Rush Limbaugh Program - October 27, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:25

October 27, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	One big exciting hour to go right here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	I am America's anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, saying more in 10 seconds than the average host says in an entire week.
	Great to have you with us.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882.
	And the email address is rush at eibnet.com.
	I need to ask a question because I'm starting to read.
	I do a lot of reading out there during the commercial breaks and so forth and the night prior to prepping this program.
	There are a lot of, I think we've even had some calls.
	Have we had some calls today or not?
	Am I just assuming we've come on previous days?
	People who have been upset at these personal attacks on Harriet Myers.
	I don't know if it's happened today, but I've been accused of personally attacking Harriet Myers and Heddick Cookie just accused me of it when I went in her to get a couple Tootsie rolls.
	She should have at least had a chance.
	The first caller was right.
	It's my own staff in mutiny.
	And I said, you have to admit I'm making my case.
	Yes, you are.
	And it makes me even madder.
	But nevertheless, there's all this talk about personal attacks out there.
	And could somebody tell me who are these people having personal attacks?
	Or who are these people making personal attacks?
	I want to know what the personal attacks are.
	No, folks, follow me on this.
	This is crucial to understand what's happened here.
	I keep hearing this business about personal attacks, but I don't know who the people are that are making these personal attacks.
	Now, I have heard people question her writing.
	I've heard people question her experience.
	I have heard people question her philosophy.
	But I don't consider those personal attacks.
	Those are, you know, professional criticisms.
	But where is the personal attack?
	I think what's happening is that the criticisms of her writing, the criticisms of her speeches, her experience, her philosophy, I think some of you may be interpreting that as personal attacks, but they're not.
	A personal attack would be if they did to her what they did to Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork if they were going through her trash and video rentals or if people were calling her names.
	You know, the libs engage in personal attacks.
	I'm not aware that anybody has tried to sabotage this woman's nomination on the basis of personal attacks.
	What you all have to understand about this is that this, again, this supposed conservative crackup, which as I accurately told you it would be, is a conservative crackdown, this has been a responsible and legitimate debate.
	Now, I know some of you have taken it personally because you trust the president.
	Harriet Myers was his nomination, and for whatever reason you liked her, thought she should have her chance.
	It's not fair.
	She didn't even have her chance.
	It's not fair.
	She's going to go to the hearings and get a chance to explain herself.
	It's not fair.
	It's not fair.
	This isn't Oprah.
	You know, Oprah's not real life.
	Oprah, you might think Oprah is real life and what happens on the Oprah show is real life, but it's not.
	It's as staged and produced as anything else that happens out there on the left.
	What has happened here in this whole Myers imbroglio is the epitome of a responsible, legitimate debate.
	It's been about ideas.
	It's been about philosophy.
	And, you know, I will bet you that if you had a chance to ask the vast majority of the people I'm talking about in the conservative movement who have been participating in this whole debate, you will find a lot of people feel terrible about her, sorry for her, Feel sorry for her that she should never have been put in this position to have these questions about her raised nationally.
	I mean, she didn't ask for this.
	She gets nominated.
	She accepts it.
	And then with every other nominee, people start looking, okay, what do we know about her?
	What we heard on the right was not personal at all.
	It was a right down the middle, responsible and legitimate debate.
	But again, I want to stress, you might, you know, there is glee and happiness, and I'm not going to deny that, but it is not anything to do with Harriet Myers.
	And there is no happiness and glee from people I know about, wow, man, look at the power we exerted here.
	Why, look what we did.
	I mean, there's some little, you know, hacks in the conservative movement who think that they have a lot of influence when they have 10 people that listen or read them, whatever.
	And there are some people out there busting and flexing their muscles trying to take credit for all this, but that's not what this is all about.
	It's not about showing who has power.
	This is about advancing principles.
	And that's what this debate was about.
	And so this whole notion of personal attacks sort of leaves me cold because I, frankly, let me tell you what a personal attack is.
	It's not up there anymore.
	I don't know.
	I hope some of you, maybe it's at Michelle Maulkin's site because she started this.
	I'm going to tell you what a personal attack is.
	And Drudge had this up all yesterday and last night.
	And I think it came down this morning.
	USA Today doctored a photo of Condoleezza Rice.
	And Michelle Maulkin was the first, I think, to discover this out there in the blog of fear.
