Rush Limbaugh Program - October 26, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 26, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:15

October 26, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, welcome back, my friends.
	Nice to have you with us as your host for Life L. Rush Ball here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
	The EIB network rolls on in the fastest three hours in media.
	It's great to have you with us.
	A delight to be with you.
	Our telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program today, is 800-282-2882.
	And if you want to go the email route, and slowly but surely, we're getting this email back up.
	It's been a couple days.
	I mean, I only started getting today's emails.
	Well, only started getting Monday and Tuesday's emails this morning.
	The main server, the Russian EIBNet.com server is in Florida.
	And we rolled over to our ISDN backup, but the power down there has been intermittent and spotty.
	And it's just now starting to normalize.
	So you can use that route or the phone if you want to reach us, get ahold of us, 800-282-2882.
	I checked the email during the break here at Top of the Hour.
	People, are you serious?
	You think 89% profits from ConocoPhillips is good?
	It's absolutely right, folks.
	I'm a capitalist.
	That's what they're in business for.
	Here's the details.
	ConocoPhillips, the number three U.S. oil company on Wednesday, reported quarterly profits surged 89%, surpassing Wall Street forecasts, driven by record oil prices and sharply higher refining margins.
	ConocoPhillips, like other major oil companies, has reaped a windfall from soaring crude oil prices, which touched a record $70 a barrel in the quarter and better refining margins as the powerful hurricanes blew through the Gulf of Mexico, severely disrupting energy operations.
	ConocoPhillips is in Houston.
	That's where they're based.
	Net profit the third quarter rose to $3.8 billion, or about $2.68 a share.
	If you've got stock in ConocoPhillips, you are sitting pretty.
	I love capitalism.
	Here we are in economic, supposedly an economic downturn.
	I love it when these companies show profits like that.
	It shows the way, shows how it can be done.
	Now, I'll tell you something else.
	We're going to need profits like that if Mrs. Clinton gets her wish.
	Because this story cleared yesterday, the AP Wire.
	Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the government to collect billions of dollars in new taxes from major oil companies and to use the money to fund energy research and to help consumers cope with the high price of heating oil this winter.
	Hillary Clinton told a group of clean energy investors and advocates that a major new push toward efficient use of oil, gas and wind, and solar energy was needed to confront a looming energy crisis.
	The recent spikes in gas and oil prices following storms in the Gulf Coast, she said, have exposed the administration's policy for what it is, using an umbrella to fend off a hurricane.
	Oh, contrary, Mrs. Clinton.
	Your policies are what have gotten us into the trouble.
	You don't allow new drilling.
	You don't allow new refineries.
	You don't allow new exploration.
	We regulate the oil industry practically like no other.
	Any impedance to adding to our energy supply in this country is offered by Libs.
	They're all for wind farms, right?
	Until you want to put it where they live.
	Then you can't put the wind farm where Walter Cronkite's needle windmills.
	Yeah, so they're putting a wind farm down in Texas.
	Did you hear this?
	You probably didn't.
	The story from yesterday stacked that I didn't get to.
	They're putting a wind farm down in Texas.
	Texans, okay, well, fine.
	If you don't want it where you live, we'll have it here.
	We're big in energy down here.
	But a wind farm isn't going to do diddly squat.
	They've got wind farms all over California, and it hasn't bailed them out, and it hasn't helped them.
	This is more of this mushy, touchy, sound-good, feel-good, ring-their hands liberalism.
	Wind farms.
	What a joke.
	It's an absolute joke.
	This is a major American superpower, a world superpower.
	Wind farms?
	We are not the Dutch.
	And we don't have little windmills out there.
	And we don't have people to go plug their fingers in the dikes and we have leaks.
	This is a major superpower.
	And we're not going to get where we're going with windmills.
	But nevertheless, the left wants to focus on that.
	And here comes Mrs. Clinton calling for a $20 billion fund from oil companies, a new tax, a new tax on oil companies to fund alternative research.
	Why go after the oil companies?
	There's all kinds of waste and fraud in the federal budget, as we well know.
	Why not kill the bridge to Alaska?
	Well, because Ted Stevens might commit suicide, so we can't do that.
	Why not go get some of the money we give to Robert Byrd in West Virginia, have all those highways and roads named after him and spend it on something like this?
	No, we have to go out and punish evil oil.
	And we have to do that because that's what liberal voters want to do.
