.
	Welcome, sir.
	Nice to have you on the program.
	Well, thank you very much.
	The first thing I'd like to do is thank you for your efforts on behalf of the leukemia lymphoma society.
	Thank you, sir.
	What you've done the last couple of years is outstanding.
	I was watching Fox News Sunday yesterday when Chris Wallace was interviewing Durbin of Illinois, just getting rid of change.
	And Chris asked him the question, well, what is your plan for Iraq?
	Talking about the Democrats.
	And he hemmed in the hard little bit.
	And then he repeated the question and pressed him, well, what is your answer or your plan for the Democrats in Iraq?
	And Durbin went on to say, well, he hemmed in the hard a little bit, and I thought he said something.
	Well, we'll oversee what the administration is doing and hold them accountable.
	And I immediately thought to myself, well, his answer is let George do it.
	But I'd like your response to that.
	Well, we have the sound bites here.
	We can listen to it.
	So if I understand it, what you're saying is that Durbin, your interpretation of Durbin's answer is that they're going to hold Bush accountable for what happens.
	It's Bush's problem.
	The Democrats' plan is to hold Bush accountable.
	Is that what you say you heard Durbin say?
	That's what I thought I heard.
	All right.
	Well, we have three sound bites here.
	Let's go to the first one.
	It is indeed on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace talking to Senator Dick Turbin of Illinois.
	And Wallace says there are 32 Iraqi battalions, about 27,000 Iraqi soldiers who are trained now to lead counterinsurgency with the support of U.S. forces.
	What's the Democratic plan?
	What would you do now in Iraq, Senator Durbin?
	Let me also add to the figures you've just given.
	Over 150,000 American troops now in the field in Iraq, the largest number since the invasion.
	We now know from disclosures by Generals Casey and Abbiz Aid that only one Iraqi battalion, one out of over 100 battalions, is prepared to stand and fight alone.
	It doesn't give you confidence that American soldiers will be replaced soon with Iraqi soldiers.
	Okay, so did anybody hear an answer?
	Did anybody hear an answer the question, what is your plan?
	I did not.
	I just want to go on.
	I did not hear an answer to what is your plan.
	All I heard was what I said earlier.
	All Durbin's looking at is how can we get the troops home?
	That to them is victory, folks.
	Whether we end up winning there or not, bringing the troops home is victory.
	All right.
	Well, let's go to the next bite because Wallace follows up.
	Senator, to be fair, as I just pointed out, 27,000 Iraqis are able to lead counterinsurgency.
	And frankly, in your answer, I still didn't hear a plan.
	Well, I can tell you what the plan is as far as I'm concerned.
	The plan is to move Iraqi toward Iraqis toward political stability and toward their own safety and security taken up on their own.
	And our position on the Democratic side is to make sure that we hold this administration accountable in ways it's not been held before.
	We can do better in Iraq.
	America can do better.
	Well, I think, Chuck, you're right out there.
	Basically, the Democrat plan is to make sure that Bush does this transfer of power, okay.
	And if he doesn't, then what?
	What's their plan if Bush screws it up?
	Their plan is to get Bush, folks.
	Their plan is to nail Bush.
	Their plan is to crucify Bush.
	Their plan is to, no matter what happens, Bush is going to fail at it.
	Bush doesn't have a chance.
	We're going to demand more cuts.
	Our plan is Democrats.
	We're going to demand more accountability.
	It doesn't even cross his mind.
	Not once does it cross his mind to say, Chris, if this president screws it up, we're going to win this.
	If this president messes it up, we're going to speed up the timetables.
	We're going to get those troops trained.
	We're going to be able to get those people ready to defend themselves.
	There's a way to do it.
	And I have a way to do it.
	Here it is, blah, blah.
	Doesn't once cross his mind to say we're going to win this.
	Doesn't once cross his mind to suggest if Bush screws it up, we know how to do it.
	All that he can say is, we're going to let the American people know when Bush screwed up.
	And that alone will launch us back to the seats of power to which we are entitled by virtue of our status as Democrats.
	And beyond that, you have no right to know what we're going to do because you can't stop us anyway.
	Back after this.
	One more audio soundbite here from Senator Durbin.
	I think, let's see.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Cut five here.
	Chris Wallace says, well, I wanted to go to one last subject with Harriet Myers.
	About everything you've heard, what do you think of her as a nominee for the Supreme Court?
	I don't think the president did her a favor this last week by bringing up her religion as part of the reason why she should be considered positively as a nominee.
	I believe that's the first time in history that any president has pointed directly at a nominee's religion in suggesting that's what qualifies them to serve on the court.
	It's going to make for a very difficult line of inquiry at our hearing.
	Yeah, I keep going back to Durbin and his Iraq answers saying, oh, we can do better in Iraq.