	And she, you can, was Michelle Maulkin.
	Yeah, it's MichelleMalkin.com, and I'm sure that she still has this up there on her website.
	The photo editors at USA Today had this picture of Condoleezza Rice and they photoshopped it.
	They whitened her eyeballs to the point that she looks demonic.
	It is, it is especially when you look at the pictures in color, don't when you print them out, it doesn't show as well, but on the computer screen in color, it's dramatic.
	Now, that's a personal attack.
	I mean, and they are scared to death of Condoleezza Rice on the left.
	They are scared to death of her because she's shaking up State Department.
	She's being talked about as a Republican presidential candidate, 2008.
	But what they did to her, and this, by the way, is not the first time, she has been portrayed as a step-and-fetch it black slave.
	She has been portrayed as a dumb black.
	She has been portrayed as somebody who slept her way to her current job with President Bush in cartoons and in print.
	And now we've got USA Today, America's newspaper, supposedly.
	I'm telling you, folks, why anybody wants to try to get along with the people on the left is beyond me.
	In the realm of the arena of ideas, they are there for one reason, and that is to be squished, to be stomped on and defeated into irrelevance.
	And when you see things like what they have done to Condoleezza Rice here, I'll tell you what we will do.
	Coco has amazing powers to go get dead archives from defunct web pages.
	Coco can get this side-by-side photo example.
	You haven't seen it.
	And we'll post it at rushlimbaugh.com.
	Coco, get on that right now.
	Don't wait for the update tonight.
	Go ahead and get it, do it.
	And when you get it up there, let me know so you people can see this.
	It's outrageous.
	And the fact that they do that, and the fact that she's black just adds even more insult to it.
	But they don't think anything about it.
	The liberals can attack a black person anytime, any day that they want to.
	This is just, it is beyond the pale.
	Now, that is a personal attack.
	And I'm telling you that none of the people on the right who opposed Harriet Myers dared go anywhere near that.
	There weren't any funny cartoons.
	There weren't any demeaning stories.
	There were just legitimate questions about her writings, her philosophy, her speeches, and her qualifications.
	And if you're going to look at that as a personal attack, then you've got to revise what your definition of a personal attack is.
	Because this has been, folks, I have to tell you, this has been a great, great, great example of the power of the conservative movement to follow principles and to come together and unify behind them.
	The left, I'm telling you today, is scared.
	We'll go back to the audio soundbites from some of those people in the Senate that we haven't aired yet when we get to the next break, the next segment.
	These people are scared to death.
	They thought they had saved the O'Connor seat.
	And they thought they'd get Harriet Myers up there and get Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer working on her and make her a lib in a short period of time.
	And it's all gone now.
	So they're out there demonizing Condoleezza Rice and demonizing Rove and demonizing Libby and demonizing Bush.
	And so it's all they can do.
	Meanwhile, the conservative movement has demonstrated its substance.
	And it has come together exactly as I said, not a conservative crackup.
	This was a conservative crackdown.
	And it took, what, two weeks after my Wall Street Journal op-ed for it to prove out.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll be back.
	Stay with us.
	Okay, Drudges put the Condi pictures back up.
	I just noticed right there in the left column of the Drudge page, the demonized picture of Condi Rice that ran in USA Today is on top.
	The natural untouched photo is right beneath it.
	Michelle Malkin's site is jammed.
	And we'll have it up at rushlimbo.com as well.
	But you have to see this.
	Now, that is a personal attack.
	And it's vicious.
	And it's typical.
	And it's from the media, no less.
	So don't get sidetracked here, folks, in being able to keep the enemy in the crosshairs and the right enemy in the crosshairs.
	Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman Dr. James Dobson issued the following statement today in response to Harriet Meyer's decision to withdraw.
	He said, I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Meyer's withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court.
	In recent days, I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials.
	And I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993 in which she sounded pro-abortion themes and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.
	When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support based on what I was able to discover about her.
	But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy.
	Based on what we now know about Ms. Myers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy.
	Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary.
	Now, Dr. Dobson's an honorable man in the White House, we all know, the White House called him in advance of the nomination and alerted him.
	And he's a loyal man and wanted to support the White House.
	As practically everybody on our side of the aisle is.
	That's what tore everybody apart, folks.
	Everybody wants to support the White House.