	So, if oil companies are going to have to face new taxes of $20 billion, they better hope they can keep showing 89% profits.
	As far as Mrs. Clinton is concerned, why don't we just make oil free?
	Why doesn't she just say what she really means?
	Oil and gasoline ought to be free to people.
	It's gotten so expensive, people can't afford it.
	Same thing with healthcare.
	We need a national oil policy and we need a national health care policy.
	When people can't afford it, the government just gives it away, as far as people think.
	The dirty little secret here, folks, is that any increase in fees or taxes that are levied upon oil companies will be bounced right back to you, the consumer.
	Whatever they end up paying, any corporation will pass along whatever increased costs it can in the form of higher prices.
	So here we are.
	We're in the midst of the gloom and despair of the corrupt Bush administration and the grim milestone of 2,000 deaths.
	And the poor consumer outlook comes, and we got a hero on a white horse with a message of hope from Hope, Arkansas: Hillary Clinton wanting to level a $20 billion tax on the oil companies.
	By the way, a lot of you are concerned about Mrs. Clinton running for president.
	You know you are.
	You're scared about it.
	You let me know about it every time you can.
	And some people have said, Rush, well, don't worry about it.
	I mean, she's going to be affected by campaign finance reform just like everybody else is.
	Oh, folks, if you think that you may be sadly mistaken.
	Have you seen this latest news item?
	Sandy Burgler and longtime Al Gore senior aide have joined other friends of Hillary as advisors on this new TV show, Commander-in-Chief, starring Gina Davis as the first female president of the United States.
	In fact, Gina Davis goes on Oprah and Oprah says, What was it like?
	I have to know.
	I just have to know.
	What was it like the first time you walked in the Oval Office?
	Oh, Oprah.
	Oh, it was so meaningful.
	Oh, it was this.
	It was, I had tears in my eyes.
	It was a movie set.
	She's never been in the Oval Office specifically as president.
	Yet there they are acting all this out as though that show is for real.
	Now, if Sandy Burgler and other aides and friends of Hillary are advisors on this new Commanderet-in-Chief show, that's just another way Hillary can get around campaign finance laws because they can use this show to advertise Hillary, to talk about what Hillary's policies would be, put them in place.
	Everybody got everybody thinking this is already a forerunner to Hillary's presidency.
	So just write the scripts every week so that this babe, Gina Davis, does what Hillary does.
	And it's a free commercial.
	It runs.
	How long is this show?
	Is this an hour every week?
	You got a free, basically one-hour-long spot ad for the Hillary Clinton presidency.
	So when our military goes into battle, TV shows start with long-distance bombing, painting the terrain, it's called.
	They can do any number of things on this program to symbolize how Mrs. Clinton would do it.
	They can create a war in a place like Iraq and show how it can be over in maybe an episode or two.
	With the Iraqis cheering in the streets as Mrs. Clinton rides in, they can do any number.
	Well, Gina Davis rides in.
	And they can fix the energy problem, folks.
	They can come up with an alternative.
	This is television.
	They can come up with an alternative energy source in week eight that every American will be driving in week 10.
	And it'll be 35 cents a gallon and we will be saving so much oil and we will have pictures of the earth and the country with no pollution whatsoever.
	Babies, no problems.
	Old people 125 years old out playing soccer.
	Any number of things that they can do to illustrate what the Hillary Clinton presidency would be like, and it would be totally devoid of any governance of campaign finance reform.
	I mean, you could even have a John Kerry figure.
	Hillary could, you know, if she wants to do away with her own opponents in the Democratic primary, you have a John Kerry figure, and you portray this guy as the biggest bumbling boob ever, making him out to be a total idiot, but you're a nice person as president, so you give him some hero medal for being a great war hero and so forth in the great American War, Vietnam.
	But otherwise, you portray him as an absolute idiot who can't get out of his own way, falls off of his bicycle when he's riding it, turns over his canoe out there in Boston's Lake Charles or wherever, the Charles River.
	Just portray him as a total idiot.
	Wesley Clark, whoever else wants the job, have characters representing them, you know, sniping at the heels of Gina Davis, aka Mrs. Clinton, and make them out to be the biggest bumbling idiots and create pasts for them to show that whatever their policies are, they would have gotten us right where we are today.
	So make no mistake, that's what this show is about and what the opportunity to have, you know, John Edwards, the John Edwards character, every time he's on TV, he's in the hairstylist place getting shampooed with brick and having his hair blown dry while he's talking about two Americas, but you never see him out there anywhere.