	Well, actually, we can do better in Illinois.
	Why do we have to settle for senators like Dick Durbin from Illinois?
	I mean, if you want to talk about where we can do better, we can do better there.
	I've got to get you some audio soundbites of Calypso Louie, folks, before we get out of here from the Millions More or Less march, which occurred.
	What was it, Saturday?
	Saturday in Washington.
	You know, you wonder, where was the crowd?
	I mean, it was a million people.
	It's going to be bigger than ever.
	Why, last Jim they did this, it was just men.
	Black men had to go and get their lives straightened out.
	But now they can bring their wives.
	They could bring their kids.
	It was just going to be huge out there.
	But the turnout was low.
	Very low.
	Too many African Americans are tending to their homes, I guess, mowing their lawns, driving their SUVs, picking up stuff for the barbecues in the back patio, prepping for meetings at the office after the weekend.
	Why waste your time at Calypso Louie's event?
	So here's Calypso Louie, a portion of his remarks Saturday at the Million More or Less march.
	I firmly believe that if the people on those rooftops had blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin, something would have been done in a more timely manner.
	We charge America with criminal neglect.
	I hope that the lawyers will look into that because a class action suit on behalf of those who have suffered is absolutely necessary.
	We need to call witnesses to witness stands under the oath of being able to be charged with perjury.
	We want to know what happened to the levee.
	We don't want to guess about it.
	We don't want to be guilty of following rumors.
	We want to know what happened on that levee that caused the suffering of so many thousands of people.
	Okay, so this designed to be a spiritually uplifting event where the attendees were to be told about how they need to start banding together to take care of themselves, to not be so dependent, because being so dependent has caused much of their misery.
	Get out there and fend for yourself.
	But there might have been some of that, but apparently the big newsmaker items were the New Orleans situation, the levy.
	Well, not well, you mean you're backing off because the bombing?
	Well, he's been very careful.
	Mr. Snurdley is having a conniption fit because he thinks Calypso Louie is backing off his claim that the levees there were blown up.
	Sounds like he is retracing some steps here and now saying it all about rumors.
	But I think Calypso Louie was very careful from the outset.
	He never said he knew for sure.
	He said he had heard.
	He had some evidence.
	He now doesn't want to have to rely on rumors.
	He wants an investigation.
	He's just trying to keep the thought alive.
	The Reverend Jackson says keep hope alive.
	Calypso Louie is saying keep that thought alive that the levee was blown up.
	Bring in people under threat of perjury.
	Next bite, another portion of his remarks.
	Calypso Louis, this is not good.
	You Democrats think you love it when Calypso Louis gets out there and starts ripping and railing the Bush administration, but he's not happy with you either.
	We need to think about a new political party.
	I really want you to think about that.
	The Democrats have used us and abused us, and they look at the black and the brown and the poor like this is a plantation.
	And our Democratic leaders are like the House Negroes on the plantation of Democratic politics.
	Getting close to how this program has sounded in the past, talking about white liberals keeping the plantation alive and so forth.
	So this is this is this can't sit well with the with the Democrat hierarchy because here's Calypso Louie now telling them, hey, get off the plantation.
	It's not going to, I mean, it's not going to have profound effect, but it's just, it's somebody not allied with them.
	It represents a possible fissure in the coalition.
	Before we go, folks, we got one Louis Free bite here that I actually have two, but I've got time for one from Meet the Press yesterday.
	Question from Tim Russert.
	And let me see, is this the bite that I want to play?
	This is the better bite.
	Russert says, Mr. Berger, I'm not going to have time to get this in.
	Darn it.
	I'm not going to have time to get any of them in.
	They're too long.
	We have to go to a commercial break.
	So, cookie, save these for tomorrow because these are fascinating bites from Louis Free on Meet the Press yesterday.
	In one of these bites, he talks about a letter the Clinton administration sent to the Iranians that is just, I mean, it's totally believable, but it is nevertheless shocking.
	And he does a pretty good teardown of the administration in both these bites.
	We'll save that for you tomorrow.
	Quick timeout now.
	Back in just a jiffy to close it out.
	Sadly, we've run out of time, ladies and gentlemen.
	I have to get out of here and move on, but we will be back tomorrow.
	Do it all over again.
	Going to be here all week with Open Line Friday ending the week, of course.
	And we'll have the Ditto Cam on.
	I promise tomorrow I'll make it all three hours asking me to do a fourth hour now to do the Louis Free stuff.
	And I believe me, I would much rather do that than what I've got to do.
	But I can't.
	But I'll make it up.
	I'll give you a fourth hour at some point.
	Well, I've got to go to New York.
	So I'll give you a fourth hour soon to make up for it.
	Maybe even this week.
	Look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
	Adios and Cheerio.

▲