	Everybody wants to.
	And it's just, this has been a gut-wrenching three weeks.
	I kid you, and it's not been fun.
	It's not been, hey, look how powerful we are.
	It's not been about that at all.
	It's all ended well and good.
	But Dobson, Dr. Dobson here is an honorable man, and he was being loyal like everybody else was until he reached his own, for lack of a better word, breaking point.
	All right, let's, I've been promising these audio soundbites, so let's go.
	Let's go back to them.
	Senator Feinstein today on the Situation Room at CNN with Wolf Blitzer.
	Wolf said the Senate Judiciary Committee, that would be Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.
	What's your reaction to this development, Senator Feinstein?
	Well, obviously, I don't like to see a woman, I don't like to see it happen to her this way, but it has happened, and apparently that's the administration and the president's desire and Harriet Myers' desire.
	I think now we've got to turn to who's next.
	And what concerns me very deeply, Wolf, is that the right-wing conservative movement believes they have a say, a definitive say on this nomination.
	And I would strongly urge the president to take his time and appoint a nominee for all of the people.
	Conservative, liberal, moderate Americans.
	Everybody cares about the Supreme Court.
	You folks, they are on the run.
	How dare she say that the thing that concerns her very deeply is that the right-wing conservative movement believes they have a say, a definitive say in this nominee.
	What the hell is people for the American way?
	What the hell are the nags?
	What the hell is the...
	I mean, your question, Senator, came right from Nan Aron, the NARAL gang, and the nag bunch.
	Your questions are written by your ultra-left-wing liberal.
	This air of superiority that these people have just grates on me.
	It's like arrogance.
	It's one of those human characteristics I just despise because most arrogant people are a bunch of defensive people.
	They've got self-esteem problems, inferiority complex.
	They act arrogant and above everybody, smarter than everybody else in the room.
	Senator Feinstein was a bit of an embarrassment in those hearings, if you ask me.
	Her lack of preparation, personal preparation, relying instead on these left-wing groups.
	But his whole point here, that she says, I'm very concerned, Wolf, deeply, deeply concerned is the right-wing conservative movement believe they have a say, a definitive say.
	Right-wing conservative movement generated a 4 million vote margin of victory for President Bush, Senator.
	There are more right-wing conservatives in this country than there are ultra-left-wing socialist liberals.
	That's the real problem that she faces.
	Now let's move on to Chuck Schumer, shall we?
	Here is Chuck Schumer.
	He held a press conference.
	He doesn't wait to be invited on TV.
	He just invites the TV cameras to where he is, and this is part of what he said.
	Not a single Republican senator called for Harriet Meyer's withdrawal.
	It was the very extreme wing of the president's party, and that brought about the withdrawal.
	If the president continues to listen to that extreme wing on judicial nominations or everything else, it can only spell trouble for his presidency and for America.
	You've got it just opposite.
	The longer the president continues to listen to people like you seek favorable treatment and opinions from people like you, the bigger trouble he's going to be into and the deeper the hole he's going to sink into, Senator.
	And you know it.
	Once again, the talking points have gone out.
	The extreme right wing has had their way.
	The extreme right wing out of the mainstream.
	Yet look how powerful.
	Trying to gin up fear out there on their side.
	And by the way, this business here that not one Republican senator called for her withdrawal, maybe not in so many words, but when Senators Brownback and Graham make an executive privilege document request of the president and say, we can't vote for this woman without more information, that's pretty much saying we're not voting for her because they know that the White House is not going to send over those privileged documents.
	And the president will have then been told, hey, Republicans aren't voting.
	If he doesn't get unanimous support from the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, his whole thing is a fait accompli and academic anyway.
	Here's more from Senator Schumer.
	His press conference continued.
	There was no real consultation.
	There was no real reaching out and discussion of names back and forth.
	Hold it.
	So who the hell is he talking about?
	Harry Reid came out after this nomination was made, raised his hand, said, this is my idea.
	You can't trust these people within five seconds of a soundbite.
	The guy's lying through his teeth.
	Here's the rest of it.
	Gus, well, who do you like?
	But they wouldn't discuss things at all.
	The reason President Clinton's nominations went very well with a Senate that was not controlled even by his own party was that he had real consultation.
	That isn't why it went well.
	It's because Republicans, when they were a minority, and when the majority in the Senate then, just as now, were a bunch of chickens.