	You see him in a living in a huge mansion in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, with all kinds of servants talking about the two Americas, or he's in the barber's chair getting his hair blown dry.
	Any number of things they can do.
	I'm going to keep watching to see if, in fact, they use the show this way.
	Be right back, folks.
	Stay with us.
	Talent on loan from God, America's anchorman, El Rushball, here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	All right.
	I want to go back to this CIA thing, this indictment possibility story, for one reason.
	Because I want to address one thing about this, you people.
	If there are indictments, and if, come on in, and yeah, come on in.
	For some reason, I don't know if the cleaning crew comes in here and I don't know how the cleaning crew could get up there, but every day the camera, the Ditto cam ends up improperly aimed.
	I end up offset just a hair back the other way to the hair back.
	There you go.
	Dead center.
	All right.
	Perfect.
	Appreciate the patience of you ditto cameras out there.
	People have been speculating, if somebody high up like a Rove or a Libby, whoever is indicted, what should Bush do?
	I have the answer.
	But that answer is derived from my putting myself in Bush's shoes.
	See, I would be livid.
	I would be livid, no matter what I've said about the dignified way the investigation is taking place.
	So I would be livid, and I say, okay, you're going to try to get my guys out of here?
	You obviously think these guys have been making all decisions?
	Fine.
	Here, you're going to get what you want.
	Every decision from now on out is mine.
	And here's what I'm going to do.
	First thing I'm going to do is pull Harriet Myers, and I'm going to give the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court I can.
	It's going to be Michael Ludig.
	It's going to be Janice Rogers Brown.
	I don't care.
	It's going to be somebody you people are going to hate, and I'm going to fight, and I'm going to get this person confirmed.
	Next thing I'm going to do, I'm bomb Syria.
	I'm through messing around with a war on terror.
	I'm going to sit over there.
	And now we got the Iranians, and they're sitting there saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map.
	Nothing's changed.
	I'm going to take care of them too.
	I'm going to create so many damn news stories for you people in the media that you won't know what to cover first.
	And I'm going to make so many damn much bigger news stories than this stupid CIA story.
	And I'm going to have you people spinning for the rest two years of my administration because in the last two years of my administration, I'm making the decisions and I'm going to make sure everything I want happens.
	And I'm going to stop trying to send out this little hand of friendship with you people.
	I've tried working with you and I've found out that it can't be done.
	So barrels are going to be loaded and aimed right at you.
	And we're going to be peddled to the metal, conservative through and through.
	And this is what I'm going to give you.
	And if you don't like it, then go try to put me in jail next time.
	I would flood the media with so many stories they wouldn't know what to cover.
	Stories that they hated.
	Actions that they despised.
	I'd rewrite the education bill.
	I'd put a stop on this illegal immigration.
	I would do all of these things.
	I would have real budget cuts.
	And I mean cuts.
	I would propose them and I'd bring the Republicans up to the White House, say, okay, you cowards, we're going to stand together now.
	They're trying to take us out, and here's what we're going to do.
	We got two years that we're going to reshape this country like we've been trying to do for the previous six.
	And here's how we're going to do it.
	A, B, C, D, and E.
	But what about the press?
	What about screw the press?
	I don't care about the press.
	I care about the people of the country.
	This is what I'm going to do.
	Bam.
	Get started.
	I want reports on my desk tomorrow morning.
	Tell me how you're doing.
	And if I'm not satisfied, I'll get somebody else to do it.
	They don't think I'm making my own decisions.
	Fine.
	Every decision from this point on is mine personally.
	That's what I would do.
	I would get in there and I'd bring big oil in.
	What can we do to help you out?
	We got people trying to put you out of business.
	What can we do to help you out and get supply up and bring price now?
	What can I do to help you out?
	Media would say, what do you mean?
	You are big oil.
	That's why you went to Iraq.
	I'd make them all have heart attacks with apoplexy.
	I'd just send them like lemmings running over the cliff, not knowing which story to cover first.
	I'd have them calling Judy Miller.
	Judy, what should we do?
	You're tight with these people.
	What should we do?
	Which story is more important here?
	Meanwhile, all they'd do is follow this investigation to see if Rove and Libby are going to go to jail.
	That's what I would do.
	Here is Kay in Greeley, Colorado.
	Hi, Kay.
	Welcome to the EIB Network.
	Hi, Rush.
	Thank you very much for, I like that last bit.
	But I'm very upset because you ran with the Myers story like it was up to everybody to decide what to do about that, yet you wanting us to leave the Libby story alone, Rove, Carl Roe story alone.
	And at the same time, you quoted President Reagan several times last Tuesday.
	I came out of my chair about an hour and a half into the program when you said, we need, he said, do not trust a man.
	And yet we as the American public voted President Bush in.
	We did not, we trusted him enough to vote for him, and yet you go on to say, but trust you.
	I'm just upset about that, Rush.
	You can tell.
	Yeah, and don't do that.
	I think you're so wound up you're missing the subtle humor that I'm offering.
	Yes, because when I said, trust me, it was designed to make you feel like you did.
	But you say it honestly.
	Well, unreal.
	Well, no, I don't.
	No, and when I do, it is.
	Well, I say trust you when the information's right, when I'm telling you the truth about something, yeah.
	But you're upset about Harriet Myers.
	That's the basic thing.
	Because you think I have prejudged Harriet Myers.
	Yes, you and Krabhammer and all of the other guys that we're talking about.
	Don't lump me with those.
	Look at a lot of those guys have out there called for her to withdraw or for Bush to pull her nomination.
	I've not done that.
	And I have made it plain.
	I don't know anything about her.
	She may be fined.
	This is not my, my problem with this is not related to those things.
	But President Bush knows her, and the American people voted for him.
	So we can trust him until we know something.
	Even Senator Lincoln.
	Let's go back to the Reagan quote because it's relevant here.
	Jimmy Carter, what Reagan said in his acceptance speech at the GOP convention in the summer of 1980 was Mr. Carter said, trust him.
	And it led to four years of economic melees.
	And all Reagan's point was this.
	He said, look, we are not the kind of country.
	We are a representative republic.
	We do not ask our people to put all their trust in one man.
	The political class in this country is supposed to trust the American people, and we're supposed to then honor that trust.
	And that trust derives from having won elections and being elected.
	We are to trust that they put their judgment in us.
	This is the elected official speaking.
	That's what Reagan meant.
	I simply point that out only to say that blind trust in any individual is not the way this country operates.
	This is why I get so upset when Democrats talk about FDR.
	He could not do any wrong as far as they're concerned.
	And yet if you look at the issues that matter to them, civil rights, going to war, nuking people, something, FDR led the way, but they somehow forget because, well, we trusted him.
	And I agree with you.
	I agree with you.
	It's just that I think since President Bush was elected by the American people, he is our voice.
	And I want to wait and see what really comes of the hearings.
	That's what I have said.
	And at the same time, I've said that there were better people that I do know a lot about that would have accomplished a lot more.
	You can't possibly have missed all I've said about this.
	If you have, then you're not paying enough attention.
	You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
	Why am I the most dangerous man in America?
	A, because I'm right.
	B, because they've tried to destroy me and discredit me and have failed.
	And C, you trust me.
	800-282-2882.
	If you just kidding on the latter, folks.
	800-282-2882 is the number.
	All right.
	Here's the latest on the CIA news.
	And folks, I can't tell you how happy this makes me if only because I know how utterly let down, depressed, and destroyed the media is today.
	Because today was the day.
	This was Christmas morning.
	The packages were going to be there under the tree.
	Sealed, yes.
	But you know how kids are with packages.
	It doesn't take long to open them.
	And they were going to open those indictments.
	And they were going to find out that it was Rove and that it was Libby and that it was Cheney.
	And maybe a couple of other surprises thrown in.
	Why they've been telling us for the past three weeks, indictments are coming tomorrow or the next day.
	They told us last night the indictments were coming today.
	They told us the indictments had been prepared.
	The indictments were sealed.
	One to five.
	Scooter Libby and Carl Roven may be Cheney.
	First, Reuters.
	Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he was done today after meeting with the grand jury in the CIA leak investigation.
	Grand jurors left the courthouse earlier.
	Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has left district court, is not expected back to court today.
	Fitzgerald later left the building following the session with no comment.
	The grand jurors were also seen leaving the building with no announcement of any indictments from the Associated Press.
	The federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity met for three hours Wednesday with Patrick Fitzgerald and adjourned for the day without announcing any action.
	Fitzgerald is known to be putting the finishing touches on a two-year criminal probe.
	After the grand jury left for the day, federal prosecutors conferred for about an hour in the grand jury area of the federal courthouse.