	They had linguine's for spines.
	And so when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a card-carrying member of the ACLU, gets nominated, they're not going to oppose her because they don't want the Washington Times and New York Times, the Washington Post, New York Times breathing down their neck.
	Plus, there is also this element.
	They think presidents win elections.
	They get their nominees.
	You get to pick them.
	Republicans don't oppose because they lost the election.
	The president's a race.
	Clinton won.
	He gets to pick the nominees.
	Republicans expect the same kind of treatment from people like you, Senator Schumer.
	It ain't going to happen, is it?
	But I remember Dingy Harry, he came out and said, I'm happy.
	He was the first one to appear side by side with Harriet Myers, talk about how great she was and the fact that she was a non-judge and that he had recommended somebody like this and her to President Bush.
	Somebody's going to correct Senator Schumer on this.
	Go back to television, Fox News, this channel this morning.
	John Scott was talking to Senator Turbin from Illinois.
	And Senator Turbin was asked, did the White House cave into conservative pressure on this, Senator Turbin?
	The real reason, of course, is that Harriet Myers ran into withering criticism from the right wing of the Republican Party, and the president decided to withdraw her nomination.
	This wasn't about documents.
	It was about Dobson.
	And now the president has, I think, a major responsibility to choose someone who doesn't just appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party, but appeals to the best interests of the American people.
	But someone who is more centrist and more moderate.
	Next question.
	Well, many others are saying it's time for the president to step up, show leadership, appoint a strong conservative.
	After all, his party has the White House, the House, and a large majority of the Senate.
	I could just tell you, if the president picks an extreme nominee, someone who satisfies the most extreme elements of his party, I'm afraid he's in for a fight on Capitol Hill.
	We need to find someone who's balanced in their approach, moderate, someone who's going to serve this country and really reflect the mainstream values of America.
	Another thing I'm sick of is hearing these people claim they represent the mainstream values of this country, abortion, partial birth abortion, everything else that they stand for culturally and socially, getting Christmas out of the public square, all these things that mainstream my foot, folks.
	The fact of the matter is that whoever the president nominates, that these people would call extreme right-wing, have been some of the most qualified, most tested, and most accomplished people in the whole history of judicial jurisprudence.
	And a lot of people are looking forward to it, and they know it, and they are running scared because they have seen not what they thought was a conservative crackup.
	They have seen a conservative crackdown, and they know that we are here.
	And when we're here, they don't get what they want.
	We'll be back after this.
	Don't go away.
	You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
	Hi, we're back.
	Great to have you with us.
	I was just reading something on the web.
	CBSNews.com has this blog up there.
	Now, they've got their commentators.
	And there's this guy named Cohen, Andrew Cohen.
	He's an attorney, and he analyzes legal issues for CBSNews and CBSNews.com.
	And he's got this big long piece that this whole Harriet Myers thing is nothing but a conspiracy.
	It was all planned like this from the get-go.
	That he chose Harriet Myers knowing full well this is going to happen.
	She didn't have a ghost's chance of being nominated and confirmed.
	It was supposed to dredge up all this opposition from the conservative movement.
	The bottom line is that it was designed specifically to pave the way for a nominee that he really, really wanted.
	In other words, it was a rope-a-dope.
	Under this scenario, and by the way, I've gotten emails from some of you who have hoped that's what this is.
	I never have signed on that theory.
	This theory is only mildly paranoid, but it still shows they're still paranoid of Bush.
	It still shows that they think this guy can still run rings around them and maybe rope a dope them and fool them.
	So the theory is the president picked Myers, knowing her nomination would fail, but also knowing that in failing, the conditions would be riper for the selection of the sort of ultra-conservative red meat candidate the president's right wing demands.
	All this was done, HR says, all this was done to get the uber conservative.
	So the Myers nomination, in other words, was designed from the get-go to clear the path for the president's real choice.
	CBSNews.com.
	Your responsible mainstream media.
	And rather Bill Burkett, forged documents, and now this.
	Speaking of CBS News, you probably heard that Andrew Hayward, the president of NBC, CBS News, resigned or was let go or left yesterday.
	And he was asked, does this have anything to do with the Dan Rather forged document story?
	I can tell you on a scale of 100, that had absolutely nothing to do with it.