	There was no word on whether Fitzgerald planned to make any announcement or whether the grand jury planned to even meet again.
	They're lost.
	This is of all the news they were expecting.
	Folks, do you understand?
	Santa Claus didn't show.
	It's not that there's sticks and stones and whatever your little puppy dog tails under the tree.
	There's nothing there.
	Well, it's only 1.30.
	He's giving up at 1.30.
	Here's a full day.
	He could have gotten the indictments today, but it's only one thing.
	He quit.
	The media, the media is going to be concerned here because they'll say, you know, it would seem to take more time than this to get big indictments.
	If you go for the grand jury and if you get big indictments coming and he met with them and they got nothing and so forth, oh, Ronnie, yeah, yeah, Ronnie Earl, if he didn't like it, he would have got a new grand jury in there.
	What's this Fitzgerald guy doing?
	Why can't they do what Ronnie Earl did?
	Three grand juries failed?
	Fine, I'll get a fourth and I'll get a foreman who doesn't care about the evidence and then we'll get an indictment.
	Why can't he do what Ronnie Earl did?
	I'm telling you, you can't imagine how this news, even though maybe it just constitutes a delay and nothing more, they were so convinced, folks, it was happening today all week.
	It was going to happen Wednesday.
	And now Fitzgerald has gone home.
	He may have gone to country club.
	Who knows?
	May go out, play golf.
	Don't know what the guy does at 1.30 in the afternoon, but the grand jurors have gone home, too.
	You know what?
	Maybe the FBI agent found some neighbors that say, oh, yeah, we knew she was CIA.
	They flew the CIA flag out in front of the house.
	Maybe Fitzgerald says, oh, I've got a problem here.
	Who knows?
	We don't know, folks.
	We can speculate just as easily as can the media.
	Justin in Carson City, Nevada.
	You're next on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rush.
	Good to talk to you.
	Thank you, sir.
	I can imagine.
	If the oil companies could take their profits and drill with them and build refineries, then that would increase the supply and the price would go down and the oil companies wouldn't show 89% profits.
	But they're prevented from doing that, so all they have to do is bank their money because they can't increase their supply through research and development.
	So you basically are calling to defend the oil companies as well.
	Yeah, and explaining why they showed high profits, they have nothing to spend their money on because they can't expand.
	Yeah, they can't drill.
	They can't refine.
	All they can do is price gouge.
	Yep.
	When all other ways of making money fails, gouge.
	Yeah, or they're forced to because the supply's down, the price goes up.
	We are kidding, folks.
	He's got a good point here with all the regulations.
	They can't drill anywhere.
	They can't build refineries.
	They can't expand.
	And it's the futures market, by the way, that's largely responsible for this price going up, as we've discussed.
	Appreciate your input on that, Justin.
	And thanks for letting it's a pleasure.
	By the way, who was the nice lady that called about Harriet Myers?
	Yeah, Kay and Greeley.
	I know you're still out there.
	I have these two stories I was going to share with you before time ran out, and I know you're still out there.
	One of the stories you're going to like, another one you won't like.
	The first one you'll like.
	No, yeah, let's do the good news first.
	This is from the Washington Times.
	Senate Republicans yesterday dismissed conservative leaders' adamant opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Myers.
	This is absurd, said Senator Mike DeWine, the Ohio Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
	We need to move on to the hearings.
	Now, remember, DeWine is a member of that gang of 14 nitwits that basically shut down the triggering of the nuclear option.
	And he's now lashing out at conservative critics of Myers.
	Some senators, especially those viewed as seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2008, defended the right of conservatives to weigh in on the nomination, but several Republicans said that the conservatives are not offering anything constructive.
	Oh, I don't know about that.
	Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, said it's awfully hard to be critical of something that you know nothing about.
	Now, Kay, I know you're going to love that.
	You're going to love it because you think the critics don't know anything about Harriet, and it doesn't matter because Bush knows her and so forth.
	So you got an ally here in Idaho Republican Larry Craig.
	Many conservatives say that Miss Myers lacks a clear and solid record of conservative jurisprudence, could wind up being wooed by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.
	That is a fist.
	Some of the conservatives I know, I haven't taken it this far, frankly.
	If you want to know why, I'll tell you later.
	But there are some conservatives who fear that if she gets on the court, that the libs on the court will just turn her because she doesn't have enough of a conservative backbone because they can't find any evidence of a conservative backbone.