	On a scale of 100?
	Had nothing to do with it?
	A scale of one?
	What about one to 100?
	How about a scale of 100?
	It had nothing to do with it.
	Les Moonvis, who I know, I have seen Mr. Moonvis at the ATT Celebrity Pro-Am Golf Tournament out at Pebble Beach.
	I've seen him a couple of other times.
	He's always chiding me, and it's friendly.
	Now, don't misunderstand, but he's always chiding me about my criticism of the left-wing media and so forth.
	I smile.
	We have nice banter about it.
	But he said, you know, we need to totally rethink the news.
	And we need to get out there and do a talent search that goes beyond what the norms are.
	And I've thought about, if you want to shake things up, here I am.
	Knowing it would.
	Can you imagine it would never happen.
	That's not the story.
	That's just a prelude to the story.
	The story is this.
	This is from Editor and Publisher, which is a left-wing website that chronicles the great left-wing work of the media.
	New York conservatives may take heart in a scoop by blogger Michael Petrellis that the new boss of CBS News, Sean McManus, donated $250 to the Bush-Cheney re-election bid in 2004 while shunning John Kerry.
	Petrellis, who specializes in digging out election contributions or media types, reported the donation on Wednesday by McManus, who lives in Connecticut, found in federal election commission files.
	So he gave $250 to Bush Cheney.
	How long does he last at CBS now?
	How much respect will he have from his colleagues in the CBS News division?
	He donated to Bush Cheney.
	Didn't donate anything to Kerry.
	And isn't it interesting that this is news?
	This is news.
	I mean, it's quite natural and normal for media people to give to Kerry and other causes, but wow, when somebody gives to Bush Cheney, why, Katie, bar the doors.
	We've got to look into this.
	Who is this guy?
	Interesting.
	I like Sean McManus.
	He has revamped CBS Sports.
	And he's done an excellent job with it.
	All right, let's move on to audio soundbites here.
	You may as well hear.
	I mean, it really is a, it's like going back to the first grade, but we may as well listen to Barbara Boxer.
	She was on the Fox News channel this morning, and Bridget Quinn was the anchorette Infobabe.
	Said, Senator Boxer, you believe at the documents that was the key issue that led to the withdrawal of Harriet Myers, or what was behind it?
	I don't think the documents had a thing to do with the withdrawal.
	As a matter of fact, that was laid out by the right-wing press as a way the president could save face.
	I think what happened is you had a real revolution within the Republican Party.
	You had those on the far right just being very uneasy with this nomination because they didn't see this woman as an originalist who would look at every case as if it ought to be judged by the original intent of a Constitution, as opposed to those mainstream Republicans who believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document and has to be applied to today's circumstances.
	And I think, you know, the far right won on this one.
	Yes, The trepidation and the fear and the honesty in that comment is breathtaking.
	They are worried.
	They are scared, folks.
	They really are.
	They're the ones that ought to be on defense.
	Let's move on.
	Let's get some Republican senator reaction.
	Let's go to the media president of the United States, John McCain.
	John McCain appeared on the CNBC squawk box today, and he was interviewed by Joe Kiernan or Kernan.
	And Kernan said, Ms. Myers, the president, is going to have to satisfy that base.
	He's going to have to go far right.
	Don't you think that's the point?
	Is it the time the rules are changing to prevent a filibuster?
	Is it going to happen on this fight?
	I hope not.
	And again, there's some very, very good conservative judges out there that are very strong that I think would do maybe not quite as well as Judge Roberts.
	That was the perfect scenario.
	But I don't think it has to be someone who would spark enough controversy to blow up the whole filibuster issue.
	At least I certainly hope so.
	So there's a signal here being sent by Senator McCain.
	Don't mess with us, gang of 14 members.
	Don't mess with us.
	Don't pull the trigger on the filibuster.
	I don't know who he's talking about.
	I wish he would have mentioned some of the names that he's thinking about, some of these good judges that may not be as good as Roberts, but wouldn't trigger a filibuster, because I don't think there are any on the Democrat side.
	From all the names I know, every name I could give you will trigger a filibuster, pretty much close to it.
	And so I'd like to know who he's talking about.
	Here is Senator Specter.
	He spoke to the press this morning on Capitol Hill.
	I think that this is a sad episode in the history of Washington, D.C., which has a lot of sad episodes.