	So the libs will get hold of her and the media, and they'll turn her into one of them.
	There are some conservatives that do have that fear.
	Manuel Miranda, who has helped organize much of the opposition to Harriet Myers, said that this battle will not be forgotten by the Republican base.
	Mike Dewine's going to lose in Ohio, and he should be more aware of grassroots sediment.
	Mike Wine Dewine doesn't have a great deal of conservative support in Ohio, and ham-fisted remarks aren't going to help with that.
	Now, Mr. Miranda might, some of the base out there is all fired up behind Harriet Myers.
	This might get DeWine some support.
	I think he's reading the tea leaves out there.
	I think he thinks the base is firmly behind her and is trying to realign himself with the base, which did abandon him over his participation in that gang of 14 nitwits deal.
	But DeWine said, enough's enough.
	If I pick up one more paper and I read about one more group that I've never heard of saying they're for Myers or against Myers, it just doesn't matter at this point.
	So that's the good news.
	Here's the not-so-good news.
	This is written by Joe Becker, J.O. female in the Washington Post, in speeches from the 90s clues about Myers' views.
	Nominee defended social activism.
	Now, granted, they're relying on a 12-year-old speech.
	I'll just tell you what it says.
	Supreme Court nominee Harriet Myers said in a speech more than a decade ago that self-determination should guide decisions about abortion and school prayer, and that in cases where scientific facts are disputed and religious beliefs vary, government should not act.
	In a 1993 speech to a Dallas women's group, she talked about abortion, the separation of church and state, and how the issues play out in a legal system.
	The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination.
	And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense, meaning make up your own mind, do what you want to do.
	It's not for anybody to tell you one way or the other.
	In that speech and others in the early 1990s, when she was president of the Texas Bar, she also defended judges who order lawmakers to address social concerns.
	While judicial activism is derided by many conservatives, Harriet Myers said that sometimes officials would rather abandon to the courts the hard questions so they can respond to constituents.
	I didn't want to do that.
	The court is making me.
	Myers, who was one of the first women to become a partner in a major Texas firm, also showed sympathy for feminist causes, it says here, referring to the glass ceiling faced by professional women and urging her audience to support female candidates.
	She recruited a list of national and state female leaders that crossed the political spectrum that she admired.
	Gloria Steinem, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
	The speeches offer some of the clearest insights yet into Myers' thinking on volatile social issues that can make their way to the high court.
	Myers, currently the White House counsel, spent the majority of her career in private practice.
	Okay, speeches are not legal writings.
	Some people go make a speech.
	They know who the audience is, and they speak to what they think the audience wants to hear.
	If you're speaking to a bunch of feminists, what are you going to do?
	If you're of that mind, if you're not going to challenge them or whatever.
	Matthew Staver, the president and general counsel for the Liberty Council, a group that Mike DeWine says he's never heard of.
	This group frequently argues constitutional cases from the conservative perspective.
	This is going to be very disturbing to conservatives because I think it shows that she is a judicial activist.
	This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution.
	And then there's another story in the New York Times today that there's more and more Republican senators have doubts and questions out there about Harriet Myers.
	We'll take a break here.
	We must, because of the constraints of busy broadcast time and the format clock.
	Be right back after this.
	Back to the phones.
	This is Raleigh, North Carolina.
	Hello, Bill.
	You're next.
	Nice to have you with us, sir.
	Thank you for having me, Russ.
	You bet.
	So, yeah, essentially, I'm just kind of baffled by your Santa analogy and Christmas morning analogy.
	I just don't understand.
	Are you trying to trivialize the fact that he's trying Fitzgerald's trying to make sure he has his facts in line before he actually goes about doing these indictments?
	Because it seems to me that the administration could take something from this and make sure that they have all their facts straight before they go into something.
	You know, I sit here in stunned amazement at how some of you hear what is said articulately and clearly on this program.
	Well, I mean, I don't take all my news from your program.
	Well, but you're obviously responding to something you heard on the program just now, and you heard something I didn't say.
	You actually knew that the media was waiting for this like it was Christmas morning and that.
	Damn right they are.
	There's no question.
	You can't deny that.
	So are you?
	No, I mean, I'm not going to deny that.
	But I mean, for one thing, I don't understand why they picked Fitzgerald in the first place.
	Wouldn't have Ashcroft been a better selection?