	But the way Harriet Myers has been treated is really disgraceful.
	And with respect to your question about whom the president should nominate, I would say let's give a little respect to Ms. Myers for a few hours.
	What did she do?
	Die?
	We can't speculate on new names because we're in a period of mourning for the Myers nomination.
	Is that what this is?
	And by the way, Senator Specter, this treatment of Harriet Myers is disgraceful.
	You mean like telling her her answers on a questionnaire weren't up to snuff?
	Senator Specter had his share of criticisms of Harriet Myers.
	But again, here we're back to this whole business of disgraceful.
	This was a principled, down-the-light, down-the-line policy-oriented debate on her.
	It was not personal.
	It might seem she's treated disgracefully because it's such an important job.
	And yeah, this is anytime somebody is critical of somebody's qualifications, that can be interpreted as a personal attack.
	But as I said earlier, disagreeing with somebody's philosophy or not knowing what it is and wanting to know what it is, some of the other things were not personal attacks.
	It's gotten to the point in this country we've got so much conflict resolution in the schools.
	If you disagree with somebody, it's a personal attack.
	And that's not really what a personal attack is.
	By the way, the Condoleezza Rice before and after pictures as doctored by USA Today to make her look demonic.
	For those of you in Riolinda, that's like the devil.
	We've got them up at rushlimbaugh.com right now if you'd like to go there and see them.
	I want to grab a couple phone calls, and you've got to hear Senator Turbin talk with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room last night about the CIA leak case before we get out of here.
	But first, Joe in Providence, Rhode Island.
	Nice to have you on the program.
	Welcome.
	Hi, Rush.
	I'm a liberal left-wing Democrat, but I do enjoy listening to your show.
	Thank you.
	I know you like sports, and so does President Bush.
	Right now, Bush reminds me of a pitcher who has lost his stuff in the middle innings.
	He can't find the strike zone.
	And when he does, they hit it out of the park.
	The Myers nomination was like a wild pitch in the dirt.
	The indictments are going to be like a grand slam against him.
	And, of course, you are enjoying some Schadden Freud here.
	You're taking pleasure in the discomfort and misery of others.
	I don't take pleasure in the United States suffering the way it does now under Bush.
	No.
	You're not feeling good for his problems and troubles?
	I'm feeling the sense that he's losing control and that he's even more dangerous now than he was before.
	If we can't win, isn't that funny?
	I love that one.
	When Bush is in control, we're in real trouble.
	But when he's out of control, it's even worse.
	I'll tell you what, I can't possibly.
	I know what we all thought of Bill Clinton.
	And again, that was principled and policy-oriented for the most part.
	There was some personal stuff.
	One thing I cannot relate to, and I mean this from the bottom of my sizable and beating heart, I cannot relate to the rage and hatred that some of you have for George W. Bush.
	I don't have that amount of rage and hatred in me.
	And if I ever do, it's usually oriented at a computer that doesn't work, but not at a human being.
	I'm at a loss to understand it.
	And I don't think some of you do.
	I think it's so instinctive and based on a bunch of lies, the election being stolen and votes not being counted in Ohio and lying at the American people to get us into war.
	I guess that would do it.
	But I just don't understand it.
	It would seem to me if there was logic in this, you would love Bush being distracted and taken off his game, throwing wild pitches, as it were, being occupied with all these possible indictments and so forth.
	But then sent there and say, oh my God, at least when he's throwing it over the plate, we got a chance.
	But if he gets wild, this country's in deep doo-doo.
	I just don't know what it must be like to be a liberal today.
	To get up and to face the day with what is in their minds and hearts.
	I cannot relate to it.
	I don't even want to understand it.
	Back in a moment.
	Here we go back to the phones to Amelia, Ohio.
	Hello, John.
	Glad you called, sir.
	Nice to have you on the program with us.
	Well, thanks, Rush.
	Far right dittos to you.
	Yes.
	I am just calling to say I'm just tired of the left wing complaining about the right wing.
	Here I am.
	I have a voice, too.
	I have a voice, too.
	I'm allowed to speak my voice, and I'm allowed to vote the way I want to vote.
	Yes, but you're an extremist American who is out of the mainstream, who's causing this country to go to hell in a handbasket.
	Right, but so are the left wing, if you want to look at it that way.
	I mean, the ACLU, look at all the things they're doing, and the environmentalist, all the things they're doing, but they have a voice.
	Yeah, but here's the case.
	Here's the difference, though.
	The difference is all they can say is the extreme right wing.
	They can't tell us why we're extreme.
	They just assume that everybody will believe them.
	And they say extreme right wing is out of the mainstream.
	When we criticize liberals, we tell you why.
	We tell you what they represent and why we disagree with it.
	The left doesn't do that because they can't.
	They've just got this.
	And I don't know what you're reacting to.
	You're basically saying they've constructed this straw dog, this little demon out there, this extreme right-winger.
	And just the fact that that extreme right-winger exists is bad.
	They can't even tell you why.
	Other than the extreme right-wing wants to force women to have babies.
	Can you believe it?
	Wants to force women to give birth.
	And that's about it.
	As far down the pike as they go.
	But in terms of getting into debates with them on the substantive things, they know that they will run out of substance in 30 seconds.
	All they can do is impugn, discredit, disabuse, because they cannot win a debate.
	And I'm telling you, folks, we've gotten to that point.
	That's why it's so outrageous that anybody's afraid of them or wants to act like we need to be on the defensive.
	All right, to the CIA leak story.
	You got two bites here you got to hear, both from CNN and Wolf Blitzer on the situation room last night on CNN talking to Senator Turbin.
	He said, here's what Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson said on Meet the Press Sunday.
	I think we're seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and DAs that go for technicalities.
	She was referring if there is some sort of charge involving perjury or obstruction conspiracy as opposed to the original issue.
	Do you agree with her, Senator Turbin?
	Absolutely not.
	And let me tell you this.
	When this law was created by President Bush's father, it was in response to the publication of a CIA agent's name, which jeopardized their life.
	In this instance, someone, perhaps more than one, in the White House disclosed the identity of this CIA agent in an effort to discredit and somehow cast some doubt about the veracity of charges against this administration in the information leading up to the invasion of Iraq that was venal, it was political, and it was criminal.
	And I don't believe it happened.
	I don't believe that anybody divulged the identity of a covert agent in the CIA when it comes to Valerie Plame and this whole story.
	I just don't believe it happened.
	And I don't believe her career was jeopardized.
	Her life was jeopardized.
	I don't believe any of this happened.
	And I think they had every right to try to criticize Joe Wilson because he's out there trying to undermine their policy.
	But anyway, Wolf followed up with this.
	Let me read you a quote.
	And I'll see if you remember this quote.
	February 2, 1999.
	It isn't a question of whether I can defeat the candidate of the other party.
	The question is, can I get him indicted or can I get him removed from office or can I get him investigated?
	Wolf says, do you remember saying that, sir?
	No, I don't.
	Well, you're quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as having said that, referring to the Ken Starr indictments and going after Bill Clinton and other White House aides.
	Wolf, I think you're two steps ahead.
	We know now that someone disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plain.
	We know that that disclosure could be a serious crime, and that's what's being investigated by U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald.
	Whether the actual charges turn out to be perjury is anybody's guess at this point.
	We both concede that Patrick Fitzgerald has been a very good and professional prosecutor.
	But if people intentionally misled the grand jury or the U.S. Attorney, if they were misled by the president's spokesperson at the White House, this is an extremely serious matter.
	Now, what I'm saying, what I said earlier, was it is true that some people go after indictments to try to discredit someone politically.
	Yeah, that's the standard practice of the American left.
	And Wolf Blitzer nailed Durbin on this.
	And he tried to weasel out of it by restating what he thinks is the propaganda put out there about Fitzgerald and this whole investigation.
	But his quote was, February 2, 1999, it isn't a question of whether I can defeat the candidate of the other party.
	The question is, can I get him indicted or can I get him removed from office or can I get him investigated?
	That was uttered by Senator Durbin, February 2, 1999, giving away the primary tactic of the left today since they cannot win at the ballot box.
	We will be back.
	All right, folks, before I leave today, I have to tell you this story because I have to warn you about what you may start seeing out there.
	Frog sweat blocks HIV.
	Compounds secreted by frog skin are potent blockers of the HIV infection.
	Remember, toad licking could make people high at one point.
	So if you see people chasing frogs, there's a reason.
	See you on tomorrow.

▲