	I mean, he was initially tapped to do this, wasn't he?
	Well, let's stay focused here because Fitzgerald's the choice and why they didn't choose somebody else's moot now.
	The point is, you think, by the way, are you not happy with Fitzgerald?
	When did that happen?
	No, I'm not unhappy with Fitzgerald at all.
	Why?
	I want to make sure that he had the special.
	Because Libby set out in early 2003 to smear Joseph Wilson, the CIA agent, Valerie Plain's husband.
	It was a smear campaign.
	So what?
	They're entitled to smear Joseph Wilson.
	Is Joseph Wilson Jesus Christ?
	Is Joseph Wilson infallible?
	Is he the Pope?
	Is Joseph Wilson God?
	Joseph Wilson is a liar.
	He's a liar.
	Bill, the people you're willing to throw in with here have me stupefied.
	But that doesn't.
	Hold on, hold on.
	You're equating.
	All right.
	So first it was the Santa Claus analogy, and now Joseph Wilson is Jesus Christ.
	This is a political dispute.
	You smear your enemies.
	Smear, meaning, in this case, they're disagreeing with him.
	He's out there lying about them.
	No, no, no.
	The smear is Joseph Wilson.
	Joseph Wilson is conducting the smear.
	He and his wife started this thing as a smear.
	But look, what I just said about Christmas morning, the media has been salivating.
	You admitted it.
	You're looking at it as Christmas morning, too.
	All I said was there are no indictments today.
	They had predicted it today.
	I'm just simply saying the media is depressed today.
	Media let down.
	Think, folks, have you ever been as a kid so excited?
	You were promised something was coming in the mail that you wanted more than anything in the world and it didn't show up.
	You know how you felt.
	That's all I'm saying is how they feel today.
	That's not a comment on how well or not Fitzgerald's doing his job.
	I'm not suggesting that Fitzgerald is not taking the time to dot the I's and cross the T's.
	I don't know what Fitzgerald is doing.
	All I'm telling you is what I do know, and that's the psychological and emotional reaction the left is happening today.
	They're looking at Fitzgerald, giving up at 1:30 in the afternoon, calling in a day, releasing the grand jury on the day they were expecting indictments.
	The day they were hoping, they were praying, they've been promising everybody indictments coming today, this week, last week, week before last.
	Still don't have the indictments.
	They're out there on a limb.
	It's a very small limb.
	We got a media scandal going on.
	Their credibility is at stake.
	They've been lying about leaks.
	They've been lying about inside sources, obviously, because the sources have been telling them indictments are coming this week, and whoever the sources today and whoever the sources are don't know anything either.
	All I'm trying to point out is the media reaction is I'm not commenting on what Fitzgerald is doing, and I won't until he does something, because I don't know, which is the whole point.
	I tell you, Investors Business Daily is on fire.
	They got a great editorial today, basically saying it's time to investigate the CIA for political activities.
	While the Bush administration hunkers down on indictment watch, Congress ought to take a look at political and possibly illegal activity by agenda-driven intelligence operatives.
	Whatever fate befalls White House advisor Karl Rove, Louis Libby, and other administration officials, there's a backstory to this case that shouldn't be ignored, and it's about the CIA itself.
	This is a story that most of the media will be trying hard not to cover.
	They share former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's stated desire to see Patrick Fitzgerald frogmarch Rove out of the White House in handcuffs.
	So Congress should leave the media no choice, hold hearings, put the CIA on the spot, blow the lid off any politically motivated funny business, bring some transparency to what has become a very murky issue.
	We believe that someone needs to answer the questions raised recently by Joe DeGenova, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel.
	Was there a covert operation against the president?
	If so, who was behind it?
	These are not the musings of a tinfoil hat brigade member.
	A sober-minded case can be made that at least some people in the CIA may have acted inappropriately to discredit the administration as a way of salvaging their own reputations after the intelligence debacles of 9-11 and Iraqi WMD.
	Another angle worth investigating: the CIA's own possible use of leaks.
	When Robert Novak revealed Playme's identity, somebody leaked the news that the CIA sent a referral to the Justice Department seeking an investigation.
	The referral was classified according to Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard, and anybody who divulged it would have been breaking the law.
	So, who leaked the referral?
	And why didn't the CIA refer this matter to justice as it did the Playmatter?
	Other things as well.
	But we have to take a break here at the top of the hour.
	Sit tight, my folks.
	Time flies on this show.

▲